Tom Nelson - Carbon Conundrum: Rethinking CO2 in the Climate Debate

Hearts of Oak Podcast

Shownotes and Transcript

Join us as we sit down with Tom Nelson, the provocative force behind "Climate: The Movie." This episode explores Tom's unique journey from a career in electronics to becoming a vocal sceptic of mainstream climate narratives. Discover how a simple hoax about an ivory-billed woodpecker ignited his passion for truth in media, leading him down the path of climate discourse.
Tom shares the challenges and triumphs of producing his documentary, revealing how technology has democratized filmmaking. He explains why releasing his film online for free was a choice of impact over income, and delves into the complexities of gathering credible voices in climate science.
In our conversation, Tom critiques the portrayal of CO2, questions the use of young activists in climate debates, and examines the discrepancies in climate data. We'll also tackle the broader implications of renewable energy and electric vehicles on our environment and economy.
This episode isn't just about climate; it's about questioning what we're told, understanding the science, and discussing the future of environmental policy. Tune in now for an enlightening discussion that might just change how you see the world.

Watch "Climate: The Movie" climatethemovie.net

Tom Nelson has an MS degree in Electrical and Electronics Engineering.
He was involved in tech and software for many years. In 2005, as an avid bird-watcher, Tom became heavily involved in debunking a high-profile, but bogus “Ivory-billed Woodpecker” rediscovery that opened his eyes to the problems with blindly trusting “peer-reviewed science”.
Jack Hitt of the New York Times then went on to write about Tom's ivory-billed woodpecker work in his book “A Bunch of Amateurs”.
A meteorologist pointed out lots of parallels between that woodpecker debate and the climate change debate to him, and Tom has been debunking climate change/energy claims almost daily since 2007.

Connect with Tom...
𝕏 x.com/TomANelson @TomANelson
SUBSTACK tomn.substack.com
PODCAST podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thomas-nelson8

Interview recorded 24.9.24

Connect with Hearts of Oak...
𝕏 x.com/HeartsofOakUK
WEBSITE heartsofoak.org/
PODCASTS heartsofoak.podbean.com/
SOCIAL MEDIA heartsofoak.org/connect/
SHOP heartsofoak.org/shop/⁩

*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.

Check out his art theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com and follow him on 𝕏 x.com/TheBoschFawstin

Transcript

(Hearts of Oak)

And hello, Hearts of Oak.

I'm delighted to have a brand new guest with us today, and that is Tom Nelson, the producer of Climate, the movie.

Tom, thank you so much for your time today.

Yeah, thanks for having me on.

I appreciate it.

Not at all.

I've thoroughly enjoyed the film, and after I got past Greta Thunberg at the beginning, that was the hurdle.

I got past Greta, which I'm sure you've heard many times.

But you can follow, there is Tom's handle on X on Twitter and climatethemovie.net and all that. You can find all the links to everywhere where the film is if you haven't already watched it.

It's been, what, a couple of months just beginning of the summer?

When was it, Tom?

It came out?

Came out at the end of March.

End of March.

It's been a few months.

It's been a few months.

Now, can I ask you how you went from a master's in electronics, all the way to producing a climate change sceptic film.

Just give us that journey to let people know a little bit about you.

Yeah, so the whole journey started in about 20 years ago or so that I considered myself a normie and kind of fat and happy and believing what the media said.

And then in the US over here, there was this release of this ivory-billed woodpecker story.

There was a peer-reviewed paper, 17 authors.

They had rediscovered this huge woodpecker, just a huge deal.

When it came on on public radio, people got so overcome with emotion that they pulled off the side of the road and cried.

There was a lot of stories like that.

But as a bird watcher, I checked into it and the whole thing was a complete crock that they did not discover this woodpecker. And their evidence was just incredibly flimsy.

They heard a few sounds in the woods.

And then they had this picture of this woodpecker that was six pixels.

It was two blacks, two whites, two blacks.

That was supposed to be six pixels. That was their proof. So it blew my mind.

So I did a blog on that. And a lot of people read the blog.

And eventually, Jack Hitt of the New York Times wrote a book called A Bunch of Amateurs.

And he did a whole chapter on this, on how amateurs kind of ripped apart this data and showed that what this alleged science wasn't true.

Then at that time, somebody emailed me and said, you know, you should check out the climate change thing because it's the same deal.

If you look at the evidence for yourself, you're going to find out that that's totally a crock too.

So I did.

And within just a day of looking at that, I could see that the data in so many cases, crop yields, et cetera, just did not back up any of this alarmism.

So then I started blogging about that.

And for close to 20 years now, I've spent most of my time on an average day, like hours, looking at these stories and debunking them and just digging into it.

And I've really, really enjoyed it.

I went from Blogspot to Twitter.

Then I went and I started a podcast about two years ago.

One of my first guests on that podcast was Martin Durkin, who did the great Global Warming Swindle in 2007.

And on that podcast, he said, you know, given what I know now and given more time, I'd like to remake that movie.

I could make a better movie. So that kicked off this whole process where I worked with Martin.

And Martin did almost all of the work from my perspective.

Martin and his team. He did all the interviews.

He did the narration.

He wrote the script of Climate, the movie.

He just did a great job.

He's been involved in maybe 100 documentaries, so he really knows how to make a good documentary.

This is the first one I've been involved in. So anyway, it took about a year to make the movie.

It came out in March of this year, and it's up online for free in over 100 locations.

Lots of copies on YouTube, Bitchute, Rumble, Humble, Substack, Telegram, lots of copies on X, lots of clips everywhere.

And a lot of people have downloaded their own copy of it, and then they put it up on their own social media.

So just loving how it's spread virally.

And it's got way over 10 million views at this point.

And we're very happy with the reception.

And I guess that's how I got to this point.

Well, I certainly had a lot of friends message me and give me details of it.

And I watched it. It was hugely impressed.

How do you, maybe from just, well, jump into it, but you kind of think about getting information out.

You think of putting a film out, you can put it behind a pay wall.

It then doesn't get as much exposure.

The way you've done it has gone far and wide.

How do you think about that?

Making sure you have the finance to make the product well, but also making sure it gets out to the public as wide as possible.

Yeah, it's a great combination of the way that technology has worked, the things have become so cheap to make the movie.

It didn't really cost that much.

We had to spend some money on travel, etc. et cetera.

But with modern technology, it just doesn't take that much, way less expense than the people in the movie.

Of course, when we interviewed Steve Coonan, et cetera, those people didn't charge us. So the talent didn't cost us.

So overall, it was inexpensive to make and then to roll it out.

In the past, you had to convince a TV, whatever, a channel to put it on their channel.

But nowadays, you can just put it up.

So, I don't think we could have done this even a few years ago as successfully as we did now. So, I'm really happy with the way this technology allowed us to do this so cheaply.

And you have a lot of great individuals on it, giving their understanding from a lifetime of expertise and experience in that area.

What was it like?

Maybe it's easier now than it would have been back 20 years ago, but how difficult was it to find the people actually to be on because it is career suicide.

Yeah.

Actually, in this case it was easy and that was one of my major roles as a producer in that just about everybody in the movie has already been on my podcast like I already knew him like Will Happer for example, he's in the movie for a few minutes but he's on my podcast for maybe a couple hours.

He's been on a couple times so that's one thing you can do if you like any particular person what they said in the movie, you can go to my podcast and you can hear them in a long form.

So, I really had the contacts for most of the people.

So that part was easy.

And then most of the people in the movie, they realize how important this whole pushback is.

They realize that this whole climate change thing is being used for so many other purposes to restrict our freedom and power and money and kind of take us over.

So, it was very easy.

These people are motivated to tell the truth.

And that's the thing.

It's so easy to get behind it, because you're on the side of truth. Truth is going to win out.

And the truth is for sure on the side of the people pushing back here.

And I want to point out a lot of the people in the movie are past retirement age.

Will Happer talks about in the movie that if he was 30, it's kind of career suicide if you're 30 right now to speak out against this scam.

So even Will, he's a guy of huge integrity. He was saying even he might not speak out if his career was on the line, if you're paying a mortgage and you have a family.

And it's a pretty big deal if you get cancelled and you lose your job, which you can still to this day if you speak out against it.

So, a lot of the scientists, they wait until they're retired, then they're free to speak out.

That's kind of the same thing with the COVID narrative, that those who are speaking out are free to speak, because they don't have the constraints of needing to work. And that's one way the system, I think, keeps many people quiet.

Can I just, your Substack, so tomn.substack.com, also tomn.substack.com, there are so many places to see your work, Tom.

But you start with Greta.

How is it that we have got to the point where children are the experts?

Because you start with her preaching to us and telling us how dumb we were and how we're destroying the world.

And you're thinking, you're a child.

And this child has become a superstar, the voice of wisdom.

It's a weird way that we find ourselves in these current times, that those who don't know about anything are the ones that do know.

Yeah, you know, I can't get into people's mind, but I think there was a deliberate effort to use a child as a kind of a shield that you could be the face of this movement.

And if you push back against Greta, you're being mean to a kid.

And I think that was a, it sounds crazy, but I think that really was part of the reason why Greta was chosen.

I don't think this was just a grassroots thing that just happened organically.

It sounds like the book that her mom had, it was ready to go like Greta did her.

Her organic thing in 2018. And supposedly someone just happened like a camera crew happened to be there that day.

And then the book was ready to go by that Saturday, like a few days later.

So yeah, I think this was planned in advance.

And I do think that Greta has kind of run her course.

It seems like that now that she's into her twenties, she's can't really sell her as a kid anymore.

And Greta herself seems like she's not into the climate thing as much anymore.

She's diverged into other stuff.

And she was doing this climate strike every Friday, putting up a picture on Twitter, but now she went for eight weeks without putting a picture of herself up on a Friday by a climate sign, because even she might be tiring and the whole thing.

I don't, it's a really odd cult by the way, in that even the believers can't be bothered to behave as if they believe.

I think it's very interesting that there's these people who think that they're trying to sell the idea that CO2 might kill our kids, but almost nobody can be bothered to believe as if they had to live as if they actually believe that.

It's pretty weird.

Well the the CO2 thing and that's something.

I love the film in a way that you've you divide up into chunks without realizing it, that you move from kind of chunk to chunk to chunk and cover so many of the the lies that are part of the the climate alarmism.

And one of them is CO2 and you've got one of the speakers saying well CO2 is literally life.

I mean the plants the world exists this because of CO2.

It is not this evil.

And that's a fascinating concept.

The whole thing talking about CO2 famine and how that can damage us.

And that's a great concept that I think many of us may were not aware of.

Yeah, it's just so odd that we're sold this narrative that CO2 is the demon molecule.

And whatever happened that was bad, the demon molecule caused it. Especially when it is, like you say, it's the gas of life.

It is absolutely critical to life on Earth.

For photosynthesis, you've got to have CO2.

So I think the fight against CO2 is like fighting oxygen or water. It's just completely crazy.

And then, as we point out in the movie, even the CO2 level in the air right now, in the course of the last 600 million years, we've had way more CO2 in the air naturally most of that whole time.

Way more.

Over 5,000 parts per million, where now today we might have maybe 423 parts per million or something.

So we're way closer to not having enough CO2.

Way closer than having too much. And then it's interesting that you may have seen some videos and maybe in the U.S. Congress or something where they're asking people, how much CO2 do you think is in the air?

People who have based their lives on the idea there's too much and they're guessing maybe 5%.

It blows my mind that they're basing their lives on fighting this thing and they have no idea how much is out there.

People think the atmosphere is filling up with CO2. Anyway, it's really 0.04% about.

And if humans caused the CO2 increase since maybe 1850, we added maybe one extra CO2 molecule for every 10,000 atmospheric molecules.

So, getting this excited about one extra for every 10,000 is really off the charts crazy.

Another thing that I came across watching it was the simple way that data is presented and not simple as in not covering the information, but you realize that individuals are overwhelmed with information, especially in today's world.

And I think the climate change alarmists have used that to their advantage to basically say, well, this is so complicated and we'll show you these charts and graphs that you don't understand, but we will tell you what they mean.

And in this film, it was fantastic the way some of the charts that came up and it just explained things so simply in a way that you want the audience to understand, not in a way the other side seems to confuse the audience.

Yeah, that is a great point that the whole thing is based on trusting the experts.

And don't bother your own pretty little head thinking about it yourself because you don't understand atmospheric chemistry.

So, you got to just trust the experts.

And what makes me happy is so many people in recent years have told me that they did trust the experts until COVID.

And then they realized that now we better start thinking for ourselves and sanity check things.

So many people have said that.

And I think that's a big part of why, from my perspective, this whole scare is starting to crumble.

Because it's a mass thing across the world that people are not trusting the experts.

And that's the thing with this whole climate deal. You don't have to trust experts at all.

It's really easy to sanity check these claims over and over.

You're an ordinary person.

You have Google.

You can look at crop yields.

They're trying to scare us.

Oh, no, wheat yields are going to go down.

You can go to Our World and Data.

You can look at wheat yields anywhere you want, and they're just going up and to the right. And it's the same with everything.

You can look at cyclones and floods and droughts.

You can look at the data.

You can look at the temperature records in your local city.

They're constantly saying, oh, it hits 95 in Minnesota.

That must mean that the earth is getting too warm.

But I can look here at the data for Minnesota. It hit 100 degrees Fahrenheit 38 times in two decades back in the 30s and 40s.

And since 1988, it hits that temperature eight times.

It just, for whatever reason, it's not getting anywhere near as warm as often now as it was in the 30s and 40s.

Nobody knows why but the narrative is it's got to be getting way hotter here for sure than it was 80 years ago not happening it's totally not happening.

What was it like looking for the data, because one of the ones you put up is looking at central England temperatures over 400 years.

I think it was 40 years which which is a very long period and quite phenomenal that we have that data and that is fairly unique but can you maybe let us know the the the difficulty of getting data and how you kind of how you presented that?

Yeah, I think Will Happer might call that a treasure.

I think that central England temperature record is a treasure, because we don't have that. You can look at where we have the data.

And even as of 1900, if you look at the map of where we had temperature stations in 1900, it's mostly in the U.S. I think there's some in Australia, but in huge areas of the world for just enormous parts of the world, we got nothing.

No official temperature records for 1900.

So whenever we look, whenever we show data from where we have the temperature records, people say, oh, look, that's just a small portion of the Earth.

The climate crisis must have happened elsewhere where we don't have the data.

And that's definitely the narrative. Patrick Moore talks about this in his book, Fake Invisible Catastrophes, that the catastrophe is always somewhere else.

It's not where you are. It's somewhere else where you can't easily check the data.

So, they're trying to sell us this deal that the catastrophe is at the Great Barrier Reef for those people who don't live near there.

But then I have had Peter Ridd on my podcast a couple of times who does live there and he's an expert on the Great Barrier Reef. He says it's doing fine.

The whole idea that CO2 is bad for the reef is total nonsense.

And also they're trying to sell.

Because we're told it's disappeared.

It's nearly destroyed.

It's gone.

It's history.

Yeah.

And you can believe that maybe if you live 5,000 miles away.

Oh, no, it's going away. way, but it's not.

Again, it is a fake invisible catastrophe.

Another one, polar bears live far away from where most of us are.

So maybe we can believe, oh no, the CO2 is killing them, but it's absolutely not.

I've had Susan Crockford on my podcast a couple of times.

She's an expert in the whole idea that if it gets warmer, polar bears are going to die out.

In the 1970s, when it was cold, it really was a slightly cold period then that we had maybe one fourth as many any polar bears as we have now.

So, it's warmed in those decades and the polar bears have gone up a lot, but it's because CO2 is not the polar bear control knob at all.

There's other factors at work.

And part of it is we don't hunt them as much now as we did, but we're still killing, maybe they're telling us 900 plus polar bears per year still legally.

And if we really want, if we should be that worried about how many polar bears there are, let's stop hunting them first.

Anyway, they're doing fine.

The whole idea that more ice means more polar bears, That's not true either.

They can't hunt seals as easily if there's 10 feet of ice as if there's broken up ice and water.

Susan Crockford does a great job of showing us that some ice is way better than too much ice for them in terms of reproducing and feeding.

But it's true.

The media tell us stuff and we believe because we can't see it.

I mean, I haven't seen any polar bears in my life here in the UK.

So, I don't think they exist anymore. And it kind of you think, oh, yeah, that sounds true.

And the media are experts at playing this game.

Yeah.

Another thing about modern technology is that there's something horrible happening weather-wise everywhere all the time.

And we've got people with cell phone cameras everywhere.

It's a big world.

So if you want to tell people every single day, look how bad the weather was, and look at these buildings blew down and everything, that's available every day.

But in 1700, if there was a storm that killed 10% of the people on the other side of the world somewhere, you wouldn't even find out about it ever, or maybe it would take six months or something.

So it's a real-time thing. But the narrative is that bad weather is evidence that CO2 causes bad weather, but that's not how it works.

And I want to give a plug to Tony Heller.

He's at Tony Climate on X. He just does a great job of going through historical data and looking at old newspaper clippings and stuff.

And his message constantly is, look how bad the weather was in the past.

If you realize how bad the weather was in the past and how often there's been just terrible events then you're not going to get all shook every single day when it happens again.

It is always going to happen the whole, I see this on X a lot that vote democratic because otherwise these rainstorms it's going to rain too much still in 2050, but anyway no matter who you vote for it's still going to rain too much it's, and and too little, in the same places.

All this stuff is going to happen and we can't stop it.

At tonyclimate.

Check it out.

I haven't, so I will check it out thanks for that, Tom.

The other thing in the film was about weather stations temperature stations collecting the data and talks about those being built and those are often built just outside towns in more rural areas, because it's a better gauge on temperature.

And a lot of those temperature sensors are now surrounded by urban areas as you get urban urban spread, cities growing.

And again, it talked about looking at these temperature stations that are still in rural areas and aren't in urban areas.

And again, that's something that actually the media don't tell us, but yeah, you've urban sprawl.

And of course, things which are in the country are now in the centre of a city and will give very different readings.

Yeah.

Yeah, that is a huge, this urban heat island effect, or UHI, that is a big effect.

And as Willie Soon says in the movie, in a place like Paris, it might be five degrees centigrade warmer in the middle of the city than it is on the outskirts of the city.

And people are saying that as they're driving around, they have their thermometer in their car.

You can see this as you drive in towards the city, you can see it getting warmer.

And we're supposed to panic over maybe one degree centigrade warming in 150 years or something.

But if you just drive into the center of the city, it might be five degrees warmer.

And Willie Soon has done some papers on this.

And maybe half of the warming that we have seen since 1850 has been caused by this effect.

So it's a big deal. And another person who's done great work on this is Anthony Watts with his surface station project.

He's looked in the U.S. in detail at the stations.

And I don't know what the numbers are. It might be 80% of them are situated in places where this is a big problem.

He's got lots of pictures of official temperature sensors that are right by a Weber grill or by an AC outlet or by hot tarmac or where you can park a car with a hot engine right near there.

And it's very interesting. He was just on my podcast and he was saying our modern temperature stations, some of them are taking the temperature every minute.

Or if there's just a little breeze of hot air just for a minute, bam, that's recorded.

A little spike of temperature is recorded.

This actually happened in the UK in a high profile thing in recent years, that the UK hit 40 degrees centigrade, and that got tons of publicity.

But then Chris Morrison, I believe, filed a FOIA and found out that that temperature was measured by an airport tarmac when fighter jets were landing right by it, and the temperature record lasted for one minute.

It was cooler, and then there was a spike for one minute, and it dropped like 0.6 just in the next minute.

So we're supposed to think that our behaviour in Topeka caused this to happen and CO2 caused it.

But no, it was just a spike of warm air, probably from a jet engine, probably influenced it for that one minute.

It's pretty amazing.

But you don't find out about this from the legacy media won't tell you this, but other reporters, other people that are digging into it are telling us this.

So I'm loving this type of story makes me very interested in coming in every day and looking at it again.

Yeah, I see some temperature readings that we get from heat through and you're thinking if you go to one of the busiest airports in the world it's going to be fairly warm with the amount of people, with the amount of cars, and planes funny enough, so but it's funny around heat through, we now have a 60 mile an hour speed limit and it's for air quality and you're thinking, well you've and I'm a plane buff but then you've got jets landing or taking off every 45 seconds, but hey it's the car going from 70 to 60 that will save the world.

Yeah, I don't know if they have any data that proves this works or not.

I don't know.

I thought there was just some data saying that some of these restrictions in some cities, they took the before and after data and it didn't improve.

I'm not buying it at all.

We used to have this deal in Minnesota where you had to take your car in every year and get it tested.

And it was a huge pain in the butt.

And they eventually took that away.

And I don't think, I think it was all pain and no gain as so many of these environmental things are.

A hundred percent.

There's actually a talking about temperature rises.

Is there was someone in the film talking about then using satellites to measure temperatures, which is something that we can now do that maybe wasn't available even 20 years ago, the amount of satellites there are in orbit.

And that's fascinating, seeing how you can use technology to look at data in a new way or collect data in a new way.

Yeah, I think that is our best recent temperature record, best overall temperature record that we have since 1979 is this satellite data.

It's the Alabama UAH data. Roy Spencer is a guy who blogs about that every month.

He gives us an update on his blog about what the current monthly temperature was.

But yeah, a huge advantage of that is the Weber grills and the tarmac and all that other stuff does not affect the satellite temperatures.

But a disadvantage is it doesn't go back 400 years like central England temperature.

It goes back only to 1979.

And that is kind of good for the people selling warmism because in the 70s, there really was this global cooling scare. And that's when we started measuring.

So, we do have warming since the seventies, but the whole idea that we can just to continue that out and assume it's going to go at the same rate for the next 200 years, it's like, it's like a sine wave.

And if you start measuring at the bottom of a sine wave, you can get all scared that things are going to increase from the bottom to the top forever.

But, I don't know what's going to happen next temperature wise, but, throughout human history, it's always fluctuated up and down.

And after every every upwards fluctuation, it has fluctuated back down.

And I wouldn't doubt that's going to happen again also.

Another one on actually was on CO2 when you overlay maps of temperature change onto events.

So, the Industrial Revolution, the huge rise in CO2 from that progression, you would expect to see maybe three, four or five times the temperature.

And yet we talk about a one degree change over a period of time.

And it's fascinating which the film did to put those graphs on top of one another and realize, hey, there's no correlation here.

Yeah, that's a huge point that even since 1850, even just that short period of geological time, the correlation hasn't been there.

There has been a narrative that we know humans must have caused it, because right when we started emitting CO2 with the Industrial Revolution, that's when temperatures spiked up.

I've heard people say they spiked up then, but they didn't.

I just saw a warmest graph on X a couple of days ago showing that the temperature on that graph from 1850 to 1910, it went down.

So with the Industrial Revolution, it cooled on that graph.

And then, OK, it worked for a while from 1910 to 1940.

Then CO2 went up and warming the earth warm.

So there was a correlation there.

But then from the 1940s, 1970s, again, we emitted enormous amounts of CO2, but the temperature went down and there was a whole scare.

And so then that didn't work.

Also, there was a hiatus after that from maybe 97 to 2014 or so, where we emitted lots of CO2 and temperatures didn't go up.

So the whole idea that CO2 is the climate control knob and that we should see that in the temperature, we don't.

At these timescales, at short ones and at long ones, over 600 million years, we have proxies where we can kind of figure out how warm it was. Doesn't work then either.

One other thing I wanted to mention here is that we have records of where the tree lines were up in the Arctic, maybe 4,000 years ago versus now.

And the tree line was further up north 4,000 years ago.

So, that's an indicator that it was warmer even just 4,000 years ago.

And of course, people were around, the pyramids had already been built 4,000 years ago.

In terms of human history, it wasn't that long ago, but it was warm back then.

And we're told that CO2 was lower, maybe maybe 280 parts per million back then.

So it was warmer, but CO2 was lower.

So again, CO2, a lot of people think CO2 is a result of warming because as the oceans warm, then they CO2 out gases from the ocean.

So, this whole scare might be a confusing cause and effect that CO2 does go up after it warms because the oceans out gas.

There was another part of the film that made me think, I've never heard that before, but that makes absolute sense.

And it is talking about this huge flaming ball of gas in the sky called the sun.

And you refer to it as solar winds.

And you make the point that the sun could actually have an impact in the temperature changes on the earth.

And it's actually not, I'd never kind of thought of solar winds in the sun.

I think that's kind of common sense.

Why haven't I thought of that?

And it's fascinating that those little bits of information that come out, you think that's absolutely on the ball.

And no climate change alarmist has ever talked about the sun providing temperature changes, but you refer to it in the film.

Yeah, again, there's this narrative that the sun is just a constant thing.

It's up there as a constant to any changes we see here couldn't be caused by the sun because the sun is constant, but not true at all.

The sun is going through different cycles.

It's very complicated.

And it's not just like it's getting brighter and dimmer and that's it.

There's other subtle things that are happening, changes in magnetism, extremely complicated.

But Nir Shaviv in the movie does a good job of talking about one theory about how changes in the sun through a complicated mechanism can cause changes in cloudiness on Earth.

And definitely cloudiness is fluctuating and it's incredibly hard to model.

And there's quite a bit of data saying that cloudiness, for whatever reason, has gone down in recent decades.

So it's been brighter and it's been easier for the earth to heat up.

As you can see yourself on a cloudy day, it's not as warm usually.

So, but that's just one of so many things that are affecting the climate there's changes in volcanoes and geologic heat that's coming up and heating the ocean and causing changes in ocean currents so the heat's moving around in the ocean and some you can leave everything else constant but if that changes in heat transport in the ocean bring warm water to the surface we could see a global change just through currents changing.

So it's incredibly complicated and I don't think I don't think we can model it even 50 years from now.

I don't think we're going to be able to fully understand it because it's so complicated.

Even trying to model a roulette wheel probably in Las Vegas, where's that ball going to go? Even that is hard to model.

And so, yeah, the whole idea that we understand climate and grade school kids get it, they understand it, and that's how simple it is.

More CO2 means hotter.

Totally not true.

It could not be farther from the truth.

I think I got how complicated, confusing weather and climate can be since we studied air aerospace, and then you look at weather in link to aviation, and you realize this is not an exact science.

And that phrase, exact science, is used all the time on climate change.

And yet in weather, we are utterly bewildered.

We assume it's going to go this way and that way, but it does the opposite you have the weather for the day for aviation and then that changes in a moment and you realize actually we are we are small parts of this huge world and we are trying to observe and make sense, but yet there's a lot we don't understand and that we don't understand never comes in to this climate debate.

It's assured it's settled accept it and this film provides divides that other side too.

Yeah. One thing that really opened my eyes is this whole climate gate thing that happened 10 plus years ago.

When these emails were released, there's like 200,000 emails from the inside of climate science came out.

I spent enormous amounts of time looking through them and blogging.

I did hundreds of blog posts about them and it showed how different the whole climate science thing is from the inside than from the outside.

From the outside, everybody agrees and science is settled and we know what we're talking about on the inside.

They're scratching their heads and saying, what, why is it cooling?

We, we don't know why it's cooling.

And it's very interesting to see that completely different on the inside than on the outside.

And that, that, that was a huge eye opener for me. And, let's see, I don't know what the second part of your question was.

No, it was just the science being settled. But that's often what it takes.

In effect, whistle-blowers to come out. And if it's a leak of data, whistle-blowers, same difference.

And then you get to see the inside story.

And you realize what we're being told as the public is not what is happening behind the scenes.

Yeah, and actually another big part of this is this whole 97% consensus.

That's the thing that a lot of people lean on is that this must be true because worldwide, wide, 97% of the scientists, they might even be shouting from the rooftops that there's a climate crisis.

Earth is too hot right now, caused by CO2.

And yeah, that's the narrative. But no part of that narrative is true at all, that nobody has even done any survey of all the scientists to find out what they think.

And almost none of them, again, are behaving as if they believe that.

And I personally know that there's tons of scepticism in the science community. John Clouser, he's in our movie.

He was the 2022 Nobel Prize winner in physics.

And he has told me personally that he knows a lot of scientists that privately they're saying we're not buying this.

But again, there's so much of a cost coming out and saying it that a lot of scientists, they know privately it's a crock, but they're not saying it because too much cost.

Yeah.

So that whole consensus there, there is not the consensus that the public thinks there is.

Is is Al Gore the the person that sparked this off because if you're vice president and you put out information then people will follow that.

Has he been the catalyst to spreading this misinformation by the film and then government grants from there?

He has been a major catalyst but it's interesting you bring him up because I just interviewed a guy on my podcast who did a whole almost two-hour movie about Al Gore.

It's coming out in December.

His name is Joel Gilbert.

And I learned a lot about the whole Al Gore thing there.

It's super interesting to me.

There were people before that.

There was Maurice Strong that was pushing this before Al Gore came into the picture.

There's this whole narrative that Al Gore, he was a student of Roger Revelle in maybe the 60s or 70s.

And that's how he learned that CO2 was the demon molecule.

But that part isn't true either.

It sounds like it was kind of a political calculation that Al Gore needed a cause to attach himself to.

And that's when he started pushing the CO2 thing. He had plenty of chances in the 80s to push it, and he barely talked about it at all.

But yes, I do think he was a major catalyst with his movie, Inconvenient Truth.

I think a lot of people I've talked to said that is what first caused me to believe in this thing. So he was treated, they kept saying he's treated like a rock star.

He'd go to these cop meetings back around 2007 or so, and he was a rock star.

He got all this publicity.

The movie got won awards and everything. So that was a major part of this whole thing.

He has kind of faded away in terms of publicity.

You don't hear as much about him anymore.

And then Greta was the icon.

She was a red hot icon.

She was, if you've seen pictures of her with cameras everywhere, I don't know, 40 cameras or something following her every move. So for a while she was the rock star.

And, uh, I don't know if there's going to be a, it seems like no one right now is the rock star of the movement.

Michael Mann still is getting a lot of publicity, climate scientist, Michael Mann, and he has gone heavily political on X talking about, Trump supporters of being like Nazis, et cetera.

So, I don't know if they want him as the face of the movement, but anyway, Anyway, for maybe 10 plus years, Al Gore, he was very successful in pushing this whole thing.

And he had investments in carbon credits.

There was this Chicago Climate Exchange where you could buy and sell these carbon credits.

And for a while, they were selling for real money.

But the whole thing crumbled.

And at the end, they were selling for a nickel a ton.

You could buy.

And that was at the end. And then it just crumbled to dust.

And now it's gone.

But there still is carbon credit trading going on to this day.

Michelle Sterling calls it, what is it, trading of an invisible substance, non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one.

That's what it is. Carbon credit trading.

Yeah.

And, I mean, people are being paid to not cut down trees and they might be selling their promise to not cut down their trees more than once.

It's just amazing.

So even people on the other side are saying this thing is a complete farce.

But again, huge money has been changing hands based on this non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one.

Pretty amazing.

It sounds like you're suggesting this all could be a money thing, making money.

And I guess that starts back from Al Gore, because if you've got a leader, a political leader of that level, issuing government grants and recommending that money goes to people who are pushing this agenda, And you talk about it in the film, then everyone is hands up.

Well, I'll do the paper on that.

I'll be your consultant if you pay me. And money seemed to generate an industry.

Absolutely.

Yeah, there's so much money on the line in so many different ways.

Like you mentioned, if you're doing research on butterflies and you might not get funded, but if you do research on the effect of climate change on butterflies, you might get some funding.

And that's a huge deal that I think enormous amounts of scientific funding has been done on that basis.

And again, we have to fund it because CO2 is the number one thing.

There's a crisis.

So, the money really sucks in the money for sure there.

And then in terms of products that like electric cars and solar panels and wind turbines and so many things are sold on the basis of if you buy this thing, it's going to help prevent this climate crisis.

And maybe a substitute meat by fake meat prevents hurricanes.

And it's just amazing that how many things are sold on this basis.

Again, this thing is starting to crumble, but so much money and then so much power.

There's this whole central bank digital currency thing that some of the parasitic elites want to put on us.

I don't know if you've heard about it.

There's a guy named Simon Goddek that is living in Brazil, and he got a call from his either bank or credit card company saying, you've exceeded your carbon allowance and you want to pay additional money, so you can continue to spend this month because you've gone over your allowance.

It's voluntary for now.

Now, but that's the whole thing.

I think they would like to make this not voluntary and they would on an individual basis, keep track of how much meat you bought and how much dairy and how many times you've flown.

And if you do too many of those things, buy too many of those things, you have to pay additional money.

The thing is a scam.

It is a straight up scam, but that could happen unless we push back on this.

And again, the whole reason they might be able to get by with this is that if they sell it to enough people that we have to do all this crazy stuff.

Otherwise, our kids die from CO2-induced heat or something.

I mean, CBDCs are the biggest element of control that maybe any of us have seen in our lifetime, controlling not just spending.

That's a side part of controlling thinking.

You talked about part of the industry has been developed, and you mentioned solar panels.

And then that connects in with China, because most of these are built in China.

China aren't buying it either.

You refer in the film about them building, what, two coal-fired power stations a week that they know are equal to the rest of the world in actually coal usage.

They're not buying it.

They just seem to be laughing at the West for their utter stupidity as they are powering their way to growth. Right.

I agree.

I think they are laughing at us.

Yeah, they are making a lot of money off of this.

And again, they're not trying to, we're hearing they're putting up some solar panels in China, but they're not trying to power their economy that way.

There are people selling the idea we should power the whole U.S. Economy on wind and sun. Wouldn't that be great?

And it would be great if it worked, but it 100% doesn't work.

But we got crazy things going on here again in my home state where there's dreams of powering Minnesota with wind and sun.

But if we actually did that for a year, a lot of people would straight up die for sure. It gets so cold here.

There's no way we can stay warm enough.

So what's keeping us alive right now is real energy.

And nuclear power could keep us alive because that's baseload energy.

But if we try to use these intermittent sources based on the low angle of a sun and based on wind that might not blow for a week or two, it can kill people for sure.

One other thing I wanted to mention before I forget in terms of this control thing is this whole C40 cities document.

I don't know if you've seen that, but I just looked it up again.

It's still online and it's one of the craziest things I've seen in that I think 99 mayors have signed on to this thing now and it's out there.

It says that their goal for 2030 is we each get an allowance of three new pieces of clothing per year.

That's it.

Three pieces of clothing.

You can't buy number four, because you got to wait until next year and it's to prevent bad weather. And then also in there, it says their goal is no meat, no dairy for all of us.

We're just going to get rid of those.

2030 is coming right up here. It's not that far away.

And they're just going to cut out those two industries. And the bonus is we get less bad weather in 2050.

That's why we're doing it.

So yeah, again, it's amazing that things got, went this far off the rails.

I think people in the future aren't going to think about this a lot, but when they do think about this time and they look back at what's happening right now, climate-wise, they're just going to laugh, and they will not be able to believe how stupid it got.

Well, to think that eating less meat, less cows will save the world, or less cow farts will save the world, it'll be ludicrous.

But, I mean, even if part of this was about industry, building industry, I could see some kind of argument for it.

But I know in the UK, we buy all our windmills from the Netherlands.

I think they're a huge supplier of it.

We buy solar, as you do, in the States from China. It's not even helping the industry in the country.

So that argument isn't there.

They seem to be absolutely against any form of industrial change or any form of progression.

Yeah, I mean, part of the movement is anti-capitalism.

You see them walking around with signs, anti-capitalist signs.

So, yeah, for sure, that is part of the movement. And part of it is such a weird thing, the war on farmers, the war on cows and the war on farmers is so crazy.

But I think there's sinister motives behind that.

Maybe it's a land grab where they're trying to, maybe in the Netherlands, force farmers off their land so that they can take the land.

Again, that sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory.

But the whole idea, I mean, those Netherland farmers, they're so productive.

It's so important that they're producing the food that they are.

The idea that we have to force them to stop doing that.

Again, it's so counterproductive and it's against human flourishing completely.

So we have to fight this hard.

And I hope the bad guys don't win on this one or on any of this stuff.

I mean, it is all about money.

And we've seen that during COVID with the pharmaceutical advertising on TV and media.

It meant you had to agree to that because that's where your money's coming from.

On the climate change agenda, it seems money comes from producing results that fit in with the government.

And if you don't, you will lose funding. You will lose your position.

You kind of see often through history how finance is used to push an agenda which is against any normal thinking.

Yeah, that makes me think of this whole nuclear power thing that one of my guests said the the whole reason that nobody advocates for it, because there's so many less opportunities for grift in the nuclear power industry.

Because in wind and sun, it's kind of like a forever war that they're not going to work.

And then the answer is when they don't work, we just need more of them.

I'm hearing that all the time, that, of course, we don't have enough wind and wind turbines, solar panels up.

And, of course, they didn't work.

We're getting blackouts.

And the answer is let's just put more of them up. So it is a forever war.

Or the money just, the spigot could continue forever until we just turn it off.

Because no matter how many we put up, it's not going to work.

So, yeah, it's important.

I hope rationality comes back.

I think it is coming back, though.

I'm seeing a lot of signs of that really right now.

I think some of it's falling apart.

People not buying into the cost.

I mean, buying electric cars, there is a cost of double the price of anything else.

And sales are collapsing big time.

And it does seem as though people are not willing to actually pay the financial price, even though they may believe it's a good idea.

It seems that it will run out of steam because people are simply not going to pay the cost of it.

Yeah, I mean, I'm hearing people say that I bought an electric car because there were so many subsidies that.

But so basically, the other people are subsidizing your purchase.

And there was this time where electric cars really they had the majority of the market back a long time ago, maybe around 1900 or something.

And then gas powered cars beat them out because there's so many advantages.

The energy density, that's such a huge thing of hydrocarbons that one gallon of gas has so much energy.

And I think the battery on a Tesla can weigh 1,200 pounds, way over 1,000 pounds.

And so then you're hauling this huge battery around everywhere you go.

You've got to haul this battery around.

And the energy density is not there at all. So there's so many advantages for real cars. So I would say, I mean, some people do want an electric car.

I think we should just take off all the subsidies and let them compete in the free market. And whoever wins, wins.

And I think we are going to get back to that.

But so far, all these subsidies, especially in a place like the U.S. where we have such a huge debt anyway, the whole idea that we need to subsidize toys for rich people.

Because generally, these Tesla’s are not bought by the working class people who has their number one car.

They're bought very often as a second car for people who shouldn't be subsidized by the working class.

So one of the recent side effects is the weight, as you talked about, the damage to roads.

But also I think they talk about multi-story car parks whenever they're built in the 60s they were like what 700 kilo cars now it's well some of them are 2.2 tons.

So you fill a multi-story car park with electric vehicles and oh the thing collapses and there are all these issues that are suddenly coming these engineering problems

There's that. And there's the fire danger that some, I think, apartment buildings don't want to park their cars under the building because if your car goes up, it's so hard to put it out.

The whole building can go up. There's been a lot of cases of that.

There's supposed to be these special protocols to fight a fire if it's an electric car, because you might fight it for a while and it might flare up repeatedly after you think it's been out.

So that's a major problem.

And just now you're seeing that even the lithium batteries are in the cars, I believe.

And they're saying that you got to be really careful when you're flying because they don't want your lithium small battery causing a fire on the plane.

So the whole fire danger thing is a big deal.

I think there was a case with a container ship or a ship that had a unbelievable fire caused by one of these batteries.

So people say, oh, well, you can have a battery on a gas powered, you have a fire on a gas powered car, but the fires are easier to put out and it's not as big a danger as it is with these batteries.

We had a huge fire in London Luton Airport in one of the car parks that was shut down with a hybrid and it looks like the fire started in the battery.

But of course, they didn't say it was an electric car.

They said, oh, it's a hybrid petrol car and therefore, oh, it's a petrol vehicle.

You could see the media manipulating the data.

So much of that.

and just final thing. I want to ask you about the how the film has been accepted.

You've talked about some of the numbers.

I certainly saw what just after it came out and was sent a link to say, you need to watch this, and I did.

But what is the reception being like to this at a time where the narrative does seem to be collapsing amongst many people.

What is your experience the last four months?

What has it been like?

Yeah, we're very pleased with their reception that the whole viral thing that it hasn't been a course pushed by the legacy media.

But we thought that the Washington Post and New York Times, the legacy media would push back because in 2007, when the great global warming swindle came out, there was major pushback from the legacy media.

But mostly they haven't talked about it at all.

And it might be that they're hoping if they ignore it, it'll go away.

But yeah, it has not been attacked much at all. And I think it's way easier to speak out against it now than it was in 2007.

I think there's a snowball effect that as more and more people speak out, that more and more people feel free to speak out.

I'm seeing that for sure on social media.

Back in 10 plus years ago, I kind of felt more alone.

There were a few sceptics out there, but not very many.

But now you see it all the time that when there's an article about climate, it very often.

It makes me happy.

I look into the comment section and very often it's like 90% of the people are saying, this is a crock.

It's wrong.

Here's why it's wrong.

It makes me happy.

I'm seeing so much of that.

So people are feeling free to speak out on social media.

People are trying to share the link to the movie on Facebook and Instagram, and you might get a strike or a warning because the movie is supposed to be misinformation still.

So on those platforms still, whatever, they're still trying to defend the narrative.

But on X, et cetera, I think the floodgates are starting to open up, and I think it makes me happy that this thing, it is crumbling right now, even as we speak.

This is what it looks like as it crumbles.

And you've got the Freedom on X, the Freedom on Rumble, on Bitchute, on GETTR, on Truth and other social media platforms that you can share it.

Tom, I really appreciate your time.

It's great that we connected whenever you responded to our interview with Efrat Fenigson and I enjoyed that interviewing.

And it was wonderful that you reached out.

So, really good talking to you really enjoyed the film.

And I know if our audience haven't yet seen it, by the end of this, they will have watched it, and can share it, too.

Thank you so much for your time. Thank you very much, Peter. Really appreciate it.