Climate Change Narrative is Driven by Agenda of Political Control—Myron Ebell



is climate change actually causing a crisis as many are saying in the global warming debate what is the actual settled science that most scientists agree on and what exactly is being contested and how climate change factored into 2020 this is American thought leaders and I'm Janiak Alec today we sit down with Myron Ebell the director of global warming and international environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute a nonprofit think tank that promotes limited government free enterprise and individual liberty we explore the climate change debate through his eyes including the stark differences between climate change projection models and actual measurement data the role of China and global greenhouse gas emissions the green New Deal the political interests behind the push for wind and solar energy and how he assaulted eight will impact 2020 Myron Ebell wonderful to have you on American thought-leaders thanks for having me on so something caught my attention yesterday I'm some people might know I'm Canadian actually and actually our parliament passed a motion yesterday in Canada 180 to 270 something so you know by a large majority basically designated designating a national emergency around climate change and I thought that was interesting given that we were we were planning to do this interview today it seems like a lot of Canadian parliamentarians believe there's there's a crisis what what do you think well I don't think global warming is a crisis and I don't think it's a planetary or a national emergency I do think that several countries have have passed these resolutions including Canada but I think generally actions speak louder than words and if you look at what's going on in Canada the government of Ontario was defeated in the last election the main issue was whether we should they should have a carbon tax or not that is a tax on carbon dioxide emissions which result from producing and using coal oil and natural gas which provide eighty percent of the world's energy recently in Alberta the government lost the election because of a carbon tax and so I think what you see is that the elites in in various countries think that they have to at least say that global warming is an abyss an emergency or a crisis but the electorate at large the people the general public are not convinced and in my view the general public is right and the elites are have got it wrong so let's you know you've been tackling this issues for four decades actually and I I want to kind of break it down a little bit try to understand you know what the actual arguments are is there global warming there's people who say there is no global warming there's people say there is but it's not a crisis and then there's global warming and climate change and this sort of change and the terminology is it the same thing or not I think a lot of people are just kind of confused around this stuff well it is confusing because there's a lot of moving parts the climate is very complex and it's not just the climate it's also the oceans which contain most of the world's heat that's trapped from from sunlight and so what we have is an ever-changing weather system and if you look at it over a number of years we have an ever changing climate the climate is always changing the question is which direction is it changing and what do human beings have to do with it we had because of natural factors we were in a period of an interglacial period of the last thirteen fourteen thousand years where it's been the the northern the upper latitudes have been habitable but if you look back fifteen or twenty thousand years ago we were in an ice age and there was two or three miles of ice over most of Canada it went down as far as places like Chicago so so the climate does change quite dramatically obviously an ice age is a bigger problem than a little bit of global warming so the question is are human beings having an impact on the climate right I think the answer is undoubtedly yes through two factors land-use changes and burning coal oil and natural gas when you burn those three fuels you produce carbon dioxide carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases it's it's this it's not as important as water vapor and clouds in the atmosphere but it it does have an impact so the question is are we having some warming we are having some mild warming in the course of the last century and part of that or maybe all of it is probably due to human activity the next question is it's the rate of warming you know fast no it's it's been quite modest we have been adding a little bit of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere we're now up to 400 parts per million that's that would be one part for every 2,500 so there's a little bit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and it has probably added a little bit of warming to the climate so I think that's that's stage one okay stage two is is it a crisis or an emergency here I think that the the reality and the science diverges dramatically from the rhetoric and the claims of the global warming or what I would call the climate industrial complex the the people who are advancing global warming as a crisis don't really rely on the facts or the data or the rate of warming they rely on computer models that they have tuned to predict rapid warming and so okay so this is really a debate between models and reality so you've tuned it sounds like they're tuned intentionally yes they are and and then the next step is to say well are the impacts of global warming going to be how severe are those in is going to be well they have a lot of studies that predict that the impacts are going to be very severe but in fact if you look at the what's actually happening the impacts have been very modest they've been mild and so we don't have an increase in droughts or flooding globally there are cycles there are there are many cycles in in the in the climate so that we we have periods of drought and then we have periods of height precipitation there's no trend long-term trend in terms of storms there's no long-term trend in terms of tropical storms like typhoons and hurricanes and so the question is what's the fuss about if there is no long-term trend in any of these these impacts of warming well the claim is well we have some predictions that it's going to get much worse right around the corner I think the evidence for those claims is very minimal and I think the other flip side of it is that the the biosphere the plant life requires carbon dioxide for photosynthesis so one of the one of the direct impacts not indirect impacts of higher carbon dioxide levels is the greening of the earth and so what we've seen is and you can see this by going to the NASA website webpage on this ok there's there's a dramatic greening of the earth both in the forests and in the grasslands since the 1970s when the satellites went up and they started taking photographs and of course the greening of the earth means higher food production as well I think food production there's a claim by the global warming crowd that food production is going to go down but in fact food production has been going up every decade for a long long time part of that is better technology plant science and so on but part of it is clearly due to the greening of the earth so this is fascinating what you're saying that it's sent it seems to stand in the face of a lot of what we're hearing like for example I didn't mean some of the more extreme things are we have 12 years left so to turn things around you're saying there's nothing to turn around so this is a it's a fight uh that there's a lot of room between there's nothing to turn around and we have 12 years or it's over there's a lot of room in the debate it between the two camps what I would call the climate industrial complex and the climate realist camp but there isn't much middle ground to fight over in the policy arena because if you buy the global warming is a crisis and that it presents all of these these imminent threats then you really have to sign on to the agenda that we have to turn the world's economy upside down there isn't some people on our side seem to think that you can sort of well we can do a little bit to show that we care but it won't actually have any impact on global emissions because you know this this debate has been going on since the late 1980s and yet and yet greenhouse gas emissions have gone up steadily there's there's no so far all of the policies that kind of half way policies that have been adopted both nationally and internationally with the UN treaties haven't done anything to slow down the increase in greenhouse gas emissions so so that so if you believe it's a crisis the policies that we've had so far have done nothing to address the issue and in fact I don't think they were I really don't believe that the people pushing these policies actually believe in it that global warming is a crisis because if they did they wouldn't have been pushing the policies that we've seen for the last 25 or 30 years it's a fascinating thing to say so okay how are how are the policies that these folks as you say have been pushing versus the policies that would actually have an impact we have international treaties starting with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 signed it the Rio Earth Summit the Kyoto Protocol in 97 there were various attempts in their early to mid-2000s to do something and then finally in 2015 the Paris climate treaty which is a protocol to the underlying Framework Convention so all of these treaties say that each country will adopt policies to reduce their emissions so what have countries done well they've said well instead of using coal oil and natural gas we'll start using windmills and solar panels okay if when if global warming really is a crisis this can't possibly be the way to solve it windmills in solar panels are our very limited technologies they can provide only a very small part of the energy the world needs but the people who are behind this push and who promote windmills and solar panels is the solution well what's in it well there's a huge redistribution of wealth to the people who provide wind and solar power nobody would adopt these technologies without massive government subsidies and government mandates so in in this country for example there's a there's a tax subsidy provided by Congress to anybody who builds a wind farm or a solar farm and most of the states have mandates for turning part of the electric grid over to wind and solar power so there so a lot of this of what's been done so far I would just call a racket it has nothing to do with reducing emissions it has to do with enriching people and companies who provide a technology that's commercially unviable so if global warming really is a problem this can't possibly be the way to solve it these technologies are a dead end they're very expensive and they provide very little power on the other hand if it really is a crisis we do have one available technology that could power the world and that's called nuclear power and yet you'll see that many of the promoters of the climate industrial complex and of global warming alarmism say oh no no it's the worst crisis we've ever faced but we can't solve it with with the one thing that would solve it namely nuclear power so I really don't think that that large parts of the global warming establishment are really very serious I think they're it's a racket you know this is fascinating obviously because this is a very material it is true so it's an easy assumption hundred hundreds of millions of people are being taught that there is a crisis around the world right especially in the in Western countries in the US and Canada certainly all throughout Western Europe yes believing it presumably because they're you know I mean III was certainly taught that I'm throughout my schooling you know many many moons ago and so forth and and this is you know purely purely to support these basically this climate complex that you described well the climate industrial complex involves a lot more than when wind beneficiaries and solar beneficiaries there are there are political beneficiaries I mean this is about political control it creates a huge amount of the necessity for larger government institutions more people working for government and more control over people and the choices they make about how they live their lives namely what kind of energy they use and how much energy they use so there's a political dimension to it and then there's also the the scientific and academic angle the you know universities are we have a kind of an ideal about them you know the the you know the various disciplines and everyone cooperating together to educate people and to do research but in fact a lot of the university system now is is a bunch of programs and and labs that are primarily funded by the government and in every country in in the Western world and particularly you look in the United States most of the university research funding comes from the federal government well if if global warming is the issue that the government is interested in that universities are very happy to provide all it whatever you want and so we now have programs in every not only just basic research and the climate but all kinds of social science programs for you know how to convince people that global warming is a crisis how do how do we could go through a long list of things most of its rubbish I would say and yet there's a huge amount of funding there and there's huge amount of academic advancement for the people who say the right things and provide the right results so so there's a lot to the climate industrial complex just besides the profit motive there's also the political power and there's also the the academic growth and advancement so you know let's look at the Paris chain climate change a court for a moment the u.s. withdrew recently I know that you were you know an avid proponent of withdrawal and so forth the one of the one of the issues is that a lot of the countries that have signed on to this aren't actually doesn't look like they're actually keeping or you know moving in the direction of actually keeping their other promises say well of course the promises were very they were across a broad spectrum so the United States under the Obama administration and the European Union in several other countries like Canada undertook very significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that they promised to make in the next 15 to 20 years China for example promised that their emissions would keep going up but they would peak by 2030 well they have they have economic models that show that with the economic growth that they've predicted their emissions will peak by 2030 so they don't have to do anything okay India made India made a very realistic promise India said well if the cares about greenhouse gas emissions and thinks that global warming is a problem we will be happy to do our part however India we are a very poor country and we are just starting to electrify the country most people do not have access to electricity and most people don't have air-conditioning even though India is a very hot country so we will be happy to cut our emissions but it's going to be very expensive to replace coal-fired power plants with more expensive alternatives so we'll do it if we're paid to do it that is if the Western world pays India they will be happy to make these changes but they're not going to sacrifice their own economic future and the well-being of their people and there are now more than 1 billion people in India they're not going to sacrifice their people for a Western cause ok um what is it isn't China produce something like a quarter of the global emissions I can't remember what the number is right but it's something quite substantial yes and of course China has the world's largest population so we would expect that since they've been in this economic growth mode for the last generation that their emissions would go up but they've gone up dramatically I mean wait much faster than the predictions by the energy you know the the Guru said that ok OECD and the Department of Energy here that predict the future so China's emissions are now over 25% that means that they're larger than the United States and the European Union combined and they're still going up whereas our soar and Europe's are flat so I believe that within ten years China's emissions will be larger than the United States the European Union plus Russia and Japan and Canada and Australia so we're looking at you know if you think that there's a problem the only way to solve it is if China decides to do something about it well so and this is exactly what I was king of the house because you know at the epoch times China is definitely one of the areas that we focus on we're very very very interested in the topic and we also there's you know plentiful abundant daily evidence that you know even if China were to promised to change or reduce under the current regime that governs it it's unlikely to happen they're not known for keeping promises over there so so my big question is in a situation where Chinese emissions were to grow dramatically let's say let's say I believe the the folks on the climate industrial context as you call it yet you know China keeps growing in this area and forever and they seems like they intend to would it make any difference for the Western countries to implement these reductions as in the climate Paris change accord well the well China overtakes economically and then decides to implement its system on the rest of the world it would make very little difference even if united states emissions were cut to zero which would mean replacing 80 percent of our energy mix from which we get from coal oil and natural gas it would make very little difference because Chinese emissions are growing so rapidly and there is strong evidence to support what you said that you can't really believe what they say we've got this other international environmental treaty called the Montreal Protocol which is to supposedly save the world from the hole in the ozone layer and that meant that one class of refrigerants which are used in refrigerating and air conditioning was replaced by another class well there's a lot of evidence using satellite data that china is still producing the the class of refrigerants that were supposedly outlawed and being and by the Montreal Protocol now there's a new stage to the Montreal Protocol though Hesh was signed a couple years ago in Kigali Rwanda it's called the Kigali Amendment and this now would replace the new class of refrigerants with yet a third class of refrigerants why is that because the the second class of refrigerants the ones that were the replacements the original CFCs and yes they're they're called HFC CFCs were the original ones and then they replaced by HF C's well HFCS don't hurt the ozone layer but they aren't greenhouse gases and therefore they contribute to global warming and so we're now banning HF seas and replacing them with another class of refrigerants some of them are called hf o's and just coincidentally there are two companies in america that have the patents on these new class of refrigerants and of course they're much more expensive than the than the HFCS so so there are two companies in the United States that are really pushing for banning HFCS so that their patents become very valuable and in fact the first factories that they set up to produce these new refrigerants were in China and so but they're selling it as something that will benefit America because we hope because two American companies hold classes but in fact they're you know there are international companies so they're going to produce they're going to build their factories wherever it makes most sense so so I don't know that this is actually a you know I don't know that it really it's being sold to the Trump administration as as something that fits in with the Trump agenda but I think it's actually a scam no fascinating so basically you know there's so is there actually a visible ozone hole over China I remember reading something about this reason you know well because well they know the ozone hole was supposed to come really at the poles and there is there is a thinning of the ozone layer every winter over the pulse and that's because of the temperature it's it's a it's a long story but it's not clear that there was ever a crisis that was that the Montreal Protocol was addressing there may have been a potential problem right and so but these detest CFC detectors are picking up a China basically not living up to its yes yes treaty obligations yes under the Montreal Protocol so if they don't do that with with these chemicals that we use for refrigeration why would we believe that they'll do it for something much more important namely where we get our energy from which is trying to gets its energy from coal oil and natural gas just like we do and it's just this this this forgive me this this this whole set of the thing sounds very bizarre to me because you're saying basically you're saying that they really haven't made any commitments anyway under the primary the Paris climate change accord the plan is to grow those emissions irrespective and even if the US were to cut theirs to zero it still won't impact the global situation so that's right none of these policies well are even going to work let's say we implemented the green New Deal and here in America and as you said turn the economy upside down the the net impact on global climate change if we were to believe that that it's gonna be catastrophic would happen anyway yes that's right I've got to digest that so you know this this is obviously a highly highly politicized issue what do you make of the green New Deal being a centerpiece right now of many or something similar being the centerpiece of many presidential candidates from what I can tell you know I just did a cursory search recently yes I think there are six Democrats in the Senate who are running for president and all of them are sponsoring the green New Deal resolution and then there are some other candidates who aren't in the Senate who are also supporting it so yes it's it's a big deal in the Democratic Party well it's it's preposterous it it the people behind the green New Deal seem to have no idea where stuff comes from the fact is that our energy system there are hundreds of billions of dollars invested in it in a capital stock and you can't just change that capital stock in ten years you can't even change it in twenty or thirty years and so we have people like representative Ocasio Cortes who's a very you know I think well-meaning but somewhat naive freshman member of Congress who's driving the debate she seems to have no idea what you have to dig up in order to build several million windmills and tens of millions of solar panels the amount of heavy metals and of cement that you have to produce to build all of these things it's just colossal you know now even if they did it it wouldn't work because the grid can't can't operate on a hundred percent sources of power that are intermittent and variable and unpredictable but let's assume that it would work there's just no way to dig up all that stuff it takes more than five hundred tons of concrete for one base of one windmill and they were gonna need to build millions of windmills even I mean that there aren't enough really good places in the United States that are really windy to put all these windmills there aren't enough sunny places outside of the southwest to put all the solar panels to – they become there's a proposal or farm in Virginia a very large one well Virginia is not sunny it's cloudy most of the year so it's going to be a very unproductive place to have a solar farm so there's there's a certain disconnect between the proponents of the green new deal and and the material realities and I think you see this in the global warming debate in general the the debate is is one in which what I would call the bicoastal urban elite people who live in New York and Washington and Seattle and San Francisco those people like me I live here in Washington DC but we mostly go from an air-conditioned house to an air-conditioned or heated car to an air-conditioned or heated office building and we sit in front of a screen all day manipulating information the bicoastal urban elite is I believe much more susceptible to the kind of propaganda that is put out by the global warming alarmists and are much more willing to believe it than people who actually live out in the weather people in the Heartland states who dig up stuff make stuff and grow stuff for a living and I think you see this in the polling and I think the Democratic candidates see it too because they want their the Democratic base is urban and it's bicoastal and they want to get the nomination and so they're going to appeal to that base but I think regular working Americans who are out in the weather don't buy the global warming religion and they're very skeptical of both the claims that it's a crisis and they're also they know a lot more about where our energy comes from and what it takes to produce it so they don't see a crisis but they do see the costs of higher electric rates and higher gasoline prices that would result if these policies are implemented and that's why the polling shows that when Americans and this is true of Europeans too are asked to rate a whole bunch of issues of concern the economy health care you know all the issues political issues global warming always comes near the bottom of the list that's and then that's fascinating so tell me you mentioned climate change religion and I want you to explain why you said that but just before we do that it was global warming and then it became climate change are these the same thing this is I've been wondering about that there there has been an effort by the promoters of Rattle radical action to reduce emissions to find terminology that will resonate with people so global warming was abandoned in favor of climate change based on polling and focus groups and I don't I don't quite understand it all but now you're actually a little bit behind the new term which is now being enforced by mainstream media is the climate crisis or the climate emergency and I believe that the Guardian for example in London and one of the major broadsheet newspapers has has decreed to the staff that they will no longer refer to climate change it must be climate crisis so they're they're trying to find words that that people will will you know react to so you often and again before we jump to the this religion question you often hear the term settled science that climate change is settled science but I think the implication is that the climate crisis that it's a crisis that it's an emergency is the settled science yes what how does that workers that's just simply propaganda well there is a consensus on climate change that is to say that it's understood that there are greenhouse gases that increase the the temperature of the atmosphere and make life possible on earth the principle on being water vapor and clouds but also carbon dioxide and a few other trace chemicals that's that's agreed it's also agreed that the climate is always changing and that human beings in burning coal oil and natural gas increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere right and that should have some warming effect now I think that's where the consensus ends the the first question is how much is the warming of and I think there's a wide range of debate 10 or 20 years ago the research tended to indicate that the climate was quite sensitive to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere but and so maybe there was settled science on that 20 years ago but more recent research suggests that that the climate is much less sensitive to the level of carbon dioxide and that the the the adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from 270 parts per million in say 1,800 up to 400 parts per million today has had a very mild minimal impact in terms of warming so and remember 400 parts per million is one part in 2500 so we're talking about very small changes in the amount of carbon dioxide people say oh I will have it doubling well the EE actually doesn't amount to very much right so so so recent research is suggesting that the climate is less sensitive to changing levels in carbon dioxide than the research 20 years ago so no I don't think climate science is settled at at the level of do we have a crisis or not there's some basic science that's agreed on but the climate is a very complex system for example most of the world's heat that we get from the Sun is not in the atmosphere it's in the ocean so therefore the oceans have a very big impact on the climate and that isn't very well understood we do know that there's some big long-term cycles there's the Pacific decadal oscillation there's the Atlantic Oscillation and that these have big impacts and then we have El Ninos and Lonnie Nia's in the South Pacific which also have a big impact on North and South America so there's there's a lot going on that isn't very well understood yet so ok let's let's jump to this why why can you call it why do you call it a climate change religion well you know I don't very often so I'll I think there are there are aspects of belief in in amongst the global warming alarmists the people who are really committed to that are some ways a kind of mimic of religious belief that is they they take certain things on faith and they then try try to convince other people to take those things on faith too as if everybody agrees that they're true and if you don't agree then you're somehow outside of the faith community in your you're a wicked person and you need to shut up and and told to stop and stop just ibly you get that a lot oh yeah certainly and and everybody in in the climate realist camp gets it a lot I'm not unusual and by the way the environmental movement was very slow to get on the global warming bandwagon because they had all these other issues and they said well if we get on global warming whew you know what goes along with but they did I mean they they eventually got on and they basically dropped all the other the real environmental issues have basically been put down at the bottom of the the heap by the by the environmental groups so and and you see this particularly with with windmills windmills are very destructive right they kill huge numbers of birds and bats many of which are endangered species and yet the the the groups that are wildlife groups like the National Audubon Society have basically taken taking a pass on on this they've just shut up and said well we have to have a lot of windmills and we'll just do you know will will criticize other people will criticize people who own cats for bird deaths but we won't will criticize oil companies for killing a couple birds but we won't take on the windmills the wind farms for killing millions of birds fascinating myron we were talking earlier about how the actual increase in temperature the actual global warming over past years is substantially less than the modeling predicted way back when it's actually kind of a stark a stark difference can you tell me a little bit more given that the actual data that's out there from what i understand and i which what I've seen find find convincing how is it possible to say that well actually it's a it's a crisis at this point the people promoting global warming is a crisis have very large megaphones and so reality kind of gets obscured I think that there is there is little doubt that this debate really is between modeling projections about what the future might be like and what the data actually show and and the data is is pretty clear there is some warming and it's modest the impact so far have been mild and so this is really a debate between people who want to you know the show me I want to see I want to see the data and the people who take on faith the computer models and the people who run the computer models that you can trust them and and so what you see in the in the scientific debate is a scientific community that they've all locked arms and they've said trust us were scientists and you've got some other people who are are not beneficiaries of this vast and very powerful and well-funded effort who were out there saying hey wait a minute the emperor has no clothes when you look at the actual data it contradicts it falsifies what the models have predicted and therefore who are you going to believe predictions by scientists or data provided by scientists and I so I think this really is it's a debate really about whether we're going to have a scientific as whether science is going to continue to be corrupted in the way it has or whether the science will have to come back and say hey there at the reality is when we look at the data our fantasies our model projections just don't match the reality and we're going to to go back and and and look at the science again and and and and but I don't I don't think the current generation of global warming alarmists scientists are ever going to come to that moment I think they're gonna have to you know write off into the sunset and be replaced by a new generation of people who are the more more attuned to reality and less to their own projections and no the other thing that just strikes me is anytime there's a hurricane or in a some sort of you know natural disaster or something of this realm that can in any way potentially be linked to goreng we hear people talking about climate change must be the cause of this is this kind of the same vein of what you're just talking about in your view oh certainly there's I wouldn't really blame the scientific community as much as the PR community of the of the environmental pressure groups and in governmental agencies every time that we have a winter where there isn't very much snow we get predict predictions like well you know we're just not going to have any snow anymore and then now this last winter we had just huge amounts of snow in the West two or three times average now we're saying well you know this is what we're gonna have to get used to you know now some years we're not going to have any snow and others we're going to have too much we see the same thing I think the most amusing one going on right now is a few years ago the Great Lakes started to drop because of drought and in in the in the catchment area for the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes are huge right they provide a very large percentage of the world's freshwater so ice 15 or 20 percent of them and so they were saying oh the Great Lakes are dropping and you know this is a result of global warming well the Great Lakes are now back up to normal and even above average levels and so now if you look through the the press clippings you'll see Oh excite us are wringing their hands about well you know this is exactly what we were going to we expected with global warming you know there's just too much water in the Great Lakes and well look this is this is all bunk right they make this they don't predict any of these impacts that nobody predicted that the Great Lakes were going to drop nobody predicted that they were going to come back up so I'd like to see somebody actually make a prediction about future weather and then and then live up to it you know and stand up and say well you know I was right or I was wrong but that never happens it's whatever happens is is something that we really were concerned that this might have him you know we we had we had intimations that this was going to happen as a result of global warming it's it's all it's all made up they concoct this stuff it's fascinating so to finish up how big do you think climate change how big of an issue do you think it's going to be for the 2020 election oh I think we've had very few elections since the global warming bandwagon got going that we're about global warming so for example within 2000 with Al Gore who was mr. global warming he didn't run on it at all but he still lost because voters in his own home state of Tennessee and West Virginia which produces a lot of call in Kentucky they figured out that he was not a good thing and so he lost the election if he'd won West Virginia he would have won the election and yet he didn't even talk about global warming in the election so it's it it wasn't it what it wasn't an issue in 2004 it wasn't an issue in 2008 President Obama when he was a senator and running for president didn't bring it up and in fact his Republican opponent John McCain had a much longer record on being in favor of doing something about global warming he was he was the global warming candidate the Republican in 2008 but remember as soon as President Obama got elected he then said well global warming is the big issue we've got to do something about it and so Congress moved to pass a bill the waxman-markey bill a cap-and-trade bill is it's kind of like a tax but it's it's harder to see why your energy prices are going up than attacks okay it's a it's a sort of I want to say it's it's a it's a way to conceal the tax nature of of it so cap and trade became a big issue the the House passed cap-and-trade in June of 2009 and in 2010 the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in the November election twenty some members lost primarily because they voted for cap and trade people figured out in the Heartland states that the Democrats wanted to raise their energy prices so that was the first election that was ever about global warming and and the alarmists lost the second one was in 2016 when Donald J Trump made it an issue and Hillary Clinton took it on as an issue and Trump won so again the global warming alarmists lost we've seen this all around the world with carbon tax in Australia prime ministers have been toppled one after another because they support a carbon tax in Canada it's it's it's been a huge issue to elect the the anti carbon tax party in in Ontario and in Alberta it's likely to topple Prime Minister Trudeau in this year's election because he's a promoter of the carbon tax so I think it is going to be a big issue in in the 2020 election and I think it's will definitely cut two ways the Democrat who will be four maybe not the green new deal but at least dramatic action radical action to cut emissions will will they will really increase their vote they will have solidified their their base in California Oregon Washington New York and New England and it will cut very definitely in favor of President Trump in the heartland states from Florida to Idaho and from Arizona to Pennsylvania and those states will I believe once again be a very hard sell for the global warming policies being promoted by whoever the Democratic candidate it is so what your advice to the Democratic candidate be leave this issue out of edit us if you want to have a shot well I don't get into partisan politics but I they do have a problem which is it appears that to win the nomination you have to subscribe to the green new deal or something like it but to win the general election you have to get as far away from it as possible because let's face it Hillary Clinton wouldn't have lost California if she'd said I really don't think global warming is a big issue but she might have won Michigan or Pennsylvania and she would have been president so I think the Democrats have a huge problem here because playing to their base isn't going to help them win the states that they need to win right well Myron Ebell thank you for the time appreciate it thank you you

Maurice Vega

29 Responses

  1. The permafrost in the Canadian High Arctic has begun to collapse in spectacular fashion. Seems that, far from being alarmist, climate scientists have been too conservative in their predictions. But that's politics for you, eh, guys? https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL024960

  2. My favorite climate deniers are dead climate deniers – victims of the latest human caused global heating "Disaster Upon Disaster"
    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/multiple-climate-driven-disasters-in-the-midwest-and-globally.html

  3. I don't trust this guy!
    The temp is not rising unless you alter the historical data then you can make the temp level anything you want it to be.

  4. GENESIS 8:22 Sometimes the wise men have NO WISDOM The fear of the Lord is the beginning of WISDOM . AGENDA 21 has not gone anywhere AND ITS NOT NEW!!!!

  5. The hysteria is coming from the left liberal democrats! the panic over most anything they don't agree with!..oh! like Trump ..global warming..gays..trans children..killing babies …safe spaces …a support duck you take on a airplane because yer a pussy!!…etc..these people are fucking insane!..there needs to be a shift so we can go back to being Americans TRUMP 2020…….

  6. Climate change aka weather has been going on since the rock cooled. The biggest contributors, The Sun, The Clouds and The Ocean. CO2 the gas of Lufe , represents 0.0039% of the atmosphere, an inch on a football field. CO2 lags warming and doesn't proceed it. All these models have been 100% WRONG ! This is nothing more than a tax boon doggie by the control freak elite Liars. You have to realize this, that when they are trying to TAX young and silence any debate by telling you it's settled Science, the REALITY is it's not !

  7. Good for you to bring someone on who understands the reality of the climate debate. May the truth prevail and put an end to the political BS that has taken over this issue.

  8. Nobody EVER asks the big question: WHY??? WHY are they pushing the Big Climate Lie so hard?? The easy answer is that: the climate pushers (scientists, actors, politicians, academics) are being paid by the Global Controllers to push the climate change lie. But WHY do the Controllers pour SO much money into pushing the lie? What is their goal? What is their agenda?

  9. "The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane." – Nikola Tesla

    Global Warming is a fraud created by Carbon Tax Swindlers, that's why they can't show any evidence of a causal correlation between Earth Temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentrations…

    "It is the greatest scam in history! I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM," – John Coleman, Meteorologist & Founder of the Weather Channel (Before it was bought out by Rothschild)…

    "Sir Evelyn de Rothschild and his wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild have taken a 70 per cent stake in Weather Central, seeing strong growth prospects for selling its weather data to insurers, commodity traders, energy companies and emerging market broadcasters. EL Rothschild, the family investment company, disclosed no financial details of the acquisition of shares, largely from current management. The deal comes almost three years after Bain Capital, Blackstone and NBC Universal bought Weather Channel for $3.2bn."

    “How much longer can the IPCC maintain the charade? How long before the IPCC and its machinations are understood by enough leaders to elicit some backbone? It is incredible that the IPCC and their manipulation of climate science continue to drive world energy and economic policies. How many more people must starve and economies collapse before this most egregious exploitation driven by environmentalists is stopped?” – Tim Ball, Author of: "The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science": http://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740/ref=pd_cp_14_4/180-3072484-7965019?ie=UTF8&refRID=1AADCVPD9BKFAGFENG45

    Don Easterbrook, a geology professor and climate scientist, correctly predicted back in 2000 that the earth was entering a cooling phase. He made his prediction by tracing a “consistently recurring pattern” of alternating warm and cool ocean cycles known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). He found this cycle recurring every 25 to 30 years for almost 500 years. Projecting this forward, he concluded “the PDO said we’re due for a change,” and that happened.

    Asked by CNSNews about the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Easterbrook said they “ignored all the data I gave them… every time I say something about the projection of climate into the future based on real data, they come out with some [computer] modeled data that says this is just a temporary pause… I am absolutely dumfounded by the totally absurd and stupid things said every day by people who are purportedly scientists that make no sense whatsoever….These people are simply ignoring real-time data that has been substantiated and can be replicated and are simply making stuff up…. What they’re doing in the U.S. is using CO2 to impose all kinds of restrictions to push a socialist government.”

    Patrick Moore, a co-founder and director of Greenpeace, resigned because of its “trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas.” After the failure of communism, he says, there was little public support for collectivist ideology. In his view a “reason environmental extremism emerged was because world communism failed, the [Berlin] wall came down, and a lot of peaceniks and political activists moved into the environmental movement bringing their neo-Marxism with them and learned to use green language in a very clever way to cloak agendas that actually have more to do with anti-capitalism than they do anything with ecology or science.”

    Vaclav Klaus, former president of the Czech Republic and a university professor before he became president, is the author of a book on global warming and has spoken often on the subject. He comments: "…global warming alarmism is not based on rational argument. It is not based on science. It is not based on reality. It is based on political ideology. If rational argument doesn’t fit, then phony arguments must be invented: the spread of malaria, the loss of biological diversity, oceans flooding, polar bears disappearing, Himalayan glaciers vanishing, etc.

    If global warming does not fit the observable temperature measurements, then a new “reality” must be invented to fit the ideology: actual temperature records must be altered or dismissed—hundreds of temperature-reporting stations in colder areas worldwide were eliminated from the global network so the average temperature is higher than when those stations were included link. Presto! Global warming. Ditto for carbon dioxide measurements: 90,000 CO2 measurements in 175 research papers were dismissed because they showed higher CO2 levels than desired, and various other studies were selectively edited to eliminate “uncooperative” measurements while claiming the cherry-picked remaining ones showed global warming (link – http://amlibpub.blogspot.com/2013/06/exposing-global-warming-fraud.html ) The global warming advocates are not disturbed by all this because, in their view, ideology trumps reality!"

  10. Thank you epoch times. Just as many thought. The climate hoax foisted on us by the elites,to redistribute the wealth of countrys, with the u.s. being the biggest sucker

  11. Always love listening American Thought Leaders. Can you please interview Brad Parscale also. Thank you.

  12. If the climate mongers were really worried about CO2 they would release zero point energy discovered and harnessed by Tesla in the 1930's. Instead Rockafeller shut him down and pulled his funding because Tesla wanted to gift zero point energy to the entire planet and Rockafeller wanted to continue to get rich off the backs of humanity. The elites that run this planet turn my stomach. When will people wake up and rise up against this tyranny?

  13. There is a big solar unit in the California Mojave desert that simply vaporizes birds so tell me again how this type of energy helps the environment when it's killing any bird that comes within 15-10 feet of it?

  14. Guys i understand the climate change narrative is political….but on the other india is getting hotter every year..unbearable….don't know why? Is there then some truth to climate change..pls reply..i am confused

  15. There were 4 times more co2 during the ice age and when dinosaurs roam the earth, yet their was no warming. People its a hoax to tax and control the masses.

  16. The only way to control big government and keep the climate control complex from destroying our economy for their own gain is to vote for those who stand against big government and don't spend your money supporting climate change alarmists. It's all about power and money. Don't give out either willingly without educating yourselves.

  17. What does this arsehole know? Nothing. Same old drivel of words by someone clueless about anything but
    some superficial political agenda that he represents. He is contributing nothing. He is speaking opinion, but
    saying nothing. What a useless video.

  18. Wow. The CO2 rise is greening the Earth and increasing food production while the population increases. The slight warming occurs just as we enter solar minimum and perhaps holding off a mini ice age. It's almost like someone who loves us is keeping an eye on things for us. That's an essential perspective that explains why Christians and people of faith are happier than those who's religion is the Climate-Industrial complex.

  19. If the climate IS changing, it’s due to the Deep State’s solar radiation management program, which has been in effect for 30 years and recently ramped up: spraying toxic, metallic nano-particulates into the upper atmosphere. Why do you think bees are dying of aluminum poisoning, Monsanto has patented aluminum-resistant seeds, Alzheimer’s is off the charts, trees and other flora are dying for “no apparent reason,” and wildfires are burning at unimaginable temperatures? Oh, and those beautiful orange and pink sunsets? Metallicized haze. And only the strongest and healthiest will survive. It’s a great way to depopulate the world while relying on plausible deniability.

  20. Climate changes. What’s the big deal. So the earth is slightly warmer. The bright side is we have longer growth periods and we’re slowing down the advance of another ice age ?. Excellent interview.

  21. Current satellite data from Dr. Roy Spencer puts the global temperature at 0.3 degrees above the 40 year baseline. That is everything you need to know about climate change.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment