Chris Martz, MU Meteorology ‘25
0:20 All right. You just you just said one of the coolest things and I wish I had record going. Let's see if you can say it again. When I said you probably got a lot of hate in your DMS. What did you
0:31 say back? I just I got a lot of hate. I just insult them back. You're gonna insult me. I insult you back and you want to be nasty. I'll play that game too. It's just how I roll. That's awesome.
0:42 No, I love that. I love I love watching your Twitter feed. I'm also glad it's you fighting the fight and not me. It's a pain, but it's rewarding in the end because you realize that you have a lot
0:54 of fans. For every hater out there, you got 20 fans. So it's been rewarding in a way. I never thought that in doing this when I started this that I'd be, I could fill up an arena with fans. So
1:08 it's pretty cool to have this opportunity and be able to get my word out there to as many people as possible It's been really fun. I've been able to really, through this, make a lot of great
1:18 connections. to wonderful people that are in this fight from people that are on the policy side, to the actual scientists who support kind of our position on this. So it's been a wonderful
1:30 networking opportunity. It's opened up a lot of doors. It's closed some doors too, and as far as the mainstream route, but it's opened up a lot of doors. I'm working with CFAC this summer. I'm
1:40 interning with them, a great group of people. This has been awesome. So kind of a device I was used kind of the start of the podcast is, you know, level set, and my mom is really smart, but she
1:54 doesn't know who you are. So give the short version of kind of who you are, who's your story, and how you got started throwing fire bombs on Twitter. Well, so for those who don't know, I'm my
2:09 name is Chris Marts. I'm a senior meteorology student or senior meteorology major at Millersville University in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. You always have to say link history 'cause they get upset if
2:21 you say laying caster, 'cause I'm from Virginia and I say laying caster. They go up there, they're like it's laying caster. I'm like, okay, okay. So I graduate, I graduate next May, on the
2:31 May of spring 25 with my bachelors of science degree in meteorology with a minor in emergency management. I wish I had done a minor in data science as well, but it's a little too late to start that
2:42 'cause I wanna graduate on time.
2:46 But I really got interested in this I wanted to be an engineer for the longest time. And I had a teacher in high school that kind of, I kind of fell out of love with that because of just kind of
2:57 what we did.
2:60 And so then I kind of got interested in weather, but what really sparked my interest was in December 2015, we had one of the warmest, I think it might be the warmest December on record in the
3:13 contiguous United States And I remember it was, we were sitting in church. on Christmas Eve for the Christmas Eve service. And it was 75 degrees outside. And they were, you know, we didn't have
3:24 any AC 'cause it was the winter. And it was, it was like really hot in the congregation room. And we did the candlelight service and we sang Silent Night and it was, I was just sweating like crazy.
3:35 And I remember going out and just thinking about how, there should not
3:41 be 75 degrees on Christmas Eve. This is ridiculous where I'm from. It's not like it's Florida or Texas It was Virginia. And I was kind of concerned that that really got me concerned because I had
3:53 this picture in my mind. And I don't know if it's just from the fact that your memory kind of, you don't remember things correctly. Or if it was
4:03 just that I got used to all the Christmas movies. But I had this idea that around Christmas time, it was always cold and there was always snow on the ground. And it was always cold during the
4:12 winter and my teachers. through elementary, middle school, high school at all, ingrained in me as an idea that we are facing a climate catastrophe. All these bad things are happening because of
4:24 our burning of fossil fuels, oil, coal, natural gas, and that it's causing the planet to heat rapidly. And if we don't stop it through government intervention, it's going to lead to all these
4:35 bad things. Glaciers are all going to melt, sea levels are going to rise, 70 feet, and we're going to see all these extreme weather events And I've always been taught to
4:46 think critically, but I never really put much vested interest in this issue. I just kind of went along with it. I didn't really think much of it, but after this December, 2015, I was kind of
4:58 sort of getting concerned that, okay, this is really warm. We shouldn't be having this during the winter. And it got me really concerned that, okay, maybe these people have a point that the
5:09 world is eating too much that's because of us and we need to do something about it.
5:16 I was like, this is unprecedented. The media is telling us these journalists, some of these scientists are saying that these extremes are unprecedented. We've never seen this before. And so I
5:24 began to believe it a little bit. And then fast forward to January 2016 on my birthday, we had a big blizzard on the East Coast. So I think it was New York City's largest snowfall. I think it was
5:34 273 inches for them. DC got 178 inches, which is one of their largest storms. Although they lost the measuring stick in the middle of the snow storms, they probably got more 'cause the White House
5:44 got two feet But Reagan National got 178 inches. That's not believable. And we got three feet of snow at my house, and we had a big Arctic outbreak after that. And I was kind of like, okay, this
5:55 is weird. We had a really warm record warm December, and all of a sudden we're now having this big blizzard. Either the weather's getting more extreme. This is ridiculous. And then we had, let's
6:07 see, 2017, we had Hurricane Matthew. I got Matthew, Hurricane Harvey and Hurricane Maria. And there was three major hurricanes that summer. Harvey was the worst, most devastating of them. It
6:19 caused a lot of damage in the Houston area. And their media was telling us this is unprecedented. This has never happened before. And I believed it 'cause scientists were saying it too. And then
6:31 shortly after that, about 2018 or so, I came across, I was just scrolling through YouTube and I came across by chance Tony Heller's channel And he does all these long videos, these videos, he
6:46 used to make much longer videos and that were much more in depth. And he would go over extreme weather events and temperature day to the United States. And he began showing me that these, he began
6:57 showing these videos that hurricanes were, there had been far worse hurricanes, like the Labor Day Hurricane in 1935, Okachobia,
7:05 1928, the Indian Olat, Texas Hurricane of 1886, Galveston 1900, Galveston 1915, meal in 1969 Donna
7:14 1960. Galveston would have been Houston if not for that hurricane. So that was a big deal. They get killed between 8, 000 to 12, 000 people. And it was one of the most intense hurricanes to make
7:24 landfall in the United States. So I never was aware of these storms, because nobody ever told me about it. And Tony Heller did. And then because in back of my mind, I've always had this, okay,
7:34 I need to question what I'm told. So I went on Google and other publications or whatever. And I found that, okay, what he's saying is legitimate, because I always double check when I'm told I
7:45 tried to double check. I didn't really do that necessarily with the climate. I was kind of skeptical at first. And then we had this really warm summer. I was like, okay, this thing, this is
7:53 weird. We had a couple of really hot summers. I was like, okay, this is this is maybe they have a point. But then Tony showed me a different kind of perspective about it. And then he started
8:01 showing me the heat waves were flowers in the night before 1960, particularly in the 1950s, 1930s and 1910s. We had really hot summers in 1954, 1953, 1952, 1939, 1936, 34, 30, 25, 1918,
8:19 1916, 1913, 1900, so, and 1901. So we had always really, really hot summers, and they were far worse than anything we really seen in the last 20, 30, 40 years. Only comparable summers in
8:36 that time period would be 2010, '11, '12, particularly 2011, and
8:43 1988. So there's a, and 1988 is when a lot of this global warming hysteria really started with Dr. James Hansen's testimony to Congress, and that's when all this really gained footing, because he
8:54 had the IPCC founded in 1990. But then I came across Joe Bastardi's page on Twitter, I got a Twitter account, followed him, Tony Heller, and they began, I mean, there's two of them, no weather
9:05 history, like they could could name you any heat wave. statistic or hurricane or whatever, going back to whenever records began, say 1850, 1870, they know weather history more than anybody else
9:16 I've ever seen. And it's impressive. And somebody on Twitter the other day told me, they said, well, you're just taking two random guys on the internet, their word for it, not all the thousands
9:27 of scientists who studied these historical weather patterns, and learned about the Ben School, and I'm like, okay, I go to school, I'm a meteorologist at an atmospheric science major, they teach
9:37 us the physics of how the atmosphere and ocean work, they teach us how to forecast a little bit, but not much, it's more of a kind of a, just a physical science program, that's what they teach
9:48 you to be a scientist. If you want to learn about weather history, you have to do that on your own. You want to look at historical patterns, you have to do that on your own, and that's what Joe
9:56 has done for decades. He worked for Accu weather for 32 or 33 years. And then Tony Heller is a geologist, he's been doing this for a long, a long time. So he's been
10:06 And if there's anybody who knows whether history, it's them. So they showed me a different perspective that I've never seen before from the news media from mainstream scientists like Dr. Gavin
10:15 Schmidt or Dr. Michael Mann, who both, Michael Mann has me blocked, he blocks everybody. So they showed me a perspective I hadn't seen and it began to have the wheels turning in my head. Okay,
10:26 that maybe this isn't a climate emergency. Maybe we have had these extremes in the past. And the more I've dug into it, I've become really well versed in a lot of this stuff There's some areas that
10:36 I'm not as great in, such as like the physics of radiative transfer and some of the like the aerosol and the way the radiation work. And that stuff stuff I'm trying to get more into. We had a
10:48 radiative transfer of course, but that stuff, that's something that William Happer might be more expertise in. My expertise is more in the extreme weather kind of aspects of things 'cause that's
10:58 what I study is meteorology. So I've, that's where my strong suit is in this. But there's a lot of great voices out there been able to network with wonderful people through this, and it's really,
11:09 I learned something new every day. So being able to, to have my mind changed about this, people always tell me, Chris, your judgment's clouded, because you're getting your information from big
11:21 oil frauds that are pushing climate denialism to destroy the planet or something like that. But the reality is, is that my judgment changed once I had a second look at this data So what I tell
11:34 people all the time is that maybe it's not my judgment that's clouded, but it's yours, because I once had your position. Yeah, you know, one of the things I've found interesting about watching
11:44 your Twitter feed, as well as just me anecdotally, being in the energy business, kind of watching this stuff from a side. And I'm kind of fired this out. When we look back about the last 10, 000
11:57 years, it looks like we're coming out of a little bit of of an ice age, whatever. I've read some stuff about that. good is
12:09 that actual data. Like if we had put politics aside, we're in a closed room where no cameras would be on anyone and you had scientists in there. Is there any sort of range of confidence we have on
12:21 that data? 'Cause I can't ever get a good assessment of that just reading about it. What's always interesting because proxy, so proxy data, what you're referring to, you can estimate past
12:33 temperature and precipitation patterns for a specific look. So if you pull an ice core out of Antarctica or Greenland, that's not gonna give you a global picture of what's happening. It's gonna
12:46 give you a picture of what happened maybe there. And there's a lot of uncertainty with proxy data. I don't know what the confidence interval is or what the range, the percent error is, I first say,
12:58 'cause I haven't studied paleoclimate in the way that somebody like Steven McIntyre has.
13:04 But what I do know is that they're OK estimates. But there is a bit of uncertainty with them and being able to - because you have to calibrate the width of, say, like a tree ring or a layer of
13:18 sediment because they get layered with time. And if there's like darker sediments, it's more organisms that lived in, say, the ocean. And so when they died and they sunk, there was more
13:27 organisms when the oceans were warmer, versus when the oceans were cooler And the width of that, the depth of that layer of fossils or sediments or whatever can tell you kind of what the temperature
13:40 was at that time. For a head and how long it was that warm. And you have to be able to calibrate it to kind of a thermometer to be able to really do that well. But again, there's a lot of
13:49 uncertainty. The best temperature peroxies would be sediments, because again, if you have warmer oceans, then you have more organisms and living in the water, more fish, more sea life, and so
14:01 if it's warmer, that life's going to proliferate.
14:05 and when they die, they're gonna compress and sink into a layer of sediment. So when the ocean's cooler, then you get a layer of sediment, that's not this sort of all these fossils and stuff. So
14:14 that's a good temperature indicator. Ice cores are the oxygen isotope, stuff like that's good because of the way ice expands and freezes and melts or whatever. But tree rings on the other hand are
14:25 much, 'cause that's what the hockey stick graph, Dr. Michael Mann's hockey stick graph, the infamous hockey stick chart, that's what that's based off of his tree rings. And tree rings are not a
14:37 good temperature proxy at all. And they're because tree, the width of a tree ring and how much a tree grows is dependent on a lot of things, whether it's dry or wet. It can be hot and dry, it can
14:46 be cold and dry. It can be warm and wet or warm and dry. It depends on the climate. And it depends on the weather patterns for a given period of time. There's also other stresses and stuff that
14:58 act on trees. You got insect outbreaks that that can hamper, If you have an invasive species and insects, that's going to reduce tree growth, and you're not going to get as a wider width of tree
15:09 rings for when it's warmer.
15:12 And one other problem with the tree ring data, and Michael Mann and his team, when they did this, I think it was a 1998 study that this really started. What they did is they went around to
15:23 different locations and they threw samples of trees, cores out, and they looked at the tree ring widths, and they calibrated it and graded this temperature chart. But what's interesting about the
15:35 hockey stick graph versus reconstructions from sediments and ice cores or whatever, pollen, whatever, they all show the kind of this wide range of temperature variations. They show the last 2000
15:49 years. They show the big medieval warm period, which is about as warm, if not maybe a little bit warmer than today, we don't really know. And then we had this massive drop into the little ice age
15:58 And we've sensed that we've kind of recovered and were. you know, if you look at the proxy data, we're not quite as warm as the medieval warm period
16:08 on the east and the northern hemisphere, which is where most of our land mass is. So that's where the largest temperature variations are gonna be because ocean doesn't heat up as much. Ocean is a
16:17 very water has a very high specific heat, which means that it takes a lot more heat in joules to warm one gram of water by one degree Celsius or one Kelvin
16:30 than it does say asphalt or soil or concrete or air even. So it's gonna take oceans a lot more time to heat in, there's more land in the Northern Hemisphere. So what happens in the Northern
16:40 Hemisphere is kind of gonna dictate kind of the trends on a global scale. It's gonna have a heavier weight on what happens globally.
16:48 So at least in Northern Hemisphere, if you look at the proxy reconstructions, we're not as warm as immediate warm period, but although that reconstruction has kind of ends around 2000 because we
16:56 don't have enough, it hasn't been enough years since then to be able to add another data point to that. So it's kind of, it's difficult. 'Cause you had these 10 to 20, 50 year intervals for where
17:06 one data point represents. It's an average of that time. It's not, we don't have proxy data for every individual year. So when people say it's the hottest year under 125, 000 years, we don't
17:16 know that because we don't have instrumental temperature data on a daily basis to be able to know, okay, what was the average temperature for January 1st, January 2nd? All the way to December 31st,
17:26 average that for the entire year 125, 000 years ago. And proxy data is not refined enough to, in the temporally to be able to do that. And the longer you go back, the more spaced out proxy data
17:36 is. So you might be able to go back to the mid-lot of life stage, you might be able to get 10 year means for what the temperature was, say in the 1750s, 1760s, 1780s. But you go back 20, 30,
17:49 40, 000 years, 400, 000 years, 800, 000 years. Those data that average is gonna turn into 50 years, to 100 years, to 200 years It's much less certainty the
18:00 further back you go. but what's interesting about the hockey stick graph on the contrary is.
18:08 The analogy for that, the oil and gas business and very similar is geology, right? 'Cause you're trying to figure out down a hole where the rock is, if you need any structure, any capture, and
18:26 the geologists come in and with so much confidence, they draw these maps and they show you exactly where the oil is gonna be. And they never tell you that like when you shoot seismic, you literally
18:40 have a data point call it every 50 or 75 feet. The stuff in between, they're extrapolating. Now, in a lot of situations, you wind up with enough in the way of data that you can make those
18:53 extrapolations, but in some place where you don't have well penetrations,
18:59 freehand drawing and stuff, but they say it was such competent. Oh, here's where it is. You get drilled it. You get early in my career, you get drilled a well as a dry hole. And it was like,
19:08 Oh, well, don't know why, you know, it's kind of like. So yeah, same thing. That's a that's a great analogy. And yeah, you're right. You know, in extrapolation, extrapolation is is
19:20 sometimes it's good. But a lot of times, sometimes it's not, you can make huge errors in doing that. You do it. We met to do isoplething on weather maps, where you connect the dots and the
19:31 contours on temperatures. If there's not a temperature data, you're really guessing things. And if you look at the act, another like a comparison to when an actual map looked like, because
19:41 the professor gave us a map of those random temperatures, one with a lot of temperatures, a lot of like data points, and you just connected the dots to the isotherms, the lines at equal
19:50 temperature, then you gave us a map with very little of that data, and you kind of had to really guesstimate where that is and then look at the actual map and it's like, oh my gosh, my drawing's
19:59 awful. So when you make those guesses, sometimes it's good, sometimes it's not. And that goes with what you were talking about and that goes with proxy data. But one thing I wanted to mention
20:09 about the hockey stick graph of Michael Mann's infamous hockey stick curve is that unlike those other big constructions, which I mentioned,
20:18 which was actually backed by it, there was three studies which backed the kind of what I was talking about earlier with the big variations in temperature. I don't know the names of the studies off
20:28 the top of my head, but I have posted about them on Twitter several times. One of them was in 2000. Mober get all 2005 was one of them. And the other one was, it was like some German name. I'm
20:38 not even - it starts with an L. It was from 2010. I'm not even going to bother butchering that. But hockey stick graph on the contrary, which is done by tree ring analysis, just kind of shows a
20:49 staple kind of climate And you're just kind of static with a slow descent into a colder period, which with a little ice age. And then it shows this big curve upward. It's the modern day. And
21:02 what's interesting about that is that that doesn't match any of the other reconstructions. It doesn't match any of the regional reconstructions that you can pull out of Greenland's ice cores or
21:09 Antarctica or from any other place in the end that really in the world. Because a lot of individual reconstructions for say India, somewhere in India or China or the Western US, they all show this
21:21 medieval warm period and they all show a little ice age Although the timing might differ a little bit by a few decades, they all show this kind of similar pattern on a - if we're much anywhere in the
21:31 world, there's a whole site called medieval warm period global. But the hockey stick just shows that this climate was static and it wasn't really changing a whole lot. And then all of a sudden, we
21:41 get to the Industrial Revolution and we have this alarming curve upward.
21:46 The problem with this data, not only that doesn't match any of the other data really, But the other problem is, is that, if you look at the tree ring data, in the area, in the area where it's
21:58 supposed to be warming, in the Instagram where we have instrumental temperature data, the tree rings actually so that the earth has been cooling. And that's where the whole hide the decline, mics
22:08 nature trick, that's where they talk about that. They practically eliminated that data from the proxy that they just spliced instrumental temperature data onto the end of that record to show that
22:19 warming. And one thing in science that you should never, ever, ever do is do data splicing That's where you put, it might be the same data, but it's from two different methodologies. So when,
22:32 and no one does this all the time, for example, with sea level data is that they have the tide gauge data, which measures relative sea level, which is how, which was where the position of the sea
22:41 level relative to the earth to the tide gauge. So relative sea level shows that it's kind of been going up at a constant rate since Abraham Lincoln was present that practically every tide engage,
22:53 whether it is an upwards trend. But then they show, they show from the actual sea level measurements from satellite data, they started that in 1993 and they add that on to the end of the record to
23:08 show this upwards curvature, this acceleration in sea level. You shouldn't knew that because they're relative sea level and the actual sea level rise measured by satellite data is very, is to
23:17 continue entirely different methodologies. And relative sea level trends can be dependent on vertical land motions called VLMs. And it's shown in several studies, there was two that I posted on
23:31 Twitter, I don't remember the names of them on the top of my head. But two studies analyzed vertical, the relative sea level trends across pretty much every tide gauge around the world that we have
23:41 long-term records at. And what we see is that in the vertical land motions, which is geological like post-placial isostatic adjustment, glacial rebound, where the land is syncing of the video.
23:55 the relative sea level is going up. So along the east coast, most of the perceived sea level rise that we have seen is on the east coast of the United States, for example, and also in the
24:05 Mediterranean and also in Australia, most of that sea level rise that's perceived is actually just due to the natural geological land subsidence and the fact that we build 20, 30 floor resorts and
24:19 condos and department complexes along the coast doesn't really help that, especially in the areas like Miami Beach where you have the sandbar that's basically a city built on a sandbar so it's
24:29 helping that sink further. So obviously that's going to be a problem. The ocean, you know, the relative sea level rising is going to be a problem for these communities and a few hundred years.
24:41 Not so much places like Myrtle Beach but places like Miami, definitely a problem. Somewhere like New York City, not as much of a problem because the land's not sinking as much there and yes the sea
24:50 level has it is in a little bit only by about eight inches over the last 100 years. But over the last 200, over the last 20, 000 years, two levels have risen by 400 feet, during most of which
25:02 that during that period, it was rising at a much faster rate than it is today. But kind of got off topic there, but the hockey stick graph to the temperature, you should never data splice it,
25:14 it's unethical when you can't do that. When you put the two different data sets of different, you put the same data set by two different methodologies, you can't do that because it's just not, you
25:24 can't compare, they're not comparable, if that makes any sense.
25:29 And the hockey stick graph, it just, it just - No, that
25:34 makes - Go ahead. Well, and keep running with that and I'll layer on one other sort of big picture thought for you to touch on is, okay, we've been fairly civilized, fairly advanced since 1850.
25:50 We've been taking measurements of temperature and all, I read something and this is wrong. I'm just spitballing a big picture kind of
26:01 theory and I'm probably messing up details, but it basically said if you look at all the recorded data we have on temperature over the last 150 years, I mean, basically I think the environmentalist
26:14 side of the argument is we're up a degree and a half, two degrees over that last 150, 175 years It's 'cause we've been burning hydrocarbons, CO2 levels have gone from whatever, 300 parts per
26:27 million to 425 today. That's what's causing it. I've heard, and the question I'm asking is, opine on the quality of the data over the last 150 years, but I've heard something to the effect of,
26:44 if you actually just look at the raw data, the actual temperature written down on all these records, It's kind of hazy. It looks almost like temperature has been flat. It's when you get into the
26:56 interpolated data of, hey, we used to take measurements at 10 in the morning. Now we take them at three in the afternoon. So to the old data, we add this, or we move closer to an airport,
27:08 there's more concrete there, we've changed the data. It's really the data we're manipulating that's showing this temperature rise. And I've always wondered the question is, you know, is that
27:21 because we've manipulated it that way, or are we totally missing the fact, maybe it's even worse than we thought because our manipulations aren't correct. So,
27:32 take that disjointed mess of a question wherever you want. That's actually a really good question. That's actually one of my favorite questions that people have asked me, because it's very
27:41 interesting.
27:44 It's estimated, if you just take it at face value, So you take the Hagg Group data, Hagg Group 5, NASA, GIS, or - Berkeley Earth or whatever data set you want of the instrumental record based on
27:57 land-based thermometers
28:00 it's estimated that we had about a degree 12 degrees Celsius warming since 1850, 1880 somewhere around there depends on where the data set starts. Berkeley Earth goes back to 1850 although there was
28:13 like no thermometers at that time so whatever but getting asked against about 1880 but around that since that time it's been about to the green and to change Celsius of a rise. Now in the green it's
28:25 going to things everybody says that's a rapid it's well that's not that rapid okay. We had
28:31 much more rapid climate change in the past Greenland during the younger driest period about 11, 500 years ago warmed 10 degrees Celsius in a decade and the global average temperature our red is was
28:41 about three to four degrees Celsius in a decade during that rise so it's not what we're seeing now is not unprecedented unless you look at the hockey stick route um but what I want to point out is
28:52 that it's not that much. The average temperature at your house where you live probably rises somewhere between 10 to 20 degrees Fahrenheit every day. That's much larger than the change that we've
29:01 seen since 1880
29:10 globally. It's not a catastrophic rise either. People live in Miami, Florida where it's 70 degrees on an average year round or something like that People live in Boston where it's much colder year
29:21 round and during the winter time it can be below zero in Boston. It can be 85 degrees in Miami and people are still able to live in both of those climates. So the fact that idea, and that's several,
29:33 you know, that's 85 below zero, that's 80 plus degree difference. So people can survive in these climates that are due to our technologies So the idea of the warming or seeing catastrophic is not
29:48 at all. And if you look at the satellite data, filed from NASA's Terra and Aqua Polyorbiting satellites. And there's two different way, two different organizations which process this one is the
29:59 University of Alabama, Huntsville, which is by Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. Don Christie. They're on the, Roy Spencer is the lead, the science team leader on that, NASA's Aqua satellite, and then
30:10 he also have remote sensing systems with Dr. Carl Mears. And they process the same data, but the way they process it's a little bit different. And both of them do show warming since 1970, '09,
30:22 and it's not really that much. And the rate of that warming has kind of flat-lined a little bit of it. It's still upward since 1998's Super El Nino Spike, but it's not that alarming of a trend.
30:36 But when it comes to the accuracy of the instrumental data, the raw data, I'm not aware of anybody that's actually done the raw part of the raw data globally, of the fact that there's just not a
30:50 lot of thermometer data outside the United States. But in the United States, where most of our long-term thermometer data is, what we find is that the raw data of which Tony Heller plots all the
30:60 time, even the average data with the maximum and minimum average, there's been very little warming in the United States since 1895 when that's when most of our records began. Some locations it goes
31:11 back to 1893, some like big cities like DC. or Chicago, go back to the early 1870s, New York City goes back to 1869, that's the oldest that we have, it's fun. But then we also have four data
31:25 that's compiled by like the Army Surgeon General going back to the 1820s for areas like DC. and Lawrence, Kansas, and Detroit, Michigan, they go back to like 1821. And actually he was able to
31:37 access that data from the NC. DC. And there's some interesting things off of, if we get to that, I'll talk to you about that, that you find in that data. But since the National Weather Service
31:47 started compiling records, on 1895 there's been very little warming in the United States. All the warming when you see Noah post those charts that data is adjusted afterward and they claim that they
31:58 adjust it for multiple reasons. One of the reasons they claim that they adjusted for is to account for urbanization. They say well we've gotten more urbanized in the United States of the last 40-50
32:08 years so cities are warmer than they otherwise would be. But if they adjusted square for urbanization then you would expect that what they would do would be to cool recent temperatures to match the
32:20 past or they would warn the past to match the future to match the present. But instead all you see is they adjusted and they just find more and more warming each time. And one of the big adjustments
32:31 that they claim which you mentioned was the time of which is called a ton of observation bias when they took measurements because they had this idea that if you took the measurement and you didn't
32:40 reset it, it would record double like it was 95 degrees one day and you failed to reset it over In the afternoon, it would record 95 degrees on two separate days, but I've analyzed that data and
32:54 you never see where they record 95 degrees on two separate days. You don't see that very often. And they make this assumption. Now, if this was actually an issue, where they double counted hot
33:05 days or depending when they reset it, they might double count cold days Or low temperatures or whatever. That would be a major problem, but we don't really see that that's a problem. Tony Heller
33:16 did an analysis on this when he wrote it as the software analyzed this he looked at station temperature trends with the time of our reservation by a sensations without that. And the trends are no
33:27 different There's a little bit of a difference in the amount of and where the temperatures are but that's because
33:35 locations in the north, preferred to reset the thermometers in the afternoon when it's warmer, because it's, because it's colder in the north. So they would go outside in the afternoon and reset
33:45 it whereas a cell be really hot in the afternoon they went out in the morning. reset it. So that's why the temperatures are a little bit different. But the trends, the trend is really the same,
33:55 no matter what. So there are arguments bogus, no was argument that these temperatures need to be adjusted and all these crazy data upward, really, because that's all they do is adjust it upward
34:04 for this reason is really bogus. And it rests on the assumption that these thermometers that used these bin max thermometers, it's rest on the assumption that they didn't know how to reason how to
34:14 work it. They built the Golden Gate Bridge, they completed that by 1937, the Empire State Building opened up in 1931. They dropped the atomic bomb in the 1940s, but they weren't able to determine
34:27 how do you, somebody wasn't able to figure out how to use a min-max thermometer, that's not really compelling. It just rests on the, they just assume that these station owners were stupid and
34:35 couldn't, couldn't reset the thermometer. Most of them can figure that out within three days of habit. So the mother might be a few legitimate cases of that. It's by and large, it's not really a
34:45 problem. So they're just arbitrarily adjusting data. Uh, for whatever reason, I'm not going to make accusations of fraud because you can't do that because extra and extra when he claims require
34:56 extraordinary proof. Um, you know, Tony, Tony says that they're tampering with the data. And while they might be, I'm not going to go to that accusation because I just, I'm not going to accuse
35:06 people of thought about having sufficient evidence. They might have other reasons for it, but it is, it is nonetheless Very suspicious that they adjust data. And with the global data, they also
35:16 do the time of observation bias adjustment.
35:20 But with each new data set that comes out version two, three, four, whatever version it is, they always miraculously find more warming
35:31 And they claim that we found more temperatures, we found more stations, more weather stations, so we can have more in our network and average amount If that's the case, though, you would expect
35:40 the adjustments to kind of go like this, they wouldn't expect them to all it's very suspicious that each version of NASA guesses. temperature data set or HAG crew comes out with more data. And
35:50 what's interesting about this is that HAG crew, so let's back up a little bit. I did a post on this a few months ago back in, I think it was April maybe. We, what happened is, is that the
36:03 temperature data set HAG crew two was actually very closely in alignment with the University of Alabama Huntsville's satellite data for the lower atmosphere HAG crew two was, is the surface
36:15 temperatures, ocean surface, the land surface thermometers and ocean being like buoy data or ship data or whatever. HAG crew two was very closely in agreement with the UAH and it showed a very,
36:28 the least amount of warming since 1979 per se.
36:34 And RSS, remote sensing systems data was in very good agreement with UAH because RSS and UAH, the satellite products, use the same data from the same satellite, same NASA satellites. The
36:46 difference in what their products show is how the data is processed and the assumptions that they make in processing the data and calibrating it and whatever and whatnot.
36:57 But then you had Berkeley Earth and you had NASA GIS showing this rapid warming that the trends were diverging like this, especially after about
37:08 1998 And so what happened was, was Hag Crew 3, when they updated the new Hag Crew from Hag Crew 2 to Hag Crew 3, and they're now at Hag Crew 5, they brought the data into a compliance with NASA
37:21 and Berkeley Earth to show Hag Crew now shows more warming As Dr. Carl Neers came under pressure and I think
37:29 2015 or so I don't remember the date exactly where he came under pressure from climate activists that his data showed too little warming. And to say he wanted to bring it into agreement more with the
37:41 surface temperature data sets so they put an adjustment parameter or something in there to get it. the data to show more warming. So even though UAH from University of Alabama Huntsville and RSS
37:52 remote sensing systems, they use the same data, they process it differently. And RSS shows a much more steeper warming trend. UAH is now the only data set that doesn't show this as a steepable
38:02 warming trend. And people will always say, Well, UAH is the outlier, they're wrong. Well, they weren't the outlier 10 years ago. The substitute for two other data sets agreed with them. And
38:12 UAH chooses to remain independent They don't want to be under Dr. Christie and Dr. Spencer want to remain independent of all these other organizations and they don't succumb to the peer pressure.
38:22 They just want to have their own independent temperature data set, which I respect them for. And what's interesting about the UAH data, what's important to note about it is that it is also most
38:35 closely in agreement with the balloon data sets from the balloon data that's launched by the National Weather Service twice in the afternoon or whatever. Meteorological Organization does it over in
38:47 different European countries or Russia or China. So the weather balloon data attached the radio sound to the weather balloon and you launch it and it records temperature and humidity and pressure and
38:56 all the other other parameters as it ascends up into the atmosphere. The vertical profile for the troposphere, 'cause they
39:03 look at all the data, the troposphere temperature changes from the balloon data, which isn't as precise because it's scattered around the world. It's not in a precise grid, like if you do a
39:13 satellite data, everything's kind of spatially evenly distributed, which makes satellite data superior to even thermometer data. Balloon data is kind of like thermometer data, and it's not, it
39:24 hasn't had the best spatial resolution, but from the balloon data, the temperature trends in the lower troposphere are very closely resembled to the UH temperature data. The balloon data does not
39:35 show as much warming as does RSS satellite data for the lower troposphere
39:42 So these adjustments that they're making are really questionable.
39:48 And you can't say that they're being fraudulent because that requires a lot of proof and there's a lot, it can even be legal battles with that. You don't wanna get a defamation lawsuit from some of
39:59 these private companies for accusing them of fraud because that's
40:03 messy and I don't wanna get involved with that. But it is nonetheless very suspicious. And what's also a really important thing to note is that, and I think you're gonna find this interesting, is
40:15 that virtually all climate models, all of them,
40:20 based on global warming theory and what is understood about global warming theory,
40:25 in response to greenhouse gas forcing from atmospheric carbon dioxide or methane or whatever, the mixture of them per se, the largest warming, the greatest amount of warming, relative to whatever
40:38 your base state is, should be occurring in the tropical. mid to upper troposphere in about 200 to 300 millibar pressure levels. And even the troposphere overall across the entire globe, especially
40:51 in the mid latitude in the tropics, should be warming more in response to greenhouse gas forcing than the land surface, if it's caused by greenhouse gas emissions.
41:03 Now, the surface on the other, but the thing is, I mean, I'm getting ahead of myself,
41:09 McKitchick and Christie 2018, a study published and I believe, geophysical research letters, if I recall correctly, they should, they talk about this and they plot the, they plot the models,
41:20 they look at the models, you could find all the other model, they think, I think they plug in the Canadian model in the study, but if you look at their supplementer, their supplementer
41:28 information, you can find that you can find all the other models, you can find the UK model, the US model, and the German model as well, and they all show this big hotspot. And this is over the
41:40 period simulated from 1858 to 2017. There should be all of this warming in the troposphere, but the actual observations show that the models are warming twice as fast as observations. So the
41:56 modeling is warming way too much. And the observations are not showing that warming in the troposphere. If you look at the global cross section or the time series, it's not warming as much And what
42:08 this implies is, for one, is that the atmosphere is not as sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions as organizations like
42:23 the IPCC claim. And that means the equilibrium climate sensitivity, the effect of warming from doubling carbon dioxide concentrations is much lower than IPCC estimates, potentially up to over a
42:34 degree lower than their estimates The other implication of this is if you actually look at the observations. the land surface is warming faster than the atmosphere. Now, one could argue that, okay,
42:49 well, the land has a much lower specific heat than the air. So obviously, the air is going to warm slower than the land. And that's true. But if it is a greenhouse gas forcing, according to
43:01 global warming theory, to all climate models, it should be the atmosphere that's warming faster, not the land So if the land is warming faster, then that has to be due to something else. And if
43:12 we look at where that's warming the most, we see it in the northern hemisphere. Now, obviously, okay, one could then argue while the ocean, the southern hemisphere is mostly ocean. And it's,
43:22 the ocean also has a very high specific heat, similar to air, although the water has very much higher specific heat than air. So ocean temperature is going to be much slower to change. So
43:31 obviously, you're going to see more warming in the northern hemisphere. But if you look at the land data only, you see no to the warming is in the northern hemisphere. versus the southern
43:39 hemisphere. And what that tells you, and Dr. Ross McKittrick is working on a study on this, and I think he's already published a couple on this in the past, this fits more of the spatial patterns
43:48 of urbanization where most of our thermometer data comes from. So a lot of the warming that we were seeing, and Dr. Spencer, Roy Spencer, UH, he's actually working on a think of study on this as
43:58 well, hopefully published maybe later this year. He's been talking about it. I don't know what his deadline is that he has for this But what they're finding is that most of the warming that we are
44:11 seeing globally might actually be due to the urban heat island effect, not necessarily carbon dioxide. It doesn't mean carbon dioxide doesn't have an effect because in and of itself, global warming
44:21 theory does make sense from a physical, if all else is held constant, then adding carbon dioxide, if I had a degree in house gas, so adding more of it to the atmosphere should cause warming. But
44:32 the atmosphere might not be, not not care that much Let me cut, let me cut you up, let me, let me, let me cut you up. let me cut you off right there to ask a question. And I've always taken the
44:42 position in life that me as a relatively smart individual should be able to see a phenomenon, look at data and recognize it. Like I may need to go to the doctor that tells me I have a virus, a flu,
44:58 give me medicine, but I can tell when I have a fever or I have a run of news, right?
45:05 And so just as a layman sitting there looking at the data, the theory is we've admitted CO2, we've
45:13 taken parts per million, 300 to 425, therefore that has caused the warming. When I look at the data over the last 150 years, 175 years, it actually looks like temperature is going up and then CO2
45:32 levels are following it,
45:35 ie. the reverse of the theory. And so I kind of just in my mind did an experiment, you know, thought experiment, I like diet coke, right? It's carbonated, it's great. When I sit here and
45:50 drink it when it's cold, boy, it's fizzy. When it warms up, all the CO2's gone and it's flat. Is there any chance that there's actually, what we're seeing is just correlation and not causation?
46:05 Or can we test it in the lab that CO2 going up, will lead to temperature going up, it's actual causation? That's an interesting question, actually, it's one of my other favorite questions I've
46:17 received. Now, yeah, and you're right in the historical record, if you look like going back with your ice ages, if you look at the graphs, it does appear, CO2 does actually lags temperature,
46:30 so temperature changes first. And that's true initially. That is true initially. But what happens is somewhere when during that, so the temperature starts to rise and that's due to orbital changes
46:38 and axial tilt changes on the Earth, the wobble on its axis and it changes in orbital shape around the sun. And this occur on hundreds of thousands of your timescales. So the temperature starts
46:50 rising and then CO2 starts rising after. And eventually there's a point where CO2 starts to rise and then
46:57 temperature follows
46:60 the CO2 But this idea that CO2 is the control knob of the climate this really isn't, historically that's never really been the case. So it has an effect, yes, based on what has been theoretically
47:16 calculated in the radiative transfer equations and the laws of physics. It makes sense. The problem is, as you point out, is that it cannot really be tested in the lab. There's been attempts at
47:28 lab experiments And some people will say that there's proof, laws with how they do this, because the thing is, is you cannot replicate an earth atmosphere in the earth system in a lab. You just
47:42 can't. And there's a lot of issues with that. Like Bill and I, for example, did the carbon dioxide in a jar experiment, and he basically fabricated that entire experiment. He got called out on
47:53 it by my friend, Anthony Watts. He was a former TV meteorologist, and he runs the Watts up of that blog.
48:02 So you can't really prove any of this in a laboratory experiment, much less a computer model simulation, which is basically is you can make the computer models say whatever you want. It's much less
48:15 than they scientifically accurate
48:19 tests to run than something you can do in a lab, which is based on a much number of things. Because it can be a computer model, you can get a computer and tell you whatever you want it to in a
48:28 program. But are you all right that? in the sense that the
48:35 solubility of carbon dioxide in water decreases as temperature rises. So what we see is that when the water warms, such as the ocean, its ability to dissolve carbon dioxide into it decreases. So
48:51 you get CO2 actually emitted out of the ocean. And that in and of itself can have some effects as well on the climate Probably not, again, because based on the observations for what I was talking
49:02 about with the satellite data and the troposphere of observations and the global cross sections and based on the climate models, the climate's not as sensitive to CO2 as the climate models suggested
49:14 is because we haven't seen these observations. So while it might have an effect in all theory, it makes sense.
49:23 The observations kind of tell a different story. And most of the warming we're seeing is probably due to urbanization.
49:30 Carbon dioxide does lag temperature. It can lag temperature. It doesn't always lag temperature, though. It just depends on the time scale. 'Cause again, in the geological record, temperature
49:41 precedes CO2. So CO2 follows temperature, then eventually there's a changeover. But then temperature starts to fall, CO2 starts to fall. So it kind of goes back and forth a little bit. But I
49:50 wouldn't say that doesn't, just because CO2 does eventually take over, it doesn't mean that CO2 is the control amount of the climate. There's a lot of things we don't know And the scientists out
50:01 there are pretending that we have the answers to everything on a planet that's four and a half billion years old. And we only have data that's really solid over the last 100 years. And not even that
50:10 necessarily, maybe even only the last 50 to 70 years do we have a really good picture of anything. On a planet, again, that's billions of years old. Interesting. So, you know, I get on my
50:21 soapbox about the energy business and that we don't tell our stories. We're not very effective.
50:30 at marketing, and I think that's 'cause we create a product that we just sell into the market. I mean, we're not Nike versus Adidas, right? And have to market my barrel oil is better than yours.
50:39 We just sell it in the market. So there's no marketing culture, no storytelling culture. Number two, we're just a bunch of fucking engineers, right? I mean, and engineers can't tell a story to
50:50 save their lives. I mean, God bless them, no offense attended. But, you know, we're not good at that So we kind of just have a tendency to shy away from telling our stories. And in a vacuum,
51:02 what happens? The other side and their stories dominate the narrative, become accepted, et cetera.
51:09 And then when we finally do tell a story, we go with facts, figures, and reason. And if you look at the psychological studies, literally the worst way to change someone's mind is facts, figures,
51:24 and reason It's actually the way you. change somebody's mind is the Socratic method, gas questions, that's why Socratic methods, such a great teaching methodology. Two, you scare them. I mean,
51:39 you can change someone's mind by scaring them. And I think the other side has done that. Three, the other thing you can do is you can make people laugh and it's not make you laugh. It's not make
51:51 your echo chamber laugh. It's the undecided person or the person you're trying to persuade, make them laugh. And I think if you kind of summarize all those up, it's storytelling, connecting on an
52:03 emotional level, et cetera. So with that as kind of my diatribe standing on
52:11 my, or from my bully pulpit here, saying it out, what do we do to get a more fair and accurate thoughtful discussion about all this stuff. 'Cause I've always said we ignore this at our own peril.
52:28 I mean, we really could be messing up the world and we need to be careful and thoughtful and we could potentially be doing bad stuff. And at the same time, I was sitting in a meeting for my church
52:41 and we were talking about what to do our endowment. Somebody brought up, Well, climate change, we need them thus for that. And I go, All right, let's take your net worthand bet it on whether
52:52 it's gonna rain in 18 monthsor not, you willing to do that. And so, anyway, how do
53:01 we change hearts and minds so that we can be thoughtful about this and constructive, or is this just gonna be the rest of society where we just punch each other in the face? That's a good question,
53:12 and I've wondered that myself. 'Cause I always try to, I've come to realize that just putting facts out there doesn't really change people's minds. People that are really beholden to this, And it
53:25 really is a lot of these people, private activists, and even it's out of the scientists to tell who echo their messaging. Although I find that most scientists are prudent to go on the doomer
53:38 rhetoric. They might not necessarily agree with my position on everything, but they don't subscribe to the end of times rhetoric or that we have these deadlines that they just believe, okay, we
53:50 just, you know, we stop this, the less consequences we have Which is, even though I don't necessarily agree that there are gonna be these severe consequences, I can respect their position for
53:59 that because they back their evidence with data, you know, I can agree with it or disagree with it, but they're not doing this cultish preaching like read a thumber. But when I found that a lot of
54:11 these people, scientists like Michael Mann or Peter Kalbliss from NASA, a lot of these people really are atheists. and they have abandoned God and normal religion, but they have not abandoned
54:29 religion entirely if they instead of substitute it with science as this deity that cannot be questioned. And if you question it, you're a heretic, you're a denier. And
54:41 I think that really these labels, and I even admit that labels in general, even maybe climate new or climate disciple or climate hypochondriac, which I use all the time, is to just
54:54 go around at people.
54:57 Because they think that denier accurately describes me, whereas I think maybe they're a hypochondriac to that. But I think that in general,
55:06 we should all really stop using that kind of language because slapping labels on people, and I'm guilty of it myself. I admit it, I'll be the first to admit to you that. It doesn't really
55:18 necessarily help the discussion and it's not really fair necessarily. Because as much as I don't like being called a denier because I'm not that person might not really be a hypochondriac No,
55:30 climate activists. That's different because a lot of people are climate activists. They describe themselves as that so that's more fairly able
55:38 But what I have found that a lot of these people that are so Religiously invested into this that they don't you can't change their mind with facts I can you could they can say summers are getting
55:48 hotter in the United States And then I show them a graph of the number of days above 90 95 than 100 degrees or 95 100 105 degrees Or I look at the average diploma maximum temperature and I show them
56:01 that it's been declining for the last 90 years They're still going to come back and say it's getting hotter or they'll say Cornetas are increasing and then you show them a chart of EF 1 to EF 5
56:11 tornadoes and they're there's no trend since 1954 And they'll say what they are going up you excluded F EF zeros and you can tell them that the EF zeros have increased the really weak tornadoes
56:24 because there's been an increase in the rural population since 1954 and we also had the introduction of the WSRA 80D Doppler radar system came online for operational use in the early 1990s and since
56:37 then there's not really been a trend in the EF in total tornadoes but since 1954 there has been in total tornadoes so you exclude the weaker tornadoes you look at the more intense ones and there's not
56:47 much of a trend at all but you can explain that to them no one even talks about this in several on several other sites on their NCEI page as well as their SPC page you can find literature on this in
56:60 the AMS terminals or nature a matte science magazine whatever you can find studies on as they talk about it but you can point out to them that and they're still going to come back at you and say well
57:09 tornadoes are getting worse there's no reasoning with these people and on the other side and they might think the same with us you got to look at it from their perspective as well. They might say,
57:20 well, he's not interested in my point. Um,
57:24 so I think that when you ask people questions and what's really interesting to me is that, and you make a good point, because when you ask people questions, it scares them or intimidates them. And
57:36 it makes them think it gets the wheels turning in their mind. And I have noticed that with when I point out when I post charts and data, they just get into this back and forth argument with me It's
57:46 unhelpful, I end up blocking the person because I get pissed off and irritated, and I don't want to deal with it anymore.
57:53 And I don't like blocking, I don't do it often, but sometimes people just need to just, I just need, they then they go away. But what I do find is that when I ask them really tough questions,
58:05 they don't ever come back at me And as an example of from today, is this person, I'm looking at my Twitter right now this person replied to me in all caps, autonomous caps lock was on I don't know
58:18 if he noticed or not but he said the last rule. The last 12 months for the hottest months ever recorded, and likely the hottest in the last 100, 000 years. Okay, well, that's an extraordinary
58:32 claim, all right? And that requires a lot of proof. And so instead of arguing with him about proxy data from tree rings or ice cores or whatever data set you want, I asked him, if you're
58:48 confident in that, then tell me what the global average temperature was for the year 34, 562 BC to the nearest 10th degree Celsius and that individual did not reply to me. So when you ask them
59:02 really tough questions like that, I think that is the way that we need to approach this is because I think that's going to start
59:09 getting the dialogue moved in a more productive direction, a more
59:15 positive way forward, is if we start asking tough questions like that Because if you just feed them data, that's not gonna really convince them, but you have to ask questions, and you have to be
59:26 kind of provocative with it. Because if you're provocative, I make provocative posts all the time because I want people, I don't do it because I'm being snarky or because I'm not an ego, 'cause I
59:37 really don't. I'm no better than anybody else, I'm just me. But I like to make provocative posts to make people laugh for a while, 'cause I'm funny, I get that from my dad and my family I got a
59:50 good sense of humor, but I also do it to make people think. I want people to think. I don't want people to just regurgitate what they're told. I don't want anybody to believe what I'm telling them.
59:59 I want you to go double check the data for yourself. I want you to think about this for yourself. I think that's how we do it, is ask questions, because as you pointed out, makes them intimidated,
1:00:09 makes them scared sometimes, and they run away. They don't want to confront you with it because you put them in a position, a tough position But in the end, I think it makes them think. it makes
1:00:20 them reassess their position a little bit. So I've got a suggestion for you, 'cause I think you're the guy to do this. You've got a great demeanor out. I was totally kind of expecting flamethrower
1:00:31 podcasts. And I think you and I have been fair and thoughtful and asking questions and kind of base load type questions you should be asking before you come up with any policy prescription. Have you
1:00:45 ever read the book Factfulness? You know what I'm talking about? No, I've not. I actually haven't even heard of it, actually. Okay, so email me your address. I'll send you a copy of it. The
1:00:57 short version of what Factfulness is is it's a Swedish doctor who went to Africa in various places, economically disadvantaged places 'cause he wanted to save the world. And one of the things he
1:01:11 noticed was that the world was actually doing a lot better than people thought And so he went to UN data. So he didn't even create his own data set. He went to UN data and he created a simple little
1:01:26 quiz of 13 questions and he would go to audiences and speak. And the questions always had three different choices, A, B, or C. And there were questions like, what is the average difference
1:01:40 between the years of education that a boy gets on the planet versus a girl? Is that one year difference, three year difference, five year difference? And so he would ask these simple questions and
1:01:55 the perception, most people would answer C, five years difference. Men get so much more education than women. Actually, the UN data says it's one year different. Average guy on the planet gets
1:02:07 10 years of education, average female gets nine. And he would give this quiz And they tally up results and on average,
1:02:19 10 to 15 of the audience
1:02:23 would score higher than three or four right. So I mean, if you're just a monkey throwing darts, you should get three or four right, right? 'Cause they're only three choices, A, B or C. And he
1:02:38 would give this speech to dignitaries, he'd give you in all the fancy investment banks, law firms, et cetera And on average, people would get one or two right and they'd miss the rest. And he'd
1:02:52 say, you don't have the fundamental education to discuss any sort of policy worldwide because you don't even have the facts right. And I think you could do something like that too where it's 10 to
1:03:05 15 questions, just simple type questions and not even flamethrowing questions, just stuff I see you tweet every day. You could go talk to kids about that
1:03:17 the kids are scoring one or two questions, right? You're like, hey, guys, you're not being taught the underlying facts and maybe just kind of from that level of just, hey, you have to
1:03:29 acknowledge you don't get this right. And I'm using NASA data or I'm using, you know, you use some accepted data, but find some questions that kind of go against the current narrative of something.
1:03:42 I think you could, you could, you could do a cool little stick like that, it just drops a little bit of cynicism into folks and maybe get some to ask why. 'Cause you've got as good a grasp on all
1:03:56 this as anybody that I've seen, you know. My dad used to tell me what to wear to school every day based on what the start he would say on the radio, you know. And so kind of followed this from a
1:04:08 long time. But anyway, just my two cents worth is a reformed private equity guy that's tried to become a social media and go on, sir. 'cause I really am a big fan. Yeah, I think that that's
1:04:22 actually an amazing idea. And what's cool is that, so, 'cause I'm interning with CFACT and the Committee for Constructed Tomorrow, we got a wonderful team. I love everybody, they're all
1:04:32 fantastic. It's a great workplace environment.
1:04:37 But we get to do, so some of the people that do that, that work for them, they get around and they give talks at schools, universities, wherever. And that's something that, 'cause I got a
1:04:47 full-time job offer after college, after graduation. And so if I choose that and I go, and I decide that's what I wanna do, and I get to go around, I'll probably get to go around two universities
1:04:59 around the country and give talks and stuff, and that's actually a really wonderful idea. I think that would be highly effective in really getting people to change minds, at least the younger
1:05:11 generation, 'cause that's kind of what I try to aim at, is because that's - the climate activist movement, the people that want this kind of authoritarian agenda, they rely on young people
1:05:25 believing what they're saying. If you can alarm them about the climate, you get them to comply with, okay, well, this is bad, and we're going to vote for this politician who promises to solve
1:05:34 this.
1:05:36 And they get this idea in their head that the government can actually fix problems. The government just only creates problems. Anybody who's opened up a history textbook knows that. And it doesn't
1:05:45 matter if it's for a public and a Democrat. Anybody that drives on a road in their potholes. Yeah, where's our tax dollars going? Didn't we start with fixing the bottles? Yeah, you're going
1:05:54 through Pennsylvania. That's where I go to school at the university. It's awful up there. It's bad. Thankfully here in Virginia, the potholes aren't really much of a problem. They tend to keep
1:06:03 the roads really nice over in Loudon County. But it's important because I think that if I get this opportunity to go out and speak to people, I actually would really like to start out, maybe like
1:06:17 doing a. question like that. Maybe even like a Google, Google is a Google forums question. And you can get people in real time, they can answer the 10 question quiz, the ABC, baby B, and see
1:06:30 how many of them get it right, and then go feel like a presentation on what I want to talk about. And I think that if I do that, and I've seen people do stuff similar to this, not necessarily the
1:06:39 question format, which I really like, that's a really great idea. And I want to take that and pitch it over to Craig and Mark and the people I work with given that idea.
1:06:53 But I had to be really good. I've seen people I give talks and stuff where they like, it was like the Steve Coonin debate with, was it Michael Mann or Andrew, Andrew Dessler, I think is who it
1:07:02 was, not Michael Mann. It was Dessler. Yeah, Dessler. Yeah. And people went into the they just had a debate. And people went into it, they took more, most of them took the side of tesla. And
1:07:13 by the end of that debate, most people took the side. of Steve Coonit. And that was just simply just debating the facts. And I was surprised that that was able to persuade people. But if you can
1:07:26 do that with a presentation like that where you're laying out the facts, I think you could even enhance that based on doing like a question. Like, and then if you point out to them what you, and
1:07:36 you kind of do that tongue-in-cheek stab at them is if you can't get these questions right, then you have no business discussing the policy. You have no business discussing what kind of energy
1:07:45 policy we should be having in dictating that for 333 million Americans. You don't have a voice tonight if you can't get the facts right. So I really think I'm really gonna take your idea with that.
1:07:56 And I'm gonna, that's a really great idea. Really wonderful, wonderful thing I think we can do. I'm gonna send you, send me your address. I'll send you a copy ofFactfulness. It's a big thick
1:08:09 book, but it's a quick read. And you know, this whole point is just, The world's so much better. then we realize it's not having all the
1:08:20 dire consequences. And we really ought to look at this as a positive and let's refine our policies not to assume the world's in this horrible place, but let's
1:08:34 get better a lot are there think of I so And. buck our for bang
1:08:38 applications just, and it's a well-written book and it's engaging And I think kind of using that as a template for you, it's worth the four or five hours and it takes you to read the book 'cause
1:08:52 it's really pretty good. Well, you've been cool to come on. Yeah, this is fun. This is probably been one of my, this is probably been like probably even party in my favorite podcast that I've
1:09:01 done so far. So I would definitely be interested in coming back if you're willing to have me back. Standing invite to come on the podcast anytime you want, standing invite, anytime you want to
1:09:13 come to Houston and meet a bunch of Folks, we're always happy to host you down here at Digital Wildcatters and, you know, we do probably seven or eight events a year. We do these energy tech
1:09:28 nights, what I call shark tank meets WWE. We have four or five energy tech companies pitch their products. Everybody's drinking beer and eating pizza and lights and cameras and we vote in the
1:09:42 winter by audience applause, so something really scientific gets a wrestling belt and we get do product demos and stuff. Those things are great. So anytime you
1:09:54 want to come to one of those, we'd love to have you. We'd love to have you give a maybe do a fireside chat for 15 minutes, kick off one of those. And then we also do Bitcoin mining for the energy
1:10:06 business We just think Bitcoin mining is a pretty neat tool for oil and gas companies, even beyond just having stranded natural gas. So we'd love to have you down for that and anything, wherever
1:10:21 you go to work, whatever organization you wind up working for, love the brainstorm any day to see how we can help each other. Yeah, CFAC works with a lot of people. Like CO2 call a shit in
1:10:31 Heartland Institute and other organizations. So I'm sure that Craig and all of them will be willing to do that. And it's a really great group of people. I'd be interested in coming down. I've
1:10:40 never been to Texas before. I've been to 32 states, but Texas is not one of them, but I have an invite from Chuck. Ah, dude. I know, it's like my dad says Texas sucks. I'm like, there's good
1:10:53 parts of Texas. People are moving there for a reason. But, and I got a buddy who lives, his brother lives in Dallas. He works for Geico and he has a nice, big apartment. He does really well for
1:11:03 himself. He lives in Dallas. He absolutely loves it down there. And I've heard great things about Houston, and Dallas in particular, Austin, I believe. So I want to go down. I have an invite
1:11:15 to go down to the Texas Public Policy Institute. Chuck DeBore wants me to come down there. And I just, it's a long drive. I don't wanna fly, I don't have to. So I'm thinking about maybe driving
1:11:26 down during my fall break, which is in October. Maybe one of my buddies from my school would come down and maybe I can shoot down to Houston as well. So I'll let you know, but I would love to come
1:11:39 down. Hell, I'm unemployed. I'll fly up there and I'm unemployed I'll fly up there and drive down with you. It'll be fun. We'll do a, we'll just set the camera rolling, do a buddy movie
1:11:53 all the way down. Well, Chris, I really appreciate you coming on. Thanks for having me, Chuck. Really appreciate us a great time. It was really informative. Good discussion. I learned some
1:11:59 things and got some new ideas. I can't wait to pitch those over to my team and see what we can do.
