Hi, Nick here from Pods with Nick and James. Just a quick one before we get into this podcast.
I want to say a massive thank you for the support that we've received since starting these podcasts.
We thoroughly enjoy it and we look forward to creating more.
If you want to have your say on any topics that we've discussed or suggest future topics,
you can do so at www.reddit.com.com.au.
And if you want to support us, you can do so from as little as £1 a month.
You can do that at www.patreon.com.au.
Anyway, back to the podcast.
Welcome to Pods with Nick and James.
Yeah, speculation and discussion on topical issues of the day.
Today's topic is one which is by no means a new issue,
although I suppose by the breadth of time that the world has existed, it is kind of a new issue.
It is climate change, or more specifically, the man-made climate crisis that is being caused by us human beings.
It is a topic I knew I needed to research because I've been incredibly poor in my own life and my own choices,
and I figured it was time to start researching why people have been strongly hinting that I should change the way that I'm doing things.
The main source material for tonight's talk was An Inconvenient Truth, an Al Gore film from 2005.
However, Nick has also done his own research into getting a number of facts and figures, which we'll also be discussing.
I myself listened partway through the book False Alarm, How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor and Fails to Fix the Planet.
I by Bajorn Lomborg and The Climate Book by Greta Fremberg.
Reading both of them, I'll just admit straight away that The Climate Book, despite using the very fear tactics that False Alarm says that these things are promoted with,
still just makes better arguments, but we'll get into that a little bit later. Nick, what was your own, when it comes to climate change,
how well informed were you before we started doing the research for this cast?
Yeah, so as you could probably tell from discussions that we've previously had, I was a massive conspiracy nut when I was growing up.
I've become a little more skeptical in my old age. However, I did learn a lot. I've always been quite fact driven.
So I've learned a lot of things from both the counter argument and the argument for global warming. I say for, I mean, of its existence, not that it's a good thing.
Yeah, so I'm supposed more than anything, it's material that I've picked up over the years.
And then there's obviously I watched An Inconvenient Truth, which I hadn't seen, but I had heard of Al Gore and his many, many pleas for assistance.
And I think he raised some very valid points at the same time as he had some misinformation.
I don't think it was any by any means unintentional, but there were some factors which I don't believe were necessarily true.
However, I will point out that Al Gore has since released an Inconvenient Sequel in which I do believe he addresses some of the failing points from An Inconvenient Truth.
No, well, that's good. Should we get, should we work past the failings of the film first and then like get because it was full of so much good material?
No, you know what, that's possibly unfair. Okay, fine. I didn't like how much the film made it about Al Gore.
Like, I really loved the PowerPoint presentation stuff that he was doing, but when it broke it up every 15 minutes or so to talk about Al Gore's political career or personal history, I guess in some ways it was really trying to humanise him, but I didn't necessarily feel that that was necessary.
I felt it was quite concisited, detracted from his argument because he was almost saying I'm the first person who's noticed these things and I've been slandered for years about this and yet it's plainly obvious that this is a thing.
Like, people have been talking about the changes in temperature and the changes in climate. I mean, the first people I believe to notice it in rural areas were actually farmers because they tend to the fields and they notice the changes, like the drastic changes in weather by their pocket, you know.
So, it wasn't necessarily him that saw it first and raised it first, but that's the way it came across in the film.
That's it, that's it. And I will admit I already like, to be fair, it's hard to look bad when you're running against President Bush.
And he managed it.
Yeah, and he managed it. Yeah, like this is the problem, like, he
is a smart man, he is an educated man.
But he's not necessarily a scientist, but neither does he have the showmanship that most of the US presidents have. So it's kind of really interesting that he's sort of
this in between character,
part showman, part scientist.
And although I've got a huge amount of respect for the guy and definitely feel South Park's
interpretation of him is more unfair than I previously thought.
It was interesting, you know, like he does know how to work a room
to a point, even if it is through dry
Yeah, dry infections in wet. Yeah. Yeah.
Okay, well, I tell you what, what's the first of the facts that
you want to bring to our or that you've researched and feel is good to
think he raises the point in 2005 that 10 of the last 10 of the hottest 15 years on record, within the last 20 years now that was in 2005.
And I hate to draw the attention to this.
But the next 18 years haven't been better. As a matter of fact, they've been warmer and warmer on record ever since.
And it's, it's interesting how you can actually point you can actually identify why this is by simple science.
And I mean, simple science to the point where you even the understanding of heat transfer and color
affects heat transfer is it's so easy to see why it would be warming up quicker and quicker.
The less less snow and ice there is, the less white there is to reflect the radiation back into the back out of the atmosphere.
The more dark ocean that's covering the planet, the more it absorbs the heat and traps the heat.
It's essentially the global warming accelerator is the fact that the ice is melting and it's getting started melting and it got got warmer, which melted the ice more, which made it warmer, which melted the ice more, so on and so forth.
And it's interesting as well that the one of the few statistics I do remember from the film is the fact that he points out that when sunlight hits ice or white ice,
it reflects 90 percent of the energy back into space and absorbs 10 percent.
Yeah, when it it's the classic kind of switcheroo of when sunlight hits water, 10 percent is reflected and 90 percent is absorbed.
That's exactly if you have if you have a greenhouse or a conservatory or classroom and you have one white chair and one black chair on a hot day, you're going to choose the white chair to sit in.
There's a very good point, very good reason for that, because white as a color, it reflects heat and infrared radiation, which is essentially what causes heat in the atmosphere.
So snow and ice will just bounce all of the infrared radiation back out into the atmosphere.
Whereas the darker colored oceans are essentially the black leather chair in the conservatory, you're not going to sit on that on a hot day because you'll burn your ass.
Yeah, not entirely true, entirely true.
OK, so I guess, are you all right if I go into sort of the two separate kind of political voices that I've researched and then come back to come back to some of the facts?
Absolutely, far away.
I just I kind of want to get some of your take on this as well.
So one of the things that kind of made me take Greta's book more serious than Bajorne's is that the book False Alarm,
although it makes a valid point that some of the tactics being used to combat climate change aren't necessarily as effective as you'd think they would be, that there are other ways of cooling down the planet and that these need and that further research needs to be done.
Making changes to the way that we live our lives costs money.
All of these points that he was making are somewhat self-defeating in that if you're going to release a book saying that a situation isn't as bad as it is,
then you're going to report on the scientific facts which point towards it being as less of a nuisance as it could possibly be.
You know, if you're going to say that the other side is just using sensationalism, then you're going to make it sound as small and minimal as you possibly can, yeah, to kind of like shore up the point of your own view.
Well, even in his own book, Bajorne pointed out that in the next 20 to 30 years, the main research of into climate change points towards natural disasters and changes which will destabilize the global economy to the point where we lose
5%.
I'm not sure if he used the term GDPR, but just gross production of all economy in the next 30 years will be affected
by a factor of minus 5%.
Now, first off, the very fact that he's using just economy
rather than thinking about the effects that the changes will have on individual lives is a little bit too detached.
I realize you've got to sometimes be detached and again, he's downplaying it by kind of turning into a statistic.
But what kind of really struck me there is that he kind of mentioned this statistic early on in his book and then quickly moves on.
20% or sorry, 5% of the world's economy is massive.
Yeah, absolutely.
Like 5%, like I know you can say that, oh, well, with half everybody would still have half or whatever.
No, no, no, 5% means loads.
Yeah, those who are impoverished will go without entirely and it's only those who are absolutely fine that will be left struggling.
Yeah, it's a common factor that when the economy is affected, it's not the people at the top of the ladder that are substantially affected.
It's the people at the bottom of the ladder that suffer the consequences of that economy changing.
Absolutely.
And then he goes on and like starts talking about how taxing non-renewable forms of energy will cause the elderly and those who are impoverished
to not be able to heat their houses or not be able to look after themselves and will put them further at risk.
And it's just like, mate, you've just said that what like if the whole world used pounds, it doesn't.
I'm glad it doesn't.
But if it did, one in every 20 pounds is now missing, is now gone.
And you're now saying that an additional tax on energy is going to impoverish people.
And it's just, I don't know, just there were too many instances where his arguments, which all, you know, they are a lot of them were reasonable about kind of how
trillions of pounds of dollars were going into kind of trying to construct green energy sources and trying to change infrastructure and how we were losing,
how a lot of the older industries are losing jobs.
But that's kind of the way things have to go anyway.
And I will also. I want to, like, let me just cover a couple of those points because there's a lot of, a lot of, I mean, it's really difficult to have such
ambivalent views on, like, obviously there are even to his discussion, there are for's and there are against's. So you mentioned that his viewpoint seemed quite economic driven, economy driven,
which I personally feel that when you're talking about climate change, you actually have to remove economy from, from the discussion entirely.
Because if you start discussing economy, you stop thinking about the planet, you start thinking about selfish matters.
And the fact is, if the, if we don't do something about climate change, the planet will continue to warm up.
There is quite a, there is a very strong argument and nobody's, nobody's really denying that there are debunkers that kind of say against it, like he's trying to.
But you almost have to remove the economy argument from it.
And the, the issue that I've got, I think, and I kind of stand by his argument a little bit because we are needlessly pouring money into green measures.
But it's all kind of, it's all done in arrogance, like, yes, we're creating solar panels, but solar panels diminish and you, all that, all that happens after they've diminished is they go into landfill and creating them is incredibly polluting.
And so they're not green energy at all. Wind turbines barely, barely power anything and yet they stand as an eyesore on the environment and they destroy the environment around them because of the fact they have to be dug into the ground.
There's huge habitats in open nature reserves which have been dug up just to put these massive steel pillars in that barely do anything.
Tidal power, it's a green power, is it? Brilliant. Okay, well it just completely screws with the tidal patterns of the water, it affects the flow of the fish that are trying to keep the waterways, trying to access the waterways and natural cycles like that.
Obviously you understand the concept of if the honeybee and the common bumblebee were to die out, the implications that would have on humanity and the rest of the planet.
It's the same to some degree with every animal on the planet, it has a place, it has a point. So you add a factor like tidal energy and it's supposed to be really green, but it's affecting nature in a different way and that's counterproductive.
The main problem that I've got with creating green energy is that we're not replacing anything, we're adding it on as an extra.
We're building wind stations, we're building tidal power plants, we're putting solar panels on our roofs, but not one coal power plant has been shut down, not one nuclear power station has been shut down as a result.
So we're still doing the same things we were doing before, but now we're showing like we're doing the green thing too, just to try and make that bit of a difference.
I did wonder about that, I will admit, like there's a huge wind farm just above the town of Whitstable on that part of the coast, and yet you would assume that if houses and, well, if areas, if the National Grid switched over to
green, surely there would be a positive, well, a positive media focus on it or celebration of it.
You know, if we were heading towards the Paris Accords, then surely our government would be celebrating this as a way of kind of celebrating its own success, yet you don't really see any of that.
Well, the Paris Accord is, it's about building a percentage of green energy to the amount of fossil energy that is produced, right?
So you have to, as a country, kind of promote and build a certain percentage of, I think it's at least 20% by 2030, they want, isn't it?
I'm going to have to look that up just to make sure that I'm not just chatting rubbish, but essentially the point they're trying to get people to do is increase the amount of green production they have.
But the way the governments are dealing with it is like they're not changing their 100% fossil fuel production, they're building on top of that another 20% worth of power production that is green energy.
Like they're overproducing in order to create that percentage rather than reducing the impact on the environment, they're essentially increasing it, however by minimal points, but they are increasing it because of the other, as I said, the other contributing factors to the planet.
And it's okay because they meet that criteria of 20%.
Okay, once again it's a tick box exercise.
Yeah, I mean it's counterintuitive, it's completely counterintuitive. You're aiming to make a difference to climate change and yet you're not doing anything about climate change, you're just creating more power sources.
Do you think that changing to electric cars, like I know that the energy for the cars has to come from the national grid as well, but is that energy better?
No. Low and short it is no, because have you ever seen lithium fields?
No. No batteries are made obviously, obviously batteries that power cars are lithium batteries. Just do me a favour, look up a lithium field for me.
And listeners at home, do the same, look up lithium fields.
What else come up?
Yeah, they are, I mean you can see the environment they're in, they are poisonous, toxic, they destroy the environment they're in, and ultimately the batteries go bad, when they go bad they're just thrown in a landfill.
They're extremely dangerous, as in like if you short them out they will set fire and the cars go up in an instant. I don't know if you remember when Richard Hammond crashed that electric car in Top Gear.
I know he had to go to hospital and stuff.
Yeah, but the electric car literally went up within seconds, it was incredible, literally half a million pounds worth of car, but the main point of course is that it was the lithium battery that caused the fire.
No, that factor and that factor alone, not to mention obviously there are other contributing factors, like cars are being produced, these cars that are being produced are the microchips are coming from X location, the bodies and the chassis are being built in a different location,
batteries are coming from a different location and they're all being brought together in the same factory, put together, and then they're being shipped out to all around the world. By the time you get to the point where you're in your car making that difference that you want to make, you've already plummeted the economy, plummeted the environment, plundered the environment, in order to gain that little tick for yourself.
Now, as a counter argument to that, back in, oh god, I want to say 1940, there was a carburettor designed, which was tested, tested by Ford, tested by numerous other people as well.
Now, this was a long time ago and this carburettor, it managed to do what cars were designed to do in the first place.
It vaporized petrol into a fume more effectively and it increased the economy of petrol cars exponentially. When I say exponentially, this is like when cars were doing 20 miles per gallon, yeah, like the Ford T and stuff like that were doing like ridiculously low mileage and they slowly got better over the years.
By the time this carburettor was designed, cars were doing about 20 miles per gallon. Now, this carburettor increased the economy to 200 and plus miles per gallon.
Okay, that's far better than what we're currently using.
Absolutely. But what happened to it? I'll tell you exactly what happened to it. The people that were, essentially when this guy claimed to the world and Ford tested it and it was announced that this carburettor could do such incredible things, loads of people ditched their stocks in oil.
And the people that had the oil and had money invested in that lost so much money that they put a sequester on the patent, which essentially means that the American government took it and hid it.
And it wasn't allowed to be released to the public. It was only allowed to be released to the American military. And that was the last you heard of it. The bloke's lab was destroyed.
He was, I believe, the way that he, the way that it ended was actually his assistant destroyed his lab because he was threatened. The guy that designed the carburettor wasn't going to budge on it and was like, no, this has to go out. This is fantastic.
But in the end, his assistant destroyed his laboratory because he was threatened by the people in black suits.
And it's not the only occasion. That was the first time that somebody had designed a carburettor that could do that kind of incredible stuff with fossil fuels. And there was a gentleman in the, I think in the late 70s, early 80s, that somehow managed to keep his lawnmower running by recycling the exhaust fumes.
Now that in itself, he managed to like reproduce this and essentially had created another one of these carburettor kind of situations where it was vaporizing the fuel. And there was another car designed which could do over 200 miles per gallon. He was killed.
And he had a tragic accident. And his design died with him.
There was a gentleman in the 80s, there was a gentleman in the 80s who said that he designed a car that ran on water.
This car was massively secret. He really wanted to keep his secret to himself and he was very tight-fisted about it. He had a meeting with some, I think some Belgian officials at a roadside diner.
And he left the diner halfway through the meeting and died choking outside the restaurant. And his last words were, they poisoned me.
And on his autopsy note, they put an aneurysm as the cause of death. And yet his brother who witnessed him dying said there was no way that he died of an aneurysm. He was choking. He was foaming in his mouth. There was no way that he died of an aneurysm.
And his invention was shelved and never seen again.
I mean this is all terrifying if...
Okay, so that even if... No.
There is a vested interest in stopping these things from coming about.
Absolutely. But what would you say to hybrid cars? Like would you say that those help at all? Like with at least lowering the consumption of petrol or fossil fuels?
As I said, I think there's a vested interest, too much interest in... Like a hybrid car is kind of the best of both worlds as far as like the economy goes. You're spending loads of money on batteries at the same time as you're guzzling fuel.
The only difference is you don't have to charge. I believe you don't have to charge your battery in a hybrid car because the petrol engine recharges the battery and then you can run electric. Right? Is that roughly how it works?
The idea is that you use... The petrol gives you the boost that you need because the battery and like power isn't quite as advanced as the purely electric cars. But it's whenever you brake rather than... Well, you are using brake pads, but there are also diamond...
It's a flywheel, essentially a flywheel. So when you brake, a heavy wheel continues to turn, which like almost like the... Is it occurs thing in Formula One? Where it builds up like boost pressure from kinetic energy on braking in the foot.
And then there's certain points where you can release that almost like a boost of NOS down the straights and stuff. Sounds about the same. I might be wrong, but I believe that's what you're talking about. That kind of theory.
Well, the idea is like as you brake, you're charging up the battery. So yeah, like it's just kind of like using the momentum to charge the battery and then switching to electric when you don't need either large amounts of speed or large amounts of acceleration.
Yeah. Yeah. But the thing that really frustrates me is the fact that there are even better methods, you know, that people have invented. And it's not just those three that I've mentioned.
It's there have been hundreds of inventions that have been sequestered by the American government and stopped by other governments. And we could like, if you want to make such a drastic change to the environment, you would literally put two fingers up to the the financial elements.
This is why I said that you can't bring economy into the global warming argument because the minute you do, you forsake your global warming argument because then you have to create, have to keep the companies happy.
Because it's like the economy isn't necessarily about the little people. It's about the big people, the mega money, the big money. And I think, interestingly enough, as I said, I don't know if I said this on the podcast or just before the podcast, but Al Gore has created a sequel to his Inconvenient Truth called an Inconvenient Sequel.
And in that, I believe he talks a lot about this kind of factor and how money and big money, big corporation money, oil money kind of thing.
They have more of a say on how we approach the global warming crisis than we do. And if anything, the reason we're not able to combat the global warming crisis is because companies, big companies are invested in the factors which are causing the global warming.
Okay.
I think that kind of feeds hand in hand.
So that's interesting because that, okay, so you're saying that the beyonds point is valid in that the current methods that we're using are ineffectual.
You are right in that he has a self-defeating argument where he says, oh, the methods that we're using are incorrect and they're not effective.
But he also mentions that we need to be taken into account the economy because it's going to affect everybody if we don't continue to use these methods.
He does say that he believes that the cost of putting into green, well, green wash and green ways of changing things is greater than the cost of global warming, I guess.
Where I stand with it at the moment, having kind of read a bit of both books, is if one side is, if the most conservative view of the situation is that in the next 30 years, due to the disruption caused to the planet, business will lose 5% of its income in the world or all world business will lose 5%.
If that's the most conservative figure and a number of scientists on the other end are saying that if the carbon dioxide levels keep on going up, the whole planet is going to be screwed.
If the truth lies somewhere in between those two points, then clearly this is something that we should all be doing something about.
And it's made me aware that I need to definitely drive less, kind of change my diet and start making some changes.
But where do you stand with that? Where do you think the truth lies in this? Like, obviously, climate change is real.
And although you could, I know that number, again, in Bajan's book, he does actually, he says he does defunct a couple of people on the anti-climate change bandwagon who say that, oh, well, you know, the nature will buffer this out.
And he kind of points out that he does say that, well, it will to a point, but there will be an effect.
Whereas what Greta says is that nature has been buffering us for the last couple of hundred years.
And it's now literally at breaking point.
I mean, absolutely. And I think you really have to listen to Greta in this instance, because the planet does have its own lung, we say.
And that has been helping massively with the CO2 emissions.
I don't know if you know, but the biggest, like the thing that they call the lung of the planet is actually the Amazon rainforest. It on its own will filter tons and tons of CO2 out of the air every single year.
The problem that we're faced with is that the countries around the Amazon rainforest are burning acres and miles and square miles and thousands of square miles of the Amazon rainforest down.
And we're losing that lung.
And if we lose the Amazon rainforest, we're going to need to build our own CO2 filtration methods to act as trees.
And that's ridiculous. You ever seen the Lorax?
I haven't seen the Lorax.
It's a Dr. Seuss film, and they have a city, I'll just describe it to you slightly, right? There's a guy called David O'Hare who sells oxygen.
You buy oxygen in these water canisters, much like the office water canisters, you know those?
Yeah.
They come into a machine and they produce clean air in your house. And that is to counter the pollution from destroying the trees that was started by the Wantsler when he wanted to make his need, it was called, it was like an Udi Kham scarf thing.
And I suppose the moral of the story is that corporate greed has led to the destruction of the things that are so vital to clean, natural production of oxygen.
That the only way you're going to be able to live is by buying oxygen in a can and then you need, okay, brilliant. That does wonders for the economy because it starts another industry where you can sell clean air in cans and stuff.
Great. We've got another capitalist scheme to combat climate change. It's not a combat for climate change at all.
As a matter of fact, in the film, I think it's really funny, they live in a massive industrial, not even industrial, it's like all fake plant like painted, there's green areas, but they're painted green and there's like electric trees with lights and stuff, like lamps and stuff.
And everything's all walled in so they have this perfect city where everybody gets to do whatever they want, they're all running their own cars and it's so hilarious because it's such a great parody of human life now.
As long as you're within your little society, it doesn't matter how the world changes, you'll carry on doing what you need to do. It doesn't matter.
But another argument to that is that we ourselves as individuals are powerless and like me turning off the lights before I go to bed, believe it or not, I don't do that to save energy, I do that to save my pocket, I do that to reduce the amount of money I'm spending on electricity.
It just so happens that that has a positive effect on me personally using below my net positive of electricity.
If every person on the planet did that, they would absolutely combat global warming at least to some degree. But what that would do is reduce the income for the power companies and cause our power prices to go up because there has to be a counter to the effect it has on the economy.
So then our pockets are affected because corporations like power companies are no longer making their profit.
These companies, they don't aim to break even, they set themselves targets of hundreds of millions of pounds every year. And if they don't meet those targets, we get affected, our prices go up and that affects how we then spend our precious money because we have to make it go further and do more with the same amount of money.
So that's the cost of living crisis that's now happening. That all in turn is almost a counter argument for global warming. Why would you want to conserve energy when conserving energy is costing us as individuals more and hurting us more because the big corporations are still going to take their bit off the top no matter what.
Okay.
Okay, so what do you feel is the answer here?
Like, do you feel that there is a clear cut one other than removing, well, okay, step one remove economy from the table. What would be the next step then to place put things in, what would you next, what would you put in place next?
There needs to be legislation that says that active effort needs to be paid into the production of low energy creation. So I don't know if you've heard of it, but there's this, this, what people assume is a pipe dream, but a zero point energy.
I don't know if you know what zero point energy is, but it's theorized that there is the ability to draw energy out of the atmosphere around you.
I think I've mentioned on a previous podcast, Tesla was trying to do this himself with his Tesla tower.
And the reason his funding, I might add, was pulled is because the guy that was funding him was one of the biggest copper wire creators in America. And the minute he got wind of what Tesla was trying to do and the fact that this would mean that nobody needed copper wires anymore because
like energy would be drawn down out the atmosphere, he went, what are you doing? No, you're not having that. Stop, I'm going to stop giving you the money, you can stop doing your research and they destroyed his laboratory.
But he had some incredible inventions that would have paved the way for clean, real clean energy, not this false clean energy that is produced today where you have the idea, like all you're buying into is the idea of being good and green, real clean energy, energy that is completely free.
There's stories of companies in like the Swedish regions and Finnish regions, a company would go into your house, put a little box on the wall with a wire that went up into the, went up out of your roof, and that would provide you energy exponentially.
And there's machines that have been proven to have been built by inventors, which they produce energy and the most incredible things about these boxes, they're about the size of a cigarette box, one of these inventions.
It could, it would produce the electricity that was demanded of it. And there's a video on YouTube of the bloke that like showing you his invention.
And he's got lights running off it, fans running off it, loads of other machines running off of this one little cigarette box. And he goes, you can add to this as much as you want. And it will just increase the amount of energy that it's drawing.
And that's it. That's all you need. And his lab was destroyed and he was killed. Another person, because it doesn't feed into the wave. It's not farmable.
It's like it affects billions and billions pounds worth of economy. And that's, that's, that's the crux of it all is that it affects somebody's pocket. And when it affects somebody's pocket, we don't want that.
Fuck the planet. Who cares about the planet? It affects the billions of pounds and trillions of pounds that I have in the bank. I don't want that.
Now, as I said, like there needs to be legislation into researching these kind of things with people have found ways to do this. And every time that it's happened, especially in America, one of the biggest things they do in America is every time somebody goes for a patent, it's either denied or it's sequestered.
And you can, there's two, two patterns that you can be provided with in the US. There is a standard public license patent, which is essentially exactly what it says on the box. It will be classed as allowed to be produced for the public use.
And then there's a sequestered patent, which is yes, you're allowed to, yes, yes, you can patent this and nobody's having it. It's now property of the government and you're never going to talk about it again.
Yes, kind of like the most.
Yeah, that's literally the worst kind of pattern on the worst result of going to a patent is to have that sequestered.
Accounts from people that work in the patent office and the amount of sequesters.
There's like 10,000 patents per year applied for and over a thousand of those will be sequestered.
Do you know there's legislation on how efficient solar panels are allowed to be? They're only allowed to be around 20% efficient. Any solar panels too high over that, they get sequestered.
So when you're fighting an argument like that, global warming is no longer a matter for the fight of the planet.
You're fighting against big money and you're not going to win that fight on your own.
As I said, like individually, there is nothing that I can do that will affect global warming in a large enough way because there is always going to be a countermeasure.
Billions of people behave the way that I do. There's always going to be a countermeasure by the people whose pocket effects that's going to cause people to go back on what they're doing.
And as I said before, if you're not swapping your energy production over to green energy and you're just adding on green energy, then you're just doing the same thing. We're still producing the same amount of CO2.
It's painful. It is a painful argument.
Yeah, no, that's it. Okay.
All right, so I guess we'll go back to the film Inconvenient Truth at this point.
I'll be honest with you, I don't have answers to that. I don't have a magical solution there to get past nor can I deny the things that you're saying. They're obviously difficult to swallow and I don't want to agree, but I don't have any proof.
Well, I'll tell you what.
That's not the case.
Dr. Stephen Greer, who I'll be completely honest, I am dubious about. I don't know if you've ever heard of Dr. Stephen Greer.
Definitely look into him. He's one of the people that have started the UFO investigation along with the government in the US.
He started a heavy movement towards the freedom of information and calling for what's classified as the shadow government, the people behind the government, to expose the traitorous behaviors of the shadow government.
And he has said on numerous occasions that the main mitigating factor is that anybody that produces a machine that can do green energy or zero point energy or an engine that can run water or carburettor that can increase fuel capacity by 10 times what is currently achievable.
They all want to make their bit of money off the top. Of course you do. That's the dream, isn't it? To make a couple of million and retire to somewhere quiet and remote.
But if you actually seek to make your money on it, that's not going to happen. You will be silenced before you get the chance to make anything on it.
It will not become public knowledge. It will be secretised. The best thing that you can do if you produce a machine that can do any of these things is to open source it immediately.
Put it out on the internet, numerous sources all at once and go silence this bastards.
You want to make a meaningful impact, you have to put economy aside, you have to put your pocket aside and go, this is how we're going to make change.
That's a fair point.
Although I...
Yeah.
It's, it's hard though because I...
Yeah, once again it's...
Well things can change but it requires other people to make sacrifices.
Absolutely.
Rather than directly ourselves as if we hold the solution. But what we're asking is for somebody to invent something for us which solves the problem.
For the sake of solving the problem.
For the sake of solving the problem and to gain Jack.
Yeah, I know. I know. I know.
I know it's against, it's against us so much of what we're taught as humans. We're raised in a world where you have to, it's a dog eat dog world.
You have to one up everybody else around you and that exact mentality is what is killing the planet. As sad as that is.
But ultimately what you're, what needs to happen and what we're asking is for people to almost go against that trend and go, you know what, side my pocket as much as I would love to make money.
The reality is I will not.
There's a good chance I'll end up dead.
So let me just open source it. Let me just open it up to everybody. It's free energy.
This is how you do it.
Yeah.
Yeah, no.
Do it. Okay. Well, we'll go back to an inconvenient truth like
when it comes to increasing CO2, well to decreasing CO2 to emissions.
Obviously, well what from what you said there the way to combat that is to get a technology which provides unlimited energy or
that just provides energy in a way which doesn't produce CO2 not only through its active use, but in its very construction.
So like, I mean, even if it's just super efficient.
Yeah. Even if it's just super efficient.
It doesn't have to necessarily I mean, I want baby steps. Let's go baby steps here like that carburettor that turned a car into 10 times more efficient a vehicle is still a massive step towards where we want to be.
You know,
as much as that's not that's not free energy.
It is a massive leap towards where we want to be.
And if I can build that in my garage and stick it on my car.
I'm absolutely going to do that.
You know, I affects my pocket. Yeah, it affects my pocket in a very positive way.
B, I'm releasing 10 times less emissions into the environment.
That's got to count for something.
Yeah, that's a fair point.
Okay.
One thing one fact that I did find particularly interesting about the film.
Hurricane Katrina, when it, it passed through it passed over Florida.
Before it hit New Orleans.
Yeah.
It was like I found it very interesting that it was only a category one.
When it passed over Florida.
And then it was traveling over the warmer water.
Yeah.
Of.
Is that the Mexican Gulf?
Yeah, well, that's that area is called.
Yeah, that's so traveling over the Mexican Gulf and the warmer waters off the Mexican Gulf.
That's so traveling over the Mexican Gulf and the warmer waters off the Mexican Gulf.
Yeah, I mean.
And then cause horrible amounts of damage.
I actually wanna create.
They actually want to create a whole new category of hurricane because of the impact.
That global warming is having on the weather.
Like a category five isn't high enough anymore.
They reckon that there's going to be.
I agree.
Like fire.
As I said, fire.
done through the weather because of the warmer oceans.
Now yeah and that's something which in itself is also just terrifying.
Like do you have the have hurricanes something I guess I was wondering and
maybe this is addressed in the sequel. Have hurricanes got worse?
Absolutely.
Since the making of that film.
Absolutely and I don't even need to watch the sequel to know not just hurricanes,
the frequency of storms in like the cyclone belt around the world and the frequency of tornadoes.
We've had one of the wettest winters here that I can remember. I don't think I remember a single
time in my entire history where greens have been completely underwater for as long as they have been.
Even now we only need a little bit of rain and my grass is back to boggy.
The ground still hasn't absorbed all of the water that was produced over the winter.
And it happened last year. I thought last year was bad. It was pretty damn cold.
Ground was frozen quite a lot of time. I was coaching a football team at the time
and I had to call off football game after football game because the ground was frozen
and then when the ground thawed there was so much water in the ground that it was too wet to play.
So we had more games cancelled and that's just the way that I recognise the difference.
But the weather's been changing for years and it's not getting, I mean the summers are getting hotter
and the winters are getting wetter and colder and that kind of volatility is all down to global warming.
I mean there is of course the counter argument that it's down to, I don't know if you know
this phrase but it's called the obliquity of the ecliptic. There's a cool phrase for you.
There's a cool phrase for you and the obliquity of the ecliptic is to do with the planetary cycles.
So there's a wobble in the axis of Earth and it essentially means that, I mean if you think about
the zodiac in the sky right, you've heard the song Age of Aquarius. We're going to go on a bit of a
journey here but bear with me all right. So the song Age of Aquarius, they're talking about we are
entering the age of Aquarius blah blah blah you know. But essentially it's talking about the,
we're coming to the end of the age of Pisces in the precession of the equinoxes which is
a zodiacal precession. It's essentially where the sun rises on the winter equinox
every year. What sign it's currently in and because of the wobble of the Earth,
it over a period of about 32,000 years, it rotates through every single one of the zodiac signs
and we have about three and a half thousand year period in each sign as we go around.
And currently we're at the end of the age of Pisces which has massive religious ramifications.
If you think about Jesus' sign is the fish, that's the age of the Pisces. Obviously we
discussed this before, Moses was the ram, that was the age of Aries and of course in the Bible
they talk about the followers of Moses destroying the golden bull they were worshipping because of
course they came out of the age of Taurus into the age of Aries and then into the age of Pisces
and now we're heading into the age of Aquarius which should happen around 2100.
And this rotation, just to come back to the point, this rotation that the Earth goes through
it means that the polar caps change position. So the counter argument to global warming is that
this is a normal cycle that the planet goes through and that the planet will right itself in the end
and like the coldest point of the planet isn't the coldest point on the planet anymore, that's the
only reason why the ice caps are melting and when the planet settles they'll cool down again.
And yeah I completely agree to some degree that it's playing a part in this process
but we've sped that warming process up exponentially.
Well that's weird because something that Greta does cover in her book is simply the fact that
the current climate crisis is known as the great acceleration rather than you know just climate
change or climate crisis like what the specific term is the great acceleration that the
the planet's heating up at an accelerated rate.
And just to point out I've never read Greta anything Greta Thunberg has done,
or any of her books, I've never read any of her materials, I've never heard a production by her.
Speeches.
This is purely based on the research that I've done over the years and the fact that I can see
exactly the same points that she's seeing and the points that she's making,
it's got to speak for something right?
Yeah. Okay. All right so you were saying that there were some sort of scientific inconsistencies
in An Inconvenient Truth, what were some of those?
I think generally he obviously at the time he was saying that it was global warming,
global warming was the term that was used in the early 2000s and that was that's one of the main
points that people go to when it's debunked, you know when they hypothetically debunk it,
it's because oh they changed the name to cater for the fact that it's now climate change,
it's like things aren't just getting hotter they're getting colder as well and you know all these
things are happening it's not like it's just warming up you know and you know it's not like
it's just warming up, but they had to change the name as a means to address the change in
understanding of what was happening. I don't believe it was an inconsistency I think what
happened over time is we've evolved on from that initial point, he was bang on the money when he
identified or he raised the point that the planet was warming up exponentially and he like of course
if the planet's warming up exponentially you're going to classify that as global warming at first
glance, the more information the more research you put into it and the more data you have to go back
on and like real raw fact that you have to go back on the more you realize that it's changing,
it's not just warming so you have to rename the crisis that you're going through and they've
chosen global climate change as a means to address all of the factors within it. Now I
didn't see many points that were debunkable about Al Gore's argument, as I said a lot of the things
that I found as arguments against his or arguments for his discussion or arguments for inconsistency
in his discussion have merely changed as we've gathered more data and this is why I said earlier
I can't help but think that within the sequel, within the Inconvenient sequel, he addresses those
points because as I said it's not a matter of him going I was wrong, it's him going
we've learned a lot over the last 20 years and this is what we've learned. I was wrong to the
point where it's different, it's a bigger problem essentially, it's not just warming up, things are
changing all around the world. Yeah, okay well yeah absolutely right, Things Are Changing
talks about the change of currents and the change of a number of different
yeah he talks about the change of currents, the change of the weather systems, how this destabilization
will cause problems. When it comes to the rising sea levels, do you think that the sea levels will
rise in the same way as debate?
Yeah I think he gets it bang on the money in that he has quite a good representation of how water levels will change
and people point out the fact that the water levels are changing and the change of currents
is not just a matter of the current, it's a matter of the current and the change of currents.
People point out the fact that like a lot of the Arctic is
iceberg yeah it's a giant iceberg, there's no landmass there it's just frozen water
and if you stand for ice cubes in a glass and fill water around it when those ice cubes melt
nothing will happen to the level of water and that's their argument. However, as he rightly
points out in the discussion, Greenland and the Antarctic is a landmass yeah there's a landmass
there so the water and the snow and ice that is frozen in those areas is not sea level,
it's not in those glasses and I'm sorry but if you fill a glass with water and then you hold an
ice cube above it and let it melt into it it's going to overflow because you are adding water to
the mix so yes water levels will rise and humans have an incredible
ability or an incredible nature to be coastal creatures. I'm pretty sure it comes from the need
to be coastal back in the Ice Age because a lot of the inhabitable areas of the planet surface
would have been coastal so a lot of our original settlements would have been coastal and also as
we evolved we took to the water as a means to get around first and so we've always been quite
coastal people and a lot of the I mean you look at Australia there is only one inland
city in Australia, Alice Springs. All the rest of their cities are coastal they are out on the
they are out on the outer edge of Australia. I know that's got a lot to do with the inhospitable
nature of Australia but it's also part parcel of being a human and human nature wanting to be near
that water and when those water levels rise billions of people are going to be affected
even if it only rises by 20 feet and it's estimated that it's going to rise by about 40 or
50 feet and if it rises by 50 feet then literally billions of people are going to be
relocated. The stuff that he showed was only for 20 feet those huge swath areas were just if sea
level increases by 20 feet. Yeah and he only addresses Greenland, he only as I said he only
addresses Greenland he says if Greenland falls and the water that is in Greenland falls out into the
into the oceans then the water level will rise by 20 feet.
You've got the Antarctic as well which is also the same things happening there
and it's as large a landmass if not larger and that's not to mention the biological impact
of this ice that's been frozen for thousands and thousands of years is going to happen is going to
have with these new pathogens that are old ancient pathogens that get re-released into the atmosphere
the immunity of the human is going to be massively tested. There's going to be I mean if you think of
if you think about the end of days talked about within the Bible and the the like the seven plagues
or whatever it's called like how you're going to be looking at poverty you're going to be looking at
war you're going to be looking at infections and get the name of that one
what's the word what's the word for like dirty and pestilence pestilence that's the one the pestilence
is one of the four horsemen of apocalypse isn't it and like that's that's the coming of the end of
days and when you think about the implications of global warming and I don't mean that this is kind
of where people get the idea that fear tactics are used it's not fear tactics that are used it's not
where people get the idea that fear tactics are used it's not fear tactics it's just putting
aside the emotional attachment of the fact I'm not going to pretty this up it's bad if if we if we
don't address global warming or climate change we don't address it and do something radical about it
the implications on humans is going to be huge and the only thing that will survive
is going to be the planet and that's kind of where people come along with this argument
that the planet will right itself yeah the planet will absolutely the planet will
but there ain't no guarantees that the humans will be still be alive
the only thing that can send it to my experience not my experience but in my research the only
thing that plunges the planet back into a period of cooling is massive volcanic attack activity
or a cataclysmic extraterrestrial impact yeah because essentially what needs to happen
is the sun needs to be blocked out in order for the planet to cool enough to counter the effect of
the the warming of the planet
it's that is something else that weirdly enough was covered in beyond's book about the idea
of releasing chemicals in the atmosphere simply different chemicals to right the problem
well they do that with silver nitrates who induce clouding don't they apparently i have
i have heard something about that recently i know that's a that's a massive conspiracy but it
like chem trials are real silver nitrate is released in the atmosphere and it is a method
of causing condensation within the atmosphere and cloud cover and maybe that's another method
that's being used to counter um secretly to counter global warming but i'm not going to
going to plunge into conspiracies i'm just saying the facts here you know it is it is being used in
the atmosphere at the moment so they're not opposed to using kind of chemicals in the atmosphere
my fear is that it's going to have that massive detrimental effects on the ecosystem that is the
planet
right i'm yeah no unfortunately you've covered uh pretty much all the points there are there any
any questions or um other points you want to throw in there no i think i don't want to just i mean i
quite often feel like i sit on my soapbox in the heat food podcast sometimes like i am very
strong-minded and i think that's a lot of reason why we got into these podcasts um i i have a lot
of views um and i try to challenge those with with good discussion yeah um and like i'm not aiming to
to cause fear but i have to address the fact and and cause and effect what i'm seeing so if i have
terrified the hell out of people or or it's just been a rant from nick for the past hour if it
feels like that then obviously i apologize but um this is the thing these are these this is the
elephant in the room isn't it and this is a lot of reason why we we brought up this topic is because
it is a big topic to discuss and like people there are a lot of different opinions about climate
change
and that's it like i'm i will admit i'm pretty disappointed that all of the things which i kind
of hoped that were good or are being passively put forwards or actively put forwards as the things
that are good aren't that good like i thought the electric cars were uh were worthwhile
um i thought the energy farms like i knew that with tidal energy that they did cause uh
displacement and local habitat damage but i honestly thought that was a good thing because
you're literally using the gravitational forces of the moon moving the water across our planet
in order to generate energy um which in itself you know when you say it like that it's difficult
to see that as a bad thing um it is interesting as i've as i've looked up uh wind farms just here
there is a number of condemning things about them and then also the fact does remain and you're
absolutely right we've got all of this extra stuff but all the old stuff is there working
not not being shut down not being stopped not being anything it's just like putting glitter on
a factory and saying that it's no longer polluting anything um but then again that's that's the whole
conversation of greenwash and uh that's possibly something for another time um yeah that might be
that might be something for another time greenwash and misrepresentation but uh that'll be yeah that
will be something there all right well um listeners thank you for uh you actually you know
what one final question to you nick what do you think if the paris accords are reached that it
will have any positive effect on the environment without countermeasures no okay when you say
countermeasures what do you mean i mean we need to be addressing the fact that there's like what
like what what are we building that are countering the production of co2 in the atmosphere what are
we building that is actually going to consume and reply almost like a tree an artificial tree
you know why are we not creating um machines that behave like tree almost or or as stupid as this
may sound why are we not planting and taking like the issue that we've got is we like humans are so
sporadic and spread out all over the planet and in order to combat and adapt within um the
exponential growth of of humanity as a race and more cities are popping up and therefore
deforestation is happening all over the place the biggest thing here is deforestation um if you
want something that's going to clean the planet up there is nothing more efficient than forests
trees like plant more trees give us more trees because trees will turn that co2 into breathable
oxygen completely free of charge guys let's not be stupid all right um like and if humans could
could find a way of condensing their civilizations into pockets and allowing nature to have the land
back that is the best countermeasure you can have for global for climate change because what you're
allowing to happen is the natural processes that will counter humans existing you essentially
live in a symbiotic relationship with the planet where the planet does its bit to keep the air
clean and the the the ice caps frozen and whatever else is necessary and for the climate to be stable
and humans can continue to produce in the way that they are and not that i see that as a as a
as a sustainable thing but um to countermeasure and it's one of the most valid ones that you can
possibly pose out there yet humans need to condense they need to come together a lot more
yes okay overpopulation creates issues but they're issues that we need to overcome if the planet is
going to survive if we're going to survive as a race on this planet you need to put aside your
own personal differences and live together not just with humanity but with the planet side by
side in symbiosis otherwise we're gonna lose it yeah that's fair enough okay well plant more trees
people um i've been i've been james i've been nick good night guys
so