One of the most urgent tasks of our country is to decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

The ability of c o two to do the heavy work of creating a climate catastrophe is almost nil at this point.

The price of oil has been artificially elevated to the point of insanity.

That's not how you power a modern industrial system.

The ultimate goal of this renewable energy, you know, plan is to reach the exact same point that we're at now.

You know who's tried that?

Germany.

Seven straight days of no wind for Germany.

Their factories are shutting down.

They really do act like weather didn't happen prior to, like, 1910.

Today is Friday.

That's right, Greta.

It is Friday.

This is the best day of the week and not just because the weekend is almost here.

This is the day the Heartland Institute broadcasts the climate realism show.

My name is Jim Lakeley.

I'm executive vice president of the Heartland Institute and your host.

Heartland is an organization that has been around for forty one years, and we are known as the leading global think tank pushing back on climate alarmism.

Heartland and this show bring you the data, the science, the truth to counter the climate alarmist narrative you've been fed every single day of your life.

There is nothing else quite like the climate realism show streaming anywhere, so I hope you will bring friends to view this livestream every Friday at 1PM eastern time.

And also like, share, and subscribe, and leave your comments underneath the video.

All of these very easy to do things help convince YouTube's algorithm to smile upon this program, and that gets it in front of even more people.

Oh, and as a reminder, big tech and the legacy media are not very appreciative of the way that we cover climate and energy on this program, so Heartland's YouTube channel has been demonetized.

So if you wanna help this program, and I really hope you do, please visit heartland.org/tcrs.

That's heartland.org/tcrs, and you can join other friends of this program who help support it so that it comes to the world every single week.

And we also wanna thank our streaming partners, Jungscience dot com, CFACT, What's Up With That, The c o two Coalition, and Heartland UK Europe.

We have an enormous show today.

So much to pack in, so let's get started today.

We have with us, as usual, Anthony Watts.

He's a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute and publisher of the world's most viewed website on climate change.

Well, what's up with that?

We have Sterling Burnett.

He's the director of the Arthur b Robinson Center on Climate and Environment Policy at the Heartland Institute.

And, of course, Lynea Lucan, research fellow for energy and environment policy at Heartland, and Andy Singer is our wonderful producer behind the curtain making sure all of this looks and flows great.

And we are so happy to welcome back to the program Joe Bastardi, big Joe Bastardi.

He's the chief forecaster at WeatherBell, world famous hurricane guy, and a very passionate weather geek.

Welcome back to the show, my friend.

Well, it's great to be back.

It's always an honor to be on with you folks.

You know, anytime I do anything with Heartland, you could tell I'm smiling over here just just puts a lot of joy in my heart.

So I appreciate you guys letting me hang out with you for a while.

Great.

It is our pleasure again to have you back.

And, you know, we wanna talk about the hurricane season, which we're gonna get to here very soon in this program.

But without further ado, let's start as we always do with the crazy climate news of the week.

Hit it, Andy.

Yes.

Thank you very much, Bill Nye.

And so another climate nut turns out to be an arsonist.

Andy, there's slide three on our slideshow today if you wanna put that up on the screen.

Anthony Watts shared this with shared this with us this week.

There it is.

Yeah.

What you think.

So what you think climate change looks like and what climate change actually looks like, this poor soul.

So, you've probably all heard about this this week, the, horrible Palisades fire.

An arrest was made this week.

Let me fill in some of the details for you in case you're not familiar.

This comes directly from our United States Department of Justice.

On the evening of 12/31/2024, Rinder Necht was working as an Uber driver.

Two passengers that he drove on separate trips between 10:15PM and 11:15PM.

That night, later told law enforcement that they remembered Rinder Necht appeared agitated and angry.

After dropping off a passenger in Pacific Palisades, Rinder Necht, who once lived in that neighborhood, drove towards Skull Rock Trailhead, parked his car, attempted to contact a former friend, and walked up the trail.

He then used his iPhone to take videos at a nearby hilltop area and listen to a rap song to which he had listened repeatedly in the previous days and whose music video included things being lit on fire.

At 12:12AM on 01/01/2025, environmental sensing platforms indicated the Lachman fire had begun.

During the next few minutes, Rinder Neck called 911 several times but didn't get through because his iPhone was out of cell phone range.

Rinder Neck then fled in his car passing fire engines driving in the opposite direction.

He then turned around and followed the fire engines back to the scene driving at a high rate of speed.

Rinder Neck walked up the same trail from earlier that night to watch the fire and the firefighters.

Geolocation data from Rinder Neck's phone, iPhone carrier showed that he was standing in a clearing 30 feet away from the fire as it rapidly grew.

Now this fellow is apparently also, he was gonna have another story we're gonna put up on the screen here from Breitbart.

The alleged arsonist was also apparently indoctrinated into climate alarmism and also hated Donald Trump.

What a shock.

Read a little bit from here.

An exclusive report for the New York Post probed Rinder Neck's social media post showing he allegedly ranted on Facebook about a coming eco apocalypse while mocking president Trump and encouraging people to become vegans.

One article he shared, quote, climate change will force a new American migration, unquote, from ProPublica, a left wing outfit, even included a thumbnail showing wildfires raging across a California hillside neighborhood, and that twenty twenty story opened by discussing West Coast temperatures.

I bring all of this up, and I thank you for your patience.

I think it's important to get all that background.

But when this fire broke out in January and devastated and destroyed Pacific Palisades, Everybody was quick I should say everybody.

Everybody left was very quick to blame climate change for this.

Slide four, if you would, Andy, on the slideshow shows examples of the the headlines that we saw back then and that climate change had had, had created all of these things.

So, Lynne, I wanna start with you.

As I mentioned, governor Gavin Newsom in California blamed climate change for this.

Bernie Sanders blamed climate change for this.

And as you can see, many, many publications blamed climate change for this, but it was instead one left wing climate alarmist nut job with a with a mental issue that caused billions in damage, destroyed neighborhoods probably forever, and killed dozens of people.

Well, sure.

I mean, I I think that the the smarter people on the other side of this issue wouldn't say that climate change was the spark for the fire, but they would argue that the, like, unseasonably dry winter that led up to it was caused by climate change, which is false.

It's it wasn't it was unseasonably dry the this past October or last year's October through December, January, which is California's kinda, like, wet season in that part of the country.

But and it was unusually dry.

Things were dried out, but it's happened before.

It wasn't unusual.

What ended up happening was this guy set a fire on the very same day that, like, the perfect conditions for spreading a very severe wildfire were in place.

You know, they had a bad, what they call the Santa Ana winds that were kicking up.

They had, you know, a week or so without rain, so things were kinda dried out.

And even if the entire season hadn't been less with, you know, less precipitation than they normally would get, Even one week is plenty enough.

Even just, like, a couple days is plenty enough without rain to dry out the kind of scrubby grasses and stuff that they have there.

So to to blame this on long term climate changes, bunk.

But I would say that they I don't think that anybody thinks that the, like, fire origin points are caused by climate change, but the spread of it, they'll they'll try to claim is.

I you know, there are a lot of other factors that went in.

First off, you gotta remember, California is mostly desert.

People live there where they didn't live in the numbers, historically.

It was one of the least populated regions in the entire country at European landfall because there wasn't water.

So we've made the desert bloom like a rose with dams, across west.

It also that region had a couple of really good high moisture years previously, which meant a lot of brush grew up, was not managed well, was not maintained because California doesn't like to maintain things.

They like to let nature take its course.

So when it did dry out, when the, when the rain stopped and the weather came back to its norm, hot and dry for a desert, and dried out the, vegetation, it was ripe for catching fire real quickly.

And with the Santa Ana winds, those drive wildfires.

It's in the first time Santa Ana winds have driven wildfires.

It just happened to be in LA this time.

So, you know, a lot of factors, none of which have to do with climate change.

And what, what's interesting you know, not interesting, sad here, a, he was a Democrat, a liberal radical Democrat.

B, he was a climate economist, and yet he was the climate he was the cause.

And, c, he's a vegan, so he he he's supposed to love animals.

I wonder how many thousands of animals died as a result of his vile act.

You know?

And and, you know, you you I'm sure some deer died, some, you know, maybe some mountain lion, but also just lots of maybe endangered jumping mice that couldn't get away from the flames.

Things that they've been trying to protect in California.

He's out there destroying them while he's saying, oh, don't eat meat.

That's cruel.

Yeah.

They it's interesting.

Burning animals alive is cruel.

I put something on CFAQ after yeah.

You know, some of this stuff is like shooting fish in a barrel.

I simply got the eight biggest California wildfires in the last fifty years and showed the 500 millibar patterns.

Every single one of them is a big upper air high sitting over Washington state and creates the easterly flow is, easterly flow is evident till ten, fifteen thousand feet, and it comes down off the mountains and produces a Santa Ana.

And they do this stuff all the time.

So it's unbelievable that you gotta give one thing.

They're relentless.

Yeah.

Well, as a former California resident, I can tell you that looking at the news media over the past ten years, every time there's any kind of a weather event or a fire event, whether it's too dry, too wet, too much snow, too little snow, whatever it is, the media in California, in particular, immediately rushes to blame climate change.

And without exception, they are wrong every time.

And yeah.

But that doesn't stop them from continuing to do it.

They don't learn one damn thing.

Well, I think they I think they do.

I think they do, Anthony.

They just lie.

You know, you guys, especially over the past five to seven years have seen me link.

You know, I I think there's, you know, a a spiritual aspect to this.

There's a lot of evil.

The the people aren't evil, but there's some kind of evil going around today that makes it acceptable to just lie because you believe you have a greater truth than the person next to you.

So I just think they lie.

They can't be they can't be that ignorant.

I mean, I just wrote something about the pope blessing a 22,000 year old piece of Greenland ice.

I would I would very upset about that because that poor piece of Greenland ice lived there for twenty two thousand years, and someone took that ice and brought it to Ice has feelings too.

And I'm not talking about the ice thing.

Oh, no.

Ice has feelings too.

Alright.

I'm signing off.

I

But, you know, I I we commented on that last week.

And and

Oh, I'm sorry.

I was here.

People said, oh, well, you know, the pope the popes bless these things all the time.

It's like, look.

I think that's ridiculous.

They're not insult.

They don't need blessings.

God created them.

That's like taking a bucket of sand from the Sahara and saying, I bless this bucket of sand.

It's it's

I I wrote I wrote a thing on CFAQ, a blog on CFAQ.

You know, I'm a big fan of William f Buckley.

And, you know, he always talks about when when the popes get one foot in the city of God and one foot in the city of man, they're gonna get ripped apart.

So I didn't mean to get us over to the pope over here.

So, Jim, take back over again.

This is what happens when I'm on no.

Everything just becomes chaotic.

But you're right about this, though, Joe.

Evil is is out there.

There's a lot of it.

And the but it but the lying the the the noble lie goes back at least to Plato.

He described it well.

People who think that they know what's best for the world, they have special insight.

And I look at that guy, and I don't see someone who has special insight.

But they they think they have special insight.

So it's okay for them to do evil things and lie and tell you that it's for your own good.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I agree with you.

Alright.

Let's let's let's move on here.

We're going to go to item number two.

And this we came across this this week.

Actually, I found it on x.

This is a story from Bloomberg News with the headline.

I couldn't resist.

Headline is a chart climate denialists can't ignore.

Alright.

Well, we reject that characterization, but not the challenge.

Alright.

He writes, this and the author of this is, is an opinion writer who concentrates on climate issues as an opinion writer, I guess.

He writes, every now and then you come across a piece of evidence that feels strong enough to cut through the noise and change minds.

Zeke Housefather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth, recently produced a stark illustration of just how quickly the planet is heating up as a result of the greenhouse gases humans pump into the atmosphere.

It's a chart published in his Substack newsletter, the climate brink, breaking down the percentage of the world's land that has experienced its hottest month on record in each decade since the eighteen seventies.

That's quite the claim.

It reveals that very little of our land surface experienced such records before the twentieth century.

In contrast, roughly 78% of his temperature records in the twenty first century and 38% of records in the twenty twenties despite the fact that the decade is only halfway done.

He writes once more with fewer numbers, the world is getting hotter and fast.

And, I think the one it might be the chart above that one that he he shows, and then he shows that one right there.

So that's fine, Andy.

We had a response to this.

I figured that we must have a response to this at our climate realism website, and Anthony Watts did one.

He has a he has a post today just posted this morning says, no, Bloomberg.

One chart does not provide the world not prove the world is getting hot fast.

Okay, Anthony.

Challenge accepted.

Walk us through.

Well, they've got one graph that we can't deny supposedly.

I have three.

So let's take a look.

Let's scroll down a little bit, Andy.

Let's go to the first graph.

Scroll down.

Scroll down.

Keep going.

There it is.

Okay.

So this is the annual heat wave index in The United States.

And this is extracted from NOAA USHCN data.

It was compiled by the EPA and our world and data also took that same data and put it together.

And the bottom line is is that in terms of heat waves in The United States, well, all of that occurred during the Dust Bowl period of the nineteen thirties.

And we are not seeing an increase in heat waves, which basically translates to a lack of new records and so forth too.

We're not seeing a whole lot of new records presently, although that graph that they showed might be factually accurate.

But what's missing from it and let's go back to their original graph, Andy.

Scroll back up.

There the graph that they presented shows this, you know, hockey stick like jump.

Go back up, Andy.

That's the blue one.

There we go.

That one there.

So, you know, it's just like man's hockey stick.

And so what's going on here?

Well, yes, there are new climate records being set.

But are they real?

No.

We've got so much bias associated with a station signing that I've proven over 90% of all the weather stations operated by NOAA in The United States are biased and cited improperly.

They are biased to the warm side.

So when they're biased to the warm side, no surprise that they're gonna set new record.

The second thing going on is UHI.

There's a tremendous increase in UHI throughout not just The United States, but the world, and, we see so many more weather stations in cities than we do in rural communities.

For example, the majority of city temperature measurement stations are at airports.

You know, they're out in the middle of the tarmac and the asphalt, and then you aviation has grown.

There's more waste heat.

There's more asphalt.

There's more tarmac.

There's more terminals.

All this stuff contributes to higher temperature records.

So, yeah, there's the that data, and it may be plotted accurately.

But is it really representative of client of of climate?

No.

Not at all.

Let's go further down, Andy, just to the second graph after the first one.

Not that one, the next one.

There it is.

Now this is the US climate reference network.

This is a pristine set of temperature stations that are sited away from human influence.

I've visited a number of these.

Not that one.

It's the other one.

Thank you.

The this is a record of the high temperatures recorded by the USCRN in The United States.

It's a network of a 114 stations that are state of the art and pristinely cited.

Where's the big increase?

Not there.

Gosh.

Why?

Well, because it's away from the human influence.

It's away from the UHI.

It's away from the badly cited situations.

They're not there.

That is representative of climate, not their graph.

And now the final graph, and this one is from our friend Chris March.

This graph, you also uses UHHCM data, and there it is right there.

And it shows the number of days above 95 degrees, 100 degrees, or a 105 degrees in The United States.

Now if in fact we were getting hot fast, like they say in the headlines, we would not see a flat line like that.

I mean, look at the look at the days above a 105.

That's flat.

The days above a 100, also pretty much flat.

Yeah.

There's some little spikes in there.

But, again, the biggest spikes were all of these hot days back in the nineteen thirties.

So three graphs to theirs, we win.

Well, and if you and if you take the if you drew a trend line, I suspect across that, what you'd find is a declining trend.

I mean, look at where the spikes are.

It's the thirties, maybe the fifties.

It's it's too small for me to see them all, but, all the temperatures all these temperatures here, you know, in the past are higher than they are right now.

Right.

But they wouldn't draw a trend line for that because that's inconvenient.

Yeah.

Well, I what's there is more water vapor in the air, so a lot of the warming is from nighttime lows also, which would go with the UHI.

I mean, here, if you're gonna increase the dew point of the atmosphere, it effectively puts a cap on how low the temperature could go.

But it also means that you get cloud development quicker, and it's a sign that the mid and upper levels of the atmosphere are certainly not warming up that fast because if they were warming if they if they were warm if they were warming, we'd be able to get the hotter temperatures, but they're not.

So you get a lot of cloud formation.

You can get more rain.

You get more precipitation.

And the the range it's actually opposite of what they say.

The range in temperatures from nighttime lows to daytime highs has actually been decreasing.

So you might have a higher mean temperature, and what they love to do is, as our good friend Chris Martz says is he said several times, I've used to say it also, 60 degrees is not hot.

59 is not hot.

They go hottest ever.

It was 59.4.

And I'm like, who goes swimming at fifty nine point four?

So, it's it's it's another one.

Coach KL Sanderson here at Penn State has a saying, so what?

Right?

Something happens and he goes, well, so what?

Like, if it's this hot, look where look where human beings are today.

Look at the progress man has made.

So if it's fifty nine four instead of fifty nine two or whatever the heck it's supposed to be, so what?

Yeah.

You know?

But that's the problem with the the climate alarm is a media.

They look at these highly magnified, you know, wiggles in temperature.

You know?

They look at these anomalies between fifty nine point four and fifty nine point eight, you know, and they amplify that into graphs that shoot up.

What's funny is our success as a planetary species for instance, we have air conditioning.

You're a Washington Post writer.

You go into work at 07:30.

It's 74, seventy five degrees, two point sixty nine, alright.

You're in an air conditioning office all day.

You come out.

It's 92 over 74.

Oh my gosh.

This is unbelievable how hot it is.

Right?

Same person working in the 19 fifties with no air conditioning.

Right?

It's so what?

So a lot of this is because we acclimate ourselves to the nice cooler conditions in our buildings that, that fossil fuels have helped produce, then we come out and start screaming about how hot it is.

I have climate anxiety.

I can't stand it.

We'll get my car.

I gotta the windows weren't even rolled down.

It's just a terrible, terrible burden that we all have to continue to bear as human beings because of point two or three Celsius warmer than what it was fifteen years ago or whatever.

It's horrible.

It's a horrible thing.

Indeed.

Alright.

Well, good good good commentary and good debunking of that, Anthony Watts.

Then you can go to climaterealism.com.

That's our website that has stories just like that every single week that debunk what you see in the mainstream media with actual facts and not alarmism.

Alright.

Let's go to our next story.

Are inhalers causing climate change?

This comes from CBS News.

Headline, inhalers produce as much carbon emissions as over 500,000 cars each year, study finds.

In I'll read from it here.

I'll read read it here for you guys.

Inhalers that provide fast acting treatment for people with certain respiratory conditions and are contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, which can worsen both climate change and the conditions themselves according to new research.

In the study published Monday in the Journal of the American Medical Association, researchers found inhalers approved for asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD generated an estimated 24,900,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in The United States from 2014 to 2024.

This is the equivalent to the emissions of about 530,000 gas powered cars each year according to the study.

Quote, scaled across tens of millions of inhalers dispensed annually, these emissions drive global warming, exasperating the very respiratory conditions inhalers are meant to relieve, authors of the supplemental editorial note of, of the findings.

Twenty eight million Americans have asthma, and thirty four million have chronic lung disease according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

These cases are expected to grow as climate change makes air pollution worse, increasing the risk of and severity of symptoms.

Now, Sterling Burnett, you picked out this story for the show today, and you think this is not just silly, but maybe a little bit evil.

Explain.

Well, I you know, the group doesn't call itself this, but I think they should call themselves doctors for, population decline because they wanna kill people.

I'm sorry.

There's no evidence, no evidence whatsoever, that higher c o two emissions are making people sick.

But there's a lot of evidence that if you take away their inhalers or if you make them less effective, people will die from asthma and COPD.

They have to breathe.

I'm sorry.

They made these inhalers worse a few years ago when they took out the CFCs that used to power them.

They made them less effective.

All to fight the ozone hole.

So let's kill a few people to fight the ozone hole.

Let's kill a lot more to fight climate change.

That's what these doctors are saying.

We well, let's not use these things.

And the the claim that these things are causing climate change, first off, you can't show that automobiles are causing climate change.

You can't show that one small segment, you know, proportional I think Anthony did the the calculation.

It you know, there's several there's 1,600,000,000 cars or so on Earth.

This amounts to 500 thou emissions from 500,000 cars.

So it's a a minuscule percentage, and cars are a percentage of, the c o two emissions overall.

It's it's it's a ridiculous and dangerous editorial.

I say, again, editorial.

It's not a study.

And the opinions of these doctors, they're dangerous.

I wouldn't want them near anyone I loved treating them for illness if they think climate change is more dangerous than going without an inhaler.

Yeah.

I I it's inhalers.

The exhalers are the ones that are causing the problems.

We exhale a 100 times.

I just stole that from, one of the other people that, that just, chatted in.

I saw what he said.

He's exactly right.

It's the our lungs hold, all that c o two.

So here's what you gotta do.

You gotta try to hold your breath thirty to forty five seconds out of every minute starting now.

But you're right about one thing, Joe.

The exhalers that are dangerous are the ones that wrote this editorial and the ones that allowed it and the ones that allowed it to be published.

Hey.

We finally found a way to get jump and started to stop talking.

Hey.

This is a great study.

Anthony?

What?

I kid.

I kid.

I kid.

Alright.

Anthony, you wanted to jump in here?

Yeah.

I did.

I mean, this really boils down to simple mathematics, and I put together the math.

I did the math.

Here it is.

As of January 2025, estimates from Hedges and Company put the total number of vehicles in the world at about 1,644,000,000.

Other sources say 1,500,000,000.

So we'll use 1.644.

Divide that by 500,000, the total number of cars that supposedly these inhalers make emissions equivalent to.

We do that division, and we get that tiny number of point zero zero zero three zero four one three six.

Multiply that times a 100 to get the percentage, and ta da.

500,000 cars or the equivalent of the inhalers impact represent point o three percent point o 3% of the number of cars on Earth.

And, of course, if we remove inhalers, that'll make a huge difference.

Yep.

It it it

just Even

if you believed even if you believed every molecule of c o two was driving warmer temperatures, which I don't think we can say, honestly.

Yeah.

Yep.

That's that's a 100% true.

And, you know, there was just a part of this we'll move on to the next moment.

There was a part of the story that, you know, they again, it's there's this conflating of carbon dioxide emissions with air pollution.

That's why people need these inhalers because of air pollution.

Well, carbon dioxide is not air pollution.

They're talking you need an inhaler if you have asthma and other chronic lung diseases, not because there is a there is a slight increase of c o two in parts per million over the last five years.

That's not why you have asthma or COPD, and it's not air pollution.

So.

Well, but but even air pollution is not necessarily the cause of asthma.

Right.

Most sure.

A lot of allergies in COPD, COPD, a lot of them come from smokers, but a lot of them come from allergies, allergens in the air.

We don't typically think of pollen as air pollution because it's not emitted by humans, but that causes a lot of or dander from pets, from animals.

100%.

Alright.

Listen.

We have a lot to get through here.

I do do wanna get to our main story here, but we have one extra crazy climate news of the week, and this is actually a kind of a check-in on a prediction.

Strong tornadoes are still rare, apparently, when we were told they wouldn't be.

Anthony Watts had had decided or thought we might wanna talk about the this this week.

This is from CNN.

The first e f five tornado to strike The US in over a decade was just confirmed by experts.

I'll read a bit from it.

A rare monstrous e f five tornado that struck The United States more than three months ago was the first of its kind in more than a decade.

A tornado that roared through parts of Eastern North Dakota in June and killed three people was upgraded Monday to an e f five with winds greater than 210 miles per hour, the National Weather Service in Grand Forks, North Dakota confirmed.

E f five tornadoes pack winds of at least 201 miles per hour and, are the highest level of the enhanced Fujita scale, the scale used to determine tornado strength.

Tornadoes this strong are rare.

Only 60 tornadoes of e f five strength, including this one, have been recorded since 1950.

Despite the rarity of such a monster, the fact that there hadn't been an e f five tornado in more than a decade didn't sit right with some scientists.

A study released in August dove into this so called e f five tornado drought and posited the lack of these high end ratings had more to do with potentially imbalanced damage to the rating scale than the power of the twisters themselves.

The August study argued that adjusting the definition of an e f five tornado down slightly to a 190 miles per hour would result in an e f five frequency that's more consistent with decades past.

Well, gosh.

You think?

You lower you lower standards, you get more of what you want.

Yeah.

Now, Anthony, you mentioned here that there are some headlines were telling us pretty recently that this shouldn't have been a rare e f five tornado.

We should have had plenty of e f five tornadoes.

Time Magazine 2014, extreme tornado outbreaks are on the rise, study says.

ABC News 2023, is tornado alley shifting due to climate change?

Scientists explain how warming climate affects tornado activity.

Washington Post 2025, March was an active month for tornadoes again.

Here's why.

AccuWeather had a headline in 2025, how climate change is influencing tornadoes.

Weather forecast now this year, how climate change is shaping tornado patterns in The US.

Climate control journal this year, will tornadoes get worse with climate change?

And finally, with Climate Cosmos also this year, Tornado Friends, is climate change creating more dangerous storms?

Anthony, this seems like yet another prediction in the wind.

Yep.

Absolutely.

Well, you know, it's just amazing how much they will go for trying to link worsening weather to climate change.

And every time you scratch the surface of this and you don't have to look really hard.

You don't even have to be a meteorologist to figure this stuff out.

All you have to go do is look at some data and some of the headlines.

And the bottom line is is that the prediction about worsening tornadoes has not come true.

And even the IPCC says in their AR six report that they see no linkage between climate change and small scale weather events like tornadoes.

Just not there.

And if you go to climate at a glance and look at our tornadoes on The United States page, you will see a graph that shows a clear downward trend.

And that downward trend has been sustained for quite a while.

And it's all for the stronger tornadoes, the e f threes and higher.

They're just not getting worse.

It's just that simple.

Even though, you know, I think back in 02/2005, Al Gore predicted it and a lot of the media predicted it around 2009 to 02/2014.

You know?

And, of course, anytime there's a tornado outbreak, they immediately jump on it and say, climate change.

Climate change.

Climate change caused this.

Here's the proof.

Here's the proof.

Well, there is no proof.

Look at that graph.

There's your proof.

There's one graph that climate alarmists can deny.

They do deny it.

Let me point out.

You know, you read this story, and and if you look at the details of the story, it sound it turns out that f five tornadoes aren't that rare after all.

60 since 1950.

So that's 60 over seventy five years.

It's not quite an f five a year, but it's more than an f five every two years by a long margin.

And so what we've had here is a real f five drought.

That means that it was 59 over sixty five years.

That doesn't sound that rare.

They're just making and and and they wanna fix it.

We don't like the fact that it's rare.

So let how do we fix it?

Like Jim says, you lower the standards.

You want more people to make it in the elite military?

You lower their standards.

You want more, people that are unfit to make it as firefighters?

You lower the standards.

Well, you want more you want more climate alarm, you lower the standards for f five tornadoes.

Joe Bastardi, welcome back.

Leneo, also welcome back.

It's nice

to have you to

of the show.

I I had to go because normally if my dog is barking, I just ignore it because it's like the mailman or something.

But she was barking in a particular way that the last time I heard her bark like that was when my neighbor's dog was in my yard killing my chickens.

Oh.

So I had to go look.

There was nothing.

It was, of course, nothing, but she was extremely upset.

Oh, good.

The chickens are safe for now.

Alright.

Jump jump to start.

Do you wanna say anything about these this tornado story we've been talking about right now?

Well, I I'm speechless because they do this all the time.

It's the same thing like, where the heck did the data come in for hurricane Audrey, which was a category four hurricane in June, and then all of a sudden, 75 later, we found out it was a category three hurricane.

So they did they adjust stuff.

You know, we just had a record, by the way.

They named the storm at forty five degrees north in the North Atlantic, and the climate alarmist, they're gonna say this is a hurricane, a tropical storm, a subtropical storm.

They're say, look at that, forty five degree north.

The darn water temperature there is 60 degrees.

So they do this stuff.

And, you know, I have this all this theory about what you see in the weather and climate is what goes on behind the scenes in a bunch of things today that, you know, this whole authoritarian thing and, we have the official idea.

I don't care if it's climate gate or I shouldn't say climate gate, you know, Russiagate or whatever gate it is, Hunter Biden's laptop.

There's always some kind of some kind of manipulation going on.

And the key to propaganda the key to propaganda, folks, is always telling an element of the truth, but making sure the entire picture is hidden.

Right?

So you just dwell on the one thing that might be true or might not be true.

I I I gotta tell you something.

A lot of this stuff is I actually laugh at it today, but the problem is they're not going away, these people.

And if you get a situation where the politics of the country turn again, they're coming full blast again with all this stuff.

But in the meantime, a lot of this is quite amusing to me.

Right.

Well, that's why we call it crazy climate news of the week, Joe.

It is.

It is.

Because I get put this stuff on Gutfeld show, you know, crazy climate news.

I'm I'm I'm I'm just serious.

It is nuts.

Yep.

Yep.

Alright.

Well, that does it for that.

We are gonna get into our main topic today and with which is why we have renowned hurricane expert, Joba Stardy on with us today.

But before we get into that, I want to make an announcement here that the Harlem Institute has a second edition of our best selling climate at a glance book.

Little shameless plug here.

You can go maybe Andy can bring it up on screen.

You there's an Amazon page for it, and it was today.

Anthony Watts has been hitting refresh on the Amazon page all day, and we saw that we were number one in the climatology category as of this morning.

So among all books on the climate category, climate at a glance second edition, 40 facts on prominent, climate topics is, number one.

It's, it's one of the number one new releases, and it's number one in climate.

It is if you actually, what's fun is if you go to the page, you can see that our book is right there next to a book of one Michael Mann.

And he, I am certain Michael Mann, is also refreshing his his Amazon page over and over and over again because he just released that book last week, and it must burn him and make his brain hurt to see our book right there next to his.

So

And above his in many categories.

Yep.

There it is.

Yep.

See, there it is.

You can get to Climb at a Glance, 40 prominent topics at amazon.com.

It's, actually, what is it now?

If you scroll in actually, I'll I'll scroll in and see it myself.

What what's what is that right there?

Where is it ranking?

Yeah.

Number three in weather books, number four in, earth science, and number six in climatology today.

Look at no.

Look at the top.

Underneath the title, it says, that's the most updated, usually.

Yep.

Number one new release.

So

Number one new release.

Congratulations.

Yeah.

We've been working on this book, an update for this book for a while and not in small part thanks to the feedback we get from this show and from the people in the chat that it was time to make sure that we had the latest data on all of those, climate topics that we bring up on this show.

Anthony and Sterling, congratulations.

James Taylor, our president, was also a contributor to this book.

So you can get that now.

And I would actually encourage when you get that book, when you order this book at the very, very affordable price of $14 or so, leave a review.

Leave a five star review.

If you buy the book and leave a review, that is a super good thing.

So, encourage you to do that.

Thanks for supporting us and the program and the book.

Yeah.

And I would like to add that when you get the book, on the inside cover, there is a QR code where you can scan your phone and it'll send you to a link where you can download a free digital PDF copy of the book.

And then you can proceed to email that copy to all the people that think you're crazy for doubting climate change.

Yep.

Yeah.

I know what that's like to be pushing the button when I release the the weaponization of weather.

The Saturday morning that after I released I guess I was on Tucker Carlson's show on a Friday night or something like that.

It was number 23 in the world, one behind Michelle Obama's book, and I kept pushing the button to see, please, god, just let me get, like, one rigging above Michelle Obama, but it was not to be.

You can always dream.

Yep.

Should've had you on

the show to

help promote it.

You would've made it.

You would've made it with our help, Joe.

Alright.

Yeah.

I I I actually am writing another I keep trying to start to write another book down about climate just called for the love of the weather or thank god for the weather or something like that.

But I I I it's all it's like that, you know, senator Kennedy, the guy from Louisiana has the book out and stuff.

That's how it's gonna be.

It's gonna be all funny stories or you know, all the stories are gonna be true.

Some of them are be bizarre about all the different things I've encountered in this journey that God's blessed me with.

It's just I I sometimes I think about it.

I go, how wild is this?

A geek?

I've been a geek since I'm a little kid, and look what look what actually happened.

It was pretty cool.

That's great.

Alright.

So, yeah, so go to amazon.com, Climate at a Glance, second edition, 40 facts.

You'll you will not regret it.

It's a very good book.

Very easy to read and actually a very good reference manual as well for any argument you may get into with, friends or family over the holidays on climate.

Alright.

Let's get to our main topic for today, and that is, the hurricane season.

We've been hinting at doing this, for quite a while now.

And it's about time because, you know, we've been running well.

You know, maybe when a big hurricane hits The United States, we'll we'll we'll bring on somebody like Joe or our friend Stan Stan Goldenberg to come on, two of our favorite hurricane experts.

Stan couldn't make it this week.

Not that you were second choice, Joe.

I'm just saying we were gonna have both of you on again.

But, we thought it's time to go over the hurricane season because, you can bring up the Wikipedia page.

This is Andy, please.

This is, I suppose, the one time we can trust Wikipedia.

They do have an easy to follow summary of the twenty twenty five hurricane season, and just two storms formed in September, Gabriel and Humberto.

Neither made landfall in The United States.

And in fact, September was the first hurricane free September for hurricane landfall in The United States in ten years.

There are many forecasting organizations, and the predictions of hurricanes this year ranges from 10 to 18 named storms, six to 10 hurricanes, and two to five major storms.

So far this year, according to the Wikipedia page here, and I have no reason to doubt it.

It's just simple adding up.

We've had 10 named storms, four hurricanes, and three big ones.

So, Joe, you are the world's foremost hurricane historian.

But before we get into the past, what's happening in the present?

Why the heck haven't we had a hurricane hit The United States yet?

Well, first of all, this numbers game, I think, is a joke that we play every year with how many storms they're gonna be and all this.

Most of them even even the worst years, more storms are out in the middle of the Atlantic than they are hitting The United States.

And it's just an exercise in how many bunch of theologians, how many how many angels you could stick on the head of a needle.

I don't like playing that game as far as numbers go.

I have to play it because everybody wants a forecast.

And we had I guess we had 14 to 18.

We had five to nine hurricanes or what I forget what it was.

I actually had a a a smaller range because I 10 to 18 storms?

I mean, come on.

Like, I was like, Michael Mann, one year had 23 to 41 or whatever the heck he had.

I'm like, you can't make a range that big.

You know?

So we so but what we we've always pioneered at WeatherBell is impact.

12/07/2023 put out hurricane season from hell.

The red zone, and you saw where all those tracks went.

This year, we felt it was gonna be the Central Gulf out into the Atlantic near Bermuda.

That's where we had our red zone.

And what's going on so far is it's probably shifted east that red zone, that area where we're seeing the highest amount of ACE.

It's about 400 to 500 miles to the east of where we put the red zone.

So we had four to six impact, what we call impact storms, two or three of them hurricanes, one or two major.

So, obviously, that forecast is overdone.

The problem is you you the Madden Julian oscillation is rotating into phases two and three here over the next ten to fifteen days, and you still have the opportunity of these late season storms.

I tell people all the time, you know, look at 1985 when you had hurricane one hit Louisiana the October, then Cape came in and hit Florida November.

So I suspect we're going to get some kind of development, pretty far west in The Caribbean, before this is all said and done that may come up and take a swipe at the Southeast Part of The United States.

But look, the overall what you're seeing in the Atlantic, the chickens coming home to roost.

Alright?

And I've been trying to get the attention of the weather and climate community for twenty years about what's been going on in the Western Pacific.

The Western Pacific Basin, which is home to 60% of the Northern Hemisphere ACE index, has only had two years out of the last twenty above normal.

Everything is collapsed in the Western Pacific.

That is very, very important because if you're going to play the climate game with this kind of thing, you don't just look at the Atlantic.

The Atlantic is a a very small ocean compared to the entirety of the Pacific.

So what we've seen this year is, again, the Western Pacific is down.

A lot of the a lot of the way the atmosphere is trying to balance that out is in the Eastern Pacific where the ACE index is actually a bit above normal.

Then we go into the Atlantic, and the Atlantic's a bit below normal.

But you get a you get a late season storm like a Mitch or what was it?

The, what was the hurricane in?

I guess it was 1931 in The Caribbean, which broke the ACE record in I guess it was in November.

It was unbelievable storm, how strong that storm was so long.

Then all of a sudden, you're seeing it's above above average as far as that goes.

But the numbers, this number every year, it's it's a red herring.

What do you care if there's 20 storms and none of them hit The United States?

So this year, we just had our eleventh storm named this morning.

Unbelievable.

They're naming storms at forty five degrees north where the sea surface temperatures are 60 degrees.

Now it looks like a tropical storm because it is a warm core system within a cold atmosphere.

In other words, the the atmosphere that is in the North Atlantic, it does have a warm core where that system is, but it's only warm relative to how cold the North Atlantic is.

So where are we gonna start drawing the line with stuff like this?

In the meantime, well, just a second.

In the meantime, two and a half weeks ago, we had an eye, we had a storm come from water that was 83 degrees off the North Carolina coast go drop some houses into the ocean in North Carolina, went into Virginia Beach with an I and no one names it.

So, you know, the inconsistencies are tough.

What do I tell my clients?

Get you you know, you got a horse with no name here, but it's still stampeding over your your beaches.

So, yeah, it's a it's a interesting situation with that.

I think they're cheating on the eleventh one.

And the reason I say that is this.

Typically, you don't name a storm until it's a tropical storm.

You don't name tropical depressions.

You give them numbers.

You don't name subtropical storms.

You give them numbers.

Well, no.

They've done that before.

Naming a subtropical storm as if it's a tropical storm.

No.

They've they've named subtrop my problem my problem with it is it's not anywhere near water that is objectively warm enough to support what we have always used for tropical storms.

So and and by the way, there's been a couple, Tom Downs at Weather Bell and I, we call them ham sandwiches.

These mysterious storms that get named out in the middle of nowhere and you're looking into a strato q swirl out there or whatever.

And it's true.

The the core is probably warmer relative to the to the atmosphere around it.

Yeah.

Look.

The great the great president's day blizzard of nineteen seventy nineteen seventy nine, not the '78, not the New England blizzard, the seventy nine blizzard.

Right?

Have you ever seen the picture of that perfectly formed eye about 50 miles southeast of Atlantic City?

It was a warm core system within the very cold air around it.

We've seen some of these things, these eye features form over Lake Superior and Lake Michigan with snow squall outbreaks come down.

So I I agree with you that that it should not have been named, but it's simply because of the criteria that the water is so darn cold out.

They get you get storms like that all the time out there.

You know?

But let me ask you this.

Why would they name that and not name the storm that so Charles Roder just said, I'm not very inclusive.

Charles Rodder just texted me.

I'm not very inclusive.

Stop distracting me, Charles.

But what why do you name that storm, but one that's actually causing houses to fall into the water with an eye like feature in the middle of the hurricane season that doesn't get named.

I'll tell you why it didn't get named because no one hatched it a few days before.

That's how cynical I am.

If they don't lion dog faced pony soldier.

They're not gonna name it.

But overall, I've been I've been trying to tell people this numbers game is ridiculous.

It's where they go, how much they impact, who they impact.

That's what we're concerned with at WeatherBell.

And, you know, we have clients in The Bahamas.

We have clients all over the place.

And part of the reason you're seeing this, by the way, is the warming that has taken place is influencing the Indian monsoon.

And whenever the Indian monsoon is further north than normal like we saw this year, alright, we had we had no early season cyclone activity in the Arabian or Indian Ocean, I should say.

Okay?

When that happens, the African wave train is displaced too far north.

It's it's more diffuse.

And Willie Soon and the Connolly's have been talking about what's going on with the Hadley cell.

The Hadley cell has been weaker than normal.

So what we're seeing folks is a spreading out of the entire energy pit picture.

We don't we're not seeing the, incubation of energy in the deep tropics anymore.

You understand that?

So what the climate climate people don't understand is two things.

One, if you're gonna talk globally about it, let's talk globally.

Well, why why are you avoiding the Western Pacific, which is home to most of the ACE?

Secondly, even though if it's warmer, there may be more total energy, but if the energy is spread out, right, if it's spread out, what happens?

What's the impact on the tropics?

Well, think about this, think about this.

If it is warmed more in the North Atlantic and North Pacific than it has in the tropics, right?

What does that do to the vertical velocities?

Think about if it's warmer to the North and it's hasn't warmed up as much further South, well, the vertical velocities are weaker.

And that's why you're seeing the increase in outgoing long wave radiation in the Central Pacific and in the Tropical Atlantic because we have less cloudiness in there.

We have less cloudiness, so you're getting storms to develop a lot of them further north, and they're much more compact than what they used to be.

The big monsters that when you come across, you know, if we had the nineteen forty four or thirty eight hurricane today, these people would be going out of their minds.

They have no idea.

You know, you get a storm like Helene, which was big or Aaron, which was big, and they, oh my gosh.

Look at this.

Those storms used to be relatively commonplace back in a colder time because the the where they developed, they could focus the energy better rather than having to develop further north like we've been seeing.

You know, a lot of the hurricanes that hit The United States are not even hurricanes three days before.

They rapidly intensify because they're very compact relative to the big storms that we saw before.

Yep.

Well, we have oh, Anthony,

you're you just pulled a gym.

I know.

I'm sorry.

I had ear problems.

I think with the thing to talk about here is the fact that the climate change is killing the Hadley cell.

Let's make that the big banner thing now.

Right?

Well, that's interesting, Anthony, that you bring that up because because what what's happening here look.

We none of us deny that the climate changes.

I've made a living on analogs.

It's a you you okay.

I'm looking at this hurricane season.

I said, Joe, for the last ten years on blogs, you've been talking about what's going on in the Pacific.

You knew that it had to try to come to the Atlantic because the atmosphere is always trying to balance out, and yet you you missed it.

And and so yeah.

I'm very good.

I believe I have a lot of talent that when I'm corrected, I generally absorb the punishment, and then I don't get fooled again.

Right?

But what bothers me about some some of the things that have happened to me in forecasting is I knew in the back of my head to watch for something like that, and yet I didn't hit it when it came along.

But what what has happened is that distortion of warming has to affect the global wind oscillation, the sea level pressures across the globe, and that in turn is affecting the amount of convergence that we have in the tropics.

You're spread out.

There's still it's still warm.

There's still upward motion, but it's not focused in the main development region.

You notice what's been going on also that the hurricane seasons are no longer well.

Let's just go up to September 11 and come down after that.

They're convoluted.

The two big storms last year came or two of the big storms last year, we shut down for a while, and then we came back up late.

And the reason that's happening is is because when the atmosphere begins to cool, like, in in the in the autumn season and the mid and upper levels of the atmosphere is still warm, what you're doing is you're actually getting a mechanism to try to focus the heat.

And I tell you what's really having a big impact, and a lot of folks who follow me know I've turned into a Manjulian oscillation fanatic.

And I've I've used that religiously to try to help out and pick out periods where I thought things would be active.

And a lot of her other hurricane forecasters do that certainly also.

Yeah.

Jump.

It's impacting things because there's both destructive and constructive interference of the Mount oscillation.

And when that starts happening, you're going, oh, what the heck?

You you can't the computer models that are looking at the Mandjulian oscillation, they can't see what it's gonna do until it actually starts doing it.

Given its importance into the input and the hemisphere weather pattern, hurricanes and wintertime.

You know that the same phases that are favorable for late season tropical development in the Atlantic Basin are the same phases that they come back around forty forty or fifty days later are favorable for cold outbreaks in the, Eastern Part of The United States, phase eight and one of the mad Julian.

Of course.

So

so, Joe so, Joe, basically what basically, you know, the next thing they're gonna do is they're gonna say that climate change is affecting the Coriolis force.

Right?

Now but we gotta get to questions.

We gotta get to questions.

So let's go to that.

Yeah.

We gotta we gotta get to the q and a.

Before we get to that

excellent.

I'm gonna try

drum roll.

Yes.

Before we get to that, we need to thank our sponsor, the sponsor of this fine program, and that is Advisor Metals.

If you listen to a lot of conservative channels on YouTube and other streaming services, you hear tons of pitches to buy gold, silver, and other precious metals.

There are a ton of companies out there, but we wanna tell you why you should trust our sponsor, Advisor Metals.

It's the man who runs the company, and his name is Ira Brashatsky.

He is the managing member of Advisor Metals, and he does not employ high pressure tactics or deceptive marketing ploys like many in big gold.

He also doesn't deal in so called rare coins.

When you buy gold and other precious metals from adviser metals, you're dealing in quality bullion, and that's so much better when it comes time to liquidate this very valuable physical asset.

And when you buy from advisor metals, you will have your investment sent discreetly directly to your own home.

And I must note that Ira is advertising, on this program because he is an America first patriot.

He does not donate to democrats.

He refuses to work with proxies of the Chinese Communist Party, and he, like us, abhor the machinations and schemes of the World Economic Forum in the United Nations.

We are very proud to have Advisor Metals as a sponsor.

So if you wanna diversify your investment portfolio, if you wanna back up your IRA with real physical bullion of precious metals, please go to climaterealismshow.com/metals.

You can leave your information there, and Ira or one of his team will get in contact with you and make the entire process very easy.

Again, go to climaterealismshow.com/metals, and also be sure to tell them who sent you because that helps us and this show while you're helping your financial future.

Again, climaterealismshow.com/metals.

Alright.

It is time for q and a.

Take it over, Lanea.

Those googly eyed fiends cut me off.

Okay.

Alright.

Let's see.

We've got a lot of good questions today.

You do.

Need to unstar some that were from last week that somehow popped up again even though I unstarred them last week.

Let's go.

Alright.

I'm trying to find a good hurricane because you press I know.

I know.

I know.

Sorry, you guys.

This there's, like, a ton of questions from last week that are stuck here.

Alright.

I'm gonna pull up this one from Lichi two who's over on Rumble who asks, although ocean temps have gotten warmer, the air aloft has also gotten warmer so that there's been no increase in CAPE.

Is is that why hurricane activity has not increased despite warmer waters?

Well, hurricane activity certainly has increased over the last ten years.

It's the Western Pacific.

It's the Western Pacific that has been down, but the Atlantic, the past ten years, this year being the exception, has has been above normal, I believe, what, eight out of 10 of the last ten years.

But the Atlantic's a very small basin.

I I look more with the vertical velocity patterns and the vertical velocity patterns that you could just take a look at the outgoing long wave radiation the last fifteen years versus, let's say, the nineteen fifties and nineteen sixties.

The Alkone long wave radiation is much greater because there's less cloudiness and chances are the reason is less cloudiness is less upward motion in the tropics.

And the other place where you see a lot of think about if you see a lot of cloudiness over Southeast Asia and Africa, it means that you've got more convergence over land masses.

And more convergence over land masses means that the easterly winds in the Tropical Pacific are stronger.

We're in almost a perpetual La Nina state, and people think, well, La Nina, that means it's gonna be cooler.

No.

All the La Nina is is a resistance to the warmth.

It's not actually doing much cooling because if you look at the temperatures, I don't care if you look at doctor Spencer's site or any other site, the temperatures are going up, and they're going up relative to the warming of the ocean.

The question is, what's warming the ocean?

And, I could get myself in trouble with this, so I'm not gonna go into that right here.

But the the mid and upper levels of the atmosphere have have warmed some.

But, I mean, if if we're going to look at this, we have to understand that the warming, if we're gonna use the Atlantic Basin as a metric for that, just go look at the the hurricane seasons over the last since since a big the big super nino of sixteen, most of those hurricane seasons wind up with above normal ACE.

But they're they're they're developing further north, and we have more scattershot storms in the middle of nowhere in the Atlantic.

Alright.

Thank you.

Let's see.

High turbine or hit Irvine.

I'm not sure which one.

It says, do solar flares heat and expand the ionosphere increasing height of the troposphere stretching the core of hurricanes like a skater pulling their arms in increasing velocity of wind?

Above my pay grade.

Someone else Yeah.

I don't know.

I don't know that either.

When I don't know something, I say I don't know.

I mean, you know, there's so many things I don't know that well, I know a lot less than I do know, put it that way, so I don't have any answer to that.

I'm not sure if anyone on this team knows the exact answer to this one, but I can give a shot a at it.

So Montana Joe asks, weren't the Quebec fires from last year or maybe two years ago started by climate wackos?

So I think, you know, there are a lot of arsonists out there.

The majority of fires that end up being wildfires are caused by human beings, but it's usually not arson, like intentional arson.

Usually, it's someone dragging a chain behind a truck and it lights brush on the side of the road or somebody, like, dumps out hot coals when they're grilling or something and it lights the field on fire.

It's that kind of thing.

However, I do think that there if I recall, there were some arsonists involved in the in the Quebec fires specifically from last year, two

years ago.

There were some arson there was there were some arsonists.

There were some like you said, most of the fires that humans said are accidental.

Cigarette lit cigarette tossed, campfire gets out of control or isn't put out properly.

You also get some lightning fires every year.

And I'm sure that some of the fire from Canada were also set for lightning.

What made them so so bad was that they have, had decades of, fewer than normal fires and a lot of buildup.

They stopped logging entirely, almost in in Canada.

I mean, well, not entirely, but over large portions of Canada, they're protect protected.

So they had a lot of fuel buildup, and then they had the one, you know, the one year when all the different factors came together.

Drought, after multiple years of of good moisture, high temperatures, and then you have the spark, whether it was arson, accident, or a lightning fire.

And Chris Nisbet asks, do Americans have regulations similar to those in Australia regarding protective measures homeowners have to implement against fires?

Oh, you're doing a gym, Anthony.

Sorry.

I've been dealing with the headphone problem.

Some places they do, some places they don't.

There's some parts of California that have wildfire, rules, setback rules, that sort of thing, and other places that don't.

I would say the best answer is it's a hodgepodge of rules and and not particularly effective.

And some of the hodgepodge create the problems.

I mean, you've got rules in California where they say you can't cut back.

You know, they want natural they want it to look natural.

Or they've got environmental, in the past, they've said you can't clear certain brush because it's protective.

It's habitat for endangered

Right.

Mice.

So, okay, we create a fire hazard by protecting the mice, which then is their habitat is completely destroyed when the fire comes along.

Genius that.

Toasting it for little things.

It is kind of funny that it's got them.

Okay.

Alrighty.

We have a request from a viewer from Kim who says, can you guys recruit an oceanographer for a stint to explain to the folks about the hysteria over ocean current collapse?

I've been trying to get the word out.

Yeah.

I mean, if we can find an oceanographer who's on our side of the discussion here, we can definitely have them on.

That'd be fun.

Even if they're not.

I would point out that we have had in climaterealism.com.

We've had stories on all sides of that.

You know?

The the ocean currents are collapsing.

The ocean currents are getting stronger.

The ocean currents aren't changing.

The bottom line is is that climate science can't seem to make up their minds, and they've been doing this now for over a decade.

They even had that crazy movie, you know, The Day After Tomorrow based on the collapse of the AMOC, you know, and all the freeze comes in and everything else, And it was totally bogus.

And even doctor Gavin Schmidt of NASA gets said that it was a bad movie and not representative of science.

And you know when he's saying that.

You know?

Well, anyway

There was the there the even better version of that, which was South Park's the day before the day after tomorrow.

So and and there, the cause was a beaver dam break, the world's largest beaver dam.

But in any case, Anthony's right.

It's all over the map.

Some studies say it's speeding up.

Some say it's it's declining, and then they predict different types of effects from the decline.

And and some say it's staying about the same.

You basically get the same message about ocean currents as you get about monsoons, the Asian monsoons.

Oh, they're getting worse.

Oh, they're getting not as they're not as strong, so we're gonna starve because people won't have the flooding every year they use for agriculture, and it's staying about the same.

They can't you know, every new study comes out, breaking ground, and whatever is happening, it's climate change.

Yep.

And related to that oh, I'm hearing some echo on my end.

DJ Bo says, I hear from time to time that the Gulf Stream is collapsing.

If it's warming, wouldn't that tend to strengthen the Gulf Stream, if anything?

No.

It may be.

Yeah.

Well, if it's warming the theory is if it's warming to the north, then once again, you're you're affecting you're impacting the the normal.

So yeah.

I just I listen.

I once had a guy I worked with, great meteorologist named Frank Brody, and he'd always say to me, anything can happen and probably will.

That is what climate is about.

Anything can happen and probably will over a long enough period of time.

This is strengthening.

That's weakening.

This is going on.

That's going on.

And, you know, we should be actually grateful for it because it gives us a chance to all get together with these shows every once in a while.

Although all of you all of you, congratulations, are gonna get combat pay because that's a prerequisite if I'm gonna be on with you.

But Yeah.

Look.

I would point out that the span of of natural processes on Earth, particularly in the meteorology, are far longer, you know, than human lifespans.

And so we don't remember a lot of things or even notice lots of things, you know, unless we go back and look at paleo data or whatever.

There's lots of change that goes on in the earth that's far extended in time compared to the human lifespan.

And so we don't know a lot of things yet.

We're just scratching the surface of knowledge.

And so the claims that are being made today are based on incomplete data.

The other problem is the claims are being made as if we have a a closed determinative system, cause and effect.

Ray c o two have these effects.

It's one to one correlation.

It's not.

We live in a chaotic universe and a chaotic climate system.

We have a variety of factors that aren't modeled well, that aren't even taken into account, like, cosmic, rays, the solar activity, its impact on clouds, ocean currents, volcanic activity, subsurface volcanic activity.

None of these are captured in, climate models or captured well, which they admit, typically.

But they're convinced that things have nothing to do with it because we live in a determinative system where the only thing that matters is human caused greenhouse gases.

That's bunk.

We live in

a chaotic system.

Let let me let me ask let me ask this question actually based based on you we're talking about the Gulf Stream.

Now the my understanding is the British Isles are more temperate than their latitude would suggest because of the Gulf Stream.

Do we know and then there was the medieval warm period.

You know, we've talked about it on the show a lot how, there were vineyards, that that Greenland was actually green and that, you know, they were growing wine grapes on the British Isles.

Do we know what caused the medieval warm period?

That was the Roman warm period when we had Vikings in Greenland.

Okay.

But still, do we do we has has anyone come up with with an answer for why?

I mean, this this goes to what you were talking about, Anthony, on how weather and climate changes far extend beyond human knowledge and and and all of that.

So do we know what caused those warming periods in the past?

We know it wasn't SUVs and and coal fired power plants.

I suspect it's the same thing that's causing it now.

I I the the the ocean's warming the way they are set up certain patterns.

You know, if if you if you watch every day, for instance, on Weather Belt, we have a computer generated global temperature.

Alright?

If you ever watch that computer generated global temperature, whenever Western Europe and The UK and Northern Africa and that area is above normal, you'll see spikes of the global temperature.

So what I believe is happened is you may have a very similar setup now with the oceans as you did, you know, during these warm periods.

Because, you know, if you if you went to Penn State, the one thing we always looked at at Penn State was what was going on in Europe.

Because if we see Europe get real, real cold, we know, okay.

The trough's gonna try to come into the Eastern Part of The United States.

If if you see Europe get warm, we had a say, ridge in Spain, warm up in rain.

You know, the models would be saying, oh, big snowstorms coming.

Not with that ridge centered over over Western Europe like that.

So looking back at those periods, you may have had a La Nina base state.

What do I mean by a La Nina base state?

It means that Asia, the Western Pacific, Western Europe are quite warm.

This increases the easterlies in the Pacific Ocean.

And if you look at what happens a lot of times when there are La Nina's going on, I'm not talking about the real strong ones, you'll see a lot of very warm weather in Western Europe, a lot of very warm weather in the Eastern Part of The United States.

So it's just just something I'm throwing out there just because of observation.

Well, one of the things that they say probably contributed to the depths of the little ice age is the Maunder minimum.

Sun's the the really extended period

of Although it's a warm period.

Yeah.

That's after the warm period.

So we, you know, I mean, I see, there there's also there's also the idea that the atmosphere will react different warm coming off a cold.

Like, if you look at the models this year, seven out of seven out of we're in October now.

Seven out of 10 of the months, if you look at the European the month before, it was out of touch on what was going to happen the following month.

It would always turn out much cooler than what it had.

I hadn't seen that happen.

Usually, the models the models oh, they look warm.

They're gonna be warmer.

That's been a different that's been a different story this year, and I wonder if the drop off in global temperature and to some extent the water vapor that we we see going on now as we come off Tonga and the strong El Nino a couple years ago, maybe having some impact the other way.

With a fascinating winter coming up, folks, we've just had a major major stratospheric warming event in September over the South Pole, and these are correlated with cold winters in The United States.

They're also correlated, believe it or not, with a lack of hurricane activity to some degree.

I was looking at this, I was going, oh my gosh.

I never even thought about that.

I'm gonna have to think about it now watching this the South Pole in September.

Alrighty.

I'm gonna pull up a question from a viewer that I have not seen in our chat before.

He could have been in here before, but I like to try and get to the people who are new.

So welcome Wayne Wideman who says, who does the so called global average temperature?

Are the data and calculations open for public scrutiny?

I'm wondering if they consistently use the same methods all the time.

Well, first of all, it's well, let me just say so before.

It's a horrible metric.

John Care has been yelling about this and god rest his soul.

He said, what we should be quantifying if we wanna quantify it is wet bulb temperatures, better still saturation mixing ratios because they'll go right to the source.

The source is how much water vapor there is, right, rather than the the global temperature.

It does exist.

I know there are people that say, doesn't It does.

But what does it really mean?

I think it's a third rate metric as far as that goes.

So someone else take it.

Well, the bottom line is is that the the data is available publicly.

The calculations, not so much.

Here's the problem.

There's a black box that goes on at NOAA.

Now NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, collects all of the data in The United States, but also collects all of the global data.

And they produce something called the Global Historical Climatology Network, GHCN.

Now the problem that we've got is that they have published what we do to the data to adjust it and correct it, but we never get to see the code that goes on.

There's a black box.

And this black box, basically, is, something that runs on their supercomputers.

Well, it doesn't need to these days.

You know, back when they first started doing it, yeah, you needed a supercomputer, but now you can run it on a desktop PC.

The problem is we have never been able to test their code to see if in fact their code is doing it right.

And what we have observed is that seems to be a continuous warm bias associated with every adjustment that they do to the temperature data, from the raw temperature data up to the final published data that they distribute.

Now add to that that there are several entities out there such as NASA GUESS, CRU in The UK.

We've got BEST in Berkeley.

We have the Japan Meteorological Agency.

All these different entities are taking this data and then adding their own secret sauce to it and then producing their own version of global temperature.

None of them match.

They are somewhat close at times, but they don't match.

So what's the real temperature?

I have no freaking idea and neither do they.

And add and add to that, Anthony, what we've discovered in the last, you know, few years is that so much of the measured measured temperature data comes from stations that don't even exist anymore.

Yeah.

But it's gotta be

caught out publishing temperature data from no station at all.

So has about 30% of some of the The US stations have either moved to new locations, and they just pretend it's the same place, or they just don't exist anymore.

They were closed.

Yeah.

But it's it'll gotta be warming up.

Look.

You can't you can't Your camera's gone.

Shut your shut your monitor down.

You're you're you're cut

off.

Camera.

Yeah.

You're like you're like Tim Allen's neighbor in home improvement over there.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Listen.

You can't run from the sea surface temperatures.

You can't run from it.

I mean, I people, oh, so we don't know if it's warming.

Yes.

It's warming up.

It's warming up disproportionately because if you look at the relationship saturation mixing ratios, you'll find that there is a correlation between water vapor and temperatures, and it's much, much, much, much, much greater where it's cold.

So the the distribution of temperature is explained by the water vapor.

The increase of water vapor, it can be explained by the increase in sea surface temperatures.

So it comes down to what's actually warming the ocean.

I refuse to believe that c o two has any major impact that we could measure on the ocean temperature.

Therefore, circle back to water vapor.

Water vapor is the key.

And look, I'm biased toward my professors.

I'm biased toward the tropics.

I'm biased to all these guys that came before, my dad, John Care, Bill Gray, all of them.

So I realized what my bias is, but I'm gonna speak it anyway.

Oceans, oceans, oceans, tropics, tropics, tropics.

That's what I think where the shooting match is.

And no one wants to quantify the water vapor.

How about that?

Well, let's measure c o two, but don't go quantifying the water vapor.

I did a I did a blog on C Fact, a little chitchat with Grock about water vapor.

And I actually got him to admit, or it, or whatever it is, that as a stand alone, if you just say, just like these people wanna make c o two a stand alone, if you make water vapor stand alone, then guess what?

It's responsible for almost all the warming you've seen in the last fifty years.

Someone's asking, is is satellite data on ocean temperatures reliable?

Yeah.

Much more reliable than air temperatures in my opinion.

Yep.

Alrighty.

So I wanna get to this question by Brian Porter too, who asks, what happens with intensities of hurricanes when global temperatures eventually turn to a colder trenders trending cycle?

They're gonna be intense.

Yeah.

And I if you can focus the energy more, if you can cool the Northern And Central Atlantic so you could just keep it nice and warm where they're supposed to be, That's why these storms were such monsters.

That's why I'm so big on replacing this Sappers Simpson scale with our power and impact scale, which met which has has metrics for the size of hurricane force winds, how much 50 knot winds, 34 knot winds.

You you'll get the monsters back again like we used to see in the good old days where, you know, 09/04/1933, the ultimate ultimate hurricane geek map two majors hit The United States on the same day.

How about that?

Do you imagine the fact that happened to them?

It'd be terrible.

Talk two two major hurricanes, though.

David Vaught asks or Voigt, one of those, asks, I quit paying attention the last week or so, but what happened to the two hurricanes that had potential to cross paths?

Did they run into each other?

It was a Sayonara effect instead of the Fujiwara effect.

Humberto broke Humberto broke the ridge down to the east and Imelda followed followed it out, but they did a lot of they did a lot of rearranging of prime beachfront, especially in the Carolinas, which is going to get rearranged even more this weekend with this non name feature coming up.

Yeah.

The waves have been pretty nuts on the beaches.

It's been red flags for weeks up and down the beaches in South Carolina.

Very, very, very happy that it was a sayonara effect because that were they were eyeing me.

And I was thinking about, like, do I have to, like, wrap my chickens up in newspaper and put them in the car or something to take them away before I was I was getting ready to bug out.

Let's see.

The okay.

Here's a question from HitTurbine who says, has anyone on the panel heard of the electrical theory of tornado generation and strength?

I've heard of it.

Let's not discuss it because it's not real.

Oh, okay.

Let me just let me just say something.

I was over with doctor doctor Tim England, I guess it is, at Texas A and M, looking at his research, and I was just gawking at what I was seeing.

They were showing the the, you know, they were showing focusing of lightning.

Now I don't know if this is the same the same thing, but when lightning focuses in one area, it's showing you where the tornado may show up.

When it's spread out all over the place, tornadoes aren't showing up.

I I would I was absolutely mind boggled boggled at sitting in this guy's office.

Like, a cumulus cloud goes over the weather station in College Station, and you see electrical charges coming out of that cumulus club.

I mean, it's a sunny day.

I'm like, what the heck is this stuff?

Way above my pay grade, though, but I was fascinated with what I saw.

Yeah.

Well, when the the lightning concentration is a symptom, not and and not a driver.

So anyway

It's a symptom.

That's that's a but it still gives people advanced notice.

That's why cutting research to lightning, I think, no Esmoyd BN.

Yeah.

Let's see.

Well, we've got this is kind of a personal question for Heartland from Montana, Joe, who has watched us for a long time who says, a few weeks ago, Google admitted it throttled channels that it didn't agree with.

Have you asked them to remonetize the Heartland channels because of that admission admission?

Brief answer?

Yes.

They're probably still Jim,

and you're constantly asking them to remanimate.

Brief answer is silence.

They they they they you in they they allow you to wrap on the door every 90.

And so we will let as soon as the clock dings, we do it again.

Yeah.

We had to reset the clock.

And he nailed it spot on.

Yep.

We had to reset the clock a couple months ago because I held up a gun in front of the camera in on Yeah.

In the tank on Thursday a couple months ago.

But that's I was something.

Right.

Right.

Let me get mine.

Yeah.

Wait.

No.

Don't do it.

Smooth smooth moving.

We just got the

clock back.

It go.

It was it was for demonstration purposes only.

It was not threatening.

It was just forget it.

It wasn't loading.

Did not pay attention to the tip.

It was painted orange.

It was a Nerf gun.

Okay.

For real.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Definitely.

It was a Nerf gun.

It was a Nerf gun that I was showing the firing pin.

But Chris Nesbitt asks, are long term climate models any use at all?

Could we save a lot?

Okay.

What happened?

Andy, I'm I'm clear

I'm sorry.

It was about me, and I got excited, and then it, like, overran my actual production.

I'll drop.

I got it.

Are long term climate models any use at all?

Could we save a lot of money by giving up on them?

Well, every climate model is predicting some sort of doom by 2100 or 2150 or 2200.

Now tell me if that's useful in your everyday life.

It's useful as far as, you know, just interesting science computer tinkering goes, I think.

But

Yeah.

I I I constantly am told that the computer models are improving all the time, and yet the the range of temperature is never shrinking.

If they're getting better, then the range of predicted temperature should be narrowing in on a number, and yet they're not.

They're always staying about like this, whether it goes up or down, the gap is about the same.

And that tells me they're not very effective.

I want weather models to tell me what's going on this week and next week.

I don't want a climate model to tell me what 2100 will be like because there's no way of knowing at all.

Yep.

Absolutely.

I think that's all the time we have you guys.

I'm sorry if I didn't get to your question, but we are right up on the, half hour here.

So I'm gonna hand it back to Jim.

Alright.

Yes.

Thank you very much, Lynne, after the q and a.

Thank you so much to everybody in the chat.

I was just mentioning in the private chat behind the scenes here what a great and good audience that we have for the Climate Realism Show.

Watching you guys interact in the chat and leaving us questions is so rewarding.

So as a reminder, bring more friends to watch this show live.

It's a blast, and you learn a lot.

I'd like to thank our special guest today, Joe Bastardi.

You can find more about him and learn more about him at weatherbell.com, and he also writes a substack, I believe.

Is that correct?

Joe Bastardi, The American Storm?

I'm on Twitter as the, The American Storm.

I blog on CFAC all the time where I don't get too too rowdy.

Yeah.

Yeah.

When they let you in there, when you when you calm down.

Yeah.

So, yeah, that reminds me to actually thank our streaming partners, one of which is CFACT, which Joe Vastardi is affiliated with, plus junkscience.com, The c o two Coalition, Climate Depot, what's up with that, and Heartland, UK, Europe.

Thank you, Andy, for producing so wonderfully behind the scenes.

And please visit climaterealism.com, climate@aglance.com, and get your copy of climate at a glance second edition at amazon.com.

And always visit heartland.org, where you can subscribe to Sterling Burnett's climate change weekly newsletter.

Thank you all again for being here with us this week, and we will talk to you next week.

Bye bye.