In the United States, we often refer to our main sources of energy as fossil fuels.
Oil, natural gas, coal, their fossil fuels, because they come from fossil,
ancient, organic, material, forest, jungles, plankton, dinosaurs, held under
the ground for millennia, they transform into oil, gas, and coal.
Everybody thinks that's true.
On the other hand, there's evidence that maybe it's not the whole whole story.
If that's where fossil fuels come from, that's how hydrocarbons are made,
then how come they're found so deep under the oceans and at the top of the earth?
How come one of Saturn's moons, according to
scientists, has more oil and natural gas than earth?
Were there dinosaurs and planktons and forests at one point on one of Saturn's moons?
Probably not.
So if all hydrocarbons aren't from fossils where
they from, and why isn't this commonly known?
And what are the implications of it?
And what does it tell us about our modern climate change policy?
These are not just esoteric questions.
They're central questions.
Actually, as we chart the future of energy usage in the world.
Willy soon has been thinking about this for a long time.
He's an astrophysicist, a geoscientist.
He spent 31 years at Harvard.
He recently left, and he joins us here.
Dr. soon, thank you so much.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
Be able to come on your show.
Well, it's a blessing to have you.
And this is such an interesting question with so many implications.
Yes.
And I want to spend most of our time talking about the implications.
But just to the strict question of where hydrocarbons come from, it sounds like
they're not necessarily all from ancient forests or plankton or dinosaurs.
Are they?
Yes.
The story can be a bit long, so give me a few minutes to explain.
You are certainly right.
But most important to clarify is that the information that is
found on the largest moon on Saturn, which is called Titan.
Yes.
It's actually results from NASA, European Space Agency, and the Italian
Space Agency, who built this spacecraft called Cassini.
And how you can actually, one of my thesis advisor
committee is actually built the UV spectrometer.
But the one that they use to discover this, basically the ocean liquid form of
methane, which is in 18 ethane form, which is much
more complicated hydrocarbon, is whole ocean of it.
Because Titan is in such a way that is very cold, by the way.
So it's minus 290 degree Fahrenheit.
Yes.
And it's in 10 in 10.
Where is the global warming there, right?
If it's full of methane there, right?
That's another problem.
Because it's far away from the Sun.
That's what it is.
Yes.
And clearly that the question of A biogenic method,
which we don't know need of any biology, is true.
Because we know actually one experimental experiment was done in 2009.
It was done in Swedish Royal Academy, one of
those groups, but it's done by one Russian leader.
He was able to show that if you squeeze methane, CH4 in chemical formula,
so 4001 carbon, squeeze them in a form that in which they simulate the condition
of the earth mantle, which is 1800 mouse deep below the surface, because the earth
is deeper, right?
You've got benzene, you've got ethane, you've got all these other stuffs for me.
So they prove beyond that you have such a way to make this.
Plus that Titan prove beyond that.
You actually see methane also in all the atmosphere,
Jupiter, you even find benzene in the rocks of Mars.
And then for me astrophysicists, I can tell you even more.
You find this complex hydrocarbon core polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon.
It's another one of those complex hydrocarbon.
Then actually you found an interstellar space between space within stars,
intergalactic space.
Because temperature there are coal and probably the right pressure condition.
All this complex hydrocarbon is kind of incredible because all of us, including
myself until very recently, assume that all of our
main energy sources are these so -called fossil fuels.
And of course their existence is going to be limited by the
amount of fossils by the amount of decaying organic material.
So if that's not so, then we need to rethink a lot of things.
A lot.
I think this one fit into a paradigm, a famous economist that I like very much.
His name is Simon.
Do you know about this guy's name, Simon?
Julian Simon.
Yeah, the key guy, you see of Illinois and then Maryland.
He was the guy who said that the ultimate resource of humanity or earth is actually
not all this material thing like uranium go.
Because uranium, the far more uranium in the oceans than on the land, right?
You have 4.5 billion tons of uranium in the ocean.
You have only 17 million tons of gold copper.
What do you want on the ocean?
It's all there, except in very dilute form, clearly.
So the ultimate resource actually is not that, it's the human mind.
It's the innovation part of it.
I think I'd like that principle a lot.
It fits very well in terms of saying that it's all a matter of course.
Even oil.
Most, I don't know if any of you know the audience know that 50 to 60 percent of the
oil, or actually other oil that you already drilled the drill hole.
Yeah, you can only pull out 40 to 50 percent of it.
60 percent of that remains in it.
Because simply because it's not enough pressure to get it out.
This is why the idea of A by organic oil is interesting.
It's true, clearly true.
It's all a matter of course, really.
Because this thing has to form way inside the earth,
the mantle, which is 50 to 100 meters miles, right?
Human.
How deep have we ever drilled?
Only the skin, which is only 5 miles maximum, 5 to 6 miles basically.
That's at most that we can drill.
And then all this stuff has to permeate into the reservoir.
I got this information from the top.
People that physically have to look for oil every day.
One of my friends, Joseph Lime Cooler from Beacon Energy, offshore energy.
Those are the guys who worked day in and they are to bring us the energy actually,
the oil that we need.
So why don't most people know this?
Why do most people think that the gasoline in their car was by definition?
They have to be limited.
Yeah.
That there's just a tiny amount and it's going away.
The oil is full of untruth and half -truths, right?
That's a whole problem, right?
That's why for so long, even the idea that we are not limited and bounded by
availability of, let's say, gasoline, petroleum or coal.
Coal now, they won't allow us to use, right?
Yes, you know, in cop meeting in Dubai that just ended a day ago.
They just physically declared himself that we should stop using fossil fuel.
Basically, petroleum, natural gas and even coal.
All right, these people are insane.
They're really insane.
I think they're going to harm more people with their own delusion.
Plus, I always remember, these are people who actually don't represent a majority.
Since when are this put up to work?
It's always about this minority, the tyranny
of the few, always robbing the whole census.
The good census of the good people.
This is part of the reason why as a scientist, I also speak out.
I mean, not afraid of anything, except for just telling the truth.
And I'm glad to have this opportunity to say such thing in your show.
So, I mean, if we haven't been told the truth
about where hydrocarbons come from and we haven't.
I mean, I've never met a single person in my life who
said, wait a second, they're not all fossil fuels.
Then, we keep hearing there's a scientific consensus on climate change.
Every scientist believes the same thing about it believes Elgor and John Kerry.
Maybe that's not true either.
Oh, then I can tell you, please.
Thank you for asking that question, Tucker.
I've been working on this subject of CO2 causing climate change or what other
factors we can ask that cause climate to change.
For close to as long as since my postdoctoral year
1991, I saw it's about 30 to 31 years, 32 years.
And on this question, I think we have a very definitive answer.
What we know now is CO2 ain't gonna cause nothing.
It's not gonna change much of the climatic system,
which means it won't change the speed of the hurricane.
It won't change the how fast or how frequent tornado form.
It won't even actually make any difference with the polar bear population.
It's all conservation issue, right?
On polar bear.
It won't even cause how much fish you don't catch or catch, you know?
It won't even cause what they call ocean acerbic.
It won't even cause this problem that they claim.
It's all artificial, everything they do.
It's all dream from their model and the tyranny of the fuel again.
That those few people just dream up this scary story that is just ain't true.
And then when you come down to the most responsible group for this kind of bad
stuff, I was reminded by my colleague Dr Ronan Connolly and Michael Connolly.
My two co-worker with me on my group is to say that since, you know, since I work so
carefully and I have about more than a hundred scientists last three years alone
working with me.
So I don't speak on behalf of them.
I speak on behalf of myself.
My view is that the UNIPCC United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
is one of the primary problem, which means they have misleading people.
They've been using authority of science, which is not true.
It's all governmental hackers basically, right?
People like John Kerry who I guess can barely take a proper physics class who
keep claiming that greenhouse effect is so simple, right?
And then he refused to explain how does it work, right?
I mean, he did all of that.
That is very terrible.
That really embarrassing to America.
He did that in Bali in Indonesia several years back.
That is just so embarrassing.
Do you think he can explain how it works?
I don't think so.
Even El Gore who claimed to be know something about science.
I challenge El Gore.
I did some of that in his face, actually.
I was lucky enough to be in one of those Wall Street Journal equal conference.
And I was giving, you know, setting up with all the UC Santa Barbara students.
Please make sure when the question come up, give me the mic.
I was making friends with them the night before.
I explained now my details of my work.
So I got the mic and asked questions about El Gore because one of the primary setting
that they refused to recognize that I know you know that in even great school
sciences.
CO2 is the guess of life.
When you have more CO2, the plant kingdom, the whole ecology, even the oceans.
Don't have more, basically, ability, more fish, more everything.
More life.
More life, essentially.
That's why it's called guess of life.
And these people want to demonize it as some guests that can cause global warming
and cause hurricane to run faster or weaker.
I don't know what they want to have more rain, more
droughts and all these other nonsense that they claim.
All of that.
It just ends so.
That's the problem.
By the way, this is how serious I am.
I check everything they say.
I check.
As a scientist, you cannot just dismiss them.
You cannot laugh at them.
You cannot, you know, try them.
You cannot just make joke of them.
You check everything.
So as a very serious scientist, and I publish scientific paper,
refuting all of this argument.
Scientific papers may be mean nothing to the
average people, but it's really important.
It's like a document that you have to document and then put out the proper
scientific arguments about what is right, what is wrong.
So that's what we have been doing at my particular center called series-sign.com.
So anybody who wants more information about this, please go to the website, right?
And study what we do there because we are the one that is truly independent from any
funding agency, any money that you could possibly give me.
Like Bill Gates, please don't give me money.
Thank you.
And I'll go, please don't give me money.
Don't give me any money if you tell me what to do.
You know, even some of your money, I might not want it.
But the point is that I want to be independent, just like you.
In the media, I want to be fearless.
I just set my own agenda.
You don't tell me what to research either.
I research what I want to research.
So we've been researching on many, many topics.
So on the climate change issue, I'm fully convinced.
After all these years, even though we may not know exactly
what is causing climate change, we suspect is the sun.
We have a lot of evidence to show that it's probably the sun.
Very high percentage, you know, like I would say 90% will show it, but not 100%.
But we know.
Carbon dioxide is not the gas.
It's not the, what you call the like your thermometer in your room can adjust up and
down that you can set the temperature to be whatever level you want it.
First of all, they can never tell us what temperature do they want it at.
What is the temperature you want to set the global temperature?
Air God has not been able to answer that.
John Kerry has not been able to answer that.
Because we know the temperature from the coldest in Siberia to the desert in Sahara.
I mean, these are huge, at least 100 degrees or more.
Kind of differences.
Yes.
I mean, who are you to tell me which temperature is the correct temperature,
where you guys are talking like that.
They are talking as if they are a pseudo god, they got themselves.
I mean, these people are so ambitious that in some sense,
I think we have to keep their ambition down a little bit.
I mean, these people are not contented just like what you put out there.
You cannot be ambitious when you're contented, but these people are so out of
their mind in some sense that I think is misleading.
And somebody has to speak out against them.
I think you are one of those who consistently point out their hypocrisy.
And I really find that the whole problem of this global warming is a complete
nothing, which means we should do nothing about it.
Just go on and live life and adapt to it.
Right?
So what I... here's, of course, I agree
completely, but here's what I don't understand.
Global temperatures have dramatically fluctuated
within the period that humans left records.
Not that long ago.
I mean, there are cities underwater because
sea levels have risen within recorded history.
The signs of the glaciers are all around us.
So that was all before the internal combustion engine.
How do they explain that?
This is the problem they admitted.
A lot of them, evidently, they willingly admit that you can read or you can deny it.
I mean, these are the confession time.
It's the sun, actually.
That does a lot of this.
The glacier like the spirit called little ice age.
From about 1300 to 1900, very cool.
And then there's a beautiful warm period from 880 to about 1200.
It was warm.
I mean, you can grow wine in England, right?
And now you cannot grow wine.
Things like that.
I mean, Greenland was green back then.
But now it's full of glaciers.
Ice is coming in.
So what are you talking about?
Exactly.
And it was the sun, actually.
The sun fit quite well.
As far as we know, in terms of deducing the information or how does the sun,
how bright was it, how dim was it?
Basically, just like that.
Just the amount of light coming out from the sun.
Very tiny percentage, by the way.
Very small.
It's on the other, less than a percent.
But it's more than enough.
Because there's another effect that is very, very important.
It's basically because the sun, the earth is forced to go around the sun.
And then the orbit change ever so slightly because
of perturbation from all the other planets.
Yes.
No Jupiter, Saturn, and even Venus, and Mars.
They're actually controlling what we do.
And the moon, of course, is very important.
But that other factors, the orbits, plus the changes of
the sun by itself, between how bright, how dim it is.
These two factors can explain just about everything that we know.
All the data that I have, actually.
So this is why I was so fascinated in studying this issue.
I spent my whole life actually studying this.
Nothing but doing just this.
And the more I understand, the more I think
that, wow, it's just a gap to be filled in.
We have too much information that.
And then these people come alongside that CO2 is causing everything.
I check.
Oh, maybe they're right.
I check.
As the scientists, I have to check them.
But then it's not even close.
I mean, these people are talking about things that is... I mean, there's a famous
phrase by a very famous... We've considered meteorology.
His name is Professor Reed Bryson.
He's one of the father of climatology, really.
You just say that you go out and then you could might as well.
If you think CO2 is showing, you might as well spit
into the end and see what happened to the airflow.
He was just basically saying that CO2 is nothing.
Can not cause the climate to change or anything.
It doesn't change anything, actually.
It's the sun.
Why you think the most important things that you should talk about?
They never talk about that.
They always want to average the data.
The most important thing that you talk about, you know what?
It's the season.
No two windows are the same.
No two summers are the same.
And they never explain it's actually the orbits
with the sun changing it ever so slightly.
I'm not talking.
I have published papers, papers and papers and
papers like that on all these to show a document.
Why and how?
That's what the fun part of doing science is
not only to chatting and waving like crazy.
Even though I may look like one now, but I
have always very calm when you're right now.
Every time I have to write a paper, I always tell
my wife, please don't disturb me for a few days.
I'll be back.
Things like that, of course, working at home, but this is I'll be back.
Is there any way to predict what climate change will be based on?
Actually, you can because of the orbit.
The only thing we don't know is how to predict the
sun changes by itself because of the magnetism.
You know, just the magnetic field on the sun is too complicated.
The sun is the magnetized bore, right?
It's a gas hot gas.
It's about, you know, the magnetic field is so strong.
It's 10,000 times stronger than the earth.
The earth is also a magnet.
A bar magnet basically is one Gauss.
We have 10,000 Gauss at least on the sun.
So it's a very different property.
It works very differently because it heated by
basically a thermo nuclear reaction inside the sun.
So it creates all kinds of hot gas behavior that is very difficult to try to
master or even to model using mathematical equation.
Actually, it's much easier to study the earth than to do the sun.
So that's part of the problem in scientific task, the physics task,
the very difficult.
But then we learn a lot.
We learn a lot through just watching the sun.
I mean, Galileo Galilei, right?
He pointed, he's telescope.
He was smart enough.
First, he pointed the Jupiter, the moon, right?
Jupiter, then he saw the moon, right?
He saw four moons around it, and then he's smart
that he goes the next day to watch it again.
He watched, and then he says that to move.
Well, it was a famous story of Galileo Galilei.
We talked about it some day.
When he wrote that down, initially it was in Italian.
When he realized he discovered something so unique,
he changed the language to Latin in the next day.
Yeah, you know, I got him, I had a good one.
You know, until he started writing a lot in precise language, okay?
But anyway, for the sun, it's really so complicated that actually I've been
studying this actually as long as you know me.
I mean, I studied this for so long.
We know a lot.
I even wrote a popular book actually to try to explain why they're during a period
of the sunspot.
But there's a period that deep inside the little
ice age, 1645 to 1715 is called the Monda minimum.
Because during that period, the sunspot almost all disappear.
Especially in the northern hemisphere.
It disappeared completely.
Nobody know why.
And that's why the French astronomer famous people like Cassini, the one that
Cassini spacecraft, he was observing at that time.
He said, man, this Galileo guy must be on either
drinking too much or lying or things like that.
He said there's a lot of sunspot, but when we observe at this time,
we didn't see nothing.
What's wrong?
But it's an actual phenomenon, right?
My friend, my good friend, which is the number one word sunspot historian.
He just wrote email to me, Douglas Hoyt.
He actually was the master of this collecting all the sunspot data,
going back to all the major libraries, you know, from Galileo first point.
All the way to Crescent Point.
Basically found that this phenomenon is true because during that period,
the sunspot was not there, not because nobody was watching.
There was at least observed 80% of the time during the 70 years.
You see, it's so unique that period.
But now we're beginning to try to learn what happened there.
So during that period, we really think that the sun was so much dimmer.
It was substantially dimmer.
This is why you have this little Ice Age phenomenon.
All the Thames River froze.
You know, we have the Thames River in England, well known, and then all the ice
skating thing, you know, in Holland, all the different culture.
And then these are all real actual phenomenon.
And at this day, they're trying to say that
maybe little Ice Age is not little Ice Age.
They even try to change that in scientific field, actually.
So this was very, very puzzling for me.
Why would they try and change that?
Oh, I don't know, because they want to say that CO2 is controlling everything.
They kind of want to have CO2 as the prime driver of everything.
This is part of the problem that I find.
Well, that's not science, that's lying.
Ah, that's bad.
It's bad in science.
This is why in science now I rather say this thing out right.
I want... I rather have questions that cannot be
answered and answered that cannot be questioned.
Because these people are just offering you the
answer and then you should just shut up like you say.
Don't ask any question.
Don't criticize.
Don't even bother to think.
Just accept what we say.
I mean, you may have known that...
Actually, if you want to get there, I can talk about this because this is
rather famous because the other person is still around.
He's the one who's shouting up and down these two last two
days to say that all we must start fossil fuel GOP is so evil.
We must stop all of them because we are the GOP, either evil political bodies in
America that causes all these fossil fuel to be...
We are using fossil fuel and all that.
His name is Professor Michael Mann.
He's at University of Pennsylvania.
He created a paper, we call it a hockey stick.
Yeah, the hockey stick.
He basically said that the temperature history...
First of all, the true temperature history looked like this.
It was very warm from 880, let's say warm, warm.
And then it cools down about 1300 started to go down.
Cool.
And then since about 1900 century it started to warm back up.
Way, way before CO2 is important, okay?
That's another puzzle that they never want to explain.
They look like this.
That's the real story.
Michael Mann came along.
Say that, well, he used mathematical algorithm, okay?
He can use fancy words but believe me, it's his mathematical algorithm.
But he produced a stick for 1980 to about 1980.
It's all flat because it changed very tiny amount.
So small that actually doesn't mean anything, 0.1 or 0.2 degrees Celsius.
So small.
It doesn't mean the one that I talk about that changes one degree at least,
you know, to 5-6 times stronger bigger than what he said.
And he just said it's like this.
And then it warmed up because of the blade, which
is the warming because of rising carbon dioxide.
But he forgot to explain to you, this warming of the temperature started
way before even the human part of the atmospheric
carbon dioxide could be anything meaningful.
This is part of the problem.
It's all been crazy from day one.
When this thing was published in 1999, I was the first few guys who raised a hand
at the back of the class and say, excuse me,
Professor Mann, he used to be my friend by the way.
Now he will never answer me.
He used to exchange email with me because, you know, we're more or less shared,
the same passion, wonder, understanding.
Now he just said that his story, his story is the only one that is correct.
But it's not bare out by any data that we know.
That's the problem.
It's all mathematical products.
This is how scary the whole work can be.
And United Nations, the IPCC group that I mentioned, promoted his work, turning it
into a major hero because he has solved one of this old puzzle problem that
climatologists over Marlania has been trying to solve.
Since the day of the Greeks, we try to understand how climate change.
And this guy come alongside that he looked like this, only CO2 does it.
And that's the problem.
So, I mean, some of this is very complex.
But in the way you're describing it, if he's saying the warming period began
before, there was a meaningful addition of CO2 into the atmosphere caused by humans.
Even I can understand that.
Yes, that's the truth.
So I would assume that lots of scientists who do
this for a living might be asking the same question.
Why don't they speak up?
This is the problem.
The whole problem in scientists' day is related to funding.
How science is funded?
That philosophy.
I wish to not get too much into it.
This is part of the reason why I want to be totally independent.
I get out of this whole system.
But it's how science is about funding.
Even if you don't get money directly, it will influence
the graduate students and on and on and so forth.
All these other related effects.
You know?
And many people are afraid to speak up.
But I tell you, if you really put all the scientists to do an honest kind of polling
if you're science, but science is not about polling too.
All it takes is one to be correct.
Yes.
That's the problem, right?
Einstein used when he formulated the famous general relativity or specialty.
Actually, that was criticized.
That basically talk about speed or light and constant.
So time and space are relative.
Yes.
Right?
Time can be dilated.
Space is also slightly different because the speed of light is constant.
Special reality is based on that concept.
Then 100 of this Berliner cut-emission tried to wrote a pamphlet say that
Einstein is wrong, but never awful.
What are the details that is wrong?
And then Einstein indeed answered like this.
Why would you need 100?
You know, if I would be wrong, one would suffice.
I mean, that's the theme of the science.
Science is so bad because it's so totally upside-down inside our COVID.
It's another case.
You know, so let's stick to climate stuff.
People are afraid to speak.
I don't know why, actually.
I was young.
I had to worry about my three kids where they eat and all that stuff.
You know, buffet all the time just kidding.
The greatest American invention.
This is truly entrepreneur, by the way.
Anyway, we have enough food.
No problem.
That's my food.
I don't think it's also a problem in this world.
Even material resources, right?
All you think is of the thing like Julian Simon type.
You know, we can generate everything.
The only problem we love is lack of imagination, narrow-mindedness,
and all this anti-America sentiment booted this way.
America is among the best hope for humanity.
You know, to put forward, we have the foundation document, the constitution,
for God's sake.
That is the most beautiful thing that we could ever imagine.
And why don't we use it properly?
Right?
People are just trashing on it every day, right?
Anyway, I digress.
Anyway.
So yes, I think science is a problem now, because of funding structure.
People won't speak out.
I don't know why.
I think it's natural for people to be afraid, but you cannot be afraid for so long.
For me, I was frustrated because I was not afraid.
I haven't seen something.
I was in sign.
Because I'm in sign, because I love sign.
This is why, from my own perspective, I just very sad to see that science has
been trampled by all these other non -science forces.
That's why when I look at COVID, also I cannot stand by saying nothing.
On COVID, and I think there's so many things wrong with it.
That's why I want to pre-ever tithe.
With my group series that signed our Kong, we work with a bunch of people.
One of the good guests for you, potential will be Professor Harvey Rich.
You say he's been interviewed by you twice?
Yes.
Even guys like about Malone, we work together to do the papers.
So when the people come out hopefully, we can have them on your shows,
or they can tell more stories.
We want to provide the medical community or even the world
to document this episode of Dark Ages in medical sciences.
Something went terribly wrong.
The mass never really worked.
The vaccine never really worked.
All of this doesn't work.
The lockdown doesn't work.
And what are we doing this?
Now they are trying to scare with another new scare.
All over the world now.
A newspaper this morning, I just got one newspaper from my sister, who's had to
start there, or they start masking up in Malaysia now.
Because cases increase the usual story.
I love in a serious way, because I see this is another
one of those attempts again, to try to scare people.
So I did digress now.
Science is just so complicated now that every aspect of
the science that I look at, I've become very unhappy.
Science is no longer able to do where science leads.
This is the theme of my series, the sign.com.
We will feel only colleagues.
I don't have enough funding.
I just hope to get as many donations, by the way.
Donate, but don't tell us anything.
Trust us, because we are decent scientists.
You can look at our publication record, that we are able
to produce the most interesting and pure work, like IPCC.
They have to reply to us.
Two years ago, we published a very important paper.
One of my journalists, friend, colleague, wrote a paper, newspaper
article, and then he'd go and ask IPCC, why are you guys not citing this paper?
They use the excuse to say that, oh, these people publish late.
We have a date line here, red line.
Oh, if you don't publish before some date, like 2021, like January or 2021,
then we wouldn't include your work.
So we publish in August, so they wouldn't include my work.
But they forgot to say that they claim themselves.
They proclaim.
Are you an IPCC proclaim?
They have to be the best of the scientific world, produce the most updated and other.
But immediately, their report came out, they already outdated, because they
haven't included my work, which is the most
comprehensive review of how the Sun affects the climate.
That's the work we did.
So this this year, just two months ago, we published two more paper, convincingly
show that even the thermometer data that they show you is not what it is.
It's actually not measuring climate.
It's measuring urban heat and island changes.
Something that I think everybody can understand.
If you go to the inner part of the big city, like TC
is one of the best examples I have left to show that.
You go to inner city is much warmer than outside,
because of concrete retaining all the heat.
Or you change all the surfaces of the, you know, the survey become impervious
between, there's no breathing, no water going in.
Things like that.
And it's what we show is that it's not a phenomenon just on local sun.
You average over this, you can see the effect all over the northern hemisphere.
This is very powerful new work that we, we spend concrete
and asphalt raised the temperatures more than CO.
And that's what they're measuring.
And then they tell you this is global temperature.
And then we provide an alternative.
We say, why don't we go look at rural station?
That is available.
I guess what I'll result from.
Completely different story from the picture, the narrative that's coming up
from this data set, the moment of data that shows that combine urban and rural.
We show rural only.
We can tell you that you can immediately offer a different answer.
For example, it's the sun that does it.
We show that.
But we don't know that is the answer.
We just simply show you that the IPCC and all this so-called scientists from NASA,
NOAA and all of them are not doing their due diligence.
They are putting you very bad quality data product.
Not only that, they hide it.
Some of them is so difficult to get the data.
But it should never be difficult to get data.
I'm sorry, this is how the problem in science now is so many students.
But I thought transparency of data was science.
I was hoping.
I always believe in that.
That's why everything that we publish is there.
Because we got it from somewhere.
Here's the data.
Use it.
Check us.
If we're wrong, tell us we're wrong.
That is one thing that I can always promise you.
I'm not here to try to gain favor or anything.
If I'm wrong, and I don't know, I tell you, I don't know, Tucker.
A lot of this thing, I really under a lot of careful consideration.
Really a lot of deep meditation thinking about this topic.
What I think is very problematic.
I'm so glad to have this opportunity to go
this far to be able to talk for this long now.
Is that really the IPCC product is actually substandard?
Of course, they have a different mandate.
The other mandate is political, right?
To provide policy.
We understand that.
But how many people really understand that
pure science doesn't support anything they say?
I mean, in the beginning of this COP28 meeting, the chairman or this guy from
UAE, you know, that Arabs and Emirates, the chairman, I don't know his name,
Sultan Al Jaber, or something.
He was saying that there's no scientific
reasoning to say that we should face out forces.
He's right.
But then he backed off because of all this... Everybody is hurt mentality.
Everybody is doing the bad thing.
Everybody's science is not about that.
They all agree now.
They all agree to face out, right?
For some kind of agreement.
You know, that everybody declared that they're
gonna do that, that they're gonna face out for.
I don't even know how, actually.
Why?
Why are you doing this?
And then one of the claims is that they're
gonna triple the amount of solar and wind power.
That is a sad story.
You know, of the amount that we spend that we can document some trees, 3.6 trillion
dollars, they spend almost two trillion dollars on solar and wind power over the
last, I don't know, five, ten years or so.
And then what they did is that they spend more
of the money, two trillion on solar and wind.
And solar, wind can only account for only 3% of the world power.
85% from fossil fuels, as you can see, hydro power and nuclear.
Nuclear is another puzzle.
I checked with all my nuclear expert friends
that've been working for years on nuclear power.
Nuclear power is one of the saddest story.
I believe that we actually have almost a solution in hand.
Not the fusion, of course.
It's the, you know, the fast reactor or the good generation of the, of nuclear power.
Peaceful use of that, won't even generate nuclear weapon.
We can do all of that technology.
The only thing barrier is red tapes, environmentally scare of radiation.
All these are the problem.
We almost have all of that in, in hand.
The power can last.
One estimate shows that if we were to use it at the demand
of that by 2050, we can have enough power for 2,700 years.
That's far more than any of the fossil fuel can promise.
And then, and we're still not doing it.
We're not doing, America is so far behind now.
We just make one in Georgia, one of the nuclear plan.
There's so over cost because of all the red tape that is so embarrassing.
There are numbers.
I mean, it costing a thousand or 2,000 times even more than what Korea and,
you know, even Korea now is, is a major guy who make this nuclear power plan for
different, any country who wants to do it, right?
I mean, Korea, India, they are making a much cheaper cost.
And the design, French, design are the best, right?
French, they are all doing that.
And we're not doing it.
China, of course, 11, right?
Doing that.
But we're not doing anything.
We tried to tell you that we got a shot of fossil fuel, increased solar and wind.
Are you joking?
Even three times more.
It'll be 9%.
I don't know, can you turn on your, your light?
Only 9% of them.
You should shut all this light off now.
You're overusing it and it destroys the actual environment.
Exactly.
This is a kind of a very bad incentive that they don't realize.
It's about this kind of people that are so out of their
mind in my view that they really should be cautious.
Somebody should just ping on their head.
Guys, don't, don't, don't keep saying those things.
You've heard a thing twice.
Or consult somebody that knows something that is honest, you know?
Would you be able to say this out loud at Harvard?
Actually, back then, I also didn't care.
But most of the time, I get caught into the directors office, and that they're
always trying to tell you, oh, why are you saying that?
Why are you saying this?
I say, well, I'm a scientist.
I should say whatever I want to say.
Not only that.
The problem when I was at Harvard.
But the reason I quit, as I tried to explain is about chat requirement.
But another one is a bit of a sense issue.
I can only do certain things.
I cannot do certain things.
Like, I would never be able to write paper on COVID-19.
I would never be able to work on, let's say, environmental air pollution issues.
You know, like, you know, so-called nogs and socks and all these other things.
Or mercury and things like that.
I have a lot.
I study a lot on those issues because I personally are concerned.
So I dig into the literature.
One thing after another.
Basically, because I sleep very little.
So I really do a lot of things.
I flip every rock, pebbles, anything you want.
So I study a lot.
I produce a result that is good enough that it can be making a lot of scientific.
But I never published them because they simply won't allow.
They wouldn't allow you.
It's about a better allowing.
Because they say it doesn't fit the theme of the center for astrophysics.
So I don't want to talk very about the institution.
But it is the finest astrophysics institution in the world.
In terms of instrument building and some of the technology, we can produce the best.
You know, you often look at the x-ray picture of the sun.
Those are from very fine camera that we built with multi-coding layers.
Because they come in very slowly and then they're going to diffuse.
But we make very fine way to catch them so they can come out.
So the image are crystal clear.
You can see all the structure on the sun.
It's made by my center.
They are good scientists.
Except that when it comes down to a larger picture of signs.
Shh.
Don't say this.
Don't say that.
This and that.
And then all of that.
This is why even at Harvard, I quit taking money from NASA and NSF.
All these other places in 2004.
Because I beginning to think that signs being so unaccountable.
Funded by taxpayer that all these people are so unconscionable.
So I personally chose that.
That is nobody to blame.
But myself.
But I chose to take only from foundation who are willing to give me money.
So I wrote those kind of proposal and then got to go through the director's office.
I have a very, very happy and fruitful career.
Everybody can look up my publication list very long.
And not only that, it's not the number that comes.
It's the quality of the paper.
I always want to remind people.
I don't like talking about how many thousands of people you write.
It's not important.
Which paper that is really important for certain issues.
That's important that you... If you are able to show that, that's good.
That's what I mean.
All my papers are basically under a lot of this serious, serious thinking,
and serious evaluation checking and rechecking
before I would care to write about anything.
Because you don't want to write anything that's wrong tomorrow.
You want to work.
Something that can write.
But science is basically a garbage can now.
These scientific papers.
I categorically would even make this statement.
I will make the statement that about 80 to 90% of the paper published in so-called
climate science today should not be published.
But... Everybody, have ends, have grown.
Everybody have all this grant.
You see how the inflation goes, you know, just like their last day.
You hear that Yale University, you know, a large part of it.
Most of the students on 2022 or something all got great.
A great, you know, great.
They diluted the great.
But have you reached a show of me that in medical sciences and heart sciences?
Have you reached the professor at Yale University?
He teach in the medical school.
So he say, no, not true.
So he tried to show me he has quality.
Maybe not in his class.
Well, how are you not in any other class, right?
So I want to ask you just as it kind of last topic which is not related to this,
but we talked about it off the earth.
I think it's really interesting.
You were telling me that you see God or evidence of God in math.
Well, can you explain what you were saying?
Maybe I misread what you were saying.
No, no, no, no.
I mean, I have been closer and closer to God in
the sense that because it takes me a long time.
I'm broader rebalance.
You know, I have to say, damn it, God, you've got to prove it to me.
Show it to me, buddy.
Just kidding.
I'm sorry for anybody.
No, not all of it.
But I really say it in that way, you know, you talk to yourself in a sense.
But in many, many moments in history of physics or mathematics, things come out.
You see, mathematics, you know, is this very pure word
that it seems to have no connection to real world.
Because that's right.
It's true.
It's complex numbers.
It's one of them.
But it appears in quantum mechanics, right?
It's so beautiful.
But one of the things that sometimes you see in equation is so amazing.
When you formula, you know, maybe it's not right.
Maybe it's this.
You know, you doubt yourself.
But one of the most beautiful equations was the one that derived by Paul Dirac.
It's a professor at Cambridge University, but he retired in Florida.
By the way, he died in Florida.
Tallahassee.
I mean, it's a refuge for him because he doesn't like to talk.
He would sit there for five days if you don't talk.
One day, all of a sudden, he talked.
But anyway, he formulated that he's a beautiful man.
He, you know, Paul Dirac.
He formulated this relativistic equation for electrons.
But in one of the equations, the solution come out to be a negative sign.
Not only that, it's a square root involved.
So it's strange behavior.
There's a negative sign you learn.
But it has the exact property.
Like an electron and all that stuff.
How come?
Everybody say, you crazy, you stupid, isn't that right?
He's not even wait.
He didn't know sweat, buddy.
He just say, I am right.
Many years later, few years later, he's shown in Caltech.
My cow, Anderson, to show there's actually such a thing called positron.
You know, the opposite, the brothers of electron.
That's such a thing.
And then if you ask yourself, how is it possible?
That's something, this is out of nowhere.
Where does this thing come from?
And then in mathematical sciences, there's a lot of things like this.
Geometry, there's an even more famous thing about in geometry.
It's called Calabi, yaw, manifold that related to string theory.
This thing was basically a revisit of Einstein's general relativity equation.
Asking itself, whether it's impossible to have close curvature in space time that
you actually don't require even gravity to be there.
And they show that Calabi was trying to prove this yaw-shing-dong yaw.
It's one of the great mathematicians, right?
He's at Harvard, but he retired now he goes to China, right?
He was the one who tried to disprove this thing, but he turns out to be true.
That is true that you can have close curvature in space time without gravity even.
So that added even more reach in this world.
That from mathematics to real world, we already have in our hard time
understanding and this guy added even more.
And his discovery was in the 70s and things like that, you know?
So there are so many examples in incidents like this.
Just have to tell you that you have to bow down.
You have to occasionally take a deep breath.
You know?
There may be some ever-presence of these forces that allow us to illuminate our life.
And I tell you, God has given us all this light that tells
us that we have to follow the light and do the best we can.
Rather than everyday devouring planet Earth saying
that we are the Satan, we are the evil people.
You know, these people are constantly trying to,
you know, make all of us a lesser human being.
I would never allow them anyway.
So good luck.
You know?
For those people like Elgoh and all that who
think that they are high and mighty, right?
And trying to always, always lecture us on kind of cut
down on fossil fuel because we've no hurt the planet.
I say, Elgoh, do you ever think twice?
How who are you to do?
Do you think that you can actually try to save the planet Earth even?
Because they always use the word.
I'm trying to save the planet.
I don't know who gives them the right to save the planet Earth.
Same with this experiment that they're trying to do, by the way.
The experiment to say that we must cut down CO2 emission.
I told you CO2 is good for...
You know, for life?
Because I asked Elgoh indeed when I asked Elgoh the question in UC Santa Barbara is
what is the CO2 is guess of life.
Who gives you the audacity to cut down this?
Then aren't you...
Are you going to be responsible for the ecological and humanitarian all this crisis?
Even we know rising CO2 affect even plants.
I know, especially food production, right?
Maybe not exact number, we know, but it does.
Positively, right?
We have technology to help it better see it
better all this fertilization or this other thing.
But who gives them the idea to do that?
To cut down this because it's generally going to be good for life.
Because you have to push them around because nobody should give them the authority.
So far I don't think anyone can answer that question for me.
So I tell them to please bow down to God.
Really answer to that question first before you do anything else.
Because it's ridiculous for them to keep to claim that they have the upper,
moral and ethical high ground to try to prescribe
everybody to live in certain conditions that they choose.
But they themselves don't follow the rules.
They tell us to take a bus.
They'll go always, even tell me what to take a bus and they'll go.
My God, I say, you take a bus from Tennessee to Massachusetts.
I'll be waiting for you now now.
Please.
I mean, these guys are out of this world, man.
I'm sorry, I'll go.
But you can still call me.
Can you really soon?
Thank you.
But before you go, last thing, for viewers who want to know more about
what you do, can you say once again where they can read it?
Please, I hope that I don't disappoint anyone, but please come to series.
That's sign.com.
And I want to make one plug for my good friend, how short live.
As I get older and older, including my own kids, my own kids, three kids has been
going to the Cam Constitution at New Hampshire.
And we also wanted to invite the Tucker Carlson
to come, because Rebecca Vasomie came last summer.
And because we are a very, very small group, we
are a tiny little group called Cam Constitution.
So, Camcote is just on .NET.
We offer, basically, family kind of a Christian kind of
background, but we don't talk about Christ all the time.
But we talk about Bibles.
We talk about Constitution.
We talk about signs or I'm the science instructor
that've been doing that for almost six, seven years now.
So, I've been doing every year, I'll give one or two classes, depends on
how many, whatever they want me to do, I'll do.
And my own kids came to those things, and then, you know, we play music,
we have campfire.
It's a family event.
Used to be as focus on kids, but this day, I'm sorry, too many adults started to come.
So, we have even people, like my good friend, Lord
Christopher Mountain from England, he spoke twice.
So, small little group, but if anybody who thinks that, you know, you have the time
and even come and learn what we do, here and
emulate in your own city and towns and all that.
You know, people from Wisconsin, please come.
People from California, please come.
You know, we have it in New Hampshire every year.
Every summer, we have this camp, and it's a very good thing.
So, camp constitution.net.
And I talked to your friend, Vince Allison, from Maryland.
I also call him before I came.
He's one of the good guy, right?
Yeah, amazing.
Well, at least soon, that was the most interesting
conversation I've heard in a long time.
Well, thank you for your time.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization.
Societies are defined by what they will not.
From what we'll watch it is the total inversion of virtue.