Joe Rogan Experience #2397 - Richard Lindzen & William Happer

Joe Rogan podcast, check it out. The Joe. Rogan Experience. TRAIN BY DAY, JOE. ROGAN PODCAST BY NIGHT. ALL DAY. GENTLEMEN, first of all, thank you very. much for being here. I really appreciate. it. Our pleasure. My pleasure. And if. you don't mind, would you please just. tell everybody who you are and state. your your resume, like what you do. Let me just a brief version of your. Uh. >> credentials. I'm Dick Lindzen.

And my whole life has been in academia. Basically, I finished my doctorate at. Harvard. And I did spend a couple of years. uh. at the University of Washington and in. Norway and in Boulder, Colorado. Then uh. part of that was because at Harvard I. was working in atmospheric sciences. But they had no one who dealt with.

observations. So, I went to Seattle for. someone who did. And then I got my first academic. position at Chicago. and stayed there about 3 4 years. Moved on to Harvard, spent about 10. years there. And then to MIT for about the last 35. years until I retired in 2013. Um. I've always enjoyed it. I mean, the.

field of atmospheric sciences, when I entered it, I mean, the joy of it. was a lot of problems. that were solvable. So, you could look at phenomena. One of them that I worked on was the. so-called quasi-biennial cycle. Turns out the wind above the equator, about 16 km, 20 km, goes from east to west for a year, turns. around, goes the other way for the next. year, and so on.

And you know, we worked out why that. happened and there were other things. like that. So, it was a very enjoyable. period. uh until global warming. And sir, would you tell everybody what. your credentials are, what you do, where. you from? I'm Will Happer and I'm a retired. professor of physics at Princeton. And uh. like uh. Dick, I'm a science nerd. But I was actually born in India under.

the British Raj. My father was a army. officer in Indian army, Scottish. And my. mother was American and uh. that was before World War II. So, when I. came to America as a small child, my. mother was working in Oak Ridge for the. Manhattan Project. So, Wow. I remember, you know, the war days at Oak Ridge and. uh. that's probably why I went into physics. Uh. I thought this looks like interesting. way to make a living.

And if I can do it, I'll do it. And and. I have and I've uh. done a number of things. I spent a lot. of time at universities, at Columbia, at. Princeton. I also uh served for a couple. years in Washington as director of. energy research uh. under President Bush senior. And uh I've learned a lot about climate. from Dick, my colleague here. Uh I first became suspicious when I was. director of energy research. I would. invite people in to explain how they.

were spending the taxpayers' money and. most people were delighted to come to. Washington and have some bureaucrat be. interested in what they were doing. And there was one exception. That was. the uh. people working on climate and they would. always be very resentful, you know, we. work for Senator Gore. We don't work for. you. And so, I would tell them, well, okay, let him pay for your next year's. research. I can find other people who. will come and talk to me who would be. glad to take my money. That's. interesting. So, Senator Gore has been. involved in this whole climate thing for.

quite a long time then. >> Oh, yes, very long time. >> a senator, before he was vice president. That's right. That is. >> And when he made that movie, An. Inconvenient Truth, what year was that. again, Jamie? It was like. 1988 or something? Something like 99? That. What is it? Oh, really? We're that off. Wow. Okay, so 2006. So, when he made that film, uh. he he There was always When I was a. child, I do remember Leonard Nimoy had a.

television show called In Search Of. Remember that show? >> Sure. And on that show, he warned of an. oncoming ice age. Right. Do you remember. that? And I remember being a kid and. freaking out like, oh my god, Spock is. telling us the world's going to freeze. This is terrifying. And then somewhere. along the line, it became global. warming. And uh initially in the '80s, it was kind of funny. People were. saying, well, hairspray, if you more you. use it, you could play golf deep in the. November. That was the ozone scare. >> ozone. Yes, but it was also part of.

global warming. They were. worried about global warming, but it was. they were worried about the ozone hole. It wasn't CO2 as much back then. CO2. seems to have really significantly. become a part of the zeitgeist after. this Al Gore film. No. No? No, it was before uh. No, it it was a study. >> In in terms of academic study, for sure, but in terms of people panicking, when. did CO2. >> panicking, I have no idea. [Laughter]. Yeah, what happened was uh.

there was. I would say with the first Earth Day, 1970, there was a real change in the. environmental movement. It began to focus much more strongly on. the energy sector. and much less on saving the whales. Mhm. And there was a big difference. I mean, the energy sector involved. trillions of dollars. The whales, not so.

much. >> Right. And at that time, it was cooling, this. global mean temperature, which doesn't. change much. But you know, you focus on. 1°, 1/2°, so it looks like something. And it was cooling from the 1930s. 1930s were very warm and it was getting. cooler until the '70s. And that's why they were saying, well, you know, this is going to lead to an. ice age.

And they focused on that for a while. And then in the '70s, and at that time, well, what do you say, you know, if if. you're worried about an ice age, they said, well, it'll be the sulfates. emitted by coal burning cuz that. reflects light and the less light that. we get, the colder we'll get. But then the temperature stopped cooling. in the '70s and started warming. And that's when they said, well,

they have to warn now scare people with. warming and you can't use the sulfates. anymore, but the. scientist called uh. Suki Manabe. showed that even though CO2 doesn't do. much in the way of warming, doubling it. will only give you a half degree or so. But if you assumed that relative. humidity stayed constant, so that every. time you warmed a little, you added. water vapor, which is a much more.

important greenhouse gas, you would. double the impact of CO2. Which now gives you a degree, which. still isn't a heck of a lot, but still. it was saying you could increase it. Uh and that's when people started. saying, well, now we better find CO2. It's increased because of. industrialization and so on. And that. began the demonization of CO2. Do you think there's just always people. that are going to point to anything like.

this that's difficult to define and use. it to their advantage? Oh, yeah, and this was a particular. case. Uh you. wanted to deal You know, the energy. sector is trillions of dollars. Anything you can do to overturn it, change it, replace fossil fuels, it's big bucks. Right. And one of the. odd things I think in politics, I don't. see it studied much. Congress can actually give away. trillions of dollars.

If you look at the Kin McKinsey report. on uh you know, eliminating CO2, net zero, they're saying it'll cost hundreds of. trillions of dollars. Well, if you're giving out that much, you don't need that much of your. politician. All you need is millions for. your campaigning. And all you're asking of the recipients, of people who are getting the money that.

you are giving them, 1/2%, 1/4%, you're you're golden. So, that's much better than giving out. 100,000 and having all of it back. Well, the key though is also making it a. subject that you cannot challenge. You. There's no room for any rational debate. and if you discuss it at all, you are. now a climate change denier. Yeah. Which. is like being an anti-vaxxer or, you. know, fill in the blank with whatever. other horrible thing you could be.

called. Now, that that's a very. interesting phenomenon. I mean, I was. looking at it. On the one hand, you're told the science. is settled. Thousands of the world's leading climate. scientists all agree. Which often makes you wonder. I mean, you went to college. How many climate. scientists did you know? One of thousands. But on the other hand, if you read the. IPCC reports, they're pointing out for instance that. water vapor and clouds are much bigger.

than CO2 and we don't understand them at. all. So here have the biggest phenomena we. don't understand at all but the science. is settled. Who knows what that means? Well, it's also there's this very. bizarre dynamic of the Earth's. temperature itself which has never been. static. >> No. How would it remain static? That would. involve a hugely reactive system. It. doesn't make any sense. And and but. everyone seems to. be buying this narrative that the. science is settled and the Earth is.

warming. We have to act now. You say. everyone. I'm not so sure. >> A lot of politicians in particular. >> politicians are very attracted to this. cuz it gives them power. Right. And it's. hard to define and you can argue it and. if you argue against it you're a bad. person. Well, you do all that but you know. we spend part of the year in France. My. wife is French. You know, ordinary. people once you get to the countryside. don't take this all that seriously.

>> Right. Uh here too. I suspect ordinary people have more. skepticism than many people who are. more educated. Yes, but unfortunately. these ordinary people sometimes are. impacted by these politicians' decisions. where they have to In the UK they were. getting rid of cows. They were forcing. people to kill cows. >> three times more for their heating and. their electric bills. Right. Right. I mean it makes people poorer. Uh.

it's making it almost impossible to. electrify parts of the world that need. it. That involves billions of people. No, I mean it's doing phenomenal damage. and pain but uh. you know, I think for politicians and. for many people who are well off. they need something that gives meaning. to their life and saving the planet. seems sufficiently Yes. Uh.

grandiose but they're ambitious. How. would um how are these net zero policies. stopping people from getting. electricity? Well, by making it expensive, by. eliminating fossil fuels. Fossil fuels. are cheaper. Uh. at least the experience in the UK is. when you switch to quote renewables, it. tripled the price of electricity. Right, but what I'm talking about is like third. world countries, parts of the world that. are undeveloped. >> afford it. And that's all it is. They.

can't afford it. And but they also too. if they didn't follow these net zero. policies, what kind of plants are we. talking about? Are we talking about coal. plants? >> Coal, anything. Whatever is available. Yeah. I mean, you know, essentially. >> even though coal does pollute the. environment and it releases. particulates, right? It's that's an. issue, right? >> how shall I put it? You know, it's always a matter of cost. We have a plant I think in Alabama that. has basically as clean as any other.

plant that burns coal. You can clean it. You can scrub it. You can get rid of. almost everything except CO2. Okay, so the particulates aren't as big. of an issue as they used to be in the. past. Is that what it is? They're more. efficient. Okay. >> Yeah. So stopping so this net zero thing. is stopping them from installing. modernized coal plants in parts of the. world that do not have electricity and. the overall net negative weighs much. heavier in not bringing these coal. plants and not bringing these people.

into the first world. >> And there are of course the alternative. natural gas and so on which are. available in places. Uh. you know, there are places where you. have. you're lucky like in Norway or Canada. you know, Quebec where you have hydro. which is intrinsically clean. But uh there there's a problem with. politicians. I remember once. being in DC and some Republican. politicians came and said, "You know. what we just did?

We banned incandescent light bulbs.". They said, "Wasn't that a great thing?". I said, "That's the stupidest thing I've. heard today. What what's the point?" Cuz at the time. what was replacing it? Compact. fluorescents which were awful. All they had to do was wait and do. nothing and LEDs would come along and. people would say, "Okay, I prefer that.". Instead they feel they have to do. something. And they would switch to. fluorescents which turned out to be. terrible for people.

>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So incandescents. aren't bad for you? They were simply less efficient Mhm. than the you know, in terms of the. number of watts of heat they generate. versus light. I mean, LEDs are phenomenal that way. Right. They're the best. Yeah. But you know, it's interesting when they. have these decisions that they make like. that that do turn out to be negative. ultimately and that yet people still. allow them to make silly decisions that. don't seem to be making sense.

Yeah, I think. there's an old cliche. money is the root of all evil. >> Yeah, that's what I was going to get to. I. this is the disturbing thing that I. think a lot of people have a hard time. accepting especially a lot of very. polite, educated people that have. followed the narrative that you follow. if you're a good person and if you're a. person who trusts science. And that is. that like we have a serious problem. We. have to address it now or there will be. no America for our grandchildren. This. is the thing that we keep hearing.

>> a tough thing there. That the business. trusts science. Yes. I mean, it's not a great idea because. that isn't science is not a source of. authority. It's a methodology. Uh it's based on challenge. Right. And so. >> Where did this narrative come from then? Trust the science. The success of. science. Mhm. In other words, this is a. relatively new way to approach the. world. I mean, few hundred years. Mhm.

And. uh the notion is and I think it's been. stated many times that. you test things and if they fail to. predict correctly, they're wrong. So you. find out what's wrong with them. You. don't uh fudge them. You don't change. the rules. Um. it's uh. led to immense improvements in life, development of all sorts of things.

and so it has a good reputation. Uh politicians have less of a reputation. so they wish to co-opt the reputation of. science. >> Yes, that's a very good point cuz try. finding a good politician that everybody. agrees is rock solid. You can find. plenty of science that everybody thinks. is amazing. Yeah. Cell phone technology, nuclear power, so many things that. people go, "That's incredible that they. did that.". >> also confusing technology with science.

>> of science. Right. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, which is also an issue, right? And. when you can get politicians to attach. themselves to narratives that are. supposedly connected to science. >> mentioned Gore at the beginning. You know, with that thing he was showing. this cycle of ice ages. and CO2 and temperature going together. And uh it never bothered him that the. temperature changed first and then the. CO2.

Yeah, Gregg Braden was on the podcast. recently. He was explaining there have. been times where the CO2 was much higher. in the atmosphere but the the. temperature was colder. Oh, yeah. So it's not like we can point to like. look at the dinosaurs. We don't want to. live the way the dinosaurs lived. Look. how how much CO2 they had like. And then the other really inconvenient. thing with CO2 is that the Earth is. actually greener than it has been in a. long time. >> I think we'll speak to that but I mean. essentially the increased. amount of CO2 in the industrial era.

has added greatly uh to the arable land. And in fact, there's a funny story. Do. you know the name E.O. Wilson? Have you. ever heard that name? I do. I have heard. it but I don't know where. >> He wrote a He was a biologist at. Harvard. He wrote about sociobiology. His specialty were ants and bees and. things, social insects. And uh he was giving a talk.

and um. it came up for reasons that were not. obvious to me. He was talking about the population of. humanoids. And he was mentioning that you go back. you know, few hundred thousand years. and uh. you began the first humanoids and. they're they got to about a few million.

But then during the last glacial maximum. the numbers. went down to tens of thousands. There. was a complete wipeout of humans. So I asked him afterwards. I said, "Do. you. Do you think this could have anything to. do with the fact that CO2 is so low that. there was no food?". And his response was to turn around and. walk away. That's an inconvenient truth, sir.

It's just to me it's very strange to see. an almost unanimous acceptance of that. we have settled this. That's the science. is settled from so many people on both. the left and in academia and even on the. right. There's a lot of people on the. right that believe that. >> Yeah, I know. And it should be the first. thing that makes you suspicious. Yeah. Right. There's a consensus. Yeah. I. mean, this is not how science is done. Something that's never static. This.

episode is brought to you by Happy Dad. Hard Seltzer. A nice cold Happy Dad is. low carbonation, gluten-free, and easy. to drink. No bloating, no nonsense. Whether you're watching a football game, or you're golfing, watching a fight with. your boys, or out on the lake, these. moments call for a cold Happy Dad. People are drinking all these seltzers. in skinny cans loaded with sugar, but. Happy Dad only has 1 g of sugar in a. normal-size can. Can't decide on a. flavor? Grab the variety pack. Lemon.

lime, watermelon, pineapple, and wild. cherry. They also have a grape flavor in. collaboration with Death Row Records and. Snoop Dogg. They have their new lemonade. coming out as well. Happy Dad, available. nationwide, across America, and in. Canada. Go to your local liquor store, or visit happydad.com. For a limited time, use the code Rogan. to buy one Happy Dad trucker hat and get. one free. Enjoy a cold Happy Dad. Must.

be of legal drinking age. Please drink. responsibly. Happy Dad Hard Seltzer tea. and lemonade is a malt alcohol located. in Orange County, California. And the. weirdest thing is when you look at the. charts of the overall temperature of. Earth that have been, you know, from. core samples over a long period of time, it's this crazy wave. And like, no one. was controlling it back then. And we're. supposed to believe that we can control. it now, that we can do something about. it now? >> else about it, which I find funny, and.

you might have some insight into it. People pay no attention to the actual. numbers. Yeah. I mean, we're not talking about. big changes. Right. >> You know, in other words, you know, for the temperature of the. globe as a whole, between now and the last glacial. maximum, the difference was 5°. But that was because most of the Earth.

was not affected, much of the Earth. anyway, very much. But, you know, somebody says 1°, 1/2°, what's his name, Gutierrez, at the UN, says, "The next 1/2° and we're done. for.". I mean, doesn't anyone ask, "1/2°?" I mean, I. deal with that between, you know, 9:00. a.m. and 10:00 a.m. It does seem crazy. It's just that kind. of fear of minute change that they try. to put into people. And what I think.

people need to understand that are. casual observers of this is what you. discussed earlier, how much money is. involved in getting people to buy into. this narrative so you can pass some bill. that's called save the world climate, some some crazy like that. Everyone goes. along. >> they call it the Inflation Reduction. Act. >> even better. Who doesn't want to reduce. inflation? Right. And then next thing. you know, there's windmills killing. whales and all kinds of nonsense. Uh The. the the point being, it's it it is a.

fascinating science. Like, the science. itself is fascinating. Oh, yeah. >> You get rid of the ideology, and you. stop attaching. this thing versus, you know, you're. either pro-science or anti-science. Just. look at the actual data of it. It's. absolutely fascinating. And these minute. changes, the fact that the precession of. the equinoxes, where the. Earth wobbles, like, the whole thing is. nuts. Like, the whole temperature and it. has to stay relatively stable in order. to keep us alive in terms of like, can't.

go too low, can't go too high. It's. we're in this Goldilocks zone. >> the interesting thing is during the ice. ages, we almost get wiped out. Yeah, got. really close, right? >> And what's interesting about that is as. far as temperature goes, okay, yeah, the poles have gotten much. colder. You have ice covering Illinois. to kilometers of ice. That that's. uninhabitable. But you get south of 30° latitude, not very different from today in terms.

of temperature. And so, you would think, yeah, at. 100,000 years, people would sort of. migrate to an area where it was now. pleasant. Trouble was, without CO2, which went. down to about 180, there wasn't enough food for the people. Oh, so there wasn't enough plant life. Yeah. Yeah. Get down to 160, 150, all life would die. There would be not.

enough food for anything. What's it at now? Like, 240? No, we're. now 400 something. >> 400? Yeah. 410. >> 430 maybe today, yeah. Okay. Um when you first started. discussing this, and when you first. started getting interested in this, how. much pushback did you get? Um. Interesting question. Actually,

quite a lot, but I mean, it took very. funny forms. So, for instance, uh. and. let's see, 1989, for instance, I sent a paper to Science magazine. questioning whether this is something to. worry about. And they sent it back immediately saying. there was no interest. So, I sent it to the Bulletin of the.

American Meteorological Society, and. they reviewed it and published it. And the editor was immediately fired. Wow. About 10 years later, working with some. colleagues at NASA, we found something. called the iris effect that. clouds, which were greenhouse affected at the. upper levels, uh contracted when it got warm, letting. more heat out, so cooling.

as a negative feedback. And we got the. paper, put it got reviewed, it was published. Again, the editor was. fired immediately. But the new editor. came on immediately and said he's. inviting papers to criticize it. And suddenly, there were tons of papers. criticizing it, looking for anything. that differed from what we did, including one that found a difference.

that actually, uh. made the CO2 even less important, but it. was different, so he thought he could. pass it through. No, it's it's insane. And even now, there's something called. gatekeepers. I don't know. Do Are you familiar with. the uh. release of emails from East Anglia? No, I'm not. Okay. This is 20 years ago or. something, almost.

Uh somebody, anonymous, released the emails from a place in. England, the University of East Anglia, which has a lot of people pushing. climate alarm, and they were communicating with other. people like Michael Mann and so on. And they were talking about blocking. publication and getting rid of editors. and doing this and doing that and so on. And that was all public.

And it had no impact at all. How That. sounds like that should be illegal. Yeah. Well, you know, the whole business. with. how shall I put it, the peer review, it is not ancient. Before World War II, very few journals had peer review. And in fact, when I have students look. at old journals from the 19th century,

one of the big surprises. is they are less formal than today's. papers. They are literally discussions among. scientists. about their results, their questions, their uncertainties, and so on. It's. real communication. Today, I mean, there's a much more. formality in the papers. There's also, in my field, the Meteorological Society. actually did a poll, or study,

how often are papers referred to? And it turns out the average paper is. referred to once. Wow. I mean, so you have these things papers. are written to satisfy the funding. agency. Nobody seems to pay attention to them. How did you get involved in this? Well, I mentioned my stay at the. Department of Energy, and that's what. really sucked me into it. I had never.

paid much attention to sci- climate. science before, but I was spending a lot of money, the. taxpayers' money, on it, and so I. thought I'll have to learn a little bit. about it, and uh. I already mentioned that most of the. climate scientists did not uh appreciate. my. questioning. It They were very strange, because almost any other science, when. they got a call from Washington, "Come. in and tell us what you're doing," they. were just delighted to come and make a. case about how important their work was, but the climate scientists were.

completely different, you know. Did. anybody engage with you? Yeah, they had to, because I threatened. to cut off their funding if they didn't. come, and. they would come, you know, and and be. very sullen, and uh they wouldn't answer. questions, and you know, you can't have. a seminar without asking questions. That's how you learn. So they would come. to try to get funding from you and they. wouldn't answer questions. >> That's right. That sounds crazy. That sounds like people that don't think. they have to convince you that what.

they're doing is important. So they're. entitled to that money. Well, that's. right. Well, you know, I was working for. President uh. Bush senior and when uh Carter and Gore. won the election, you know, Gore couldn't wait to fire me. You know, at the. behest of all of his proteges. You mean. Clinton Clinton and Gore? Clinton and. Gore, yeah. That's right. So he uh. you know, Washington fortunately it's. very hard to make anything happen.

including firing someone you want to. fire cuz you can't find them in the org. chart. So it took him two or three months to. find me. But they finally did fire me. I was glad. to be fired. I wanted to go back to do. research. I was tired of being a. bureaucrat. So I you know, grateful in. some sense for that. >> your colleagues that you that. weren't working with you, like other. scientists, were they reluctant to. discuss this kind of information with. you guys when when you first started. questioning whether or not this.

narrative is correct? >> Well, you know, my field is actually. hard physics, you know, I'm I'm a. nuclear physics trained and I've done a. lot of work with the lasers and uh these. are things you you can measure. They. don't have much political influence. A. lot of them have a military significance. and. in fact I the reason I was brought to. Washington is because I invented a an. important part of the Star Wars defense. uh. uh initiative which I can say about. later, but.

uh I I never really paid any close. attention to science until then. But I I would. >> Climate science. Climate. climate science I should say, yes. So once I had this experience in. Washington, I started looking to it a. little bit, but I I didn't have time to. look a lot because my own research was. going. still at Princeton and. we had discovered some things that we. were able to form a little startup. company and so. you know, forming the company and.

getting it going and funded used up most. of my time. I didn't have time to look. at climate. But eventually that was behind me and I. I invited Dick to come give a seminar at. a colloquium at Princeton and that's. really when I began to get very. interested in it. And I realized that it's just completely. different from normal science, you know, it it uh. completely politicized. If you can't ask. a question, you know, that's a bad bad. sign. Yeah. And um and if you have 100%.

consensus determining the truth, that's. an even worse sign because. you know, the truth in science is. whether what you predict agrees with. observation and that wasn't true of the. science the climate science community. You know, they would predict all these. things and none of them ever happened. and there was no consequence, you know, one failure after another and it nothing. ever happened. The funding kept pouring. in. Now, is this behind the scenes is this. discussed amongst physicists and other. hard scientists? Do they talk about how.

climate science has been politicized and. the issue that that causes or do they. just accept it? Well, I think. speaking as a physicist, I don't know. how it is in other fields and and from. Princeton, I think most of my colleagues. recognize that uh. uh there's a lot of nonsense there, but. they're afraid to speak up. Right. Because it's bringing in enormous. amounts of money. We Dick mentioned that. the love of money is the root of all. evil and in universities, for example,

at Princeton we have enormous new. building program. It's funded to a large. extent from overhead from climate. grants, you know. And you're talking about, you know, not small change, you know, you're. talking about hundreds of millions of. dollars, you know, for construction. So it's it's like, you know, this famous. drama. of this Norwegian playwright Enemy of. the People, Ibsen. And uh. the point of the drama was there was. this resort town in Norway where you.

would come and you would uh. uh be treated at the spa. You drink the. water and and go home healthy. Well, people would come and drink the water. and they would die of typhoid. A local doctor said, you know, we're. killing people, we're not curing them. and he was declared an enemy of the. people because he was cutting off the. source of funding for the city. So it's. it's that syndrome. It's an ancient. human problem. So it's it's always been there and it's. there in spades with climate.

It's part of it. Uh. Another part of it is the politicization. has made it a partisan issue. I mean, in the US and I think that's in. a way fortunate. It's almost a right versus left issue. >> Yeah. And as a result uh. you have people. universities are almost entirely on the. left. And so it's uh. something they support.

Uh you know, the money end of it is sort. of funny. I mean, I have the feeling at. MIT. that our president uh. Sally Kornbluth, you know, probably spends her time. worrying about uh how she can use. climate money to support the music. department. I don't know. So when they get funding for climate, they can allocate it as they wish? Well, you know, it is fungible. Okay.

You get this huge overhead, you know, 50% 60% of your grant goes to the. administration and not to your research. Uh Yeah, they can do what they like with. their overhead. Interesting. Yeah. This. episode is brought to you by. ZipRecruiter. You don't think about it. too much, but the holiday season comes. with some pretty unique jobs like a. haunted house worker, a professional. pumpkin carver, gift wrapper, elf, or. real bearded Santas. And all these jobs require a unique set. of skills. If you need to hire for a.

role like that or any role really, ZipRecruiter is the way to go, especially since you can try it for free. at ziprecruiter.com/rogan. Whatever you're looking for, ZipRecruiter can help you find the. perfect match and it works fast. You'll be able to find out if there are. any people in your area who are. qualified for your role right away. You'll also have access to their. advanced resume database which helps you. connect with top candidates sooner. Let.

ZipRecruiter find the right people for. your roles, seasonal or otherwise. Four. out of five employers who post on. ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate. within the first day. And right now you. can try it for free at. ziprecruiter.com/rogan. Again, that's ziprecruiter.com/rogan. ZipRecruiter, the smartest way to hire. And if they take. a a a step outside of the narrative and. say, I think we need to re-examine. what's going on with CO2 in the.

atmosphere and it seems there's a. politicization. of this subject and that's bad for. science, that's bad for education, that's bad for everything. Let's take a. step back. They would immediately lose. so much money. >> Well, the the main thing it's bad for is. for overhead income to the university. From an administrator's point of view. >> I mean, this is something that the press. didn't deal with very much. Trump. was cutting the overhead. He was uh saying that he didn't want to.

have that included in grants. I don't think the public realized how. significant that was for better or for. worse. Mhm. Yeah. I think most people. have no idea where grants go. They they. don't even think about it. No, I mean And the amount of money. that's involved. Yeah, when I was. active, if I got a grant, I'm a theoretician, so I didn't need. laboratory work. It mainly was for. support of students. And so but then 50% of it went to the.

administration. Yeah, it's like a lot of charities. almost. Yeah. A lot of money goes to overhead. A. lot of money goes to executives. A lot of money goes to administration on. grants. It's And some of it is. reasonable. Sure. But. >> But it's also you're kind of attached to. keeping that money flowing in and. there's a gigantic incentive to not rock. the boat and not discuss it the same way. you would discuss nuclear science. >> Right. Yeah. Oh yeah, and and the.

attraction, I mean, if you're an. administrator, if you're a president of the university, uh that often overrides everything else, you know, that uh you're raising money. I remember years ago I started college. at Rensselaer. and I made the mistake of mentioning. someone that I appreciated the fact they. never bothered me. I transferred out. after my sophomore year. So they began bothering me.

And I reali- realized the president of. Rensselaer was making over a million and. a half dollars. This is years ago. Probably making much more now. And the uh fundraiser came back to me. and said, do you know how much money she. raises? And I said, oh, so she's on commission. Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That is kind of what's. going on. That it gets real weird when you bring.

that kind of stuff up and people get. very reluctant to have these. discussions. They don't want to rock the. boat. I've I've talked to a lot of. friends in academia and they say people. pull you aside like in quiet corners to. discuss how how this is kind of. [ __ ]. >> also the alumni. I find this with Harvard especially. A lot of the people who graduate from. Harvard really love the place. For better or for worse.

And they will do anything to protect it. >> Mhm. That makes sense. Yeah. Especially since to stick your neck out. there's not a whole lot of benefit. unless you're writing a book about you. know how ridiculous current climate. change models are. A lot of people did at first in half. A. lot of politicians wrote books saying. this is a hoax. This is a. And they managed to ride that out. I. mean by just keeping on. demanding. that it be accepted. It's interesting.

It is interesting. It's because it's. universally accepted on the left. Any discussion at all about I've had. conversations with people and I say what. do you why do you think that? Like what. do you know about climate change? And. almost none of them have any idea. what the actual predictions are, how. wrong they've been, what Al Gore. predicted in this stupid movie which is. so far off. If you he thought we were. all going to be dead today. Right.

There's very little change between 2006. and today. Right. I mean as I mentioned. before I think for some people. it's importance is it gives {quote}. meaning to their life. Yes. Um. It becomes a part of an ideology and. it's very cult-like ideology that. encompasses a lot of different things. unfortunately. Um what do you think are the major. factors? You talked about. water vapor, CO2, there's methane,

there's a lot of different factors that. would lead to the temperature of the. earth moving in any direction. >> Okay. Yeah. I let me back off that a little because. one of the things that. is sort of strange is the narrative. itself deals with. global temperature. Not clear what that is. I mean. some average over the whole globe. How. do you take it? What do you do with it?

But more than that. uh. what is climate? And you know there is a definition. It's. an arbitrary definition. And uh it's that uh it's time it's time. variation on time scales longer than 30. years. It's pretty arbitrary. Yeah. >> But it distinguishes it from weather. Which is changes from day to day or week. to week and so on. >> Right. So if they can see a rise in.

temperature over 30 years they start. getting concerned. They start calling it. climate. Okay. Now you can take data from every. station. and filter it to get rid of everything. shorter than 30 years. That's called a low pass filter. And you can look at that. and each station and see how does it. correlate with the globe? It turns out very poorly.

Because most climate change by that. definition. is regional. So for instance. in this area let's say the. states like Louisiana, Alabama, Gulf. states. they had a period of cooling when the. rest of the country was warming. Nobody paid much attention to it because. that's normal. Different areas do.

different things. Um. You have reasons why it's local. I mean. if you're near a coast, near a body of. water. the circulations in the ocean are. bringing heat to the surface and away. from the surface all the time on time. scales ranging from a few years for El. Nino and so. to a thousand years. And so this has nothing to do with the. global average.

Um. The whole business that the global. average is at issue. was something that was created for. people studying different planets. And so you'd look at the average for. each planet and that varied quite a lot. so it was useful. But for looking at the earth's climate. I'm not sure a global mean is a. particularly useful device. That makes sense. How much of a factor. does the sun play? Obviously a lot. It. heats us up but like Yeah. the changing.

I you know that's something. there's argument about. Um. I think you know for instance a man. called Milankovitch. in around 1940. made a convincing argument and I think. now it's correct. that orbital variations. created a change in insolation, incoming. sunlight. in the Arctic in summer.

And that controlled the ice ages. Mhm. And the the thinking was pretty. simple. Uh he was saying that. uh you know every winter is cold. Every winter has snow. But what the temperature or the. insolation or the sunlight in the summer. is. determines whether that snow melts or. not before the next cycle. And if you're at a point where it. doesn't melt you build a glacier. Mhm.

Takes thousands of years but you know. eventually it's big. And. in recent years for instance there have. been young people who have. shown that that works. It's interesting. There was even a. national program called CLIMAP. to study this. It's around 1990 or so. And they found something peculiar. They. found that uh.

there were peaks in the solar the. orbital variables. that were found in the data for ice. volume. But that the time series were not lining. up right. The young people looking at this said. you're looking at the wrong thing. If you're looking at the insolation. you want to look at the time rate of. change of ice volume.

Not just the ice volume. >> Mhm. And then the correlations were. excellent. So this was a theory Milankovitch that I. think has been reasonably sustained. Um. But. it the people doing this got no credit, nothing. Cuz you know. early in my career these people would. have been rewarded. Now it didn't contribute to global.

warming. Nobody pays attention to it. Joe, let let me add to what Dick has. said which I agree with. Um. But you asked about the sun and as Dick. says that. is a controversial issue. The. establishment narrative is that the sun. has very little to do with it. It's all. CO2. CO2 is the control knob. Don't. confuse me with other possibilities. But nobody is is quite sure about the. sun. We have not got good records of the.

sun for a long time so we're stuck with. proxies of. how bright was the sun 500 years ago or. 5,000 years ago. And. one of the proxies is. when the sun activity changes it changes. the amount of radioactive isotopes that. it makes in the atmosphere, things like. carbon-14 or beryllium-10. These stick. around for long, you know, thousands of. years or longer and you can.

from that infer how many of them were. made 500 years ago or 5,000 years ago. and. they don't give any support to the idea. that the sun has been constant. Mhm. It's very clear for example that the. amount of carbon-14, you know, this. radioactivity. that's produced changes from year to. year. If you don't take that into. account you get all the dates wrong from. carbon-14 dating, you know, where you. >> Mhm. take an Egyptian mummy and you burn.

up the cloth and you measure the. carbon-14 in it and you get the wrong. answer unless you assume that the rate. of production then was different from. what it is today. Because you know what the right answer. is from the Egyptian mummies. There's a. pretty good historical record of that. So it's clear the sun is is always. changing. And over the last 10,000 years since the. last glacial maximum. there have been many warmings and. coolings, very large warmings and.

coolings and that's particularly. noticeable near the Arctic, you know, in. high latitudes in the north. For example. my father's home in Scotland I was a kid. I would walk up into the hills south of. Edinburgh and you could see these farms. from the year 1000. where people were able to make a crop at. altitudes where you can't farm today. It. was it's too cold today but it was. clearly warm enough in the year 1000. Mhm. which was the time when the Norse. farmed Greenland. So what caused those?

It was not people burning oil and coal, you know. Right. And so was I think the. guess as to what it was is some slight. difference in the way the sun was. shining in those days. Because they do correlate with the. carbon-14. That's absolutely fascinating. Now, when. we have estimates like say of the. the Jurassic or. any any dinosaur age, was there is there.

enough of an understanding of the. differences in temperature of the back. then that we know whether or not they. ever experienced ice ages? Oh, yeah. So we can go back 65, 100. million years. >> You can go back 500 million years or. >> 500 million years and be pretty. accurate. >> Evidence of ice ages, absolutely. They. come and go. >> there've always been There's always been. an ice age and a warming And they don't. they don't correlate very well with CO2. You can also estimate the past CO2. levels and they don't correlate with ice. ages. What's special about the recent. ice ages is they're.

pretty periodic. So for 700,000 years, almost every. 100,000 years you have a cycle. Wow. Uh. if you go back further than that, you begin seeing that fall apart and. for about 3 million years, 40,000 years. is the dominant period and then you go. back further than that and you don't. have ice ages for a long time. Wow. Yeah. It's very very poorly. understood I would say.

And. so the and there's also no way to track. it. Like there's no way to tell what's. going to happen to the sun. You they. they have some sort of an understanding. Well, with this it's not clear that. solar activity was the issue. Could have been many factors. Well, you. know. how shall I put it? With the ice ages, as I say, orbital theory was the main. thing. Uh. the fact that you have, you know,

various factors determining the orbit of. the earth versus the sun and so on. Uh. give you periodic changes in the. incoming radiation as a function of. geography in the earth. Mhm. Joe, let me add again to what Dick has. said that uh. he correctly said that the current ice. ages, which are quasi periodic, really. only began 3 million years or so ago and. at first they were oscillating a lot. faster than today.

And that was approximately the time that. the Isthmus of Panama closed. So one of the suspicions is that when. the. Panama Isthmus closed and stopped the. circulation of water from the Atlantic. to the Pacific, that made a huge difference in the. transport of heat and things like the. Gulf Stream. For example, the Gulf. Stream would have been completely. different if water could have flown into. the Pacific instead of to North Europe. And that was about the time that the. these fluctuating ice ages began. Wow.

But you know, we've set back the the. serious study of climate I think by 50. years by this manic focus on CO2. If. your theory doesn't have CO2 in it, forget it, you know, you won't get. funding. And so the the the true answer I mean it. to me, you know, there was a period 200. years ago when everyone thought that. heat was phlogiston. There was this. magic heat subject, you know, non-existent, but everyone had to.

believe in phlogiston and it turned out. it was nonsense. It wasn't there at all, but but you couldn't get anyone to. support you unless you believed in. phlogiston. So I call this phlogiston. era of climate science where phlogiston. is CO2. You know Well, this is what confuses me. You gentlemen are academics. You're. obviously very intelligent people. There's other very intelligent people. that are involved in academia. How does. this problem get solved? Like how do. they start treating this as what it is.

instead of attaching it to a political. stance? Well, I think stopping the funding for. uh. this massive funding for climate would. help. Because it's certainly been driven. within academia by the availability of. funds. If you're willing to support the. narrative, you'll be handsomely rewarded. and you'll be elected to societies, you'll win prizes. And you'll be shunned. again if you don't. >> right. So I think for example, if. some administration in Washington wants.

to slow this down and get some sanity, they should cut the funding or they they. should at least open up the funding to. alternate. theories of what is controlling climate. Because the the the theory that the. control knob is CO2 doesn't work. Completely clear it doesn't work. It. just seems so insane that if we move in. the same direction and we as you say, if. it does if it really is holding back. climate science by 50 years, like that. that's a travesty.

Well, you know, Dick would have made a. lot more progress and his colleagues. would have made a lot more progress if. they hadn't been forced to deal with. this CO2 cult and. we might understand climate today. without that. >> Now, there there are a lot of things. that are peculiar about science in. general. Uh. you know. one of them is numbers. I mean. it isn't having more people work on.

something. You want to have an. environment where. there's freedom. Um. often think I mean. Will is familiar with this. There's a. photograph from 1929. of all the world's physicists. at a Solvay conference. This is a golden age of physics. Um.

if you quintupled the number of people. working on physics, would you have. improved the situation? I doubt it. And so, you know, I think freedom is. much more important than just. piling on. things. >> Yeah. You have that. Great. There they are. Not quite. It's not the same. Mhm. But. that's the Solvay conference, absolutely. The 1929 had the Curies.

Well, Pierre might be there. I'm sorry. It's okay. Yeah. Either way we I guess we can. >> Yeah. But I mean. I wondered at times, you know, when you. had uh. the. Soviet competition with the US and uh. they were the first ones into space and. we suddenly began a program.

to get more and more kids to get into. STEM. Mhm. Um. that has its downside. First of all, you're going to dilute the. field. if you increase it too much. And the second thing is with peer. review, I mean peer review is new. I mean it. wasn't that common before World War II. But people have pointed out.

it has its virtues. But. you know, you can see the the Royal. Meteorological Society for instance used. to give you. instructions. and the instructions were. you can only reject a paper. if there is a mathematical error that. you can identify. or if it's plagiarized. It's repeating. something that already exists. And that was pretty fair.

because how is a reviewer supposed to. decide if a new theory is right or not. or so on. That that's asking too much of. that. But today, peer review is almost a. process. to enforce conformity. Uh. if you're not going with the flow, you can get rejected. And that's.

a lot of things structurally need to be. I think rethought a little bit. The physicists have done pretty well. with archive. where they have a publication vehicle. using the internet. that bypasses reviews and lets people. read it and see what's up on it. But all sorts of things like that need. to happen. I mean what Will is saying is. true, I'm sure. I science of climate has been set back.

at least two generations by this. But it just seems like it's bad for any. kind of science and that open free. discussion and debating ideas based on. their merit and what data you have, that's what it's supposed to be about. It's not supposed to be attached to an. ideology. And I just don't understand. how it got this far. and how it can be separated. So when. when did it really become a problem. where ideology started invading into.

certain segments of science? Well, I thought it's happened many times. in the past, Joe. Climate is only the. most recent. Uh. So it's just a natural thing that. happens. >> Well, for example, there was the. eugenics movement in America and Britain. and Western Europe where. the claim was that. the. great gene pool, you know, of the. Anglo-Saxon race was being diluted by. all these low Q Italians and Eastern.

European Jews and Chinamen. It was all. completely nonsense, but they had. learned journals where you could publish. an article that proved that and you had. the presidents of Harvard and Stanford. and Princeton, Alexander Graham Bell. Bell being great eugenesis, you know, protecting the American genome and it. was all nonsense. It was just complete. [ __ ]. And yet. and the only thing that stopped it. really was uh. was the Nazis because they took it over.

with a vengeance, you know, they. were big fans of the eugenics movement. in America and in Britain. And they took it to its you know, absurd. extreme extreme. They also gave an. honorary degree to the leading. eugenicist in America, a man called. Laughlin. But Oh my goodness. No, I mean. What Will is saying, I mean it had a. practical consequence by the way. It actually led to the immigration.

restriction act of 1924. Which held that America was going to. restrict. immigrants. to percentages based on the population. in the 19th century. So there would be a quota for England. and Scotland which was fine, little bit. less for Germany, almost nothing for. Eastern Europe, almost nothing for Italy. and so on. And And that was used.

in the run-up to World War II. to allow Roosevelt to prevent Jews from. escaping Europe. Wow. Um. And it was only changed in 1960. So essentially. you were keeping out Jews, Eastern. Europeans, Chinese until then because of. eugenics in 1924.

We you know, the average person that's. not involved in science always wants to. think of science as being this. incredibly pure thing amongst. intellectuals or they're trying to. figure out how the world works. When you. hear stories like that you hear that. kind of stuff and you're just like oh. this has always been a problem. You're. dealing with people. >> Human beings. Yeah. That's the problem. Right. >> That's that's getting to the heart of. the problem. Yeah, yeah, there's this. this famous quote by Immanuel Kant. You. know, from the crooked timber of mankind.

no straight thing was ever made. Mhm. >> That goes for science as well as every. other aspect of human society. >> What could have been done to protect the. scientific process from this sort of an. ideological invasion or at least. shelter it somewhat to to make sure that. something like eugenics doesn't ever get. pushed or climate or any anything that's. just not logical and doesn't fit with. the data. >> Well, the trouble is.

you know, when something like eugenics. comes around. uh. the population is told that this is. science. Right. And uh. how are they going to say no? I mean. you had. uh bar various. famous laboratories. devoted to this. I mean it. it wasn't a fringe thing. Right. And so.

I don't know how you distinguish it at. that time from science. Today there are. books on it and you know, you have the. correspondence of biologists who are. saying, well. it's a little bit dicey, but they're. saying it's it's bringing it to the fore. of public attention. So maybe that's a. good thing. Mhm. Well, it just makes you shudder to think. like what happens if the Nazis didn't. take over Germany and eugenics continued. to progress in America.

That's terrifying. Mhm. >> To think where we would be today. Right, right. We'd have been a much poorer country. because so many. leading Americans, you know, creative, productive people have immigrated, you. know, fairly recently. >> It also probably would have led to some. horrific actions in order to enact this. Mhm. Yeah, I mean when you put things in the. hands of politicians.

um. there is a disconnect. I mean the business with light bulbs I. mentioned. Right. >> It wasn't malice. It was ignorance. And you combine ignorance with power and. you often get nonsense. And the narrative that you're doing. something good for everybody. >> yeah. Yeah. Yeah, Dick has often made the point. which I agree with that. politicians and and sort of society. leaders are the worst in situations like.

this. So the ordinary person is often a. little bit more skeptical and. uh more reasonable. Yeah. So for. example, I'd like to tease Dick because. he's a Harvard grad about the Salem. witch trials, but. they were orchestrated by people from. Harvard, you know, it was not the common. people. Have you ever read into that at. all? Yeah, I've looked into it. carefully. >> you think about the ergot poisoning. theory? Well, um. Does it make sense to you? >> I I don't know. Uh.

Most of the testimony was from young. women about the same age as Greta. Thunberg by the way. And uh you know, they had these visions. uh of uh. the person they were accused uh. consorting with the devil and doing all. sorts of seen things and uh that was. accepted as testimony. It was called a. spectral evidence. And so when. Wow. >> When finally the trials were stopped, it. wasn't for the right reason which is. that there's no such thing as witches. You know, they were stopped because.

spectral evidence, you know, was uh. shaky. It was being used against the. Harvard judges themselves at that point. So it was getting very dangerous. You know, but one of them was selling a. book on how to how to detect witches, Cotton Mather, you know. Well, I've read. that as well about the printing press. When the printing press was first. devised, a lot of people like, oh we're. going to get so much knowledge. No, a. lot of the early books were like how to. detect witches. Right. That's right. Malleus Maleficarum. You know, the the.

hammer of the evildoers. That was the. first book on witches. What I'd read. about Salem though was that they had. core samples that detected a late frost. and that they believed this late frost. might have contributed to ergot growth. cuz apparently that's that does happen a. lot when. >> Yeah. the plants grow and then they. freeze and then. they get mold on them and that mold. could contain ergot and that has LSD. like properties which totally makes. sense. If they're eating LSD laced bread. and they thought everybody was a witch.

But either way Yeah, yeah. It took. >> I I think that's a kinder explanation of. what happened. I'm less generous. Well, you know more. about the behind the scenes. Yeah. No, but I mean people I think what Will is. saying is. there are people who always want to have. a chance to do in their neighbor. Yes, sure. And if you could say your. neighbor's a witch Right. what better. way we can't have witches in our. neighborhood. Let's burn them or drown. them at the time, right? That's what. they did to people. Yeah. Yeah, that.

that's one of the parts of Orwell's 1984. that many people forget, but a big part. of that was every day there was two. minutes of hate. And so. people seem to have this need for. hatred, you know, you have to have a. part of the day where you can hate. something or somebody and. so if you're hating CO2, at least that's. better than hating your neighbor. Well, if you're on Twitter, you're you're. using up a lot more than two minutes of. hate. Uh-huh. Well, you know, but even. with political figures I'm always.

surprised. I mean seems obvious that any. political figure who is exploiting hate. and fear. probably does not mean well. Yeah. And yet we continually fall for. it. >> over again. Yeah, all of them. And you know, other countries do the. same pattern. Oh yeah. That's what's. dark. It just seems like we're terrified. of being terrified. Mhm. And we want. safety and we want someone who comes. along and scares the [ __ ] out of us and.

vows to protect us. Yep. Yeah. And children do this all the time. Go into a dark closet and frighten. yourself. [Laughter]. Well, there is also terrible things in. the world and terrible people in the. world. Um but. when you have an it just everything. scares the [ __ ] out of everybody. Everything is the end of the world and. climate being one of the key ones that I. hear all the time with young people. In. fact, there were some recent surveys. that were done.

>> If you know about these like the things. that give young people the most anxiety. and climate is at the very top of that. list. Yeah. I mean it's really strange. to think that this is. causing young people not to want to have. children, not to want to continue, to. have no hope for the future. This is. bizarre. And just to live in constant. fear. Yeah. Of one day. But meanwhile, is anybody paying attention to all these. rich people buying shoreline property? Yeah. Like do you think they're stupid?

Do you think Jeff Bezos is a dumbass cuz. he's buying these giant mansions like. right on the ocean? Like do you really. think the water's going to raise that. much? How should I put it? I mean, you. know. even the people who are pushing it at. MIT, I mean. buy houses. on the shore. >> Obama did. He got that beautiful house. in Martha's Vineyard. It's like if. you've looked at. the timelines, I'm sure you have like. time-lapse video of the shoreline from. like 1980 all the way up to 2025. It.

doesn't move. Yeah. I mean it goes a. little bit Malibu and there's a lot of. it. Oh, they they go back much further. than that. Yes. Yeah, I think Joe it's true sea level is. rising. It it's different at different. shores because the land is also rising. and sinking, but it's not very much and. it hasn't accelerated. There's. no evidence that CO2 has made any. difference. It started rising roughly. 1800 at the end of the little ice age. and it's not not changing very much. >> And then wasn't there like an.

unprecedented amount of Arctic ice. that's increased recently? That's right. Well, Yeah. Yeah, I mean. that that's always variable. Right, but. when that happens, how come that doesn't. hit the news? If if the ice goes away, then it's going to hit the news. Oh my. god, look at this. We lost a chunk the. size of Manhattan and everybody freaks. out. >> Well, we were supposed to be ice free 20. years ago. >> Yes. Yeah. Uh no, you know. >> Al Gore was just off by a little bit. He's just Give him some decades. Well,

that is the point that I think. people have made. A test usually means if you fail it, you've done something wrong. Yes. Uh only in theology does it mean that. you change the goals. Right. Right, especially when you invented the. theology. because climate is very much like a. religion or at least the adherence to it. is very religious-like or I should say. cult-like. Right. Because it's not like. there's a higher power. It's It's.

everyone's just terrified and you have. to change everything you do now. Cuz. you're guilty. And it used to be that. like the sign of virtue would have was. to have an electric car and then every. My favorite thing is going up behind. Teslas now and they have bumper stickers. that say I bought this before Elon went. crazy. So now they don't I mean. it's just everyone is trying to figure. out what they're supposed to do in order. to still be accepted by their group. And the climate one is one that if you. bring it up with people, it's almost.

like you're talking about witches. Like. they want to get out of there. Like if. you actually looked at Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's a religious It is. or a. cult-like thing. >> Absolutely. Yeah. And they don't really. it's not like they've studied it a lot. Now yeah, it's really interesting and. this is why I think that we've got to. reduce CO2 and you have like this. informed discussion with someone. You. go, "Okay. So when did you start reading. about this? What book was that? Where do. you know, did you see this? Did you see. that? And okay." And you now you're.

having an informed discussion, but. that's not what it's like. It's like you. bring it up and they're like, "Oh god, you Climate change is settled. Climate. change is settled. Okay, you don't. believe in Even Bernie when I had him on. when he was talking about climate change. is a real problem it's a giant problem. and we started showing the Washington. Post thing that says that we're in a. global cooling period and that it's. raised up sometime over the last 100, but if you look at like the peaks and. valleys, the main thing is like this has. never been static and I said to Bernie, I'm like, "There's a lot of money in. this, Bernie. Like you've got to admit.

this. Like this isn't something that we. have to act on now to save each other. It might be something that we're being. [ __ ] with and that's what it seems. like to me.". It's like Well, the question is why does. he find it so enthuse Why is he so. enthusiastic. >> Wonderful for funding. Yeah. Yeah, I. think he's overall a very good person. I. really do and I think he would have been. a fascinating president. But I think. there are too many things to concentrate. on in the world and if you really want. to do a deep dive into the actual. science of climate and CO2's impact on.

climate and what actually causes us to. get warmer or colder, that's a lot of. work. It's a lot of work and I don't. know if the senator of Vermont has. enough time to do that work and to. really do it objectively or to talk to. someone like you to have an informed. conversation with someone who studied it. for decades and go, "Okay, there's a lot. more to this than I thought and why does. it fit in the same damn pattern where. people get attached to an idea because. that idea is attached to their ideology. >> hitting on a problem and I think Will.

knows this as well. A lot of this stuff is actually tough. material. Yes. I mean for instance, uh you know, the question of what. determines the temperature difference. between the tropics and the pole. That's actually handled in a third-year. graduate course. Uh you know, it deals with hydrodynamic. instability. which is a complicated subject. And it.

it's a real problem in a field. It's true throughout science. where you're trusting people. to behave, I think, decently. Uh but that material itself. is not going to be entirely accessible. to everyone. And how you deal with it, how you. approximate it. I mean, the same is true with nuclear power,

with other things. These are technical issues. They're not. trivial. and you're asking in a. democratic society for people to make. decisions. It's a tough issue. Um. it involves a certain amount of trust. and what we're describing is a situation. where the trust is being violated.

Yeah, there's this nice Russian proverb. that Ronald Reagan loved so much, trust. but verify. Yes. And it's hard to. verify, you know, if you're an average. citizen something about climate. Right. Yeah. That's what's so frustrating about. this conversation when you have it with. people that are indoctrinated. Mhm. And. they're like climate change is a giant. issue. Like there's so many times I've. seen the very fun YouTube speak videos. where they catch people at these. protests. and some joker just starts interviewing. them and they clearly don't know what.

the hell they're protesting for. Right. It's fascinating that you left the. house. Like you you had nothing better. to do. You don't know why you're. protesting, but you're there and you got. a sign Yeah. and you still don't even. understand it. That's how powerful this. thing has become in our society. And the. fact that they've been so that the. powers that be or whoever is involved. has been so successful at pushing this. narrative that it's number one of the. number one anxieties that young people. have about the future in a place where. we may very well be involved in wars.

Like but the war doesn't freak them out. as much as being involved in a climate. emergency. How dare you? Right. There you go. Well, That lady. >> But you notice how quickly she changed. She flipped up. Now it's Palestine. You. got to mix it up. Yeah. People get bored. with the climate, you got to You listen, you want to be someone that's in the. news, you got to keep moving. You got to. keep it moving, you know? Stop doing rap. music, start acting. You got to keep it. moving. And that's you know, she's an. entertainer.

Well, she had a very unfortunate. experience. with that blockade in Israel, so maybe. she's out of the business now, but I. doubt it. But when you're taking a 16-year-old kid. and having her as the face of climate. change. Like and as you said, this is. something insanely difficult to digest. for the average person and you know she. doesn't have this data at her. fingertips. It's not just digest. I. mean, it's. How many people can solve partial. differential equations? I mean, this is one of the complaints I.

have. which is sort of odd. People blame this on models. And. what the models are doing is they're. taking the equations of fluid mechanics, something called the Navier-Stokes. equation. and they're doing it by dividing it into. discrete intervals and. seeing how things change with distance. and time and so on. And. one of the things that.

we. is no one has ever proven. that this actually leads to the. solution. Uh but but it's used for weather. forecasting and all sorts of things and. so on. Anyway, they do this and they do. I think many of the people doing it are. doing it carefully or as carefully as. they can. And um. they get answers that.

will often be wrong. But as best I can tell, none of these. models predict catastrophe. Uh. Koonin made the point, I think, correctly that even with the UN's. models, you're talking about a 3%. reduction in uh. national product or gross domestic. product by 2100.

That's not a great deal. It's not the. end of the earth. You're already much. richer than you are today. So what. what's the panic? And um. it's true. The models don't give you. anything to be that panicked over. So. the politicians and the. environmentalists invent extreme. descriptions that actually don't have. much to do with the models, but they. blame the models.

[Music]. So you know, it's. it's a confusing situation. I mean, the models have a use. They just shouldn't be used to predict. exactly what the future is. You can use. them to see what interacts with what. then study it further. Let let Joe let me uh just say a little. more about what Dick commented on the. Navier-Stokes equation which describes. fluid motion in the atmosphere, the. oceans, and uh.

it really is a very hard uh. mathematical problem to solve because. they're not only partial differential. equations, they're what are called. non-linear partial differential. equations. And so there's a joke about uh Werner. Heisenberg who was uh the inventor of uh. quantum mechanics, uh a very bright guy, and he was the head of the Nazi atomic. bomb program during World War II.

And so he was captured by the Americans. and the British and uh. because of this activity was forbidden. to work on nuclear physics uh. later, you know, after the victory. And so he decided to work on fluid. mechanics on solving the Navier-Stokes. equation. And uh he was a as I said, a. tremendously talented physicist, and but. he found it very hard. He didn't make. very much progress because it's much. harder than quantum mechanics or much.

harder than relativity to solve those. equations. And so one one of his students. supposedly said to him, "Well, you know, Professor Heisenberg, um. they say that if you've been a good. uh. physicist when you die and you go to. heaven, that um. the almighty allows you to ask two. questions, and uh he will answer any. question you ask, and uh what will you. ask him?". And Heisenberg supposedly said, "Well,

I will ask him why general relativity. and uh. why turbulence." Turbulence is the. Navier-Stokes equation. He He says, "And I think he will be able to answer. the first one.". That's funny. That's funny. And. this is what's, you know, the the best assumption of the. best measurements of what's controlling. the temperature on Earth. Well, you know, uh they're they're.

asking you to have great confidence in a. calculation involving this miserable. equation that is so hard to solve uh at. least very far into the future. You can. solve it for a short time, but. it's very hard to go much further. One. of Dick's colleagues at MIT, uh. a man named Lorenz. >> Oh, yes. Why don't you tell him about Lorenz? Well, no. Lorenz is credited with chaos. theory, but basically it's a statement.

that these are not predictable. Um. whether that's true or not is still an. open question, but it has a lot of those. characteristics in detail. I mean, you know, for instance, it. wouldn't be a surprise if you're looking. at a bubbling brook, and you have all those little eddies and. so on. You know, are you actually able to track the whole. thing accurately? Probably not.

How accurately would you have to do it. if you scaled it up to climate? Who knows? Yeah, they the typical. uh description of this theory was that. it's as though. a butterfly flapping its wings in the. Gulf of Alaska causes hurricanes 2 years. later in. Florida. Yeah, that one's funny. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> People repeat that, and you're like, "No, that's not how it works at all.".

I don't I don't think it works that way. >> not, but it's funny when people like to. bring that up. >> what it I think he meant was rather. simpler than that. You know, the hurricane is likely to occur. The. flipping of a butterfly's wings. might have actually changed it from one. day to another. It wouldn't It would have an influence. downstream. Everything has an influence. Everything. is tied in together. Now, when we make models based on.

incorrect data about like CO2 levels and. what the temperature in the future is. going to look like, at what point in time do you think. another country needs to screw up the. same way Nazi Germany ran with eugenics. and it ruined eugenics in the United. States where they're like, "Oh my god, this is a horrific idea.". Do you think something like that has to. happen in another country where they. have to take this climate change. green energy thing to its. full end? You think so? >> think that's how it will end, yes. I.

think Britain or Germany may be the. sacrificial country. Cuz Germany has shut off a couple of. their nuclear power plants, correct? Right. All of their nuclear power. plants. Oh god. Mhm. And they did it all for green energy? That makes no sense. Well, I think they did it because of the. Fukushima thing and because the Green. Party is so powerful in Germany. And. they not only. turned off their plants, not nuclear and. coal as well, but they blew a lot of. them up, you know, you see these. pictures of the plants.

you know, being blown up by dynamite. just to make sure that nobody restarts. them. So, they're fanatics. >> Oh my god. >> fanatics, yeah. That's so crazy. >> Yeah. Yeah. And so at some point some country like. Germany, they'll lose all their jobs, all the industry will move. There'll be no jobs. People will all be. on welfare. There's no money to pay. them. And at that point someone someone will. realize, you know, we've taken a wrong. turn here. I can't believe they blew their plants.

up. That's nuts. They did. And what are. they replacing with right now? They You. have Russian gas? >> Windmills. Windmills? >> Yeah, and imported. >> They're importing fossil fuels. And importing electricity from France. which still has a large nuclear power. base. How How is Germany so smart and so. dumb at the same time? Cuz they have. tremendous engineers. They make some of. the best automobiles ever. They're making them in Hungary. Oh.

But that But that's an. uh a profound question is how is it that. this country of poets and philosophers. >> Yeah. Had the Nazis. >> Had the Nazis, exactly. And uh. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was one of the few. German theologians who had the courage. to remain in Nazi Germany. He was. invited to come to the US, but he he. said, "I'm going to stay with my. people.". And he was eventually hung by the German. by the Nazis. He didn't survive.

But he had this theory that it was um. stupidity. And it's a very interesting. theory. If you look on the internet, you. can read about Bonhoeffer's theory of. stupidity. But he um. his view was that. all of these. Nazi supporters, they didn't really. believe in it all. They were just dumb. You know, it's it's hard for me When I. first read about this, I couldn't. believe it. But the more I look at it, I. I think that every nation has a problem.

that most of us are pretty stupid. There's a large percentage of us. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> that will believe almost anything. And. we could point to a lot of Yeah. things. that are subjects in the zeitgeist right. now and that people wholeheartedly. believe in that make zero sense. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> They could go with that, and you would. go, "Okay, there's. there's some part of this has to be. attributed to low intelligence." So, like, what percentage of the of people. in this country are incapable of. thinking for themselves? It's not small. number. Maybe it's 10. Maybe it's 20.

Whatever percentage, it's enough where. it's a giant problem. >> That's one thing, but also intelligence. itself is a complex issue. There are people who, like us, may be. idiot savants. There are things that we can do very. well, and other things we don't. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, you know, math. departments are famous for that. Well, I. think it's a sign of almost any great. person at anything. >> Yeah. There's usually areas in their.

life where they're just completely. lacking, whether it's hygiene or. relationships or whatever. They're. obsessed by what they do, and that's why. they're great at do. You know, look, there are great writers. who can't do arithmetic. Right. Uh. I don't know, you know, where you put. them in that category. Right. Well, and there's great physical. athletes that they have an intelligence. of moving their body in a way that they. understand things at a much higher level.

than anybody else that does whatever. their athletic pursuit is. They probably. wouldn't do that well on ACT test. Doesn't mean that they're not. intelligent. It's just it's it's a. different kind of intelligence. >> Mhm. Yeah. Yeah. And. that makes the world a more interesting. place by and large. >> It really does. But what's scary is when. you count on the people that are. supposed to be the people that are. obsessed and studying this one thing. like this climate change emergency that. we're supposed to be under, and then you. find out, "Oh, wait a minute. This is.

not. This isn't like an exact science.". >> Oh, it started with Gore. Right. And. Gore, you know, flunked out of Harvard. He did he? Yeah. And his father, who was. a senator, got him back in. Uh I was teaching there at the time. Oh, really? Interesting. The person he. attributes his awareness of CO2 to, Roger Revelle, was teaching a sort of science for poets. course, and he got a D minus in it.

Is he made the most money off of this? Cuz he's made a lot of money off of. climate change. >> a few hundred million. I don't know. These days. It's not change. Still, there there's a a very clear. motivation to keep that graph going. You know, it's um especially now with. social media. There's so many people that can like we. were talking about Greta Thunberg. I. mean, I don't know what her motivations. are, but I do know that there's a lot of.

people out there that have large social. media platforms that all they want to do. is connect themselves to something that. people are talking about all the time. And there's a lot of money in that. And. there's a lot of you know, a lot of. power in wielding that influence. And. the to do so. then just hop on any bandwagon that. comes along and not really know what. you're talking about is it's it's a real. problem that we have in society today. And And it's in in a way a new problem. given social media.

>> Yeah. Yeah, the social media aspect of. it is a new problem. Another new problem. is AI and fakes. Like the you you see. fake videos and fake news stories and. fake articles and it's like you it's. very it takes time to pay attention to. what's real and what's not real today. And so if somebody wanted to push any. kind of a narrative about anything, uh especially climate change, right? You. you could scare the [ __ ] out of somebody. very quickly with a nice video and it. doesn't even have to be real. Well, that was the reason for extreme. weather being chosen.

I mean, it's interesting for quite a few. years the climate issue was temperature. And you'll have noticed last 15-20 years. it's extreme weather. Right. And that shows that you know, it was. fake. Because um. it's trivial. I mean, we looked it up. Uh the average. uh. month.

there are four or five. extreme events someplace in that month. that are once in a hundred year events. So, each of them makes for a good video. And you have four or five a month and. they each only one that's in a hundred. years. And people aren't putting it. together that you know, once in a. hundred year events occurring four five. times a month.

But you know, you always have a picture. of a flood someplace or a rise or this. or that. And those are used to scare. people. It's got harder and harder to. scare people with numbers. Mhm. Right. It's extreme weather events. I keep. that's what I keep hearing. The. hurricanes are getting stronger. They're. getting more frequent. And they repeat. that and I don't think that's. necessarily true. >> No, no. Uh for years the IPCC, the. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. Change of the UN.

was honestly saying they could find no. evidence that these were related. The last one they had to say something. cuz. the politicians control what's in the. IPCC. But even with that they were saying no. And uh that had nothing to do with the. public relations. Said to hell with it even if there's no. relation, we'll say there is. Cuz that gives us visuals. Mhm.

God. Now, when people like Bill Gates are. talking about putting reflective. particles in the atmosphere to cool off. the earth and protect us from the sun's. rays. like where is all that coming from? Especially if like you would imagine. even even. >> Will said it comes from dumbness. Well, I'm sure, but but I'm even proposing. something like that should have the. whole world up in arms. Like, hey a few. people can't make a decision that will. literally impact the entire world and.

possibly trigger a catastrophic drop in. temperature that kills us all. >> Yeah. Why? Because you made Microsoft? Like why do you get to do this? That. seems like something you would have to. have the whole world vote on. And they. would have to be like really well. informed about what the consequences of. this going wrong could be. Mhm. Well, I'd have um. I have to hope that most of the world. agrees with you and me and and that Bill. Gates will never be permitted to do.

something like that. The fear is that. someone would let them know. The fear is. that a country would let them. You get. the right politicians in place and the. right fear-mongering in place and you. let them try. Or what you let somebody try. And these. people that do try get large grants and. they're making a lot of money to do. this. And that's what scares the [ __ ]. out of me that this could be a way that. people could try something out on the. whole world that could be catastrophic. Well, just technically um it would be.

extremely difficult because the amount. of material you have to get up to the. stratosphere to mimic a large strato. volcano. Yeah. You know, I don't even. Bill Gates probably can't afford that. and not sure the US Treasury could. either. So, it's just theoretical at. this point? >> Yeah. I think you know. it's an interesting thing. You're. pointing that someone like Gates has. delusions of grandeur. based on the fact that he's fabulously. wealthy.

Yeah. Um but as a practical matter. that particular approach probably. is not going to be as dangerous as you. think. It won't work. It won't work. Yeah. Well, it's just the idea that someone. would even propose something like that. based on what you gentlemen have. discussed so far today. No, your point is right. I mean, you. have people who have the means to try. things.

And. they're getting a free ride on. Yes, that's the thing. They're getting a. lot of money to implement these changes. That's why these green new deals and. these green energy initiatives and all. these green thing like people have to. understand why are you hearing about. this all the time? it's a PR campaign. It's a PR campaign for a a group of. people that are trying to make a lot of. money. That's what this is all about. And the more you get on board, the more. money they can get politicians to spend. on this stuff. And the more money these. companies make. And the whole thing is.

about money. Much of it is money. >> They're not really worried about you. That's what you have to understand. If. they ever say that they're worried about. your future and what for the the. betterment of our people. We have to. make sure that everybody's okay. We got. to protect the climate. They don't care. That's not real. What they really want. to do is make sure a lot of money comes. in. And if a lot of money coming in is. dependent upon them scaring the [ __ ] out. of you, that's what they lean towards. And you know, money and it's.

transferability and fungibility. it's influence. It's feedbacks. It's. this. >> Yeah, but that's always been true. Yes. Yeah, Joe, let me bring up another. targeted group and that is uh farmers. and ranchers, you know, because of uh. their supposed contribution to. greenhouse warming. Uh. Just a couple years ago I was invited to. come down to Paraguay by uh. uh some farmers there who were worried.

about the uh upcoming climate talks in. the Persian Gulf and. the European bankers were demanding that. uh. Paraguay turn most of its ranch land. back into forest, you know, to save the. planet. And otherwise they wouldn't give loans. to Paraguay. And so the. the ranchers were worried that they're. going to be put out of business and. their families put out of business. And. uh. so I was there for a week and I talked.

to the president. And luckily it turned. out they had a very sensible president. And. he didn't need me uh to recognize that. was nonsense. And uh. but he was I think grateful to have. someone with a science background. confirm his suspicion that it was all. nonsense. So, he went to the conference and. basically told the bankers, you know, to. go to hell. And they didn't pull the funding out of. Paraguay. So, there were no consequences. and the the ranchers did not suffer.

But you know, everybody's under the gun. And. >> consequences in Ireland. Yeah. Yes. They. had to kill half their cattle. >> Yeah, which is. nonsense. Total nonsense and insane. And. if you pay attention to what. regenerative farmers will tell you is. that like if you do it correctly, there's the it's actually carbon. neutral. At least carbon neutral. >> At least carbon neutral and and possibly. contribute it's like the whole thing is. nature. This is how.

this is how it's all set up. Animals eat. grass, they poop manure, manure. fertilizes the plants. It's all real. simple. It's been around forever. And. this idea that all of a sudden cow farts. and burps are a giant issue and they're. going to kill us all. We need to kill. all the cows. Like who are you? Like. who's saying this? How'd you get to. talk? Like this is How'd you get to kill. half their cows? Like you should go to. jail. They should go to jail. >> stupid. You're criminally stupid. You. killed their cows. >> But when it comes to attractive drugs.

power is one of the worst. Oh, it it. might be the worst. Yeah. Yeah, it might. be the worst. And it's. if people can get people to do their. bidding, they often love to do it. Even. if it's preposterous like getting you to. kill half your cows so that you have a. l-. less high methane count you're releasing. from your organization. I mean, you. know, Will has worked on this and. others. But you know, the methane thing. is an example of uh innumeracy.

In other words, what they argue is that. a molecule of methane. has more. greenhouse potential than a molecule. of CO2. And so, cutting back methane will have a. big effect. But there's so little methane in the. atmosphere that if you got rid of all of. it, it would have almost no effect. compared to CO2.

And you know, somehow that step in the. arithmetic gets lost. Yeah, simple arithmetic. They just can't. do simple arithmetic, yeah. It's just weird how these narratives. become so prominent in in social media. It's it's really weird how things like. CO2 become this mantra that everybody. chants. It's it seems very coordinated. and actually kind of impressive that. they've managed to silence.

questioning scientists and. really put the fear of God into people. that read things and don't agree with. it. It began right at the beginning of. the issue. So, as I was mentioning, I mean, already. by 1989, Science magazine was. Let me In fact, one of the ironies with. Science magazine, which is, you know, an important magazine. It had an editor who was Marcia McNutt,

who actually had an op-ed appear in. Science magazine saying she would not. accept any article that questioned this. Wow. And you know what her reward was? She became president of the National. Academy of Science. Mhm. She was a good girl. Yeah. She followed the rules. Yeah, but you know Dick's point about. forbidding questioning is just. unbelievable. I.

When I was a young man, my first job was. at. Columbia and the grand old man there was. uh Robbie. >> Robbie. I I Robbie and uh. Robbie. came from a. Eastern European Jewish family and his. mother had a very poor education, but. she was determined that he would get a. good education and. so he would always tell me, you know, when I would go home from school every. day, my mother wouldn't ask me, "What.

did you learn today in school, Izzy?". That's she called him Izzy. Isidor. And he would uh. tell her and then she would say, "And did you ask a good question today?". So, he said she was really more. interested in whether he had asked a. good question, which would mean that the. wheels were turning in his head than. whether he had memorized something. And I always took that to heart. I think. that was a very wise uh mother. And it's it He turned out very well as a.

result. Do you think there's more. uniformity in thinking in academia now. with the pressure of social media and. the pressure of these echo chambers that. people find themselves Of course. Yeah. That's. that's terrible cuz you know, you would. have thought with the internet, one of. the things that the internet's going to. be a balanced resource. resource of information. You're going to. have the answers to any questions you. want and we'll be able to sort out. what's true and what's not true. Nobody. took into account echo chambers and then. ideology being attached to science.

That's right. Now, I mean, the internet. not surprisingly was an unpredictable. phenomenon. Yes. Completely. Yeah, I mean, you know, you saw it, but. uh. Well, you're seeing it yourself. I mean, you have media They were looking for. 100,000 subscribers. With the internet, you're dealing with. millions and that's considered small in.

some cases. Yeah, there's people like. Mr. Beast, some. fun guy on YouTube that I think he has. What does he have? 100 and How many. million subscribers does he have? Something insane. Way bigger than any. television show that's ever existed. before. Mhm. Yeah. Nobody saw it coming. Did it on his own. Yeah, it's it's a weird time and then. there's a lack of trust in mainstream. media, which is also disturbing. >> Which is. uh also deserved. Right. Also deserved.

That's a problem as well. And when you. see mainstream media. uh also going along with all these. climate change ideologies. and these all these different things. that are attached to the narrative that. you're not allowed to deviate from. It's just it it gets very frustrating. Yeah, I mean, I'm not sure about this, but my recollection was as a kid in New. York.

that you had. newspapers like the New York Times that. were always sort of center right left. But you had others, the Journal American. and so on. And they differed in their coverage, but on the whole, they covered the same. news. Uh if something happened, it would. appear in both. I realize in retrospect that wasn't. always true.

But today, I have the feeling that if I. look at uh the Post in New York. or the New York Times, I'm looking at. two different worlds. >> Right. Right. And there's something wrong with. that. Very. Yeah, something very wrong. with it. And I don't I don't know what the answer. is to how to solve it or if those things. need to just go away and independent. media needs to replace them, but. you're you're seeing a massive.

dissolving of trust in these. main like when I was a kid, I used to. deliver the New York Times. And I. delivered the Boston Globe, but I. delivered the New York Times as well. because it was prestigious. I thought it. was cool to deliver the New York Times. and it was a long route. I had it was a. lot longer than my Boston. >> have to deliver on Sunday as well? Yes, I did. Yes, I did. But fortunately, the. ads didn't work so they didn't get a big. thick ad chunk like you do with the. Boston Globe cuz it's like local ads. But the point being is that like it was.

it was the paper of record and now today. it's just another blog. It's just it. like it's an ideologically captured. online blog that's very left-leaning. I. think people have pointed out the. correct reason for that, the end of the. classified ads. Yeah. Uh. they used to have to satisfy the people. uh. paying for ads. Right. Now, they have to satisfy their readers.

And so, the readers only want to hear. one thing. [Laughter]. Yeah, it's a real problem. It's a real. problem, but I guess. just like all things that happen, there'll be some sort of a course. correction or some new players will. enter in and. It's It was, you know, it would be fine. if the newspapers took different. positions, but covered the same items. >> Right. Right. Right. And here, I will say and maybe there's a bias in.

this. If I listen to MSNBC, there are whole areas of what's going on. that I will hear nothing about. Fox may cover things differently, but they're less guilty of leaving stuff. out. They may take a different view of. it, but you'll hear about it. That certain media now are not even. mentioning things that they don't want.

you to know about Yeah. is a little bit. disturbing. It is. It is, but. again, it gives rise to independent. media. Gives rise to the very good. independent journalists that exist. today, but the thing is like the average. person's not going to find them. They. don't know where to look. Well, this is an opportunity to put in a. good word for Al Gore since. he was an inventor of the internet. Yeah, he did kind of take credit for. part of that, right? Right, yeah. What.

did he say exactly? I think he said I had a hand in that or. something like that. So, I did too. I. bought a computer once. I had a hand in. that. I played a part of the economy of the. internet. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's um. uh I think it's these kind of. conversations with uh people like. yourself that uh will help because the. more people listen to this and the more. people start reading other articles. written by different people that also.

question it and we get a kind of. understanding of this pattern that does. go back to like what you were talking. about before with eugenics and with many. other things in history. Yeah. There you. go. There's there's times where you're. on the wrong side of things. You don't. realize it because you've been lied to. and you've been you know, these. politicians are But it's also the abuse. of science. Uh. is too much of a temptation for. politicians. I mean, uh. science It's hard to say, but you know,

if there were a way of making people. understand that science. really is not a source of authority. It's a methodology. And that if you are. using it as a source of authority and. destroying it as a methodology, uh you're anti-science. Mhm. Whether that helps or not, maybe people. don't care. Well, I think people do, but.

they're scared to deviate again from the. narrative. Like how How you think Do you. think it's possible to get in people's. heads? Hey, we have to at the academic. level especially separate ideology from. truth. And you can't attach. believing in something that is like so. firmly a part of being a progressive. person or being a conservative person. that you're unwilling to look at the. data and look at facts. That has to be. shunned, right? So, how does that go.

about I think you're hitting on. something important. But you can't do it every place. Can't. but with the funding agencies. uh the government is in a position to. say funding agencies. must take an open view of certain. subjects or in all subjects for that. matter. And uh not lay down rules that you. cannot question.

Yeah, let me let me add to that. I think. one of the great strengths of American. uh science and technology over the last. 50 years was that there was not a single. funding agency in Washington. But you know, you could get funding from. the National Science Foundation or you. could get funding from the Office of. Naval Research or from some other or. organization and they all competed with. each other and they didn't like each. other very much. And so, if you couldn't. get a grant from NSF, someone would help.

you from the Army or some other place. So, I think multiple sources of funding. has an enormously positive effect on the. vitality of science and technology in a. country. And people used to talk we we. need an office of science. I thought. that was a terrible idea, you know, to. that means one point figure, you know, there was someone in a position to. throttles you know, some important. Department of Energy tried to do both. sides for a long time. Mhm. And they.

held out longer than other departments. But eventually for some reason they were. all forced into the same box. Money starts talking, baby. Yeah, money. talks. >> There's a lot of money. Department of. Energy wasn't that the department where. from the time Trump won the election to. Biden leaving office, they gave out. something like 93 billion dollars in. loans? I think it was EPA or maybe it was the. No, loans could have must have been.

energy. Yeah. Must have been energy. Yeah. Like it more than had been given. out in the last 15 years. Yeah, yeah, yeah. [Laughter]. I'm sure all was smart well-spent money. that we definitely couldn't get by. without spending. Um. It's kind of funny. It's like did you did you. >> yeah. It is kind of pathetic, but it's. also kind of funny like how. in this day of transparency, you know, there's so much information that's. available today. So easy to find things. out that they would try to pull. something like that off and then do it.

successfully right in front of. everybody's face. Well, having spent time in you know, Department of Energy headquarters, um. it doesn't surprise me. I believe you. Um how difficult has this been for you. gentlemen to like debate this stuff and. to bring it up with people and have. conversations? Have you experienced a. lot of resistance? Yeah, I mean it was. it's interesting how it evolved. I think in the '90s.

there was still a certain openness about. it. And uh you know, if there were a. conference, people on both sides would. be invited and so on. Somehow by the 21st century. uh it came down hard. Uh there was absolutely nothing open. anymore. But I have to say when I invited Dick to. give his colloquium on climate in.

Princeton, it's a good university. and he gave a good colloquium, the next. day a Nobel Prize winner from my. department walked in and said, "What son of a [ __ ] invited Linzen to. give this talk?". I said, "Well, I'm the son of a [ __ ]. Get out of my office.". Oh, wow. And what did you have to do you try to. engage with him at all about why you. were upset? Why he was upset, rather? No. Just wasn't even worth it? >> It wasn't worth it. Yeah.

Wow, it's just hard to believe as. someone who's outside of academia, it's. hard to believe there's closed-minded. people at universities. The The point. was he he didn't know the first thing. about the issue. Not not a thing. But. he's very left-wing. Yeah, that's the point. That's why it's. weird. >> the political polarization. But it's it's also there's no deviation. There's no people like. you know, everybody's either one side or. the other. All in or not. And if you're. not, you get cast out of the kingdom.

It's very weird. They've just it's just just disturbing. to someone like me that it goes on like. that in universities. Did someone come. up to you and say. >> it's worse in universities. Wow, how did that get started? Like when. did So, it was it the same thing as like. the climate was it with everything? Like. somewhere around the 21st century? Like. when Yeah. I you know, I'll take something that was much less. publicized. Uh. the.

What was the program? Uh. with your. device. Oh, the. the. star the Star Wars. The sodium guide. star. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean. universities. treated that as something you could not. discuss. The notion that you wanted to have a. defense against nuclear. Really? Yeah, what Dick is talking about. is that I got called to Washington.

because. it early uh. in the um. Star Wars era. we were asked to look at every possible. way to defend against incoming Russian. missiles. And so, that meant trying to. shoot them down with rockets and also. trying to shoot them down with. high-power lasers. And so, during a classified summer study. in 1982, uh. there were some people from the Air. Force, some generals and uh technical.

people and. talked about the problem is if you even. have a beautiful blue clear sky and you. try to shoot a Russian missile that's. coming toward Austin. by the time the laser reaches the. incoming warhead, it breaks up into. hundreds of little speckles, not one of. which has enough power to cause any. damage to the target. And so, that was a problem that was well. known to astronomers, but the inverse. problem of star does the same thing. When you focus it on a photographic. plate, you don't get a point, you get.

lots of speckles. And so, astronomers knew how to solve. that. You know, the the problem is the. incoming wave gets wrinkled by the. atmosphere. There're little warm patches. and cool patches. And so, uh what you can do is you reflect the. incoming star light from a anti-wrinkled. mirror. So, it comes in wrinkled, it. bounces, it's nice and flat, then it. focuses and you get a point. And you you. could do the same thing when you're. trying to shoot a incoming missile. You. pre-wrinkle the beam so that when it.

reaches the missile, it actually focuses. all the power on the missile. So, it's. called adaptive optics and the the. mirror is called a rubber mirror. It's a. mirror that you can adjust. And but to to do that, you know, you. need to know how to adjust the mirror. So, you have to have some information to. how do I wrinkle it? Push here, pull. there, etc. And the way the astronomers did it was. they used a very bright star in the sky. And then for nearby stars, you could use. the bright star to correct your mirror.

for all the neighboring stars. But it only worked for a degree or two. off. the direction of the correcting stars. And so, unless the Russians attacked us. from the. during the night from the direction of. the brightest stars in the skies, we. couldn't do anything with our lasers. Oh, wow. So, I I said, "Well, I know how. to fix this. All you need to do is make. an artificial star wherever you like. because there's a layer of sodium at 100. km and we now have lasers that will.

excite that. And so, you can make a. yellow star that's plenty bright enough. to use that light to adjust the mirror. wherever you like. And nobody had ever. heard of the sodium layer during the. This was top secret meeting. When you. say make a star, do you mean like a. satellite star? A. a bright a bright source of light. shining down through the atmosphere. Most of the problem is. fairly close to the ground, the first. kilometer or two up. >> And what would this be made out of? It's.

sodium. So, the if you go to 100 km, the. Earth is plowing through the dust of the. solar system. And so, it we're. constantly burning up little. micrometeorites. And they're all loaded with sodium. atoms. And so, they get released into. the upper atmosphere and they stay there. and make a a layer that's about 10 km. thick. And not many people know about that. I. happen to know about it. And I knew you. could use it, you know, for this method. That's why I got called to Washington.

was making it. This it was a highly. secret invention for 10 years. >> Wow. >> Yeah. That's fascinating. But when the. Soviet Union collapsed. then. this was declassified thanks to the. effort of a Livermore. friend and colleague Claire Max, a a. woman physicist astronomer. But they she. finally persuaded the Department of. Energy to. declassify it. So, if you go to any big. telescope now around the world, it has. one of these uh sodium lasers you're. pointing up at the sky at night. You'll.

see this bright yellow beam going up. >> Oh, wow. Look at that, right there. Oh, there it is. Yeah. Wow. Yeah, that that. was that's And so, the point where they. come This is actually green light. And. so, for the sodium Most of them are. yellow for sodium, but that's the basic. idea. Mhm. And so, this was a difficult. thing to discuss in academia? Well, I couldn't discuss it. It was. highly classified, so I couldn't even. mention it until about 1995,

I think, 40 94 95 when it was. declassified. But I didn't invent it, you know, 12 years earlier. Yeah. But, you know, the point was. in academia, you could not discuss. uh You couldn't discuss. >> You couldn't discuss working for defense. of the country. You That was uh. you know, somehow immoral. You know, defending the country. I wasn't trying. to attack Russia. I was trying to defend. ourselves. Right. Yeah. Yeah, that's a ridiculous position to.

take. We don't need defense against. missiles. Well, you know, They're they're hard to. defend against, but you know, that. doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Right. Yeah. Exactly. I mean, at MIT, I had all sorts of people. saying, you know, you shouldn't try. It's silly. It's impossible, and so on. What was the point of that? I mean, you have a problem, you try and. solve it. Yeah. It seems like that's. what science is supposed to be for.

Now, it it's you know, if you probe. I think into these issues, you realize. that. climate is an extreme case. But, politics. interfacing science is not new. Well, it just seems like human. behavior. Human behavior and anything. else. It's like the the same patterns. You You'll find them in big businesses. You find them in a lot of different You.

You find them in almost all communities. and groups of human beings. It There's. people that get into control and they. force certain narratives and. the fact that that happens with the. highest levels of academia and with. science, though, is. is really confusing to people like. myself that are counting on everybody. like you to get it right. Don't We're as much. We're as much part of the crooked timber. of mankind as anyone else. It's I mean, that's such a great quote. Now, you know, I've often mentioned I.

mean, my family, you know, emigrated. here from Germany 38. But, when Hitler came to power in 33, every university in Germany got rid of. everyone who had Jewish blood. before Hitler even asked. Mhm. So, universities are not. bastions of independent thinking.

What could be done to make them more so? You know, the Canadians did something. that I thought had potential. Every. faculty member, especially junior faculty, immediately got grants that they didn't. have to apply for. And so, in that system, every one of their faculty could.

function as a research scientist, you. know. Students were paid for otherwise. And there at least one link in the chain. of influence was broken. You had an open system there. Even there, though, uh. other pressures came to bear. But, you. know, it seemed like a good idea. Or at least a better idea. >> Yeah. But, it Again, unfortunately, it just.

seems like that just pattern of human. behavior just pops its ugly head up over. and over and over again. Yep. Well, you know, Joe, Dick just gave up. You know, it's worth going back to the. founding of this country because if you. read the things like the Federalist. Papers, which was the theory of our. government, what comes through loud and clear was. that our founders believed that humans. were extremely corrupt and you know, not.

very reliable. And given that, how do you make a system that will. function even with that? And that's what they tried to do. You. know, that was the whole reason for the. balance of power and all the things that. are in there. And so, I you know, it was partially. successful. It certainly worked better. than other systems for a long. >> Better than all the other ones. Yeah. But, it amazingly astute. Yeah. Yeah. Federalist Papers, I mean, they've held.

up well. Yeah. Um anything else to add before we wrap. this up, gentlemen? Is there anything. else you think people should know? Well, trust, but verify. [Laughter]. Yeah, I mean, how shall I put it? Destroying the world is not an easy. thing to do. Shouldn't be. the top of your list of worries. Yeah. Um you mean destroying the world. with climate change. It's not really. what it is. It's very over magnified.

Absolutely. I mean, how shall I put it? Its origins were almost entirely. political. I often find it strange that one talks. about the science at all. I you know, uh. we're discussing, you know, can it. happen? Is this Is it warming? Is it. cooling? Is extreme weather increasing? It's amazing to me that politicians can.

put forward. a concept that is purely imaginary. and have the science community discuss. it seriously. I wonder what it how it would have. worked if it wasn't for An Inconvenient. Truth. If that movie hadn't been made, I. wonder cuz sometimes people need. something like that in that sort of a. form for it to really take hold as an. idea. You may be right. I mean, something was. needed to make it catch on. Uh it had been around for.

quite a few years. without catching on quite that way. Yeah. But, it is also the confluence, you. know, the UN really got interested in. it. You had the World Meteorological. Organization. All of them saw something. they could gain in it. And so, it began to seem almost. overwhelming. But, it did you know, it reached the.

right people. I mean, the funding. agencies, the NSF got taken over almost. immediately. NASA took about 10 years. Department of Energy took 10 years, but. they worked on it. It's kind of stunning. At least from the outside, you know, from my perspective, it's kind of. stunning. It's It's stunning how. successful it is. And again, like I. said, if you're in polite company and. you have a conversation and someone. brings up, "Well, we've got to do. something about climate change.".

>> Yeah. Yeah. You just go like the record. skips like, "How much do you know?". Right. It turns out very little most. people. And then it turns out according. to you, it's almost impossible to figure. out anyway. The actual. >> I mean, the the notion that there's a. crisis has taken hold. >> Right. even though nobody sees evidence of a. crisis. And the main movie that started. off that crisis from 2006 is entirely. wrong. All of its predictions. >> And what's supporting it now is the. extreme weather, which is a fake.

Mhm. But, it provides visual visuals. Yeah. Um it's very hard for people to swallow, but I I encourage them to look at the. data of hurricanes historically. And you. realize like, "Oh, pretty stable. Yeah. It's up and down and. >> Yep. Yep. all over the place, but it's. not any worse now than it has been. before. Oh. I mean, growing up in the Bronx. in the '40s, every autumn, there were hunger. hurricanes. Mhm. You could wake up in.

the morning, and the streets were lined. with the trees that had been blown down. Interestingly enough, that has not. recurred in New York for about 30 years, 40, 50 years. I think the last one I. remember when I lived in Boston was. Gloria. Yeah. Yeah. They don't get hit by hurricanes. anymore. If they did, they'd freak out. Climate change. >> But, then 38. was a gigantic hurricane. And.

I was born in a town on a lake in New. Massachusetts called. Lake. Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchabunagungamaugg. That's a real name? >> Yes, that's a real name. Woah. But, in. any rate, in that lake were a couple of. islands that were created by the. hurricane of 1938. Just. >> Wow. Really? Yeah. Wow. But, that also killed a lot of people. because we didn't have the information.

of it coming. Right. And I'm sure buildings weren't really. designed to withstand those, either. Uh. I mean, if how shall I put it? I'm glad it came. then, not now, I suppose. If it came now, it would be proof. Right. Actually, the worst hurricane on record. on the East Coast was the last year of. the American Revolution, and it had a. big impact on winning the war. What happened what was this enormous.

hurricane mostly in the Caribbean, but. it wiped out the British fleet. It wiped. out the French fleet. There was nothing. left, you know. It was. just tremendous hurricane and so. the. the reason it affected the war was. the British just assumed that the French. were incapable of restoring their fleet. So they when Cornwallis decided to try. and escape. from the Carolinas up into Virginia to. the British fleet to be.

uh. rescued. uh you know with all of the partisans. coming after him. He um. didn't worry about the French and so. but the French had managed to rebuild. their fleet after the hurricane. They. had 12 months and they had enough ships. that they were able to barricade the. mouth of the Chesapeake and when. Cornwallis got there he was trapped cuz. he could the British couldn't come in to. rescue him, you know, from Rhode Island. or wherever they were.

And so he had no choice. He had to. surrender. Wow. >> That was the end of the war and we can. thank the hurricane for making that. happen so neatly. As well as the French. >> The French and the French God. God bless the French, yeah. >> What are the warmest years on historical. record in terms of like recent years? 34. or 35. >> 1930 What was it like then? It was at the peak of the Dust Bowl and. it was uh I don't know several degrees. warmer than I don't know the exact. figure, but you can look at the records.

They're pretty clear. Yeah. It's you know, you're not going to see. gigantic numbers, but. again, that global metric is a little. bit confusing locally. It was a huge effect. But it globally, yeah. That you're what. you're saying completely makes sense. That doesn't make sense to try to have a. global temperature unless you're. studying other planets. Yeah. Yeah.

And what matters is where people live, right? What's the temperature there? Yeah. Well, um ladies and gentlemen, I really. appreciate your bravery in talking about. this stuff and and sharing all this. information. It's. very enlightening. Yeah, it really it. helps. These kind of conversations they. move the needle. They really do. So I. really appreciate you guys. Thanks for. having me. >> here. I really enjoyed it. Thank you. You're welcome. Bye everybody. [Applause]. [Music].