Ladies and gentlemen, this is the 71st episode of the Secular Foxhole podcast, and we

are live with philosopher Andrew Bernstein, and we're here to talk about his latest

pamphlet, the Truth About Climate Change.

Hi, Andy.

How are? Hi, Blair.

Hi, Martin.

I'm good.

How are you guys?

That's right here's.

Good booklet. Truth About Climate change.

So thanks for having me on.

This is a topic that's fascinating for a long

time, so I appreciate the opportunity to discuss.

Good.

All right.

Yeah. So my first question why would a

philosopher become interested in climate change or the whole spectrum of climate

change?

Yeah, that's a fair question because I'm not a scientist, and I say that right from

the start.

In fact, some leftist supporter of the AGW

hypothesis anthropogenic global warming or man made global warming said to me, she said, why

should I listen to what a philosopher has to say about climate change?

Which is a reasonable question.

And I said to her, Well, I know as much about

climate change as.

Does Al Gore, but he invented the right.

That's right.

Which has a lot to do with got he's got a

bachelor's degree in government from Harvard.

So he graduated from Harvard.

Two thumbs up for him.

But his degree is in government.

Greta Thunberg, a poor kid, seems paralyzed with fear.

I don't know how much she actually she's a kid.

I don't know how much she actually knows about climate change, but people seem to listen.

And she had some spin doctor behind her.

And that's another story that I could include in the show notes.

All right, but seriously, these questions are not decided by academic

pedigree.

My degree is in philosophy.

Al Gores is in government.

These issues are decided by evidence.

What does the evidence show? And I'm not a scientist, but I thought logic.

I know how to support a conclusion with evidence.

So I've been fascinated by this issue going back to 1988 when John Tanson at NASA started

talking about catastrophic man made warming.

And fortunately for us, climate scientists

write books, including for us, the Intelligent Layman.

And I've done a lot of research on this issue over the decades.

It's fascinating.

And so I thought that I'm having a rational

epistemology and knowing logic as well as I do, and having done a lot of research on the

specifics of climate science, I thought I could write an effective rational short

synopsis of what the truth about climate Change is.

Well, having read it, I agree it's extremely cogent and very well laid out.

So it's very much appreciated.

Well, one thing that's often overlooked in the discussion is a lot of the

Hew supporters like the IPCC and so on.

They focus on the last few hundred years,

which, okay, given the human life expectancy, but the Earth has a history of something like

4.5 or 4.6 billion with a b as boy billion years, and has a vast climate history.

And what I want to do.

Ein rand taught us.

I assume most of your viewers are familiar with Ein Rand, but maybe I should make that

assumption.

She's a famous novelist of The Fountainhead

and Atlas Shrug, developed a philosophic system of objectivism.

If you haven't read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugg, I strongly recommend you do so.

These are great novels, but she always taught us in terms of epistemology, the theory of

knowledge.

How do we gain knowledge?

See the big picture, integrate, go as wide as we can, show how a phenomenon fits in into the

big picture.

And to try to understand modern warming

without integrating it into Earth's climate history is like trying to understand the

cause, but analogous, I think, to try and understand the causes of World War II without

understanding the rise of totalitarianism in several European countries, early 20th

century.

When you plug it into this vast climb history,

then you see the Earth has cycled, sure, the warm periods, the colder periods, and there

have been many periods that are a lot warmer than today, long before human beings ever

appeared on the planet, never mind industrialized, which is an late 18th century

British development.

So once you put it in the big picture, I think

we could better discuss the causes, the effects of modern warning.

Yeah.

What is the issue surrounding CO2 emissions?

They claim it's a dramatic rise.

What is the actual dramatic?

I'm sorry for laughing.

I think the scientists pretty much agree that

around the time of the Industrial Revolution, in the late 18th century, britain CO2 levels

were approximately 280 parts per million.

And today, 200, and some OD years later,

roughly 420 parts per million.

So there's no doubt that it's risen.

But you're right, when they say risen dramatically, it's a head scratcher, because

CO2 levels the truth is, CO2 levels today are lower and significantly lower than they have

been through much of the Earth's vast history.

I mean, during the go back into geological

time, great geologists write books.

Doug McDougall's book frozen Earth was one.

Know about the Ice Age is one I read and learned a lot.

He's a geology professor, one of the California universities in the what period was

that? Cambrian.

The Cambrian period.

Roughly 540,000,000 years ago, CO2 levels were

7000 parts per million, not 420.

There was 7000 parts per million.

And in keeping with the CO2 theory, the Earth was very warm.

Today they say it's roughly 59 degrees Fahrenheit, and I always forget to converge it

to Celsius.

But 59 degrees Fahrenheit, the Earth spectrum

historically over geological time, has been from 50 degrees Fahrenheit to 70 or 72 degrees

Fahrenheit.

Today, the Earth is roughly 59 degrees, so

it's by several degrees.

It's slightly closer to the cooler end of its

historic spectrum than toward its warmer end.

But in the Cambrian, when the CO2 levels were

that high, the temperature was 70 or 72 degrees Fahrenheit.

The earth was very warm.

That's when tropical flora and fauna were

found north of the Arctic Circle and crocodiles lived that far north.

But at those levels, plant life must have just been abundant, you would think, because plants

thrive in warm weather and higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

But in contrast to the contradiction to the CO2 theory, when the Earth was that warm, that

was the period known as the Cambrian Explosion, which was not a literal eruption.

It's not a volcanic eruption.

It's a metaphor for the enormous increase in

life forms, including animal life forms, that originated under those conditions.

So those conditions were very favorable to life.

The CO2 levels have been I'll give you one last data point.

100 million years later, roughly 440,000,000 years ago in the Orvation period, CO2 levels

were 4500 parts per million, about ten times what they are today.

The Earth was so cold it was in the grips of a severe glaciation.

It's the autofacial Ice Age, when CO2 levels were ten times higher than what they are

today.

So that raises questions about the power of

CO2 to cause the catastrophic warming that the alarmists talk about.

Okay, you mentioned something that I think the left pounces on.

They only use data from the Industrial Revolution, which you mean they want to smear

capitalism and freedom, right.

Instead of using genuine science of, as you

say, the entire history of the Earth.

You agree with that, right?

Yeah.

We got to see the big picture.

We have to integrate when you're coming closer

to our day, not hundreds of millions of years ago, but just thousands of years ago, the

Minoan Warm Period, roughly 1500 to 1000 BC.

So roughly 3500 to 3000 years ago, dr.

Tim Ball, Canadian climate scientist, whose PhD in climate science, unfortunately passed

away not so long ago, in his early 80s.

But he points out the Minoan warmth period

just 3000 years ago, or a little more, was several degrees Celsius warmer than the Earth

is today.

There's a lot of proxy data to support that.

And you notice that the Earth cycle just even ignoring for the moment, the ice ages.

Over millions of years, the Earth gets colder and the ice advances.

The Earth warms and the ice recedes.

And very few people actually let me stay with

the Ice age for a minute.

Very few people seem to realize, even educated

people, that today, in 2023, the Earth is in the midst of an ice age.

The police just see an ice age.

We're fortunate enough to be living in the

Holocene Interglacial Warm Period, but the ice is going to return at some point in the next

1000 to 10,000 years.

But anyway, even if we just leave aside the

ice ages, that cycle over millions of years.

And just look, in the last few thousand years,

the Minoan War period, like I said, roughly 3500 years ago, followed by what's?

An unnamed cold period.

Now, that annoys me that it should be unnamed.

So I took it upon myself I took it upon myself to name it.

It's roughly, I think, 600 BC to 200 BC or somewhere in that ring.

So I named it the Biblical Cold Period.

And if scientists don't like the reference to

the Bible, fine, let them name it, because all these other periods have names.

And following that was the Roman Warm Period.

Following that was the Dark Age cold period.

Following that was the Medieval War Period, which we discussed a little bit before the

show.

When the Norse settled, Greenland grew.

Crops on Greenland, thought even to naming Greenland Greenland because things grew there,

which I don't think they can today.

So the Medieval Warm Period, roughly 900 to

1300 Ad, was at least as warm as it is today, maybe slightly warmer than the Little Ice Age.

And today, the Modern Warm Period, just within the last 3500 years, we see the Earth cycling

between warmer and colder periods.

And we should point out it's in the warmer

periods where life has flourished, not in the cold.

Okay? Now, one of the things you mentioned that I

also liked is there seems to be a debate, climate versus weather.

What's the difference?

As I understand it, climate, to put it simply, climate is long term, weather is short

term.

So, Andy, if you can't predict the weather next week, how could you then say what

the climate will be?

Not today? And the leading climate scientists, Richard

Lindsen from MIT, patrick Michaels, University of Virginia, fred Singer, passed away in his

mid 90s.

They all point out climate is so complex.

There's so many factors that go into making up the climate at any given period.

And there's so many factors that go into bringing about climate change that it is

factions or simple to try to reduce it to one factor, such as carbon dioxide, and only to

man made carbon dioxide at that, overlooking the enormous amounts of CO2, is spewing it to

the atmosphere by natural sources.

That's one of the things, if I was going to be

a scientist see, I like the big picture.

That's what drew me into philosophy.

If I was to be a scientist, climate science may be the field because there's so many

factors involved.

It's so complex, the variations in the

emission of solar radiation.

The sunspot side is one fact.

Henriks Fenzemoth, Danish astrophysicist, established that cosmic rays impacting the

atmosphere are largely responsible for cloud cover.

And the more cloud cover, of course, the cooler the Earth's surface.

The oscillations of Earth's ocean cones, volcanic eruptions beneath the ocean floor,

which warm the oceans, and then by evaporation, warm the atmosphere, god knows

what else.

It's little understood.

Yeah. And Andy, I have to interrupt you there.

I mean, you have done so much research on this, and when I read about the volcano, I got

a bit scared.

How prepared should we be that something is

boiling under Earth.

Okay, great.

The question was yeah, you have done.

So much research, and you have your footnotes.

But when I read about the volcano and what could happen, the outburst of the volcano and

lava, I got a bit scared.

How do we prepare for know we should be

scared?

You move.

Me. Let me start answering your question by picking on the beautiful actress

Gwyneth Paltrow, who I like.

She's a beautiful woman.

She's a very good actress.

I respect her.

But I don't know if you saw recently she said something like, I don't think anything natural

can be bad for you know, why don't you try eating feces?

Don't try this at home.

But volcanoes, nature you're right, Martin.

Nature has this whole arsenal volcanoes and earthquakes and tidal waves and the bubonic

plague and other diseases, and one that gets recognized only in science fiction films bow

lead impact comet or asteroid smashed into the Earth, which has happened.

And it's very dangerous.

A lot of stuff to be scared of.

And natural forces of man made climate change isn't one of them.

What are the rational risk assessed? People do that for a living.

Rational risk assessment guys, they say very nicely, people are afraid of all the wrong

things.

I had an old girlfriend who wouldn't fly.

She wouldn't fly, but she spoke like two packs of cigarettes.

Oh, boy.

She drove from Houston to New York.

It's not particularly dangerous, but it's much

more dangerous than Know, one of the major airlines.

People are afraid of all the wrong things.

So we're afraid of man made warming.

But, yeah, volcanoes.

Massive volcanic eruption has caused terrible

global cooling in the past because they spew so much gazillions of tons of dirt and grit

and stuff into the atmosphere.

Blocks the sun's rays for up to a year or two

years at a time, which kills off a lot of plant life, which is the foundation of the

food chain.

That's vastly more dangerous.

Cooling is much more harmful than warming.

Warming is generally good to life.

It's the cooler periods that are know.

Volcanoes are one cause of that.

Martin, you're right.

Agreed. Agreed.

Now, this is an old term, but the IPCC and all

the government paid scientists use computer modeling, and I think it's basically just

garbage in, garbage out.

What do you think?

That old term.

Right?

So you agree with.

The the basic premise of the IPCC and of the AGW theorists more broadly.

What do they stand for, this acronym?

Yeah. IPCC. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It's a body, a group of scientists under UN jurisdiction.

AGW is anthropogenic warming or anthropogenic global warming or man made global warming, the

IPCC.

The basic premise is that human CO2 emissions

is what drives rising temperatures.

So that's how they program the computer.

And notice the premise is programmed.

And then notice a couple of points.

Since over the last 140 years, since the 1880s, I think scientists generally agree the

Earth's temperature has risen by roughly 1.2 degrees Celsius, which is not very much.

Historically, it's very mild warming.

And today, the satellite data, the most

reliable data we have, shows us that the Earth is warming at roughly the clip of zero point

15 degrees Celsius per decade, which is, again, zero point 15 degrees Celsius per

decade is mild.

Historically, there's been much more, much

wider swings than that.

Anyway, 1.2 degrees Celsius over 140 years,

according to the IPCC projections, given the rising CO2 levels, the Earth should have

warmed by roughly 2.3 degrees Celsius, which is almost twice the observed warmth they

project.

CO2 levels continue to rise.

The Earth should be accelerating in warming, and it's not.

It's still the same gentle zero point 15 degrees Celsius per decade rate.

It's not accelerating the way it should, given the IPCC's basic parameters.

Your rising CO2 levels cause an accelerating rate of rising temperatures.

So the computer models are simply false.

They're mistaken.

Their projections don't match real world observations.

And what do you do with a theory who's consistently at odds with the observed data?

The theory is wrong.

Yeah, but CO2 is only one issue in warming.

There is a greenhouse effect, but it's only one issue.

And I think when we discussed the Odovich and Ice Age, when you had CO2 levels at 4500 parts

per million and the Earth was in ice age, that raises questions.

Maybe CO2 is a factor, but maybe it's not the most powerful factor.

Maybe there are other factors that are more powerful that at times overpower it.

Yeah.

So then, as Claire has written, here a question when we, in a way, should maybe be

proud to say that we are not climate change denier because it changes.

But that's the smear tactics.

Do you want to discuss that a bit?

Yeah, that's a good point.

If the alarmist says and if AGW theorists were

honest, they would simply call us skeptics.

We're skeptical about their theory, but

deniers that, I think, is a deliberate attempt to link us to holocaust.

Yes.

And that's dishonest.

So, yeah, I made the point in the pamphlet

here and the truth about climate change, that I'm looking at the big picture historically

and seeing endless climate change.

Endless.

In fact, I raised the question, climate periods, are they always changing?

Nature's dynamic.

Are the climate periods always changing?

And my guess is that they are certainly has changed a lot over millions and millions and

millions of years.

So I am a big time climate change.

Affirmative.

I am affirming natural climate change without any human input.

Massive climate change long before the Earth, roughly 4.6 billion years old.

Our earliest ancestors, roughly 5 million years ago, with an M, as in Mary.

And it's been massive climate change, including ice ages and the end of ice ages and

then more ice ages, long before our earliest ancestors ever appear in the fossil record.

So we can definitely say without a doubt there's a lot of things about climate change

that we don't know.

One thing we can say without a doubt is there

is a natural climate cycle that goes on without any human input and we need to

understand the natural climate cycle before we can discern any human input.

I hear you and Blair will come with that also.

But then maybe the root is about religion in a way, a new type of religion like

environmentalism.

You can't say something about it.

Yeah, it does.

It is akin to religion in that it's terribly

authoritarian and they will not tolerate know, I see it in the United States and I think it's

just as bad, maybe worse in parts of Europe.

Yes, it.

Historic.

There's not an amendment to the Constitution

protecting freedom of speech as there is in the United States.

But even so, you see people deplatformed off of social media platforms because they're

skeptical of AGW or other things.

But including AGW, people get cancelled from

their professorships in the university or from their jobs in corporate America because they

disagree with the left's take on leftist orthodoxy, on climate change and or other

issues.

And the most terrifying thing to me of all is

the censorship that we're starting to see in the you know, including on climate change.

Let's establish a disinformation governance board at the Department of Homeland Security,

which is a criminal justice agency.

So if I dissent from what the government says,

does that mean armed federal agents are going to show up at my door and arrest mean why else

have it at a criminal justice organization? But it's censorship.

We see the FBI, the Twitter file show, the FBI coaching Twitter and probably other social

media platforms on who can speak and who will be suppressed.

And part of the suppression is of AGW skeptics.

So it's authoritarian like Christianity at its worst thousand years ago, judaism several

thousand years ago, when the Orthodox Jews completely suppress over Islam.

In our day, it is authoritarian like religion and another religious element which is not

only ironic, but it's scary and heartbreaking.

This is supposed to be based on science,

right? And yet scientists or the presentation of I'm

not a scientist, but I have evidence and if I get to be known on this, they'll probably

cancel me like they have any number of other people evidence.

Doesn't matter if you have the evidence, in fact maybe worse because then you're a greater

threat to them and they will cancel you or censor you.

So it is like a religion.

Make it science and accept the science, trust

the science, follow the science.

And the truth is, no, science isn't something

to be trusted or followed.

It's something to be questioned.

Richard Feynman let me one last point.

I know you had another question.

The great Richard Feynman, Nobel Prize winner who worked on I just saw the movie Oppenheim,

and Feynman worked on the Manhattan Project when he was, like, 21 years old or something.

But Feynman had a great quote.

He died a long time ago, was 1980.

But yeah, the Feynman said, I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers

that can't be questioned.

Now, that's science.

My follow up question is a philosophical one.

Then how did science become so politicized?

Yeah.

Richard Salzman pointed this out in one of our episodes where he said, know the powers

that be took advantage of the American people's trust or love of science to basically

fool us into thinking about the COVID vaccines and about this, that, and the other.

I can't remember the exact quote, but it was in other words, the American people were taken

advantage of and that because of their I'll use the word trust in science.

But I guess, again, how does it become so politicized?

That's a very good question.

There's a couple of things that I wanted to

say on this.

Trust in American people's, trust in and also

the because I just wrote a book on education.

We discussed it on your show.

Right.

Why Johnny still can't read or write or think

you read or write or understand math and what we could do about it.

The science curriculum has been terribly diluted for 100 years now.

Today, a lot of what passes for science in the American schools is basically global warming.

Oh, yeah.

I can vouch for that because our dog walker,

she was spouting some stuff the other day, so I'm going to get her.

Yeah, students, good kids.

She's a great kid.

And it's just like, all right, I'm going to

buy Andy's book for her.

I know I have Studently when this comes up in class, I have students who say,

well, the Earth's warmer today than it ever has been.

Right? And I have to stop myself from laughing.

CO2 levels are higher than they ever have.

No, but this is what they're being taught or

dogmatized with in the school system.

So the ignorant stuff.

But the scientists here's some good news here.

There's good news and bad news.

The good news is that many scientists are not politicized and they'll tell the truth.

And a really good book on this is Lawrence Solomon's book, The Deniers.

He interviews several dozen, like, world class scientists on these issues, and they express a

great deal of skepticism about AGW.

Some of them are IPCC reviewers and IPCC

scientists and questioning the IPCC's methodology.

The Deniers is a terrific book by Lawrence Solomon.

It shows how many scientists anybody who's been brainwashed with that 97%.

97% of scientists or 97% of climate scientists agree with AGW read they could read Lawrence

Solomon's book, The Deniers, and they'll say, My God, how many leading scientists reject

various aspects of the whole thing of the AGW theory.

The IPCC is heavily politicized.

They're under the leftists.

The goal here isn't for them it isn't to get at the truth about climate change.

The goal here is to push us into socialism.

Because if we can blame catastrophic warming

on the emission of CO2, we could take over the UN.

It gives us plausibility moral argument to take over the energy industry, to take.

Over industrial policy.

Yeah, to socialize major industries.

And I think those guys are heavily

politicized.

Here's one data point that people don't know,

but Tim Ball points out by the way, Dr. Tim Ball, the Canadian climate scientist, wrote a

really good book.

Just get the title.

It's human caused warming.

The biggest deception of history.

Well, everybody's very thin book.

I think everybody should read it's got a

chocolate block within.

Hopefully it's still in print.

But I think it is.

He died recently.

I think it is.

But here's how the IPCC operates.

And this is the 1995 report.

I don't think their methodology has changed

since.

He quotes from the IPCC gets some of the

leading scientists in the world, thousands of them, to investigate the issue.

Then they write a massive science report, which nobody but a few scientists reads, and

then somebody at the hierarchy of the IPCC writes the summary for policymakers, the SPM,

which is only thing that's read by journalists, politicians and so on.

Well, the scientists in the 1995 report, I remember the exact wording, but said we need

to understand the natural climate cycle in order to discern any human element.

That was part of their conclusion.

Well, Ben Santa, one of the head guys at the

IPCC, inserted into that chapter that unquestionably the warming is caused by human

being.

How many times have we heard since 1995 it

comes from the IPCC? And these are the scientists investigating

climate change? Well, no, it doesn't.

As a scientist said, there's natural forces we need to understand in order to discern any

human causation.

Ben Santa inserted it's unquestionably human.

He completely contradicted what the scientists wrote.

It's just breathtakingly designed.

And I don't think the IPCC's methodology has

changed over the last 28 years.

I know one of the things I found funny, but and astonishingly terrible, was that

there's a group of scientists or a particular scientist that denies the sun has anything to

do with or something like that.

Remember that?

Yeah. I won't mention names, but one of the colleges where I teach, the chair of

the Environmental Science department was got a PhD in environmental science.

Said to me that's the exact quote when I was talking about the sun.

He said, quote the sun has nothing to do with it.

That's part of the dogma.

The IPCC decided back in the they hold to it

to this day.

We're not concerned we the IPCC.

We're not concerned to investigate any natural causes of warmth.

We're concerned only to find the man made causes.

And that's that's what they look.

They, they simply know ein Rand might say

evade.

So what about all the climate change of the

past long before human beings ever industrialized blank out.

We just ignore that.

See, that's an impossible methodology.

We know there's a natural climate cycle that's unquestionable at this point.

We would give it ice ages and everything else.

We need to find out what are the natural

causes of climate change in order to be able to identify any human element, if there is any

that now exists.

It's impossible to discern the human element

if we don't know the natural causes of you don't have the information from the whole

examine in a vast vacuum.

It's dumb.

I mean, if these guys were honest, you just say this is stupid.

As a teacher of logic, I would say this is the fallacy of stupidity.

You're overlooking all this massive cause natural.

Well, they have to keep the taxpayer money rolling in, I guess.

Government fund, grants and stuff, that's it.

That's the only reason.

Exactly.

But one reason is that's the way to get the

grants and the other reason is with communism.

We want to push the political climate into

communism.

And supporting your point about the money

rolling, dr.

Judith Curry, climate scientist at.

Georgia Tech, I remember that she got thrown out of Georgia Tech, or.

She said what she said was really poignant.

She said, I'm working with my graduate students and in order to teach them to be

effective scientists, I have to teach them to question the AGW hypothesis.

But in order to help them gain employment and grants, I have to teach them to not question

the hew.

And that tension, that contradiction, I can't

live that out.

And she resigned, which I thought was a real

act of right.

Good for her then.

Yeah, that was longer than a couple of years

ago, but yeah, I remember that.

So Indy, I got one final question then.

So what can one person do to counter the religion of environmentalism?

Well, here's what I think.

My little booklet is helpful because they

don't have to read all these books written by climate scientists, although people can

certainly do that too, because you pointed.

Out incorporated a lot of that great information in the book.

Yes, and if they're going to read one or two books in addition to my small book,

lauren Solomon's, the Deniers fred Singer, great climate scientist, passed away a few

years ago in his mid 90s, wrote an excellent book, Unstoppable Global Warming every 1500

Years, about the natural climate change cycle, again filled with data.

You can read my book or read a couple of books on this.

Get the information and then speak out.

Speak up any form available to us.

Whether you have a podcast or whether you just talk to neighbors, family members or best

friends, they say the truth will out.

Well, it won't if we don't speak up.

But if we do, we speak up and speak, educate ourselves first and then speak up and speak

out.

We have the evidence.

The evidence is very strong that the natural climate cycle is at work.

Yeah, we can't it's much stronger than the AGW.

Let's throw a plug in for Alex Epstein's book Fossil Future as well.

Oh, yeah, absolutely.

Yeah. Alex Epstein's, a moral case of fossil

fuels.

A very good book which is called.

Fossil Future why We Need More Coal and Oil and nuclear Power.

Yeah, Alex Epstein is a very good source of information on these.

Yeah.

And yeah.

And at the end of the book, you mentioned also

you had lots of resources and notes and you had some websites also, one with the witty

URL.

What's up with that?

Anthony Watts is a meteorologist.

He has a very valuable website.

W-A-T-T-S watts up with? That is very Spencer.

You know, the NASA.

He's a PhD in meteorology.

He's a great NASA scientist.

His website DrRoySpencer.com.

In fact, it was from Roy Spencer that I learned another data point here that at least

95% of the CO2 spewed into the atmosphere annually comes from natural sources, not man

made ones.

And then Tim Ball said more like 96% to 97% is

natural.

So we're not just focused on CO2, which is one

factor of many, but on the tiny fraction of Mannate CO2, which is a fraction of a

secondary cause in the first place.

Yeah, we don't talk about the cows.

The cows, right.

Well, does Bill Gates say we have to stop

eating beef for that bugs and stuff?

So we have to get rid of the so called Smog.

That was also a site.

It was a Norwegian scientist that you're

mentioning the book and he was mentioned in D Smog website.

Was that Tom Segelstadt? You're talking brilliant.

He's a brilliant geologist.

He was an IPCC reviewer and he's sharply

critical of IPCC's knowledge of one geology or earth processes.

And two of them funny.

You don't hear any of that stuff in the media.

It's very sad.

Not from the lion leftist media.

It's very sad.

But you hear it here.

You could then support our work and our

podcast and send us donation through real money bitcoin satushis and yeah.

Please plug your book again, Andy.

Well, thank you, guys.

Yeah. The Truth About Climate Change booklet.

It's available from Amazon.

Something like was it like $2 as Kindle and

maybe $8?

It's $8 as a paperback.

And I think 499 is the kindle that's well

worth every penny.

Wouldn't that be a great thing? Like buy your paperback and send out different

institution and places, high places, your book?

Oh, yeah.

There's a way thank you.

More.

There's a way to fight.

What is it now? $8. That's not a lot for many people.

And you can buy dozens or even hundreds, scores or hundreds of copies and send them to

people who you think are irrational and honest, who are open to it's senseless to send

it to alexandra Cavio cortez AOC or people who are just committed to the AGW hypothesis but

people who have some influence in the culture, have some voice and whom you think are

basically honest.

Yeah, you could get as teachers, professors,

writers, journalists, filmmakers, even some politicians.

And here I have an idea.

Maybe that could be like a children's version.

Also like you have done this about reading Rand's literature.

What do you call it? Black and yellow books.

Oh, cliff notes.

Iron man.

And do a similar one on your book for children.

And maybe like Bosch Fossman could illustrate them or something like that.

Could be something for future project.

See if we get into the school system, there are still some very good classroom

teachers in the school system.

There's still honest people.

Hope so.

That's a good idea, Martin.

Thank you.

All right, well, great.

We've been talking with Andrew Bernstein, who

my dear friend calls the Arthur Fonzarelli of objectivism.

The fonts. The Fonz.

Yeah.

I love the fonts.

And thanks for manning the Foxhole with us today.

Well, thanks, guys.

Always good to be in the Foxhole with you.

And I look forward to getting the link and I will paste it across.

Social right, well, give us your website and all that other good stuff.

Andrewburnstein net WW dot andrewburnstein.

Net you can reach me on my Facebook page, on Twitter.

So I am very modern, very on LinkedIn.

I'm very plugged into social media.

Great.

The Fonz would have to hey, you have to get it

out there.

Right.