If we're going to talk about climate change and the myriad of issues surrounding it, we must first understand it from a 30,000-foot view. John opens the program this week framing the issue, pointing out the players involved and the arguments they make.
We then welcome to the show UK-based Rupert Darwall (realclearfoundation.org), policy analyst and Senior Fellow at the RealClear Foundation. He examines how the climate change ideology has invaded the business world, largely through ESG scores. He calls it the socialization of capitalism. Many people are rolling with the narrative right now, but soon conditions will begin to deteriorate and it's only when reality becomes harsh that people wake up and start pushing back.
But can you even push back right now? Debate and dissent have been shut down by the powers that be controlling the climate narrative. John welcomes to the program Gregory Wrightstone (co2coalition.org), geologist and Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition. He shows how scientific studies, charts, and models are often manipulated to both further the narrative and stifle debate. If you try to debate, and you use facts and data to back up your assertions, the party of science will shut you down.
Finally this week, we take a look at the real world costs to the climate agenda – fuel costs rising, expensive electric cars, etc. – and ask: is this being done on purpose? Wrapping up our guest list this week is Levi Russell (levirussell.com), Assistant Teaching Professor of Applied Economics at the University of Kansas. He discusses the practicality of trying to achieve what the climate alarmists say they want. It all looks pretty impossible. Could it be that the real plan is to make energy so costly that we won't use it?
The one common thread through the whole climate change issue for over 30 years has been: dissent will not be tolerated. Joining us today is Gregory Wrightstone (co2coalition.org), geologist and Executive Director of the CO2 Coalition. He describes how scientific studies and models are being manipulated to further ideological narratives. And you can't push back on it. Al Gore said the debate is over on climate change. The only problem is that the debate was never allowed to happened. People who are saying politically incorrect things on any topic, including climate change, will be silenced. And if you back up your assertions with facts and data, the party of science will shout you down.
We hear two mantras often when it comes to science: the science is settled, and science and faith cannot and should not interact. Joining us today is Matthew Young (hillsdale.edu), Dean of Natural Sciences and Professor of Chemistry at the vaunted Hillsdale College. He pushes back on the idea that people of faith are not thinking people and that faith and science should not work together. After all, God created the awesome and wonderful things that scientists study. Professor Young also describes what Hillsdale College is doing to encourage open dialogue in science so people are free to explore and debate and get to the truth without political or ideological pressure.
Today, we welcome a guest from northern England, programmer and software author Andy Thomas (kuiper.zone), to discuss his new article titled 'Was Nietzsche Premature in Declaring the Death of God.' It's a sophisticated philosophical discussion today about science, God, the nature of free will, and the essence of reality. So why bring this up? He writes in his article that modern science demolishes any reason that we've had for thinking any one of three things: that God wasn't needed anymore, that God didn't exist, or that God couldn't exist. We're going deep on today's podcast!
Happy Good Friday and prelude to Easter weekend. John flies solo today, tackling a number of topics, including the corruption of science by wokeism, climate alarmism and its relation to religion, and the superiority of the Christian worldview over the secular one. He covers a variety of news stories as well, including a bakery that is owed a lot of money from a woke college and the push for equity in academics and churches fails.
Narratives can be a tricky thing and for the globalists, they use narratives to convince the public that their gradual stranglehold on control is acceptable. Climate change had been their vehicle for some time but it has been supplanted by Covid in the last two years. Are we seeing a transition back to climate change now that Covid is beginning to fade?
First up this week, Dennis Cuddy joins John and Producer Steve to look at how the various narratives about Covid are falling apart. They discuss all the controversial Covid issues, including the lab-based origins of the virus, gain of function research, adverse vaccine reactions, and even DARPA's involvement. Now that the truth is coming out, thanks to Dr. Cuddy and others, the globalists are scrambling to find another narrative to try and maintain control.
It turns out that transitioning away from the Covid narrative was easy for the globalists – all they had to do was turn to an old favorite, climate change. Joining us is Wesley Smith (humanexceptionalism.center), Director of the Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism. We are now being told that climate change should be seen as a health emergency, which would allow for the retention of tyrannical covid policies.
Covid will end, but climate change can be with us for as long as is needed. Our rights would be suspended, and the globalists would be able to achieve what they tried to with Covid. To fight back, we need to expose the truth, which like sunlight, is the best disinfectant.
Are we seeing a narrative transition from 'covid, covid, covid' back to climate change? Back with us today is Wesley Smith (humanexceptionalism.center), Director of the Discovery Institute's Center on Human Exceptionalism. Prestigious scientific journals are now claiming that climate change should be seen as a health emergency, which would allow for the retention of covid tyranny. The covid emergency will end one way or the other, but the climate emergency will last for decades if not centuries. This would permit an indefinite suspension of our rights that would result in a technocracy without end.