← Rebel News Podcast
Rebel News Podcast
SHEILA GUNN REID | 'Experts' claim Canada is warming rapidly, but what if the data is faulty?
00:45:11
Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition Canada, joins The Gunn Show to dissect how a single piece of potentially erroneous data has shaped Canada's environmental discussion.
Loading summary
Transcript47 lines
- [00:15]
A
What if the data the federal government has been relying on to shove climate policies down your throat has been corrupted from the very beginning? Well, today I think we have proof. I'm Sheila Gunn Reid and you're watching the gun show. For years, Canadians have been told repeatedly that our country is warming at twice the global average. And that claim underpins carbon taxes, energy bans, bank stress tests and hundreds of billions of dollars in so called climate action to liberal linked insiders. But what if the data behind it all was completely broken? And worse, what if the federal government knew that it was broken because analysts inside the bank of Canada told the government that it was? This is something I think we all sort of intuitively knew, but it's true. It's in black and white today. Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition joins me today to break it down. It's crazy. Take a listen. So joining me now is good friend of rebel news and good friend of reality everywhere, Tom Harris from the International Climate Science Coalition, Canada. I haven't talked to Tom since I got back from. I was gonna say beautiful blem, but the people were beautiful. The people were lovely. Let's just leave it there at the United Nations Climate Change Conference. And Tom, to cap off 2025, you wrote an article, it's published at America Out Loud. I'll make sure I link it in the article accompanying the show today. But you ask, you pose the question, is Canada now the poster child for politically driven climate data corruption? Tell us about this, because if it were just climate corruption, I would also believe that, but because I sat through the green slush fund hearings where liberal linked insiders were just voting themselves money for green schemes. But this is more about the corruption of the data itself. So the basis by which these people give themselves money to fight the climate scare, it's built on shifting sand, isn't it?
- [02:37]
B
Yeah, exactly. Well, it seems like if the data supports the climate narrative, then very few people check it because it helps them promote their cause, you know, and that's exactly what happened here. It turns out that on December 23, two days before Christmas, we got a beautiful Christmas present from Dr. Joseph Hickey, H I C K E Y who's going to actually be on our America Out Loud show this weekend at 7pm at AmericaOutloud News. If people want to hear our interview with him, he's a data scientist with a PhD in physics. Okay. His specialty is complexity science. And there's not much that's more complex than climate change, that's for sure. Anyway, he wrote A report. It's got a complicated title, but it's not that hard once I explain it. The title is Artificial Stepwise Increases in Homogenized Surface Air Temperature Data Invalidate Published Climate Warming Claims for Canada. So he didn't pull his punches. He said point blank that it's actually a data artifact that is responsible for most of Canada's supposed warming. And what he found was that in 1998, at most stations across Canada, there was a stepwise increase, okay? Temperatures sort of going up gradually, which has been happening since the end of the last glacial. In fact, it's been happening since the end of the Little Ice Age, of course. And that's been a good thing, generally speaking, because I don't know about you, but I don't really want another Little Ice Age. But regardless. Then suddenly in 1998, when they brought in 70 some odd new temperature sensors, the temperature suddenly jumped up 1 degree C and from there on it stayed at this 1 degree C greater. And so what he found is that that is a data artifact. In other words, it's not caused by nature changing at one degree suddenly in one year. It's caused by the fact that some of the data appears to be corrupted. Corrupted partly because of these new temperature sensors. But there can be other causes, too. For example, if vegetation grows up around temperature sensing stations, and sometimes it can be a social thing, too, because there's a different incentive for scientists to find a certain temperature. And I want to tell you a funny story that shows how data is actually affected by social things, too. You know, in the Soviet Union, the scientists who were in the far north were given a bonus when the temperature was below a certain level because it was miserable to live up there.
- [05:02]
A
Yeah, I believe that.
- [05:04]
B
Yeah. And so you can imagine what they would do. They would push the temperatures down, of course, so they get their bonus. Well, when the Soviet Union collapsed, it was no longer possible for them to get these bonuses, so they started reporting the temperature, honestly. So it appeared that the whole of the north of the Soviet Union and then Russia suddenly jumped up in temperature because there was no longer a financial incentive to say, oh man, it's cold outside. So there can be lots and lots of things that affect data. And it's interesting because over the years there have been various reports and studies done which say that if you see a sudden stepwise change of as great as, well, they're saying anything greater than about 0.6 degrees. But certainly if you see a sudden change in one year of a temperature that you're measuring you know, especially across a big area like Canada, if you see that change by a whole degree, then you know there's something wrong. Okay, there's something wrong with the data, right? But Environment Canada and actually what they call climate change and Environment Canada, they accepted that data, they apparently didn't examine it very closely. And suddenly the headlines are blaring, Canada is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. Well, as Dr. Hickey points out, if you take out that anomaly, that 1 degree sudden rise, almost all of the warming disappears. And I have a look at the temperature for Ottawa, for example, and it's something like 1.8 degrees. So suddenly it drops down to 0.8 degrees, you know, over a period of about seven decades in that neighborhood. And so it's interesting because he actually found this back in 2021 when he was a data scientist for the bank of Canada. So it's wonderful that somebody within the government, in this case the bank of Canada, was actually checking the data. Okay? And he was, and he wrote to Environment Canada and they sort of brushed it off. They said, oh, well, we had a quick look at the metadata. Metadata is the data before adjustment. And we're convinced this is real. This is a real temperature change, you know, and, but they said it's probably a real temperature change. So here you have the scientist who was most responsible for, you know, putting together the data on which the government based billion dollar policy decisions, and all she could say was, oh, it's probably real temperature change. So, you know, it's very fishy. And there's another instance here, I'll give in a second, where this, where another scientist, another economist actually at the bank of Canada also found mistakes that. But you know, Sheila, this is very reminiscent of other studies which have later proven to be false. If the data and the methodology and the whole papers and everything that's published, if it supports the climate scare and it gives the government a bigger hammer to hit us with to say, oh my God, Canada's warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world, then it doesn't seem like anybody really checks the data.
- [08:00]
A
Right. And it's funny that you talked about the Soviet scientists or the Russian scientists who were making it colder for a financial incentive, incentive for themselves. We actually have the opposite happening right now where they make the warming faster and of course, thus more catastrophic. Although don't ask me after a cold snap if I think warming is catastrophic. And we're just coming up, we're coming out of one today.
- [08:25]
B
Yeah. Oh, is that Right.
- [08:26]
A
Oh, it's been minus 30 for the last week. But the opposite is true. Now, as I alluded to the green slush fund, a scandal here in Canada where liberal insiders were basically giving themselves money for their little green projects. And one would leave the room to avoid a conflict of interest while everybody else voted on their. Their little funding announcement, and then that. Then somebody else would leave the room and then all their friends would vote. So it was sort of, you know, a perpetual motion machine with other people's money. And it's predicated on the fact that it is warming catastrophically and super, super fast. And a lot of money dries up if we're not in Canada, according to former Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, warming at a rate faster than the rest of the world. It's so funny. These people, no matter where they're from, their country is warming at a rate faster than the rest of the world.
- [09:23]
B
If you, if you look right, yeah, how can you have it that everybody's warming it faster than the average rate? I mean, it's ridiculous. But, you know, he prepared a very nice graph, or not a graph, but a figure of Canada. And what he did is he. And in fact, I sent it to you. It actually shows where it's cooling over this period and where it's warming. You know, and it's really quite interesting because if you actually look at the graph, you can see that by far the majority of places between 1998 and 2018, okay, since the 1998 spike occurred, but then, since then, we find that it's been cooling. So if you get rid of that spike, then you don't have any warming at all. But the interesting thing here, sheila, is that 49 records showed that it was warming across Canada. 100 records showed that it was cooling. So, you know, if we get rid of that little jump, we find that as. Just like he said, there's essentially no warming in Canada. And, and I'll just tell you what the other data scientists found. Actually, it's an economist, I believe his name was Mr. McDonald Guimond. Okay, not related to Kibo, thank goodness. But he found that the maximum temperature of the day for over 10,000 stations, looking at daily temperatures, T max, T min and average, he found that the minimum was higher than the maximum for over 10,000 different instances of daily temperatures. And I just got to read you one quote here from Dr. Hicks, one quote from Dr. Hickey's article here. He said the average difference, in other words, this is the amount that the minimum temperature was above the maximum temperature was 1.21 degrees. That's huge. And the maximum instance, and this is hilarious, you'd think that they'd have seen this. It was the Cape Dorset In Nunavut, temperature, February 25, the minimum temperature was 30 degrees, 30 degrees higher than the maximum. And so when this data scientist wrote to, actually I think he was an economist, let me double check here. But anyway, he worked for the bank of Canada and what he did is he actually, he sent it to them and said, holy smokes, some of your data looks pretty screwy. And this is the answer he got. We, in other words, Environment and Climate Change Canada were quite surprised by the frequency of the issue you reported and have taken some time to go through the data carefully. You think, well, what the heck, I mean, why aren't they going through the data carefully before they, before they release it and get, you know, all these multi billion dollar policies based on it and you know, now they've had the time to go through it, they're surprised. Well, that's hardly, you know, very consoling. I mean, the bottom line is they shouldn't be surprised by their own data. So it turns out Environment and Climate Change Canada have not yet answered because Hickey put out this report just as I say, just before Christmas. He's now publicizing and he didn't access the information so he could do it legitimately. He shows his questions to Environment Canada and it shows their answers. Oh, well, we're surprised by this, you know, and it shows the other answers, you know, to this other fellow McDonnell. Mom. And it really shows that there's. They're highly biased to accept data if it supports the climate scare. I mean, it's ridiculous. There's other examples we can talk about too, because it turns out we're paying for it as well.
- [12:54]
A
Of course we are. And this, I mean, maybe five years ago, do you remember the scandal of Environment and Climate Change Canada deleting like 100 years of weather data because they don't want us to know that weather is cyclical. That is not cooking us alive as quickly as they promise us it will. And as you say, there's a lot of money predicated on it.
- [13:21]
B
Well, that's right. And it's not just at the federal level. I have in front of me the Ottawa Climate Change Master Plan. The city of Ottawa, it says point point blank here. It says in April 2019, Environment and Climate Change Canada released Canada's Changing Climate Report stating that Canada is warming at twice the rate of the rest of the world. And that the warming will intensify, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And the city of Toronto has the same thing. And of course, the federal government, I mean, environment, climate, change Canada, they're doing the same thing. So, you know, it's, it turns out, and it's going to be very interesting to see Environment Canada's answer to this because it makes them look like they're pushing their thumb on the scale, you know, and, and when the data, you know, doesn't, or when it does give results, they like, nobody checks it until somebody holds them to account. So the point that Dr. Hickey makes, and as I say, we're going to be interviewing him, it'll be broadcast 7pm this Saturday and Sunday night on the AmericaOutloud News Network. So if people go there, AmericaOutloud News, you can hear from the author. And so it's really great, Sheila, that he left the bank of Canada because he can now tell us all, you know, so he gave us a really great Christmas present. I gotta tell you, though, about another study too, which is also costing us money. And that is what's called the Potsdam Institute study. And this one similarly gave us incredible results that were just accepted. Can we talk about that as well?
- [14:47]
A
Sure, I've got all the time in the world.
- [14:49]
B
Okay, well, Potsdam is in Germany, of course, and they found that the change in GDP for the world by the year 2100 because of temperature change from climate change was forecast to be 62%. There was going to be a 62% change in, you know, drop in GDP because of temperature. Now, that was. Yeah, that was triple previous estimates. And, you know, nobody particularly bothered to look at it. And so a group called the Network for Greening the Financial System. Okay.
- [15:22]
A
Oh, my God. Sounds like a Mark Carney racket.
- [15:25]
B
Anyway, they took that study and they incorporated it into all of their climate scenarios. Now, in Canada, we have different bodies, which are official government bodies, which actually tell the banks you must use the NGFS scenarios for your climate stress tests. Now, banks do all kinds of stress tests. You know, they, they look at what happens if there's massive inflation or what happens. And. But they also do something. Since 2021, they've been doing something called a climate stress test test, which examines, okay, what's going to be the impact on the bank if we have a climate emergency, you know, what's going to happen, you know, to the loans that are out there, will we be able to collect? They also look at whether or not their different branches will be affected by, you know, massive extreme Weather and blackouts and all sorts of things. So that particular group, ngfs, they actually tell the banks. Well, actually it's, it's the admin. Sorry, it's the regulators that use the NGFS climate scenarios to tell the banks. When you do a stress test, you must use this information, okay, from the ngsf. And it turned out that the, this financial system actually used that one study. They didn't take a whole lot of studies and take sort of an average, they took that one study that showed 62% drop in GDP because of climate change, okay? And so all across Canada, these poor banks were being forced to use this extreme scenario for determining all sorts of things like loan rates. And here's what happened, Sheila, because they used this. And by the way, it was triple the expected change in GDP because of other studies. So banks were not loaning money as easily to fossil fuel companies, and when they did, they were charging higher interest rates, but they were preferentially giving money to so called green energy because, my God, this change in GDP was going to be catastrophic. So those climate stress tests were carried out over a period of about eight months. So during that period last, let's see, in 2024, they were actually influencing the, the loans of banks, okay? And, and they thought the whole economy was going to be quite fragile. But a little later they started noticing some real problems with this. First of all, a bit of a red flag went up because as I say, it turned out that their estimate of change in GDP was triple the other estimates. And they only used that one study, just one study on which they based all of the bank climate stress tests across Canada. And so they started looking at it and it turned out there was some data in there that was completely wild. It was totally wild. It showed that the impact on GDP of relatively small temperature changes was huge for one country in particular. And you'll laugh to hear it. It was Ubekistan. What? Yeah. Turned out they found that Ubekistan's GDP was going wild, crazy all over the place and they attributed that to climate change. Now you have to ask yourself, well, how could one small country influence the whole global average? And I'll give you, yeah, I'll give you an example to illustrate how if data is really wild in one particular instance, you can actually affect the global average. Let's say you were trying to encourage your family to go on a diet. So you wanted to take the average weight of everybody in your family and you got 120 pounds, 160, 180, 200 and 850 pounds, obviously ridiculous. But if you average those five numbers and you don't take out the anomaly, the impossible, 850 pounds, you get an average of something like 300 pounds. So you can go to your family and you can say, hey, family, we've got an average weight here of 300 pounds. We've got to start reducing our food consumption. But of course, it's all driven by this one outlier, you know, and that's the point. That's an illustration of how one piece of data that is miles off reality can affect the average. And, you know, normally when they look at GDP changes because of climate change at a particular country, they also look at the nearby countries, okay, and they determine if it's kind of consistent with the nearby countries, because, of course, the climate change would be similar for, you know, nearby countries. Well, they didn't bother to do that. They just took the Uzbekistan data and they stuffed it in their model and they got this massive 62% change in GDP because of global warming. And of course, it was politically correct because, wow, they can now push the banks to do even more extreme climate scenarios in their stress testing. But then they realize, oh, there's a mistake here. And so by the end of last year, they actually withdrew the paper completely. Okay. And. But in the meantime, the banks were being told they had to increase lending rates, essentially. They were being told it indirectly that they had to increase lending rates to fossil fuel companies and give really preferential terms to, you know, green energy, which isn't really green, because this huge GDP change was occurring or going to occur because of climate change. So, you know, once again, Sheila, this is another great example of how, if you produce data that supports the narrative, it can easily slip through and be used to impose really serious consequences. I mean, Canada, for example, has spent $200 billion since 20 since Trudeau came in in 2015 on climate change. So I'm sure they were thrilled to see that in the case of the first study, we're warming at twice the rate of the world. Well, it turns out that may be totally bogus. And we still haven't heard back from Environment Canada as to what they're going to do now. Are they going to announce, oops, actually, we're almost not warming at all?
- [21:28]
A
Yeah, I mean, Canadians, do you feel warmer? Do you feel like you're warming faster than the rest of the face of the Earth? Yeah, when you were talking there, I googled the population of Uzbekistan and it is rough. Roughly the same size as Canada, about 38 million. But that can show you how a country as inconsequentially population sized as Canada or Uzbekistan can be used to be the cudgel by which this climate change nonsense is just completely rammed down the throats of the entire world.
- [22:10]
B
Yeah, exactly. And in the case of the first study, Canada is a huge area. So if we're wrong and most of the warming that supposedly occurred in Canada is not real, I mean, it's an artifact. It's because of the data collection methods or whatever that affects the global supposed warming as well. I haven't seen the calculation for that, but I wouldn't be surprised if we're finding now that the actual 1.2 degree warming since 1880, perhaps it's only 0.2 or I don't imagine the Canadian data would affect it that much. But, you know, the, the point we have to understand, Sheila, is Canada is one of the most developed and advanced countries in the world. Okay. And yet we had this huge mistake that, as I say, Environment Canada hasn't officially commented on it. So we don't know for sure that there isn't some sort of excuse. You know, it'd be interesting to hear what their excuses. But if we made such a big mistake, a developed nation, imagine what, you know, Tanzania or Malaysia, I mean, can we rely on their temperatures either? I mean, maybe it hasn't warmed at all in the last half century. Who knows? I mean, if Canada is that far off where most of our warming just disappears because of a data artifact, then maybe there's no global warming anywhere.
- [23:27]
A
A lot of people are going to be out of work.
- [23:30]
B
Yeah, $200 billion will buy you a lot of jobs. That's for sure.
- [23:34]
A
That's for sure. That's for sure. Hey, I know this isn't on our agenda of things to talk about, but I, I just, I want to pick your brain a little bit about what's happening in Venezuela, because I think right now Trump has this incredible way of making people side with outlandish and evil things just to spite him. I mean, it's really something to watch. You know, he did it when he came out and advised pregnant mothers not to take Tylenol if they, if they can avoid it. And so I saw endless videos of women taking, pregnant women taking Tylenol, potentially damaging their children to spite Trump for some reason.
- [24:17]
B
Yeah.
- [24:18]
A
And now I see people sign people who have spoken out against Maduro, siding with Maduro just to spite Trump. And we know, and we know a lot of, you know, a lot of the benefit to deposing Maduro will be opening up the Venezuelan oil fields. But I can already see the environmentalist left saying, no, lock it in. Leave communism and lock it in. And I just wanted to pick your brain a little bit about what's happening in Venezuela.
- [24:54]
B
Yeah, I noticed something kind of interesting. Even CBC showed the reaction of Venezuelans, the average people, and they were cheering. They were really happy to get rid of this guy because, of course, he lost the previous election, but he refused to give up power. So you had all these sort of average people who lived there. Not all of them, of course. Some of them were on the gravy train, I'm sure, with the current government or the previous government. But you had the average people who were thrilled. They were so happy to get rid of this guy. But then all the political leaders around the world outside of the United States were saying, oh, my God, you know, this is awful, because, you know, you think, okay, so you're saying it's a good thing that Venezuela is being ruled by a dictator who wouldn't respect the results of the previous election. You know, like, when was that a good thing to support? But I think you're right. I think a lot of people are against it, you know, certainly in the Western world and in the developed world, and the politicians, because Trump did it. And, you know, this is the tds. They talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome. I mean, Trump has been miraculous in the kinds of things he's done to help kill the climate scare and boosting American energy, making them more and more prosperous in that way. So suddenly you find the left are in particular hating everything he's doing, even when he's doing great things. And the point I make to people is I say, look, you may not like Trump's style, but to me, Trump is a bit like castor oil. He doesn't taste good, but he's good for you, okay? He's doing things that are actually good for the United States, good for the world. In the case of the climate thing, I mean, imagine he went to the United nations and he's told the whole General assembly, this is a. This is a scam, okay? This is a hoax. And that liberates a lot more people who actually agree with him, but would never dare say it. It liberates more and more people to say, yeah, I don't really think we want to spend in this case. Here's the number. You won't believe it. I've given you numbers in the past, but this is the updated number for how much the climate policy Initiative says is being spent across the world on climate finance. Okay. Oh, God save us. It's US$5 billion a day.
- [27:06]
A
Oh, my gosh.
- [27:07]
B
Yeah. And so you have to say, oh, my goodness, besides not taxing us so much in the first place, think what you could do with US$5 billion a day to help build hospitals in the developing world or any number of things. You know, we would have the best roads, the best hospitals in everywhere. So, I mean, the consequences of what Trump has done are very, very good. Okay. Because countries are now backing off. Not Canada, unfortunately. But eventually Canada will sort of have to follow. They keep saying we're going to be a global energy superpower and lead the world on green energy. But you say, but the world's not going more and more to green energy.
- [27:47]
A
We're half snow covered. Half the year. We're snow. First of all, there are parts of this country that you can't even build a road in. You think you're going to build a green energy project there, you're crazy. But the rest of the half of the year, we're covered in Snow and have 4 hours of usable daylight. And they're telling me we're going to be an energy superpower and just to ignore the coal, uranium and oil we have under our feet and natural gas.
- [28:11]
B
Well, you know, Sterling Burnett, Dr. Sterling Burnett, who works with the Heartland Institute, he said something really, really quite funny, but at the same time, I think it was very revealing. He said, you know, people are objecting, oh, my goodness, China is going to take the lead on green energy if we don't invest in it heavily. And Sterling said, well, let him take it. I mean, it's useless. It's not going to power industrial system society. So if they want to lead the world on something useless, hooray, let them take it. And that's the same. That's the same answer I say to Mr. Carney. Prime Minister Carney seems to want us to lead the world in green energy. Well, no. Like, why the heck do we want to lead the world in something that will never power the world? It will never do it, and it costs us a bloody fortune. If you actually look at countries that have gone hog wild on renewable energy, Denmark, for example, you can walk from one side of Denmark to the other and never lose sight of one of these massive wind turbines taller than the peace tower in Ottawa. And you look at these countries, Germany, the Netherlands, their electricity rates are huge. They're massively high, because, of course, they've converted more and more to this Supposed green energy. And then they have their natural gas stations in the background backing it up for when it's not windy and it's not sunny. And so those stations, instead of running at a consistent rate where they get high efficiency, they're going up and down and up and down to compensate for the variation in wind and solar. So yeah, they're paying hugely more than the rest of the world because they've supposedly tried to lead the world on green energy. So yeah, let China take it if they want to. And by the way, China boosts everything. Okay? I mean, it's a massive economy. Of course they are now. Yeah, they're building more wind and solar power than the rest of the world, but they're also boosting coal. And you'd laugh. Sheila, what do you think they use as an energy source to make the so called green energy if it's always coal? Yeah, exactly. So you could have at the base of a wind turbine made with coal so you don't get away from coal anyway. I mean, all you do is replace a good solid coal fired power plant with flimsy wind power made with coal.
- [30:25]
A
Right, and backed up by coal. I just want to share some good news on the coal front. I don't know if I told you last time I talked to you, but at the United Conservative Party annual general meeting at their convention last month, the membership voted to bring back, I quote, clean burning Alberta coal.
- [30:48]
B
Sure.
- [30:49]
A
As a means of electricity production. And that has been my fantasy football political policy for a very long time. When we have 800 years of some of the world's cleanest burning coal under our feet yet experiencing rolling brownouts because we don't have enough capacity. That's outrageous. And I'm very excited that the membership of the UCP party have brought that back as a, as a policy item. And now it's for the party to implement and adopt. And since the party holds government, I'm looking at you, Danielle Smith, do what the party members asked you.
- [31:26]
B
Well, I hope so, because, you know, coal has gotten a bad name. It really is a wonderful energy source. I mean, the fact is, you pile up coal at a coal station and you now have secure power for as long as that pile lasts, which is typically a year or so. You know, you're not reliant on gas pipelines coming in and oil tankers and things. You actually have just like nuclear power, all of your power source on site for perhaps a whole year. You know, a friend of mine was a director general in Egypt's energy Ministry and he went on a tour of Sweden and they took him to a coal fired power plant which was right beside a daycare. And, and he said to them, what, you've got a coal fired power plant? And they said, yes, of course, it's clean coal. It's very clean. So I mean, you can take out the pollutants easily from a coal station. Real pollutants. I'm not talking about CO2. There's one source of energy that people don't really know about, but they should. It's called anthracite coal. Now, anthracite coal is very hard, it's very shiny, and when you burn it, you get virtually no visible pollution at all. Okay. Unfortunately, we don't have that much anthracite coal anymore, but it turns out that they're finding it in the Antarctic. Okay. Which would be wonderful if we can use it. And I'll just give an example of how clean that particular coal is. Near our home here in Ottawa, we have a children's fun park and they have a little train that goes around and they pull the children on this choo choo train. You know, it's a really cool train. And so I went to the engineer and I said, oh, what kind of energy source are you using? Because I don't see any pollution at all. And he said, oh, I'm using coal. I said, what? You're using coal? He said, sure. And he pulled out a piece of anthracite coal which is very shiny, very hard coal. Yeah, this produces practically no pollution. Now similarly with bituminous coal, which is not as high a grade, you can burn it in a way that doesn't cause really serious pollution. You take out the socks and the knocks and the particulates and lead and all that, you can take it out so you can burn it very cleanly. And just like you pointed out, we've got an incredible supply of coal that can burn and, you know, produce clean electricity for as long as you and me and our children are around. So I mean, of course we should use it.
- [33:46]
A
It's crazy. Yeah, I mean, I used to, back when Alberta had coal fired electricity. You used to be. And you still can look at the weather stations near the coal sites, but I would routinely check at Wabamin, that's the Genesee Power station in Hannah, Alberta. They had a coal fired station there. But by the way, beautiful resort lakes right there because they use the lakes as cooling and so there's plenty of fish there and nice beaches. It was sort of a symbiotic relationship between these little resort communities and the coal fired electricity station. But you could routinely check the air quality there on the air quality monitors. And they were always, always consistently better than, I don't know, the places that block our oil and gas like Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal.
- [34:38]
B
Well, in Ottawa, or actually, excuse me, in Ontario, back around the early 2000s, we were getting about 25% of our power from coal and consequently our electricity rates were very low. And Dalton McGinty called a press conference and he had a big pile of coal on a table and he said, this is old technology, we're going to get rid of it. Well, of course that's a stupid statement because it's not technology. Technology is how you burn it. It's just a resource. And so they did, they got rid of coal and now it's zero. Okay? It's, we don't get any of our electricity from coal. And our, our rates, well, it tripled in time, depends on the year. But we had a tripling in electricity rates largely because we got rid of our cheapest form of power. And so of course China and these other countries, they say look, if we want to pull our people out of poverty, we have to expand coal use. And they're doing that and I don't blame them because of course it's a great way to pull your people out of poverty.
- [35:38]
A
Yeah, we didn't get off coal fired electricity here in Alberta. We just got off coal fired electricity jobs because every time we have a rolling brown out, we, we come hat in hand to our friends in Saskatchewan who are still using coal and they supply us with reliable electricity. Or our friends in Wyoming and Montana who just fire up their generating station, sell us some elect electricity at a premium because we're short, we'll just pay whatever it costs. And so we didn't get off coal electricity, we just got off them jobs.
- [36:08]
B
You got off your own coal, but then you imported power from other places that use coal, like brilliant.
- [36:15]
A
Exactly. Tom, before I let you go, because we've been going here for about 35 minutes, tell people how they can find the work that you do on behalf of hard working Canadians who are sick of paying. So much for the climate scare.
- [36:34]
B
Yeah, for sure. Well, first of all, Our homepage is icsc-canada.com you can go there and if you want to donate, that's wonderful because we don't get any money from industry or government, unfortunately. But the other place of course is America Out Loud news. Sorry, America Outloud news. That's what it is. America Out Loud News. And a good sample will be our interview with Dr. Hickey, who wrote this paper. Hey, that one degree temperature jump is not real. He wrote that paper. He's going to be our guest actually at 7pm on Saturday and Sunday night and then it goes to PM Podcast on Monday, you know, as a permanent thing. But yeah, that's where people can check us out.
- [37:13]
A
Don't you have another podcast?
- [37:15]
B
We used to. We haven't been doing it recently because we're focusing on the America out loud news one.
- [37:20]
A
Great.
- [37:21]
B
Since we, we get about 50,000 listeners.
- [37:24]
A
That's great.
- [37:24]
B
Yeah, that's really fun. So we've been bringing on all kinds of really cool people into that show and America Out Loud News. I really say to people, if you want, if you have some time to kill, go there and scroll around because it's got lots of good stuff. It's very much like Rebel News, but in a print, in a print format primarily. And of course the shows as well.
- [37:44]
A
Yeah, they've got something for everybody there. Whatever your issue is with tyranny, government, overreach, control, free speech, they've got it there for you. You'll find something and you will learn something. Tom, thanks so much for coming on the show. Thanks so much for keeping a careful eye on the climate scare and hopefully Donald Trump, maybe he'll black bag the climate scare like he black bagged Maduro.
- [38:09]
B
Right. Well, I mean he's, as I say, he's like castor oil. Whether you don't like what he does in verb, you know, how he expresses himself. But you got to admit that he's doing good things for the U.S. the last quarter, what was it, four and a half percent growth in GDP in the U.S. yeah.
- [38:24]
A
And we had four and a half percent inflation. You know, it's crazy.
- [38:30]
B
Anyway, thank you. Thank you, Sheila.
- [38:32]
A
Thanks, Tom. We'll talk real soon. Now, I did an entire letters episode over the Christmas break because, well, you know, it's the end of the year, I'll let you have your say. But at the end of every show, I also turn the show over to you. I read your viewer feedback through. Want to send me an email about today's show with Tom Harris? You can send it to me@sheila rebel news.com put gun show letters in the subject line. So I know why you're emailing me. But I also read the comment section over on YouTube, over on Rumble, and not just on clips of the show, but on, you know, the other work that we're doing around here, including my video on Christia Freeland deserving to be fired for taking a job as an economics advisor to a foreign government which appears to be the single largest recipient of Canadian foreign aid. That's right, Ukraine. So I did a video on it and if you would like to throw your name on the list of Canadians demanding Christia Freeland to resign now from her seat in the Canadian Parliament, although she says she's going to do it in the coming weeks, whatever that means, but also she should be taking the five year cooling off period before she starts lobbying on behalf of a foreign government. You can go to firefreeland.com to do that now. I thought I would take a looky loo at your viewer feedback on that video. Leon Swallow 6094 says the woman left Canada $63 billion in debt. Yeah, best of luck. Do you Ukraine. Although I think Ukraine doesn't have to concern itself too much with balancing its budget since it gets all that money with no strings attached from Western governments to just do whatever it wants with. William Murphy v U8RK says as a Canadian, I'm tired of politicians having alliances or loyalties to other countries or groups in other countries. This needs to be addressed and stopped. It was addressed in ethics laws, but as you know with the Liberals, they just don't believe these ethics laws apply to them. And it's bizarre. But here I am defending the Liberal voters in Freeland's writing who actually for some reason keep sending her back to the House of Commons. But those people deserve an MP that works for them and Freeland does not. And she said, oh, I'm not taking any money from Ukraine. I don't care, actually, I don't care if you're taking money from them. If you're doing this on a voluntary basis. That's not the point. You're not supposed to work for a foreign government while sitting in the House of Commons. If we were a real grown up country, she might go to jail for that. But we're not, as you know. Michael Stashik 9495 says freeloader is just following the money flowing out of Canada. Now she says she's not making any money, extra money doing this, but she's still also pulling her MP salary. And if you're not working for Canadians, you're stealing that money, sister. Steve Horner9004 says WEF traders in Canada, UK, France, Germany, EU yeah, we're headed into the World Economic Forum in Davos at the end of the month and I, from what I understand Mark Carney will be speaking there because he just can't quit the wef and neither can Freeland. Arthur Kazan says Freeland is just another piece of the Canadian corruption puzzle. Yeah, I mean, need we look any further than what didn't happen with the green slush fund? In that the corruption definitely happened. A bunch of liberal insiders were voting themselves and their friends your money for their green schemes. And in a normal country, those people would have went to jail. In fact, in the United States, they would have went to jail. But this is Canada and they just get to take their several million dollars and move on to the next thing. It's crazy. PW3.5 sorry, 3858 says the entire time she was in government, she was openly working for the World Economic Forum. Apparently that wasn't treason. I don't even saying this is treason, but this is a serious ethics violation. It's a violation of the current ethics rules. And from what I understand, according to my boss, Ezra Levant, he broke down the timeline. Freeland told Mark Carney before Christmas Eve, I guess, that she would be taking this position with the Ukrainians. And then after that, Mark Carney met with Zelensky and gave him just a few billion dollars more of our money. That seems like an ethics violation too, doesn't it? And then she says, I'm going to resign in the coming weeks. What is the coming weeks? What does that mean? She should have resigned the day she considered taking that position and then subjected herself to an appropriate cooling off period. But she didn't. Because the rules don't apply to the Liberals. And last one, Katrina Doyron, 1075, says the Canadian government hasn't worked for Canadian citizens for many years. Ain't that the truth? How many of us are even Canadian citizens these days? Everywhere you look it seems to be a temporary foreign worker or a foreign student. So you're probably right. And the government seems to be working pretty hard for those people, but not for the rest of us. We work pretty hard for the rest of them, too, oddly enough. Well, everybody, that's the show for today. Thank you so much for tuning in. I'll see everybody back here in the same time in the same place next week. And as always, remember, don't let the government tell you that you've had too much to think.