Candace Owens DESTROYS TPUSA Execs Over Charlie Kirk Assassination!

Summary

The Jimmy Dore Show – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Candace Owens DESTROYS TPUSA Execs Over Charlie Kirk Assassination!
Air Date: October 31, 2025
Host: Jimmy Dore
Key Guests/Voices: Candace Owens (via video/quotes), TPUSA staff (clips), Michael Shellenberger (via clip), Whitney Webb (via clip)

---

Overview

This episode of The Jimmy Dore Show covers two major themes:

1. The continued controversy and conspiracy theories surrounding Charlie Kirk’s assassination—with particular focus on the behavior of Kirk’s chief of staff, Mikey McCoy, and the official narrative promoted by Turning Point USA (TPUSA).
2. A critical segment on climate change discourse—debunking commonly held narratives about sea level rise, the reliability of climate science, and exposing what Dore and guests allege are deliberate deceptions by scientists and policymakers.

The tone is deeply skeptical toward official and establishment explanations, with frequent invocations of earlier controversies (Seth Rich, Russiagate, COVID) as examples of media and state manipulation. The episode is rife with sarcasm, comedic digressions, and pointed criticism of both conservative and liberal media.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Charlie Kirk Assassination Controversy

Questions About Mikey McCoy’s Behavior ([02:11]–[10:44])

• Video Evidence Scrutinized:
  Jimmy and his cohorts replay footage of the moment Charlie Kirk was shot.

  • McCoy, Kirk’s chief of staff, is observed immediately turning around, calmly putting a phone to his ear, and walking away, contrasted with others’ visible panic ([03:12]–[04:17]).
  • Candace Owens questions the official rationale that McCoy was dazed, covering his ears from the gunshot, or was simply following protocol to call Kirk’s wife ([04:40]–[07:24]).

• Skepticism Toward the Official TPUSA Narrative:

  • Owens and Dore both note the lack of transparency: If McCoy’s actions are so innocent, why not have him show his phone records publicly to dispel rumors? ([09:19])
  • The show lampoons excuses made by staff and points out inconsistencies—e.g., McCoy’s father claimed he was “covered in blood,” which footage contradicts ([09:46]).

• Comparison to Seth Rich Case:

  • Dore draws parallels to how skeptics of the Seth Rich case were labeled as “vile conspiracy theorists,” invoking a pattern of shutting down legitimate inquiry ([11:27]).

• Memorable Candace Owens Quote:

  "It would be unlikely that you would keep holding your ears until you get all the way out and that you wouldn't duck down... We're supposed to believe Charlie always told us to call Erica if anything happens? That's kind of common sense. That's not exactly like, hey, if I get shot in the throat, don't help me and call Erica." —Candace Owens ([08:01])

• Psychological Operation Allegation:
  Dore, channeling Owens, suggests the gaslighting and diagnosis of questioners as “conspiracy junkies” is deliberate, calling it a “psyop”:

  "So she just called the guys from Talking Point USA... gaslighters... they're doing a psyop on you." —Jimmy Dore ([14:21])

Criticism of Establishment & Conservative Media ([17:27]–[21:49])

• Mocking of Official Explanations:
  The panel ridicules the convoluted explanations for McCoy’s departure from the scene, for seizing camera SD cards, and for the response of TPUSA, likening it to Democrat narratives in the COVID era ([18:48]–[19:35]).

  • Dore notes the reluctance of right-leaning personalities (e.g., Megyn Kelly) to challenge official stories due to partisan loyalty.

• Controversy Over Investigation & Squabbles Inside the Government:
  Dore discusses clashes between national security officials—including Joe Kent (Counterterrorism Center), Tulsi Gabbard (National Intelligence), and FBI Director Kash Patel—over who controls the Kirk investigation ([23:17]–[32:56]).

  • Suspicious conduct: The administration blocks broader inquiry into foreign connections to the assassination, citing concern it would “interfere with prosecution”—described by Dore as “patsy prosecution” ([24:49], [27:41]).

  "If you don’t have anything to hide, what are you afraid of? That only works for us. Not the guys who are the head of the FBI." —Jimmy Dore ([27:30])

• Sarcastic Mockery of the Official Line:

  "I believe the official story, top to bottom. Where’s my $7,000 check, bitch." —Jimmy Dore ([25:38])

---

2. Debunking Sea Level Rise and Climate Alarmism

Michael Shellenberger Segment ([37:32]–[54:17])

• IPCC Claims Refuted:
  Shellenberger asserts that real-world long-term tide gauge data do not show an acceleration in sea level rise since the 19th century, contradicting claims made by the IPCC and echoed by major media ([37:32], [40:12]).

• Deliberate Manipulation by Scientists:
  Shellenberger recounts a lengthy email exchange with Rutgers University scientist Robert Kopp, accusing Kopp and colleagues of willfully misrepresenting the reliability of short satellite records and using questionable models instead of direct data ([41:39]–[45:31]).

  "Scientists engaged in multiple forms of manipulation... They used data from periods too short to detect a long term trend; they pointed to models that could show acceleration or not depending on the assumptions. All with the intent to alarm." —Michael Shellenberger ([43:35])

• Comparison to COVID-19 Scientific Debates:
  Dore draws a parallel to public health messaging, claiming officials made up or manipulated claims about vaccines, social distancing, or mask efficacy ([40:47]).

• Skepticism About Climate Alarmism:

  • The show notes that world leaders and elites, despite their rhetoric, continue to purchase beachfront properties—implying their actions contradict their warnings ([46:04]).
  • Dore and co-hosts cite a 485-million-year climate study showing the Earth has often been warmer than it is today ([47:16]–[47:38]).

  "All the predictions that I heard that made me feel scared, not one of them has come to pass. They have a worse track record than Bible beaters." —Jimmy Dore ([39:28])

• Shellenberger’s Central Conclusion:

  “Climate change is real. But there was never any scientific evidence that it posed an existential threat to civilization or humankind.” —Michael Shellenberger ([49:28])

Policy and Control Motives ([58:00]–[59:15])

• Whitney Webb on the Great Reset:
  Webb argues that climate policies are about control rather than environmental salvation—about limiting energy and economic activity, and consolidating power among Wall Street and international financial institutions ([57:46]).

  "What it's about is controlling how much energy people can use. And if you can control how much energy a household can use, you can control their economic activity. You also control how big their family can get. It's fear, fear-driven to get people to accept policies they otherwise wouldn't." —Whitney Webb ([57:46])

Additional Evidence & Congressional Testimony ([54:17]–[57:23])

• Congressional Testimony Highlights Glaring Oversights:
  A segment plays where Jamie Raskin is unable (or unwilling) to answer how much sea level has risen in San Francisco since the last ice age (~390 feet)—which occurred before significant human impact, implying natural variability far exceeds current changes ([56:55]).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On McCoy/TPUSA Narrative:

  • “He wasn’t running, he didn’t duck. He started calmly walking away.” —Jimmy Dore ([03:12])
  • “So she just called the guys from Talking Point USA... psyop on you and they're gaslighters because they are.” —Jimmy Dore ([14:21])

• On Psychological Tactics:

  • “They diagnose you. When they don't want you to look into something, they diagnose you... You're just high on the conspiracy theory.” —Candace Owens via Dore ([13:01])

• On the Broader Pattern of Official Disinformation:

  • “You've been lied to, just like you were lied to about Russiagate, lied to about Ukraine... lied to about COVID, everything.” —Jimmy Dore ([54:17])

• On Climate Science & Policy Agenda:

  • “Turns out you can buy a scientist as easy it is to buy a politician… And the scientists own the science. Yeah. And the scientists know better. And he figured it out, deceiving the public.” —Jimmy Dore ([39:56])
  • “The whole idea that this is an existential... I'm not a climate alarmist... And then COVID made me look into everything I used to accept as true.” —Jimmy Dore ([51:30])

---

Important Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment Description | |-------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 02:11–10:44 | Breakdown of the Kirk shooting video, doubts about Mikey McCoy’s actions | | 11:27–14:38 | Allegations of psychological ops and gaslighting, referencing Seth Rich | | 17:27–21:49 | Mocking establishment & media responses, McCoy and SD card controversy | | 23:17–32:56 | Interagency struggle over assassination investigation; official stonewalling | | 37:32–54:17 | Shellenberger segment: sea level rise, climate science, evidence of deception | | 54:17–57:23 | Congressional testimony, further debunking of sea level threats | | 57:46–59:15 | Whitney Webb: climate solutions as financial/political control | | 59:44–61:38 | Conclusion – government motivation for control, sarcasm over climate policies |

---

Closing Tone & Final Thoughts

Dore ends with an admonition:
Don’t fall for psychological operations or mass gaslighting, whether about political assassinations or climate change. He maintains a tone of biting sarcasm but insists he is on the side of evidence and open skepticism of all establishment narratives, left or right.

“Don’t freak out. Don’t freak out. Don’t freak out.” —Jimmy Dore ([61:38])

---

Note: This episode is high on speculation and sarcasm, often lampooning both conservative and liberal political operatives. While it features real personalities and contemporary debate, listeners should approach its claims with a critical mindset, given its confrontational style and alternative framing of widely reported events.

Transcript

[A]

Morning Zoe. Got donuts.

[B]

Jeff Bridges, why are you still living above our garage?

[A]

Well I dig the mattress and I want to be in a T mobile commercial like you teach me.

[B]

So Dana oh no, I'm not really prepared. I couldn't possibly at t mobile get the new iPhone 17 Pro on them. It's designed to be the most powerful iPhone yet and has the ultimate pro camera system.

[C]

Wow, impressive.

[A]

Let me try. T Mobile is the best place to.

[C]

Get iPhone 17 Pro because they've got the best network.

[B]

Nice. Je free.

[D]

You heard them.

[C]

T mobile is the best place to.

[D]

Get the new iPhone 17 Pro on.

[C]

Us with eligible traded in any condition. So what are we having for lunch?

[B]

Dude, my work here is done.

[E]

The 24 month bill credit on experience.

[D]

Beyond for well qualified customers plus tax and 35 device connection charge credit send and balance due if you pay off earlier Cancel Finance agreement. IPhone 17 Pro 256 gigs 1099.99 A.

[C]

New line minimum 100 plus a month plan with auto pay plus taxes and.

[E]

Fees required Best mobile network in the.

[D]

US based on analysis by Oklahoma Speed Test Intelligence Data 182025 Visit t mobile.com AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI [e-mail] that's R U B R-I K.com.

[C]

Come see us in Australia. Second shows added in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. We'll see you in Burbank, California the day after Thanksgiving. It's a Friday. And then Pottstown, Pennsylvania December 6th plus January 11th. We're going to be in Waikiki at the Blue Note. Tickets not available yet for them, but go to jimmy dore.com for a link for all the other tickets.

[D]

Establishment media sucks.

[C]

August Light and so good luck.

[D]

Bullshit.

[C]

We can't afford why he's fomenting this watch is jack off the medium speeds.

[D]

And jumps the medium and hits them head on.

[C]

It's the Chimney Tour show.

[B]

So that right there is a psychological operation. And because we're reading about Sigmund Freud, they diagnose you when they don't want you to look into something, they diagnose you. So right there he's going, oh my. Are they just doing this to create content? Are these people akin to drug addicts? They're just high on the conspiracy theory, they're gaslighting you and then they're diagnosing you.

[C]

Candace Owens responds to the all the Suspicions surrounding Mike McCoy, Charlie Kirk's chief of staff, who did this. As soon as Charlie got shot, he didn't check to make sure Charlie was okay. He didn't try to stop the bleeding. He didn't make sure there was an ambulance. He didn't make sure he got to the ambulance. He didn't make sure that he got to a hospital that was the closest one because they took him to a far hospital. He didn't do anything. He. I'm going to show you what he did. The bullet rings out. He immediately, before a second, he turns around, puts a phone to his head and calmly walks away and keeps walking. That's. I'll show you. Here it is. I'll show you.

[D]

Right hand guy.

[C]

There's Ian.

[D]

And he was at Charlie's right hand all day long.

[C]

So there he is. He gets shot. There he is. He turns around. He hasn't even fallen yet. Charlie Kirk hadn't even fallen off his chair yet. His chief of staff had already turned around, put the phone to his head and started calmly walking away. He wasn't running. He didn't duck. He started calmly walking away. And let's. And let's. I'll show you. And here he comes right here. There he is walking away with the phone to his ear. Calmly walks away. Everybody else is running and screaming. He's not. He's very calmly walking. And he did it. Even a second hadn't gone by. He turned around and started walking away. And he kept walking away. And in fact, to the point where here they are putting Charlie Kirk's body into an suv. Here is Mikey, the chief of staff, still walking away. Now, I also showed you that his father lied. Mikey McCoy's father, a pastor, lied and said Mikey was covered in blood. He also said he called him first and, and then, but we don't know, he called Erica. Anyway, so this is Jimmy. Where's.

[A]

Where's the other guy? Where's baldy beardy who saw his quivering lip while he was out there in the distance? Look, talking to Erica.

[C]

Look how far, look far away he is from what's happening.

[A]

And he said he'll never forget seeing his lip quiver.

[C]

That's right. So here is Candace Owens response to this garbage that they're saying. Watch this. So here's their stupid excuse, and Candace is going to debunk it.

[D]

Here's the last thing I want to make a Point of. And Charlie, because Charlie had given me similar instructions along the years, said if anything ever happens to me, you call Erica. That is your. He drilled that into Mikey's brain so that when this moment of trauma happened that he turned around and he knew how to do it. And by the way, last thing, because this is part of the video allegations here, is that they think. They're alleging that he was on the phone immediately. He was not. He was taking social videos which he would send to our group chat, which we would then put on Charlie's social why the event was happening so you could see like the crowd come in or his interactions. And we were only two questions into this event. So he was still getting it out to all the chats he needed to do, which he did at every event. He turns around and it was so blaringly loud. I'm told you would know this better than this is what I'm told. It was so blaringly loud and he was so shell shocked he put his fingers in his ear, but his phone was still in his hand. He walks away.

[C]

So we're supposed to believe he wasn't talking to someone on the phone. He. Because this, the bullet sound was so loud he wanted to put his fingers in his ears. No one else on video did that. Nobody else did that. And then he kept keeping his fingers in his ears even after he was. I got to be 50 yards away. He still is doing that. Okay, okay, here's Candace will do it.

[D]

And he's not even, not even walking because people are talking about that. The way it was is we had a cordoned off area with rates so you could had controlled access. All the people, when this happens, they all get the idea we should leave before we are shot. And so there's a little narrow gap that I think people. It's not really walking. It's that everyone has to slow up to get through this little narrow choke point to get out of the area.

[B]

Okay. Elsewhere they say that. So basically he was on the phone, he was holding his ears. Okay. And then once he got out into the distance beyond Charlie, beyond the car that Charlie would be carried into is when he called Erica first and then his father. That's what they tell us now in regards to him saying that Mikey was taking social videos. I can tell you it tracks that Mikey would be taking videos behind. Like, you know, when Charlie first comes out of the event, he's throwing hats. That tracks. That absolutely is a thing. At Turning Point usa, you follow the person to get behind the scenes. I would have Savannah do this before Mikey McCoy did this. It was some Sarah Schmachtenberger, and they do that. They like the behind the scenes reactions. But in this particular video, he's not standing where you can get a view of Charlie asking a question. So this, this part is not tracking. Okay. Mikey is not standing to the side of Charlie. He is behind. And so if you're saying what earlier, we're supposed to see him. The best place to stand if you're going to get a video of Charlie asking a question is going to be in a place where you can see both Charlie and the person asking the question. And that's just not where he's standing. So that excuse doesn't make sense to me. Now maybe he's saying he was in Mike, he was there when he was throwing hats out, and he was there trying to send videos thereafter once things got started. That's all possible. I don't know. Regarding him putting his hands up to his ear, it does sound completely plausible to me that if you first hear a gunshot, you're going to naturally do.

[C]

This, even though nobody else did that. He's the only guy who did it.

[B]

Right. That kind of makes sense. You're going to go, what? You know, what was that? Maybe. And then I think typically you'd get down. And the issue that I have is he just. I never see him take that phone down.

[C]

And nobody else is doing that. Nobody else in any of the videos is doing this. Nobody. And he's still doing it. He's still doing it.

[B]

Okay, maybe he does. Right? Maybe he does. We don't know for a fact. And so we should be clear that it doesn't look to me like he's just covering his ears there.

[C]

No, maybe he's not.

[B]

What I will say is that it would be unlikely that you would keep holding your ears until you get all the way out and that you wouldn't duck down. And regarding Charlie always told us to call Eric if anything happens. Yeah. That's kind of common sense. That's not exactly like, hey, if I get shot in the throat, don't help me and call Erica. I think obviously if I. That's called like first of kin. Right? First of kin. If something happens to me, call George. Something happens to George, call Candace. That is almost in the sphere of common sense. So I believe that. I don't believe that Charlie said, if I get shot, don't help me calmly walk away and call Erica first. Like I think. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. Like I said, we have nothing off of. I think it's curious that we're hearing this from Andrew. We're not hearing it from Mikey McCoy. It's very easy to dispel any Internet innuendo. You don't actually have to jump into ad homine attacks. The first thing I would have done, just like I did when I was being accused of colluding on the Blake Lively story when I got drafted into that lawsuit and they thought that I was working with Blake Lively's. Sorry, working with Justin Baldoni's team is. I quite literally live subpoenaed myself, held to my phone. I typed in Blake Lively and I showed you the only two times that I had ever texted about her in my phone at all to demonstrate that there was no collusion happening and no one compelled me to speak. It was ridiculous thing for her to say. I laughed at it. I wasn't upset about it. Right. And I said, this is crazy. Here is my phone. I'm live opening it for you.

[C]

And so why wouldn't a. They bring Mikey McCoy on that show, Charlie Kirk show to show his phone and say, no, this is what I was talking to. This is what happened? Exactly. Why, why, why wouldn't. That. Not only did they not do that, they didn't even bring on Mikey McCoy to answer any of these questions. They bring out another liar and that. What is his name? Colvit. And they're both. And so now they're another proven liar because he's the one.

[A]

His dad say he was on the phone with him.

[C]

His dad said he was on the phone with him and his dad said he was covered in blood. He wasn't. No, they don't address that. They don't address that. They don't address that at all. And they pretend that he's just walking around with his hands trying to plug his ear because he's afraid there's going to be another gunshot. He doesn't want to hear, but he's not ducked down and he's not worried about getting shot. He's. He's standing completely erect, walking calmly and slowly with his phone to his ear. Okay. Almost like he was on the phone the whole time with someone.

[B]

Why not do that? Does not seem easier to like. The easier thing, if you feel that pressure, is to just say, I'm going to dispel this. It's kind of like the Brigitte Macron thing. Hey, here's a couple of pictures of me raising my kids. 30 years was missing because I really was just camera shy. I'm going to show you the pictures. It's so much easier rather than fighting a tip for tat war to just share the truth. People are uncomfortable. It's going to get even more interesting though, because Alex Marlowe, who runs Breitbart News, was their guest for the day on the show. And he then kind of shifts gears and pretends like we're all drug addicts.

[C]

This. This is where it gets really bizarre. Watch this. This is where the Seth. This is where I get my Seth Rich Spidey senses come, come alive. Watch this. Remember when they remember if you asked a question about Seth Rich, they said you were hurting their family. How dare you. Crazy nut conspiracy theorist. They put me in an article in Washington Post with pedophiles and Nazis because I was asking legitimate questions about an unsolved murder. They still don't know who killed Seth Rich. Still. But you're not allowed to ask questions of it. They're doing the exact same thing right here. Watch this. But. But worse. So now they're trying so how they slandered everybody who had legitimate questions about Seth Rich. Now they're trying to slander everybody who has a legitimate question about Charlie Kirk's assassination. Watch this.

[B]

We're just high on conspiracy theory. Take a listen.

[D]

There's a suggestion online that Mikey, Charlie's.

[C]

Chief of staff, one of the most.

[D]

Sincere people you'd ever meet, brilliant, Christian, kind. Everyone who's he ever met in his entire life couldn't hurt a fly, was part of a conspiracy to murder Charlie. That's what's going on. It's vile. It's utterly vile. What type of individual just to create content do we think or is there.

[C]

It's vile for anyone to question the official narrative, even though there are a million holes in it. Contradictions. And they're known liars. Just like Seth Rich. The same Seth, the same FBI that lied to you about Seth Rich and said they didn't have his laptop and then it was proven they had it. Then they said they couldn't get the information from his laptop even though then it was proven that they did have that information. And then when a court, a judge ordered them to release the contents that they had found on his his laptop, they said we're not going to release it for 65 years and they still have not released it.

[A]

It's vile if you bring that.

[C]

Vile. So that's the same FBI who did all that with Seth Rich. Now they're doing it with Charlie Kirk and this guy says it's vile. If you have legitimate questions, yes.

[A]

Shut up, Jimmy.

[C]

This is exactly what they did with Seth Ridge. Okay, here we go.

[D]

I don't know. I think a lot of this mindset just sort of fuels itself. It's. It's sort of addictive in the same way a lot of social media stuff is addictive or in the way like honestly, something like pornography is addictive or something like they get really, they, they almost get. They get a high off of like the idea of like that they're doing something that's daring or out there.

[B]

So that right there is a psychological operation. And because we're reading about Sigmund Freud, they diagnose you. When they don't want you to look into something, they diagnose you. So right there he's going, oh, my. Are they just doing this to create content? Are these people akin to drug addicts? They're just high on the conspiracy theory. They're gaslighting you and then they're diagnosing you. So we all just watch Charlie die. We are having a perfectly rational response to watching that. And then watching the strange reaction of his peers or the non reaction of his peers who just want our money. Right. And are. Are asking for Susie Wiles. It's the craziest part of his whole thing. For me, it was like, why is Suzy Wiles? I know, it just feels really weird, like a weird pick for her to eulogize him, but. Yeah. And not. Maybe his parents maybe didn't want to actually. They were quite private people. But all this happens and we're having a natural reaction, which is we feel alarmed, we feel suspicious. And they're going, oh, you're a drug addict. You're. You know what? I get it. You kind of like porn. You're into that. You're into the porn thing. It's. Oh, I get it. No, I get it. If you want to watch porn all day, you want to watch porn all day. That, my friends, the psychological operation. Steel yourselves against this. Yes, we are asking questions. No, we are not akin to people that watch pornography all day. And no, we're not getting high on it. We're going to get high when we find out what actually happened. That's going to feel like a high to us. Right? That's going to be that natural rush that we feel when we've actually solved our. What happened to Charlie Kirk? So let me, let me answer you back on that. Alex Marlow. Be careful because, my dear genealogy, you don't want me doing that. Careful. Then we have Frank Tarek who engaged.

[C]

So she just called the guys from Talking Point usa. She called them gaslighters, which is another term for liars. And. And it's even worse because they're trying to get you to believe something false. So they're gaslighters and they're doing a psyop on you.

[A]

Toilet paper usa. Jimmy.

[C]

Candace Owen just officially said the guys from TP USA are doing a psyop on you and they're lying to you. So that's what they're doing. And you should watch all other videos about Mikey McCoy and the T. I just did another video about TP USA's response to Mikey McCoy theories, his bizarre behavior, which also makes zero sense. His father lied, said he was covered in blood. They lied and said that he was there directing. He was making sure that Charlie Kirk got into the suv. They were making sure he got to the hospital. He didn't do any of that stuff. Charlie. Charlie. Mikey McCoy didn't do anything.

[A]

General McCoy, we need you.

[C]

Before Charlie Kirk even fell off his chair, Charlie Mikey McCoy had already left the scene. Before his body even hit the ground and fell off the chair. Mikey McCoy, chief of staff, was already exited the scene. He was gone literally 800 milliseconds from the gunshot to him, leaving not even a second. He didn't go, whoa, what happened? He didn't duck. He didn't get scared. He put the phone to his ear and walked away calmly. And he didn't stop. And then they said he did. Oh, no. He came back and made sure he got in the SUV I showed you. Here he is in the suv. Here's him still walking away. But. But this guy. This guy says, no, no, no. He turned around and he called Erica Kirk. He called his father. And then he went back and made sure that Charlie was in the SUV and that he was on his way. He. He's nowhere freaking near him. In fact, not only that, but Mikey McCoy has no legitimate way of knowing what actually even happened. He didn't even see Charlie Kirk fall. He didn't even see Charlie Kirk fall off his chair. That's how fast he spun around. Before Charlie Kirk fell off his chair, Mikey McCoy was already turned around, was already on his way out with a phone to his ear. The only guy trying to shield his ears, by the way. And Candace Owens says, you're watching a psyop. These guys are pulling a psyop on you, and they're gaslighters because they are the guy from. And if you believe what the people from talking points us or turning Point USA are saying you are a chump. You are a chump. You are a victim of a psyop and you're willing victim because there's so many. And there's some people who legitimately believe that somehow his neck stopped a.36 bullet. There's no way that happened. No way that happened.

[A]

But I.

[C]

You have, you have to believe all these crazy things happened. You have to believe all these crazy things happened for you to believe the establishment. And then he did that stupid text to his lover, which obviously that was not true because they stopped pushing that because everyone called it out, where he laid out every step of the way where he assassinated Charlie Kirk and then texted it to his boyfriend. That didn't happen. There are so many crazy things that you have to believe in order to believe. Kash Patel and the establishment. And what the guy from Talk Turning Point USA are saying that there's just no way. There isn't a pretzel twisted enough to make yourself believe this. You can't twist yourself into a big of a pretzel to believe any of this.

[A]

I just want to prove my loyalty to Trump, Jimmy, and to Maga and to Israel. Yeah, I want to prove my loyalty by believing whatever that is.

[C]

Exactly what this is.

[A]

Just like with COVID That was the nice Democrat one. They're really all on the same team. Can't tell these guys apart from Pod Save America. No, I don't think Pod Save America directly covered up a murder. But it's the same nondescript white guys, probably in some creep ass organization their whole life. Just like the kid they're stitching up for the murder. It's so obviously fake. I know people that like, they just don't think about it, I guess just.

[C]

Like the Democrats didn't want to think about COVID and they dismissed every obvious lie from Fauci, Dr. Collins and the establishment media. Just even they still called Ivermectin horse paste, even though it's on the WHO list of essential medicines and it won a Nobel Prize for human medicine. They still said Joe, Joe Rogan was taking horse paste. So. And they still to this day, those Democrats don't have any curiosity about. Why would the, why would the establishment media lie about that? Oh, because Big Pharma told them to. Because they didn't want anybody to think they could take an early treatment for Covid and they wanted them to take their. It's the same thing they're doing here. So now the. And again, most MAGA don't believe this because most MAGA knows how a 3006 works. Most MAGA knows what a stupid thing.

[A]

You'Re trying to put over.

[C]

They know you can't assemble, disassemble, change your clothes, assemble the gun again, hide it in a towel, jump off a two story building. They know this. They know this. So most Amaga sees through this. But it's only the ones like Megyn Kelly and these guys from Turning Points USA who want to believe this. Because if they don't, they have to call out Israel, they have to call out Trump, they have to call out the FBI, they have to call out Turning Points usa, they have to call out his security team. And they don't want to get messed up in that. They don't. They'd rather have a fun, nice career. And that's why Megyn Kelly is pretending to believe this. And anybody else who believes this is a victim of a psyop on purpose. Just like the Democrats were victim of the COVID psyop on purpose because it fits your agenda. I gotta believe the establishment story because if I don't, then I gotta turn on Trump, I gotta turn on Cash Patel, and I gotta turn on Israel, and I gotta turn on Turning Point usa. And I don't want to do that. I want to be a good boy.

[A]

Okay, what, what friends would you want to have that you have to like you lose them for telling the truth about a murder?

[C]

Charlie really drilled it into our head that as soon as he gets shot in the neck, turn around and walk away. Yes, he drilled it into our head.

[A]

Or your dad, whichever you have listed.

[C]

Or your dad, or this or that. But whatever you do, don't try to help.

[A]

He told his one weird headed friend to stand on the chair where he got shot and take a selfie and say, charlie, shot? Yeah, that one.

[C]

Yeah, I saw that one.

[A]

Standing on the chair, he was shot. Nothing weird about that.

[C]

And they said immediately. And did Charlie Kirk also say immediately take the camera, the SD cards of the camera from behind me. Did he also say that?

[A]

Because evil people could use it to like solve the murder.

[C]

So those. The guy who grabbed the SD cards of the video from behind Charlie Kirk lied and said he was told to by the cops. That's a lie. That's a lie.

[A]

That's what cops say to do.

[C]

That's not what the cops had to do. Nobody told. So they're like TP USA are confirmed liars in every way possible about this and to the point where they won't even, they won't even bring the Guy on Mikey McCoy to answer the why wouldn't you bring on Mikey McCoy? Why would you bring out a guy who was also there?

[A]

You know, the security team couldn't get the keys to the roof because the security guard to have him and wouldn't give them. And as you know a crack security team, the first thing you do is go. We're not allowed to go on the roof.

[C]

And yeah, for his security. Yeah, we're being told the security team they wouldn't give him the keys to the access to the roof. This is all lies.

[A]

That's a pastor told me that you say he's a lie.

[C]

Hey, you know, here's another great way you can help support the show is you become a premium member. We give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week and it's a great way to help support the show. You can do it by going to jimmy dork.com clicking on join Premium. It's the most affordable premium program in the business and it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards. Thanks for everybody who was already a premium member and if you haven't, you're missing out. We give you lots of bonus content. Thanks for your support.

[D]

AI agents are everywhere. Automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk accelerate your AI [e-mail] that's R U B R-I K.com so.

[C]

The full, full blown cover up is happening with the Charlie Kirk assassination. It turns out that someone working for Tulsi Gabbard was investigating the foreign government's connection to the assassination. And Cash Patel just squashed it, huh? Yes. Officials access to FBI files in Charlie Kirk case drew pushback. An inquiry by Joe Kent. He leads the National Counterterrorism Center. His he said to have alarmed Cash Patel, the FBI director, because he was looking into the connections between Charlie Kirk's assassination and foreign governments. Because that's his job. He leads the National Counterterrorism Center. Okay, by the way, so here it is. The head of the National Counterterrorism center examined FBI files in the last several weeks to investigate whether the man charged with assassinating Charlie Kirk had support from someone else, a foreign power or another entity. According to multiple people with knowledge of the matter. The inquiry by Joe Kent, who's the Director of the Counterterrorism Center. Alarmed. Kash Patel, the director of the FBI. Mr. Patel and other senior officials believe Mr. Kent was overstepping. Treading on FBI. On the FBI. That's what he was doing. Treading on them.

[A]

Oh, of riskies, of course.

[C]

Of course what? He. Of course he was overstepping. Who does he think he is? Clark Kent? No, he's not Clark Kent. How dare he look into one of the most important cases in American history with all its implications. How dare he? The inquiry by Joe Kent, the director. Oh, we already said that. Treading on FBI responsibilities and potentially interfering with the investigation and the prosecution of the subject. Really? So somebody from the National Counterterrorism center just looking at the information that's going to screw up your investigation? I call bullshit 100%. Supporters of Mr. Kent say he was doing his job. Running down leads and making sure no foreign or domestic groups were linked to Mr. Kirk's death. Mr. Robertson. That's Tyler Robinson, 22, accused of killing Kirk last month as the conservative activists made an appearance. Blah, blah, blah. One of many. Blah, blah, blah. State prosecutors in Utah have charged Mr. Robinson with seven counts, including felony aggravated murder. So Lee Harvey Robinson is the accused killer of Charlie Kirk. Really? I believe this. I believe the official story, top to bottom. Where's my $7,000 check? Bitch. The Senate confirmed Mr. Kent as director of the Counterterrorism center in July. He is one of the closest advisors to Tulsi Gabbard. So Tulsi Gabbard is the Director of National Intelligence. Which means everybody works under her. The CIA, the FBI, the nsa, they all work under her. But somehow the FBI is stepping in to stop her from doing it or the people who work for her from doing an investigation into Charlie Kirk's assassination.

[A]

Because it's Israel.

[C]

That's right, Exactly.

[A]

Because the main boss, Israel.

[C]

Mr. Patel, was troubled that Mr. Kent had gone through FBI material related to the case. Because he's going to find out something. Why would he be worried that the people who are above him at the Director of National Intelligence Office, above him, the FBI, they might find out something. Why would he be afraid? Oh, because he doesn't want people to get to know this information. That's what this is about. Of course he's troubled by that. Who wants somebody investigating your files? Right? Remember the old expression, if you don't have anything to hide, what are you afraid of? That only. That only works for us. Not the guys who are the head of the FBI?

[A]

Yeah, of course not. What if it's Qatari money. Cash. Dangerous. Qatar money. You know, the thing that we have to worry about in our politics? Money from Qatar.

[C]

What if it was Qatari money? What if it was Russia? What if it was China? What if it was North Korea? Cash. Patel doesn't want you looking into any of that. Mr. Kent's efforts were a topic at a White House meeting that included Patel, Kent, and his direct superior, Tulsi Gabbard. Top Justice Department officials, Vice President J.D. vance and the White House Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, were also there, according to several of the people who spoke to the New York Times. Okay. The FBI and the Justice Department generally keep tight control over evidence in criminal cases, but particularly when they are preparing for a trial in which government documents may have been turned over to the defense and could be used to poke holes in the prosecution's case. While Tyler Robinson is currently facing only state charges, some administration officials were concerned that Mr. Kent's efforts could provide fodder to defense lawyers who could use the notion that more than one person was involved in Mr. Kirk's killing to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors. Said those aware. So what he's. They're saying is, hey, if he finds out what really happened, it's going to screw up our patsy prosecution of Tyler Robinson. That's what is happening here. That's what's happening here. Okay. Just so you know, since Mr. Kirk's death, some White House officials have pressed for sweeping federal investigations of liberal groups and donors. And some of the president's allies outside the administration are convinced that the killing is part of a broader plot, despite a lack of evidence that has been presented to support that. Oh, really? There's tons of evidence to support this. Officials involved in the arrest have said they believe Mr. Robinson acted alone. Yeah, the officials who are trying to stop anybody from investigating it. Yeah, those officials. Yeah. Mr. Kent told administration officials that a lower level FBI official had granted him access to the agency's files, which Mr. Patel said he was not aware of. Really? He wasn't aware that they gave Tulsi Gabbard staff access to the FBI files on the assassination. Wow. But of course, Cash Patel would have no idea about that because his Mossad girlfriend didn't tell him that they were doing that? Yeah. Okay. So, in response to questions from the New York Times, Patel and Gabbard released a joint statement that did not address the debate over Mr. Kent's inquiry and sought to portray a unified front. So Tulsi Gabbard now is going to toe the line of Donald Trump's administration because they want to cover up the investigation into Charlie Kirk's assassination. Because it implicates Israel. That's why. So this is their statement. The FBI and intelligence community, under the direction of President Trump, will leave no stone unturned into the investigation of the assassination of our friend Charlie Kirk. No stone unturned, really? Because immediately after he was shot, they paved over the crime scene. So are they going to overturn those stones, the pavement that they paved over and stuccoed over the crime scene immediately after, before he.

[B]

Even.

[A]

Unpaved.

[C]

He meant to say, oh, unpaved. That he made stone. Unpaved. No, unpaved stone. But if it's paved, we're going to leave it.

[A]

Yeah. Let sleeping dogs lie, says Cash.

[C]

But multiple people said tensions over Mr. Kent's work had persisted for some time and were part of a broader set of issues between Tulsi Gabbard's office and other administration's agencies. Oh, really? The meeting that Mr. Kent attended at the White House was one of two intended to ameliorate tensions between the FBI and Tulsi Gabbard's office. The earlier one, the earlier meeting, which focused on multiple issues, including the killing of Kurt, was so tense that little was accomplished, they added. No kidding. So it sounds like Tulsi Gabbard wants to investigate this because she knows it leads to Israel. And it sounds like the FBI and Donald Trump do not want anybody looking into this because they also know it leads to Israel. That's what it looks like under Mr. Kent, the National Counterterrorism Center. Or maybe it leads to Ukraine. Maybe it leads. Who knows? But it definitely leads to a conspiracy. And they do not want anybody finding out who's actually responsible for Charlie Kirk's assassination because it will screw up their fake prosecution of a patsy called Tyler Robinson. Yeah. Under Mr. Kent, the National Congress has taken a higher profile than in years past, issuing warnings about potential terrorist attacks and highlighting work to aid Mexico and hunting leaders of drug cartels. But some critics of Mr. Kent's work say he is pushing his center into areas that should be left to the FBI or the CIA. No, I'm sorry. The Director of National Intelligence is the boss of the FBI and the CIA and the nsa. So they don't tell them what to do. It goes the other way. Okay, here's. Here's Cash Patel. Watch this.

[F]

Less than a day later, the FBI, my direction, released the first set of images of the suspect that we captured. Based on our analysis on the ground later, that Evening.

[C]

Wait, did he say suspect or suspects? Because there are suspects. We all know George Zinn dropped his pants and said, I did it, please don't shoot me. And he was a decoy. So that's a guy aiding and abetting a murder.

[A]

Wait, the other suspect turned himself in? So he didn't catch shit. Again, why does he keep saying they're catching someone when they didn't catch.

[C]

They didn't catch anybody.

[A]

His dad told him to turn himself in, probably with hypnotic suggestion.

[F]

Less than a day later, the FBI, at my direction, released the first set of images of the suspect that we captured, based on our analysis on the ground later that evening, while conducting extensive interviews and cell phone analysis, and also flying out evidence response teams and hostage rescue teams and evidence tacticians who were collecting evidence in live time and flying them back to Washington D.C. in our laboratories for immediate analyses, we were able to extract video from the campus feed. And at my direction, at 8pm, in partnership and promise to working with the public to bring this fugitive to justice, we released.

[C]

Sounds like he's doing some of that high end power dust that all the globalists are doing these days. Either that or the smell of his own bullshit is finally too much for him to take.

[A]

Boy, I mean, he just looks believable every time he's speaking.

[C]

Here we go.

[F]

Newly never be, never before seen video of the suspect. We also released new enhanced photos of the suspect a few hours later.

[C]

That's he did. I don't know if you caught that. He said enhanced photos. So that photo they showed of him coming up the steps by Tyler Robinson, that was AI enhanced. What? He means enhanced. He didn't mean they zoomed in. He meant that they did AI enhancement.

[A]

Okay, the rifle in the picture with the enhancement. Or maybe I believe you're bullshit.

[C]

Yeah, but they couldn't put a rifle in the picture. Isn't that wild? They said he had it in his backpack or stuffed down his pant leg. But if it was stuffed out his pant leg, everybody would have saw it. And he wouldn't be able to bend. And he wouldn't be able to bend his knee to go up the steps.

[A]

To get on the roof in his pant leg.

[C]

And if he had it in his backpack, it wouldn't have fit in his backpack.

[F]

Suspect was in custody pursuant to the interrogation of the suspect's own father, who stated, when I saw that video that you released, I recognized it was my son and I confronted him and he was handed over to lawful law enforcement authorities. That is the FBI working With the public, as I promised, being transparent, providing critical information along the way in the manhunt for the suspect or suspects involved in Charlie's massassination.

[C]

And that's why I stopped anybody else in government, and even people who are above me in the chain of command from looking into this.

[A]

Please don't tell my mom I'm gay. You don't understand what Indian moms are like.

[C]

Boy, how much animal tranquilizer did they have to give him to make his panic eyes seem normal?

[A]

Well, now they give him too much. It's the other way.

[C]

Yeah. So here's what Candace Owens says. This article is literally about how Kash Patel is upset that Joe Kent and Tulsi Gabbard are trying to do their jobs and solve the Charlie Kirk murder case. It's like Cash Patel wants to be the sole point person on this. Why? I do not trust him at all. And if you trust Cash Patel on the Charlie Kirk assassination, you are what they call a chump. You are a chump of the highest order. Okay, so Michael Shellenberger, who's done a lot of great. He's here to. He's figured out that, you know, they keep saying that the oceans are rising. And I keep saying, well, if they really believe the oceans are rising, why do the people who keep telling me that keep buying beachfront property? So, meaning people like Jeff Bezos, people like Barack Obama, people like John Kerry, Bill Gates. Why do all those people keep buying beachfront property if they really think the oceans are rising? Well, Michael Shellenberg is here to let you know that scientists for years said that they had proof that climate change was accelerating sea level rise. But that's not what the evidence actually shows. They knew the truth and misled the public. And now he has a long email exchange with top scientists that show that what they did, it's a massive scandal. Let's listen to what he says.

[D]

Hey, everyone, it's Mike Shellenberger for public. For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or ipcc, has claimed that human caused climate change has accelerated sea level rise. But that claim is false. There is no scientific evidence of accelerated sea level rise since the mid 19th century. As such, there is no evidence that human creative emissions have caused an acceleration in recent decades. Now, that does not mean that climate change isn't happening. It is. It simply means that it has not caused the sea level to rise at a rate any higher than one would expect without human caused climate change.

[C]

That also means that the Earth has been way warmer for way longer Periods than it is right now. In fact, we're at the end of.

[A]

A cooling phase, at the end of an ice age. As a matter of fact, we've been in an ice age this whole time. Because it's normally not frozen.

[C]

That's right.

[A]

And the ice is coming back. According to NASA.

[C]

According to NASA, there's more ice at the Antarctic than there has been in forever. And guess what? So it's been way warmer, way longer. And, and, and there I. There weren't ice caps on the earth for most of the Earth's history. Did you know that? That's a recent phenomenon to have ice caps. So the Earth has been much warmer way before we started burning fossil fuels. So is the Earth warming right now? It is. Is that normal? I'm gonna say yes, but I'm not a climate scientist, but I can read studies about it, which I've done, and they all show that people say, oh well, since 1850, this is the hottest year since 1850, you know the world is 4 billion years old, right?

[A]

No, it's like six days.

[C]

So yeah, it's real easy when you go back from 1850 to cherry pick data. OK, again, the Earth has been way warmer. We just. The Washington Post even covered this. Remember that? Malcolm, if you could find that Washington Post headline that, that none of the.

[A]

Predictions have come true. Here's the bottom line. All the predictions that I heard that made me feel scared, not one of them has come to pass.

[C]

Not one of them.

[A]

They have a worse track record than Bible beaters.

[C]

They said there's going to be no ice in the Arctic in the summer. They said that the sea level is going to rise and Florida is going to be underwater. And all this stuff, none of it happened. None of it. So anyway, he's got more to say.

[D]

Not only that, but the top scientists know this fact and have deliberately misrepresented it for years.

[C]

Wow. So scientists. Turns out you can buy a scientist as easy it is to buy a politician. Isn't that something? And the scientists own the science. Yeah. And the scientists know better. And he figured it out, deceiving the public.

[D]

In September, I reported on one of the first global studies of sea level rise that used tide gauge data, which is the only real world data that goes back long enough to the mid 19th century that would allow one to detect whether sea level rise had accelerated, decelerated or remained steady. Since then, I've exchanged over 50 emails with one of the world's leading sea level rise scientists, Robert Kopp of Rutgers University and heard Back from ipcc, NASA and noaa, the national oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. What I have learned shocked me. For years, the world's top scientists have known that they cannot prove there's been an acceleration of sea level rise. And yet they have told the public that they can. Not only that, in the process of this exchange, I gained a glimpse into.

[C]

It's kind of like how they told you the vaccine would stop transmission and contraction and that if you got your vaccine you didn't have to worry about getting Covid. It's kind of like that. Kind of like they told you how social, six foot social distancing would keep you from getting Covid. It's kind of like that they just made it up and they were lying about it. It's kind of like what they told you about masks that if you wore a mask that had holes in it larger than the virus, somehow it was still going to stop the virus. It's like how they lied to you about where the herd immunity and they lied to you about natural immunity, how they lied to you about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, how they lied to you about school lockdowns and children being vulnerable to Covid. It's how they lied to you about where the virus came from and who funded the making of it and who created it. And it's like they lied about it. And now you're telling me that the, the climate scientists are lying just like the other scientists when it came to Covid in the pandemic. I'm shocked. I'm shocked. But yes, that's what he's saying.

[D]

How the scientists have been able to mislead journalists, policymakers and the wider public for so long now you might think that this is either old news or unimportant. Some climate scientists in years past have pointed out that the real world data do not support claims of acceleration. And in recent years, a supposed increase in natural disasters from climate change has eclipsed sea level rise in terms of attention grabbing headlines. But sea level rise has since the 1990s been the main justification for apocalyptic climate change claims. And past efforts to debunk sea level rise have failed to show how the scientists were being deliberately misleading. The media and others have published terrifying maps of the future showing cities underwater. Accelerated sea level rise is one of the main justifications for predicting very high costs for adapting to climate change. And while good scientists have debunked acceleration claims in the past, they did not clearly show how IPCC scientists engaged in their manipulations. Not only Can I prove to you that the real world data do not support the claims that there has been an acceleration. I can show that the scientists deliberately misrepresented the research and how they did it. Thanks to my on the record email conversation with Robert Kopp of Rutgers University. Scientists engaged in multiple forms of manipulation. First, they introduced modeling that depending on the assumptions, could show deceleration, linearity or acceleration. Moreover, given that we have over 150 years of real world tide gauge data, they didn't need to use such complicated modeling in the first place. Second, they used alternative.

[C]

So he's saying just like big pharma can rig studies, because only the studies that get get paid for come from big pharma or from Dr. Fauci. So just like they can rig a scientific study, say about Ivermectin or masks or the vaccine or any. Just like they can rig those, which they did. He's saying that they rigged, they used a flawed way to figure this out. They, they could have used the data, the tide gauge data, which is a better gauge of, of, of, Of OC rise. They didn't use that. They developed this other thing that they can manipulate. That's what he's saying. Okay.

[D]

And indirect measures to tide gauge data of sea level rise, whose presentation they manipulated to show acceleration. A tide gauge is just what it sounds like, an instrument to measure sea level rise. Third, they use data from periods of time that are far too short to detect a long term trend. Sometimes scientists point to satellite data that show acceleration of the last 30 years, but that's far too short of a period of time to show a long term trend. Proof of that is that the period from the 1920s to the 1950s before there were significant human caused greenhouse gas emissions had comparable levels of acceleration. What you'll see in my exchange with Kopp is that he points to models, alternative data and short term data to imply that they support his claim of acceleration. His behavior and our emails make clear that he understands perfectly well that he does not have the scientific evidence to claim an acceleration. And so Kopp uses irrational tactics, including non sequiturs or statements that do not follow logically, credentialism or appeals to his authority as a scientist who knows more and ad hominem attacks, namely criticisms and insults all aimed at derailing our conversation and distracting attention from the central. There is no real world scientific evidence to support his claim of acceleration. The result is, I believe, more than a damning indictment of COP and the other C level scientists. It is also a fascinating look into how political activists posing as scientists can use rhetoric and bullying to maintain their deception over time. I will be the first to tell you that Kopp knows far more about this topic than I ever will. But all of his knowledge can't get around the fact that he does not have the scientific evidence to make his claim of acceleration. A fox knows many things, the old saying goes, but a hedgehog, which is like a porcupine, knows one big thing. And he is the fox. He knows many, many more things than I do. But I know one big the only reliable long term real world data is tide gauge data and they do not show an acceleration. But as you'll see, I now know more than that. I also know how he used his abundant knowledge to deceive the public. Between September 2nd and 4th, Cobb and I sent over two dozen emails to each other. The entire exchange was on the record and I am making the entire exchange public here. I'm not redacting cops email address simply because he already listed on his webpage. The emails by the way, are all in the correct order, even though some of the timestamps are not.

[C]

So he, he goes into it on his, his substack about how he caught that guy and he shows his email exchange. It's like 50 emails. So I'm not going to go through it. But that's his summary of it. And there's a lot of things that are rising faster than sea level. How about Katie Porter's popularity? Even that is rising faster to the moon. The minimum wage is rising faster than sea level and the minimum wage hasn't been raised since, I don't know, 2007.

[A]

Not without a fight.

[C]

The quality of life in America rising faster than sea level. So sea level lowering the climate can only change as quickly as the scientists can orchestrate it to. They're only human. I mean. So I'll tell you what this climate scientist did not study. They didn't study all the purchases of beachfront properties by world political and scientific leaders. I'll tell you that. So the Washington Post found out. Even the Washington Post we've covered this before. But the scientists went back over 485 million years and they the surprising what they found out was that the earth has been warmer than it is now for most of that time. Isn't that interesting? They went back 485 million years and why wild temperature ships and isn't that, that's kind of amazing.

[A]

I guess they just wasted everyone's time with a bunch of nonsense for going on how many years now.

[C]

So we covered this already. I should link that video. But even the Washington Post, they quoted a study that went back 485 million years and they found out that there was wild changes in temperature and that most of those years it was hotter than it is now. So Andrew asks Grok, hey, is this true what Michael Shellenberger saying? Grok says yes, long, long term tide gauge data, the most reliable historical record, shows no statistically significant acceleration in global sea level since the mid 19th century, contradicting the IPC claims of high confidence in human driven speed up acceleration. Narratives often lean on shorter satellite records, prone to biases or model assumptions, not robust evidence. Shellenberger's emails with experts like COP reveal internal admissions of uncertainty, highlighting how selective messaging has misled the public for decades. For decades. So they're lying to you about climate change. And why do I think they're doing this? They're doing this for control. They're doing this. Why did they lie about COVID So they can control you. So they can get us living in 15 minute cities. They can lock us down and they could get us to have a vaccine passport, which then leads to a digital id, which then leads to social credit scores like they have in China. That's the whole big game. That's the game. So they can control you. They can say, hey, you're spending, you're spending too much carbon data money. So we got to restrict your ability to travel, we got to restrict your ability to buy stuff. We got to restrict your ability to drive your car or heat your house. We got to restrict you. And that's. So that's what this is all about. Just so you know, I'm not. Is, is the, is the Earth warming up right now? Yes, it is. It is. It is. Is it, Is it like no other warming we've ever seen? No. In fact, we're actually at a cooling phase here. He's got some more to say. Let's listen.

[E]

Climate change is an existential threat to civilization and humankind, according to top scientists, journalists and policymakers. They say that planetary warming caused by human emissions is making forest fires, hurricanes and floods more frequent, worse and more widespread. It's reducing Arctic ice and submerging atoll islands, killing the coral on the Great Barrier Reef and worsening heat waves and reducing crop yields. Former President Biden said climate change is a, quote, existential threat to all of us. And scientists and environmentalists say 1 billion to billions will die from food shortages and other climate change impacts. But those claims are nonsense. Climate change is Real. But there was never any scientific evidence that it posed a threat to civilization. Humankind. The area of Earth on fire has declined for decades. And what determines whether there are high intensity fires is forest management and other forms of fire protection. There is no increase in hurricane frequency or intensity, and flood deaths and damages are determined by infrastructure and emergency preparedness. Nearly 90% of atoll islands have either increased in size or stayed the same in recent decades. Arctic ice did not decline from 2000 to 2024 and likely will not decline in coming years. Coral on the Great Barrier reef is at a 36 year high. Crop yields continue to climb even with higher temperatures, aided in part by greater carbon dioxide. And heat waves were far more worse in the 1930s before significant human emissions. Cold deaths outnumber heat deaths and heat deaths are easily avoidable with access to air conditioning. The claims that billions will die and that climate change poses an existential risk are thus misinformation. And often given that many scientists know that they are lying and intentional disinformation. The best available evidence suggests nobody will die from climate change. Now. None of this means we should not worry at all about climate change and humankind's contribution to it. The evidence that human emissions change the climate is overwhelming. And many climate skeptics simply go too far in dismissing rising temperatures and humankind's contribution to them. We have good temperature measures on land and oceans. We have known for over a century that the accumulation of carbon dioxide traps heat. And that has increased by 50% since the pre industrial periods.

[C]

We also know that the increase of carbon dioxide has created a greening of the Earth. So there's more green areas of the Earth the size of the United States than there were 20 years ago. So as carbon rises, you get more plants, you get more trees. What do plants and trees do? That's right. They eat carbon.

[A]

But Bill Gates said trees don't help.

[C]

And starts Bill Gates and they. And they create food. That's what carbon does. So the Earth is actually greener now than it was. Way greener. Way, way greener. So the whole idea of that. This is an existential. I'm not a climate alarmist. And that's what people are. And so. And they take this down. And I'm sure most people. I used to be a big worried about climate change. I used to be big rah rah, let's fight climate change. Until Covid. And then Covid made me look into everything that I used to accept as true, one of them being climate change. And I find out that they've been lying about the data, Lying about the data. Misinforming you intentionally. What's that?

[A]

That's an unusual thing for them.

[C]

That's really unusual.

[E]

The fact that it's just 0.42% of the Earth's atmosphere by volume does not erase its contribution to warming. And all else being equal, we should not want any change to average global temperatures since humankind's created agricultural, urban and environmental systems all function within today's moderate temperature band. But scientists, journalists and activists have so wildly overstated the claims of climate change that they must at this point be considered lies given their discrepancy with known scientific facts and highly visible realities. Sea levels have been rising since the mid 19th century, and there is no scientific evidence that their rise has accelerated since emissions grew significantly after World War II. And the scientists who claim otherwise are manipulating their models to show acceleration when those same models can just as easily show deceleration or linearity. Given how clear the data are on climate change's alleged impacts, the claims to the contrary by scientists, journalists and activists cannot be attributed anymore to ignorance. Moreover, there is strong evidence of deliberate deception. I recently documented how a top sea level rise scientist, Robert Kopp of Rutgers, engages in deception. Unfortunately, he's not the exception. The leading global organization that tracks disasters abruptly and inappropriately changed its methodology after climate Expert Roger Ploulkey Jr. Showed that they had declined from 2000 to 2021. The National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration gave the false impression that disasters that cost over 1 billion people dollars were increasing. And then it abruptly ended its billion dollar disastrous database after Pelke showed how it had manipulated the numbers. Because the data clearly show that climate change is not an existential threat, scientists and politicians and journalists have misrepresented every aspect of this issue for almost three decades. Carbon emissions are largely flat over the last decade, and there is simply no conceivable way that humankind will produce high enough emissions to meet the wildly high RCP 8.5 scenario, upon which most of the alarmist predictions of future climate impacts show. What's more, scientists know this perfectly well, as Pelke and other scientists have documented, that abundant natural gas, slower than predicted economic growth and slower than predicted population growth will all Prevent it. RCP 8.5 is not simply highly unlikely, said Pelke recently. It is falsified, meaning that its emissions trajectory is already well out of step with reality. We showed this conclusively in recent studies, he said. And yet scientists continue to use the alarmist RCP 8.5 model for the simple fact that the other models simply aren't alarmist enough.

[C]

So these, these are climate alarmists and they're overstating the data. And there is no existential threat from climate change. And you've been lied to, just like you were lied to about Russiagate, lied to about Ukraine, lied to about Syria, lied to about Syria gas attacks, and of course, lied to about Joe Biden being sharp and focused. And you were lied to about COVID everything. You were lied to about vaccines, you were lied to about masks, herd immunity, natural immunity, lockdowns. You were lied to about everything. Just like that. So, and here, I want to show you this. Here is, this is a big climate alarmist, Jamie Raskin, who is a big Russiagate fabulist, a big liar about COVID and everything. And here he is being asked about the sea level rise around San Francisco. Let's listen to what he says.

[G]

Congressman, welcome.

[D]

Senator.

[G]

Are you aware of the world Climate Declaration? There is no climate emergency. It's signed BY now over 1800 global scientists, professionals.

[E]

There is no climate emergency.

[G]

Are you aware of that declaration?

[D]

I'm not aware of that one, I.

[G]

Assume I'm aware of familiar. I entered in the record. I'd recommend you read. I thought one of the. Without objection, it will be entered into the record. I already did it, but we'll enter this one too. I thought one of the interesting statements in there is the obvious, that CO2 is plant food. You want a green planet, you need some CO2. But anyway, you ought to take a look at that. By the way, I'm not a climate change denier. I'm just not a climate change alarmist like you and the Chairman. I would call myself a climate change realist. In your testimony, you say, my watery home state of Maryland, with more than 7,100 miles of coastline, is strikingly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and the rising sea level. So that's one of the biggest alarms of, you know, the climate change folks, is that the sea level rise and just wipe out coal signs, Correct?

[C]

Yes.

[G]

Okay.

[C]

So, yes.

[G]

Are you aware of the. How much the sea level has risen in the Bay of San Francisco since the last glaciation period of, you know, some 12, 12 to 20,000 years ago, which is just a blink of the eye in geologic time. You know, how much the sea levels risen in the Bay of San Francisco in that time.

[C]

So. So since the last Ice age, which was between 12 and 20,000 years ago, which humans lived through, by the way, how much has the sea level risen around San Francisco since the last ice age. Do you know how much? So that would be before we started burning carbon, which just started happening 150 years ago. So how much did the sea rise since then without anybody burning carbon? How much did the sea rise around San Francisco without anybody burning carbon? You ready for this?

[D]

Do not know that one.

[G]

You want to just take a guess?

[C]

No. He doesn't want to take a guess?

[D]

No.

[C]

Because I'm not guessing very well today. So no.

[G]

It's 390ft. Do you think there's anything mankind could have done to prevent that level sea level rise of 390ft just again 20,000 years? Well, you think there's something we could do about that?

[C]

No. No.

[G]

That's the answer. No, there's nothing we could do.

[C]

So there's nothing we could do. The sea level has risen 300 and some feet around San Francisco since the last ice age before humans started burning fossil fuel. Is there anything humans could have done to stop that? No. No. And here's Whitney Webb to tell you what this is really all about.

[H]

Why don't they talk about planting trees? Why isn't Bill Gates the largest like private landowner in the US now planting trees like crazy if he's so weird worried about carbon dioxide? You know, he, he poo poos. The whole idea of planting trees as a way to combat climate change, it's just carbon markets and going to electric vehicles and all of this stuff. But electric vehicles necessitates mass mining and a lot of that mining is in places that use child labor or it's going to be so environmentally destructive you totally destroy the developing world, which, you know, these people on the left supposedly want to protect. You're going to totally destroy the environment. But really what it's about is controlling how much energy people can use. And if you can control how much energy a household can use, you can control their economic activity. You also control how many family, how big their family can get. It's fear. Fear driven to get people to accept policies they otherwise wouldn't accept because they're told this cataclysmic event is just down the line. And trust us again is the conclusion of that. There's people that agree with the narrative about climate change and there's people that don't. And I'm not trying to really get in that space when I talk about, about this stuff. I'm trying to point out that the solutions are coming mostly from Wall Street. And then you have people like Larry Fink of BlackRock and Michael Bloomberg and Mark Carney coming together and something like G fans saying, why don't we give Wall street direct control of the IMF and the World bank for climate change? You know, how can anyone on the left that's worried about climate change sign off on that?

[C]

Exactly.

[A]

Anything about anything. That's how.

[C]

That's how. Because they don't know anything about anything. Just like they don't know any. Talk to somebody who considers himself a Democratic voter. Ask them about COVID They don't know anything. They know less than Chris Cuomo did when he was at cnn. They know less than Don Lemon does. They know less because they. Because at least Chris Cuomo knows that Ivermectin actually can treat Covid because he's taking it. What's that?

[A]

Because he got injured.

[C]

Because he got vaccine injured. And then they prescribed him Ivermectin for his vaccine injury. So now you know the rest of the story. So great job by Michael Shellenberger, great job by Whitey Webb. And don't let him. Don't let him scare you. I'm doing whatever they tell you. I'm doing the exact opposite. Right. And so, hey, why doesn't the government, whenever there's a problem, why does the government always declares war on it? So why doesn't the government just declare war on climate change? And why don't they nuke the South Pole? You know?

[A]

Oh, I know. Because fossil fuels power our war machine.

[C]

Oh. I say we should nuke the South Pole as a warning to the North Pole. Stop melting. Stop melting.

[A]

Do that.

[C]

Watch your fat. Watch your fat red ass. Santa, you're next. Talk about a war on Christmas. You know what I'm saying? Come on.

[A]

Santa was buried in Turkey.

[C]

Yep. And world governments, they're not killing cows to save the ozone, just so you know. They're doing that to get control of the food supply and make you eat fake meat. There you go. Now you know the rest of the story. Thanks for tuning in and hearing my. Hearing me talk about climate change and give you the skivvy straight. Skivvy? Is that a saying? I don't even know. That's skinny. Did you say skinny? Did I say skivvy? I meant skinny. Skimmies are underwear. Yeah. Hey, become a premium member. Go to jimmy door comedy.com sign up. It's the most affordable premium program in the business. All the voices performed today are by the one and only, the inimitable Mike McRae. He can be found at mikemcrae.com that's it for this week. You be the best you can be and I'll keep being me.

[B]

Freak out.

[C]

Don't freak out. Don't freak out. Don't freak out. Don't freak out. Don't freak out.

[B]

Do not freak out. I'm not kidding. Do not. Do not.

[A]

I'm not.

[C]

I'm not. I'm not. I'm not. I'm not.

[A]

I'm not.

[B]

Freak out.

[C]

Do not freak out.