Best of the Program | Guests: Dr. Frank Tian Xie & Dr. Timothy Ball | 9/19/19

Hello, podcasters.

It's Glenn Beck, along with Pat Gray, who's been filling in for Stu who is on vacation this week.

And we got another great show for you.

We started with the economy.

How you feeling about the economy?

Oh, my gosh.

Yeah.

That's a real pick-me-up.

So confident.

Yeah, in the economy.

Yeah, we start with explaining what's really going on with something that no one is talking about, at least in real people terms.

We have that on today's program.

also is the trade war affecting us or china we have an expert on uh who who was born and and went to school in beijing and has like way over schooled himself but he's saying you don't understand china's on the brink of disaster that plus do we talk to the we talked to the 12th imam today i know we we talked about elon omar the 12th imam may check in on that a couple of amazing stories on that front plus

global warming.

The guy who actually proved the hockey stick was total garbage.

Wait until you hear how they made that hockey stick.

All on today's podcast.

You're listening to

the best of the Blenbeck program.

There is a couple of things

that you really need to be aware of today, and I want to take you through them.

If you'll give me 25 minutes today,

I promise you, you're going to get more out of those 25 minutes than anything else you can do today.

Let me tell you about something that is happening with the banks and the Federal Reserve that nobody is talking about.

Yeah, they're talking about it on CNBC, but they're talking about it in a way that it doesn't matter to you.

This matters a lot.

On Tuesday,

this week, the Federal Reserve announced that it would offer banks an overnight repo operation.

Now, repo is Wall Street jargon for repurchase agreement.

Now, when's the last time the Federal Reserve was

repurchasing things from banks.

Do you remember?

It was TARP.

It allowed the Federal Reserve to go in and buy with your money, go and buy different assets that were failing.

Now, repo is a mechanism for short-term, generally a one-day loan.

This is something that the banks,

they have to have a certain amount of cash in the bank overnight.

And so sometimes they'll just put assets up for sale and they'll say, We need the money for the overnight.

And then the next day, they repurchase the same asset back.

Now, during the Tuesday repo operation, the Fed pledged $55 billion worth of funds available to the banks.

And the banks could sell the Fed their assets.

Now, they were selling mortgage-backed

securities or U.S.

Treasury bonds, and that way the banks would have the cash.

On Tuesday,

the repo was oversubscribed by more than $5 billion.

That means the bank showed up asking for cash, more cash than the Fed thought that they would even need.

And that number was out by $5 billion.

And so they thought, okay, well, there might be a bigger problem here.

So Wednesday, now remember, they haven't done this once in 10 years.

They haven't done this since the collapse of the market.

So, the next day, Wednesday, they did it twice, or they did it a second time.

This time they said, okay, we're going to come to the table with $75 billion.

So, if anybody needs money tonight,

we have $75 billion.

Well, this time, the banks showed up and they needed an additional $12 billion over the $75.

Now, yesterday, the Fed chairman Powell announced a quarter-point cut in

the interest rate.

So he's lowering the interest rate, and we're going to have to get to that at some point.

But he also said they'd do another round of repos last night for another $75 billion.

So they haven't done this since 2008.

They've done it now three days in a row.

That tells you something is wrong.

This is the first time since 2009 the Federal Reserve have stepped into the

banking sector and offered cash.

Second, the amount is really significant.

The banking sector just asked the Federal Reserve to inject $200 billion

into the banks for just operating capital.

That's what this is, is operating capital.

Overnight lending is bank to bank usually, and it runs a few billion dollars a day across the banking sector.

So, you know, Bank of America can call JPMorgan and say, hey, can you just, can you just, I'm going to swap some assets for some cash.

Do you have some extra cash that you don't need tonight just to make sure that, you know, we're stable overnight?

And usually it's bank to bank.

This is the banks calling the other banks, and the banks are like, I don't have any money.

I'm going myself to the Fed.

Now, the third reason the Fed stepped in here was to control the interest rates and ensure that the Fed's target interest rate of 2% was maintained.

Now, since the banks lend money to each other all the time, Bank A needs some cash on hand to cover a given market position or to ensure it meets its cash reserve requirement set by the federal government or the Fed.

So, Bank B agrees to lend the money by purchasing the assets from Bank A with an agreement that Bank A will buy those same assets back at a future date, most likely in the morning, at the same price plus a fee.

The banks do this all the time.

And they do it at the Fed's interest rate, their target interest rate.

As of yesterday, that was 1.75%.

Now, the funny thing about the free market is the free market will tell you what's really going on.

So what what is the price of money right now with the banks?

The Federal Reserve says it should be 1.75%.

That's the interest that they would pay to borrow money.

However,

the interest rates at the bank due to the free market, where the banks were like, Look, I don't have the money,

how much more,

how out of whack was the 1.75 set by the Fed?

It was only off by 500%.

They were asking 10%

fees to loan to the other bank for sometimes 12 to 18 hours.

So that's why the Fed stepped in because they're like, whoa, whoa, whoa, what is going on here?

This is a sign that the banks are very risk averse,

much more risk-averse than the Fed thinks they should be.

Now, if the hairs aren't standing up on the back of your neck yet, they should be.

This sort of exercise is exactly what happened to Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns in 2007, but it's happening with now the only six banks that we have.

The Fed stepping into the market to give more cash unannounced three days in a row screams something is very wrong.

There is a massive lack of cash at hand.

We're also

already in a very loose and cheap money environment with really super low interest rates and trillions in cash that has just been printed and injected in the market by the way of quantitative easing.

The fact that the banks need $75 billion of extra cash every day, day after day, is a sign that something is dramatically wrong.

Now,

here's what we don't know.

We don't know why the banks need this much liquidity this quickly.

It could be that they just are covering short positions on bonds or energy derivatives that need to be covered given the recent spike in oil.

Could be caused by a Ramco.

We don't know.

It could be banks using capital in the short term to cover reserve requirements as part of a quarterly audit.

Or it could be many of these banks have overseas investments in stocks and real estate and futures market that are now taking losses and they need cash to cover their margin calls overseas.

The truth is, we won't know until the banks are audited sometime in the fourth quarter.

Anytime the Federal Reserve is stepping directly into markets to inject cash, something has gone very wrong somewhere in the gears of this very complex machine that grinds our economy.

One day it could be administrative error or market timing of a set of bonds maturing and they need to be paid off or refinanced.

Two days in a row indicates that it's a little more than that, probably covering some short or some a dare I say it, I hate to even use this word, derivative position that many investment banks were in in the crumbling of 2008, and they're in again.

But three days in a row,

$75 billion a day of new cash needed by U.S.

banks?

This hasn't happened since the financial crisis.

That's banks telling us something is wrong.

It's probably more than just a warning sign, more like an exit sign.

Get off on this off-ramp.

Now here's what's worse.

Trump suggests that we need to move the interest rate to zero or negative.

This is the worst possible thing we could do right now.

It would fuel more speculation and give a bigger bubble on Wall Street.

It would also cause trillions of dollars that Europe is now sending our way.

and they're putting it all in our stock market and our US treasuries.

If we move our interest rate to zero or negative, it would take all of that money and ship it back overseas into Europe and Asia and the Middle East.

The more likely Fed response will be more bailouts overnight and nobody will talk about it.

Without the formal quantitative easing, they just give this money to the banks.

We are printing money to bail out the banks again.

And the last time the banks were doing this to shore up their balance sheets was 2008.

It was a warning sign then that we talked about, and very few people recognized it as the time.

I'm warning you again.

Please recognize this warning signal this time around.

The best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn.

And if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

So,

what do we do?

Yeah, that's what Pat asked right when we right when I went into the commercial.

He just looked at me and went, and so then what?

I have been saying for a while,

get out of debt, pay your debt down,

reduce the footprint of

your life.

We have another sign.

You know, I talked to Mark Sanford last night.

And Mark, I got him on and I'm like, why are you running, dude?

What are you doing?

We are running against Elizabeth Warren.

and we don't need a challenge right now.

And I appreciate him.

I really respect him.

I like him.

He was Cato's most conservative, fiscally conservative governor in the United States.

He has stood for constitutional principles, and he has stood against the debt like crazy.

However,

can we not split the party?

Because if we do, Elizabeth Warren will be the next president of the United States.

Almost every time a sitting president is primaried, he loses the general election.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Because it weakens him.

Okay, so I talked to him yesterday.

I had him on television last night, and you should watch it.

If you're a member of the Blaze TV, watch it.

And I tried for the first eight minutes.

I'm like, what are you doing?

Why would you do this?

I mean,

is trying to make a point

is that more important

than winning the election?

Would you agree Elizabeth Warren will be much worse?

And he's like, oh my gosh, he said, Glenn, I am going to vote for Donald Trump.

And I'm like, then what are you doing?

Right.

And he said, and it took me about 15 minutes to really understand.

And I think I really, I think I believe him.

I just don't think he should be running for president.

He should do it another way.

But he said, we must alert people.

He said, no one in the Democratic Party, no one in the Republican Party, no one is even, there hasn't been the word deficit debt or economic catastrophe even mentioned by any of these guys.

And he's like, Glenn, I am seeing the exact same signs of 2008.

And we have to warn the American people.

Now, I agree with him.

I just wish he wouldn't be running against the president while doing it.

You know, and I talked to him and I said, you know,

I saw a headline in the

New York Times, Donald Trump's biggest nightmare or,

you know, biggest foe, something like that.

And I said, it was about, you know, it's about you.

Now, I didn't get anywhere in that article about fiscal responsibility and a coming economic collapse.

What I got was, you are a big challenge to Donald Trump.

And they're just using, I said, Mark, they will tear.

If you were standing on the stage with 10 other Republicans, you might be the first one they tear apart.

They're only holding you up to hurt Donald Trump.

But he went into some stats.

And again,

we can't kill the messenger.

We can question

how he's, you know, what horse he's riding in on to deliver this Pony Express.

It's the wrong horse.

It's the wrong horse.

It's the wrong horse.

But we do have to talk about it.

There are some other signs, not just this, but there are some other signs that he went into

that I've done my research, and it's actually worse than what he thought.

And

every time, every time

this one number gets out of balance, it's our GDP to household wealth.

Every time that number gets way out of balance,

we have a collapse.

We have a real financial downturn, a big one.

For instance, in 2001, the GDP to household was like 400%.

That's way out of whack.

That means corporations are making much more than households are.

Then in 2008, it was like 538, which percent, which was way out of whack.

It's 1,100%

now GDP to household wealth.

Never, ever before have we seen this.

We had never seen 400% in 2001.

We had never seen 500% at 2008.

It's 1,100%

out of whack.

A correction is coming and most likely a massive correction.

So please be fiscally responsible, financially responsible,

and

prepare, batting down the hatches.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn, and if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

You want to talk about a guy who's done nothing with his life?

Listen to this.

Dr.

Frank Z

graduated from Peking University in Beijing, China with a bachelor's degree in earth science.

Then he was admitted to graduate school of Peking University to study geochemistry and cosmochemistry.

He then attended Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, and he pursued a doctorate in chemistry in the mid-1980s.

And then he continued to get an MBA in finance and a PhD in marketing from the Robinson College of Business at Georgia State University.

He's

no ambition.

It's embarrassing.

It really is.

It's embarrassing.

I went to Yale for a semester, and I'm a doctor.

I have a doctorate.

You know what I mean?

And I have a doctorate in humanities, which means I can treat any problem in the entire human body.

No, is that what that means?

That's what it is.

Pretty sure that's what it means.

Dr.

Z, how are you, sir?

I'm fine, thank you.

How are you?

I'm very good.

So I've been really concerned about the tariffs with China.

I'm very concerned about the China 2020 and 2025 plan.

The things that they have been doing really since the year 2000, and none of us have been paying attention to.

They are positioning themselves as a country of great strength.

But I read an article from you this last weekend that says, no, you think that they are about to collapse.

Yep, yep.

Tell me about it.

Well,

we know that the trade war, the so-called trade war, is actually President Trump's

action against China's unfair trade practice, you know, have been

ongoing for about two years now, one and a half years now.

And it is working, as I said, as you said,

it's working because it targets directly to the weak spot of the Chinese communist regime.

They have been exploiting

American generosity and benefiting from trade with the U.S.

with a huge surplus.

And that is one thing.

On the other hand, as you said, in their Made in China 2020-2025

program is actually a state-sponsored

action to steal technologies from the United States.

It's not that China is trying to develop its own indigenous technology to develop its own economy.

That's fine.

That's normal.

That's what every country should be doing.

But in Chinese case, the regime actually has a systematic way of stealing technologies from the U.S.

and forcing U.S.

companies to give them, to turn over the technology to them in exchange for market access.

Yeah, they have,

I mean, I think this is the biggest robbery in human history that has been going on.

They have been stealing technology and really raping.

the United States and the rest of the world for this technology.

But I have read that China is not in the position.

We used to think China, well, they're never going to be able to make anything quality.

And they've also not been able to

take that technology because they have a theft mentality, not a creation mentality, that they're not going to be able to do anything on their own.

And I've read recently that that's not true, that

they have improved many of the products and many of the things themselves and are not in the same position as they were 20 years ago.

Do you agree with that?

To a degree.

I think

they are making progress towards quality, you know,

made their products more durable, but still, it still lacks the

precision and let's say the long-term quality of American products or Japanese products.

So

we have this trade war going on, and

I'm very concerned what it's doing to our economy, but you say that this is almost suicidal for the Chinese because while we can replace those products you know at a higher rate they don't replace the products from from coming from america

uh

one they i don't think they uh we're paying a much higher rate you know maybe we can see slightly higher rate you know in the beginning and but in the long run or even the mid-term mid-term

run, you know, we'll see the price not going to be rising on the rise.

As we have seen over the one and a half years, we haven't seen the inflation in this country yet.

We don't see that.

That's because in China,

the major in China, this world factory,

the wages has gone up so fast, so much now, because the Chinese government basically imprinted tons of money.

to

inflate the currency and

making the economy look good and to stimulate the the economy.

But the people's wages are they are actually the the real actual wages that is going down.

But on the surface, at least in Chinese currency, R D, Renminbi, you know,

they seem to be making more and it costs more.

The actual the cost of labor is is increasing.

Now the China is not as competitive as the Vietnam or Bangladesh or India.

because uh because of rising inflation over there.

So in that term since those war factories plants are actually relocating, the supply chain is moving to Vietnam, to Indonesia, India, or other countries, Southeast Asian countries.

So the price that we can anticipate in this country, I don't think it's going to go up that much for one.

You're right, you're absolutely right.

We can buy things

that can replace Chinese imports, but China cannot replace American imports.

They depend on us on

things that are as high as those high-tech technologies, communication, computers, satellite, airplane components, all those high-tech stuff,

as well as the low-tech stuff, agriculture products.

Nobody can produce

so much soybeans or pork bellies or corns as cheap and as good as American farmers.

And China needs that.

You know,

the pork price has gone up so much in China.

now people are really complaining right and they they just released a huge amount of pork reserves that they had i didn't even know people had pork on reserve but they have freezers you know i don't know where

uh thousands of them and they had to release emergency pork reserves right but they call it a strategic pork reserve i think this is ridiculous you know you have strategic petroleum reserve that's fine but pork reserve i mean you can't restorage that the pork for too long right i don't know the exact

well, I don't know.

I mean, I'm hoping the United States has pudding reserves because if things go to hell in a handbasket, I still need my pudding.

But that's a different story.

Their

banking sector is shady.

Their GDP report is shady.

I have always heard that they can't survive under 8%

GDP, and they are around 4% according to their own reporting.

Exactly.

So actually, that 8% is a false.

I can tell you the old Chinese economic numbers, you know, you can't trust them.

Okay, so

what does this mean if they are indeed this unstable?

What does this mean?

What is coming to China?

And how will that affect the rest of the world?

Well, if this is so unstable, it's because they falsify those numbers, including the GDP numbers, the consumer price index, the CPI numbers, and the bed bet numbers in banks.

And they they cannot sustain that anymore.

And now with the the

factories, the supply chains moving out of China, the unemployment is going up.

And we believe that there are tens of millions of people

out of jobs right now.

But isn't this isn't this why they have the social credit scores?

They work so hard to get that into place by 2020, because they're afraid of their own population.

And they knew if they started to go unstable, they would have to have a way to control their populations or there might be a revolution.

You're exactly absolutely right.

Yeah, they are afraid of people.

I think that's really the

regime.

It's not the Chinese people.

It's the regime that's against its own people.

They want to use these technologies, you know, face recognitions or, you know, those AI technologies to monitor people, the social credit scores you have.

If you are on their blacklist, if you are like a democracy activist or r religious religious leaders or religious people, people, if Falun Gong practitioners, is underground Christians, Tibetans, Uyghurs,

you cannot, because uh they put on a social credit score on you and in the system, they can recognize you while you're on the street.

You know, you that w you cannot be uh f you cannot freely buy airplane tickets or high-speed train tickets.

Let me ask you this question, and I'm running out of time, and I thank you so much for your comments today.

But

if

I have heard that even though Z is now

in the Constitution as a ruler for life, that he is losing a lot of

support in the Communist Party because things are not going well with the economy and things in Hong Kong are getting out of hand.

And he was the guy who said, I won't let any of this happen.

Is there a chance that President Z is in trouble

for a coup or anything like that?

Yeah, it's very likely.

I think the power struggle is ongoing right now.

And those hotliners, you know, the Maoists, you know, the hardline, you know, Thomas, they are actually

putting a lot of pressure on him.

You know, they accuse him on the failure of the trade war and the problem situations in Hong Kong and the downward spy spiraling economy.

And there is a struggle there.

I think the one only option for him is if he has the guts like Gorbachev, you know, or Yeltsin in Russia, he should really abolish this party and start over.

But otherwise, this is the whole economy and the party itself, the regime, the communist rule, are all going down the drain

as we see it.

Dr.

Frank Z, thank you so much.

Professor of the University of South Carolina.

You can find

his article, China Faces Economic Collapse, Decoupling from World Markets.

It is a fascinating read.

Thank you very much, Doctor.

I appreciate it.

And if that guy would get himself an education,

imagine how good he'd be.

You know what I mean?

Just spend a couple more years in school.

Too lazy.

Obviously lazy.

It would take me like 600 lifetimes to get all of that education.

This is the best of the Glenn Beck program.

Hey, it's Glenn.

And if you like what you hear on the program, you should check out Pat Gray Unleashed.

His podcast is available wherever you download your favorite podcast.

The chief science advisor of the International Climate Science Coalition.

Coalition.

Coalition would make you think that there's more than one scientist that disagrees with a global warming hysteria.

Oh, wait, no, that's not true.

There's

total consensus on this.

Apparently, except for this guy,

Dr.

Timothy Ball.

How are you, Doc?

Thank you.

And by the way, the use of the word consensus tells you that it's political.

There's no consensus in science.

So that's wrong.

And by the way, you mentioned Obama's waterfront property.

You could argue that that both he and Al Gore went around telling the world that sea level was going to rise, which lowered the price of waterfront property and they bought cheap.

That's right.

It is Gore bought in Malibu.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But they got 12 years before we all die.

You know, I saw a story,

Doctor, that

ran yesterday, I think, from the BBC, that showed that young people are having to go to now therapy sessions.

They're starting these group therapy sessions for people who are saying, I don't know how to plan for my life because we only have 12 years to live.

This is the most irresponsible and quite honestly evil thing that I have seen.

You're freaking people out to the point to where they really truly believe in 12 years we're all dead.

Yeah, and you can add to that, that Greta Tunberg appearing before the UN yesterday.

It just these are all examples of child abuse, because when you start using children to push your message, and particularly a scientific message, it shows you that

it's

inappropriate.

It's purely political.

All right.

So let's talk about a couple of things, because I'm very concerned about Barack Obama's

oceanfront property in his island.

I'm hoping that that island floats so it'll just go up and stay at the top of the glass.

But

have we seen the sea levels rise anything like predicted?

No,

the sea level rises are perfectly normal, well within natural increase.

And of course, the most dramatic rise occurred about 9,000 years ago when the glaciers that had formed during the ice age, the majority of them melted.

And that caused about a 450-foot increase in sea level in less than 5,000 years.

Since in the last 3,000 years, there has been a gradual, but very gradual, like two millimeters a year increase.

But that's again because the world's continued to warm out of the last last ice age.

Yeah, so when all those glaciers, though, melt in Alaska and every place

in Greenland, we're all dead.

Yeah, but

this is what they're doing.

They're taking the volume of ice in those glaciers,

calculating how much water that is is in volume and then adding that to the current sea level.

That's not the way it works at all because

as the ice melts, well, first of all, at least three-quarters of the ice in Greenland and Antarctica is already below sea level.

So it won't change the level at all.

And then ice

water expands when it freezes by about 7%.

So you can take another 7% off of that.

Yeah, but you can't prove that with just a simple glass of water with ice in it.

No, of course not.

No, no.

That's only something they would do in grade eight.

I mean, come on.

Right.

Right.

But

this is the simplistic things that they do.

As I said, just simply adding all that water to the current sea level and then putting it out there.

People like Al Gore, they should be held legally liable for the scientific lies that they're telling.

I think for the lives that they are destroying as well.

I mean, people are just, this has become a religion,

and it is frightening.

I don't know if you saw, but NBC is now taking your climate sins.

You can confess your climate sins

to NBC.

For some reason, you would think that they're the high priest of this, but I find this amazing.

If I went on there and said my sin is that I don't believe that humans are causing climate change, is that a sin?

Yes, it is.

It is.

I mean, I believe that the climate is changing from anything that I can read.

I don't know if I buy into

all of the

all of the numbers because the the numbers, the way they have placed these weather stations

is ridiculous.

Some of them are on roofs, some of them are in parking lots.

They don't have any in the mountains, if I'm not mistaken.

I mean, how do you know?

Well, we don't know.

And and of course uh uh if if you look at

all of their predictions, they are all based upon computer models that are built on inadequate data.

So the problem starts even with the data to build the computer models on.

Then when you run the computer models, they make predictions.

Well, the computer model is designed so that if you increase CO2, the temperature will go up.

But that doesn't happen in nature.

In all the records we have, temperature increases before CO two.

So it's not surprising that

if you program or ask the computer what happens if

the temp or CO2 goes up, they say, oh, the temperature goes up.

But that's not the reality.

And if you look at every single forecast with every computer model that's been made by the UN since 1990, every single one of them has been wrong.

I mean, these are people that can't even forecast the weather for five days, and yet they're telling you they know with absolute certainty what's going to happen 50 and 100 years from now.

Do you think we ever learn from the past?

I mean, they've been doing this since the 1970s, and Paul Ehrlich, who is still, some reason or another, considered an expert on this, they've been wrong every time.

When does this end?

When do people finally say, you know, I think I'm being used?

Yeah, well, of course, Ehrlich created the first Earth Day, and he did it on April the 22nd in 1972.

Well, April 22nd happens to be Lenin's birthday, and that should tell you everything about what's what's going on here.

If you want to push and demand or force a world government, all you've got to do is find something that threatens the whole globe and say, look, no one nation can deal with it, therefore we need a global government to deal with it.

That's what's going on.

And as I said, Ehrlich is still out there.

And despite, as you said, all of the predictions he made on that original Earth Day in 1972, every one of them has been wrong.

And in fact,

if you go down, all of the items like desertification, deforestation,

all the way down the list, there's simply no evidence or data to support any of them.

I've gone through every single one.

In fact, I'm writing a book that I hope to get out soon where I take all of these issues and say, well, where's your data?

There is no data.

Tell me about the data of a hockey stick.

Because you proved that the hockey stick was bogus.

The guy took you to court and then wouldn't produce any data to be able to defend it.

And you said, well, if it's bogus, I have to show you where your data is wrong.

So produce the data.

The judge threw the case out.

Yeah, well, what happened was, and I had three lawsuits, by the way, and of course that raises questions about why am I picked out?

And the answer is because I'm qualified.

They can't say I'm not qualified.

And also,

I can explain it in ways people can understand.

But in answer to your question, in the first IPCC report in 1990, there was a graph drawn by a gentleman I had the privilege of working with by the name of Hubert Lamb.

And what it showed was a warm period around 1,000 AD that was warmer than it is today.

And then the temperature declined down to 1680 when it was much colder than it is today.

And then it's been warming since that time.

Now, that, of course, that warm period a thousand years ago contradicted what they were saying.

They were saying that, oh, the world's warmer than it's ever been.

And people like me were saying, well, what about this diagram?

What about all this data and all the research that shows it was actually much warmer a thousand years ago?

And so,

and

a professor by the name of David Deming, he said, I got an email from somebody pushing the false global warming thing and said, we've got to get rid of that medieval warm period.

So they literally rewrote history.

The hockey stick was a deliberate creation using a couple of tree ring records, which

we were told not to use, that showed that there was no temperature increase for about a thousand years and then suddenly a dramatic upturn, the blade of the hockey stick, in the 20th century.

And of course that

that diagram, just the picture of it,

stuck in people's minds, like symbolism of it.

Oh, look, dramatic warming in the 20th century.

This is proof humans are causing it.

The whole hockey stick was false.

And by the way, just to show you how false it was,

the handle of the hockey stick is tree rings.

The blade is instrumental records.

You never, ever in science, put two

lines on a graph of completely different sources of information.

Oh, that's fine.

Wow, I didn't even know that.

Wow, that's fascinating.

So we're talking to

Dr.

Timothy Ball.

He's an environmental consultant, policy advisor at the Heartland Institute.

And he's also a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

You say there's a connection between global warming and eugenics.

What is it?

Well,

this has always been a debate that's going on.

It's the extent to which humans and human behavior is controlled by the environment.

The whole idea that we have a free will and we're independent of environmental pressures and so on has long been a debate.

The reality is there's a philosophical contradiction in the academic world between saying that, on the one hand, that we're just another animal, and on the other hand, that we're completely independent of nature and

are not controlled by it at all.

And so that's, of course,

what this is all about.

And of course, eugenics, that is

the

way that people are born, the number of people, or number of children that people have, and so on, are all

for humans, for the most part, just like all animals, environmentally dictated.

Doctor,

I want to ask about the ice melt that they talk about all the time, that the Arctic ice has melted

a certain percent more than it ever has before in history.

We've got more frequent tornadoes than we've ever had, fires, than we've ever had, floods, than we've ever had.

How do you respond to all that?

Well, first of all, the glaciers are melting, and they've been melting for the last 18,000 years

because we're coming out of an ice age.

The argument that the number of hurricanes, tornadoes, and all the rest of it have increased is consistently shown to be wrong.

There was a study just came out about a week ago and showing that the number of hurricanes has in fact decreased.

You see the same thing with the fires in the Amazon.

There were less fires over the last 30 years than they had in the previous 100 years.

But that's not what you're being told.

They want to play up that this is part of the global warming issue.

But also added to that, of course, is that Bolsonaro, the president of Argentina,

is not buying into the climate nonsense.

So it's an attack on him, an attack on the whole idea in general.

So

what's going on in the world right now is well within any long-term natural variability.

And if I tell you they keep saying, oh, we're going to get two degrees warmer, and that's going to be the end of the world, for the last 10,000 years, it has been two degrees warmer than today for 9,000 of them.

That's amazing.

Yeah, well, you see, this is what you do with climate.

You just pick a period of record that proves what you want it to prove.

They're really good at that, though.

They're really, really good at that.

Oh, yeah.

It's called cherry picking.

And, of course,

what I've just done is give you the record, a temperature record over the last 10,000 years, and it completely dispels what they're saying for the last thousand years.

So, but wait a minute.

Why?

I think what everybody is wondering right now is why do you hate polar bears so much?

I mean, they're on the ice shelf.

They're ready to die.

The poor little ice is about to flip over and they're going to drown.

Yeah.

And the babies, the babies, polar bears are going to drown.

Yeah.

That's even more heart-wrenching.

Well, polar bears won't drown, and the reason they won't, and by the way, I know this because I spent five years of search and rescue in the Arctic, so I'm very familiar with polar bears.

But they've got two levels of fur.

They've got a very short fur close to the skin, which is an incredibly effective insulator.

To the point where I worked with scientists that were taking infrared photographs of polar bears, and they don't show up on the photograph.

Really?

They don't give out any heat.

That's one sweet jacket.

Think of that.

A four-hear jacket.

That'd be great.

Anyway.

Yeah, and the longer hair is hollow, so they float.

It floats.

They can swim.

Yeah, they can swim extremely well.

In fact,

I personally have seen polar bears 80 miles offshore.

Yeah, but I have to tell you, okay, yeah, whatever.

But that, I mean, they have moved down into Canada because they're just trying to find food.

Find food.

They're going away from their natural Arctic

location.

Hunting grounds.

Yeah.

Because there's no seals for them to eat up there anymore because the ice is melting.

They're coming down.

But of course,

once the ice goes out in the summertime,

there are no seals for them to eat.

So they move on the land, and they're very, very good foragers.

They they survive extremely well on the land.

And you could go up around Churchill and see them on the land where they they come ashore and and have their their young when they're on land.

So all of these things are taken out of context and and simply are are are false.

The polar bear numbers and I work with um uh with a couple of the people uh uh her name's

my name Crawford, Susan Crawford.

Oh, yeah.

She's the world expert on polar bears.

And she she's telling me that, and I know this, that the polar bear numbers in most of the herds are increasing.

Thank you very much, Dr.

Timothy Ball.

The Blaze Radio Network.

On demand.