Summary of Jeff Reynolds: Global warming ideology wrecked science | Tom Nelson Pod #193

00:00:00 - 00:45:00

In the "Jeff Reynolds: Global Warming Ideology Wrecked Science" podcast episode by Tom Nelson, Jeff Reynolds shares his skepticism towards the global warming narrative and the role of junk science in the climate movement. Reynolds discusses his background, his transition from climate believer to skeptic, and his current role as a senior investigative researcher for the Restoration of America. He specifically criticizes the media for focusing on marketing campaigns and fearmongering rather than clear information and shares concerns about the culture of lying that has permeated discussions around man-made global warming since the 1990s. Tom Nelson discusses the controversies surrounding Michael Mann's hockey stick graphs and Mann's trials, which have raised significant doubts about the accuracy of Mann's work and statistical analysis. The podcast also touches upon topics such as agricultural land, climate policy, and the role of billionaires and organizations in funding agendas. Reynolds encourages critical thinking and open dialogue on these issues.

• 00:00:00 In this section of the podcast, guest Jeff Reynolds discusses his background and his current role as senior investigative researcher for the Restoration of America, an organization aimed at educating voters about important issues. Reynolds' latest report, titled "How the Left's Global Warming Ideology Wrecked Science," explores the role of junk science in the climate movement. Reynolds shares how he became a climate skeptic, having always been fascinated by science but becoming deeply skeptical of the claims made about global warming due to the lack of substantial answers and the use of logical fallacies. He criticizes the media for not covering climate science as a science but instead focusing on marketing campaigns and stoking fear, rather than providing clear information. Reynolds concludes by highlighting the culture of lying that has permeated the discussion around man-made global warming since the 1990s.
• 00:05:00 In this section of the podcast,Tom Nelson discusses the controversy surrounding Michael Mann's hockey stick graphs, which have been a topic of debate for over 25 years. The graphs were published in Mann's two papers in 1998 and 1999 and were later included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) third assessment report in 2001 and 2006. Mann's work was also featured in Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." However, as more people have delved into the climate science research, they have noticed a shift from empirical data and observations to computer modeling and interpretation. The doubts about Mann's work were further fueled when Dr. Tim Ball, a geophysicist, won a libel case against Mann in Canada in the mid-2000s. Mann had sued Ball for defamation after he made a joke about Mann belonging in a state pen instead of Penn State. The case was significant as Canada no longer protects free speech to the same extent as the United States. Ball won the case because he presented evidence that he had conducted his own historical temperature reconstruction from AD 0 to AD 2000, which showed that there was no warming in modern times, as Mann's hockey stick graphs suggested. However, Mann had also minimized the Minoan era and the Little Ice Age in his work. The current trial, Mark Steyn vs. Michael Mann, is still ongoing, and the jury's verdict is uncertain. The podcast host expresses doubt about whether the DC jury will deliver a just result, as many people have preconceived beliefs about climate science. Mann has not been able to prove his case in both the Tim Ball and Mark Steyn trials, and it appears that there continue to be significant issues with his hockey stick graphs and statistical analysis.
• 00:10:00 In this section of the podcast, Tom Nelson discusses the trial of Michael Mann, a climatologist known for creating the controversial "hockey stick" graph showing a significant temperature increase in recent decades. Mann faced scrutiny over his statistical analysis and the use of specific tree ring data in the graph. The defense discovered that Mann couldn't have used the Russian tree rings he claimed to have, and a Swedish mathematician proved it. This revelation will be presented in the upcoming trial. The case also included allegations of lost grants, mean glances, and even potential arson. Critics argue the climate change community behaves like a cult, clinging to predictions of doom despite the mounting challenges to their theories and the growing disbelief from the public.
• 00:15:00 In this section of the podcast, Jeff Reynolds shares his perspective on the global warming issue, describing how it was once a second nature belief for him until he started questioning the validity of the claims. Reynolds critical of how the term "average temperature" is not clearly defined and how solutions to address the issue, such as massive wealth redistribution, unreliable green energy, and curtailing human progress, are unpopular among the general public. Reynolds also discusses the farmer protests in Europe, where governments are taking over agricultural land due to supposed nitrogen pollution concerns, and how this is a part of a larger trend of limiting certain groups' access to modern technological advances.
• 00:20:00 In this section of the podcast, Tom Nelson discusses a documentary called "No Farmers no food will you eat the bugs," which explores the impact of the climate cult on farming, particularly the blame placed on factory farming for methane production. Nelson highlights the analogy between current methane production through farming and that of megafauna before humanity. He also discusses Elon Musk's stance on farmers and his support for a carbon tax, with Nelson expressing skepticism about its effectiveness. Additionally, the hosts touch upon the upcoming US presidential election and speculate that the climate debate might feature in the campaign, potentially due to the increasing cost of living for American consumers.
• 00:25:00 In this section of the podcast, the host discusses Bjorn Lomborg's analysis of optimal climate policy and its cost-benefit analysis. Lomborg, who believes in global warming but questions the extent of human contribution to it and the existence of a climate crisis, suggests that addressing the issue would cost a trillion dollars but provide climate benefits worth twice that amount. The host expresses some agreement with Lomborg's perspective and appreciates his thoughtful approach to the issue. However, they disagree on certain specifics, such as the interpretation of climate data and the extent of human impact on carbon dioxide emissions. The host also shares concerns about data manipulation in climate science and the overreliance on computer models. They criticize the disconnect between models and reality and the misperception of models as reality within the climate community. The host points out discrepancies between projected climate crises and current observational data, citing examples of the Arctic and Antarctic ice sheets.
• 00:30:00 In this section of the "Jeff Reynolds: Global warming ideology wrecked science" podcast episode by Tom Nelson, Jeff discusses the evolution of media landscape and the rise of alternative journalism. He mentions the decline of traditional media like newspapers and the emergence of new investigative journalism units funded by nonprofits and foundations, which often lean towards one perspective on issues like climate change. Jeff specifically names the Pew Charitable Trusts, Ford Foundation, Huet Foundation, and Arabella Advisors as major funders of agenda-driven investigative journalism. He expresses concern that these organizations provide only one side of the perspective and often promote a single narrative. Bill Gates is mentioned as one of the individuals funding such initiatives, with a focus on climate change, including his proposal to clearcut forests for carbon sequestration.
• 00:35:00 In this section of the podcast, Jeff Reynolds discusses the coordinated funding of various organizations and billionaires, including those advocating for environmental causes. He mentions Bill Gates and George Soros as examples, highlighting how they and others gather annually or biannually to decide on collective funding for specific issues. Reynolds also touches upon the alleged targeted attacks on climate-related Twitter accounts by "dark money organizations" and states that he hasn't witnessed such activities. He criticizes the right for not organizing and coordinating their funding like the left and expresses hope for more pushback from companies like Exxon against these initiatives. Exxon's increase in investment in renewable sources of energy is brought up, though it is questioned if it is a genuine attempt or merely for PR purposes. The conversation also touches upon the debate surrounding hydroelectric dams and their impact on salmon populations.
• 00:40:00 In this section of the podcast, Jeff Reynolds discusses Exxon Mobile's legal actions against climate activist shareholders, applauding the company for pushing back against activist tactics. He also mentions a new group called Climate Defiance, which harasses political candidates during campaigns, and reveals that it is funded by Hollywood figures and left-leaning philanthropists. Reynolds asserts that these groups deny opponents their free speech rights through protest tactics and criticizes the misconception that the Democratic party is the party of the little guy while virtually beholden to billionaire donors. Reynolds' book, "Behind the Curtain," explores this theme, challenging the perception that the Republican Party is the party of big business and billionaires.
• 00:45:00 In this section of the podcast, Jeff Reynolds discusses the fall of the World Economic Forum's (WEF) reputation and the controversy surrounding its funding and globalist agendas. Reynolds reveals that much of the WEF's funding comes from offshore sources and is passed around in legal and extra-legal means, some of which may be illegal. He criticizes the organization for its efforts to undermine national sovereignty, particularly that of the United States, and expresses his admiration for various individuals and organizations that promote dissenting opinions on climate change, such as Steven Malley, Judith Curry, and the CO2 Coalition. Reynolds also mentions his organization, Restoration of America, and the resources it provides to individuals questioning climate change solutions. Throughout the conversation, Reynolds encourages critical thinking and open dialogue on these issues.