Original subtitles

one of the things I've seen you tell me

what you think about this something that

I've seen that actually shocks me that I

was interested in watching over the last

five or six years I wondered what would

happen when the left the progressives

ran into a conundrum and the conundrum

is quite straightforward if you pursue

carbon pricing and you make energy more

expensive then you hurt the poor and I

don't think you just hurt them in fact I

know you don't you just don't hurt them

I heard a man two days ago who fed 350

million people in the course of his life

um heading the un's largest relief

agency make the claim quite

straightforwardly that that

misappropriation on the part of

interventionist governments increased

the rate of absolute privation

dramatically in in the world over the

last four or five years and not and that

has happened not least because of carbon

pricing not just carbon pricing but the

insistence that carbon per se is an

externality that we should control now

Germany's paid a radical price for that

for example so their power is now about

five times as expensive as it could be

and they pollute more per unit of power

than they did 10 years ago before they

introduced these policies that were

hypothetically there to account for

externality and the externality was

carbon dioxide I don't think that's a

computable externality and I don't think

there's any evidence whatsoever that

it's actually an externality that we

should be warping the economic system to

ameliorate if the cost of that and it

will be will be an increase in absolute

privation among the world's poor so and

here's a here's an additional argument

on that front with regards to

externalities you get that wrong and

here's something you could get right

instead if you amarate absolute poverty

among the world's 1 billion billion

poorest they take a longer view of the

future and that means they become

environmentally aware and so the fastest

route to a sustainable Planet could well

be the remediation of absolute poverty

and the best route to that is cheap

energy and we're interfering with the

development of cheap energy by meddling

with the hypothetically detrimental

externality of carbon dioxide and

so it's it's I think this is a complete

bloody travesty by the way we are

putting the lives of hundreds of

millions of people directly at risk

right now to hypothetically save people

in the future depending on the accuracy

of our projection 100 years out and

these these interventionists these

people who are remediating externalities

they actually believe that they can

calculate an economic projection one

century out that's utterly delusional so

okay so just as a to be clear the first

thing I was just giv an example of how

you can use like a government

intervention to make a free market track

something which which is what C and

trade or like carbon taxes would do um I

wasn't necessarily speaking to the

strength of that individual thing but

thing to focus on Focus externality we

can focus on that as well so um the

first thing uh this going to sound mean

uh but I'm you know I'm very realistic

uh there needs to be a better argument

than just it disproportionately impacts

the poor that's always classic leftist

argument it might be but right but it's

the same argument you made to justify

your swing to the left at the beginning

of our discussion you said that you were

looking at economic inequalities that

disproportionately affected the poor so

I can't see why and I'm not trying to be

mean about this either I can't see why

you could base your argument that it was

moral it was morally appropriate for you

to swing to the left from your previous

position because you saw

disproportionate effects on the poor and

I can't use that argument in the

situation that I'm presenting it right

now well because it depends on if we

think it's a condition that ought to be

remedied or not for instance if I walk

you know around and I see homeless

people and I'm like man this is really

sad we ought to spend more home money on

homeless people because it seems like

they're disproportionately affected by

their living conditions and then

somebody says oh well do you think we

should still lock up you know rapists

and murderers aren't they

disproportionately poor I'd probably say

well yeah we probably should go well

isn't that hypocritical well no I think

that rapist and murderers should

probably be in jail but we can also help

the homeless at the same time I think

that just helping the poor isn't an

argument like a blank check to do every

possible thing to satisfy poor people

it's going to depend from

issue because the poor everyone who's

poor is not a victim some people who are

poor are Psychopathic perpetrators sure

and it's very useful to distinguish them

but I was making a much more specific

argument my argument was that the

fastest way out of absolute privation

for the world's bottom billion people is

through cheap energy yeah I I understand

what you're saying there so just work my

way towards that um yeah I just want to

say that just because something targets

supp poort is not necessarily an

argument against it another depends on

how hard it targets them and it depends

on whether Mass starvation is the

outcome the outcome is important that I

agree with so for instance like a syntax

tax outcome will be

masturation I'm get okay syntaxes on

like cigarettes and alcohol are always

going to disproportionately impact the

the poor or even sugar we might say

right but just because that

disproportionately impacts the poor is

that a good thing or a bad thing these

are probably the people that suffer the

most from those particular

afflictions so that is immed verus

delayed issue too right because the

reason I mean obesity isn't immediate I

think Al me the reason for the tax is is

to stop people from P pursuing a certain

form of short-term gratification at the

cost of their longer term wellbe correct

and that that that exact same idea if

you believe climate models or if you

believe that we're heading in a certain

direction uh in terms of climate the

overall warming of the planet would be

the same argument you would make for

climate change only if you believe that

you could model Economic Development 100

years into the future well we're not

trying to model we're we're more

concerned with modeling climate

development Economic Development equally

no well okay tell tell me how I'm wrong

I don't believe that because what I see

happening is two things we have climate

models that

Financial experts thought we were in the

clear while these experts anticipated

rate Cuts inflation in the United States

is still a significant economic concern

think about it the US is in the hole by

$34 trillion and yet we keep printing

money which pushes the prices you pay

every day even higher so you can bury

your head in the sand or you can do

something about it diversify a portion

of your savings into gold with Birch

gold group gold is your hedge against

inflation and Birch gold makes it easy

to own they'll help you convert your

existing Ira or 401K into a tax

sheltered Ira in gold and you won't pay

a penny out of pocket make gold part of

your savings strategy and buy it from

Birch gold they've been the exclusive

gold partner of the daily wire for over

7 years now literally helping thousands

of our listeners and they can help you

too text Jordan to 9898 98 and get your

free info kit on gold then talk to a

precious metal specialist about

protecting your savings from persistent

inflation with gold text Jordan to 98

now I don't believe that because what I

see happening is two things we have

climate models that purport to explain

what's going to happen over a century on

the climate side but we have economic

models layered right on top of those

that claim that there's going to be

various forms of disaster for human

beings economically as a consequence of

that climate change and so that's like

two towers of Babel stacked on top of

one another and so because if if people

were just saying oh the climate's going

to change there'd be no moral impetus in

that it's the climate's going to change

and that's going to be disastrous for

the biosphere and for Humanity but

that's an economic argument as well as a

climate-based argument it's it's both

but the the worst the worst projections

of what would happen if the climate took

a disastrous turn are worse than the

worst projections of what is our planet

going to look like economically if we

hardcore police you know why would you

okay but I don't understand the

distinction between

well the argument would be that whatever

pain and suffering poor people might

endure right now because of a move

towards green energy that pain and

suffering is going to be short-term and

far less than the long-term pain and

suffering right but that's dependent on

the Integrity of the economic models and

the E and and the climate models as well

right exactly but that but in exactly

the Stacked manner that I described and

like there's nobody in 1890 who could

have predicted what was going to

happened in 1990 economically not not a

bit not a bit and and if we think we can

predict like 50 years out now with the

current rate of technology and calculate

the potential impact of climate change

on economic flourishing for human beings

were diluted no one can do that and then

and so and it's worse so imagine that as

you do that and you project outward your

margin of error increases that's

absolutely definitely the case and at

some point you're certainly on the

climate side the margin of error gets

rapidly to the point where it subsumes

any estimate of the degree to which the

climate is going to transform and that

happens even more rapidly on the

economic side potentially but right now

I think right now this is a disagreement

on the fact of the matter though not the

philosophy of what we're talking about

in terms of controlling externalities if

we think I'm so I'm curious let's say

that we think we can accurately predict

the climate and the economic impact and

we think that the climate impact would

be far worse if we don't account for

that both in terms of human conditions I

don't believe any of those presumptions

I think but then if you don't but I mean

like obviously if I agreed with that

that factual analysis I would probably

agree with you on the prescription here

too right like none of the climate

models were accurate couldn't accurately

predict well they're not sufficiently

accurate that's the first thing and SEC

because they have a margin of error and

it's a large margin of error they don't

even model cloud coverage well that's a

big problem they don't have the

resolution they don't have nearly the

resolution to produce the accuracy

that's claimed by the climate apocalypse

mongers not even saying that but we just

got another one of the hottest years on

record how many times are we going to

have another hottest here on record how

many times are we going to have an

increase of carbon dioxide concentration

in the atmosphere before we're finally

like okay I don't know and the the

reason I don't know is it because it

depends the scientific answer to that

question depends precisely on the time

frame over which you evaluate the

climate fluctuation and that's actually

an intractable scientific problem so you

might say well if you take the last 100

years this variation looks pretty disal

and I'd say well what what if you took

the last 150,000 years or the last

10,000 or the last 10 million you can't

specify the damn time frame of analis

the time frame is incredibly important

that would be like saying look at your

you know let's say somebody developed

cancer and they didn't realize it and

the person has lost you know 40 or 50

pounds in in the past six months and

like you you look very sickly and you're

like okay well look at my weight

fluctuation over the past 10 years say

well it doesn't really matter what

matters I'm saying the time frame isn't

important saying that it is important

saying I don't know how to specify it

well you would probably specify with the

beginning of the Industrial Age right

because when that's when carbon dioxide

which is a gas that is trapping uh more

heat on the planet is that relevant to

the time over which you compute the

variability because it seems like as

carbon dioxide has increased in the

atmosphere the surface temperatures have

risen at a rate that is a departure from

what we'd expect over 150,000 year

cycles of temperature variations on the

planet no not with that time frame

that's not the case absolutely the case

no what do you mean you just flipped to

150,000 year time span what I'm saying

is that if if we expect to see a

temperature do this in 150,000 year time

span in 100 years time spend seeing it

do this that's very worrying Michael

man's hockey stick the one that's under

attack right now in court by Major

statistician who claimed that he

falsified his data mean that Spike the

I'm talking about the record

temperatures that are declared that have

been declared for like the past five

years that have also increased with the

uh with the concentration of parts per

million of carbon dioxide of the

atmosphere um I mean I'm not going to

tell you that every model is perfect

right now sure but right now we're like

standing in traffic with our eyes close

saying the car hasn't hit me yet so I

don't think there's any coming I think

it's pretty undeniable at this point

that there is an impact on climate

across the planet I I think that's

highly deniable we have no idea what the

impact is from we don't know where the

carbon dioxide is from we can't measure

the warming of the oceans we have

terrible temperature records going back

a 100 years almost all the terrestrial

temperature uh uh uh detection sites

were first put outside urban areas and

then as right and then you have to Cor

then you have to correct for the for the

movement of the urban areas and then you

introduce an error parameter that's

larger than the purported increase in

temperature that you're planning to

measure this isn't data this is guess

and there's something weird underneath

it there's something weird that isn't

oriented well towards human beings

underneath it it has this guise of

compassion oh we're going to save the

poor in the future it's like that's what

the bloody Communists said and they

killed a lot of people doing it and

we're walking down that same road now

with this insistence that you know we're

so compassionate that we care about the

poor a 100 years from now and if we have

to wipe out several hundred million of

them now well that's a small price to

pay for the future Utopia and we've

heard that sort of thing before and the

alternative to that is for is to stop

having global level Elites plot out a

utopian future or even an anti-

dystopian future and that's exactly

what's happening now with organizations

like the wef and if this wasn't

immediately impacting the poor in a

devastating manner I wouldn't care about

it that much but it is you know I

watched over the course of The Last 5

Years the estimates of the number of

people who were in serious danger of

food privation rise from about 100

million to about 350 million that's a

major price to pay for a little bit of

what what would you say for for progress

on the climate front that's so narrow it

can't even be measured I don't think the

increase in in hungry people on the in

the planet is because of climate

[Music]

policies