Episode #095: Unprecedented Climate Crisis? Are they Joking? CO2 is Plant Food 2

Running a business is hard enough. Don't make it harder with a dozen apps that don't talk to each other. One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting? That's software overload. Odoo is the all-in-one platform that replaces them all. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR. Fully integrated, easy to use, and built to grow with your business. Thousands have already made the switch. Why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's odoo.com. This is Cosmographia, the Randall Carlson podcast. And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. This is Cosmographia, the Randall Carlson podcast. And things have been really busy for the Cosmographia team. All of us have been doing lots of stuff. So it's been quite a while since we've actually sat down and done a proper, you know, like not live recorded show. So, and these are important for us because we're, these are the ones where we're continuing Randall's, you know, we're going through all of Randall's research. And we've been doing the climate change stuff. So, Randall, do you even remember what we were talking about last time? Oh, yeah. Yeah. I would just like to interject one thought here, though, in reference to our sporadic posting of new Cosmographia clips. I just want everybody to know that we have been feeling quite burdened with guilt. So if you feel better now knowing that we've been feeling guilty because we're not putting the content out there like we should be. We understand that. We know that. We're going to strive to do better. That's right. But here's the thing. Here's the thing. When we're out there doing this stuff, we're actually out there. We're not just out there idling late, you know, resting on the beach, getting a suntan. We are actually out there gathering knowledge, getting information, getting photographs, video, drone. We're doing all of this stuff to bring it and put it right here and make it available to all of our friends and fans and listeners to enjoy. Not as much as we probably did as we're out in the field. On the other hand, though, there have been some times where, yeah, it's been rather challenging, to say the least. So there's some of that, too. Especially when Kyle's there. That makes it challenging. I was twiddling my thumbs, folks. That's what I've been doing. Very difficult work. Yes. And Kyle has, by the way, gotten very proficient at thumb twiddling. And I've noticed, I've noticed, you guys probably can't notice the musculature that's developing in his thumbs. 1,920 per minute. So, yeah, where have we gone since our last recorded, Pop? What have we been doing? You guys. It was pre-Texas trip. Yeah. It was pre-Texas trip. I've been to Kentucky and back, which was great. But we can talk about all that stuff on the live streams. But, you know, I'm just saying it has been a while. But we're trying to get back into the flow of, you know, at least recording two of these a month. That's the goal and doing two live streams a month. So, hopefully, things will calm down here at the various Cosmographia headquarters, which they're, you know, they're scattered. Everything is scattered. Or we're going to have to be better at doing it while mobile. That's right. Yes, there we go. If we could solve that challenge, yeah, we could keep cranking it out. But, yeah. That's right. And we're, yeah, I mean, we've got stuff coming up, you know, March. We've got to come. Hopefully, this will come out before our Cumberland tour because I see Brad sitting right there in front of Middlesboro Crater. And this is one of our sites on the trip that we're going to visit. And you can actually see the whole crater is behind them. And those are just not normal mountains behind them. Those are the upraised rim of the crater. That's right. And that town. Four miles away. Four miles away, yeah. And the town, you can see the town right down there in the bottom of the crater. So, the crater obviously takes its name from the town, Middlesboro Crater, the town of Middlesboro, Kentucky. So, it sits right there on the border between just inside of Kentucky. But it's a very interesting place. And we're going to be exploring it. I think Rowan has gotten us some great new geological guidebooks to the site that didn't exist when Brad and I first scoped it out, which had to have been what? A decade and a half ago? Oh, yeah. Mid-2005, 2006 probably. Oh, yeah. So, the crater is still there, right? I'm surprised that town survives. Well, yeah. This was the miraculous thing here. Well, and it's at the outlet of the, or the opening, the mouth, whichever way you want to look at, of the Cumberland Gap. So, where this photo is from is an overlook called Pinnacle Rock. And you look out one direction into the crater bowl and then other direction out into Tennessee, beyond the Appalachian Ridge there. I did get to visit the Serpent Mound Disturbance, which is another astrobleem. Yeah, yeah. Excellent. 14 kilometers, something like that. 320 million years old. Very tough to see standing on the ground. And you also have to wonder, like, how did the Serpent Mound, like, survive that impact? It's crazy. Yeah. Yeah. And I noticed that, I figured, I knew you were up to something. I didn't know what specifically you were up to, Russ. I knew you were up to something, though, and it had to have been significant. That's right. When I saw the meteorite explode over Texas, I realized the cosmos was recognizing something. I wasn't sure what. Now I know what it is. That was me returning to the state. Yeah. Oh, that's what it was. Coming back to the state. Nice. Yeah. Oh, wait. You know, my return was heralded by signs and portents in the sky. Yeah. Portents. Portents, yes. My phone is ringing. I should have turned it off. But Mr. M. Rookie move. Rookie mistake. Rookie move. Okay. I had a feeling. I had this instinctive feeling. Anyways, that's great. That was your first time to Serpent Mound. That's right. But I think you said that a lot of the place wasn't accessible. Yeah, it's winter, you know, so they don't have hardly any staff. You know, they were happy for us to be there, but they were like, basically everything's closed. You can walk the grounds, but, you know, there's no one here and you can't climb the observation tower. And I wasn't able to get permission for drone footage because there's just nobody there. So anyway, I did get some contacts for that. So I'm going to go back and hopefully be able to fly my drone and get some footage. Yeah, that would be great. Get some drone footage of that. And, you know, so far the drone footage and aerials I've seen aren't, don't really set the context where you can see the Serpent structure relative to the Astrobleed. Yeah, I would like to try that. It's, again, it's very difficult to, you know, from the ground you're looking out and I'm like, I know this is here, but from the ground you can't even, you know. I mean, it's hard to, it's hard to really grasp the Serpent Mound from the ground, much less the Astrobleem. So, you know, especially if you couldn't show up in the tower. Right. I think it's about 60 feet high. Yeah. 40 feet. Yeah, that's pretty good overlook. Yeah. Well, it's, we're going to have to put together a monumental earthworks and mounds tour at some point. I mean, because there's, the 10% that's left is pretty damn impressive. And if you can see a sizable portion of that 10%, you can really get a sense of what was here pre-Columbian, before the arrival of Europeans. And, you know, interesting, you know, since we, one of the things we did when we were on our trip in Texas is we visited, oh gosh, L, not L-Rod, Brad, down on the LSU campus. What about LSU? Elwood? No. Elwood. Was it Elwood? Oh, man. It was. Put me on the spot. Blues Brothers? Nope. I got his card in the other room. Yeah, good guy. I mean, he, he was really generous with his time, but he's the, he's the geoarchaeologist that excavated this, there's two mounds, pretty well-known mounds locally on the LSU campus. And they had never really been accurately dated. So he undertook a project to date the two mounds. And I think, and, you know, we can circle back with more details on this because I'm going to try to get his papers and stuff. Anyways, he dated the two mounds. One of them was about 1,000, 1,500 years younger, I think, than the older one. But the older of the two mounds dated to 11,300 years ago, which puts it right back almost into Gobekli Tepe times. And, of course, they want to, it seems like the reaction to it has been a couple of attacks, and then maybe it's better if we just ignore this. And that's kind of what's gone down, is they've ignored it. Because otherwise, why haven't we, you know, heard, and this was back to our good friend, George, that he had made the initial contact, Cosmic Summit, Cosmic Tusk, George. So, yeah, we spent at least two to three hours with this guy and learning about the procedure of the dating and all of that and some of the controversy and things that he encountered, the resistance and the dismissal of his work. And, of course, that was to be expected. It's very typical, because if, you know, somebody was building substantial earth mounds 11,300 years ago, you know, that sort of pokes holes within the conventional narrative of North American prehistory. I mean, who was doing that? Because this is right after, you know, the Upper Younger Dryas boundary, within a few hundred years. Somebody is down there in Louisiana building two very large mounds. So, we've got to look more into that and, at some point, get back with Elrod. I'm trying to find it, yeah, in our group text, but I'm laughing at some photos we had. Yeah, I just discovered one or found out about one I didn't know about over in South Carolina. I was looking for some South Carolina maps to go into episode 93, and it was drowned out. They said it was on the scale of one of the mounds down in Okmulgee in Macon, Georgia, which has got some pretty large mounds. But it's under the water from Hartwell Dam that backed up in 1962. Yeah, so on the Tugaloo River. So, I hadn't heard about that one. It was just in an article, like, six months ago. So, yeah, there's a lot that was going on in this country before. Oh, my God, yes, it's amazing. America before. Yeah, there's even controversy with the Serpent Mound, you know. I mean, obviously nothing putting it back to 11,000 years, but people are arguing on whether it's 1000 AD or 2000 BC. You know, some of that was even detailed on the signs that they had at the site. But, well, I think that once the, you know, the doctrinaire establishment. Brooks Elwood? That's it. Elwood Brooks. Thank you, Kyle. Elwood Brooks. That's the man. Elwood. Hey, how'd you find that? I just searched the LSU mounds, and then I was just scrolling through the stories, and somebody mentioned his name. There we go. But since you had Elwood in there, that's how I, you know, I just was looking for it. All right, well, there is the Blues Brothers connection. Is there a paper by any chance? I'm sure, but I'm just literally looking at search results. I didn't even click on the story. I was just scrolling through search results. Mm-hmm. Somebody mentioned his name. Well, there we go. People want to research Elwood Brooks. LSU mounds. American Journal of Science, the LSU campus mounds, with construction beginning at 11,000, roughly 11,000 BP, where the oldest known man, extant man-made structures in the Americas. Brooks Elwood, Sophie Warner, Rebecca Hackworth et al. Mm-hmm. So he was lead author, but not the only one. So what was it? What was the? American Journal of Science. Got that. What's the date on it and the volume number? Does it say? June 2022, 322. But back to the question, what were these people doing right then and there at that, like you were saying, this is, so. Well, yeah. It's shortly after the end of the Younger Dryas, right? Yeah. Within just a few centuries. Meltwater Pulse 1B, the upper Younger Dryas boundary, the sinking of Atlantis, according to Plato. I wonder if there's any Clovis artifacts associated with the bottom of this mound. That's a good question. Because if there is, then that would show that some Clovis survived the Younger Dryas. Well, the ANZIC-1 Clovis skeleton that, like, was also dated to a couple of hundred years after. Mm-hmm. Right? Yeah. That was the girl. Yes. Wasn't it a girl, a young female? You know? Yes. And she was, she was obviously, like, I think, buried. Right. Yeah. In other words, she wasn't just. Red ochre painted on the bones and. Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, that was a very interesting trip. And the other one, which we talked about this in the live stream, so people can record it and hear us talking about that. So we don't need to really go too much in there. But the bone bed we attempted to see in Texas at a kind of a private location, right? We're not supposed to disclose the exact area for the time being. We would have been able to get in to actually visit the bone bed. But we got flooded out. The roads accessing the site, I guess, apparently, what was six or eight inches of rain had fallen. Yeah. Six, six inches of rain. Had fallen the day before. Yeah. Or eight hours or, yeah. Some crazy downfall. Everything was flat. But you know what? My thought is, is that it wouldn't really give a few more days for things to dry out. You can get access because that would probably be the ideal time because it's during heavy rainfalls like this that, you know, that these things get exposed. They get, you know, washed out. You know, storms along beaches will erode cliffs. Things will show up. Um, floods along river valleys will erode banks and things will wash out. Um, and the same here, you know, it's likely that, you know, I know a lot of meteorite hunters and tektite hunters and stuff know that, you know, where the horizon is, where these things are located. Like south of here, just south of Macon, Georgia is the, uh, Eocene, the Ligocene horizon. And, you know, there was the great impact, uh, roughly 35 million years ago that, that, uh, triggered the transition from the Eocene to the Ligocene. It was associated with, with a major mass extinction event, not one of the great five, but still nonetheless, a significant mass extinction event. And it's splayed the whole Southeast United States with, uh, you know, uh, melt water, not melt water, but melt, melt byproducts of the impact, which consisted of, uh, uh, uh, uh, composition of both, uh, terrestrial target rock and the impactor itself. And that stuff rained down over the Southeast. Now, of course, in 35 million years, most of those thousands of square miles that got inundated with this rainfall of molten material got buried. But at the fall line, just south of, uh, Macon, where there's a major transition in, um, elevation, uh, land surface elevation, there's, you know, outcrops, that Eocene, Oligocene boundary is exposed right along that, that drop-off. So when there's a heavy rain, that's the time you go down there to look for tactites. And the Fernbank Museum over here, uh, in DeKalb County has a great collection of those, uh, of those, uh, Eocene, Oligocene, um, impact materials. It, uh, the, uh, the crater is right now, it's where Potomac Bay is, where the Potomac River comes down and opens into Potomac Bay buried on, what is it? Chesapeake Bay up there. Yeah, Chesapeake Bay. So it's the Chesapeake Bay impact crater that's on the bottom of, of Chesapeake Bay. And undoubtedly then controlled the, the, the, the geomorphology and the topography subsequent to that impact. And that is why, you know, you have the Potomac River, um, you know, uh, flowing into the ocean at that, at that area. Uh, because you undoubtedly would have had fault lines generated there because of the impact. And it was a pretty significant impact. I think the crater is 35 to 40 miles in diameter, maybe even bigger. Um, and it seemed to have been formed at the same time as the so-called Papagai or Popagai crater in Siberia. That's also about the same size. I don't know if they've been dated precisely enough to say that they were, was a, uh, uh, simultaneously two impacts or that, you know, they could have been separated by thousands of years. But our resolution of dating, when we're talking about 35 million years ago, uh, is not precise enough to say whether they were separated by centuries or millennia or happened, you know, within hours or days of each other. Um, but there are two craters on earth that are dated to within a range that they could have been simultaneous. They're about the same size. One is on the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay and the other one is up in Siberia. Anyhow, um, where was I going with that? Oh, so the point being is that after heavy rain falls, that is an example of when you want to go out and hunt for, you know, meteorites, you want to hunt for fossils, anything like that. You know, if you know your outcrops after a heavy rain is, is the time to go. So I was like thinking about that the whole time we were there, but you know, we just couldn't get there. The roads, which are primitive anyway, to get to the site are, uh, we're apparently underwater. So, but you guys hung around after we left. I mean, did you get, uh, even if the roads were underwater, the creek, the creek was way over its banks. So, yeah, you know, I wonder if it was enough to flood the site. Yeah. That's what, yeah, that's what they were saying. The creek was completely out of the channel. Uh-huh. I see. So, yeah. So the whole thing was underwater. But you're right. That means that possibly we want to go back really bad, but we're in the middle of crazy, busy work season and travel. Right. So we haven't, well, my guess is from what we learned, nobody's been out there looking. Yeah. Nope. Since Keith was Keith, right? Ken. Ken. Ken. Ken. Ken. Ken. Yeah. Ken Tease. Uh, we told a little bit about the background. He had been excavating and investigating that site for years, and then it sold from private hands to the Nature Conservancy. And somebody, uh, some highly emplaced academic associated with the Nature Conservancy decided to shut it down. So there's been no real and further investigation of this site since 2017, I believe. Um. Yeah, I don't know. I don't remember a date. Yeah, it was right around there. It's been, yeah, five or six years anyway. So, you know, it's the same old story over and over again. You know, I mean, what is there that, um, you know, that is, that's unpalatable to some of these people? What's going to be learned there? Obviously, I think that we're looking at a site that would have been produced probably through catastrophic flooding. And it would show that, you know, the deposit of the bones is in alluvium. Uh, so that means it was washed and it may have, you know, been the major flooding that came down through that creek. Um, it could have picked up bones from a number of locations, but, you know, we don't know. Um. Right. And it needs to be investigated for us to. Yeah. To know exactly, you know, was there, was there, is it one age? Or is there a spread of ages of, of artifacts or bones, rather? Is there any artifacts, human artifacts? I mean, yeah. I mean, why not allow it to be investigated? This is the same old story over and over again. Um. Anyhow, uh, so, yeah, we've been talking about, uh, about climate change. And, uh, you know, we've actually covered quite a bit of territory over the last, what, three, four or five episodes, looking at graphs, looking at statistics, looking at data, to try to tease out what's the real story. And, uh, you know, we know that we're constantly being told we're in the midst of a climate crisis. That's the word that's now being used. We don't, nobody uses global warming anymore. It's, it's climate crisis. And that has, uh, evolved because it seemed more evocative than the term climate dis, climate disruption that was being used for a while. There were several other terms. Climate change, of course, doesn't really invoke that sense of panic that it's supposed to do in people. When you hear climate change, as they contrasted with climate crisis, uh, climate crisis sounds much, much worse. Um. Um. So, yeah, so we've been talking about that. And last episode, we started getting into things, uh, the untold story of carbon dioxide. Um. Things that you are not going to hear on NPR or MSNBC or CNN. Um. Interestingly, over the years, I have been accused of cherry-picking data. That's, you know, several I've seen it post on, oh, he cherry-picks data. Oh, you're just cherry-picking data to support your argument. And my answer is that, well, yes, I am cherry-picking data. But what I'm doing is I'm cherry-picking the data that the other guys who are promoting the climate change crisis, they're cherry-picking. And so they're cherry-picking first and leaving all this other stuff, uh, you know, unexamined, um, unreported. Uh, so I say, yeah, you want to hear the, you want to hear the, the, the, the, the, the, the crisis narrative? Well, yeah, we're being spoon-fed that constantly. You know, mainstream media is constantly going on and on about the climate crisis and the latest study or whatever. But it can usually be taken apart quite simply when you begin to dig into it. But, so in, the point is, is that you don't hear, other than certain, you know, I guess some of the few places where you would actually hear objections to the prevailing climate change narrative is that the, the anathema of all liberals, Fox News. And, you know, I watch the media, I listen to the media, and I mean, we've got, we've got Substack now, we've got Rumble, we've got, you know, the other side that's putting this stuff out, the stuff that, you know, wherever you stand on the political spectrum, it's a simple fact that mainstream media is leaving out nine-tenths of the data that would actually communicate and convey to us what's really going on with the climate. And, uh, we can pull up some stuff here. Maybe we'll start with an interesting, this story is actually several years old, but, um, I think I'll pull it up anyway. And it's, it's a good example of, uh, um, of data that nobody knows about, but it's really significant in terms of understanding what's going on. So let me just get, uh, my work here. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload, no more juggling logins, just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process, so you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. So, this goes back now, you know, at this time, I was constantly perusing the scientific press for stories about all of the things we talk about that I'm interested in. And in September of 2003, there was a particularly hot summer, and there is a pass in the Swiss Alps, and it's pronounced roughly Shindyok. It's spelled S-C-H-N-I-D-E-J-O-C-H. But I think it's just pronounced Shindyok. Okay, so this hiker is going through the pass. She sees something on the ground, laying on the ground. She looks closer, and it turns out that it's an artifact made out of birch bark. So, she retrieves the object, takes it home, and she turns it over to the Historical Museum at Bern, Switzerland, B-E-R-N, Bern. Okay, so they dated the object, and it turned out that it was a quiver for carrying arrows. And it was subsequently radiocarbon dated, and it was found to be just about 5,000 years old. The quiver, so then, aroused a great deal of interest amongst regional, local, and regional archaeologists. So, they wanted, and they obviously naturally started wondering, are there other objects to be found in this particular mountain pass? So, when they went back to take a look, what do you suppose they found? There were hundreds of other artifacts, okay? So, what I'm going to do is, I'm going to pull up a Googler so we can actually see where this is occurring, where this occurred. So, the Shindy Oak Pass, it's a low point, a saddle, in a mountain ridge that separates the valley of the Rhone River and the Italian Alps, which are on the south, from the Canton of Bern, as it's called, and the Swiss Alps to the north. If anybody wants to look up this for themselves on Google Earth, you're going to look up 43.36 degrees north latitude and 74.2 degrees west longitude. So, it's at an altitude of about 9,000 feet above sea level, which is 2,750 meters. And for centuries, within recent centuries anyway, the mountain pass has been choked with ice. And it has not been used by foot traffic or donkey or horses or anything like that, because the whole pass has been completely filled with ice. And let's see here, I will go up, let's pull up here, and let's see if I can... Get up a Google Earth image here. Okay, first we'll start with a Google map. I'm just surprised that a bark quiver would have survived out in the elements for 5,000 years. It must have been in the ice. Well, yeah, it was. It was caught in the... So, it was just frozen. Frozen in the ice. For 5,000 years. Yeah. That ice had to come on pretty quick without crushing it. Yeah. All right. So, here's the pass. Not to rot. You can see it right through here. So, here's the Shindy Oak Pass right here. Here's the border. You see the dash line. That's a border. Separates Italy from Switzerland. And so, what this showed was that there was foot traffic through this pass. Right? Now, in historical memory of the last, say, three or four or 500 years, there has not been foot traffic through the pass because it's been filled with ice. That's the important thing here to understand. I'm going to... Let me see if I can jump over to Google Earth without stopping screen share. Did that work successfully? Yeah. Oh, good. It works. It's in the same window. Yeah. Yeah, good. Okay. So, here you can really get a good look at the pass. I would imagine this is probably from within the last, you know, few years. There's still some ice there, but it is passable now. Whereas, in previous centuries, what we would think of as a little ice age, it was completely filled with ice. So, nobody was, you know, nobody was going through there at all. Let's see if I can get this. Oops, that's not what I wanted to do. But this will give us the... Get it back here. So, we're looking to the north. There we go. You can see the pass right there. So, anyways, let's go back to what this research, what they discovered here. So, with the warming that came at the end of the little ice age in the early to mid-19th century, the glaciers at that point began to shrink. So, that by the turn of the 21st century, remember, this was in 2003 when this hiker found the artifact. So, by the turn of the 21st century, the pass had cleared of glacial ice sufficient to allow hikers to make their way over the pass for the first time in somewhere between seven and eight centuries. So, for seven or eight centuries, there has not been foot traffic through this pass, right? So, a group of archaeologists from the Archaeological Survey of Canton Burn began exploring the area. And they quickly made a series of quite spectacular finds. So, among the items they collected over the next few years were items made of leather, fur, woolen clothing, belts made of twigs, bows, arrows, lithic arrowheads, bronze needles, shoes, a shoe repair kit, wooden bowls, Roman coins, arrow quivers, and the evidence for use of pack animals. So, all of this material now has been revealed as the glaciers shrank back from their little ice age maximum. Now, for regular viewers and listeners of this podcast, you know, we've talked multiple times about how and made reference to the fact that during the little ice age, the glaciers worldwide grew to their greatest extent in over 10,000 years since the end of the great ice age, right? So, then there's an obvious inference from this, right? When you had foot traffic going through, leaving all of this stuff behind, obviously it was being used regularly with pack animals through, there was no ice filling the pass, obviously, right? There's just no other interpretation. There is, the pass was open, people were using it on a regular basis, so there was no glaciers in that mountain pass. So, it means, obviously, that the glaciers, when people were using the pass, had shrunk back to at least the minimum extent that they are now, possibly even more so. When we looked at the Google Earth, we could see there were still some extant glaciers in the pass. But, here's where it gets interesting. After performing hundreds of dating tests, it became apparent that the artifacts were clustered, right? They weren't spread uniformly, they were clustered. What does that suggest? Well, campsites. Well. Flooding, possibly. Transports. Or somebody dropped a bunch of junk or offloaded something they couldn't carry. Well, okay, here's what it means. So, the earliest, it comes down to the dating. The earliest objects were left in the pass during late Neolithic times and dated from roughly 5,000 to 4,450 years ago. After 4,450 years ago, there was a hiatus of 400 years during which there were no artifacts deposited in the pass. Then, after the passage of about 450 years to where we get to 3,650 years ago, there was another phase of deposition. That phase of deposition was then followed by another hiatus, and this hiatus lasted for 1,600 years. For 1,600 years, there was no dating, no artifacts found that dated within that range of time, 1,600 years. So, you mean multiple clusters? That's what you're doing. Time clusters. Multiple clusters. Time clusters. Time clusters. Time clusters. Time clusters, yes. Time clusters. Yeah, totally different. Yeah. Artifacts then reappear during the late Iron Age and Roman Age about 2,100 years ago. They then accumulate for about 500 years. Now, after that 500 years, the pass apparently closed again. Nobody's using the pass. So, again, the implication is that after this 500 years, which coincidentally coincides with the so-called Roman warm period, the glaciers expanded again, and the pass was now filled up by glaciers. So, the closing of this pass, of the pass during this time, is consistent with a deterioration in climate that coincided with the onset of the European Dark Age between about 400 and 500 A.D. The earliest artifacts from the late Neolithic were about 300 to 400 years later than Otzi, the Iceman of the Austrian Alps. You guys have heard of him, right? Yes. Iceman. So, Otzi died during a time of extensive glacial advancement in the Alps. So, it is likely that many mountain passes were blockaded by ice during this time, including the Shindio. So, what's all this imply? It's implying a very dynamic climate, at least in this area, where the glaciers grow, steal off the pass. It's not used. They shrink back to at least the minimum that they are now. People then subsequently use the pass until the climate deteriorates, the cold comes back, the glaciers grow, fill up the pass, and blocks it off from traffic. So, most of the foot traffic, they were probably traders, they were pilgrims, maybe homesteaders relocating in response to a changing environment. So, the question then becomes, how do you get around this? How do you get around something so explicitly evident of major climate change, dynamic climate changes, that show that this pass that we're seeing right here has had times where it was as open as it is today, multiple times within the last 5,000 years? You don't talk about it. No, that's what you do. You just don't talk about it. Because, again, it's not consistent with the narrative that what's going on now is unprecedented, because this is what they want to convince us of. Because they want to use the fake climate crisis as an instrument of social control. Totally. That's what it's about. It's not about science. And anybody who actually studies the science quickly will figure that out. This reminds me of a news story I read a while back where they were, it's like the point of the story was to say, well, there is one upside to climate change. And it's all this crazy, awesome, archaeological stuff we're finding. Oh, yeah. But, like, the point of the story was saying that, like, yes, we are causing the climate to change. But they were talking about how the thawing out of ice was revealing all these villages and places and stuff where they're being able to do archaeology now and learn more about people in the past. And I'm like, how can you say this in the same story? Yeah. Do you not see that there's a contradiction here? Yeah. One would think. Yeah. Oh, but now, you know, the latest thing, I guess, I just heard this, the Biden administration is doing some executive orders where part of it is going to be all of this money that's going to be going to schools and set up programs from kindergarten all the way through, and it's all going to be about climate. But, you know, basically, you know for a fact it's going to be climate bullshit. They're not going to tell those kids about this and say, hey, look, here's evidence that the climate has repeatedly warmed, at least on the level that it is now, because these glaciers have melted back. So, anyhow, I am going to stop share. There we go. I have to remember that I have multiple screens now. So, my little stop share always migrates to a different screen, and I'm here looking, looking on my main central screen, and it ain't there. And I go, oh, there it is, over there. I see it. So, to me, and there's other studies since this 2003 discovery. Norway, there's some interesting studies. I don't have my fingertips, but, yeah, three or four other places where you do see the same thing, which, of course, the more you see of these dynamic climate changes, the more widespread they are geographically, the harder it gets to dismiss evidence like this as being an anomaly. Oh, this is just this one particular place. Well, no. If it was just, you know, you don't have the glaciers shrinking back to nothing in one single mountain pass without it being part of a much larger climatic phenomena that's going on. Yeah, I was going to say, you started this with saying people accuse you of cherry-picking. So, for example, is there something like this where we can say, well, this pass has never been free of ice, and now it suddenly is? Well, if there was, yeah. So far, no. Right. What is actually showing up is that, yeah, there's massive evidence that glaciers have shrank enormously and then come back again. So, one of the principal groups involved in the archaeological investigations was this four-man team associated with the, whatever, the NCCR Climate and Institute of Geography at Bern and the Archaeological Survey of the Canton of Bern. Now, Canton, I think, is like a province, I believe, in Switzerland. So, in a paper that came out in 2007, they summarized the situation here. However, what's interesting about that and has implications for the range of these kind of things is because they make reference to other evidence, which independently confirms the scenario of substantial glacial retreat throughout the Alps. So, and here's a quote from their paper, which is entitled, Ice-borne Prehistoric Finds in the Swiss Alps Reflect Holocene Glacier Fluctuations. Okay. This appeared in the Journal of Quaternary Science in 2007. So, and the lead author was Martin Grosjean. Here's a quote. The well-defined clusters of archaeological dates and the evidence of direct transalpine route passages during these windows of time is consistent with minimum glacier extensions as concluded from fossil trees exposed in the four fields of retreating glaciers. So, right there is another mass of evidence showing the dynamic nature of climate change in that there are many sites now where the retreating glaciers have uncovered what were prehistoric forests. So, obviously, when those forests were growing there, there were not glaciers there. So, then in 2006, a year before this article came out, there was a three-person team of geologists and climatologists out of the University of Bern. They published a paper in the journal The Holocene, which is a very, I don't know if you guys ever looked at that journal. It's a really interesting, I mean, every month they have some of the most interesting stuff. One of my favorites. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, Kyle, have you ever heard of the term Holocene? Okay, so they published, excuse me, this three-person team of geologists and climatologists, they published a paper describing their study of wood and peat that was recovered from six little Ice Age glaciers in the Swiss Alps. Title of the article, which appeared in the Holocene, was Multi-Century Glacier Fluctuations in the Swiss Alps During the Holocene. And here's quoting from their paper. However, a stable level of Holocene climate is revealed by oxygen isotopes as a proxy of annual temperature in Greenland ice cores. However, a growing number of studies have demonstrated that distinct periods of climate change occurred repeatedly throughout the Holocene. Considering the Alps, the analysis of lake sediments provided broad insights into the characteristics of Holocene environmental conditions. Several periods with pronounced warming were identified during the Holocene by studies based on pollen, free line positions, and chironomid assemblages. Now, chironomids, if I'm pronouncing that right, they're a type of species of lake flies, flies that live around lakes, and there's many species of them around the world. So some of these flies, some species like cold weather, some are cold climates, some of them like a warmer climate. So if you find a particular species of chironomid, you can then infer fairly detailed information about the temperature of the environment at the time that these particular insects lived in that environment. And likewise, pollen, which depends upon the particular species of tree or plant, is also an indicator of climate change because the plant species vary with temperature, obviously. Oh, yeah, it says many of these superficially resemble mosquitoes, but they lack the wing scales, and they're non-biting. So chironomid are non-biting midges. Okay. I didn't know that, but at least if we're up there exploring lakes in the Swiss Alps, we don't have to worry about getting bitten by flies. At least not these particular kind. At least not these particular species. Lake flies, though. You're right there. They're associated with lakes. Yeah. Yeah. So lakes act as repositories of detailed proxy information about environmental change. So if you think about this, each year, water from streams and rivers will flow into Lake Mason. And when they do, they're carrying considerable amounts of sediment and material into the lake, both of an organic origin and a geological origin. And so what they do is they create a record of changing conditions in the vicinity of the lake. Now, if you have a particularly heavy rainfall, for example, you will have a lot more material flushed into a lake, and the bottom sediment, the strata of material that forms on the bottom of the lake, will be much thicker and massive. Let's say you have a drought one year. So what happens then is that the strata of material flushed into the lake is much smaller, finer grain material. It's a thinner stratigraphic layer. And so right there, that tells you something. I mean, when you see a succession of massively, you know, much thicker layers, you know, well, there was a lot of rainfall during this period of time. But, and then, of course, you can, like, all these multiple proxies, like, you know, organic material of all kinds that'd be flushed into the lake, the pollen that would get in, the species that would get in. You know, then when you do a geological analysis, you can find out, you know, you might find granular material or even larger than that. And if you have, you know, you know, the origin of that, you know, you can say, well, there was a flood that was enough to, you know, submerge a particular area and erode this kind of rock type. So by making those kind of studies, you can recreate an event into changing events quite effectively. So if you're in a glaciated environment, excuse me, the layers are very conspicuous. And this is because during the spring thaw, when the streams are now swollen with glacier meltwater, and they're very vigorous from the melting glaciers and the snowpack. So they carry enormous amounts of coarse sediment, which then settles down into the lake bottom. So, and as the season progresses, there's less and less volume of meltwater discharge. Once the snowpack for the annual snowpack is melted off, then the flow of water into the lakes declines. The discharge of the rivers and streams diminishes, and this is reflected directly into the sediment regime that forms on the bottom of the lake. So this finer settlement will then settle over a thicker spring layer, and what this does is forms what's called a couplet. So you have a thick, thicker layer of coarser material. On top of that, like icing, is a thinner layer of much finer material. And then there will be a cessation of material, because once winter comes back on, there's not going to be any flow into the lake for whatever it may be, six, seven months. Spring thaw comes, and now you have another layer deposited. So this is your varved couplets. So it's called a couplet because there's the two parts, the coarse bottom layer, the finer top layer. And that's one seasonal deposition, and then on top of there, you have a little hiatus, but then you have a direct deposition of another varved layer on top. And so you can count these varved layers really almost just like you do tree rigs. And you can tell, for example, how long that lake basin has been a depositional environment for the local area. So this is what happens. The thick layers can build up over time, forming a detailed chronological record of changing environmental conditions. That's the takeaway from here. Powerful storms that involve heavy rainfall, they will form very distinctive layers that stand out from the background very prominently. And so you can also get an idea of if there are periods of storminess. And that's exactly, in fact, what's showing up from these kinds of studies is that there are periods of excessive storminess. And then there's periods where there's much quieter weather-type phenomena. Typically, and we can get into the evidence of this in the data, which supports the idea that some of the worst storms are leaving their imprint during those times when the climate is shifting from warmer to colder. So the result of this is that there's contradictions between the story told by these proxies and some of the oxygen isotope records in the Greenland ice cores for the Holocene show a more stable climate than the proxies we're just talking about. So there's an inconsistency there. So the mainstream view is going to rely almost exclusively on the ice cores because they're going to go with the data record that shows the greatest stability because you have to show stability of climate throughout the Holocene to make the so-called hockey stick work. You have to take this of the Holocene and flatten it out. And we're going to devote some time to, in one of the upcoming recorded podcasts, where we really go into the whole hockey stick thing and how that was brought about, where that came from, how it's been used and abused by, to promote the mainstream narrative. So anyways... You want to take a break? I think this would be a good point to take a break, yeah. And then we can come back and we'll talk about carbon dioxide. Okay. Good deal. We will be right back. All right. This podcast is sponsored by Nurture Life. Hey, it's Danielle Fischel from Podmeats World. And as a mom to two growing boys, I know how chaotic mealtime can get. No matter how confident I am with what I'm serving them, my kids will always find a way to call the meal gross or stinky or yuck. It's true. They can be wildly picky about new foods. And with my busy schedule, I don't have the time to become America's next top chef. And so that's why I love Nurture Life. It's a meal delivery service that actually caters to kids. Ideal for ages eight months to eight years. Fully cooked and ready to serve in just one minute. It's the problem solver I've been praying for. It's the top meal delivery service for babies, toddlers, and kids. And everything is designed by registered dieticians. So you can sleep safe knowing your kids are getting the protein, veggies, and nutrients they need. While still eating favorites like mac and cheese, spaghetti and meatballs, and so much more. Plus, it's allergy friendly, which we know is clutch. And when it comes to options, Nurture Life has you covered. There's more than 50 nutritious meals and snacks on their menu. From soft finger foods for babies and toddlers. To balanced kids meals for when they get older. Nurture Life does the cooking. They deliver it straight to your door. And then you might even have time to eat something for yourself. So now is the time to head to NurtureLife.com slash P-O-D and use code POD for 50% off your first order. Plus, free shipping. That's right. 50% off plus free shipping. Once again, that's NurtureLife.com slash POD. And make sure you use promo code P-O-D. Even if you aren't a parent with young kids, you might have parent friends who struggle with mealtime. Make sure to share our code P-O-D with them. Remember, put your little ones first with healthy meals from Nurture Life. That website, one more time, is NurtureLife.com slash P-O-D POD. Running a business is hard enough. So why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business. Whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. And welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Cosmographia. The Randall Carlson Podcast continues on with the Climate Change Series. And I guess we're getting into more carbon dioxide stuff, right? Yeah, yeah. We need to understand a little more about carbon dioxide to fully evaluate some of the claims being made about the climate crisis. So I think in the last episode that we recorded, I think we maybe ended up with the 19th century quote from geologist T.C. Chamberlain, I believe. So I don't want to reiterate, but it's a short quote, so we'll pick the theme of it up. He was actually one of the founders of the Journal of Geology. He was a very prominent, well-known geologist of that time. And this is what he said, and I think I might be re-quoting what we said last time where we ended up. But the virtues of carbon dioxide are an inverse ratio. Now he's talking about something here that is generally not being talked about now, right? The virtues of carbon dioxide are an inverse ratio to the sinister reputation which a little knowledge and a narrow, homocentric point of view have given it. Now, how far-reaching was his insight writing in the late 19th century? That was 1898 when he wrote that. 1898. It was the title of the article, the journal article was, The Influence of Great Epochs of Limestone Formation Upon the Constitution of the Atmosphere. And what would be the connection there? That the carbon, the CO2 in the atmosphere is entrained into the sediment. Exactly. So he's talking about great epochs of limestone formation. Well, the corollary of that or the consequence or what would be running concurrent with that is as the limestone is formed, carbon dioxide is being pulled out of the atmosphere and sequestered. It's being taken out of the cycle. Just like you look at the hydrological cycle during winter, it's interrupted depending on your latitude. Let's say where I grew up in Minnesota, it's interrupted for about six months, right? Then spring comes and the hydrological cycle resumes. If you look on the larger scale of the carbon cycle, it's going through these series of reservoirs. It's transmitting between atmosphere, ocean, soil, and so forth, right? It moves at different rates. Obviously, the transfer of carbon between atmosphere and the ocean is enormous. It's huge, this pulse in and out on a yearly basis. But during these epochs of great limestone, it is way analogous to, but on a much grander cycle, where whatever is happening, we're now creating a much enriched water column. So now you've got this proliferation of life using calcium carbonate to build shells. Then you have something that would accelerate the mortality of these creatures. So you've got this rapid turnover of stuff. And of course, what they're doing, the calcium carbonate is entraining the carbon dioxide. They build their shells. It sinks to the bottom of the ocean, forms these layers. And so what was becoming apparent, even by T.C. Chamberlain's time, was that you had these episodes where you had this accelerated drawdown of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and its sequestration in the limestone rocks, where it's been potentially locked up for tens or hundreds of millions of years. And then the process to put that back into the atmosphere is mainly volcanism, right? I mean, what other? Yeah, whatever, whatever. Yeah. And you know, there are other reservoirs. I mean, you know, the soil, but there's a much slower response time, you know, breathing in and out of the soil. It's primarily, the transfer is primarily between atmosphere and ocean. And that's on a substantial basis. I could pull up actually the graphs here and we could get an idea. Let's see. I'm on. Okay. So let me do this. Let me pull up this and I'll do a share screen. And we'll just review quickly here these reservoirs. Here's a couple of slides. The increase, it's increased from 2004. The amount of fossil fuel introduced carbon dioxide has increased from this time. But these are still certainly within the orders of magnitude. So here's, here you can see the routes and the various reservoirs. You go from animal and plant respiration. So that's a big part of what puts carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. Respiration, right? That's part of the natural process of the, you know, the biotic canopy of vegetation. You've got soil and microorganism respiration. You've got, let's see what else. Combustion, both human and natural, is contributing to the amount of carbon dioxide saturation in the atmosphere. So here you've got four sources contributing. So you've got combustion, decomposition, and then two types of respiration are all pumping carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. What's pulling it out? Photosynthesis of land plants, because they're using carbon dioxide to drive photosynthesis. And then this amount of CO2 that gets dissolved in ocean water. And that amount is 38,000 gigatons on an annual basis. So compare 38,000 to the total ambient amount in the atmosphere, right? So you've got 38,000. And we divide that by 750. And so that, the oceanic reservoir, is more than 50 times greater. Let me double check. 38, one, two, three, divide by 750. Yeah, it's more than 50 times greater than the atmospheric reservoir. And you'll notice through photosynthesis, it's sucking back about, just the land plants, about 560 giga, I said gigabytes. I meant gigatons. Okay, if we look at the next one, we've looked at these before, but just to refresh everyone's mind. And here's where it gets interesting. When you think about what is the total carbon dioxide budget of the whole planet? Well, now you have to not only look at the oceans, the soil, the biosphere, you also then have to look at the sedimentary rock. And you can see here, land photosynthesis and respiration, 120 gigatons per year. Oceanic photosynthesis and respiration, 107 gigatons per year. The storage in land plants, 610 gigatons per year, right? The burning of fossil fuels, 5.5. Now it's more than that now, but it's still within the range of orders of magnitude. Soil storage, 1580 gigatons. Fossil fuel storage, 4,000 gigatons. But now look at the limestone rocks, 100 million gigatons of carbon dioxide locked up into the into the rocks, the limestone rocks. Now, if something was not replenishing that limestone, you know what would happen? Well, it would eventually, the atmosphere would be depleted to the point where it would go down below 150 parts per million and the biosphere would die. You mean if something wasn't replenishing the CO2? If something wasn't replenishing the CO2, it would, within a few centuries, actually, be completely pulled out of the atmosphere and locked up into the carbonate rock. And then say, life on Earth, it would really suck. Okay, so just to try to... So other than humans, what does... I see volcanoes there, and then land and plants, decomposition, that's basically what's replenishing it? Yeah. What's the largest source? Okay, yeah. Yeah. So... But, of course, you introduce, you know, catastrophism or episodes of catastrophe into this. Right. Then, like, volcanism, for example, could be dumping way more in there per year. And it certainly is. And you know why? Because, for one thing, I've got studies showing that greater than previously estimated amounts of carbon dioxide are being disgorged into the atmosphere as a result of tectonic processes. Earthquakes, for example, will actually release a considerable amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, particularly if the earthquake occurs in an area with carbonate bedrock. Okay, so it's some kind of grinding of the rocks? Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Okay. Yeah. Okay, so... So an impact into a bunch of limestone might release a whole bunch of it all the time, too. Oh, yeah, it probably would, yeah. Yeah. Okay. So here's what D.C. Chamberlain says, again, to help put this in perspective. It is the least chemical constituent of a mixture that determines the amount of a reaction. It's minute relative to the overall, the percentage of the overall composition of which it is a constituent. He goes on, it'll help to make this clear. A loss of nitrogen or oxygen equal to .0003 of the atmosphere would doubtless be wholly inconsequential. Now, he's using .003. He's writing at the end of the 19th century. And we know that the figure you see over and over again in the literature is that at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was measured at 280 parts per million. 100 parts per million greater than it was during the late Wisconsin Ice Age, during the late Pleistocene and going into the Younger Dryas, right? So it went from 180 parts per million to 280 parts per million over the course of the Holocene. Now, within there, I think we can show that there were fluctuations up and down. But the aggregate increase over the Holocene was 100 parts per million, 280 parts per million. So now we can assume that there was, before industrial activity, 280 parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that was not the result of human activity or at least fossil fuel burning. Human activity as a result of agriculture, as a result of land clearing and things like that, that is going to add to the amount of ambient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What part of that 280 parts per million was anthropogenic? We don't know. Probably the bulk of it, though, was natural, right? Somehow we were able to get that extra 100 parts per million. Now, the thing we've pointed out repeatedly is that 180 parts per million, you're getting to the point now where you are getting seriously—that would be a serious crisis if it got lower than that. Because once it goes from 180 down to 150 parts per million, boom, at 150 parts per million, the biosphere stars to death. Photosynthesis stops. And we've talked about how if we look through the record of life on Earth, almost the whole time that life has been on Earth, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been many times higher than now, or at least, you know, up to the eve of the Industrial Revolution. But let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that 280 parts per million— I mean, we could say 250. It's not going to change the outcome much at all. But let's say the 280 parts per million was mostly natural, right? That humans weren't responsible. Because for one thing, yes, humans were adding to it through, like I said, agricultural activity, through clearing land, through burning land, and so on. But at the same time, the ability of nature, of plants particularly, to take that excess carbon dioxide that's now been released to take it back up was probably fully competent to absorb or consume most of the carbon dioxide that was anthropogenically sourced throughout the Holocene. So I think it's safe to say that the 280 parts per million at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution was mostly natural. Now, it's right at a little over 400 parts per million. We'll round it off to 400 just for easy thinking about it in our brains. That means that since the Industrial Revolution, and since man's activity would have been contributing to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which particularly accelerated, you know, late 19th, early 20th century with the beginning of the fossil fuel industry, but didn't really achieve, you know, the levels of enrichment that would anybody would consider enough to actually produce a measurable signal of warming in the atmosphere did not occur until post-World War II. So really what we have to do is if we use World War II as our line of demarcation up till now, go how much carbon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere since World War II, and then how much of that is human, how much is natural. Because I think we can safely assume that humans are contributing to that number, the increase, which let's just keep it simple, 120 parts per million, right? Going from 280 up to 400, 120 parts per million. The question we now have to ask is what percentage of that is anthropogenic and what percentage of it is natural? I think the argument could be made that at least half conservatively is natural. Probably a greater proportion of that extra 180 parts per million is natural than anthropogenic. But let's just stay conservative and say half of it is anthropogenic. That means that the increase in carbon dioxide caused by human activity works out to be about 60 parts per million. Got it? You see how I got that number? And assuming half of the increase since the Industrial Revolution is anthropogenic, that means we have contributed an increase of about 60 parts per million of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Now, let me go on here with the quote. We've got that context here. As T.C. Chamberlain says, it is the least chemical constituent of a mixture that determines the amount of a reaction. Yes, he says, let me back up just a minute. As a constituent of the atmosphere, it is as necessary to the maintenance of life as oxygen because it is the food of plants. And they, in turn, are the food of animals. Its peculiar competency to retain the heat of the sun renders it a decisive factor in the maintenance of that measurable constancy and geniality of the temperature upon which the existence of life depends. It is a leading agency in the disintegration of crystalline rock and is a necessary factor in other geological changes. And then he goes on to point out that the 0.0003 part of the atmosphere is the least chemical constituent of a mixture that determines the amount of a reaction. A loss of nitrogen or oxygen equal to 0.0003 of the atmosphere would doubtless be wholly inconsequential. But that amount of loss of carbon dioxide would be fatal to life. Mm-hmm. So then, so here, Chamberlain points out the fact that even a minuscule decline in the relative concentration of atmospheric CO2 would have serious consequences for global plant life. Now, I'm going to jump on here. So 64 years later, after T.C. Chamberlain's remarks in 1898, you had A.G. Norman, who was a, his background, I think, was mostly geology. But he wrote a 1962 article, which was published in the Journal of American Scientists. He's commenting on the vitally important role of CO2 in global biological processes. And he says, it is somewhat unfortunate that we have allowed the phrase plant nutrients that he has in quotes to mean those inorganic elements that are essential for plant growth, because this causes us to forget the real substances from which the bulk of the stuff of plants is synthesized. The chemical engineer of whom we spoke earlier might be a little taken aback at being told that his only raw materials would be carbon dioxide and water. If one added, however, that the carbon dioxide would be available only at a concentration of three parts in 10,000 by volume, diluted with an excess of nitrogen and oxygen, he might appear troubled, because to him, that would mean the handling of vast quantities of air to extract the carbon dioxide needed. But the plant can do this. Let us not underestimate the stupendous quantities of carbon dioxide that are incorporated into vegetation. In the ocean, figures of the ocean, that's 15 billion tons annually have been quoted for incorporation into terrestrial plants, excluding the oceans. Perhaps 1 30th to 1 50th of this may be accounted for by economic crops, that is, plants used by man. However, even the last figure, and he's talking about, you know, 1 30th to 1 50th of this 15 billion tons is now being attributed to economic crops, what he's referring to as plants used by man. But even that figure, even the last figure, even the last figure for crop plants exceeds several fold the yearly carbon dioxide output of all industrial operations on Earth. So even, even, even, even the crops taking up carbon dioxide at 1 30th to 1 50th of the total plant mass of the biosphere, which means it's, it's taking up 30 to 50 times more than, than economic plants, which are crops. And he's saying that the increase, that exceeds by several fold, that alone exceeds multiple times greater than the entire industrial output of the planet. Now, of course, this was back in 19, this was in 1962. So the numbers would have to be adjusted. Uh, then here's where he goes. Yeah, go ahead. Uh, I was just going to say, if everyone in the world would stop mowing their lawns, we can completely negate. You might have something there, Kyle. Mike, I know you're guilty. You mow your lawn, I bet. Actually, I mow it only a few times a year. It doesn't grow that fast and doesn't grow that well. Ah, my question is falsely accused you, Mike. I'm sorry. We, we talk, you talk about carbon dioxide. I have a question. We add humans, exhale carbon dioxide. All mammals exhale carbon dioxide. Yeah. How much carbon dioxide load do we put in the car in the air? You know, you know, you've got 9 billion people, less however many cattle, pigs, whatever. How much of a carbon dioxide load are we putting in? Well, there's a homework assignment for you, Mike. Oh, no. No, you asked the question. I, I, look, I could go look it up and research and find out. Kyle, would you check this out for me, please? Jeez, who is this guy? I was hoping you'd tell us on the next show. You come back with the answer, Mike. It's not on the diagram. Why not? Okay. Uh, let me continue on. That's a great question, though. No, seriously, that's a good question, Mike. That's a good question. I like the, I would like to know the answer. You know, I may have actually, I, I've run across that figure before. But I have no memory of what specifically that figure. I'll Google it and see what I can find. Okay. If you can Google it without getting your ass out of your chair, then go for it. Okay. So, Norman, he goes on to point this out. Perhaps it is easier to grasp figures based on an acre. So, if you're going to grow a good field of corn, which would yield about 100 bushels, you need about 20,000 pounds of carbon dioxide to provide 5,500 pounds for the organic structures of the crop. Remember now, the organic structures of the crop are being synthesized directly out of only two ingredients, water and carbon dioxide. Now, of course, there's a mineral constituent in there, but the bulk of the volume of the plant mass is two ingredients, water and carbon dioxide. So, in order to get 100 bushels, which would be about 5,500 pounds of corn and the organic mass producing the corn, you have to have about 20,000 pounds of carbon dioxide. So, during the growing season, therefore, the corn plants on one acre must deplete an enormous volume of air to meet their needs for carbon dioxide. No less than 21,000 tons of air are needed to supply 20,000 pounds of carbon dioxide. This is a startling calculation because it points up the astonishing ability of plants to do what an engineer might describe as processing these many tons of air to recover and utilize about two and one half tons of carbon. Now, since Norman wrote this in 62, we're now just in excess of 400 parts per million, right? Now, let's put that, wrap our heads around an image that'll help us to picture that better. 400 parts per million. So, you got 400 particles of carbon dioxide with a million molecules of air. So, that means that for every 10,000 molecules of air, you've got one molecule of carbon dioxide. So, okay, if the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere were to become diminished by near two parts out of 10,000, I say here, which we've already discussed, there would be serious detrimental repercussions to the process of photosynthesis, hence to the health of Earth's plant life. One conclusion that we can draw from Norman's comments in the paper I just read from is that it takes a truly enormous amount of carbon dioxide to stimulate photosynthesis of the world's vegetation. So, here's the takeaway. Roughly half of the carbon dioxide amount that is being pumped into the atmosphere through industrial use, primarily fossil fuels, is missing. We've talked about the missing carbon sink, right? Which is obviously being taken up by the ocean and by land plain, both. The exact proportions of either one, I don't think anybody's defined that with precision yet, but at least half is being taken up, okay? Anyway, the missing half is being consumed. Let me nitpick here a bit, I think. Yeah. If we have 400 parts per million, I think that means there's four molecules per 10,000. That's what I said, right? What did I say? That's right. You said one. So, yeah, just to make sure it's four per 10,000. Oh, yeah, okay. Yeah. Because one per 10,000 would be 100 ppm. Yeah, okay. The reason I said one is because this is what I had in my head. Okay. The increase in carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution is about one part. But, yeah, thanks for the clarification. You're absolutely right that it would be four molecules of carbon dioxide for 10,000 molecules of air. Yeah. The increase in carbon dioxide since the Industrial Revolution is just about one molecule per 10,000, 100 parts per million. Okay. Thank you for that. So, yeah, in fact, I even have written here, it is measured, the trivial amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million, and at present stands at about 400 parts per million. That is four parts out of 10,000 I have in parentheses. Here's one way to look at the matter. For every 1,000,000 molecules of air made up primarily of nitrogen and oxygen with a little bit of argon and constituent gases, there are 400 molecules of carbon dioxide. For comparison of oxygen, there would be 209,500 molecules, and of nitrogen, there'd be 780,900, with about 9,300 remaining for argon gas and a few other gases. In other words, the total mass of the atmosphere is over 2,500 times greater than the carbon dioxide within it. And if we even assume that 100 parts per million is anthropogenically sourced, which it isn't, what that means is that the total amount, the total mass of the atmosphere is then 625,000 times greater than the total amount of anthropogenically sourced atmospheric CO2, and that's conservative. So, the mass of this 400 parts per million of CO2 taken altogether makes up the total of about 760 gigatons residing in or transiting through the atmosphere at any given time. So, if we do this, let's see, three of these 753 gigatons then are the consequence, presumably, of human activity, right, according to the measure. The rest is the result of natural activity. So, that's a difference of about 250 to 1, right there. So, let's do a bit of math. If we divide 400 by 1 million, this gives us the figure of 0.0004, the decimal fraction for the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. To see the amount of atmospheric CO2 resulting from human activity, you then divide that number in turn by 250. So, what you then get as a result is the decimal fraction 0.000016. This is a very small number, not much greater than nothing at all when compared to the whole atmosphere. So, here's the question I would propose. Are we supposed to accept the conclusion without question or debate that this minuscule additional amount of CO2 to the atmosphere is going to provoke such a horrendous planetary catastrophe that we have to completely overhaul our energy system, in effect, according to some of the more extreme proposals to dismantle our industrial infrastructure altogether? Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? One for sales, another for inventory, a separate one for accounting. Before you know it, you are drowning in software instead of growing your business. This is where Odoo comes in. Odoo is the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all-in-one, fully integrated platform that handles everything. CRM, accounting, inventory, e-commerce, HR, and more. No more app overload. No more juggling logins. Just one seamless system that makes work easier. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. It's built to grow with your business, whether you are just starting out or already scaling up. Plus, it's easy to use, customizable, and designed to streamline every process. So you can focus on what really matters, running your business. Thousands of businesses have made the switch, so why not you? Try Odoo for free at odoo.com. That's O-D-O-O dot com. I do think, on the one hand, that a lot of things in nature are based on thresholds, right? Sure. So something can be very near a threshold, and a tiny bit of addition or removal of it can cause a suddenly drastic change. But the question then would be, is there evidence that adding a tiny bit more CO2 to the atmosphere is going to cause a catastrophically drastic change? Well, there's your question. And it'll make it cross a threshold somehow. Well, for that, what we have is we have claims that that is the case. Right. And those claims are the result of pretty much strictly computer modeling without reference to the actual data-based record. Yeah. When you look at the data-based record, I mentioned this earlier, and I think we pulled up the graphs in one of our previous episodes showing that right now, at this ambient concentration, is about the lowest we ever see in 600 million years since life began on the planet. Right. And so there's plenty of evidence that previously, while life was also flourishing on the planet, there was a lot more. So clearly we're not getting close to some kind of catastrophic threshold. It would not seem like it, no. And in fact, what I mentioned earlier, and we can present a full array of data supporting this, it seems like, at least in terms of, you know, now not necessarily talking about global catastrophes, such as Younger Dryas, but catastrophes that could be regionally catastrophic that you would define as weather-related, that those occur more frequently when you have transitions into the cold phase. Right. And yeah, we can present a whole bunch of evidence supporting that. And I'm going to pull up a graph here. Let's see. I think that we're much closer to having a catastrophic problem on the low side. On the low side. That's exactly right, Brad. I wanted to make that point. So thank you for making that point. Exactly. Yeah, there is a threshold on the low side, which is like everything dies. Yeah. Everything dies. We're much closer to that than any problem with more and more and more and more. We could keep loading it up. Right. And see a whole lot of greener deserts and a whole lot bigger trees and a whole lot bigger output from the crops. Yeah. And we're going to look at that. We're going to spend one full episode looking at the upside. We started looking at some of that evidence, but the evidence is just, there's an abundance of the evidence showing the other side of the carbon dioxide equation. Then again, it's being completely ignored. It's being completely ignored. And so, you know, again, the accusation of cherry picking just doesn't hold up because, you know, you can say it's cherry picking and I'd say, okay, sure, it's cherry picking. But what I'm doing is I'm trying to present the evidence that is being ignored by the cherry pickers on the other side. And the other thing I would say is that, you know, basically we've gone through this and let's say that because some of their argument does seem to be that we're approaching some threshold on the upper end. And it's, and it's, and so if we can remove the CO2 that humans are adding to the atmosphere, then we, then we won't approach that, that threshold. But what you've just shown is that, uh, and what should seem obvious is that nature is also adding to it. It's like slowly increasing, even if we weren't adding to it. So if we just completely remove our addition to it, we're still going to approach the threshold that they're afraid of naturally. Yeah. And here's the thing, and we, we haven't really, we're going to devote at least several episodes to looking at the role of the sun, which is another factor that's being pretty much completely ignored. Right. And, and, and to ignore the role of the sun in climate change is just ridiculous. It's totally ridiculous. And the, the, the fact is, is that there's all kinds of evidence correlating climate change with the sun. And one of the things that happens is if, if the sun is warming the earth, it's warming the ocean. When the oceans warms, it outgases CO2 in tremendous volumes of CO2. When the climate cools, it begins to draw down to CO2. So the building up of thick layers of limestone is probably related to cooling because the oceans cool, they begin sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, which would then, uh, trigger an algal bloom, which will then feed the bottom of the food chain. And you will have this proliferation of, uh, benthic and plant, planktonic animals for a minute for some things that are now contributing their casts and their shells to the formation of limestone rock. Now I'm going to, I'm going to do a share screen here. Um, all right. Are you seeing a big square dot bunch of dots? Yeah. Yep. Okay. This is 10,000 dots. Yeah, it is. Did you use copy paste? Did we go through this before? It was a, it was a bit of, it wasn't that bad, you know, because a hundred by a hundred. It's a hundred by a hundred. You know, I have, you know, software where I can do multiple copies. I just imagine you there with the period key. Just not, not, not quite 10,000 times. Randall hit the, uh, period. No, no, that's not how it happened. I was able to actually, you know, I, I use my, my, I use my architectural software, which has a, has a replicate. I can set it up and say, you know, I'll create one right upper left corner, and then I'll tell it to make 99 copies at X at a given distance on the X axis and boom, it'll do it. Then you do the whole line. Then I do the whole line and I go 99 copies on the Y axis. Okay. So there we are. It's not that bad. Although we could let people believe that I spent days and days laboriously. With Randall press the period button 10,000 times to make this square. So there it is. 10,000 molecules. Now notice down here in the lower right-hand corner, you see it? Yep. There it is. There's our one molecule of carbon dioxide increase since the beginning of the industrial evolution. When you were done making this, did you count them to make sure that there was, that it was right? Uh, well, yes, actually, I, I, I was able to do that. Okay. Yeah. I mean, it's right. It's 10,000. Okay. Good. 10,000 dots. So I just wanted to do this for comparison. Now, again, of this hundred parts, let's think about something. If, if pre-industrial was 280 and let's say the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased to 400. So that means, really, it's been 120 parts increase that if all of it was being, uh, caused by humans, that would be 120 parts per million caused by human activity. But is that number correct? Well, obviously nature had already created 280 parts per million. So the question then is of that hundred parts per million or 120 parts per million, what percentage is natural? What percentage is human? And until we know that, you know, we're, we're just, we're just stabbing in the dark and guess what? They don't really know that nobody really knows exactly, you know, it's a lot of assumptions and a lot of computer models based on assumptions, but let's suppose that it's only half. Okay, so half of this dot, let's say, oops, half of that dot, um, of, of 100 parts per million is, uh, anthropogenic. So now you're looking at what, 50 parts per million? Or I mean, 50, yeah, 50 parts per million. Or you can see here that we're talking about very minuscule amounts of carbon dioxide. So now as you're looking at this graph here, are we to assume without any question, without any critical thought, just believe, well, the experts say that this one dot right here and really only half of that dot at a maximum is now going to trigger some tremendous environmental and climatic catastrophe, that because of half of that dot right there, we're in the midst of a climate crisis, an unprecedented climate crisis. How believable is that? Well, to me, it's not believable at all. In fact, it's really like a joke, in my opinion. And we haven't really even begun to look at a, look at the real bulk of, of the evidence. I mean, we're just skirting around the surface of this thing. So I want to get into talking about the beneficial botanical effects of carbon dioxide enhancement and the recognition of its beneficial role goes back literally centuries, even to the 1600s. When you had, uh, in 16, in early 1600s, Jean-Baptiste van Helmont, who was the citizen of Brussels, he planted a five pound willow tree in a container in which he placed 200 pounds of soil. Okay. Got that? A five pound willow tree in a container that had 200 pounds of soil. For five years, van Helmont carefully monitored the amount of water provided. And at the end of five years, the tree weighed over 169 pounds. So we'll call it 170 pounds. We'll divide that by five. So it had increased its mass, its bulk mass by 34 times from when he planted it within five years. But the soil itself was only diminished by two ounces. So while some of this increased... Dust blown away off the top. Yeah. While some of this increased tree mass was the result of small quantities of mineral nutrients supplied by the soil, the, uh, uh, later to horticultural science who, scientists who were referencing this early work of van Helmont, uh, in 1964 commented this. More forcibly, it should remind us that the primary nutrient from which the bulk of the plant originates is the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. So, again, what you have to picture is that you've got two ingredients, carbon dioxide being taken from the atmosphere, water being taken up from the soil, and what's the catalyst that triggers the transmutation? Sunlight. It's pretty awesome when you think about it. Uh, so, this was, uh, the 1964 work was Carbon Dioxide Enrichment of Greenhouse Atmospheres for Food Crop Production, which appeared, uh, in the journal Economic Botany. So the United States Department of Agriculture has, since its inception, published annual summaries of research and work of relevance to agriculture. In the experimentation record for the years 1904 through 1905, the department provided a summary and translation of the experimental work of M. E. Demoussy, originally published in French in 1904. In the early 20th century, Demoussy performed an experiment in France demonstrating the effects of carbon dioxide on a variety of plants. These experiments were an early demonstration of the benefits of carbon dioxide enrichment. The summary of the article in the experimental station record was entitled The Growth of Plants in Atmospheres Enriched in Carbon Dioxide. And here's the translation from the French. The results of the author's investigations in growing lettuce in an atmosphere enriched in carbon dioxide has been questioned as being too limited to permit of generalizations. Therefore, the author has repeated his experiments with 16 species of plants representing a wide range of families. Duplicate series were grown, one in normal atmosphere containing about three parts of carbon dioxide in 10,000, and the other series in an atmosphere enriched daily by about five times the normal quantity of carbon dioxide. In other words, 1,500 parts per million. The experiments were continued for about two months, after which several portions of the plants were weighed. Among the species studies studied were coleus, lettuce, geraniums, centauri, mint, tobacco, balsam, fuchsias, etc. In all except the fuchsias, there was a decided increase in the weight of the plants. The average amounting, now this is in the carbon dioxide-enhanced environment as opposed to the control environment with Ambien, the average in two months, in two months, was over a 60% increase. In addition, the geraniums, begonias, mints, etc., hastened in their flowering and flowered more abundantly in the atmosphere enriched in carbon dioxide than was the case with the plants grown under normal conditions. And this was published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture back, when did I say, 1964. So, let's ponder the results of this experiment over 100 years ago. The control group of plants was exposed to atmospheric CO2 concentration, at that time measuring about 300 parts per million. The experimental group was exposed to five times that amount or about 1,500 parts per million. At the end of two months, the average increase in the weights of the various species of plants exposed to the CO2 enrichment as compared with control groups was over 60%. In other words, the plants responded exuberantly to the increase in their food supply and thrived strikingly. And we're going to go on, and I think maybe that's where we could pick it up at our next episode. So we can truly begin to understand the photosynthetic role of carbon, the absolutely important and indispensable photosynthetic role of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Now, we have talked about the thermal envelope somewhat, enough to show that, for example, the amount of heating of each incremental increase in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere only has a logarithmically declining effect. You remember that that we went into? We might want to review that a little bit further down the line or rewatch that episode because there's two roles of carbon dioxide in nature. One, it's greenhouse, and I use that term loosely. It's thermal capture ability in the wavelengths of concern, which is absorption bands. Absorption band. Thank you, Kyle. Very good. That was the term I was fishing for, absorption band. In the absorption band, 15, 16, 17 microns right in there. Now, there's some other smaller windows, but that's the main bulk of it, which interestingly, as I mentioned before, is also the absorption band of water vane. And so right there, that creates a complication to say how much of the greenhouse, what exactly percentage of the greenhouse effect is water vapor and what percentage is carbon dioxide? And that's an interesting, very interesting question to ask because what it amounts to, I think, is that the answer will turn out to be mostly water in that window. Most of that heat is being captured by water. But anyway, so that's the one side of it. Then the other side is the photosynthesis. And you'll notice that in all the climate crisis narratives, nobody ever talks about photosynthesis. Nobody ever talks about the role of plants in catalyzing photosynthesis or the extreme importance. And we're going to look into that. Well, in the next episode, we'll look into that so we can really get a sense of the benefits and the value. Now, and I may even go so far as to say this. I think even at 400 parts per million, we're still in a carbon dioxide drought. And this goes completely opposite the narrative. You know, I think that we'd be better off with ambient concentrations between 500 parts and 1,000 parts per million. And I'll make that without necessarily endorsing it until we've put out some more evidence. But as we do, we'll let people make up their own minds. I certainly think that there's no real downside, no thermal capture that's going to cause some kind of catastrophic increase in global temperature by adding another 100 or 200 parts per million CO2 to the atmosphere. But what it's doing is it's getting a whole lot of people really upset and it bothers me and I'll show you what really bothers me the most and that's what we will, did we, that's what we'll conclude on. So, you're seeing this? Yes. We deserve a future. Fight for a green new deal. We deserve a future. And this I am calling the brainwashing of American youth because this is what they're being told and now with the new provision from the Biden administration, I'll find, dig up the details, but they're earmarking hundreds of millions of dollars now for climate crisis propaganda in government-run schools. So, this to me is basically a crime against young people. It's a crime against our own future. It's a crime against the truth. But, we go through, we can see here, the Green New Deal is promoting, and this is a fact, the literal suicide of Western civilization to solve a non-existent and completely fraudulent climate crisis. And, it's just sad that so many of these young people now having been spoon-fed this nonsense for 12 years now and then further being indoctrinated once they get into universities and colleges, climate justice now. What does that mean? Somebody please define what we mean by climate justice. If the Western industrial civilizations are introducing enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to trigger a greening, and what we do see is, and we're going to look at this in detail, the evidence completely supporting the idea that the increase in carbon dioxide is causing food abundances. It's causing crops, just like forests and other plants, to proliferate. So, it's like, really, this is completely backwards. Right? What's climate justice? Well, climate justice is that, you know, you take from the richer countries and you give to the poorer countries. Right? It's basically a large income redistribution scheme. And, these are what I'm calling the new Hitler youth. They're convinced that Western civilization is destroying the Earth, and the only answer is to shut down Western civilization. They want to go zero carbon by, they were originally proposing by 2030. Can you even imagine what that would mean? If we got to shut down all fossil fuel use in the next seven years? Well, see, it's like, do you people not stop and really just take a time out and think about what you're promoting? So, this is what disturbs me the most. And, this is why I'm calling these people here the faces of neo-Marxist, eco-fascist, totalitarianism. Because, not one of these people, and I've listened to the words that all of them have said, not one of them knows what the hell they're talking about. Not even Bill McKibben. Because you listen to Bill McKibben, he doesn't talk about any of the evidence that I've been citing here over multiple episodes. We could spend a whole year doing two to three hours, you know, twice a month, 24 episodes. We still wouldn't have even barely touched the episode, I mean, the evidence for what is really happening with the climate. So, we'll close with this. Climate justice, first of all, what the left is talking about when they use the phrase climate justice has absolutely nothing to do with climate. And secondly, it has absolutely nothing to do with justice. That's an excellent quote. And you can quote me on that. All right. Thank you, sir. That was a good one. I think so. And I think that, you know, yeah, I'm, I mean, this is stuff people need to be exposed to. Yeah. Absolutely. The stuff they don't want us to hear. They took the third grade science out, which taught them about photosynthesis and, you know, they never heard it again. And right. Like they don't even know that simple process. Like you just said a minute ago, what's the catalyst? The sun. You know, we need this stuff. The plants need this stuff. It's, it's simple. Yeah. It's not so, yeah. If they're the new Hitler youth calling, calling for the death of Western civilization. Yeah. They got a rude awakening coming. They do. They do because they don't even somehow they don't even aren't able to even connect their comfortable privileged lifestyles with the consequences of what they're advocating. I mean, right. Okay. Let's stop all fossil fuel use. What is going to happen to our economy? What's going to happen to our energy sector? It's going to implode. Yeah. I mean, how are we going to dig up the raw material? Are we going to use what? Solar powered batteries to dig up the billions of tons of raw material to build solar collectors and windmills and backup batteries? Yeah. You know, the whole thing is crazy. It's crazy. Critical thought is lost. It's right. And that's intentional. That's what that's what public education has done to critical thinking. And of course, in order to make sure that that's sealed and delivered, you got to now shut down free speech. and so you put pressure on the big media companies to censor speech that goes against the official narrative. And we know that's true now from Elon Musk exposing the whole corrupt system that the government agents, the FBI and all is embedded with big media telling them what's acceptable. You know, the government is prohibited by law from doing anything to infringe upon our free speech. So the way they get around it then is to put pressure on big media which is private and then the defenders will say, well, you know, they're private, they can do what they want. And I say, yes, that's absolutely true and I would agree with that. But if the government is embedded and the government is putting pressure on them, well, then no, uh-uh, that they don't qualify as a private sector anymore deciding for themselves what is acceptable or not acceptable to be said on their platform. Well, it's time for you to start talking again about the new school system, the new educational system that needs to replace the crap that's supposedly bringing up our youth to be smart individuals. Right. Well, that's the objective of the next Nashville event for the head. That's right. So we're going to kick that off again talking about the sorry state of education and what may actually be alternatives to that. and you, Kyle, as a father now, something you, of course, would be keenly interested in. Yes. How your children are raised to become wise. Oh, they're around us. Intelligent. Yeah. Well, around, yeah. And, no, in having them around. They're homeschooled as well. Homeschooled, number one. Having them around thoughtful, critically thinking, enlightened grown-ups and older siblings and older friends, that's going to go a long way. Because for one thing, if you want to inculcate this kind of brainwashing, there are a number of steps you have to take. But one of them is you segregate the kids you want to brainwash into, yeah, by age groups so that they're deprived of the influence of their elders. Right. Last thing you want to do is give over the education system to your government. Oh, my God. Well, I mean, we're seeing the horrible consequences. I think I told you a friend of mine gave me three boxes of books that their library, their school, high school library was throwing away. And it was all kinds of science books. It was, it was weather. It was thunderstorms. It was volcanoes. It was, you know, all this super interesting stuff. And she's like, you're into this. I was like, I can't believe you're throwing that away. This is unbelievable. So we've got to look what they're replacing it with. You know, look what they're replacing you know, so-and-so has two daddies. You know, right. Critical race theory crap. And it is crap. I've seen enough of that and seen enough interviews with actual teachers who are promoting that crap. You know, inclusion, equity, and what was the other? Diversity, inclusion, and equity. So where does merit go in that? Nowhere. Merit is taken right out of it because it's their engineering outcomes and everybody has to be the same. So it's a total dumbing down. But of course, you have to have that total dumbing down if you're going to have subservient citizens that just mindlessly support the authoritarian regime that we now see in place, primarily by Democrats, but enabled by rhino Republicans. You need a workforce that's going to be out there digging with pickaxes to get the materials to build solar panels. I have a list of names. Pickaxes made from raw riverstones tied and hafted to sticks. Yeah. Anyhow, I guess that's about the end of the episode. More to go. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Much more to come. Randall Carlson dot com. Sign up for the newsletter. Yep. And when you're hearing this, hopefully we'll have had some movement on shutting down the fraudulent website. It still continues to impersonate me and steal my work and profit off my work. Sacred Geometry International spread the word. It's a fraud. All right. Thanks, gentlemen. You'll hear a bunch of if he responds at all, it'll be a bunch of gaslighting that'll be easily deconstructed. But, sorry, yeah, let's end on a positive note. Yeah. Thank you, gentlemen. Excellent show. Good stuff. Yep. Good night, everybody. Good night, guys. He asked a question and got a homework assignment. So he shut up again. Yeah, that's why he hasn't said anything. No comment on the Randall rant. Get Randall's newsletter. Yeah. All right. Thanks, y'all. Good night. Good night. Good night.