Transcript for my conversation with Dr. Wesley Ingram 2/28/2024

Speaker 1: Dr. Wesley Ingram

Speaker 2: Mark Puls

[Speaker 2] (0:22 - 0:45)

Hey everybody, and welcome to another episode of Knocked Conscious. Today I had the privilege of speaking with Dr. Wesley Ingram. He's been in and around the petroleum industry for 15 years.

We talked about climate change, the climate agenda, a bunch of other topics. It was a great conversation. I think we're going to have a few more.

Here it is. I hope you enjoy it. PhD, 15 years in the petroleum industry from what I hear.

[Speaker 1] (0:45 - 0:47)

Yeah, yeah, that's right.

[Speaker 2] (0:47 - 0:59)

And after that, that's about as far as I can get in your bio, sir, because it's got all these words in it. So, I'd love for you to fill in and tell us a little bit about who you are and what you do and what kind of quest are you on?

[Speaker 1] (1:00 - 3:49)

Sure. Yeah, I can go into just background history and how I got where I am. That's a good start.

So, basically, I went into college not even quite sure what I was going to do, but I took my first geology class and I was basically hooked. And so, I was an undergrad geology major in physical geography, which is basically like modern geology, looking at land forms and weather and climate, all this kind of stuff. And I didn't stop from there.

I went all the way through, got my undergrad, then I went down to the Florida State, got my master's. And there I got kind of linked into the oil industry. I did a little bit of offshore oil work for what they call micro paleo prep, which is basically where they take these sediments that come from deep below the seabed and you prepare them to look at microfossils, which you can actually use to age date the sediments going back through time.

And they need to know that as they're drilling down offshore, because they don't have a lot of well control way out there. And so, micro paleo is one of the few ways to do that. But anyway, that's what I did for my master's.

And especially during my master's, as an early grad student, I discovered that I was quite interested in paleo climate and geochemistry, deep time processes that affected the earth. I mean, it was wild to me and learning and as a master's student that, you know, the earth was almost a snowball six, 700 million years ago. We went through all these different ice ages and warm periods and cold periods.

And I just thought that was really interesting and wanted to learn more about it. And so then I went up to University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, and that's where I did my PhD. And that was actually a marine science oceanography department, even though it was Chapel Hill, they had a marine science lab down on the coast there.

And they did geochemistry, biogeochemistry, geological oceanography, all that stuff. And so I basically did that for my PhD. And specifically, I studied gas hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico.

And what these are, if you haven't heard of these things, they are actually frozen methane gas surrounded by a cage of water molecules. And they can happen in the far north tundra where it gets cold enough. Basically, you need very cold temperatures where you need a combination of cold temperatures and higher pressure and natural gas will actually form these blue ice crystal looking things and they'll burn.

And so it's actually a huge resource in the shallow geosphere, a total amount of natural gas in the earth.

[Speaker 2] (3:50 - 3:57)

So similar to like akin to like trapped carbon, it would be like trapped energy, right? Trapped petroleum product, basically.

[Speaker 1] (3:58 - 7:50)

Yeah, they're in the natural gas form. So they're mostly methane. I would say 80, 90 percent of them are methane.

They call them clathrates because they're in that frozen solid state. But as soon as you like, they core them, they try to bring them up to the surface. As soon as they lose that pressure and temperature, they dissociate into gas.

It's mostly methane, but you can get ethane and propane clathrates as well. But from a paleo climate perspective, back in the 90s and even the 2000s, there was quite a bit of interest in these things because there were large perturbations in the carbon cycle that was recorded in geologic records. And a lot of people theorized and thought, well, maybe it was these methane hydrates becoming destabilized and sending a lot of methane naturally through the ocean, into the oceans and in the atmosphere.

And that was just one theory at the time. So that was kind of the thought going on in the 2000s. Actually, I was doing that during the 2000s.

That's when I was in my PhD program. And so, University of North Carolina actually had a consortium where they were studying this offshore, this large methane hydrate field in the deep water Gulf of Mexico. And so, I said, well, if the big question is whether these things are stable or not, I as a geologist can look at that.

And so, I collected a bunch of cores, did multiple cross sections across this field, and basically analyzed the sediments, dated them, and said, well, is there any evidence of calving, destabilizing the slope of this methane hydrate field, at least this particular one, has it remained stable or has it erupted and caused a bunch of disturbance on the sea floor? Long and short of it was no evidence for that. It was more of a basically just pushing up underneath, there was a salt diaper underneath it, which if you know what those are, they're big welds of salt.

It's actually wild if you look at the sea floor, a bathymetric image, the sea floor of Gulf of Mexico, it looks like all these little pockmarks and hummocky looking things. And that's because it's a salt basin. There's deep salt that was buried and salt flows and moves when it's buried and under great depth.

And so, these things literally come up like a diaper and up on top of them, you create these pathways for gas, natural gas and oil to migrate all the way up to the sea floor. And then that's the source of the oil. And then you get all the methane cycling and you get the hydrates forming right around the sea floor.

And so, I discovered in my work is that at least for this site, it was pretty stable. What it did is it made a little bump on the sea floor. And so, the sediments all around the field were thicker and it thinned up on the top, just as you would expect, like a little bump.

But no evidence of large erupting or calving or anything like that. So, it wasn't the real sexy answer, but it was the right answer. But I also noticed, aside from that, that in the field of geoscientists, that was my first learning that they really like stuff when it's sexy, if it's dramatic, if it's like, oh, we're all going to die, they're just going to blow up.

Like, they love it. Right. Like the AI of energy, right?

Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So, but...

[Speaker 2] (7:50 - 7:51)

Anything sexy.

[Speaker 1] (7:52 - 10:14)

Yeah, they like that. They like to scare mongers sometimes and be real dramatic and always trying to throw in the human caused humanness. And it kind of started out that way.

And then it got into the whole, like, climate thing. And even when I was in college, that was, like, popular at that time, the whole anthropogenic, that just means human-caused climate change, all that stuff. I was not really that into it.

I was like, I was doing my thing. It wasn't necessarily related to that. Well, it was in a secondary kind of way.

But I was like, whatever. You know, I noticed that it was definitely a thing and that universities were very liberal. And right around this time, getting close to finishing up, I kind of decided like, man, I can't be in academia long enough.

I mean, I thought I wanted to be a research scientist and teach and be a professor and all that. But I just, I got towards the end, I was like, I got to get out. These people are in a freaking bubble.

And they just never had, most of them never had real jobs outside of academia. And so I went and took an internship. And then I went and worked for an oil company doing offshore exploration and stuff like that, which kind of fit because my PhD was looking at deep sea sediments in the Gulf of Mexico.

So it was rather fitting. I went and worked for a, it was actually on the continental shelf. They break it apart, the shelf and then deep water.

But I worked with a shelf exploration team in the Gulf of Mexico. And then basically, after taking that internship, that launched me into that career, because it was so cool, like coming into that with an internship, because basically, when you're in academia, too, you have to kind of like fight, get all your, get what little money you can get and cobble together what data you can get. Then when I went to go work with this oil company, it was like, here you go.

Here's a size that costs, you know, $20 million to acquire here. We haven't had a chance to anyone interpret it yet. Why don't you interpret it?

Oh, and by the way, here's well data from like all this other stuff and background work that's been done, micro paleo. I was like, man, you guys are swimming in data and information. Like, this is cool.

[Speaker 2] (10:15 - 10:21)

Interesting. A state school doesn't have the funding, but the private institution is able to fund.

[Speaker 1] (10:22 - 10:23)

For that kind of stuff.

[Speaker 2] (10:23 - 10:25)

In that kind of stuff, right?

[Speaker 1] (10:25 - 10:33)

Yeah. When you're talking like deep water offshore oil project. Yeah, they've got the data now.

[Speaker 2] (10:35 - 10:42)

My buddy actually went to UNC as well for his PhD in chemistry. Oh, wow.

[Speaker 1] (10:42 - 11:24)

Oh, cool. It's a good school for that, too. It's a great school for a PhD, for a doctorate.

Wow. Yeah. It kind of depends as far as like data and what schools have versus the private sector.

It kind of depends on what it is and what you're talking about. Now, when it comes to other things, universities have a lot of money and a lot of them have massive endowments. And University of North Carolina is no slouch.

They've got a bunch of money. They're a big flagship state school. But when it comes to like geological data, like offshore, like, yeah, the oil companies have a lot more of that.

And it all comes back to money, size of the prize, like the reason why.

[Speaker 2] (11:24 - 11:27)

Return on investment, too, right? Those are the ones that are going to profit from that.

[Speaker 1] (11:27 - 12:26)

Yeah, exactly. It's return on investment. And I remember, you know, even coming back to when I came back from my internship and kind of talking to people about what I was working on and what I was doing.

And they were kind of asking me, some of these professors, like, well, how much do those wells cost? It's amazing. They're drilling down in 5000 feet of water and they're drilling 20000 feet down.

And they do. I mean, the engineering of it is absolutely impressive. And they're like, man, I don't understand how can they spend all that money and all those resources, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars.

But when you do the back of the envelope calculation, if they hit one field, that's 100 million barrel field, do the math on that. That's like three quarters of a billion dollars. Now, you have to spend the money to develop it, raise the wells and all that.

But you're hunting in the oil industry, we call that you're hunting elephants when you're out in the deep water. And so those reservoirs are quite big.

[Speaker 2] (12:27 - 12:46)

And it must be the pre the I guess the data analysis prior to where to start or where to look specifically must be important, too, right? Because it's like very preparation going into it. So if you're picking the wrong places to look, they're not finding it.

All your analysis gets out the window for sure.

[Speaker 1] (12:46 - 13:57)

Yeah. Yeah. And a dry hole in that type of situation is it's a 50 million, 100 million dollar mistake, you know, but you know, it must happen more than you'd like to admit.

I can imagine. Oh, it does. Yeah.

I mean, as technology, science, data analysis, you know, the seismic surveys, as that's all gotten more and more advanced through the years, you could imagine number of dry wells kind of decreases. But there was still a lot of unknowns when they went out there into the offshore, especially the deep water in the that would have been the 90s and the 2000s. And yeah, there's a lot of wells that didn't pan out, you know, 50, 60, 80, 100 million done.

But they take that risk because they have an idea that they know that they're out there. If they can find them, it actually moves the bottom line. But when you're talking deep water offshore, that's the big boys, you know, the smaller independent oil and gas companies are not, they don't have the money to do that.

They could participate. They could be like a 5% working interest, but they can't. They can't fund that kind of stuff.

[Speaker 2] (13:57 - 14:01)

Yeah. I can imagine just the technology and the cost of all that operations.

[Speaker 1] (14:02 - 14:47)

Yeah. Yeah, definitely. So, but I did that for a little while.

And actually the company that I worked for, they sold a lot of their international and offshore and just about all of it. And then they took a lot of the young guys. I was included in this group and they sent us up to Oklahoma City.

And then I got into onshore oil and gas exploration. And also during that time, right about 2009, 2010, well, really it got going 11, 12. Everything started shifting towards what they called unconventionals.

I'm sure you've heard about this, like the horizontal drilling. Yeah. The shale, shale.

Yeah. The shale revolution. That's when that really was getting going.

That was kind of the early part of it. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (14:47 - 14:54)

That was a huge revolution too. The way they were able to extract all the extra energy out of each, out of each piece and whatnot. Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (14:55 - 15:32)

Absolutely. They even reversed the decline in US oil production, completely reversed it. And now we're back above the 1970s peak.

So it's pretty amazing. Completely. It is very interesting.

Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, we are one of the world's largest producers of oil and gas now in the world.

And that wasn't the case just 10 years ago. So, and that all came from, yeah, the unconventionals, the shale, all that. In fact, a lot of it comes right out of the Permian in West Texas.

I believe three, four million barrels a day, every single day. Wow. It's out of that.

[Speaker 2] (15:32 - 15:33)

It's pretty amazing.

[Speaker 1] (15:33 - 17:15)

It's unbelievable. Yeah. Yeah.

So then, then I got into that and then kind of stayed there in the unconventional onshore. Cause once you get into the onshore and the investment got slashed after the bus, the first bus back in 09, with the stock market crash, the GFC, all that stuff, it's hard to get back into it. So for the last 10, 15 years, I've bounced around onshore oil and gas, whether it's an operator, or I also went up to Colorado and worked for a service lab for a while.

And that was cool because they, they get really into like the details, the nitty gritty of when you take a core, getting all the information out of that, all the geochemistry. And since I was a geochemistry guy, you know, from my grad school, I did a lot of inorganic geochemistry and was a SME for the clients that want to come in and do what they call x-ray fluorescence and then x-ray diffraction work, which is basically just trying to figure out what all the little minerals are in your rock. But that didn't used to be as big a deal in conventional, but in the unconventional world, the devil's was really in the details.

You really needed to know what that mix of mineralogy was in those shales and how much organic content they had as well. So it was pretty cool. I got to, it was almost like being halfway, a little bit feeling like you're an academic, academia, but still in, still in the industry because you're an expert working in a lab.

So that was pretty cool.

[Speaker 2] (17:16 - 17:29)

Yeah. That makes it fun. Cause then you get to kind of, kind of play with both of it.

You get to flirt with the scientific part. Cause it, you know, just from your path, it just sounds like you have that highly inquisitive mind and curious and always need to learn and understand and grow.

[Speaker 1] (17:30 - 18:07)

Yeah. I loved it. I genuinely loved it.

Loved learning. But yeah, more recently I decided, well, you know, I guess the last couple of years I really felt like, all right, this, this stuff's getting out of hand, this whole like climate green agenda, like people are just lying now. And so I decided I was going to start just telling the truth, like just saying what it is, like not trying to be a narrative or anything, but just, you know, let's get back to the science.

Let's get back to the, the real, real information and not just always. And what year was that? Did you say?

I only recently started doing this about a year ago.

[Speaker 2] (18:07 - 18:08)

Okay.

[Speaker 1] (18:08 - 18:09)

So about a year. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (18:09 - 18:33)

And it's kind of seems to be like this weird trend, right? We're seeing like this wave slowly working its way and we're all kind of acquiescing to it for a number of years. And now finally people are like, all right, it's like, but it's like, not like slow down.

They're almost like, it's like a strike back. Like it's exactly, it's a backlash. Yeah.

It's kind of dangerous. You know, it's like, it's not just slowing it down. It's like actually a retaliation to it almost.

[Speaker 1] (18:33 - 19:24)

Yeah. It did kind of build slowly build with that with me for years, because I knew for a long time, that's a bunch of BS. I mean, I always kind of suspected that, but I just didn't really worry about it.

I went about my career, went about my life and I was good. Um, and then I just saw things getting crazier and crazier and I'm like, all right, I'm sick of the lies. I'm sick of them repeating the same like thing, like CO2.

I remember laughing when I heard either someone told me, or I read, or I heard that the Obama administration, uh, classified, uh, carbon dioxide as a pollutant. And I remember just thinking that's, that's fricking hysterical. If it wasn't like, so sad, it's like we are, we are a carbon-based life form.

Yeah. All plants and animals, the whole biosphere is carbon is the element of life.

[Speaker 2] (19:24 - 19:42)

And that's just, well, I mean, look, just rudimentary elementary talking. If I'm a, I'm a kid, let's see, plants give us oxygen because they take carbon dioxide. So carbon dioxide is needed so we can have oxygen.

It's not really that crazy. Like where's that like controversial is my question.

[Speaker 1] (19:43 - 20:17)

Yeah. Uh, yeah. So I, I mean, I saw it for a while.

Like I saw that it was getting politicized, but even more so, and then just doubling down on the lies and lies. And I'm like, all right, I'm, I'm so sick of this green agenda and all this stuff. And I'm just going to talk about it.

I'll just, and, and a friend of mine kind of, kind of got me going. He had the idea. He's like, yeah, you should do that.

Do a channel. It's like, call it carbon psyops. And I'm like, yeah, it is, it is a psyop.

It is carbon is bad. That is a psyop. It's BS.

It's crazy. Right? Yeah.

Yeah. And so that's how it got started.

[Speaker 2] (20:17 - 20:39)

And, uh, and, uh, so did you notice the changes happening even like within the administration? Like they were replacing certain people that were, you know, in executive positions with other people who had different ideas over time? Is that kind of how they, or did they start from like the bottom up that they just load the bottom with all these new kids that had this new ideology?

[Speaker 1] (20:40 - 20:41)

Okay.

[Speaker 2] (20:41 - 20:54)

So you're, you're kind of referring to academia, like going back to, well, I'm talking about like, yeah, when you started seeing it happen around you, did it start happening at work too, within, within your work or was it happening more just outside, like from the, like the government perspective?

[Speaker 1] (20:55 - 22:09)

Uh, oh yeah. Where I was seeing it, I was seeing it all over in the news and in the media and just building and just getting more and more stupid and hysterical and non-scientific. And, uh, I would say in the oil industry, there's definitely a lot more skeptics, but you'd be surprised.

There's a lot of like people that have gotten on that whole anthropogenic global warming train over there too. Even our society, which is the American association of petroleum geologists will put out articles and little white papers and little things. And they'll talk about what we can do to reduce our carbon.

And, you know, it's just, it's stupid. It's like, what are you guys doing? You don't represent the fricking green movement.

You, you, people that pay the dues to your society are petroleum geologists. Like, what are you doing even supporting that? Uh, so I, I saw a little bit of it on the, uh, oil industry side, but in academia, man, I can tell you, even when I was there back in the two, the two thousands, all the way up until about 2008, that was when I was finishing up, um, there, if you were conservative at all, or like a normal person or just not real left, I mean, you just kind of, I love the term, normal person.

[Speaker 2] (22:12 - 22:18)

It's weird, right? Like if you were just like, you know, a normal person, you're just weird. You're, you were extreme.

[Speaker 1] (22:20 - 22:20)

Oh, it was good.

[Speaker 2] (22:21 - 22:23)

I just, it's just funny hearing it like that, you know?

[Speaker 1] (22:24 - 22:52)

Yeah, it was, it was crazy. You just learned to kind of just, especially with the other grad students and some of the professors, you just didn't, you just didn't talk about it. You just kind of, you just knew not to go there.

I mean, 80, 90% of the people there, it seemed were very left leaning, but that could have been deception too, because there could have been a lot of people like me that they just weren't, or just went about their business, went about their studies and they didn't want to deal with.

[Speaker 2] (22:53 - 23:25)

That's how psychopathy works. You know, that's how they take it. You get, you get a psychopath in this position of power and the, and generally people are agreeable.

They're generally agreeable. So you push to a point until they're not agreeable anymore and then they slow down and then they push some more later after some time. It's this perfect equation.

And then five years later, you're a hundred yards from where you started. You have no idea how you got there except for where you are and where you started are nothing. They're not even on the same planet, it seems at times.

[Speaker 1] (23:25 - 23:34)

Yeah, no, I agree a hundred percent. What do they call that shifting the Overton window? Yeah, the Overton window for sure.

Yeah, that's right. That's how they do it. And you don't.

[Speaker 2] (23:34 - 23:38)

So tell us about your psyop. So how's this channel?

[Speaker 1] (23:39 - 24:20)

Oh, so I got the, uh, so my friend, we were kind of just talking, going back and forth and, and he's thinks the world's gone crazy and, and we're just talking back and forth. It's like, yeah, I'm, maybe I'll just do a channel and just start talking about all this stuff, this bullshit. Cause, cause it is, I mean, there's so many holes in the global warming thing and we can get into that too.

But first we'll talk about the carbon psyop thing. Uh, and he, and then he's like, yeah, I do that. And I'm like, yeah, maybe we'll just call it carbon psyops.

And then he even had this thing where he's like, oh, you, you could, uh, you'd get like a cow and you get, and he's a carbon cow and he creates methane and carbon. We're like, oh, that's great. Cause they're even trying to say that cows are bad, which.

[Speaker 2] (24:20 - 24:25)

Right. You need a cat, you need a cartoon Beto O'Rourke chasing the cow with like a knife or something.

[Speaker 1] (24:25 - 24:43)

Yeah, yeah, exactly. You know, wasn't it something about him killing cows or cow farts or some, some, yeah, well they actually in, um, Ireland, they, they wanted to kill 200,000 cows, 200,000 over three years. Right.

Yeah. Yeah. So just insane.

And that is a, that gets thwarted.

[Speaker 2] (24:43 - 24:55)

Did you say that the farmers pushed back and said, that's what I mean, they got thwarted then. So they were able to stop it. Yeah.

Thank goodness. Stop it. Yeah.

Cause the farmers have had some victories here in Europe recently and we'll, I'm sure we'll get there, but anyway, go ahead.

[Speaker 1] (24:55 - 25:19)

Yeah, they have, which is a good thing. Um, but yeah, the, the carbon cow thing. And I was like, oh, we can do a carbon cow thing.

Cause I'm a fan of a Y files where he has the little, you know, fish over there. So I was like, man, I need a little, uh, I need a little cartoon sidekick. And so we made, we made carbon cow and I finally now got him to where he talks a little bit, but I'm just playing with that and just see where it goes.

[Speaker 2] (25:20 - 25:35)

Um, I saw the, I saw your last video, the one video where you just go through the different layers and everything. And I'm just, it's beautiful to watch, but you have to really focus on it to, to get the full, you know, information from it, you know?

[Speaker 1] (25:35 - 26:06)

Yeah. It's, it's a deep dive. So what I'm trying to do with my cast is I'm trying to give people the information.

I don't want to dub it, dumb it down. I'm trying to give them like, this is the real stuff. This is the, this is the science, this is the data, this is the paleo climate records and getting into all that.

And I didn't hold back on some of the stuff about, you know, how carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere and how we'd use it to date things like I, I want to, I want to keep it high level, but I also want to keep it understandable, uh, and not overdo it, but that's fine line to kind of balance there.

[Speaker 2] (26:07 - 26:33)

It's very hard, especially when it comes to the science part of it, because when, once you lose like one of the concepts, you kind of start drifting away. It's just, it's almost impossible. So kudos to even the attempt, because it is, it's a really fine line to your point of dancing.

How much do you keep it entertaining? But you know, there's a dryness factor built in. So how do you, you know, make that as palatable as possible while you get the information to people?

[Speaker 1] (26:34 - 29:08)

Yeah, exactly. And that's where the carbon cow kind of comes in. I want to kind of make kind of like heckle fish, kind of, you know, break it up a little bit.

There's some jokes in there and actually carbon cow is a troll. It's actually a troll because there's nothing wrong with cows. They do produce carbon, but carbon is a good thing.

And it's actually a self-contained, uh, system. Uh, people that, that look at this, that look at the cattle and how the cows eat, eat the grass, they create the methane, but here's the thing. Here's what they don't tell you.

They tell you cows are bad and they create methane and methane is as dangerous, you know, greenhouse gas and all this stuff. And the best propaganda is based on a little bit of truth. But what they do is they conflate it and they make a real big deal out of something without putting it into a broader context.

But I'm going to give you the broader context here. The cow eats the grass and then they actually have methanogens in their gut. They're called ruminants.

And in their rumen, the bacteria will break down and create methane gas. And they will emit this gas. They'll burp it out.

And here's the thing that they don't tell you. It goes in the atmosphere. It's only got a residence time of about eight, 10 years.

It oxidizes to CO2 anyway. So that methane cannot really exist in high concentrations in the atmosphere. It just, it just can't.

It's, it's basic redox chemistry. Why? Because what's the atmosphere full of?

It's full of nitrogen and oxygen. You got all this oxygen around and it goes through some intermediate steps and catalyst, but ultimately that methane gets broken down into CO2. And then, then the CO2 gets in the atmosphere and then plants breathe, just like you were talking about earlier.

They suck up the CO2, they create biomass. So the grass grows and then it sucks up the CO2. And then the cow comes along and munches, eats grass again.

So it's really just a grand cycle. And if you don't change the number of cows, like let's say you have, I don't know how many cow, I don't think anybody knows how many cows are on the planet, but let's say I couldn't imagine. There's probably a lot.

There's probably a ton or something. But if that number stays about the same after about 10 years, it just becomes a grand cycle and you're not, you're not really gaining or losing anything. Now, if you doubled the herd, then yeah, you double the size of the whole cycle, but then it would still just rotate through.

It would go in the air, go in the grass, grow in the cow's guts, back out again. And it's just a big cycle.

[Speaker 2] (29:08 - 29:43)

Well, I'm wondering if that's what they're using in this way as an excuse to your point. I always think about how they manipulate, right? So the second you told me that as long as there's no additional cows added, there must've been a point where maybe in the seventies, eighties, where food became a thing, where we did add cattle, as beef became more pot, easier to transport to more people.

There must've been an increase in overall beef production, which then we're in the lull of it adjusting to the new beef increase versus it actually being a problem. It's just having to adapt and then become its cycle.

[Speaker 1] (29:43 - 29:56)

Yeah. I, you know, I, again, I don't know how many cows are on the planet, but I would guess you're probably exactly right because there's more people on the planet now than there was 30 years ago. So beef production, yeah, would increase.

[Speaker 2] (29:57 - 30:05)

So that would just justify their numbers to use against, you know what I mean, to push their side of it, right?

[Speaker 1] (30:05 - 30:43)

Right. But when I started digging into all this stuff, I mean, I already kind of knew that all the science side of it, the global warming and alarmism, I knew that that was BS. But as I dug into this stuff and started doing my cast, I learned that there's no doubt about it.

This is an anti-human globalist agenda. All you have to do is go back and read the documents, look at the Club of Rome, look at the U.N. documents. And they even say it on camera.

Oh, we've got too many people. We've got to reduce the set. It should not be considered conspiracy anymore.

And it's not to anyone that does any bit of research to look into it that these people clearly are Malthusian. You know, you know that term Malthusian, right? Yes.

[Speaker 2] (30:43 - 30:44)

Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (30:45 - 31:44)

So that's just what they are. There's no there's no denying that when you read their literature and see what they say consciously evil. Yeah.

Yeah. And so they think there's too many people. And they basically decided back in the 1972 Club of Rome report limits to growth.

And here here's the here's the side up. Here's the trick. There's a lot of useful idiots that work towards this green agenda that may actually be true believers.

But I think the high level globalist, I think they know damn well that it's a bunch of BS. And they basically needed a global existential threat to scare people to say, oh, look, we're all going to we're all going to die because it's not about the CO2. It's not about the global warming.

I think the higher level, the smart ones, I mean, Klaus Schwab is PhD. He's an evil genius, but he's a smart dude. I think he's a brilliant, evil genius.

[Speaker 2] (31:44 - 31:44)

Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (31:45 - 35:43)

Yeah. I think they know that the whole green thing, CO2, that that's BS. But if you read the limits to growth report, which I went through, I did a cast on it.

Their concern is regular people getting too high standard of living and consuming all the resources. Now, there is some truth to using using up some resources on a rapid pace without switching to other things and without bringing in new technologies, new innovations and things like that. But their charts, their analysis is extremely pessimistic in their prognostications of the future, which were done back in the 70s, have all turned out to be wrong.

But they they basically said that human population gets gets too high consumption of metals and resources, collapses down, causes industrial capacity to come down to many people, causes too much pollution, degradation of land, farming goes down. And then basically you have a collapse of population back down. Now, these doomsdayers, they're kind of like financial doomsdayers.

They just keep saying it and updating their prognostications. They say, OK, well, maybe we weren't right 10 years ago, but we're going to be eight years. Yeah, they keep pushing it out in the into the future.

But it's my belief that these higher level, the more intelligent globalist, they know that this whole CO2 global warming thing is a bunch of BS. They just don't want people consuming all the resources. And there is some truth to that.

You know, resources are finite on human time scales, meaning that if if we reach 20 billion population, for example, and everybody everywhere was was living a high middle class lifestyle, you would go through you would go through the oil reserves. But that is so that is so far out. It's you know, people have even argued for peak oil back in the 70s.

And the thing about peak oil is is Hubbard, the guy that first predicted it. He was correct. We did hit the conventional peak in 1970 and we came back down.

So a lot of the shallow, large, easy to find fields, the cheap oil, I call it the cheap oil that has been discovered. And that is that has been produced and used up over time. That doesn't mean that there's a there's a ton more oil out there.

There's huge volumes of oil still out there. But you have to spend more money. You have to go out in deeper water.

Maybe you got to go to the Arctic. You can even get it from unconventionals, but it's more expensive to get it on the cost per barrel basis. And so there is some truth to burning through Earth's resources because there is only a certain amount.

Now, the Earth does continually make more oil and metals and all these things, but it does it on millions of years time scales. It doesn't doesn't do it on human time scales. But they're they're so pessimistic and Malthusian about it.

These globalists in their reports, they don't consider human innovation. They don't consider new technologies. They don't consider new efficiencies.

And so all their reports are conveniently extremely pessimistic because it's the answer they want. Oh, there's too many people. Oh, we're using up all resources.

We've got to get rid of people. And so that's how their whole mind or consciousness has gone. And if your mind goes down the Malthusian road, you're going to start to see people, humans themselves, population as the problem.

But for me, that's the complete wrong way to look at the world. It's a terror. It's a terrible world view.

Yes, we are going through resources. Yes, we need to be more efficient. Yes, we need to switch to new energy sources.

[Speaker 2] (35:43 - 35:54)

I'm all definitely need to be cleaner and be better, be more streamlined and efficient. Like we do waste a lot and we do have a pollution there. Those are true things that exist.

[Speaker 1] (35:55 - 36:05)

Yeah, but it takes a it takes one. You acknowledge it and you say, OK, how do we solve these problems? The answer isn't, well, we need to depopulate.

That's just that's terrible. That's it.

[Speaker 2] (36:05 - 36:21)

And not to implement extremely expensive new technologies that we don't know their sustainability, the return on investment or anything yet. We don't we don't have that information. You don't jump to that technology.

You slowly implement. And it's like it feels like they they skip three or four steps.

[Speaker 1] (36:22 - 36:26)

Yeah. Yeah. They just they just want to go there.

They just want to push the green agenda.

[Speaker 2] (36:27 - 37:45)

And that's what I think it is. I think they're trying to accelerate it to the population decline. So it's my opinion with the farming, with the jump to the extreme, you know, the the new solar wind, you know, all the just the new energy sources.

And then there. What is Greta Thunberg doing? She's she's supporting a war.

Yeah. I mean, if you're an environmentalist, the one I bet like one thing you wouldn't support would be war because it's just it's just hurt and disgust. And and the cost of materials and all the metals and all just everything I can't even imagine.

Yet it's it's the reduction of the population. I read an article that was at the Atlantic had it Congo. War in Congo has been good for the climate.

So they're telling us that said that less people, you know, is is a is better for the world. Yeah. And then they had one in Europe that in England, the UK was breathing.

We're contributing you know, with our with our exhaling. It's like, yeah, we always have. When did this become a new like how did this become a new thing?

Right. So, yeah, these are that's the agenda part, right? Like there's like a climate thing and then there's the agenda part.

So the agenda parts, the part that seems to be way off the rails.

[Speaker 1] (37:46 - 37:50)

Oh, yeah. I mean, the climate thing is, too. I mean, it is to an extent, for sure.

[Speaker 2] (37:51 - 37:51)

Right.

[Speaker 1] (37:51 - 41:14)

It's demonstrably false, like to that extent. Right. Yeah.

It's I mean, if you're going to be like a fair scientist, you know, CO2 is increasing. It does have a small, very small, weak warming effect. And in fact, it's probably five percent of the total.

It's so small. When you start looking at absorption bands and things like that and the run of sensitivity of like, OK, what is what happens when you double or triple CO2? What's the actual radiated trapping effect from doing that?

It's it's really small. Like I said earlier, some of the best propaganda is best on is based on a little bit of truth, but then they conflate it and then they just make it so dramatic. And a lot of these really global warming alarmist models are based on what they do to get the dramatic result is they use runaway feedbacks.

They say, OK, well, we're going to get a slight warming of a half degree and then that's going to cause all this water vapor and then that's going to cause more warming. And it just doesn't work that way. Your system is your system has a lot more negative than it does positive feedbacks, meaning if you perturb the system, it has a tendency to want to balance itself out and come back into an equilibrium.

That's just the way that's just the way it works, both on shorter and longer timescales. So, yeah, the whole CO2 thing in the global warming, that is definitely a grift, but but they're careful about it. Like they they know how to like say things that are true and then let people make an erroneous connection that, oh, this is really bad.

And don't give them any of the broader context. A great example of that is they'll show the graph of like the CO2 and the temperature and the ice core record and they'll line right up and they are correlated. And then they'll show the increase from recent, you know, from humans things that goes outside of that variability and they'll let you make that connection.

Oh, my gosh, look at all this extra CO2. You know, we're going to warm. Well, what they don't tell you is that if you look at those curves carefully and you line them up, the CO2 lags behind the temperature, not in front.

So it's not forcing anything. It's responding to glacial interglacial conditions. And so it's just it's just crazy.

So I kind of feel like because I know something about it that I really I should speak about it. I should do this channel. I should go on podcasts.

I should tell people the real data and the information and the context because they're not getting that. They're just being told the narrative. And you're and you're 100 percent right.

It goes into the whole green agenda narrative. And that was kind of the more recently in the last few years, that was more of the connection that I made. I've always known as a geoscientist, someone that knew a lot about this.

I always knew it was kind of like alarmist BS. Like I said, I wasn't really I didn't get too into it until more recently. But then I started studying and reading about this green agenda stuff.

And I'm like, holy crap, these people like really just want to get rid of people. And they're using this as the pretext for that to say, oh, you're bad. You create CO2.

There's too many people. You know, we got to get rid of it. And they're careful about it.

They try not to come right out and say it. But now you're saying like with the Congo thing, they are coming out and admitting admitting it.

[Speaker 2] (41:14 - 42:54)

They literally are. Yeah, it was actually the UK. I mean, that was bad enough.

And it's funny because the Atlantic changed the article. I'll send you the link. But basically, if you look, the initial article still locked in like an old web article with the like the actual headline.

And then they change it to, oh, it's a little tricky. Oh, it's a tricky situation that war isn't always, you know, it sounds bad, but it's like a tricky thing that it it actually has some. OK.

You're like, what are you talking about? What? Well, no, no.

Yeah. And so it's insanity. And I think they're actually just exacerbating it more for the control part.

I mean, I'm obviously to your point, the resources may have been what they were fearing first. But they're like, you know what? The less people, the easier we can get a corral around them.

So that's true. Let's let's let's let's escalate that. Let's kill a half a million Ukrainians.

Let's kill a couple hundred thousand Russians. Let's you know, there's no more birth rate there in that country at all. So that's going to absolutely collapse.

Then we've got Africa and what's going on there. Yeah, sure. Libya, you know, whatever.

It's like I just sit there and it's just watching this happen. And my dad was one of these early adopters. My dad was always a contrarian.

And in 1980s, he had that New World Order triangle, you know, with the little eye. Oh, yeah. All that stuff.

And he was just telling. And you're like, what are you talking about? And then the first thing was said, you know, in the news, you're like, huh?

You know, like just the littlest, the littlest thing. And now we're literally at humans breathing or causing global warming. And it's like, yeah, that's the step.

That's where we really have come far.

[Speaker 1] (42:54 - 43:38)

You know. Yeah. Yeah.

And that's and that's where they're going. You know, Dennis Meadows, the guy that helped write that limits to growth report, he'll say right on camera on interviews in front of people. He said, well, he says it like this.

He says, well, the planet is so crazy. Planet can only have about a billion, maybe two people. Well, we have to get back down to that point.

And if we don't get back to that, then we have to have a really strong dictatorship. Now, the word for that technocracy. And so he's talking about basically enslaving humanity unless we can get back down to one or two billion people and these people.

And you can tell when he's talking and giving this interview, he 100 percent believes it.

[Speaker 2] (43:39 - 43:57)

I mean, oh, yeah, he believes watching cloud watching Klaus Schwab talk or Klaus Schwab talk about the predictive and then the elect not needing elections anymore because it goes from prescriptive to predictive. It's like, oh, yeah, that's right. You're going to you're going to guess what who I'm going to vote for.

That's right. So I guess I don't have to vote. I guess you're just going to tell me.

[Speaker 1] (43:59 - 44:25)

Yeah. These guys are unbelievable. They are.

They are control freaks. They are. They are psychopaths.

A lot of them. Oh, you've heard of the I'm not a psychology person, but I've heard of the dark triad. You hear that it's it's psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism, probably.

Yeah. Yeah. And I would say a lot of those guys, Klaus Schwab, I mean, Noah Harari, with all the transhumanism.

[Speaker 2] (44:25 - 44:26)

Oh, yeah.

[Speaker 1] (44:26 - 44:42)

Total freak. But they're they're so into them, into themselves, into themselves and their ideology. And they think that other people and other human beings are like nothing that we need to get rid of them.

That is. Yeah, the useless class.

[Speaker 2] (44:42 - 45:15)

Now, what do we go from the working class to the yeah, the useless class, I think is what he called us. And it's funny because I remember when Sapiens came out and Mike, I think my girlfriend at the time got it for me as an audio book, like as a gift. And I was like, oh, my gosh, because I heard so many things about it.

That book was amazing. It was absolutely extremely well-written book. I had no idea that that guy was going to be like that.

That was his outcome from what he was writing. Would never have guessed his ideology was like that. I would have guessed completely different.

Really? Wow. Well, I just thought it was a really well-written book.

[Speaker 1] (45:15 - 45:19)

Is that what he told me? Almost a day or something or.

[Speaker 2] (45:19 - 45:46)

Well, Homo Deus was the second one. And that's what he started going. Right.

And then it was like something for the 21st century. Then he started getting into the technocracy. But Sapiens was like just the initial growth of humanity and how we became a slave to like wheat, for example, when we wanted wheat to free us.

But we actually ended up having to take care of it more than it was taking care of us, you know, stuff like that. So I actually do recommend that book for its information. But after the after the first one, it gets a little.

[Speaker 1] (45:47 - 45:58)

See, I thought about reading some of the globalist stuff, like I thought about, well, maybe maybe I want to buy and read Klaus Schwab's book. And I'm like, nah, screw him. I'm not I'm not giving him read his crap.

[Speaker 2] (45:59 - 46:35)

Well, that's the thing. If I do anything, it'd be through like public library. But I do like to listen to other stuff, like even on X, I will follow people.

I think I follow the Krasnitskys. I'm not going to lie. Why not to troll, not to anything, just to see what craziness is out there, like what or no, not even that.

There might be a good point. There might be something I completely missed. You know, I mean, to be completely honest, I might have my blinders on, too.

So we need we all need to have free speech. We need to have more information out there. And this whole thing about like suppression and censorship, that's killing us.

Totally. It's killing us. It's not allowing us to filter the real information for ourselves.

[Speaker 1] (46:36 - 46:43)

Yeah, 100 percent. Yeah, I just I just couldn't mentally bring myself around to. Yeah, I don't think I can read.

[Speaker 2] (46:44 - 47:07)

But I did imagine he read. Imagine audiobook with him. He's like, and then we ran into the field.

And then I ran into her arms and I kissed her deeply and she liked it. Like, like imagine him doing like one of those like smutty romance books. Oh, yeah.

But yeah, so you are.

[Speaker 1] (47:08 - 48:41)

Yeah, I was gonna say I do read. I did read Quigley's books, though. And he's he's a really good intellectual.

You know about Carol Quigley, right? Anglo-American Carol Quigley. Yeah.

Now that those are good because he's like a legit historian. You know, Western civilization talks about the banking cartel and how that's all woven into both world wars and goes into the whole history of it. And apparently his second book, Anglo-American Establishment, got kind of shadow banned even back then because the globalists didn't really weren't really that concerned of things getting out.

They had pretty monopolistic control over the media back in the 80s and 90s and all that. But when his book first came out, like in the 70s, I think they kind of like shadow banned it for a while. It wasn't put anywhere.

People wouldn't talk about it. He was really upset by that. And one of his main things is that he talked about in his interviews is he was actually for the Anglo-American establishment.

Now, I think the Anglo-American establishment, the old guard is a little bit different than this new Davos thing. They're even crazier with the transhumanist and all that. So I think he was more of an old school globalist.

But he he believed in the supremacy of the Anglo-American establishment, the American experiment, British law, the British Empire. He believed that that should be kind of a global order for for the world. So that kind of old school, new world, new world order.

[Speaker 2] (48:41 - 49:04)

But he also I think is there a difference, though? Is it compelled or is it chosen? Right.

I mean, that's the difference. Like, it's one thing to have this. We're supposed to be this beacon of the example.

Right. And people should be living up to the example. But we shouldn't be forcing our example of others.

Look how well that's worked out in the Middle East for twenty five years.

[Speaker 1] (49:04 - 49:55)

You know, that was actually one of his points. That was exactly one of his points, is that he said, why are you guys being secretive about this? Why are you having all these billboard meetings and all this stuff and, you know, put it out in the open, talk about it.

And that's what he did with publishing these books is he felt that this history, this manipulation of banking and financial elites in the world and even subverting democratic governments, he thought that that should be talked about. And in his book, he even talks about like very matter of factly, just like, oh, you know, people think they live in a democracy, but not really. They're they're they're very powerful money interests that actually control through the primary process and a lot of the candidates that you get.

So he just talks about it like, oh, yeah, this is just the way it is in the way I'm reading through his book. It's very matter of fact.

[Speaker 2] (49:55 - 50:38)

And that's why I have to listen to people you don't always agree with, because sometimes they tell you stuff like what was the one thing I heard? The craziest thing I said, I got Gad Saad, something about he was he's actually a Mossad agent. You're like, what?

He wrote in his book and some guy called him out on his interview because, you know, a lot of people don't talk about that. And he talks about his time as a Mossad agent. Like, wait, I don't think you were like, I don't think you are once a Mossad agent.

I think you always will be a Mossad agent. But it's funny that like that was able to come out and you're like, he just said the quiet part out loud. And sometimes they do.

And that's why you need to listen to these people, because they're going to tell you sometimes exactly what they want to do to you.

[Speaker 1] (50:38 - 51:32)

Oh, yeah. Yeah. One hundred percent.

Yeah. And that's why I like reading that book and other ones. I'll read some of their documents.

Henry Lamb was a great early guy back in the 80s and 90s to help expose a lot of the stuff that the globalists were doing through the U.N. And so, yeah, you had a lot of these guys early on that just started listening to him. And Henry Lamb, the story goes that, you know, he noticed that all these people were getting all ingratiated, getting all this money and staying in the nicest hotels and going to these fancy meetings in even back then. It wasn't Davos then, but it was like Bilderberg and a couple of other ones.

And he was like, what is going on here? Who are these people and what are they talking about? And so he kind of threw a shoestring budget and just got his way into there.

[Speaker 2] (51:32 - 51:33)

Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (51:33 - 53:02)

He didn't get in the inner circles, but he kind of got into some of these meetings, got to hear what they were talking about. And after he got enough information, he kind of then went on a tour and just kind of like telling people like, hey, this is what they want to do. They want to bring down the United States.

They want to, you know, they want to reduce population. They want to. They think there's too many people.

They want to crowd them into cities. And he's just telling you. He's like, look, I spent years because I suspected something was up and I went to these meetings and this is what they talk about.

And so some of these people early on back in the 80s, 90s, 2000s, there wasn't enough of that. It didn't reach critical mass. And so they could kind of be like pushed off like, oh, a conspiracy theory.

Oh, you know, they're crazy. Right. Don't listen to them.

But some things happen now. Recently, I do believe consciousness is shifting. You still have tons of people that are going to just believe whatever the TV says.

And I feel sorry for them, but that is what it is. And you're still going to have, you know, 20, 30 percent or more people like that. But I do believe that the number of people like noticing the inconsistencies at minimum is growing.

It's just a sense, just the feeling that I have. You know, I think Elon and X is helping. I mean, there's a lot of things happening right now where I feel like the controllers are losing control.

They're losing control and they're losing control of a lot of things.

[Speaker 2] (53:02 - 53:15)

I feel like they're starting to white knuckle a little bit, like tighten their fist. Like you can feel them trying to tighten to try to hold on. And you're not sure if they're going to be able to hold it or if it's going to slip through, kind of like that slip through your fingers kind of thing with that.

[Speaker 1] (53:15 - 53:48)

Yeah. Yeah, exactly. And I don't know if you listen to or follow Tom Longo, but he talks about these people that he calls them Straussians.

And there's an interesting history to that term. But anyway, he talks about that squeezing, squeezing, trying to maintain control. And he says his basic thesis or one of his pieces is that these people aren't that smart, that at least, OK, the top level might be, but then the people, their lieutenants and people that carry out their orders and try to maintain this control, they're not necessarily the smartest people.

[Speaker 2] (53:49 - 53:59)

No, they're the drones. I mean, they're literally the dumb ones who just take the their order takers. I mean, literally.

Yeah. But the people who are at the top are well resourced and pretty smart.

[Speaker 1] (53:59 - 53:59)

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (53:59 - 54:00)

Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (54:00 - 54:39)

They're smart. That's the challenge. But his thesis is they're they're they're losing their grip.

They're losing the grip of the narrative. But he says that concerns him. He says that concerns him because these people still have a lot of power, money and influence.

And he said, what are they going to do? It's like you're losing a chess match, right? But you're a narcissistic psychopath.

What do they do instead of the kamikaze? They flip the they flip the board over or they they do something crazy. And that's what concerns me going into this year and next year.

I think the globalists are losing on some level, but I also I don't doubt for a minute they might try to pull something crazy. Take someone out.

[Speaker 2] (54:40 - 56:23)

Yeah, I said something to attack. Yeah, I sense it's an event like an event that's going to happen that. Oh, what a shock.

This thing came out of nowhere. We had no clue it was going to happen. And now we must all band together to go after X, Y and Z to make sure that it will never happen again.

Not heard that one about 30 times in my life. It's like the broken record. I mean, and that's the thing.

Like, look, I come from I was 16 when Kuwait happened. So, you know, I had a Saddam Hussein. Hey, Saddam, this scuds for you T-shirt growing up like it was like I was a I enlisted in the military.

I just failed the physical at the end. Like I was all in with America. Oh, you're going to go back at this.

I'm still about America because I'm a first generation American. My mom came from East Germany. They escaped East Germany.

This is not like I'm lucky to be here. Like I my grandfather was a soldier in the German army in 1944. Think about who what was and what he was.

My father had a father who was a civilian who had to register in that party because that's what you did. It's not like you had a choice. I mean, come on, let's not kid ourselves.

Not like once again, the banality. Right. That's where we're at.

Right. We got fighters like you and I. And then you've got people who let it happen.

Right. And then it's too late before. And that's what happens.

So I come from a place that I understand like all where what communism is, what this that this is the best system, what it is that said, it's open for criticism and it's open to be better. And we're making poor choices and we can make better choices. That's all.

That's all it is.

[Speaker 1] (56:23 - 56:59)

Yeah, it's it's it's the best of the systems that we have available. I mean, yeah, I mean, people always want to break it down into a capitalist versus communist thing, but it's like, hey, wait a minute. Like, first of all, America, you can't even really say they were totally market economy, totally capitalist.

Anyway, there's a lot of crony capital regulation. Yeah. Overregulation.

There's a lot of what's the word subsidizing and backstopping the very wealthy, elite billionaire class because they're in bed with the government.

[Speaker 2] (56:59 - 57:02)

Absolutely. And it is a corporatocracy. Let's not kid ourselves.

[Speaker 1] (57:02 - 57:02)

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (57:02 - 57:24)

Because like growing up, I thought regulations were for safety and whatever. But now you find out that the rich companies that have that have the means to afford the regulations then want to implement regulations so that new people can't get in the market. How crazy is that?

That doesn't that sounds like the exact opposite of the reason that you'd want a regulation.

[Speaker 1] (57:24 - 57:47)

You know, 100 percent. And that is the antithesis of of a market capitalist economy. And so when these young people want to rail against this, they think they're communist or whatever.

I almost I mean, I love how Liberty Bunny Miranda will fight with these people, but it's hard for me because it's just it's a level of stupid. I have a hard time dealing with.

[Speaker 2] (57:48 - 58:33)

Yeah, I don't I don't really engage. And it's funny because, like, I'll get in. If you look at my feed, it's I'll make a statement and then someone will just lash a piece of it and I'll go, well, let me take a step back.

And I actually am like super kind and cordial. And either they stop engaging or they just keep doing their thing. And I just like after three and they go and it's like, I let it go.

Yeah, like you can't take it personally. You just have to. But but I do try to engage because I've had like, hey, come back to something where something came up like, hey, I know we were on opposite ends of this, but I just want to share this, you know, and people if you come to that with that, I think people are much more receptive.

But obviously, to your point, like the trolls and the algorithm, everything's pushing us in directions to, you know, negativity, I guess. Right.

[Speaker 1] (58:34 - 59:17)

Yeah. And struggle to find. The people that are really open to you, it's almost as if a lot of people have chosen their their sides, at least that's what it seems on on Twitter or on X.

But to your point, I think the algorithm kind of drives that like people get things reflected back to them that they like and, you know, troll comes in and then it starts a fight. But it's like, where are the people that are just going to be fair and open and balanced, have an open mind? And and I would like to reach those people, but it's hard to find them on X.

It's hard to find them anywhere.

[Speaker 2] (59:19 - 1:00:25)

I'd like to think that I'm one of those people, but I think we are starting to see a little bit of that. And to your point is like how we got connected was through that group that that got set up. And I would even argue that I'm I'm bold in my liberty and my independence, but you won't hear me shout it the way some people shout it, if that makes sense.

It's not it doesn't make it non-existent. It just it's not the place to start the conversation. Right.

I think it might grow to that or build to that. But I think if you start there, it's almost like that's the door already slammed in your face. Like, it's like knocking on the door.

Hi, I'm I'm here to talk about, you know, this strange spaghetti monster that came out of whatever this are you going to answer the door? No, you're not going to answer the door. You're going to close the door in their face.

So you got to start with something like, hey, what do we agree on? You know, and then maybe go to like, OK, well, what's something that you kind of think I think a little differently than you? And then you get further and further from there, you know, but it's hard because we literally go to like I take my stand and I'm putting my flag on this mountain and now it's captured the mountain.

Right. Yes. Literally where it comes.

[Speaker 1] (1:00:26 - 1:02:41)

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. I mean, I think there is a divide in in conquer strategy by by the elites in a cast I did a while back on.

I think it was on unrestricted in fifth generation warfare. And I found some NATO stuff on one. And they're talking about how using social media to polarize and make people angry at each other, to push an agenda, to push another agenda.

And it's just it's it's crazy. I have no doubt about it, though, that these people in NATO and CIA and these different alphabet agencies like they are sitting back thinking about what's the best way to go about this psychological warfare, make people angry, make them fighting each other, you know, create animosity. It's just I think that's definitely going on.

And you see a lot of that crap with the whole Ukraine thing. I mean, that is a total just disaster of what's going on over there. None of it was necessary.

None of it needed to happen. It just if there were adults in the room going back to the Minsk Accord and and some of Russia's concerns, if they had just done what they did in the past and just negotiated and been adults and diplomats, I think the whole thing could have been averted. But that makes you think, why is there all this crazy stuff going on?

There's clearly a group of people that want this chaos, like you were talking about earlier. I mean, do they do they want these wars to create depopulate? And what's really wild is I didn't read Nikolai Schwab or whoever, whichever globalist said this, but they actually talk about, oh, we're going to have a lot of proxy wars.

We're going to have limited war because that's going to bring down population. And it's like it's really sick that some of these people think that way. And then you see you look at all the things going on geopolitically, and we can we can go into geopolitics a little bit if you want.

It's interesting, but it does seem like this stuff is getting off the rails. Like where was the where was the negotiation process going on with Russia in the West? And, you know, why after the dissolution of the USSR, did NATO have to expand all the way up to Russia's doorstep?

Like, it's just...

[Speaker 2] (1:02:41 - 1:03:54)

NATO was a defensive organization. Right. It did not need to expand.

91. Okay, so it's interesting we go through that, because I actually had Scott Horton on a podcast. I was fortunate.

He was very kind and gave me an hour of his time. I mean, that's an amazing mind to talk to you about this stuff. But basically, all the way back to World War One, we kicked them while they were down.

That created World War Two. So after World War Two, we're like, let's use reconstruction, right? So we thought that would be a good policy.

Well, after Soviet Union, we went back to kind of World War One, kick them while they're down policy and kept infringing and infringing. I'm sorry, but we have the Monroe Doctrine. How come we can't apply the Monroe Doctrine on the other side of the hemisphere?

Why should we? Just like we should have get the heck out of our backyard, we should be like, we will also stay out of yours. Like, it's like, how dare I?

And once again, I love America. I'm so blessed to be here. But it's up for constructive criticism.

At this point, how can we say not in our backyard, but we'll be in yours? Yeah, it's a double standard. And that's exposed.

It's been, it's over.

[Speaker 1] (1:03:54 - 1:04:02)

Yeah, 100%. Well, it's not going well over there. I mean, my view, NATO's gonna lose.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:02 - 1:05:18)

Yeah. And to your point, this is a very interesting, and that's actually gonna embolden people's losing that and foolishly entering it in the first place. It's just completely unprepared for it.

But to your point about the social media, I don't know if you follow like Mike Ben Cyber on X. He's the guy to follow. But basically, the CIA in the deep state made the internet free so that they could do these coups in foreign countries.

Oh, wow. And now it's coming, the hens have come home to roost because we are using it as Americans to expose the deep state. And now they want to implement censorship.

Yeah. See how they use the freedom to allow the voices of dissent so they could have the regime changes in the Eastern Bloc countries. Yeah, this is it's so great.

And then like, it's just like, oh, like the it's just all lines up. That totally makes sense. So now that the CIA had used the freedom of speech to destabilize the non freedom countries, because we want to get our people in there.

Now it's actually hurting them because we are exposing them with our freedom of speech because we have information that they're like, we don't want you to know that. So that's why they're that's why they're censoring everything now.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:19 - 1:05:37)

Yeah. And information is much more accessible now than it ever was. Back in the day, you had to go in the library, dig through books and all that.

You know, you got the internet now that has changed things. Social media has changed things. And I think web three blockchain, I think that's even going to continue.

Yeah, absolutely.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:37 - 1:06:35)

I mean, to go back in time, Walter Cronkite was the news like, okay, was that the news or the state news, right? Like, it's clearly Fox, CNN, all these places are state. I mean, the stuff we hear on Twitter is days in advance of any news broadcast.

I literally it's funny because like, I love my parents, my mom, you know, she does listen to everything, but she's like a Fox person. Okay. She's she's 80.

She just turned 80. Happy birthday, mom. But it's like, she's a Fox person.

So I'll call her and go, did you hear about the Senate hearing room? And she's like, what Senate hearing room? Like, yeah, it's been on for like two days.

I figured I'd wait two days before I even asked you because it happened over that weekend. No one talked about it till like Monday or Tuesday even. And you're like, wow, they had to get it, what, check through the channels or whether they can even like announce it.

You know what I mean? It's like, it's gotten that bad, you know? Yeah.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:36 - 1:07:43)

Yeah. And I've also noticed too, there's big generational differences. My parents, they're boomers.

And they, they listen. I mean, they're more Fox news, but whether it's Fox news, CNN, that's all curated information. That's curated news.

Uh, top down disseminated what, you know, you see, they see what you see, what they want you to see. I agree with you. Twitter, social media is faster.

Uh, I only recently started doing the X thing. And that was mainly because it's like, all right, our rumble is just, it's, it's just so quiet there. I got to at least get on X or something.

Um, but, uh, but yeah, you're, you're absolutely right. The news cycle moves so fast now. And it's a generational thing though, where I think X and younger millennials now, even whatever they call the youngest generation, um, they, they like all that stuff.

They're online, they're on social media. They don't even watch legacy news. They probably think it's boring as, as, as hell, but I go home or go, go to my parents' house and they've got Fox news on like all time, 24 seven, like just feeds right into their, their brain or something.

[Speaker 2] (1:07:44 - 1:07:57)

And it's funny, I heard an executive at, in one of the boardrooms say something like they're too old to change the channel. Like they literally said that about their audience and it's like, okay, how about the off channel? How about just off?

[Speaker 1] (1:07:57 - 1:08:25)

Right. Yeah. The off channel.

Oh my God. But they do, they have it going on in the background and they just, you know, it's something, it's something with that, uh, boomer generation. They just like that.

They just grew up with that. Um, but, uh, yeah. Oh man, we didn't get a chance to, I guess it's already been an hour, but we didn't get a chance to, uh, dig into some of the details of the climate stuff, but we can always do it.

We can keep going or we can always do it again. Another time.

[Speaker 2] (1:08:27 - 1:08:45)

I've had four and a half hour podcast, my friend, I can talk forever. So it's like, if you want to, if you want to dig into it, we can do that. We can talk about anything you want.

We could call it a day and revisit another day. Look, it's the first time we've ever met. I feel like, uh, it's like a strange, you know, stranger, just a friend I haven't met yet.

So I'm glad we got, got to connect today.

[Speaker 1] (1:08:45 - 1:09:37)

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, no, I think it was, I think it's great. And, uh, you know, this, this is what I want to do.

I want to come on as a guest on, you know, people can ask me about my expertise. I mean, I don't mind getting into anything like you. I love talking about this stuff.

It's super interesting. I'm not a geopolitical, you know, analyst or expert by any means, but I do, I do watch a lot of stuff. I watched the Duran.

I watch, uh, Alexander Mercosy. I watched a lot of those guys. I watched the situation, what's going on there in Ukraine.

I follow it. That's not my expertise. My expertise is more in the, you know, paleo climate, geologic stuff that, you know, calling out that BS.

Um, but, uh, but yeah, I love getting into the other stuff. Uh, I mean, it's a crazy world we live in right now. And, uh, I do think we're going through a, um, a fourth turning.

Have you heard about this?

[Speaker 2] (1:09:37 - 1:09:40)

Uh, yeah, I've, I've, I was, I was listening to Neil house book as well.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:41 - 1:09:42)

Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:42 - 1:09:44)

Are you familiar with the book? The fourth turning is here.

[Speaker 1] (1:09:44 - 1:09:49)

I've, I've heard of the book. I haven't, I haven't read it, but I've got Neil how H O W E.

[Speaker 2] (1:09:49 - 1:11:01)

Yeah. It's uh, I also listened to, I listened to Peter's eye hands. The end of the world is just the beginning.

You want to end up not sleeping at night or like sharpening razor blades. You listen to that book. It doesn't end well for anyone.

Like ultimately, I mean, we're, we come out, I mean, we come look, we America as just a land has resources, has natural barriers and has the most guns of anyone in the, in the world. And you don't know where they are. We shouldn't have to be imperialistic and be sticking our nose in other people's business.

There's no way you're coming to us, right? It's, I mean, obviously outside of like a nuclear type thing, we're taught, we're talking as a conventional taking over type thing. That's not, that's just not happening.

So what the heck are like, and I'm, and it's like, I just got, I grew up the whole thing, just being anti-communist because of my mom and obviously anti-fascist. So, but we had to be war Western because that fought fascism and communism. And it's like, well, you're just doing the same thing.

It's not like it's really the same ideology.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:01 - 1:12:38)

It's just a different side of it. That's right. Have you ever followed or listened to a guy named Jay Dyer?

You ever heard of him? No, no. Jay Dyer, really interesting.

I think he's like a PhD philosopher, but he wrote the book, Isoteric Hollywood, and maybe another one, but he gets into the occult, but he's also does the geopolitics and he gets really deep into communist versus capitalism and that whole history and how he talks about how it's kind of, the whole thing is process oriented to get to a later synthesis. So you probably heard the term problem reaction solution for thesis, anti-thesis synthesis, the Hegelian, Hegelian dialectic. He talks a lot about that.

So he's like, you know, people on the right get really twisted off and angry and people on the left get really angry. And he basically says, that's what they want. This is the plan.

They're trying to have everybody at their throats, destroy confidence in our institutions, our government, tear it all down because they're going to bring in the new thing, which is going to be a synthesis of something else. And that's the technocratic future. And, you know, the other people like Alex Jones and other people talk about the new world order of technocracy, but that is Jay Dyer describes it in those terms.

It starts to make a little bit of sense because it's like, man, they really are trying to amp up to fight this side and try to polarize these opposites as much as possible and get them to go at each other. And then the people.

[Speaker 2] (1:12:38 - 1:13:18)

But it's not just that they're doing the opposite. What are they focusing on? It's culture shit that really ultimately besides affecting women and children, like trans women beating up regular women or children being mutilated outside of that scope, it doesn't matter.

And yet that's the one that they go to, right? They go to these low hanging fruit ones that we just get all enraged about because we see, oh my gosh, you dyed your hair pink. Oh my God.

Oh no, it's the end of the world. You got a tattoo. Remember?

I mean, I remember when tattoos were like a huge thing and, you know, like, so anyway, it's just always a culture thing. Anyway, please continue.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:18 - 1:13:58)

It's just, yeah. Well, he talks about that too. He talks about how a lot of the stuff we see coming out of Hollywood, coming out of news media, the culture, his basic point is this is not organic.

He says this, this is the elites. This is the globalist cabal, whatever you want to call them. They are pushing the culture and the stuff that comes out of Hollywood and what comes out of movies.

And the whole point is to degrade and change the culture, to destroy it so they can bring in their new system. And that's where he starts talking about the smart cities. He calls them coonpods.

I love that term, coonpods. You will live in your 200 square foot apartment.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:00 - 1:14:06)

And he eats the bugs, right? He eats the bugs. You own nothing and you will like it.

You'll be happy.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:07 - 1:14:12)

Yeah, you got a good day. Well, I'm German, man.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:12 - 1:14:37)

I can totally, actually, you know, what's really sad about it, Wes, is I've got one of the most phenomenal Robert Kennedy impersonations, but I can't do it. It's kind of like, it's a VAX injury. It's like, am I making fun of him?

But it's like, I've nailed it. Like, it sounds like you're starting a car. Like, it's really interesting when he talks.

I don't want to do, I'm not going to do it, man. I'm not going to do it.

[Speaker 1] (1:14:38 - 1:14:46)

I've always wondered, what is, did he have something with his throat or did he have something? He did. He had a VAX injury, actually.

Oh, that's okay. That caused the voice.

[Speaker 2] (1:14:46 - 1:15:08)

Yeah, that's, I'm not saying, I don't know if that's the one that actually got him initially started. I think he was like VAX injured, like later in life or something, because it changed his voice and then he had surgery to make it a little better. But obviously it's strained and I'm not trying to make fun of the guy.

It's just like, everyone makes fun of Trump's voice. It's like, I've got a great RFK, man. I just can't use it because I feel like it would be mean.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:09 - 1:15:17)

Yeah. That, that one is where it's like, some people might interpret that as a handicap or something.

[Speaker 2] (1:15:18 - 1:15:35)

Well, I know it's really interesting, right? Like, but it's, it's funny because it's like, Trump's has a weird timber that everyone seems to make fun of and Biden clearly has lost some marbles and they clearly, have you ever seen Kyle Dunnigan's Joe Biden? It is probably the funniest.

I did see that.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:35 - 1:15:35)

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:15:35 - 1:15:39)

His is pretty good. Oh my gosh. It is probably the funniest little thing where he does like the faceover thing.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:41 - 1:15:44)

The guy that does Trump though, whatever, he's a young guy, whatever his name is.

[Speaker 2] (1:15:44 - 1:15:45)

Sean Farash?

[Speaker 1] (1:15:45 - 1:15:49)

Is that what you're talking about, Sean? It is so good. It's- He's got his own podcast, right?

[Speaker 2] (1:15:49 - 1:15:52)

You're talking about Sean Farash, right? Farash? Probably is him.

[Speaker 1] (1:15:52 - 1:15:59)

Like you, you don't look at the screen and you think it's Trump. It's that good. It's, it's amazing.

It's uncanny.

[Speaker 2] (1:15:59 - 1:16:01)

He's dark hair, like goatee, like a beard, right?

[Speaker 1] (1:16:01 - 1:16:01)

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:16:01 - 1:16:32)

Yeah, dark. Yeah. That's him.

Yeah. Yeah. That's, that's pretty wild.

It's pretty crazy. I mean, Sean, Shane Gillis does a great Trump because he's, it's like, he's just got the mannerism. Once you get that timber down, you know, it's great, but anyway.

So, hey, I've had a, I've had a great time talking Wes. Like I said, we probably could talk for hours and hours, so we'll probably schedule another conversation down the road here. Yeah.

Well, let's, let's do it again. Yeah, for sure. Thanks so much for connecting, man.

Tell, tell us everything. How can we get ahold of you? Where can we find you on all your socials and all your websites and everything?

[Speaker 1] (1:16:32 - 1:17:41)

Okay, sure. So for right now, I've just got the X, I'm Carbon Cow on X and then on Rumble, I'm Carbon PsyOps and then Carbon Cow is on there. He's a little cartoon, but I'm going to keep going with Carbon PsyOps and we'll probably get a website at some point.

And, and then what I'm going to do with the website is I want to put all the papers and scientific literature, because I have tons of it. I mean, I have all this stuff that shows that, you know, the climate was warmer in the medieval warm period. There's a lot of evidence for it.

There's mountains of academic pure papers for all this stuff. Papers that show that CO2 was much higher than geologic timescale, all this stuff. So I want to have that as a resource where if people want to go and see it and reference it, look at the figures, it's there.

So I'll have a website at some point. Right now we're still building it. It's locked, but it's probably just going to be Carbon PsyOps or something like that.

So, but that's it. X, Carbon Cow, and Carbon PsyOps on Rumble. And now I'm happy to be a guest on other, other shows.

And I'd love to come back and we can, we can dig more into the weeds on the, the climate stuff too.

[Speaker 2] (1:17:41 - 1:18:22)

That sounds very interesting to me. I want to try to play a little catch up cause it's like drinking from a fire hose, man. Mike, my, my infinite curiosity has me.

I work remotely now and I haven't really stepped foot in my office in a couple of years, to be honest. And I'll put on three or four things at one time. So I'll have like a podcast, YouTube, a Rumble and something else.

And then if I hear something on one of them, I'll like, stop the other three. And I'll kind of like, it's kind of like I, cause there's so much out there to absorb so much information. Yeah.

Cause like I love music and it's like, you could never listen to every song ever made. There's, you don't have enough time. And it's, it's like heartbreaking when they're like, you think like that, there's just so much.

What's that?

[Speaker 1] (1:18:22 - 1:18:42)

You're a musician, right? Like you did your voice. I sing.

Yeah. I used to say, okay, yeah, I'm a, I'm a musician. Yeah.

Oh, are you? What do you do? I do, uh, years ago I did a little banjo.

Now I'm more mandolin and fiddle. And I do like, that's amazing. I do like Appalachian music, like old time fiddle stuff.

[Speaker 2] (1:18:42 - 1:19:24)

I need to catch you in touch with my buddy. Who's like, he's gotten into gongs now, but he's huge into bluegrass and country. I should have worn my CBGB shirt.

I had it on yesterday's podcast. So nice, but yeah, that sounds awesome. Yeah.

I I'm not a musician. I want to be clear. I just saying it's a totally different thing.

You, you are a musician. If you play an instrument singing is it's a different, it's not the same thing. It's not the same.

Oh, you can use your voice as an instrument. Uh, I appreciate it. So, well, if you, if you listen to the end of my podcast, that is me doing a three piece harmony of the good night, sweetheart.

If you heard the end of that. Okay. So if you happen to listen to one of the podcasts at the end, it's just me singing good night, sweetheart.

It's a three piece harmony.

[Speaker 1] (1:19:25 - 1:19:27)

Oh yeah, I did. Yeah. I did catch that.

Yeah.

[Speaker 2] (1:19:27 - 1:19:49)

That's me. That is me doing all three parts. So you're welcome.

No, anyway. So Dr. Ingram, very nice to meet you, Wes. It's great to connect.

So glad we got to do this. It's like I said, it's like a, it's like a friend I haven't met yet. And I'm so glad we got to connect today.

And if there's anything else, any final thoughts, any words of wisdom for our audience or for your audience?

[Speaker 1] (1:19:50 - 1:20:09)

Oh, no, I think we're good. We went, we went long enough, but let's say, yeah, let's just definitely do it again. I'd love to, I'd love to get into the geologic record part of the deep time climate.

We didn't get a chance to get into the deep time, but it goes back millions of years. There's so many cool, interesting things that have happened in Earth's history. And it's a really cool story unto itself.

All right, man.

[Speaker 2] (1:20:09 - 1:20:47)

Well, well, let's do it again, Wes. I'm going to hit stop here and then stay on though. Okay.

And we'll, we'll talk a little bit. Take care, man. Thank you so much for joining Not Conscious.

Have a great day. Yeah, man. See you.

Take care. Take care.