Sanity Check

As a meteorologist/scientist I love listening to experts that understand the big picture. Great coverage and clear explanations of difficult and often challenging topics.

I love the information dense and focused format in use. You provide specific examples and timely references that help enable informed discussion, all of which is appreciated. It would be very helpful for listening comprehension if the host would identify the beginning and end of the numerous quotations often cited. It requires much effort to separate editorial comments from the quoted material otherwise. Keep up the good work!

Interesting podcast that gives alternative information on climate change. What would make it 10 times better is if it would address climate topics in the news and give the other side in a specific, timely manner. Several times each year the dominant media publicizes a new study or studies that seem to support the climate catastrophe narrative. Rarely does any podcast or website of note on the other side respond quickly and authoritatively —if at all. In politics, (and climate change nothing is if not politics), a seemingly authoritative assertion that goes specifically unanswered is considered by the undecided observer to be factual. So if this podcast wanted to have an outsized impact, every time one of these especially well-publicized studies comes out, it would quickly, concisely and comprehensively rebut it. But neither it, nor any other Podcast or website that I’ve found does so. So this lack of response makes honest seekers wonder if there is a credible rebuttal to be made by the non-climate catastrophe camp. A couple of recent examples. Three or four months ago Oregon State University released a well-publicized study about ice cores in Antarctica showing CO2 increases PRECEEDING global temperature increases Going back thousands of years. I searched high and low online and in podcasts and could find NO response from the other side. A few months later I saw an article in realclearpolitics.com with the completely opposing point of view. That was interesting but it would’ve been better if it had also responded to the particular points in the Oregon State paper. But that’s not protocol for academic papers so itwould’ve been helpful to have a site or a podcast like this respond to the Oregon state study, and then a few months later publicize the other paper’s opposing point of view. Another example is the recent clamor in the majority media about the West Antarctic ice shelf being undermined by warm water currents — and how if it’s undermined enough, a huge chunk of fresh water ice will drop into the ocean, raising sea levels dramatically and catastrophically — putting low lying communities, such as most of the Florida coast underwater. Again, no responses from conservative websites or podcasts. So until there is such a rapid response podcast or website that gives timely, credible rebuttals to climate catastrophe assertions in the main stream media, the conservative point of view will not be considered legitimate by honest observers. This podcast seems well positioned to fill that role. Failure to do so is a wasted opportunity and makes one wonder if the climate catastrophe scenario is actually correct.

I just discovered this podcast thru a Heritage’s podcast. I love how this podcast takes a very complicated area of science and explains it a way that is easy to understand. Just love it! Thank you!