Listen: Morano: By withdrawing from the 1992 climate treaty, Trump ends America’s UN climate change nightmare!

Mainstream media has betrayed our trust. Rather than tell us the whole story about the important issues of the day, they tell us only what they want us to hear. Your hosts, Tom Harris and Todd Royal, will bring you the other side of the story.

In June of 1992, at the real Earth Summit in Brazil, President George H.W. Bush joined other world leaders to adopt the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is abbreviated as UNFCCC or sometimes FCC for short. The U.S. then went on to become the first industrialized nation to ratify the convention. This gave the FCC early political legitimacy and helped launch the global climate regime that has wasted literally trillions of dollars ever since for no measurable impact on climate. The U.S. didn’t just accept the framework treaty, it engineered it.

Washington’s negotiating position shaped the FCC’s architecture more than any other country, and it set the stage for get this the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, and every other UN climate agreement from then on. But the FCC was fundamentally flawed right from the start. It assumed there was a climate problem, even though the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC, launched two years earlier, had not yet established there actually was a problem. You see, the convention’s purpose is quote to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

But what if there’s no likelihood of dangerous anthropogenic that means human caused interference with the climate system? Well, the purpose of the FCC disappears. And that is, of course, exactly the case today. Over the past four years, we’ve had many leading experts on this program who show that there’s obviously no climate crisis.

Another problem is that the FCC treats developing and developed countries entirely differently. Article 4 of the FCC shows us that China, India, and other developing nations effectively have no mandatory emission limits whatsoever in any agreement that follows on the FCC. This is because every UN climate agreement is based on the FCC. And if it gives them an outclause, which it does, then they really don’t have to reduce emissions at all.

However, we in the West have severe economy crushing limits, even though most of the world’s emissions now come from developing nations. Happily on January 7th, 2026, President Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum that had the title, quote, withdrawing the United States from international organizations, conventions, and treaties that are contrary to the interests of the United States. The memorandum directs the U.S. government to withdraw from both the UNFCCC and the IPCC to discuss this wonderful development, one that I didn’t expect to see in my lifetime. We’ve invited Marc Morano to be our guest today.

Marc’s site, Climate Depot.com is the go to website for millions of climate realists across the world. Marc has a bachelor’s degree from George Mason University in political science. He began his career working for Rush Limbaugh in 1992. After 1996, he worked for CNS News.

And beginning in June 2006, Marc served as the director of communications for Senator Jim Inhoff of Oklahoma. He was also communications director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under the George W. Bush administration. I’ll include the link to Marc’s book, Green Fraud, Why the Green New Deal is even worse than you think, right under the interview when it goes to podcast on Monday. I’ll also include links to his fabulous documentary films, Climate Hustle and Climate Hustle 2, Rise of the Climate Monarchy.

So welcome to the show. Marc, you’ve been pushing for the U.S. to withdraw from both the UN FCCC and the IPCC for many years. So after attending so many of the annual UN FCC meetings, you must be very happy that now Trump is doing exactly what you said he should do all along. Yeah, in fact, it’s a it’s remarkable in all my years involved in politics, and just to give you an idea, I was my brother worked on Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign.

Oh wow. So I would tag along with him as a as a teen as I was thinking, I was 12, 13 years old, and I actually worked on politics at that age. I was actually in charge. I actually calling up radio stations, giving Ronald Reagan sound bites of the day.

This was fall of 1980. Okay. So played around with the signature pen, the auto pen that Joe Biden got in trouble. I had a lot of fun signing that.

I wasn’t doing that in my official capacity. I was just doing that as a kid. Anyway, my point is having followed politics low these, is that that more than 50 years? I can’t even do the math.

That’s 45 years. I’ve never seen anything like I’ve seen Donald Trump do when it comes to climate energy and the environment policy. I was in COP 30, and I did a live hit on Fox and Friends, which was the show of choice that Donald Trump likes to watch. And I was doing it live from my balcony right in Baleen, Brazil.

Nice. And I tried to conjure up the Ronald Reagan, Gorbachev, tear down this wall at the Berlin Wall. So I reversed it a little bit, and I said, what Donald Trump needs to do, and our message here at this summit is very simple. Mr. President, tear up this 1992 treaty.

Yeah. And lo and behold, within minutes of me doing that segment, Donald Trump posted my entire interview on his Truth Social account. And then, not that I’m taking credit, but then, less than 60 days later, he tore up that treaty, announced it. So I was just ecstatic, and it goes to a larger theme here, and we’ll get into what that all means in a second, but it goes to a larger theme of we had I work, as we work with all these other skepticals, individuals, websites, think tanks, etc.

And we came up with a top 10 list for Trump 2.0. And I think it’s pretty fair to say that he, for the U.S., he blew through those in like the first few weeks to the point where we were like, gee, we weren’t ambitious enough. We should have had a well, he did, we should have had a top 100, 200. And it’s just been amazing because it’s beyond anything we could have expected.

Now, in I think this is one of your questions we talked about later, later on, but compared to Trump 1.0, his first term, Trump 2.0, blows his first term out of the water on every level becomes the climate, energy, and the environment. So I’m just in awe at what I’ve seen. And I would say that the again, before we even get into the treaty and what it means, one of the basis for the why he’s been able to do this this time around, is it’s not only Donald Trump, it’s the flipping of the narrative, and the narrative is so important in politics and in the way the media treat you. But Donald Trump’s been pretty consistent with his narrative of climate change is the hoax and blah, blah.

But it’s when you get cabinet members, and this is what I did not expect. Lee Zeldon, Chris Wright, who stepped forward and say climate change particularly Lee Zeldon at EPA, he’s the most consequential EPA chief in the U.S. agency’s history. He has said repeatedly, climate change is a scam, a hoax, a religion. He’s gone toe-to-toe with reporters in their face.

Contrast that with Trump’s first term, you had Andrew Wheeler, you had Scott Pruitt. And they were, to put it mildly more tepid when it came to the climate. They saw, not so much Scott Pruitt. He pushed back gently and for his trouble, he got ridden out of Washington over a made-up scandal because they couldn’t handle that.

But generally the EPA was just, oh, well, we’re not going to talk about climate and we don’t yeah, blah, blah, blah. We’re we’re working on it. But now they just like gave it. So once you change that narrative, when you watch even like the EPA chief leads out in an interview, oh, well, what climate change?

This is the hope. These are all scientists, they’re picked by the U.S. They know how to handle it. They, and when you’re that strong, the media doesn’t lay a glove on you in these interviews.

So it’s amazing, and that’s been, I think, the key is the narrative shift and the fact that Donald Trump, I think, partially just didn’t give an F anymore because he had been, indicted and all that, tried to try to jail him and everything on loads along those lines. The meaning they being the establishment, the deep state, and the climate activists are a big part of that agenda, of course. So he was just like, I’ve had it. And so it’s been amazing.

So to answer your question directly, this is a huge deal, at least for the U.S. to beginning because it it’s like it takes out the base, the foundation of all the crap that followed, and that includes the UN Paris Agreement, that includes sustainable development, that includes Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, that includes the IPCC. It includes the Copenhagen Agreement, it includes the whole net zero agenda. So it’s been this is what we’ve asked for. We were didn’t even really ask for it in the first term because we didn’t think it was possible.

And just to give you one last big picture internationally, pulling out of the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, or otherwise known as the Rio Earth Summit Treaty that was signed by George H.W. Bush in May of 1992 and ratified by our our Senate at the time. That is key to international getting us out of the UN and domestically, we’re expecting to hear something any day now. This CO2.

Endangerment finding, which is not really the topic of us today, but just in short, it’s where the Obama administration, with a blessing from the U.S. Supreme Court, decided to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under old laws that never even addressed carbon dioxide, i.e., the Clean Air Act. This gave the ability for unelected bureaucrats to basically come up with climate and energy policy without a vote of any legislature, because hey, it’s now our mandate. We’re we’re allowed to regulate. And keep in mind, humans inhale oxygen, we exhale carbon dioxide.

So for the first time, we had unelected bureaucrats regulating what humans exhaled from our mouths, carbon dioxide, as a pollutant in the United States. So if he can get rid of that, which he’s now making a valiant effort to do, and that’s a long road of legal and legal challenges and courts and definitions and different procedural bureaucratic procedurals. But that’s the domestic, the international is this Rio Earth Summit Treaty. It’s like if the old sign fell, well, I’m out, baby, I’m out.

That’s what if it if it all happens. Now, having said everything I said, it’s very possible that endangerment finding could get bogged down in court or the courts could rule against it and we’re stuck in it. It’s also possible, and a lot of environmentalists are already saying, oh, he didn’t go about withdrawing from the treaty correctly. And who knows?

Some federal judge is going to come along and say, no, we’re still in it, and etc. But the gist of it is if we pull out of that treaty now, legal analysts, mainstream media, environmentalists have been fearing it would require the next president to then resubmit it for ratification once you vacate the treaty. And that’s going to be subject to some legal interpretation. But that appears to be one of the biggest things that that they’re afraid of.

And that puts makes it much harder for a future president, AOC or Gavin Newsom, the current governor of California, to come in and reimpose this climate agenda. And my last point to answer your first question is here in the US, we’ve been yin-yang on climate. Obama, Trump, Biden, Trump, it just goes back and forth to like within like a month of each presidency, they undo what the previous president did. And I think this time is what gives it permanence, and that’s the key word here, permanence.

We need something that gets us off this seesaw. And I think this, along with what the CNN pollster said live on CNN a few months ago, in the United States, concern and the word was worry over global warming, according to Gallup polling, has never been less, and it actually goes back to levels we haven’t seen since the late 1980s. Wow. That tells you again, goes back to what I said about narrative on climate change.

Why that’s so important. Because if the people aren’t clamoring for it, the politicians aren’t going to be pushing it as much. I say as much because they’re getting funded by Tom Steyer, they’re getting funded by Soros or getting funded by they’re getting all this money to do something, whether the public cares about it or not. But this makes it a lot less hard.

And by the way, just breaking news today, Bloomberg News was reporting Fridays for our future, which was Greta’s rise to fame in Sweden, is now down to two kids. All of it is fading away. I have a my headline at Climate Depot is it goes through the the whole gist of this is that Sweden is even having to force themselves to walk away from the UN climate agenda, missing targets. And it’s because of the public not clamoring for it.

In fact, Axios is calling it the world’s great climate collapse. Oh, right. That’s mainstream news media outlet here in the United States. And then, of course, I mentioned Greta, and it’s there they’re saying it’s Sweden is retreating from its bold green ambitions, and the energy has quote drained out of Greta’s climate campaign, a broader deflation of green ambitions across Europe.

Quote from Bloomberg News. So the mainstream media can’t even find any way to spin it the other way. In fact, they’re coming up with some very creative, colorful ways to describe it. I I like these phrases, deflect deflation, collapse, fall from grace.

These are great words. Yeah, for sure. Well, writing in the Daily Caller, Steve Malloy, our friend, he said, quote, Congress should pass a law before Trump leaves office barring the U.S. from spending any money related to international climate efforts without express authorization of Congress. This law should also bar funding for implementation of executive agreements like the Paris Climate Accord.

So what do you think? Is that realistic or is that even going beyond what he would do? I think that’s fantastic. And I, again, that’s the type of stuff.

Notice Steve Malloy. We’re now talking about this over a year into Trump’s president. Well, I guess quite a year in. This is stuff that wasn’t even on our wish list, at least published wish lists, because we didn’t even think it was contemplatable.

Now we’re seriously contemplating it. Yes. One of the problems, I remember I just said the yin yang back and forth. When you have all these rule, I guess you want to call it rule by executive order.

And it really began in earnest. Yeah, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush in Obama, and really in earnest, with this executive order here in the United States. And the idea is we don’t need no stinking Congress.

We’ll just issue an executive order and do whatever the hell we want. Well, that’s what the UN Paris Agreement was seen as is an executive agreement. And as part of that, the UN Green Climate Fund, which is committing the U.S. to billions of dollars, all this money here. Is that is that dead also now?

Well, yes. In fact, we pulled out of the UN Green Climate Fund. Yes. It’s all dead on paper.

I just want to say that. In the the reason there’s there’s a couple of elements to this. A, it’s incredibly important to have politicians and our government declare we’re out, and these things are a scam, not in the best interest of the U.S., but having said that, there’s going to be all kinds of legal challenges, court cases. In the case, just a quick aside, that awesome report that our energy secretary Chris Wright issued through the energy department last I believe it was last May or last spring, late spring, by Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, John Christie, Ross McKittrick.

The what I called it was the first ever government report from any government in the world pushing back on the UNIPCC. It was a great Steve Coonin. Yeah. It was a fantastic report.

Well, what happened to that report? It’s now been withdrawn by the federal government. Well, what happened? Was there a mistake?

Was there an error? Did they know? Apparently, in the bureaucratic paperwork of that, someone didn’t fill out a form. One of the one of the six scientists didn’t fill out the paperwork correctly, which, according to an environmental group lawsuit, and kudos to them, this environmental group, I can’t remember the name of the environmental group.

Their lawyers spotted this, took it to federal district court. It was apparently a slam dunk for the judge because it’s like, well, no, this report’s now invalid because the scientists in it had no authorization by the government to be on that because this form wasn’t filled up. I’m not making any of this up. And the report had to be withdrawn.

So that report no longer officially exists as a product of the United States government. You see how that works there? That’s how, that’s how crazy this is. So having how desperate they are.

Yes, but it’s also in the report, it’s still around, but it’s no longer part of the energy department. They had to walk away from it. They couldn’t officially keep it on websites, government, so the reason I bring that up is yes, we’re out of the green climate fund. Yes, we’re out of the Rio Earth Summit Treaty.

Yes, we’re out of the IPCC. But there’s always a chance, going forward here. And I’m talking six months, a year, three years, where there’s going to be all sorts of lawsuits coming from many different angles, bureaucratic snafu’s like that, procedural, constitutional questions. So you don’t really know, but we’re on a great path.

And I I, it’s overwhelming odds are that we are, meaning I’d say at least 70% chance, but 20, 30% chance of these things hitting major snaffos or one of the many things hitting Snefus, still very much real. And to go back to the question, Steve, what Steve Malloy is saying is fantastic because part of the problem was with these executive orders is they’re just not permanent. I’m at a point now where, okay, Trump issues a new executive order. I’m like, yeah, that’s not that great anymore because they’re important, especially early on.

He was doing like against transgender, you’re resetting a whole government focus, and it is important. It’s particularly important for government agencies. Yeah. But you really need Congress to follow through.

In fact, there is a movement now to get Congress, the GOP Congress before the midterms, not just on climate, but basically get the top Trump executive orders or most consequential, and have Congress actually vote on them and pass them into law so that the next president in the next, first 30 days in office can’t undo all this, great stuff that President Trump says. And we saw it. Are they brave enough to do that? Or are these rhinos that won’t do it?

I I got the interesting opinions on that because I I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of Congressman Thomas Massey of Kentucky. He Trump hates him. I think he’s fantastic. He’s a libertarian Congressman, America first, but he doesn’t go along with a lot of the Republican budget stuff in particular or Trump’s foreign policy.

But anyway, that’s fine. What happens and is you asked me if Republicans are Will are brave enough. Well, the problem is Republicans are beholden just like any other party. Their party itself, I’m skeptical on.

I mean, Trump was a movement. The Republican Party went along with it because of the force of the people and the votes. There’s still a very much a uniparty in Washington that loves this cocktail set, that loves the UN, that loves climate agreements, that loves being, part of the community of nations. They want to be, they want to be able to be invited to polite society, right?

Yeah. They don’t want to be where the, they don’t want to be thrown out with the impolite. And they see that as that. That’s the whole the whole gist of the climate agenda is a big part of that.

Oh, you’re you’re one of those. So to answer the question, I think a lot of Republicans, this is the last window we have to do it because they’re probably afraid of Trump. And I think there should be a concerted effort, not just on climate, but a whole bunch of things. But I think what Steve Malloy proposed is exactly dead on accurate.

If we could get a bill passed like that, I think it would be fantastic. It’d be nice if we actually had people following the Constitution, like the judges and the Supreme Court would rule, because the UN Paris Agreement should have been ratified by the Senate. But the reason it wasn’t was they said, well, this is merely an extension of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit Treaty, and you could actually make that argument on that level, which is why it’s so freaking important to get us out of that underlying treaty. Because now, and again, in a way what Steve’s proposing is potentially redundant, maybe not, because you have, again, you have all the legal challenges, because you don’t have to worry about a future executive agreement if there’s no underlying foundation of the Rio Earth Summit 1992 UN Framework Convention.

So I went and borrowed, I’m open up boring your Canadian listeners with a lot of U.S. This is inside baseball and a lot of U.S. politics and constitutional stuff, but that’s where we are, and it’s it’s just profound how far we’ve come in one year on this agenda. It’s the total complete utter collapse. What do you think?

What do you think caused that? I mean, why did he become so much braver in the second term? Do you think? I really think it’s a simple answer, and it’s just that they went after him so strong in the United States, whether it was the the convictions for the rape, just as an example of that alleged rape or harassment trial in New York.

The regardless of what anyone thinks, whether he did it, didn’t the evidence isn’t there is no evidence of it. It was the lady decades later claiming it, even that anyway. They changed the laws in the state of New York to change statute of limits just for like a I think a six month or one year, just so they could prosecute Donald Trump. And then once he was prosecuted, they went back.

My point is they did this 29 times on different charges. They just it was just naked political politicization of of these attorney generals and the prosecutors. And so and the threat of Trump going to jail, which I was saying, if he goes there was a point where like rappers, black African American rappers who make prison culture part of the rap culture, and part of what they sing about became like a folk hero. Donald Trump became a folk herald to him.

They were all coming out because he was like this is going to be he’s a felon now. Like the president is going to be a felon, and he could legally run for office. He just couldn’t vote for himself, which is interesting at another angle. But if that at all happened, and they were pursuing that to such an intense degree.

And of course, he won the election and then not all went away, and they were able to, there a lot of the charges were just dropped because they were just absurd. So I think the extent to which the deep state and the Justice Department went after Donald Trump just made it so he didn’t care anymore. And I think that is ultimately what happened. And I will say one other key thing, and I think this is why we’re seeing the whole collapse of the climate agenda, even if it’s not recognized by the media and politicians in power largely.

It’s what your prime minister did. It’s what happened in Europe, it’s what happened here in the United States during COVID. The COVID lockdowns mandates they’re called domestic terror. By the way, I’m very sensitive in the United States.

This may not be popular, you may not even agree with me. I’m sensitive to like the recent shooting we had here on immigration, where now Trump’s Justice Department is saying it was a domestic terrorist, that that needed to be shot by the ICE agent here, the immigration. When I hear that, I immediately think this is the conservative justification for what Justin Trudeau did to the truckers. I don’t like Americans who were generally peacefully protesting to be called terrorists, reclassified.

And the Trump administration unfortunately is doing that to some degree. But anyway, the the the grandfather of all this happens on both sides of the aisle, all over the world, I think, and to some degree, but what happened during COVID, both in Europe, even Australia, Canada, US, the Western world in particular, with this extreme lockdowns, with this extreme stay-at-home orders, with this extreme in the case of Canada, with the truckers, declared characters, debanking and not having access, all that insane stuff. It radicalized people to a point where, and the whole idea is you can’t question the science behind a pandemic or behind a virus. And like in the United States, I’ll give you a couple examples.

Pre-COVID lockdowns, pre-COVID, people like Joe Rogan would have a climate skeptic on his show, and they would say something and say, oh, what? Yeah, NASA doesn’t say that. Let’s go to the NASA website. There’s videos of Joe Rogan, the podcaster saying, look, NASA says it’s real.

So therefore, these are the world’s top scientists. And he believed that in 2017. Fast forward Joe Rogan is like the biggest climate skeptic denier on anyone in media today. He’s got on Richard Lindzen, he’s got on Will Happer, he’s got on other scientists, he’s making jokes, he’s challenging Bernie Sanders with the chart showing that the Washington Post chart showing temperatures of last half million years have dropped considerably.

And what caused that? People no longer have faith in these institutions. That appeal to authority. Right is dead.

Not only is it dead, but people have contempt for it. When they have nothing but questions about being forced a vaccine, about being forced to stay at home, about canceling weddings and funerals and medical procedures and forced maskings, and you can’t even question it, or you’re considered an anti-science denier, or in the case in Australia, you could be you like stuff back at the time. They were arresting people and jailing them and putting them in detention camps, and they had the apps track and trace and insane stuff. That turned people so against the appeal to authority that it’s going to take a generation for them to recover from.

Ah, wow. And I really truly believe that’s why Trump has been so successful. And I think that’s why the whole UN climate agenda is collapsing. That’s why Sweden’s Greta, why you get two lone kids out there, with their Fridays, and everyone’s saying it’s been totally deflated, is the word that Bloomberg News is using in Sweden.

There’s just no passion there. And I’ll go further. You have someone like RFK Jr., who when I interviewed at the New York City Climate March 2014. He told me I want to, I wish there was a law you could punish politicians on it.

That’s almost a direct quote from him. He wanted to jail the CEOs of energy companies for fossil fuel promotion at The Hague as war criminals with three square meals and a cot. Three, I remember that. And a hot, three hot three hots and a cot is his exact quote.

Fast forward. In 2020, he becomes the biggest anti-lockdown, anti-Bill Gates, World Health Organization, Anthony Fauci spokesman. As such, he’s railing against the World Health Organization. He’s railing against public health.

Within a year or two, first of all, he almost immediately goes silent on all his climate activism at this time. When he re-emerges and announces he’s running for president, this would be 2023, I believe. Late, he announces, and this was shocking. I will not talk about climate change.

This is RFK Jr. I will not talk about climate change during my campaign. I won’t bring it up. If you don’t agree, I I believe it was a problem, but if you don’t agree with me, I have no problem with that.

Welcoming climate skeptics. He said climate change has been hijacked by the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, and international groups for totalitarian control of society. And ergo he’s basically said his goodbyes to it. Yeah.

So what it boils down to is that people just don’t trust institutions. We have to go for a break now, Marc. But after the break, let’s talk about whether it’s likely that other countries will follow and hopefully the whole FCC will collapse, okay? Yes, we will.

Thank you. Yeah, for sure. Well, we’ll be right back after the break with this exciting interview with Marc Morano. He’s with Climate Depot.com.

So check it out. Let’s get real. Let’s get loud on America Loud Talk News. Yes, this is Dr. Peter McCullough, and I’m personally inviting you to join me in Nashville on July 2nd, 3rd, and 4th for a historic experience in 2026.

America Out Loud News 250 slash 10, Nashville. Along with Clear and the Wellness Company, we’re celebrating two big milestones. 250 years of America and 10 years of America Out Loud News. I’m calling all patriots to this historic weekend with inspiring entertainment, incredible fireworks, and nationally recognized speakers who proudly stand for freedom.

I would love to see you there because your presence matters and you are family. Now’s the time to get together and we can exchange ideas. Answer your questions and enjoy fellowship. Join us and register now at America Outloud.

News forward slash Nashville. That’s America Outloud.news forward slash Nashville. See you there. In a world of rising prices, you can still grow abundance.

I’m Doug Evans, author of the national bestseller, The Sprout Book. Sprouts grow in three to five days without soil, sunshine, or fertilizer on your kitchen countertop for under a dollar serving. Take control of your food and your future. Visit the Sprouting Company.com slash out loud and use the code Out Loud for an exclusive offer.

Grow food, not fear. Feeling drained or mentally foggy? Recharge for the wellness company combines methylene blue and Euro lithin A to support mitochondrial health, boosts energy and enhance cognitive function. Visit TWC.

You wouldn’t go a day without brushing your teeth or washing your hands. What about washing your nose? I mean, your nose does filter the air you breathe, air loaded with bacteria, viruses, and irritants. Make nasal hygiene part of your routine with clear.

No messy bottles to fill, no drowning sensation. Clear is a natural drug-free saline with the added benefit of xylitol, which blocks bacterial and viral adhesion. Available in stores and online at clear.com. That is X L E A R.com.

Struggling with your health, energy, and constantly feeling hungry, want to save money on the rising cost of groceries and dramatically improve your health. Go to chemicalfree body.com forward slash out loud today. Get nature’s super multivitamin, doctor formulated green 85 juice formula, empower your immune system, cut your grocery bill, and save 20% on your first order. America turns the big two five zero.

250 years on July 4th, 2026. Tell us your uniquely American story by emailing us at Liberty at America Outloud. News. We’ll publish the results on a special webpage celebrating the best of America.

Now is our time. America outlaw. Liberty and justice for all. So we’re back with Marc Morano from Climate Depot.com.

Marc, that’s pretty interesting. The whole idea that the lack of trust after COVID was a boost to us. More and more people are not accepting the authority of these institutions. I think that’s really healthy, quite frankly.

It’s incredibly healthy because when they tell you to trust the science, that’s just a simple way of saying, shut up. This is the predetermined science that we want to push because it the the pol they come up with the policy first, and then the science is what they generate around it to support it. And in the case of COVID, it was so outrageously fraudulent and false. And the whole idea of silence, and I think censorship is a big part of it as well.

When people saw like the Barrington Declaration, the COVID, these are scientists from Harvard and MIT and Stanford who are being silenced and called kooks, and then not only are they silenced by social media platforms, but they’re silence at the behest of the U.S. government. And you have top two top public health officials, the head of the NIH, Anthony Fauci, and Francis Collin of the Center for Disease Control, basically caught colluding, saying, We’ve got to we’ve got to shut this down, we’re going to do this. I’m on the phone to the media now. When people saw that and that resonated with people, it’s just like this is this is fraud, number one.

And we’ve been played, we’ve been had. So when anyone tries to say 97% of scientists and all the the UN has the top people now just laugh at them. I mean, and there’s some of these climate scientists who still think there’s an appeal to authority. It’s called reading the room.

They don’t read the room, and they’re all scratching their head as Donald Trump. And not only is that here’s the other thing I didn’t get to mention. Not only has Trump done like a hundred actions, first hundred days, dismantled every aspect of the climate movement. I’m talking from ESG and banking.

I’m talking from funding even in schools from USAID projects to the UN Green Climate Fund to funding the IPCC, all of this and all the domestic defunding the entire Green New Deal, the inflation reduction act, ripping out solar and wind, all the going to court and fighting it and stripping away the permits. Where’s the pushback band? Yeah. Not much almost completely silent throughout the entire even people like Bernie Sanders, they just didn’t talk about climate.

It didn’t come up. No, they knew there was no passion for it. It wasn’t until COP 30, I was down in Brazil, lo and behold, Gavin Newsom makes an appearance. He flies down on a private jet.

This is last November in Bellum, Brazil, for the UN Climate Summit. And then from Rhode Island, Senator White House shows up, and he’s upset because the State Department normally pays for his ticket down there, and he had to have a private funding because they wouldn’t pay for his trip down to this junket to Brazil. And he he was there speaking, and then Nancy Pelosi did a quick impromptu. This is the first time like all year there was any pushback to what Trump did.

Nancy Pelosi, our speaker at the house did an impromptu press conference on Capitol Hill, where she’s like, Oh, and Donald Trump is doing this bad, and we have to fight climate change and whatever. She actually threw out like and whatever, like there, my campaign donors should be happy. I gave my speech, and she couldn’t get off that stage fast enough. And no one’s really talked about it since.

They’ve just, there is no there there. In fact, it’s so bad. Tom Steyr, the number one funder of Democrat candidates in the United States, is now talking about a complete pivot in the way that climate change is even discussed. And this is according to Plato, he pivots to a new playbook.

And he said, the billionaire activist Tom Steyer, again, the number one guy. Climate is what matters right now. Nothing else comes close. That’s what he had previously written.

And now he says this is about a race to affordability. He wants to get back to basics. He is now retreating from the climate agenda. They’re trying to find more stealth ways to get the same policies.

But that’s the background of this. There’s just been no pushback. And the thing is, it’s not like, oh, the left or the Democrats here, that maybe they’re just on their heels, they haven’t had a chance. No, when they push back on an issue they care about, like immigration, you see all these mayors and governors fighting.

There’s been no fight back on climate. I mean, zero fight back on climate. There’s been a couple couple press conferences, and I mentioned the two people that showed up at COP30, but otherwise, no pushback, and there’s been massive pushback on a lot of the other issues that Trump has been fighting on, particularly immigration. Yeah, it’s amazing.

And do you think other countries are going to follow? Because let’s say two or three other major developed countries pull out of the FCC. I mean, it’s possible that the thing could collapse entirely, right? Yes.

Now, this is a great question because I think it was Viv Forbes, the now deceased late Viv Forbes, who’s a great Australian geologist who started this Klegsit movement, and they were they got me, they had emailed me. This is by 10 years ago now. Well, actually, whatever, when I don’t know when the vote was in England. Was that like 2015?

I don’t remember. 2014. Anyway, it was that idea. So the idea of a Klegsit is a climate exit from the UN Paris Agreement or UN climate process.

And we started using that, and then we had the whole push to try to push that, that whole agenda, and it just wasn’t really resonating throughout Trump’s first term. Well, slowly, and again, COVID, not only did the people not trust institutions, but COVID helped collapse economies, and it distorted a lot of the energy fantasies that people had because not only the COVID do that, but then the Ukraine war, especially when it comes to Europe. Because once like the Russian pipeline was blown up, once they did sanctions and stopped getting Russian energy, suddenly all these European nations were like, Britain was like, hey, why did we talk? Why do we stop fracking?

And you had Germany went all green, you had all these countries that were pledging, and I it was Philip Stott, the great UK scientist. He’s still Oh, yeah, I like him. Yeah, he’s not active anymore. I think he’s like 82, but he seems to have retired.

He seems to be enjoying his retirement. He does poetry. He’s still on Twitter, but anyway, he gave a great speech and a debate in New York City, yeah, about 15 years ago, where he said at these UN summits during the height of the craziness. I’m talking about, back when Al Gore’s film came out and the UN panel won the Nobel Prize.

This is 2007. That they’d have these European leaders up there saying, I’ll limit the earth’s temperature to 1.5 degrees, and the others, I’ll beat you, I’ll do 2.0. And then you’d have like an auction. Oh, no, no, no.

We have 3.03.0. who do we have? All like arguing over who’s going to stop the great, who’s going to stop the greatest temperature increase. As though they’re they’re heads of a country, they’re going to like made their magic mons. So that’s what it’s like.

King can do, right? King can so what’s happened here is the Russian invasion, the economic fallout from the COVID lockdowns, ill-advised COVID lockdowns. And you have all of these countries starved of energy now. And so they’re realizing that’s not compatible with net zero.

So, as I mentioned, the aforementioned, just to give you an idea of how. Bad this is in the the Axios articles about the complete collapse of the the speed of the collapse of this agenda. Here’s what they say, just to give you the big pit. The last 30 years was an unusual period.

Because as the the US created this all these global institutions. Well, they’re saying there’s an epic reversal going on from this. Again, this is early 90s, a lot of this was remember George H. W. Bush, the New World Order. This is when they started all these international bodies, international treaties.

At least they became, not that the UN was started, but the UN climate panel was started. And this turned this whole yeah, you had scientific conferences before, but it forced all these scientists onto the same page. And you didn’t get funded, you didn’t get attention. You’d be censored if you didn’t go along with this whole agenda.

Well, according to Axios, Canada’s Mark Carney, once the most vocal advocates, now repealing his country’s climate policies. Bill Gates has a memo criticizing he’s now saying climate is not a disaster and it’s been overblown and that we should worry about poverty. Ford, all the automakers pulled back all their EV ambitions. UK Tony Blair issued a memo questioning the political economic wisdom of pursuing net zero agenda.

Europe scaled back, it’s gasoline car ban softened climate rules. Europe begins to tiptoe away from climate policies, is the New York Times headline. International Energy Agency is quietly restored, the more conservative base for this. Hollywood is even moving.

We have a new show called Landman, which is all about fossil fuels and carbon intensive, and a really skeptical lead character played by Billy Joe Bob Thorpe or whatever his name is Billy Thorpe. Anyway, Billy Bob Thorpe. It’s like a modern modern Dallas, eh? Yes.

So to answer your question again directly, I’m I’m giving you a lot of noise too here. I would say if at one point Bolsonaro, when he was in charge in Brazil, was talking about pulling out. Malay and Argentina is probably the first likely candidate to potentially pull out. And then the next most likely is going to be the eastern bloc of Europe, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary.

These are countries that have never really bought in Poland in particular. I’ve testified to the Polish parliament, and they are they’re like a panel of Senator Inhoffs who I used to work for just skeptic. I mean, it’s amazing. They don’t try, they don’t they see this as an encroaching authoritarianism.

And keep in mind, countries like Poland went through being crushed by the Nazis, being crushed by the Soviet Union only to be free and now being crushed by a stupid and UN totalitarian net zero agenda. So that’s the way I would see it. I would say Argentina, then Eastern Europe, and had had Donald Trump not wanted to annex Canada, maybe Mark Carney wouldn’t have been the TM and maybe Polivare would have been more open. I don’t know.

I don’t know that Polovir was the best candidate. He seemed like a George Bush type, he he seemed he was all into colour. Yeah. If I’m saying his name, he he on paper, and I love his style, but I just don’t know that he was he didn’t have his, he didn’t seem to every time I heard him talk about climate, it wouldn’t he made me cringe.

He just didn’t. Oh yeah. Well, well, yeah, he he was like a rhino in the United States. I mean, the bottom line is he said he said we’re going to stop climate change, not with taxes, but technology, .

So he was still supporting that. That’s the premise that government is going to do this, and yeah, it’s just it’s still we’re going to do a better way. We’re going to we’re going to be king canoe with more science behind us and technology. Well, what about Giorgio Malano Milano from South?

I don’t have to figure her out on many things. She’s fantastic. For instance, she said Italian food will not have bugs and falling pasta bugs. She’s been standing up.

I don’t know that she’s so pro-NATO, so pro-E, I don’t hate to say AU, she’s not pro-EU, but I just don’t know that she’s going to be willing to be stand out like that. You need more momentum. So here’s what’s here’s the couple things. By Trump pulling out of this treaty, we have the head of the IPCC, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, now saying openly that he doesn’t know if that panel of scientists can continue without the U.S. And I guess he means funding and structure and other things.

So that would be good if we could kill that. Yeah, just sorry to sorry to interrupt, but yeah, so you got the UN FCCC, that’s the foundation. But the IPCC started about four years earlier. And I yeah, the way I see is that initially they were somewhat honest, but when the FCC came along, the IPCC’s job was to support the framework convention.

So the IPCC, you’re saying also became corrupt. Yes. So the IPCC, when it first started, if you look at that first in 1990 report, wow, it showed the medieval warm period as much warmer than today. It had a lot of skeptical comments.

There was it was actually a decent assessment. So what happened after that? Well, I worked in the U.S. Senate Environment Public Works Committee. We had scientists testify that after that report came out.

What do you think the chatter among, and then of course, after that report came out, then they signed that treaty. That the chatter among many of these key scientists was we have to get rid of the medieval warm period. Well, what does that mean? It was very inconvenient to what the 1992 UN FCC treaty, Rio Earth Summit Treaty was promoting.

The idea is we gotta fight climate change. And so they did. They by 2000 report, and by the 90s, 95 or 96, whatever the one in between was, they had originally had somewhat of a decent report, at least summary, and then they went back after everyone agreed to it, and then they changed the words and they changed words. Oh, right.

The second assessment. Yeah, that was this whole Bert Boland thing. I remember Fred Singer would always talk about this. This hard, so that that happened.

But by 2000, they got rid of the medieval warm period. Michael Mann, hockey stick came along, and that whole, I won’t go into all that, but that was their savior. They did it, look, it’s gone. It’d be like say your company is being investigated for fraud, and you’ve lost all this money, and you’re and or you’re there, you have auditors coming in to look at your books, and you say, Oh, the I’m not guilty, and then you hire a new accountant, and the accountant just goes through and changes all your old books to show like record profits instead of losses.

That’s what they did with the climate. They basically said, well, instead of, well, you haven’t cooled since the medieval warm period. Look, we hired we hired a news modeler, Michael Mann, and look, the medieval war period is gone, it never existed. So look, we’re hotter than ever.

That’s what they did. That’s exactly what they did. They just of course the world at that time accepted it. There was no challenge from the media, no challenge.

Yeah, and now that makes a question. Do you think we’re gonna start seeing more pushback against the climate narrative? Like, do you think that people are gonna start saying, Oh, yeah, sure, the IPCC, they’re just as corrupt as the rest of them. Or is that page yet appeared?

I I don’t first of all, most people don’t know what the IPCC is in terms of that. But like it’s if we pull we’re pulled out now. So the the thing about the U the IPCC is as we mentioned, the first report was actually pretty impressive because it wasn’t alarmists and it was like a fair assessment by many accounts. I’d have to go back and read.

It’s been many years since I read it, but that was my remembrance of that. Yeah, 1990s. Here’s so here’s where the UN gets their whole scam from. They put themselves in charge, the world’s top scientists of the science, right?

And keep in mind, it’s not just the underlying report, it’s the summary for policymakers, which I should be agreed line by line with politicians, and that’s all that anyone reads. That’s all the policymakers, all the media reports on. Secondly, the UN, not only are they in charge of the science, they’re saying SoyO2 is causing a car a climate catastrophe, but they also put in themselves in charge of the solution. So they get to have annual UN climate summits, they get to come up with big treaties like Copenhagen and like Paris and the next phase and net zero.

So it’s a self-serving lobbying organization. Hey, we get to come up with the problem. We get to hand pick the scientists, the governments who making money off this are going to hand pick scientists who are then going toe the line. We’re never going to allow any dissenters.

Talk to Chris Lancey, talk to John John Christie. They were dissenting scientists, and they were essentially just either left or got booted out because they didn’t want to be part of it. They were ostracized because they didn’t go along with the whole narrative that the UN was pushing. So organization that says we’re in charge of saying there’s a catastrophe, and we’re in charge of solving the catastrophe.

Where what incentive do they have to ever look at the science honestly after that point, after it becomes hyper political by the 1992 treaty? And they didn’t, and they got increasingly more unhinged as we went on. And now you have like Antunio Gutierrez, the former head of Socialist International, at the UN Secretary General, just saying the most like just comical stuff, and like oh yeah, the global boiling, it’s not global warming. We’ve entered the era of global boiling.

Yes, and then you have you’ll have people say the UN’s top scientists said this. It’s like, no, he’s a he’s a bureaucrat, former socialist international president. He’s not a scientist in the level. But that’s the stuff.

Yeah, I sure hope Canada, I sure hope Canada follows because we’re slowly moving away from the extremism, and we’re actually considering building new pipelines. But sadly, one of the things that is is too bad is that Canadians have this TDS, a Trump derangement syndrome. Yeah, and so anything that’s done by Donald Trump, they say, oh no, we’re going to do the opposite, . But yeah, I think Marc, one of the things that actually was turning the page was when Trump spoke to the UN just a few months ago.

And he was he was candid, and I suspect that many of the people listening said. Well, thank God, like I’ve been thinking this for years. Because these aren’t stupid people, they’re very careful people and politically correct people. But I mean, do you think he’s liberated other politicians now to start saying what’s real?

Yes, I think I’m still waiting for more to speak out. But yes, I think when you when you speak out like him, and I think the key thing is Chris Wright, his energy secretary, and Lee Zelda and his EPA secretary. When you add that to the mix and you have multiple people speaking out, and you have all of these these, official statements by the government, and you have reports from the U.S. government, even though it was pulled on a technicality. It gives cover for someone else.

It’s like the Ron DeSantis effect in U.S. during COVID lockdowns. Ron DeSantis was phenomenal, Florida governor when it came to COVID. He fought tooth and nail on lockdowns, on mandates. He appointed scientists who were skeptical, who criticized.

There was all kinds of things that go after him. But he gave cover to all these other Republican governors who have otherwise been timid. So my hope, as I said, is Argentina, I hope is Eastern Europe. Let’s hope, and where I’m talking, my hope is in the next six months we have countries just start saying we’re out.

We’re out. The problem is the UN makes it very difficult to get out because there’s all these financial incentives or slash financial penalties and sanctions if you’re not part of it. The highest, at least as a true of a couple years ago, the highest attending delegations to these UN summits have been the developing world, African nations, other poorer nations, because they’re promised the most benefit from it. How else could you get a poor nation to commit to a United Nations climate agenda unless there was a kickback to their leader?

They’re basically being asked to do things that are contrary to their country’s interest, not develop. You’ll give you green UN green climate slush fund if you are best able to keep your citizens locked in poverty. And these I’ll do it, and then they get this money, then they can ensure their re-election, they can build monuments and stadiums, and they can, they it’s you do all the things that are the opposite of what the climate people demand. And that’s and that exactly, and that’s what that’s what makes it so hard.

That’s how the UN knows politics so well. Remember, they’ve been around since the 40s, and they know what works, what doesn’t, how to get people in line, how to get people to show up, how to get people not to dissent. So we are dealing with institution that is very knowledgeable. They don’t know science, but they definitely know power politics.

They know it well. They know the carrot and the stick, they know intimidation, they know censorship, they know sanctions. All of that they know very well, and they wield it unbelievably well. Yeah.

You have some exciting events coming up. We have just a minute to go. Can you tell us about what you’re what you’re doing over the next few weeks? Yes, I’m heading in a couple days, heading off to Davos, Switzerland, and Zerk are going to be part of the Heartland Institute’s counter great reset summit.

We’re going to have EU parliament members, and I believe Nigel Farage is they’re trying to get him, or he’s scheduled to speak. I’ll be speaking at the conference as well. We’re going to be doing a a five-year update on COVID since the great great reset really first as a term became used like 2014, but it became the official narrative in 2020 in June when Klaus Schwab, the then head of the World Economic Forum, declared it. And so they’re having their annual meeting in Davos next week.

And I’ll be going to Davos. In fact, I hope to join up with Ezra Levant of Rebel TV, at least for some days. I’ll be at this other conference. I’ll be going back and forth to Davos between Davos and Zurich.

And well, I would love to love to see Larry Fink in the streets. Larry Fink is now the co-head of the World Economic Forum, which is fascinating because Black Rock and all these equity asset firms are trying to buy up real estate, they’re buying up farms. They’re basically, what I think, and here’s why I think America gets it wrong. Like, I know if you probably heard of Mamdani, the mayor of New York City.

Oh, yeah, unfortunately. For me, it’s not like, oh, it’s socialism versus free market. We shouldn’t vote for Mamdani. To me, it’s actually socialism right now versus corporatism.

Meaning it’s not so much, it’s not the free market that’s failed and why people are voting for socialists, it’s because of corporatism. And I would say corporatism is giant monopolies, equity asset, control of billionaires. You have the A, and I’ll get into A, I don’t want to get into it now, but AI data centers and the whole idea of AI in the first place and people paying higher utility bills to subsidize these billionaires and them getting anything they want and endless campaign country. That until we fix that as a capitalist society, get away from corporatism and monopolies, you’re going have more and more Mamdanis.

I don’t blame the people who voted for Mamdani or support Bernie Sanders. They have the wrong solution. They’re basically saying we’re going to be serfs, but we’re going to be well-funded serfs with government programs, and that’ll keep us loyal to the to our overlords instead of being free and being having to your own ability to make money and all that. So I think what we really need is a reform of the system.

Donald Trump’s doing part of it. He’s going after the equity asset, he’s going after some breaking up these monopolies, but that’s a really hard road to tow. And he’s probably not going be that successful in that area. But for sure.

So my point in bringing that up is that’s really what we’re fighting at this point. And I think climate is just another part of that corporatist monopoly, especially when you looked at how many CEOs and banks and corporations were all in and industries were all in on this because they knew they could make money and they knew they it was all the agenda was harming the masses, as they like to refer to the people, giving us higher energy, short energy shortages, less economic well-being, all so that they can basically manage everything at the top. The fewer and fewer people get to manage every crisis that came along, terrorism, COVID, climate, it’s all ability that you can’t be free right now because there’s a crisis, and therefore power. So, anyway, I would just tell people it’s not the socialists that we’re fighting.

That’s my argument. And I’m very in the minority on this. We’re fighting the corporatist monopolist billionaire class. I sound a little bit like Bernie Sanders, but I think there’s a free market argument to be made from the free market side to fight this corporatism.

Yeah, wow. Well, that’s fascinating, Marc. It’s been a very exciting interview. We learned a lot of things, and it’s actually a positive ending that we’re going to see more and more pushback against these institutions.

So our my guest today has been Marc Morano from Climate Depot.com. So this is Tom Harrison, Marc Morano signing out for the other side of the story.