Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
The Guardian and the Polluters
28 Plays5 years ago
Josh and M discuss the recent coverage by the venerable UK newspaper, The Guardian, on who are the world's biggest polluters, and why certain social media companies keep giving money to organisations that deny the scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change.
They would also like to apologise for a sound problem in the second half of the episode, which was just one of the many technical faults encountered in the recording of this particular episode.
—
Josh is @monkeyfluids and M is @conspiracism on Twitter
You can also contact us at: podcastconspiracy@gmail.com
Watch M’s series “Conspiracism” here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJEp7xTcFU3hc2W0kfdSvAQ
and learn more about their academic work at:
Why not support The Podcaster's Guide to the Conspiracy by donating to our Patreon:
https://www.patreon.com/podcastersguidetotheconspiracy
or Podbean crowdfunding?
Recommended
Transcript
Major Polluters Profiled: Conspiracy or Justified?
00:00:00
Speaker
Recently, The Guardian, that venerable, somewhat left-wing newspaper in the UK. Somewhat left, and that they're feeling left-wing on some things. I need a bit of reaction.
00:00:10
Speaker
on others. Yes. Has been profiling the biggest and arguably the best, slash worst, polluters. Which all comes across as a bit conspiratorial. But warrantedly so. So we thought we'd take a look at their coverage and see what they've been seeing. Let us do the reading. You sit back and relax. Unless you're driving or using heavy machinery. At which point, stay alert. Indeed. Everyone, at all points in any case, should be watching the skies. Scares.
00:00:40
Speaker
I thought you could go for the skis. No, I read what was on the script in front of me. But the Joker's watching the skis? Well, it is, but it works on multiple levels. You work on multiple levels? I do. Above your building? No, I work on a single level. You've been burnt, you've been burnt. No, sorry, I'll take the bird now, I like it. He's been burnt. Yep, shall we crack straight into it?
00:01:08
Speaker
They have to clap, because you've got a theme tune. Remember that whole theme tune thing, which you made? I did make it, but like, yep, fine, yep, do the clap. Do another one, that wasn't good enough. Better. And this is the actual clap that takes us into the theme.
Introduction: Meet the Hosts
00:01:25
Speaker
Yes.
00:01:35
Speaker
The Podcaster's Guide to the Conspiracy, brought to you today by Josh Addison and Dr. M. Denton. Hello and welcome to the Podcaster's Guide to the Conspiracy. I am Josh Addison sitting next to me as always, Dr. M. R. X. Denton. I don't know quite where that vowel sound came from.
00:02:01
Speaker
Lecucian issues, this episode? Possibly. And you don't drink, and I haven't even started. No, so I don't know what the... Dr. D'Antith? D'Antith? To the French. But no, I should point out, children. Which may be a relief to some of you, a disappointment to others, I don't know. Most of the feedback that I've seen of last week's episode has been suspiciously positive. I think possibly that just means everybody else went about five minutes in and then gave up.
00:02:31
Speaker
Quite possibly. At any rate, schools are back and I have no need to child mind during the week, so we're recording as usual. If you'd like another child-filled episode, let us know, we could do it again. And remember, the best way to ensure that is to donate a large amount of money to our patron
00:02:50
Speaker
So does that pecking pantry. An effect of who own our souls. Well, no, so that we can homeschool your children. Ah, yes, even better. Yeah. Yeah. Be around all the time. I can work as their chooser 24 hours a day. And we'll be working 24 hours a day. The things they'll learn. Whispering secrets into the ears while they sleep. Whispering secrets into your ears whilst they sleep. I assume you do that already. So now, what's this about a live show? What?
00:03:16
Speaker
One of our listeners would really like us to do a live show, AKA the way we did it for the book launch in 2014. I think that's an idea. I put it to the patrons. One patron got back and said, yeah, just not between these periods. So we are thinking rather conditionally of doing a live show of some description, be a small venue in Auckland. Yes, I can't imagine. I mean, I suspect
00:03:47
Speaker
people who enjoy the podcast so they can become listeners too, that would be even better. So if you're interested in a live show, the podcast is Guide to the Conspiracy, why not get in contact? Yes, it's an idea that at the moment is entirely embryonic, but who knows what it may develop into. You're embryonic? Not anymore. Yes, that's because of your mother. It's true. Yeah, it is. That's how human biology works. That's how your biology works.
00:04:15
Speaker
Yes. Let's get on with the rest of the episode. Indeed.
Climate Catastrophe: Urgency or Alarmism?
00:04:24
Speaker
Yes, so this week we're talking about pollution. We're talking about the Guardian newspaper. We're talking about the Guardian newspaper that's reporting on pollution and pollution. Yes, a series by the Guardian on the biggest and the best polluters and by the biggest and the best, the biggest and the worst polluters. The Guardian did four days of coverage of polluters and the stuff behind
00:04:46
Speaker
why pollution continues to be a big issue even in the age of climate change. Or as the Guardian now refers to it, climate catastrophe. They've taken a hard line by going, talking about climate change makes it sound as if it's something which is, you know, a minor hurdle we can get over as opposed to an apocalypse which actually might wipe ourselves in 12 years. So they're talking about climate catastrophe now. And I noticed global heating rather than global warming. Is it because warming sounds too nice?
00:05:15
Speaker
Well, and I mean, the whole term global warming is a little bit contentious in the literature. The official term is anthropogenic climate change. It has been that term since the 1960s. Global warming was kind of coined by the media to describe it. And of course, the problem with the notion of global warming
00:05:36
Speaker
And that actually would be a problem with the notion of global heating too, is that climate change means hotter summers, but also colder winters. Yes, I mean, I assume people... I had just assumed off the top of my head that the reason why people started stressing climate change rather than global warming was because of all the annoying idiots saying, global warming, eh? It was really cold this winter, so much for global warming, huh? I freeze my nipples off! How can it mean global warming if my nipples fell off in the frozen tundra of some area?
00:06:04
Speaker
But I gather there's a little bit more to the specific language choice. But anyway, yes, I can understand the motivations behind making the language a little bit stronger.
00:06:15
Speaker
Now, this episode, you did all the note writing for this one, which was quite nicely. I mean, I obviously got it started. No, hang on, I didn't. I didn't at all. But I came up with the idea to... No, hang on, you did that as well. But we can still... We're here now. We've got the notes. Josh, with credits due, you made one note.
00:06:39
Speaker
on the bonus content. I did. But we're here now. We've got the notes. I've looked through it. I've done the re- I have not done the reading. I had a feeling I was being completely underprepared for this episode. I'm absolutely, yeah. So let me talk about the episode. I read the notes though. I did honestly read the notes. Did you know? I did. That's not actually a lie. God.
00:07:01
Speaker
So essentially this episode is entirely my fit I think we've established. Well then lead on my friend, lead on. No I wouldn't dare. I wouldn't dream of outstaging you. I wouldn't want to get behind the ideas person who is responsible for the content and preempt you on the very wise thing you're about to say. Well apparently
00:07:26
Speaker
Google has been blacking... has been blacking. Now see, I've lost the ability to speak, so you're just going to have to show this one. Google has been backing climate denial. See, I got the L from the climate and accidentally said it too soon, turning back into black. That's what happened. So are you going to say blacking... Blacking climate deliers, probably. Deliers? Deliers, yeah. Climate deliers. Best kind. Are you sure you haven't been drinking? Yes. I've been drinking water, but we all have views on that.
00:07:55
Speaker
Yes, fish have sex in it, I believe. So yeah, the Goobabaks climate deniers. So you can set it. Go for it. So the Guardian has been doing this series on pollution and many of their articles have a conspiratorial bent because part of the project has been looking at
00:08:11
Speaker
Why is it that big companies like Google and Facebook continue to give money to libertarian think tanks that promote the idea climate change is not occurring? And why is it that the big investment banks who are meant to be aware of what's going on and are meant to have some ethical investment guidelines continue to invest in big oil fracking and the like?
00:08:40
Speaker
And so the Guardian did four days of coverage, and I thought because of the conspiratorial content, it would be a really good thing to mine to find out exactly what the state of play is. Because when it comes to talking about climate change, people start talking about conspiracy theories. Whether that's a conspiracy theory that climate change isn't real, and it's been foisted upon us by the Soviet to pretend to be greenies,
00:09:05
Speaker
or whether it's people saying
Google's Controversial Climate Funding
00:09:06
Speaker
climate change is real, but big companies are simply pretending it's an issue whilst actually not doing anything about it, or are operating from behind the scenes to undermine any movement to do anything to mitigate the climate crisis, there are conspiracy theories on both sides.
00:09:24
Speaker
And the Guardian's articles really do get to the heart of the catastrophe side, particularly the way in which they talk about why it is that Google, a company which ostensibly says climate change is occurring and needs to be stopped, keeps on taking money and giving money to right-wing causes.
00:09:47
Speaker
Their motto isn't don't be evil anymore, is it? No, they removed that from their charter several years ago, although they had been doing evil before then, so you have to give them props for going, actually, we've been breaking this rule for a while. Don't get caught being evil? Basically, it's the unofficial motto these days.
00:10:06
Speaker
Now, it should be said that these conspiracy theories have been around for quite some time in the same way that it's been shown now, I believe, that the tobacco industry had proof that tobacco was a cause of cancer and yet sat on that while publicly claiming that that wasn't true at all. In the same way, it has been known for a long time that your big oil and what have you has done studies which showed that
00:10:35
Speaker
global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, is a reality since the 60s or 70s, haven't they? But have suppressed that and publicly, so don't exactly the opposite. Is there a long history of people like, say, BP or Shell?
00:10:51
Speaker
having known for a very long time that their industry was responsible for it as a contributing cause of anthropogenic climate change. And going, we're just going to sit on this information and not just sit on it. We're going to actively oppose anyone who says we know it's true. No, no, we don't know anything about what's in that file over there. We've never seen that file over there. That file over there does not exist. Why are you talking about files, basically?
00:11:20
Speaker
Whereas the Guardian stuff is more about the current state of play, is it? Yeah. We all know there's a crisis. Why aren't we doing anything about it? Right, so was Google the main thrust of the reporting or was it just one of the standouts?
00:11:36
Speaker
It's kind of the standout, so the story we're about to talk about, two stories here, actually refers to Facebook as well. Because it turns out, there's a really good reason why Google is backing climate change deniers. And it's not because, or at least not necessarily because, Google is denying climate change from behind the scenes.
00:11:59
Speaker
Is it because they have shares in petrochemical companies? No. Is it because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act? Yes, tell me about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. No, I just completely made that number and name off the top of my head. Totally a fluke that I happened to get it right.
00:12:18
Speaker
You were looking at words on a screen as you said that. And you're reading out things for us. It was just purely some sort of fluke, some sort of psychic aberration on my part. Really? That's quite, we should, let's test that psychic aberration. What am I thinking now? You're thinking, haha, Josh's tablet has frozen again at exactly the right moment to get him off the hook for having to say what happens next.
00:12:44
Speaker
What the hell was that? I thought it was your camera falling out of the mouth. This entire freaking episode is falling to pieces. We had a momentary break, although at the moment the camera is kind of focusing in the wrong thing, and we'll return back to filming in just a moment.
00:13:02
Speaker
Hi, it's Dr. MR Extenteth here, breaking into the podcast from after the podcast recording to apologize for the sound issue you are about to hear. You see, after our camera issue, it turns out that once we resumed filming, one of the pal mics, my lapel mic, had stopped working. So what you'll be hearing is me being recorded on Josh's lapel mic, which will explain why the sound is less than adequate in places.
00:13:31
Speaker
Unfortunately, there really is nothing we can do to rescue that sound, so persevere or don't. It's your choice. It is your choice. Choose wisely.
00:13:46
Speaker
Yes, technology. You failed us for the last time. Next episode will be produced by speaking down... Kineograph. ...telephones and string... tin cans and strings between them. And a court sketch artist providing images live the entire time. But until we get that set up, we should continue talking about Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
00:14:10
Speaker
which apparently, okay, I have notes in front of me, I shall read them now. It basically meant that companies such as Google and Facebook can be shielded from the sorts of libel laws that do apply to newspapers. Basically, it was
00:14:27
Speaker
Established in the 1990s, at the time, the point was, oh, look at these poor little startups, like put a little Google there, look at Facebook with its rosy cheeks. Facebook wasn't even born. Well, no, Facebook wasn't born back then. But basically, the sort of fledgling internet industry, they wanted to allow it to grow by basically offering them legal immunity to comments from
00:14:51
Speaker
The companies for third party comments, so Facebook and Google are not legally liable for things that people post on Facebook or to Google. They're treated as as content distributors, not content publishers, which is something that came up a little bit in the whole sort of Christchurch
00:15:10
Speaker
that Jacinda Ardern's Christchurch call and so on, saying that these companies have been avoiding consequences by claiming that they're simply the postman when it seems they're more like the distributor. But according to the law, they are just... Yeah. And this has become an issue because
00:15:30
Speaker
As you might be aware, there are certain people on the right, particularly people in the Republican Party in the US, who think that Google is biased against them. Now of course at the moment they've got no recourse towards this bias that Google and Facebook are said to express because of Section 230. So people like Ted Cruz are talking about revoking Section 230
00:15:59
Speaker
enabled to bring Google and Facebook under the umbrella of publishers, at which point legal action can be taken against them if they feel there is bias in the presentation information on those platforms.
00:16:14
Speaker
Now, neither Google nor Facebook want to lose that special status under 230. And so what they've done is they've curried favour with libertarian-leaning think tanks who also think that revoking 230 would be the end of Western civilisation.
00:16:34
Speaker
The problem is, these libertarian fan tanks, which include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which launched the notorious Cooler Heads Coalition, the Cato Institute, and the like, are also the kind of institutions that have been going on for quite some time that climate change isn't real, and things aren't that bad, and frankly, it's a leftist plot to destroy the world, and isn't it really just communism pretending to be environmentalism?
00:17:04
Speaker
And so Google will say, well look, obviously we don't support everything that these guys are saying, but that doesn't change the fact that they are giving them a bunch of money. Yes, which is where the second report comes in. Because there's one thing to be seeking support from these libertarian think tanks.
00:17:21
Speaker
It's another thing to be giving them large sums of money. And yeah, I mean, when you donate money to a thing like this, do you get to say, now you must only spend this money on fighting section 230 of the Communications Decency Act? Don't want a cent of it going towards your wacky climate change thing. I don't really think it works out like that, does it?
00:17:40
Speaker
No, but unfortunately, the presentation is kind of important here, in that it might be the case that Google is sponsoring particular institutes, like the competitive enterprise institute, which is anti the Paris Accords, and wants Trump to dismantle even more environmental protections. The state policy network, who's very anti Greta Thunberg, and also claims the environment isn't getting worse, it's guessing better.
00:18:10
Speaker
the American Conservative Union, which is Koch Brothers Aligned, or I suppose now just Koch Aligned, the American Enterprise Institute, which talks about climate alarmists, Americans for tax reform, which criticizes any company that supports climate action by claiming they just want corporate welfare, the Cato Institute, the Makatas Center, another Koch Aligned
00:18:37
Speaker
It's going to keep saying that until the end of the time. Oh yeah, yeah. Cockiline, think tank. The Heritage Foundation, which also claims the Paris Accords were supported by cosmopolitan elites and were part of Barack Obama's destructive legacy. Google's giving money to all of these particular groups and might well be true that they're anti-section 230.
00:19:01
Speaker
But the really big thing they're anti in a kind of public way is anyone who supports climate change. It's bad presentation. Is this a little bit like who's the fella in New Zealand, Owen Glenn? Doesn't he give money to like all the political parties? Is it a case of Google just throws money at absolutely everyone who might support them and thereby ends up supporting a bunch of people who say dodgy stuff?
00:19:26
Speaker
I mean, that doesn't get them off the hook, obviously. No, but I mean, that is actually a plausible story because they also fund the ACLU, which is famously a free speech organisation, although actually I suppose you could say because the ACLU has defended Nazis in the past, it's not quite clear they're left-wing, but yes, they do give money to left-wing causes as well, who also support free speech.
00:19:47
Speaker
Yes, but essentially, yes, it does seem that their number one priority is making sure they're never legally liable for stuff that gets posted on the networks. And whether or not they're actually giving money to the anti-climate change movement is a distant second. Although, of course, the response to that typically is
00:20:07
Speaker
Sure, your interest is in protecting your Section 230 interests. You can give monies to other organisations that also support you who aren't climate change deniers at the same time. Yes, exactly. They're just putting it about.
00:20:24
Speaker
Willy Nilly. Well, they should be more selective in their hot Jandal fixations. Yes, Jandal. Yes, you heard me, Jandal. I heard you. I don't know if I believe you. OK, so that was the big one. That was Google and presumably Facebook and the other folks. So that explains some of the enormous chunks of money going around. But there's a lot more enormous chunks of money to be accounted for.
Fossil Fuel Investments: A $300 Billion Dilemma
00:20:52
Speaker
to the point where they talk about how the world's top three asset managers oversee some, let me get the number right here, $300 billion fossil fuel investment funds.
00:21:07
Speaker
Right. So that amount of money is being actively invested in the fossil fuel industry. Or at least that amount is just being looked after by the top three. Presumably there's even more money still getting piled and piled and piled into these industries, which supposedly we want to start curtailing. And after that, when we're talking about billions, we're talking about a very, very, very large number. You could be born 400 years ago,
00:21:38
Speaker
earn $50,000 a day.
00:21:42
Speaker
and not be a billionaire. You could earn a dollar a second, you would be a millionaire in 11 days, you would be a billionaire in 33 years, 31 years. The difference is not actually a thing the human brain is capable of comprehending, but nevertheless. We do, to repeat certain politicians, we do not need billionaires. We don't. We do not need them.
00:22:09
Speaker
No. Yes, I think his old, old Bernie's been, been throwing that one around a bit, hasn't he? And I think people have clearly, he's not saying Jeff Bezos shouldn't exist. He's saying Jeff Bezos just shouldn't have $120 billion. Something's gone wrong with the system. Definitely not saying that Jeff Bezos should not exist. I've just got a twitch in my eye.
00:22:32
Speaker
Yes, are you blinking, kill them, kill them all, kill them while they sleep in Morse code? Trying to. Right. The end of the sentences. Yeah, there we go. Yeah, so I mean, the numbers are vast, incomprehensibly vast. And that seems to be awfully wrong, given that we're, you know, aren't we supposed to be getting away from fossil fuels some way somehow?
00:22:58
Speaker
And the thing is, it's three investment bank companies that are doing it, and they've got
00:23:04
Speaker
possibly the worst names of all time. Black Rock, Vanguard, and State Street. The State Street sounds like a Aces action film. So I'll let that one pass. But you name your investment bank Black Rock or Vanguard? Sounds like the bad guys in a Bond film. Or at the very least a death metal band. We are Black Rock and we have $300 billion to throw at you.
00:23:32
Speaker
Have you heard Frankie Boyle and Glenn Wool's free comedy bits? You should just assume if you ever mention a stand-up comedian who isn't Stuart Lee, I'm going to go for it. Very well. They tell it that, Frankie Boyle, look it up, Frankie Boyle and Glenn Wool, they have a bunch of, basically just the two of them talking at each other and being funny that they put up for free on the internet. But at one point,
00:23:55
Speaker
Glenn Wall, who's this Canadian, I think he's UK-based, but Canadian comedian, talks about how he got in a little bit of trouble because he was doing a corporate gig, and this was in the middle of the global recession and everything, and he couldn't resist taking shots at the fact that this company had called itself Money Corp, and started making various cracks about, does Superman ever come and fight your boss? And apparently got in a bit of trouble for that. Anyway. They shouldn't have called themselves Money Corp. Well, no, exactly. These companies should have a little bit of self-witness, or maybe they do, and that's the problem.
00:24:26
Speaker
Yes, there is this worry that the people who name these companies are mustachioed villains, who really are up to no good. Okay, so I guess the question is why? Why are people still investing so much money in the industry? Because since 2016, the companies that they manage, which are Thermal Coal Oil and Gas Reserve Holdings, have surged in price 34.8%. Well, shit. So there's a lot of money in it.
00:24:54
Speaker
Right. So, which I guess at the end of the day in this whole thing, that's kind of the explanation for all of it. There's still a shitload of money. In fact, there's even more as things become more precious and things become more precarious because as industries shift to cleaner fuels, those that can't are desperate for that bit of oil wealth they need to continue. So invest heavily, increasing the price of the stock.
00:25:23
Speaker
Now, you've got a bit here in the notes. Am I reading this correctly? $74 trillion? Yes. That's a real number. That's a real figure. And in fact, it's a slight fall from $74 trillion the year before. That's the money managed by these asset managers. I wasn't aware that was the size of the economy, to be quite honest. Yeah, that was one of those. Because, I mean, if you think a billion is large... A trillion is just...
00:25:53
Speaker
Yeah, it's bigger. Basically, it's kind of so big that if you just managed to grasp a billion, train of grass trillion will make your head explode. So I'm not going to do that. But returning to returning to conspiracy stuff, I guess. Is it as simple as saying follow the money?
00:26:16
Speaker
Is it, you know, if you want to understand why this stuff is happening in contravention of what we think should be the sensible right thing to do in the world? It is. It's follow the money along with the notion that there's meant to be ethical investment clauses is not doing much work.
00:26:34
Speaker
Right. So even though these companies talk about the ethics of investment and investing in clean this and ethical investment and clean that, it turns out that because they're beholden to shareholders and they want to maximise return on the dollar, they maximise return on the dollar by going, well, we'll deal with ethical implications later.
00:26:57
Speaker
Now, there'll always be a voice in the room, which I'll pretend is yours in this case. Aren't they legally obliged to look after shareholder interest? Isn't that kind of how corporate law works? And the answer is no, actually. There is no maximization of profit built in as a legal requirement in these situations. It's just that that's often what shareholders expect, maximization of profits.
00:27:24
Speaker
the actual directors are not legally obliged to maximise those returns and actually can make slightly different decisions. It turns out they don't and the guidelines which are meant to keep them from making those maximising decisions in these particular cases don't have much weight.
00:27:45
Speaker
I'm getting more and more pessimistic the more we talk about this stuff. Is there a single thrust to the Guardian's reporting or is it just a survey? We've talked about Google, we've talked about the ridiculous amounts of money being invested. Do they title together at the end or is it just a broad survey of here's all the different ways
00:28:07
Speaker
So the positive stuff we have reflected upon here are the articles they wrote on how China is transforming their economy. So China is a major polluter. It's also an economy which is trying to move away from heavy
00:28:25
Speaker
pollution to greener technologies with time, and they seem to be doing it quite successfully. Saudi Arabia is also doing a similar thing, especially given their history as an oil-producing nation. So there are positive stories to balance the negative ones, just that the positive stories don't really have much of a conspiracy around them.
00:28:46
Speaker
Right. Well, fair enough. And I see it also as well as talking about your asset managers, the investment banks are into it as well. I see we talk about JP Morgan Chase has been given again, numbers with billion on the end of it. In this case, 75. Two sectors like good old fracking. I didn't realise people still did that. I thought they'd have gone out of fashion. Fracking, arctic oil, gas exploration.
00:29:16
Speaker
JP Morgan has said it recognises the complexity of climate change and is actively engaged with stakeholders on the issue. Well, that's nice. We'll deal with it next year. Next year we'll be dead. And now apparently amongst your investors and your bankers and so on, there's fear of a Minsky
Financial Crisis from Fossil Fuel Shift?
00:29:34
Speaker
moment. Oh, yes. Now, Josh, what is? Can you show people on the video what a Minsky moment looks like?
00:29:42
Speaker
No, because the metaphor for it is basically arson, so I don't think I could show it on video without setting fire to the house right now. You could self emulate right now. I could. No, not gonna happen, sorry. You should put a special effect on you for that in the video.
00:30:03
Speaker
I don't know if my special effects suite is up to it. So, Aminsky Moment. Aminsky Moment is named after economist Hyman Minsky. From Russia? So, basically, apparently, he noted that bankers, traders, other financiers periodically play the role of arsonists setting the entire economy ablaze. I assume this is in reference to things like the GFC of 2008, 2009, 2010. Do you think more end of the USSR?
00:30:33
Speaker
What happened at the end of the USSR? The financial managers set things ablaze as they sold things off at low prices and made the economy collapse. I see. So they're worried that there may be some sort of tipping point where everyone's like, oh, we've got to get out of fossil fuels now. And suddenly the economy turns to crap as a whole, as everyone in the world starts panic selling. Yes, basically. Yeah.
00:30:56
Speaker
Well, we've got that to look forward to as well, I guess. Hooray! Before the climate destroys us all, the economy will collapse and we'll be living in a Mad Max situation before the seas boil away and we all just die of heat death. Right. Well, I think that's a good place to end the episode.
00:31:15
Speaker
It is! In the bonus content, listeners will get to hear about an exciting adventure in copy editing. Those of you who follow me on Twitter may well be aware of what the story is about. We'll talk about the All Blacks, our favourite rugby team.
00:31:30
Speaker
I mean, they technically are. That's kind of like my favorite cement mixer brand or my favorite small appliance. But I mean, as far as rugby teams go, I guess I like the one from our country the best. I hate rugby and everyone who stands for it. But we're going to talk about a conspiracy theory involving them. An update on the Odatahe Mosque shooting.
00:31:55
Speaker
And... Trumpy, Trumpy, Trumpy, Trumpy, Trumpy, Trumpy, Trumpy, Trumpy. Yeah, this is a lot of Trump news that we're going to rattle through. I think we need a new sting. We need a Trump sting. We just go Trumpy, Trumpy, Trumpy, Trumpy, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump. Something nice and jolly to sort of take the edge off the annoying drudge of talking about Trump crap for another God damn move. We need the best sting, the greatest sting. Could it be the best sting you've ever heard?
00:32:19
Speaker
Yep. Still more Ernie from Sesame Street than Trump. But you've got the cadence, right? I think you just need to work on your pitch. I'll work on your pitch with my mallet. Pitchfork. Come on, man. I should have said pitchfork. So anyway, I think, yeah, that's basically all we've got to say this week. I think
00:32:44
Speaker
I don't drink, but I think maybe I need to start after going to, after reading through all of this and hearing about all of this. Just to circle back, does the Guardian have a, do they come to a conclusion at the end of it all? Or is it just a special feature with a bunch of stuff?
No Magic Solution: Concluding Thoughts
00:33:03
Speaker
There is no, and here's the magic way to fix everything.
00:33:08
Speaker
It just ends like the US game. Like everything. Like everything ends. Like this podcast ends. Right about... Shortly, I think, yes. Now.
00:33:27
Speaker
You've been listening to the podcaster's guide to the conspiracy, starring Josh Addison and Dr. M.R. Extended, which is written, researched, recorded, and produced by Josh and Em. You can support the podcast by becoming a patron via its Podbean or Patreon campaigns. And if you need to get in contact with either Josh or Em, you can email them at podcastconspiracyatgmail.com or check their Twitter accounts, Mikey Fluids and Conspiracism.
00:34:28
Speaker
And remember, remember, oh December, what a night.
00:34:33
Speaker
Wait for that to finish before we do the silence. You don't want to have the sound of police helicopters. The thing is, if we remove the sound of police helicopters from the recording, then it's probably going to also cut out an awful lot of where we're speaking. But if you remove a police helicopter sound from audio that has no police helicopter sound in it, then you'll get inverse police helicopter sound, which will presumably be the sound of like...
00:35:02
Speaker
I don't know, like a crime helicopter? That was me, a crime helicopter. Obviously, yes, sorry, I should have picked that up. Don't, you just don't know your crime helicopters, that's your problem. Quite many problems I have with you. Then your anti-water position. Sickening. Like the water boy. Of fluids, fluids every year. I don't know what a podcast is.
00:35:30
Speaker
Please stop flying around here! I only came back because I asked them to...
00:35:38
Speaker
Doctor D and death, bad melding ass. Something great material to put at the very end of the podcast. Yes. Do the microphones even pick up the police helicopter? Yeah, look, you can actually... Yeah, there's a little bit, a little bit. Not so, but it's actually more when we... because the mics are more active when we're speaking. So you kind of see that there's what should be...
00:36:06
Speaker
relatively blank, ends up being actually voiceless.