Dan Richards

It's not my area of expertise and there's too much skin in the game.

Right.

But when I did the debunking of Flit Dibble's debunking of Graham, the part about the metallurgy, I spoke with an ice core specialist.

And now there ain't but a handful of these dudes on the planet, literally just a handful of people.

Oh, thanks.

I appreciate that.

Well, I spent an hour on a Zoom chat with the dude because what Flynn had said was that there was no proof of metallurgy in the Ice Age.

And, well, of course, there's no proof of it, but he said that we can prove definitively there was no metallurgy.

And that's where it's like, well, no, because they look for levels of lead.

And levels of lead, that graph you just showed with the interglacial periods, lead follows that because when there's –

More dust on the ground.

The reason they believe is there's more dust on the ground, more gets kicked up, more ends up in the glaciers.

But that's the same dirt that would be kicked up if they were digging for iron, right?

So either way, you're going to end up with more lead in the glaciers.

So I talked to this ice core specialist for an hour on Zoom, and I'm like, man, so –

Flesh this out for me.

Explain to me.

So he explains to me how they determine whether or not lead's from an anthropogenic origin or if it's natural, and that's based on if there's an archaeological site that they can match the other isotopes to.

He went through all the troubles with it.

He even lamented having – he's got other people in his field that are hardcore anti-pseudoscience because they're climate change deniers they're dealing with.