Billionaire coach and businessman Dan Peña didn’t just answer a question about climate change – he torched the premise.
During a London Real Q&A segment tied to the premiere of the documentary about him, The $50 Billion Dollar Man, Peña fielded a pointed audience challenge about rising seas and responsibility.
What followed was classic Peña: confrontational, story-driven, and laced with accusations that the climate crisis is a “fraud” perpetrated by scientists, media, and – most of all – banks.
Whether you agree with him or not, his argument is worth hearing in full.
“Sit Down – Now I’m Going To Answer You”
The moment began when a woman in the audience pressed Peña – an early public endorser of Donald Trump – on what wealthy people like him plan to do about rising oceans.
Peña cut in immediately, telling her bluntly to sit down so he could answer. The exchange got heated; she shouted back; moderators tried to cool the room. Then Peña launched into a story he’s told before: a 2011 trip to Antarctica.
He and his wife, he said, renewed their vows on the icy continent. Scientists at a “$500 million” research facility presented ice cores, explaining global temperatures over hundreds of thousands of years.
According to Peña’s retelling, the scientists said that around 55,000 years ago the world was roughly two degrees Celsius warmer than today, and that climate is cyclical. In the “cosmos of time,” he recalled them saying, human emissions “aren’t a fart in the wind.”
That line, equal parts irreverence and dismissal, set the tone for the rest of his answer.
A Claim Built On Two Pillars: Cycles And Capital
Peña’s case rests on two pillars.
First, cyclical climate: he argues that warming and cooling phases are part of Earth’s long history, and that modern changes, while perhaps “exacerbated” by greenhouse gases, are insignificant on geologic scales. He cites his Antarctica briefing as his personal turning point.
Second, money as truth serum: if sea levels were really going to jump by 10 feet within decades – the “best scenario” he tossed out – then the financial system would already be acting like it.
“If global warming is for real,” Peña said, Florida beachfront condominiums would carry warnings in their prospectuses that rising seas make the investment “worth nothing.” He insists not one has. And if the risk were real, “the banks wouldn’t finance not one mother-[expletive] condominium.”
His punchline is unmistakable: “With the greatest respect, ma’am, it’s the greatest fraud that’s been perpetrated on mankind this century.”
He even says he’s “jealous” of Al Gore for inventing the “scam” first.
The Antarctica Anecdote, And What It Proves (Or Doesn’t)
As a piece of rhetoric, the Antarctica anecdote is powerful. It puts Peña in the room with scientists. It references hard data (ice cores). And it gives him permission to shrug off global warming as just another turn of the planetary dial.
But anecdotes aren’t conclusions.
Ice cores do show climate has changed dramatically over geologic time. That’s not in dispute. The rub is rate and cause. Modern warming is happening far faster than the natural cycles those cores record, and the fingerprints of human greenhouse gas emissions are all over the trend.
Peña doesn’t wrestle with that distinction; he waves it away by flattening all change into “cyclical change.”
It’s fair to report his view – this article is explicitly about Peña’s claims – but it’s also fair to note the logic gap: saying “Earth has been warmer before” doesn’t answer “how fast and how disruptive is today’s warming, and what should we do about it?”
The Banks-Don’t-Believe-It Argument
Peña’s second pillar, follow the money, is his showstopper. In his telling, if financiers truly expected 10 feet of sea-level rise within 40–50 years, they’d stop writing 30-year loans on Miami condos tomorrow. They haven’t, therefore they don’t believe. Case closed.
On the surface, that sounds commonsense. In practice, money is messier.
For one, risk is often sliced, sold, insured, and subsidized. Lenders may move loans off their books, buyers may assume they can sell before risk materializes, and insurers – public and private – may be expected to shoulder losses.
Incentives can be misaligned for a very long time before they suddenly aren’t. We’ve seen this movie in housing before.
Second, disclosures do evolve. Peña asserts “not one” prospectus mentions climate risk. Even if that were true when he first started saying it, many issuers today do discuss climate exposure, flood risk, and insurance in the fine print. (If you’ve ever read one, you know the fine print can be a mile long.) Whether those warnings are adequate is another question.
Third, regulators and markets typically lag science. If there’s a chronic feature of modern finance, it’s underpricing slow-burn risk until a catalyst makes it acute. Climate fits that pattern uncomfortably well.
Again: Peña’s point is clear and reported accurately here—he believes bank behavior disproves climate risk. Our commentary is simply that bank behavior isn’t an oracle. It can reflect blind spots as easily as truths.
“Ten Feet Or A Hundred?” Peña’s Sea-Level Math
Peña told the audience the “best scenario” is 10 feet of sea-level rise in the next 40–50 years; the “worst” is 100 feet. Then he paints the map: the southern U.S., England, “most of Europe” underwater.
A 100-foot jump would imply near-instant collapse of major ice sheets—an apocalyptic scenario used for effect, not likely policy-relevant timelines. The 10-foot “best” within half a century is also far beyond mainstream projections.
You don’t need to be a climate scientist to sense that he’s inflating numbers to underscore his core claim about bankers. It makes for gripping television. It doesn’t make for careful risk assessment.
But here’s the twist: even far smaller rises wreak havoc—on coastal real estate, ports, groundwater, and storm surge. You don’t need 10 feet to get to “material.”
Peña’s Style: Blunt, Combative, And Persuasive To A Point
If you’ve watched him coach entrepreneurs, you’ve seen the same persona here: hectoring urgency, zero patience for hedging, a gift for distilling a thesis to one or two memorable lines. On London Real, that style earned him cheers and jeers at the same time.
His supporters will say he’s asking a healthy question: if elites truly believe their own climate warnings, why build and buy beach towers? Skeptics will say he’s mistaking financial inertia and moral hazard for proof that physical risk isn’t real.
Both things can be true: money can be complacent, and the climate can be changing.
What His Critics Will Hammer (And What His Fans Will Share)
Critics will seize on three weak points:
- The time-scale sleight of hand. “Cyclical” doesn’t negate “fast and human-driven.”
- The bank barometer. Markets often misprice tail risks, especially ones that play out slowly – and especially when someone else can be handed the bag.
- The number inflation. Tossing out 10 or 100 feet in a few decades moves the goalposts and invites straw-man knockdowns.
His fans, meanwhile, will clip and share the core of his case: “If it were really true, the banks wouldn’t finance beachfront condos.” It’s a sticky line. It will travel further than any caveat.
Peña’s challenge to the money world is not crazy: do investors, lenders, and insurers truly price climate risk into long-lived coastal assets? Often, no. And that is a problem.
But using that underpricing as proof the risk isn’t real is where his leap loses me. We’ve had entire crises built on exactly that kind of logic.
The better move is to treat his provocation as a starting gun. Demand that banks, insurers, and developers show their work on climate exposure. Push for transparent modeling, not vibes. Expect regulators to close loopholes that socialize losses. And insist that public rhetoric about climate aligns with public investment choices.
Dan Peña, as featured by London Real, calls climate change “the greatest fraud of the century.” I wouldn’t go there. I think the more durable truth is less cinematic and more frustrating: we are very good at ignoring slow threats until they become fast ones – and by the time the money world “believes,” it’s usually because the bill has arrived.
That’s not a cover-up. It’s a habit. And habits are harder to break than arguments are to win.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Raised in a small Arizona town, Kevin grew up surrounded by rugged desert landscapes and a family of hunters. His background in competitive shooting and firearms training has made him an authority on self-defense and gun safety. A certified firearms instructor, Kevin teaches others how to properly handle and maintain their weapons, whether for hunting, home defense, or survival situations. His writing focuses on responsible gun ownership, marksmanship, and the role of firearms in personal preparedness.
