storage unit onto a coalition, coles and uh with russia should. uh she is engaged oxygen dot net. ready is that a ward ukraine and uh, she's not blaming eyes of russia for the right week potties mrs. fun denied is also visit presiding over the effective d p. an eyes ation fall 50, or by importing 10 thousands of millions of unqualified migrants. this is fund a line is destroyed, europe and nothing else states and all of this. and these are these kind of c dot com is excellent. so is the 2 will be back in about 30 minutes, the

time action or 10. so you're welcome back to going underground broadcasting all around the world from dubai in the u. a host of the most recent international cop climate conference. given the evidence, only a full contin either the world is warming, and the global policy makers need to do something about what they've capitalism is doing to life or not. but is there a name and it's tipping point, or individual time acting events or years or decades relevant when judging how far gone is the planet or a scientist to becoming slaves through a job with jerry and system designed to prevent science that alone all of us comprehending how climate change threatens us and climate change policy threatens the poorest people on the us award winning climate, ologist, and presidents of the climate full cause applications. network professor judith curry has a different perspective to the one you'll find on nato, a line media. she was the chair to that was very sciences at the georgia institute of technology for over a decade. and the latest book is climate uncertainty and risk rethinking our response once she joins me now. for reno in nevada, professor car you,

thanks so much for coming on. it's such a detailed scholarly book, but presumably it's going to help people if they're turning on the news and there's been a hurricane the wildfire that's going anything and the way the so go mainstream media we'll talk about it will be in terms of this is because your i said they're not recycling enough. you're going to not doing enough to going back time and change. explain why a people have to be very wary when when watching the news. well, the main basis of my book is that we have vastly over simplified both the climate problem and it's solutions. the weakest part of the argument is whether warming is even dangerous. and you know, this, that this was assumed way back, you know, in the late 1980, is this, the, you were picked up on this issue, you know,

to put forward, you know, a global as the agenda. and, and so the science, it has been a, actually the policy cards has been way out in front of the scientific course for decades now on this issue. and the problem's been very narrow a framed. it's this narrow framing about is only about fossil fuel emissions. those acted to marginalize to important fields of climate science and it's led to us making extremely solve optimal decisions about how we should deal with the problem in terms of the limit heating emissions. so obviously, as the climate booms for areas will get richer and richer ones will get bored perhaps. but why is it there? is this consensus? i mean, no, i'm jump, excuse me, on this, you wrote manufacturing consent about i was, are have to have consent manufactured for us to support them. you talk in your

book, how the international bundle of climate change, manufactures consensus, 97 percent. you quote the obama, the butcher of libya or arguably a bama sweep, 97 percent of science disagree. climate change is real. manmade and dangerous. so 97 percent. okay, well there's a very big difference between of scientific consensus and a consensus of scientists. you know, something like the earth orbit the sun. that's a well known fact. you don't need to talk about consensus when you hear talk about consensus is probably means that some politicians are you know, looking for scientific evidence that will support their preferred policies. and the words that an, i mean the ip c c was asked to see consensus about climate

change to support the un and that agenda. and in order to do so, they carefully selected people who would, you know, promote those particular idea that completely marginalized natural climate variability. and in order to enforce a consensus, they had to demonize anybody who challenged it. you know, they became called deniers or whatever. so it's just a very bad situation, not just for science, but also for policy making the so called manufacturing of scientific consensus to support political objectives. i understand perhaps why scholars in the rich countries might want to do this for performance. i understand why politicians might want to encourage this algo, a famously $560000000.00 from the u. s. energy department for his companies. while he was writing these books. judging the importance of something must be done about

climate change. but why in poor countries? because you've written eloquently about how, say a continent like have for k suffers under the dictatorship of the ip easy see movement is it? well, uh, so that they cannot develop a while the rich countries rich people in which countries get very wealthy off these policies as well. international development age for the last several decades has been tied to the climate change agenda to eliminate possible fuel emissions. money that used to be used to eradicate, try to eradicate poverty and reduce vulnerability to extreme weather about some help you eliminate world hunger. i mean, all of that has been, is now ignored in the zeal to eliminate possible fuels. and you know,

there's 4000000000 people on the planet, mostly in africa, who don't have access to grid electricity and more people in africa. they do have a bundle of coal and petroleum resources. but they don't, they need loans to build the infrastructure to actually use, you know, to develop a grid electricity. and they can't get the loans, you know, from europeans. and then we're all banks because they don't want to fund any fossil fuel projects. and so instead, they just essentially take the fossil fuel resources from africa and ship it to europe and asia, to support their energy consumption. you know, and that it's a terrible thing. i mean, it's been called energy a part time, green colonialism, whatever. but it's deeply a moral as yeah, and the event isn't really mentioned by green policies in western europe. i

remember showing as the leader of the berkeley green party, who we interviewed on this program some years ago. and i mentioned that we were covering the leaks of emails confirming the politicization of the science back in 20 o 7. she said, oh, that's not a good interview to do. you a part of the 20 o 7 i p. c. c. consensus yourself a scientist who just reminds us about the emails and won't cause that inspired your suspicions and you'll like to work well the circuit 2003009 bought the re yeah, we are 20072009. i thought the responsible thing for climate scientists was to support the ip c. c consensus and public statements about climate change. okay. but that all changed when i read those emails. this was climate gave you an authorized release of emails from the university of east anglia involving

a number of ip c. c lead authors. and you can watch all ready for you and the archives actually on our rumble channel, about with one of the people in the mail chain. well, it revealed on search efforts to circumvent freedom of information act requests. i'm trying to bring the peer review process, violating procedural guidelines for the ip c c, and generally trying to sabotage anyone who criticize their work or disagreed with them. and this is totally outside of coal to what scientists are supposed to do. and so i started speaking out about that saying we need to do better. we need to make all our data and our methods completely transparent, publicly available. we needed to be honest about uncertain date. we needed to avoid a over confidence in reporting our results. and finally, we needed to treated treat with respect other people who disagreed with us. what

did you make of the investigation that cleared all the sciences involved in that email chain of no, anything untoward? well that there was a lot of pressure. and these in inquiries and investigations were very narrowly constrained. i mean, it was the people in the u. k. were off the hook for violating the freedom of information act requests because the statute of limitations expired 6 months previously. you know, that kind of thing. they got off on technicalities and people who were doing the investigations really wanted to support the u. n. d i d c. c. and they wanted this all to go away. so for the most part, the investigations were shallow and they were whitewash is so they, they weren't convincing at all to anyone who actually look what those reports said . and a number of the committee members on those inquiry panels spoke up publicly about

how shallow these investigations actually were. and of course, the way the i b z c. uh. now if you look is, if you don't degree, you get attacked. so i suppose we better get this out the way how you see your, your big oil, big gas funded, the scholar yourself. and how did you have to answer that and is that what happens dual scroll is maybe watching the show if they want to express skepticism, is what lies ahead for them. and i never received funding for my research from, you know, the petroleum sector in 2006. i started a private sector company, climate forecast applications network. i wanted to apply a client, whether in climate research to helping people make better decisions. i did have some clients in the energy sector,

i mean they were interested in better hurricane forecasts, better electricity, low demand forecast is kind of thing, nothing to do with climate change, but never the less. i mean that the simplest like the these active is worse preaching the consensus. i'm talking about deniers didn't really want to engage with any skeptics about their actual arguments. they felt the easiest way to tar them was to say, oh, well, they're being funded by fossil fuel industry. and then we could therefore dismiss stuff. but it, to my mind, at least in the us government funding is far more biased and resulting in more politicization of the scientist and the very paltry amounts of research funding from the patrol sector. so that whole argument doesn't make sense, but it's an easy way of just completely dismissing anybody who challenges any of

before i ask for the policies. i'm one of the fundamental axioms that old is the environmental industry use is high confidence based on the quote moderate evidence . and it's accompanied by increasing c o 2 level. since the call conferences starts in every single target, not match. every single deadline opens as well. you know, i'm a che, know the climate system is extremely complex and our understanding is of this is deeply uncertain. there's a whole lot that we don't know and even more that we can't know or just because of fundamental chaotic nature of the climate system. so these overconfident predictions with inadequate climate models are just going to mentally not fit for purpose for, for making policy decisions about the energy system. but that doesn't stop the

politicians from completely relying on preventive. judy, it's carrie, how stop you the more from the author of climate uncertainty and risk rethinking our response. optimist break the at the language, the behavior is has become really extreme in the west. so i think again, it's because they're there, empire is on the, on the decline. it's wrapped with the decline, the declining b. c. it following. and it just makes it more angry, more hostile and more full of patriots, the welcome back to going underground. i'm still here with the president's will be time and full gust applications network and all of the time and onset,

and he and risk rethinking our response. professor judith curry, we were talking in the pop one about the way evidence is used. so the actual data that uh then filters down to the general public as they vote for these politicians who supports the ideas, the youth a on based on science app. so we talked a bit about financial conflicts. i want to go back to that, but i explain the process of data loan during and spend a given, as you're saying, if you have the part when there are lots of things we don't know mathematically. yes, to uh, to produce that kind of conclusions being bandied about in normal, discloses absolute truths. well, you know what the public consume, sir, is carefully laundered, spin on, here's how it happened. okay, so you take a, like a, a research paper with, you know,

ambiguous conclusions, but they will sort of make the abstract in the title provocative so that they, it will get some attention and then some brass and some media attention. so, but if you read deep into the paper, there's a lot of copy odds and on certain days, and then you go to the level of the ip, see, see they select papers that are convenient to their can call conclusions and they ignore a lot of ones that are inconvenient in the body of the ip see c reports, there's some good material and some good analyses. but by the time you get to the summary for policy makers, you know, the, they, this is all been spawn. the results have been sherry pack them carefully crafted to support the preferred narrative. and then once you have the, you want officials talking about the ip c c reports, we have code read highway to hell, you know,

all of this kind of crazy rhetoric. and then the media takes it from there with all of those alarming rhetoric. so by the time the public actually sees it, there, they're exposed to a bunch of unjustified over hyped alarm that is not supported by the science or even by the, the text of the full. i pcc reports themselves. and this isn't the climate change itself. is it, it's about papers to do with tipping points to do with explanations. it can be about specific incidents to the areas of science. oh yeah. you know, the, what we hear about every extreme event, extreme weather, about, you know, our hurricane of flood a heat wave, whatever is now blamed on fossil fuel images, which is completely unjustified. even the ip c. c acknowledges that there's no change and extreme weather events with the exception of the flight increase in the

intensity of heat waves and a reduction in the intensity of cold. why, if that isn't surprising with an overall increase in global temperature, but you know, hurricanes, hail, tornadoes, floods, drugs, all of those. no, no, there isn't any signal of a change from the warming, and you would never, never believe that if you listen to the media, you'd never expect that your opinion, which is backing wars in the middle east, in uh, in ukraine to come out with uh something like a precaution re principal given it's a using a lot of fossil fuels and all of these was but you know, the precautionary principle is in the treaties the, your be in union. why, why do you think, why do you have no time for the precautionary principle? and probably think of the recollection of the principal actually both is great. the dangers then not having one. ok for it for a very pain problem. simple problems like some food,

additive or something like that. you know, it might be a problem. it might cause cancer. okay, well get rid of it, you know, and nobody is really bothered. but when you're talking about something as complex as a climate system and those fundamental to human wellbeing and development is the energy system which is currently driven by fossil fuels and simplistic applying application of the precautionary principle saying, well, it's warming is caused by carbon dioxide emissions therefore, eliminate carbon dioxide emissions, which means fundamental a, transforming our energy and even our food systems mix. and we need to do this by 2030 makes absolutely no sense. and you know, it's not only as a technologically, in feasible, it's immensely expensive and politically and viable and why they persist in pushing

with this agenda. i mean they're, they're running into the hard wall of reality and we saw a handsome, valid at the recent c o 2 meeting and to buy. is it a testament to the way i have the i'm, if it will bank system work then that so many in the global south of embraced exactly a, these ideas of impoverishing their countries as a sort of way to enter the international uh community at the expense of their own populations. yeah, i mean, there's a lot of agendas and factors and play, you know, one is a world view that the environment is fragile and humans are a blight on the planet. therefore, we need to reduce population and all this is the mouth is in view that the actually exactly. and the other thing is, you know, are you want agenda or long standing you an agenda or, you know,

non governmental world control. some organizations like the us and then they, you and very early picked up on the environment and health issues as being the torch and those that could, you know, the 2 issues that could forward that agenda. and they've been running with the environmental long for decades now. and with the most really you and i mean it's a, presumably there's a lot of money involved in this hundreds of billions of dollars. millions of dollars may be by the scale of the need to completely realign the energy systems of western europe in the united states. yeah, i mean, it's something that you know, that they're planning on fear that people have. i mean that it's, they, they've over hyped. you know, the alarm, you know, saying that we could have 10 degrees centigrade of warming by 2100 is completely ridiculous. and even the us now recognize as completely ridiculous are talking

about maybe $1.00 to $2.00 degrees more warming by the end of the 21st century. i mean, this is something new from the u. um since about 2021. but you never believe that from what you here in the media. so um, you know that by linking, i mean we have 3 separate issues. one is extreme weather. the other ones, a slow creep of climate change, and the 3rd one is energy, electric power and transportation. and by completing all those 3 things under the climate change umbrella. saying that client, a little bit of warming demands that we dismantle current energy and food infrastructures. and the interest of eliminating c o 2 emissions makes you know it's, it's a very or choice driven by the precautionary principle, which is completely unsuited for complex and deeply on certain problem like climate

change and become the intersectionality of extreme weather and our energy systems. and renewables for you are 2 carbon intensive in this because the at so many people. so fuels are required to create the windmills and add solar power in the main to as a complete transport. but i want to get into the goldilocks dilemma. why is that central to of is what is okay, well, i mean, people say, oh my gosh, you know, we've already had one degree of warming. and we could see another several degrees of warming by 2100 as well over that century where we saw one degree of warming. we saw the global population increased by about 400 percent. far fewer people are living in poverty. then before, agricultural productivity has skyrocketed and a far smaller percentage of the population died from weather in climate extreme

events. we said, oh, you're nice though. you mean? yeah, this is why aren't we have one degree the temperature increase? you know, we've done fine with that 1st one decree of temperature or you can call it easy increase or decrease with the one degree a property is decreased. i'm sorry, it has dropped so we'd be christ. i'm sorry, i must have misspoke. um, and the other thing is if you go back to pre industrial, you know, the 1700s, the 1800s, there was coal and this was the under the little ice age. this was the coldest story of the last 1000 years. and why would we think that this was good? i mean there were famines, agricultural productivity was way down. there were lots of extreme weather events, crazy droughts and so forth and so on. and why anyone would think that was a good with climate. i don't know, but humans have always adapted to their weather and climate,

and if they have enough energy in, well, they will continue to do so while you see them during transit to a bit and you put no tie again in market forces. what are we supposed to do knowing the climate change is coming? what, what is everyone's supposed to do? given that presumably will involve ray, some richer prairies and areas of farm land at the wells for countries. clearly that are being colder. we'll get warmer and be really lucrative for growth cultivation that one before. well, we don't know how climate change is going to play out. regional climate change defends depends, talk far more on natural climate, variability related to multi to cable regimes of ocean circulation. patterns is not a simple a brand in one direction. so, i mean, the best way to approach this is more of a bottom up approach, not the un,

top down approach, where each country each region works to understand their weather and climate vulnerabilities and works to increase their resilience. and you know, works to develop a 21st century energy infrastructure that will be more abundant, more reliable, or secure, more inexpensive, and preferably green. i mean, what, once you put the decision making down at the lower levels, i mean, you can end up with some sensible actions, but instead we have never anything goes wrong. people just throw up their hands and say, we can't do anything. it's global warming as fossil fuel is, climate change, and they use it as an excuse for not dealing with their real problems. yeah, i'm not sure with the united states. oh, and all the war with china and russia, they want to lease cold expenses to become open. the places of economic prosperity

as this progresses, this global warming. what are these other, other factors here and what influences the scientists? and i suppose what, what do you think of jo, lift them? was this process of lying to the public has gone on since the power summit? yeah, well, you know, there's a lots of factors that influence climate land use as a big one that influences our local climate. there's external factors like ok, no, was a solar variations and there's internal factors like internal variations, natural variations in the large scale ocean. and that was stored circulations, and these are the big drivers. climate change on seasonal to decatur, or even all types of cattle timescales. global warming is a slow creep um the influence of sea level rise,

the slow creep of sea level rise and the slow melting of glaciers. by pretending that every extreme weather a band is caused by the slow creep of warming, just make. so it leads us to ignoring the real cause of our vulnerability, which would be but you know, inadequate infrastructure for emergency management or water resource management and things like that. instead we throw up our hands and blame everything on global warming, residues, sorry, thank you. thank you, my pleasure and climate uncertainty and risk rethinking our responses out. now that's up in the shelf. remember, we're bringing you new episodes every saturday and monday, but until then you can give it to us. why will that social media? if it's not censored in your country and to our child going undergrads, you feel normal dot com. so what's new and old episodes, i'm going undergrads uses the

really modern, programmatic world of smartphones and tech upgrades. our terminal prompts and hand painted traditions of yesteryear seem to be fading away. particular stuff outside of the bustling metropolis of moscow. and you'll find that traditional russian, the full parts culture is still going strong. acceptance, and i'm here to plan with you whatever you do. do not watch my new show. seriously . why watch something that's so different. whitelisted opinions that he won't get anywhere else. welcome to planes or do they have the state department c i a weapons makers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations. choose your fax for you. go ahead. change and whatever you do. don't want marshall state main street because i'm probably going to make you, i'm comfortable. my show is called direction, but again,

we don't wanna watch it because it might just change the way you the dislike to the international court opened this order as well to serve as a salt on the city of ruffled is welcome to use the time of the south of gaza with that israel does not care about anyone whether the court of justice or any countries, despite the fact that most countries have become against it. that the old and god, the boss is the t 5 file that is rejects comprised why the international court of justice and says it has never conducted in miss hill probation and rough of that could appeal. so when you assign today the applicant confidence center

bank, do you.