to that, to make it too obvious that they have their own interest in georgia. but to oscar is cleaning all of sense. so things are shifting now. they have to work uh pretty fast. uh and uh now, but they have um, uh they have special meet date as it pleases more visits to our people since uh they recommendations now don't have the same face as it used to. now it comes uh more in a form of conditions which contains east than type of central is if you don't do this, then it will have some concept by says, uh, enter. this situation is a good example of that. well, i wrote something this in news, i'm going to have you with this an odd c into national. i've seen with tennessee who's going on the ground up next, and then we'll be back in about the

afternoon 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 golf climate conference. given the evidence, certainly a full could deny that the world is warming. and the global policy makers need to do something about what they've capitalism is doing delightful enough, but it's very name and it's tipping point. are individual climax, take events or years or decades relevant? when judging how far gone is the planet or a scientist to becoming slaves? georgia challenge arion 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 award winning clements ologist presidents. it's

climate full cause applications. network professor judith curry has a different perspective to the one you'll find on nathan like media. she was a chair and that was very sciences at the georgia. and so you use your technology for over decades of the latest book is climate uncertainty and risk rethinking our response. she joins me now for reno in nevada. progressive. how are 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 called mainstream media we'll talk about it will be in terms of this is because your i said, are not recycling enough. you're going to not doing enough to going back time of change. explain why people have to be very wary when uh, when watching the news. well, the main basis of my book is that we have vastly over simplified both the climate

problem and it solutions. the weakest part of the argument as 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 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 it's only about fossil fuel emissions. those acted to marginalize it's 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 we'll get richer and richer ones, we'll get bora, perhaps. but why is it there? is this consensus? i mean, no, i'm jump excuse being on this show. wrote manufacturing consent about how was, are, have to have consent manufactured for us to support them. you talk in your book how the international panel on climate change manufacturers consensus at 97 percent, you quote the obama, the butcher of libya or arguably, obama tweet, 97 percent designed 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. so some 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 seek consensus about climate change to support the un agenda. and in order to do so, they carefully selected people who would, you know, promote those particular idea. they completely marginalized natural climate variability. and in order to enforce a consensus, they had to demonize anybody who challenged it and it 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. al gore 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 se accounts and then 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, which 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 fossil 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, 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 world 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,

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 or yeah, and the event isn't really mentioned by green policies in west and your of i remember showing as a 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. up, you are part of the 20 o 7 i p. c. c. consensus yourself as scientists who just remind us about the emails and won't cause that inspired your suspicions and your later work? well, the circuit 2002009 bought the re yeah, we are 20072009. i thought the responsible thing for climate scientists was to

support the i p. 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 people can watch our interview in the archives actually on our rumble channel, about with one of the people in the email chain. well, it revealed um 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 scientists 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. and the ip 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 kind of course, the way the i b z c. uh, now for you. uh, work 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 no 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 in to my mind, at least today you wells, government funding is far more biased and resulting in more politicization of

a scientist and a 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 the i ups or the policies. and one of the fundamental axioms that old is environmental industry use is, is high confidence based on quotes moderate evidence. and it's accompanied by increasing c o 2 levels. since the comp, conferences starts in every single target, not match every single deadline up and as well. you know, find that chain. no, the climate system is extremely complex and our understanding is of this is deeply uncertain. there is a whole lot that we don't know and even more that we can't know 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 kind of a how stop you the more from the author of climate uncertainty and risk, rethinking our response up to this break the the, the,

[000:00:00;00] the the welcome back to going underground. i'm still here with the presidents of the time in full gust applications network and all of the time it done. so the risk rethinking our response professor, student curry, we were talking in part 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 that you say on based on science. as we talked a bit about financial conflicts, i want to go back to that, but i explained the process of data loan during and spend a given as you were saying, if you had to put one, 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 and a title provocative so that they, it will get some attention. and then some brass and some media attention. so that 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 code 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, the, this is all been spawn. the results have been sherry packed and carefully crafted to support the preferred narrative. and then once you have the you want officials talking about the i p 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 was all of those alarming rhetoric. so by the time the public actually sees that they're, they're exposed to a bunch of unjustified over hyped alarm that is not supported by the science or even by the,

the text before i pcc reports themselves. and this isn't the climate change itself because it's about papers to do with tipping points to do with explanations. and it can be about specific incidents to the areas of science or 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 and michonne switches completely unjustified even the ip c c acknowledges that there's no change in extreme weather events with the exception of the slight increase in the intensity of heat waves and a reduction in the intensity of cold white. if that isn't surprising with an overall increase in global temperature, but you know, hurricanes, hail, tornadoes, floods, drugs, all of this. 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 never expect that european union, 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 trees. is the european union why? why do you think, why do you have no time for the precautionary principle? and probably think the recollection of the principal actually poses grades the dangers. then they'll having one a. okay for, 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, 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 fundamentally 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 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, by is a testament to the way a have the i'm, if it will, bank system works 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 a planet. therefore, we need to reduce population and all this is the mouth is in view that there are probably 5 now actually. exactly. and the other thing is, you know, are you on the agenda or a long standing you an agenda or, you know, non governmental world control. some organizations like the us and then they do 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 one 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. billions 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 i 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 un now recognized 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 share in the media. so um, you know that by linking,

i mean we have 3 separate issues. one is extreme, whether the other one's 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 uncertain 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 ad so many people. so fuels are required to create the windmills and add so the power in the main to as

a complete transport. but i want to get on to the goldilocks di. lemme. 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. you said, oh, you're nice though. you mean 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 the property is decreased. i'm sorry,

it has drum with the christ. i'm sorry i must have misspoke. um, and the other thing is if you go back to pre industrial, you know, be 1700, the 1800s, there was coal and especially 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 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 value during transit to a bit and you put no tie again in the 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 very 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 grow up cultivation that was before. um, well we don't know how climate change is going to play out. regional climate change defense 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 is 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 a but 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 jelly list of 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 is a big one that influences our local climate. there's external factors like all k, no owes and 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 that influence of sea level rise of slow creep of sea level rise and the slow melting of glaciers. by pretending that every extreme weather event is caused by the slow creep of warming just makes

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. progressive judith gary, thank you. thank you, my pleasure and climate uncertainty and risk rethinking our responses out. now that's up in the show. remember, we bring you new episodes every saturday and monday, but until then you can give it to us by the social media. if it's not sense that in your country and to our child going undergrads, you feel normal dot com to watch new and old episodes of going underground season.

the the slides of it international court of justice or the use of the soap with the salt on the, to the of wrap up is on, continues to, i'm of the south of god. israel does not care about penny one, whether the court of justice for any countries, despite the fact that most countries have become against it. 5, the told in gaza as a positive and 35000 is what we get complaints by the exactly one of the justice and says is never conducted the probation and the roof of that could of to begin this type of a i forget to celebrate c,