welcome to buying the you a host of the most recent international golf climate conference. given the evidence only of focus in either the world is warming, and the global policy makers need to do something about what they 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, do a job with terry and system design to prevent science that alone, all of us comprehending how climate change threatens us and climate change policy threatens the poorest people on an award winning climate, ologist and presidents of climate full cause applications. network professor judith curry has a different perspective to the one you'll find on nathan like media. she was the chair of the 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 from reno in nevada . professor, how are you? thanks so much for coming on. it's such a detailed scholarly book,

but presently it's going to help people if they're turning on the news and as being a hurricane the wildfire that's going anything. and the way the circle, 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, 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 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 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 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, i know i'm jump, excuse me on this, you wrote manufacturing consent about how was our 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 a bama sweep, 97 percent of science. it's a great 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, it's a song that's a well known fact. so you don't need to talk about consensus when you hear talk about consensus. it 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 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 want to encourage this alcohol famously $560000000.00 from the u. s. energy department for his company is a while he was writing these books, the urging the importance of something must be done about the 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 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 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 funding, coal of 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 as 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 policy, 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 as scientists who just reminds us about the emails and won't cause that inspired your suspicions and you're late to 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 you can watch all ready for you in the archives actually on our rumble general about with one of the people in the mail

train. 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 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 narrow, a constraint. 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 un 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 that 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. now for you, uh, work is if you don't degree, you get attacked. so i supposed to be able to 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. um, but i never received funding for my research from. yeah, now it's a petroleum sector. in 2006, i started a private sector company climate forecast applications network. i wanted to apply the clint weather and climate research to helping people make better decisions. i did have some clients and the energy sector. i mean they were interested in better hurricane forecasts. better electricity, low demand forecast, this kind of thing,

nothing to do with climate change. but never the less. i mean, that the simplest like the, these activists who were preaching the consensus and 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 today, you wells, government funding is far more biased and resulting in more politicization of the 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 layouts or the policies. and one of the fundamental axioms that all this

environmental industry use is high confidence based on the quote moderate evidence . and it's accompanied by increasing c o 2 levels, since the call conferences starts in every single target, not match every single deadline up and well, you know, i'm a che, now 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 the fundamental chaotic nature of the climate system. so these overconfident predictions with inadequate climate models are just a 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 after this break the the

welcome back to going underground. i'm still here with the president's will be time to pull gust applications network and all of the time it done certainty and risk. rethinking our response professor, judith 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 support the ideas that you say on based on the science app. so we talked a bit about financial conflicts. i want to go back to that, but i me explain 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, to produce that kind of conclusions. being bandied about in normal, discloses absolute truths. well,

you know what the public consumes here as carefully laundered, spin on, here's how it happened. okay, so you take a, like a research paper with, you know, ambiguous conclusions, but they will sort of make the abstract in 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 in carefully crafted to

support the preferred narrative. and then once you have the un officials talking about the i p c. c reports, we have code for the 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 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 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 and 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 and mentions which is 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. 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 and 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 of the your being 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 greater dangers then they'll having one a. okay, for it for a very pain problem, simple problems like some food, additive or something like that. you know, it might be a problem that 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 as 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 makes. and we need to do this by 2030, makes absolutely no sense. and you know,

it's not only as a technologically and 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 dubai. 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 in 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 you went on and they did 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 good for 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, it's 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 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 on since about 2021. but you never believe that from what you here in the media. so um, you know that, but 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 her energy and food infrastructures . and the interest of eliminating c o 2 emissions makes you know if it's

a very or choice driven by the precautionary principle, which is completely unsuited for complex and deeply on certain problems like climate change and become the intersectionality of extreme weather and our energy systems. and renewables for you are a 2 carbon intensive in this because that and so many people. so fuels are required to create the windmills and add solar power in the main to as a complete transfer. but i want to get on to the goldilocks island. 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. yeah, this is why aren't we have one degree the temperature increase? you know, we've done fine with that. first one decree of temperature is very simple. that easy increase or decrease with the one degree the 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 especially under the little ice age. this was the cold of the 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 human some always adapted to their weather in climate and if they have enough energy and 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 a 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. um, but 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 cable regimes of ocean circulation patterns. it is not

as 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, more 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 that as an excuse for not dealing with their real problems. yeah, i'm not sure what would be united states. oh, and all the war with china and russia, and 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 just a list of them? was this process of uh, lying to the public has gone on since the power summit? yeah, well i 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 ok, no, oh, isn't 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 that influence of sea level rise of slow cree book, sea level rise, and the slow melting of pleasures. 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 residues. gary, thank you. thank you. my pleasure and climate uncertainty and risk rethinking our responses out. now that's an issue out. 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 sense that in your country and into i channel going undergrads, you feel normal dot com to watch new and old episodes of going underground season. the language the behavior is, has become really extreme in the west. and i think again, it's because they're there, empire is on the, on the decline. it's wrapped at the decline, the declining b. c. it following. and it just makes it more angry, more fast style and more full of patriots. the games are, is h, a y is,

can be cited by lines. these can be expanded by for the importance of we can never be kind of a station that transparency is extraordinary. john mystic a cheese, then just succeeded in finding the documents that existed in making them available to the world public. i mean, what could be more holding back by publishing information and sharing information with the public. he was exercising the rights for a speech he did so in the public interest wants to. so mom realized pen smith and, and, and honestly, the biggest of late continuously. i know why advice may know who is the guy that illegal anymore. why? so i want to just tell us beyond boss weighing a 175 years since it's all we going to let that stay in

the world continues to ring tear down on the southern gaza, just a day after being ordered by the international court of justice to hold it, so salt from the city of dropbox. israel does not care about anyone whether the court of justice for any countries, despite the fact that most countries have become against it. as the death toll in the enclave creeps ever closer to $36000.00, israel dismisses the haze order and claims it's rough offensive. it is not targeting civilians. celebrating itself, africa day is marked across the continents honoring the achievements of independence and breaking from the shackles of colonialism. also ahead keystrokes shouldn't be really.