to join the hello and welcome to was a part throughout history. humanity has tried many times to solve problems by means that have not only exacerbated the pre existing challenges, but also create as much bigger ones. they can nuclear weapons, for example, borne out of the need for security. they come with the risk of total elation. my guess today argues that our efforts to deal with climate change fall into a similar pattern. it's time is doing more harm than good. why is it so difficult to prevent the treatment from becoming the disease in its own right?

so to discuss that, i'm now joined by judith perry. it's an american plan to tell interest and a professor in america at the georgia institute of technology. it's professor curry . it's amazing to talk to you. thank you very much for being available. well, thank you for inviting me now in one of your articles here. role of that, and let me quote here. all things considered planet earth is doing fine. humans doing better than at any other time in history. and i think it sounds incredulous in our era of almost paramount doomsday anxieties. why are you so chill population, you know, over the last 100 years population has substantially increased poverty, has reduced substantially, globally on agricultural productivity. is way up. um, fewer people per cap adults are dying for the weather in climate

related disasters on the planet is greeny, it seems to enjoy the warmer temperatures and the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. so overall, if it seems like we've done pretty well over the past century, during a period when the planet has been warming, so yeah, that warming is dangerous. i think it was the weakest part of the whole argument. but as an adult said, show, that's why we have witnessed all these technological uh, progress. our requirements of safety and security have increased dramatically and people are far less solar and not only of the real dangers. but even though it's a basic uncertainty you reach our ancestors, took for granted, i want to have that in and of itself necessitates postulating some major danger. that would be a sort of a, you know, a designate is designated aggregates for all the as a central anxiety. yeah,

exactly. it's a convenient and climate global warming fonts. so field warming has become a convenient scape code for, you know, all of the planets problem is, you know, whatever, there is a water resource shortage. they don't blame power, water management and add governance or extravagant use of water instead, they blame climate change. so by blaming climate change for everything that goes wrong, we ignore the real causes of many of our problems. the professor curry isn't just a scape goat, to escape responsibility or, or is it also in a way a trojan horse to some of the land, some human vested interest. oh, well, it's a, it's driven by a particular world. new, a new male suzy. in world view. the, you know, humans or a blight on the planet that the environment is fragile. and the only way that we can deal with all this is through of non government world controlled through

organizations like united nations world economic forum at such a at the end of the day to me, this looks like a big power grabs rather than something. and they help humanity. well, uh, given the state of relations between russia and the united states. and you can hardly suppose that the crime is in the, in the pockets of, uh, washington, uh, activist them as yet. i think, you know, some people here are also not necessarily share the, the entire debate, but they, they do see the temperature changing and the extreme weather of lands. uh. is there any relation between uh, new weather phenomenon that we witness and uh, climate change. we've had extreme weather and climate events for, you know, for several 1000000000 years of the earth has been in existence. we've always had bad weather. we currently have bad weather and we'll have

a bad weather in the future. there's even the un climate assessment reports finds no relationship between extreme weather events and global warming apart from hayward's. that's the old one that seems to be increasing and that makes sense of the overall temperatures. think thing, but for games plugs, droughts, hail, you know, whatever bad weather that often gets blamed on fossil fuels, warming even the your on climate. a sense that reports 5 is low confidence in any trend, let alone anything that can be blamed on fossil fuel warming. mm. hm, but i don't mean only, uh, quote unquote, bad weather because here in russia for example, we have witnessed some unprecedented unheard of weather phenomena. for example, um, over the last couple of years we have been witnessing a lot of what we call ice rain when a temperature just falls precipitously during the rain falls, craving essentially

a huge ice ring sound that's would be very unpredictable and also very traumatic, especially for the elderly and i've heard of all the countries also experience something like that, a phenomena that they either now were never experienced before or perhaps half forgotten about. and do you think there is any relation between these uh, like on heard of uh, things and uh what we see happening uh when they atmosphere globally. the key points is forgotten about. for example, in the u. s. bad weather, everything from the worst heat waves, the worst droughts, even the worst land following hurricanes occurred in the 19 thirty's. okay? and that is outside of most people's living memory, but it's there in the records. and if you look back further, you know, into the 1800s, you will find all sorts of crazy weather. so the key point is forgotten about it,

or they that there are natural, very ations and the weather and climate extremes. and some of these are multi the cables, so maybe you may have to go back 6070 years, a 150 years before you find something comfortable. but it's very rare that you owe that completely new weather event. that's untrusted. so do i understand you correctly, the climate and the weather patterns are, may be changing simply because nature always changes. it's never static. i'm claiming that it's all due to human activity may be not only misleading, but perhaps a little bit of ground heels, even if you just look back a 100 years, rather than one person was living memory, you will find lots of extreme weather events. lots. you'll see lots of natural weather and climate variability. so this is nothing unusual. people have just been

fed. the hype that, you know, are also fuels cause bad weather and it's is just ludicrous, but people have to somehow, oh, at least people in the, in the, in the united states or more largely within the western world. and i do want to ask you a sort of a cultural, i guess question because the russian, and i think more broadly for an i, the american debate on climate change is characterized by implausible, with high predictions of emissions. and the sort of, uh, fi arise farm that they may make may cause the most governments around the world tend to stay on the conservative side of the forecast in the policy settings, simply because the resources are limited. and there are many present day issues competing for those resources, but i think in the united states we see

a totally different trend. i mean there is a predilection for the most dramatic forecasts possible and not only on climate change. take example take, for example, of the public health debate and old because with projections they were also huge. we uh, overboard. do you think that's a cultural issue or is it perhaps an ideological one? even the un climate assessment reports have focused on the extreme emission scenario and the very warm, you know, it gives a whole lot of warming and exaggerated 6th stream weather events. but even the contents of the parties, climate negotiators of fans at these extreme emissions scenarios. and 2021. so why are the scientists still using them? and it's not just us scientists, there's a, a very healthy contingent. um, what i would call a alarm of scientists in europe, and particularly in germany. many and then view k for example. so it's not just to us phenomena and a lot of motives, i mean,

individual scientists get far more attention and funding and whatever if they make an alarming pronouncement time any more attention and they have faith. so the big table is, you know, making policy and things like that. and so, so there's the various social motives for people to exaggerate and in the us and, and in europe to buy and think it's becoming more and more apparent that you know, something is very wrong. and, and these is that there's a growing move just to a band and the extreme emissions scenarios and look at the terminal scenarios. and i have to say the russian climate models have one of the lowest sensitivities to um c o 2 emissions. and i think it's one of the better climate models out there giving more real projections. well, as, since you mentioned that,

i think at least within the russian collective psyche, there is a um, new to our soviet past. i think the sort of outlined this plans that the we were striving for at that time. there is now a very clear distinct distinction between uh uh, trying to implants. and so trying to control, we can influence lots of things to varying degrees, but we cannot control them. absolutely. and we have, i think this is what western policies prime is still on the, the demand for germany, not only as a do a political concept, but also as a, something that you know, human need to have. isn't that one of the reasons why the climate change narrative and perhaps, as i said, many other issues like public house, international polls, etc, have become so intolerant to opposing points of view or even, you know, scientific data that does not agree with the magic proposition. and yes or you

should on a keep point. um, basically they've tried to characterize like pandemic management and control of the climate of simple problems. you know, these are things that we can control. and in fact, these are wicked problem is deeply complex. a lot of uncertainty and a lot of ambiguity in the valley is surrounding the issue. and so, you know, for a problem like the climate change or a pen demik, i mean, we have to abandon the idea that we can control it. but we need to see the understand and then manage the impacts. i mean all it may be to a certain extent, but not in any substantial way. and so we just band them the idea that we can control these things. well, uh, at least you and me,

we can control our conversation to some extent in the sense of taking a short break right now. but we will be back to this fascinating discussion if in a few moments station the, the welcome back to was a part with judith curry and american claim, intelligence and professor and there at the,

at the georgia institute of technology profess occurring just before the break. we were talking about, or rather you were talking about the need to abandon the attempts to control everything and instead focus on adapting on whatever and my, the nature brings our way. but i think that's what the record. a are a lot of, uh, and humility perhaps, and a certain degree of tolerance of, of uncertainty. how do seeing those values could be sort of brought back into the public debate, at least on climate change. you know, the, the, certain, the issue is out there and by trying to ignore it, or minimize that or frame a problem. you know, so narrowly that uncertainty, you know, it doesn't seem so large. i mean, it's just a very, very big mistake and is very bad for policy making

in scientific discourse when there are sort of political values in play. there's always a lot of uncertainty and disagreement as a spice of academic life. and you know, nothing is ever settled and you know, that tell the norm, the scientific process normally works. but when politics come into play, no, everything becomes very overly certain. and you have tribal communities develop to try to cancel each other and marginalize each other. and we've seen the similar academic climb and debate and is very pernicious thing, not only for science, but also for the policy making process. when policy makers are simply misled, i'm thinking that you know, this is simple. we know how to fix the climate and we have these very specific targets and timelines and we need to meet them and then bad weather will go way

simply of a fairy tale. so can you knowledge it and get on with trying to better understand the situation and to adapt to extreme weather events and the climate variability and change smells. speaking about understanding the situation better. i know that the hallmark of your approach to climate and whether a forecast takes a particular attention to natural ver, very ability such as volcanic eruptions, san activity, ocean, or solutions, etc. why do you think it's important to take those parameters into account? well, because you know, we've had climate variability, huge variations in climate, and time scales from century 2 millennia to a hundreds of millions of years. and these were not caused by fossil fuels. ok before caused by natural processes involving ok knows the sun sheets

and ocean circulations and to all of a sudden and trivialize, those processes and blame everything. um, you know, emission of fossil fuels, those just items disability. now correct me if i'm wrong, i think those processes move on very long scale. so not only a thousands of years, but perhaps even millennia and a lot of studies are investigating them. but uh, speaking generally, how well do we as humans understand what a fax was within the planetary system? well, you know, unfortunately we've lost 2 decades of research on trying to understand natural processes that contribute to climate variability. because everyone has been focused on the a c o 2 issue and global climate models. but the ocean

oscillations i think are particularly relevant on scales from entre annual to multi decalle to multi century, which are the time scale, the same time scales that we're talking about in terms of fossil fuel missions so. so this is huge in terms of racial climate variability. you know, like the ill nino and la nina are examples. and then there's, you know, the cale variabilities mid atlantic um, the pacific ocean and the arctic ocean southern hemisphere. all of these things, the circulation patterns heavily influenced our climate and our regional extreme weather pattern, and lost sight of those just by looking at globally average temperatures and c o 2 emissions. now from what you're saying, it looks like an area that almost requires authentic global corporation. i

understand that the, the discourse on climate change within the west has been somewhat ignited. but what about international academia? is it also under the pressure to conform to certain dog? most or is it more sort of independent and it's forecast some conclusions? well, in europe, in australia, i would say the situation is pretty much the same as in the, you of the, you know, in asia, things may be more open. i mean, i, i'm, i would say in a shifting store a bit more open, but i've seen it as policy maker started a band and a mix stream emissions scenarios. all the climate scientists are going to have to move the natural climate variability is much more important than previous thought. because if you use extreme emission scenarios are so huge that yeah, they swamp natural variability. but once you get back to reason law mission scenario, then natural variability definitely becomes

a major player. and as far as i understand you are already a working in that field, advising companies or private businesses on how to go about their own decisions. how to invest that own money and that may be sort of in, in, not in the pool agreement with the mainstream view. um, how much interest do you see uh to the kind of worried that you do uh, from private businesses, do they do they buy into they don't mind. okay. the people who are trying to meet some government regulations. you know, they're, they're looking for the, you know, the main dogmatic kind of thing. but my clients are people who have a direct economic interest or their have specific infrastructure that they're developing. and they need to make sure that it can withstand whatever mother nature's froze. it's way over the next 3050 years. then they come to me and they

say, oh, well we, we've heard the hype. now we need to hear from you some, some scenarios about how this might really play out a range of possible scenarios. the on certain do, you know, give us towards lay it out for us. you know, so when people have real decisions that impacts, you know, the economic or engineering or infrastructure related. they want to hear from me just saying from what you're saying, they all, they have to think not only about with mother nature. so those are way, but what that government surf imposes on data that may be a burden over of its own kinds and perhaps even a heavier than the natural situation. oh exactly. i mean, we're in a situation right now, or the cure is worse and then disease, particularly in the us, in europe with all the a renewable energy use and tearing down nuclear power plants and coal power plants

. so, you know, any, and they're running the environment and they're ending up with the very reduced and unstable power generation, which is non helping anybody. well, but you're, you're just have the change of power in washington. and i don't want to get us into the sort of political discussion, but i'm sure you're heard some of the statements that the last, for example, who is prominent in the, in your trump administration, has been making about the energy policy and the use of the renewables from what i understand his point of view is that he believes that there, there is a place for them within the energy balance, but they have to be a, they have to be backups, bytes, additional energy sources. are you in any way hopeful that they may be a change not necessarily in policy, but at least in the way those issues are discussed. um okay, um i think rooftop solar power is a good solution. but um,

offshore wind is probably the worst solution and then lives within solar farms that there's a need for them in some regions. but that there is no way we're going to get around this without firm based load power either of, of fuels, nuclear power, or maybe, you know, you know, advance geothermal or some new developments that are often about so, so we just need a on the trump administration has a very forward looking team of people looking at the energy issue and i'm very optimistic. the things will move forward in the us in a sense, simple way. well, as things move forward in, in the united states, i also want to ask you about international policy. because over the last couple of days, because there has been a strong international drive towards some sort of a uniform climate or environmental attribute that would have for, you know,

all countries agreed to certain conditions regardless of the of drastic call climate or economic cult situation. do you think there is a need for some sort of a global agreement on those issues or are they better addressed on the regional or perhaps local basis? they're much better addressed on a regional or a local basis. so that each country, each state or whatever kind of work to secure their own environmental, economic and security issues. i mean, we need bottom up solutions to all these problems, not top down man, dave. likely when and world economic forum i've tried to impose on everybody in the para, the brand, we've seen malay withdrawn. now trump has withdrawn. i think this is going to start a number of different countries withdrawing from the mobile cream. and but what, what do you then say to people from various pacific communities like to follow or the marshall islands who are facing very precipitous, arise in the,

and their sea level ascend, their officials lie giving speeches, public speeches, standing in the high in the water to sort of dramatize the impact, would you just tell them okay guys, you know, bed lots of nature, habits coming your way. okay, 2 issues. first off, the sea level rise. issue is complex. you have to look at each individual location and see what's going on. often a lot of what's going on if thinking where the land is thinking, either geologically or because of ground water extraction or even fossil fuel extraction. so a lot of the so called sea level rise problems are caused by thinking not by the sea level eyes. the other thing is even if you blame all of the sea level rise on human and it's still not a lot. it's basically like 9 inches over the last 100 years, and it's now a lot,

even if you blame at all on humans, if we were to stop emitting fossil fuels now. and even if you believe the climate models it would take several 100 years for this to reverse. we can't on ring those particular bells. so there's a lot of inertial and very long time scales in the ocean. suddenly i sheets. so even if we stopped admitting the sea level is going to continue to do what i do. and even, you know, i don't know what the people of 2 hour can do, but i think it's pretty clear that large industrial countries, like the united states or russia for that matter, you know, can do a lot of things by making sure that the hydrants have enough water and that they have uh, you know, well, fine, functioning early warning systems either for the hurricanes or perhaps for wild fires. and that brings us back to this very mundane issue of governance.

and what is it for, and how do you invest your time, your resources, whether you're investing into some abstract future or version goal, or whether you're trying to deal with boring, mundane, but still resource requiring issues of the present day. do you have anything to say on that? well, i think we need to focus on the local and regional issues. i mean, the climate crisis is really a summation of thousands of local vulnerabilities to do that because we live on coastal regions in flood plains and, and various folder of both places like that. and putting all of this can be exacerbated to some small extent by global warming, but most of its population increased and increasing property in vulnerable

full regions. so, you know, we just, we need to confront that and we need to increase our resilience between a better warnings. we need better infrastructure, we need better water management. and we need to harden our electric utilities. so they're less vulnerable to extreme. whether there's all sorts of things that we can do, and again, it's mundane, but it's going to make people's lives better and it's going to reduce the large economic lots of associated with it, whether it's downstairs when they do occur. ok, well professor curry, we have to leave it there, but thank you very much for highlighting that though we get into the future by attending to the present. no. the other way around and i think that's very important to to keep in mind. okay, good. thank you. i'm thank you for watching hope this there again on was a part of the

to take a fresh look around. there's a life kaleidoscopic, isn't just a shifted reality distortion by power to vision with no real opinions. fixtures designed to simplify will confuse who really wants a better wills, and is it just as a chosen few fractured images presented as fast? can you see through their illusion going underground? can the

us delegation the hedge to saudi arabia for high level talks with russian envoy. it's the 1st meeting of its kind of between representatives of washington and moscow since the train cost me to wrap it 3 years ago. what was the situation with the previous administration? no dialogue war until the end. that was the official position of a previous administration that moscow, the expressive optimism about the potential for talks with donald trump to resolve the prices and you crate. the crab being says it's open to discussing the us president's proposal, adoptive, there was no willingness from washington's previous administration.