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 president s and the climate full cost Applications Network provides a judith curry has a different perspective to the one youll find on nato along 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 call you, thanks so much for coming on. Its such a detailed scholarly book, but presently its going to help people if theyre turning on the news and as being a hurricane the wildfire thats going anything. And the way the circle, Mainstream Media well talk about it will be in terms of this is because your i said, are not recycling enough. Youre going to not doing enough to going back time and change. Explain why a people have to be very wary when uh, when watching the news as well. The main thesis 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 un picked up on this issue . You know, to put forward, you know, a global as the agenda and, and so the science has been actually the policy card has been way out in front of the scientific course for decades now on this issue. And the problems and very narrow a framed. Its this narrow framing about its only about fossil fuel emissions. Those acted to marginalize, its important fields of climate science. And its 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 well get richer and richer ones, well get bora, perhaps. But why is it there . Is this consensus . I mean, no, im jump, excuse me. On this show, 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. A 97 percent, you quote the obama, the butcher of libya or arguably a bama sweep, 97 percent of scientist degree Climate Change is real. Manmade and dangerous. So 97 percent. Okay, well theres a very big difference between a Scientific Consensus and a consensus of scientists. You know, Something Like the earth orbit. So some thats a well known fact. You dont 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 and it became called deniers or whatever. So its 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 company is a while he was writing these books. Judging the importance of something must be done about Climate Change. But why in poor countries . Because youve written eloquently about how, say a continent like have for k suffers under the dictatorship of the i, p z c movement is it . Well uh, so that they cannot develop a while. The rich countries, rich people in rich 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 illuminate possible fuels. And, you know, theres 4000000000 people on the planet, mostly in africa, who dont have access to grid electricity and more people in africa. They do have a abundant coal of Petroleum Resources because they dont, they need loans to build the infrastructure to actually use, you know, to develop a grid electricity. And they cant get the loans, you know, from europeans and then world banks because they dont want to fund any fossil fuel projects. And so instead they just sensually of take the fossil fuel resources from africa and ship it to europe and asia to support their energy consumption. You know, and, and that its a terrible thing. I mean, its been called energy a part time, green colonialism, whatever. But its deeply a moral as yeah, and the event isnt really mentioned by green policies in west and your of i remember showing as the leader of the bridge, the 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, thats 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 wont cause that inspired your suspicions and your 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 people can watch all ready for you and the archives actually on our rumble general about with one of the people in the email chain. Sure, well it revealed on search efforts to circumvent freedom of information act requests. Im trying to bring the peer review process and violating procedural guidelines for the ip c c. And generally trying to sabotage anyone who criticized 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, on certain 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 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 that they werent 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, not for you. Uh, work is if you dont degree, you get attacked. So i supposed to be, but i get this out the way how you see your, you are a 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 now is a Petroleum Sector in 2006. I started a private Sector Company climate forecast Applications Network. I wanted to apply clear weather and 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 who worse preaching the consensus. Im talking about deniers. Didnt really want to engage with any skeptics about their actual arguments. They felt the easiest way to tar them was to say, oh, well, theyre being funded by fossil fuel industry. And then we could therefore dismiss stuff. But it, to my mind, at least in the u. S. 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 doesnt make sense, but its 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 high confidence based on the quote moderate evidence. And its accompanied by increasing c o 2 levels, since the comp, conferences starts in every single target not match. Every single deadline opens as well. You know, sign a check. Know, the climate system is extremely complex and our understanding is of this is deeply uncertain. There is a whole lot that we dont know and even more that we cant know just because of fundamental chaotic nature of the climate system. So these overconfident predictions with inadequate climate models are just mentally, not fit for purpose for, for making policy decisions about the Energy System. But that doesnt stop the politicians from completely relying on preventive. Judy, its carrie, how stop you the more from the author of climate uncertainty and risk rethinking our response. Optimist. Break the well the by the ministration. Many of its close as i always continue to shield israel with the politic cover, the International Criminal court and the International Court of justice speak for much of the world. If there is to be just this, it must be applied to all the really modern pragmatic world of smartphones and tech upgrades. Our terminal crafts and hand painted traditions of yesteryear seem to be fading away. Particular stuff outside of the bustling metropolis of moscow. And youll find that Traditional Russian culture is still going strong. The welcome back to going underground. Im still here with the president s at the time in the full gust Applications Network. And all of the timing done certainly, and risk re thinking our response professor do, did 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 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 explain the process of data loan during and spend a given, as youre saying, if you have the part one, there are lots of things we dont 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 consumes here as carefully laundered, spin on, heres 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, theres 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, theres 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 theyre, theyre 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 isnt the Climate Change itself. Is it, its about papers to do with tipping points to do with explanations. It can be about specific incidents in the areas of science. Oh yeah. You know, the, what we hear about every extreme event, extreme weather event, there are hurricane of flood the heat wave. Whatever is now blamed on fossil fuel and mentions which is completely unjustified. Even the ip c. C acknowledges that theres no change and extreme weather events with the exception of the slight increase in the intensity of heat waves and a reduction in the intensity of cold way. If that isnt surprising with an overall increase in global temperature, but you know, hurricanes, hail, tornadoes, floods, drugs, all of those. No, no, there isnt any signal of a change from the warming and you would never, never believe that if you listen to the media, youd 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 its a using a lot of fossil fuels and all these was but you know, the precautionary principle is in the trees. Is 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 theyll 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. Ok, well get rid of it, you know, and nobody is really bothered. But when youre 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, its 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, its not only as a technologically, in feasible, its immensely expensive and politically and viable and why they persist in pushing with this agenda. I mean theyre, theyre running into the hard wall of reality and we saw hands of that at the recent c o 2 meeting and to by is it a testament to the way i have the im, 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, theres 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 there are probably 5. Now, the actually exactly, and the other thing is, you know, are you on the agenda or 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 theyve been running with the environmental long for decades. Now, and with the most really you and i mean its a, presumably theres a lot of money involved in this hundreds of billions of dollars. Trillions 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, its something that i know that theyre planning on fear that people have. I mean that its, that they have 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. Was 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 her energy and food infrastructures. And the interest of eliminating c o 2 emissions makes you know if its a very or choice driven by the precautionary principle, which is co