The Predictions Are Wrong | Dr. Judith Curry | EP 329

It leaves me open-mouthed in amazement that we, in the developed world, with our functional economies and our high level of luxury and security, can tell the developing world that the developing world, well, you know we have improved quite a bit here and we are probably willing to do it. Cut back a little, but you in developing countries know you have to be very careful with your carbon output. We are not going to help them develop their economy so that they can benefit from the same Industrial Revolution that has that. What has allowed us to educate our children and have plenty to eat and stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer and then what is even more absurd is that it is the same people who constantly cry out about the oppressive nature of La Western culture, which is imposing this same story on these developed countries, yes, the irony is that even if African nations were given carbon credits or whatever and allowed to develop to where they want to be and where anyone expects them to are at most.

They would be emitting like five or six percent of global emissions and this is for a billion people in the population, we are not talking about many additional emissions to allow them to develop. I mean, it just doesn't make any sense and it's evil. it's absolutely evil hello everyone on YouTube and associated platforms. I'm here today with another climate denier because they know I've been piling on them. It's all part of my attempt to become the most reprehensible commenter on YouTube and at least in the eyes of those who think they are my enemies anyway. Today I'm talking to Dr.

Judith Curry, a very accomplished scientist, she's an American climatologist with a degree in geography. Sharon Duda of Northern Illinois University and a PhD in Curry Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago is an Emirati professor and former president of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She has had a successful career working with NASA, the US government, and numerous academic institutions in the field of climate change. A true scientist. With 190 publications, Curry so reprimandingly advocates a non-alarmist approach that acknowledges the Earth's rising temperature with a grain of salt, the grain being field research and a refusal to close the doors of science to those with contrary views and findings in 2017.

Dr. Curry retired from his position at the Georgia Institute of Technology, citing the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion over human-caused climate change as a key factor, Curry co-founded and serves as President of the Climate Forecasting Applications Network, a private company seeking to translate cutting-edge meteorology and climate research into sustainable forecasting products Insurance companies Financial institutions rely on Dr. Curry to provide information that can guide them regarding your future financial decision making. She is a controversial figure on the climate front and is somewhat contrary to the hypothetical scientific consensus on the climate apocalypse front, the first thing I would like to ask you, Dr.

Curry, is if you could explain to people your professional qualifications and ask them Let everyone know why you might be considered. As a credible commentator on these topics, well, I received my PhD in 1982 in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago and spent my entire career in Academia, with jobs at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Purdue University, Penn State University, University of Colorado, Boulder. and most recently at the Georgia Institute of Technology and Georgia Tech. I served as president of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences for 13 years. I have written several books and published around 190 articles in magazines.

I am a member of several major professional societies. Do you know that I received some recognition for my research? I left my position at the University in 2017. I felt it was too limiting. I wanted to do a broader range of things and had started a company about 10 years before it became a startup under Georgia Tech. You know about the Venture Lab program and I started dedicating myself to it full time after leaving the Academy. Without realizing it, I came into the spotlight on the issue of global warming in 2005. If you remember at the time of Hurricane Katrina that devastated New Orleans, I and my co-authors had a paper that was published in the Journal of Science two weeks ago. after Katrina hit um and we found that the percentage of category four and five hurricanes had doubled in the last few decades, and this was with some pretty explosive media attention.

This was the first time you knew I did TV interviews or anything like that and it was a very, very adversarial debate, people were coming at us from all sides, of course the Enviro advocacy groups thought I was the coolest thing since then . sliced ​​bread, but there are a lot of people on the other side of the debate, you know, they thought I was absolutely evil, so for the first time I started giving a lot of public lectures and people invariably asked me questions that did you know was out of my experience? or knowledge everyone was asking about the hockey stick, for example, or what's going on with the sun and all this kind of stuff?

I thought, oh my gosh, you know, I really need to go beyond my personal areas of experience and try to understand a lot more of this, you know, which I did and finally the hurricane and global warming problems calmed down a little bit and then, a few years later the Gates climate hit this was in November 2009 with the unauthorized release of emails from the University of East Anglia it was a huge scandal at the time the IPCC authors hid the decline you know the trick Mike's nature, all this kind of stuff, you know, and it was of enormous political importance and is believed to have derailed the Waxman Marky, a bill that was making progress, you know, to be passed and has practically derailed it and I took the controversial step, you know, of saying help, you know, we have to do better, we have to make all our data publicly available, we have to make our methods transparent, we have to pay more attention to uncertainty and be more honest about the level of trust that we really have in these things and we should also pay attention to the skeptics that you know and treat them with respect and you know, pay attention to their arguments and refute them if they are serious and you know to me this sounded like motherhood and apple pie, very Well, absolutely fine, but people within the Climate Community were very angry with me saying that I needed to be more sensitive to the feelings of these scientists who were involved, sorry, no one was sensitive to my feelings during the hurricane and global warming wars. and he wasn't worried about his feelings either, he was worried about the IPCC and its credibility. and you know what we should do about it, you know there were much bigger issues at play here than the feelings of these scientists, well, anyone, any scientist who talks to you about whether you're hurting their feelings when you're pitching. a discussion about the factual basis of his claims immediately left the scientific domain.

I mean, one of the things I loved about being a scientist was that the rules of participation in professional conferences, let's say they were genuinely scientific in nature, were quite clear. I mean, we were discussing the reliable empirical, empirical, statistical reliability and validity of his claims on a technical basis, that was that, and if we weren't doing it, it wasn't science and therefore the idea that why should pay attention when you're criticizing someone's work, which doesn't mean denigrating them, but trying to separate the wheat from the chaff in a way that has nothing to do with your consideration for your antagonist's emotional well-being.

I mean, you could be polite and that's helpful but it's also not mandatory, right, but hey, there's a subtlety here because I wasn't criticizing so much the substance of science but the behavior of scientists that I felt violated the Standards of Science in terms that you know everyone, you know universalism. know everyone, you should know, have a chance or a chance, you know, we're into the data, we should listen to the skeptics, you know, and we should try to keep politics out of our science as much as possible. I mean, these are the types of behaviors.

You know, these emails reveal people trying to fire editors. You know, playing fast and loose with IPCC guidelines, evading Freedom of Information Act requests from people who thought it would challenge their investigation, this kind of behavior I strongly objected to and thought about. that we shouldn't defend and we should denounce, so I wasn't challenging the substance of anyone's science, it was really the behavior in the public debate, well, well, that's a form of that, in a sense, it's a form of criticism methodological, right? I mean his point was that there are rules for the research process and the communication process and politicization breaks those rules and the response on the climate apocalypse front let's say you see this with biologists who are worried about extinction from time to time. from time to time.

It's also that this issue is so important that it is unethical to adhere to those normative principles because we must do everything we can to draw as much attention as possible to this looming catastrophe, and in a sense, all is fair in love and war . That would be fine if they were correct and 100 correct possibly, although I still think they are violating the distinction between science and politics, but when there are doubts and there are substantial doubts here, then that is a real problem. I wanted to take apart some of the things you said. You came at this in a very interesting way and in a sense because the first time you achieved anything resembling public prominence, you were actually putting forward a set of propositions that you could argue supported a more dire view of the climate outcome.

These severe hurricanes had increased in frequency, do you now believe that they have continued to increase in frequency or was it a momentary spike? Do you know that literature still oh oh yeah, it's okay? First of all, they took a lot of potshots at us, okay? The couple of criticisms turned out to be valid: one is that the global data before 1985 is quite dubious, you know, we go back to the 1970s, so we know so realistically that you have to throw out 15 years and the other thing was look, you know? just natural variability and we could really distinguish a warming signal from natural variability and at this point we still can't with much confidence so yeah well a big part of the problem here is knowing what time period it is. a huge problem and I don't even know how it is solved in any sense if you are trying to define something like a trend towards cooling or warming or more or less variability the question that immediately arises well, are you talking about a hundred years? or a thousand or ten thousand or a million as if there were an infinite number of time frames, consider and exactly that is a key challenge and one of my main themes, you know, coming out of the weather door was a more serious look. uncertainty and I wrote an article called climate change and the uncertainty monster and I used that article a number of you know to launch my blog on climate etc.

Judith

curry

.com in 2010 and again, this was people outside the cabal of established climate scientists thought this was cool, this is important, this is obvious, yet within the cabal they saw me as someone trying to destroy a consensus. that they had been trying to build for 20 years, well, all this manufactured consensus and it was on very shaky ground, you know, and it was okay how. Would you care how you would characterize the so-called consensus being associated with this idea? I spoke with Richard Franzen about this recently. um, it's associated with the idea that 97 percent of scientists agree that well, it's not clear what they agree on. that's the problem is that climate change is a serious and catastrophic problem and that statement in itself is not true in any way what is the consensus here oh okay the problem is the ipcc, the intergovernmental panel on change climate, they did their job. first evaluation report in 1991 and then I want to say it was a good report, it was a good evaluation at that time and then the powers that be say that we should strive for consensus in our statements, so this sort of narrowed the framework and the people they were choosing to serve on the committee were people who were going to agree and were therefore working to create a consensus.

You know, it was his vision of how the political process addresses uncertainty, so it was kind of a spoken consensus for power. approach and this was formalized by the IPCC and you know, there are people who challenge the consensus and there are many dimensions to it, but the most fundamental one is that theMost of the warming we have seen since 1950 is caused by humans. I mean, that's the most central thing is that there is warming, that there is warming, although now the narrative that there is warming has been changed, there is some idea about its potential magnitude and then, hypothetically, the consensus is that around 50 That's not an activity, no, they used it. to make the statement more than half, but they really meant 100 percent right, but there's certainly no downside, there's certainly no scientific consensus that one hundred percent of the global warming that's happening right now is anthropogenic, that's not I believe it, oh no, no, no, the scientist is not there, it's okay, there is no measurement.

I mean, when you have a complex and highly uncertain situation like this, the question of consensus has no scientific meaning, it only has meaning, you know, for political purposes, this whole idea of ​​talking about consensus with power, that that was some path that you know for policymaking, it hasn't really turned out to be, um, yeah, so, yeah, there's no consensus. The best thing is that it is also a scientifically absurd statement because the way science works is that a great scientist is the first person to challenge the consensus, that is how you define a great scientist and one of the wonderful things about science is that it can reveal when the universal consensus is

wrong

and its methods are powerful precisely because of that and you know that as a practicing researcher, the probability that you are going to do a study and that the data will reveal it is the consensus of the theory of your lab the consensus validity of your lab theory is basically zero, something unexpected will come up when you actually test your idea against reality itself, so the idea that science is based on consensus is

wrong

, it's wrong, yes, Alright.

It's surprising that the idea got anywhere. Well, look at the social factors at play. Well, there was a big push from the UN. You know, to deal with humans. You already know. Dangerous anthropogenic climate change. Causing warming is fine and then the scientists got involved in this, you know, in their professional goals and in the funding that comes into the field and all this kind of stuff, that there was a kind of social contract between scientists and politics. we need you to know more, you know we need more and more confident statements from the IPCC even though the dimensions of the problem grew and grew and grew every year and clearly became more complex and obvious that there were many things that we did not understand, but there was this impulse , you know well, it's not that the IPC documents themselves or even that radical, I mean, my understanding of the IPC doc C documents is that the projection is something like one or two degrees of additional warming with some increase in variability, especially in the polar regions and a small degree of sea level rise, there is no indication in the IPCC reports that this will produce a runaway feedback loop that will have a devastating consequence there is no real insight into the Apocalypse um and that's not entirely correct um until well, until recently people were looking at projections of four to five degrees Celsius more warming over the course of the 21st century, well, the problem was projections of tremendously ridiculous emissions that are now believed that are implausible.

The most recent IPCC assessment report, with more plausible emissions scenarios, predicts more than two or three degrees Celsius of warming and we've already had one degree, so people expect an additional one or two degrees Celsius of warming. based on climate models, so they were quite alarming until recently because everyone was focused on this extreme default scenario that is now widely accepted as implausible, if not impossible, so there was a lot of alarm and all you know When you talk about all the projections of extreme climate events and we won't be able to grow wine in California and the crazy projections of sea level rise, all of these projections were linked to that extreme emissions scenario and it's taking a long time for a community to reject it, in fact, so extreme.

The omission scenario remained the most used in the sixth assessment report that was published just two years ago, by which I mean that these overly alarming projections of what could happen in the 21st century, mostly driven by from implausible to impossible. emissions scenario, but also driven by climate models that are getting too warm, well, let's look at that a little bit. I spoke to Richard Lindsen about a week ago about the problems with the models. He said, for example, that the models are based on cells, let's say yes. those would be: you can't model the whole Earth, so you have to oversimplify it, you have to group it into chunks and the chunks are about 70 miles wide.

I think no, they really can't model cloud activity very well. There are many errors regarding the projection and forecasting of the water vapor effect. In models, models have to build a lot of assumptions and that doesn't mean we shouldn't build models, but it does mean they have a lot of assumptions. potential for error and that error is magnified as you project into the future, from what I've read, for example, tell me if you think this is accurate, the estimates of the cumulative effect of carbon dioxide on global warming or climate change climate are smaller. that our estimates of the magnitude of our error in measuring the effect of water vapor and that is a big problem because water vapor is a major contributor to warming in principle and the effects of carbon dioxide are below the size of the error in that measurement.

That's very good, well, I wouldn't put it that way, we have a pretty good idea of ​​how much water vapor there is in the atmosphere, the question is how is that going to change with warming, the biggest problem is clouds, What are the clouds doing? they have a huge and they're not very well modeled and the observational base to understand how they're trending, you know, it only goes back a few decades, so you know it's difficult, but the net result of these uncertainties in the water. The feedback from vapor and clouds is that we don't know how sensitive the climate is to increasing CO2 because the way the model treats it is that CO2 and clouds amplify the warming, uh, and I think the feedback from the clouds could even be negative.

They generally amplify warming, but in the tropics where Richard Lynnson has done his research, he proposes that there is a negative feedback and that is something that is hotly debated, but I think clouds are the most important problem, but apart from what is happening in the atmosphere, for me it's really the oceans and the Sun are the biggest sources of uncertainty in terms of understanding what's happening and being able to project into the future, so okay why the oceans, oh my gosh, okay , the oceans have these large circulation systems turning over. that El Niño La Niña is familiar with that is a mode of natural internal variability there are also cycles of decadal and multidecadal oscillations that change cloud patterns all sea surface temperature patterns influence snowfall in Greenland precipitation in Arctic sea ice Regional climates Etc. and the models do not treat them very well, there is a whole spectrum of these oceanic circulations in up to ten thousand years, you have a millennial-scale overturn that influences the climate and the models have very little power, as you know, in that part of the spectrum, so we're just missing that and then it's also a consequence, does that mean that the degree to which the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide is permeated by measurement error?

Is it also an indication of our lack of understanding of how the temperature of the ocean itself is regulated by the movement of water from the depths to the surface, all that, oh yes, is that where the error is, it is not the vertical transport of heat and carbon in the ocean as part of the consequences of uncertainty in these large-scale circulations but, more fundamentally, these large-scale circulations, you know, change weather patterns and change clouds, among other things, so you know that this is trying to get all of that modeled correctly, let alone make incredible

predictions

in the future.

In the future we're not there, I mean, not even close to being there, okay, and then if you once go out into the sun, it's even crazier, I mean, the IPCC has pretty much ruled out the role of the sun, you know. , in the last 150 years, but the interesting thing is that in chapter six of the assessment report six they finally recognized the large uncertainty in the amount of solar forcing at the end of the 20th century and this arises from there was a gap in these satellites that measure the sunrise that occur at the time of the Challenger shuttle disaster, if you remember that, and one solar sensor was running out and they were supposed to launch another one, but all the launches were postponed for several years until they resolved what was passing, um. at NASA with the launches and everything, then there is this so-called Gap and depending on what was actually happening in that Gap, you know you can adjust the solar variability to high or low variability so that all the climate models run on low solar energy . variability forcing, but for the first time chapter 2 in the observation chapter of the sixth assessment report recognizes this problem that there is a large amount of variability and this does not even take into account the so-called indirect solar effects in terms of there being a It's not just the heat of the Sun, there are a lot of problems related to ultraviolet rays, the stratosphere, cosmic rays, magnetic fields and all these other things that are not really being taken into account, they are at the forefront of the research, but they are certainly not taken into account in climate models, so there are so many uncertainties that affect certainly the projections of what could happen in the 21st century, but also our interpretation of what has been happening with the climate for the last 100 years and exactly what has been happening. causing what the current administration's New Year's goals are: tax spending and turn a blind eye to inflation if this is at odds with your goals if you're tired of the government playing with your savings and retirement plans then you need to contact the experts at Birch Gold today For over 5,000 years, gold withstood inflation, geopolitical turmoil, and stock market crashes.

With the help of the experts at Birch Gold, you can own gold and build a protected retirement account. Birch Gold makes it easy to convert an IRA or 401K to a precious metals IRA simply text Jordan to 989898 to claim your free gold information kit and then speak with one of their precious metals specialists. Birch Gold will guide you through the entire process. Text Jordan to 989898 and protect yourself with gold today with a A positive rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of satisfied customers, and countless five-star reviews you can trust Birch Gold to help protect your savings send a text message with Jordan at 989898 today, so I would say that those who oppose the line of reasoning that you In presenting it, I think I would make an argument analogous to the following, would say: Well, look, we have, despite all the objections on the measurement front, we have pretty good evidence that there is a warming trend.

We have reasonable evidence that at least a reasonable proportion of that. is a consequence of anthropogenic activity, more particularly the production of carbon dioxide, the possible consequence of this could be apocalyptic within a hundred years or within 50 years, even with all those doubts in mind, it is up to us to take something as an emergency. act now to improve this risk of apocalyptic transformation and that is why it is okay for the obstructionists to raise their objections and if they were moral and agreed they would see that this problem is so serious and so apocalyptic that it is not appropriate to remain on the path of improvement and so what do you think of that as a counterproposal?

Well, the weakest part of your argument is whether all of this is dangerous. um, you know, sea level rise, you know, creeping rise, you know, the Greenland ice sheet. Antarctica, you know, changes from year to year with a little bit of melting, but there's no catastrophe looming on those fronts, so they've turned to extreme weather. Oh, global warming is calling and I must say the hurricane and global warming were the first to put this on. idea in your head, ah, you know, if we can show that even one degree can cause something bad, like more category five hurricanes, then we have something, so this started this whole trend of every extreme weather event being associated with a cause human, global warming, which is just not true, true, and if you look back, they tend to go back to 1970 or1950.

Oh, this is the warmest year, the worst storm or the biggest drought or whatever since 1970, maybe since 1950, but if you're looking, um Until the first half of the 20th century, the climate was much worse, certainly in North America and much of the world as well, right now in the western US, we are being attacked by these atmospheric river events that are bringing enormous amounts of rain and snow that are going to cause flooding, there is still snow and you know this is horrible global warming and all, but if you go back to the winter of 1861 and 1862, 15 inches of rain fell in central California over a period of a couple. of months with huge floods over a very widespread area that lasted for absolute months, okay and the paleoclimatic evidence showed that these tend to occur about every 200 years or so where there is this massive accumulation of these atmospheric rivers, so this is nothing unusual , so if you look back at the historical record or better yet at the Paleo climate record, you will invariably find worse climate events, so TR, that's part of the time frame problem, in what period do you evaluate these events? before drawing your conclusions? but you can't, so do you believe in any of the tipping point hypotheses?

Friends, you told me something interesting. You know, this was kind of a technical proposition. He said that in complex systems with many degrees of freedom in entropy. Faced with so many ways they can potentially react, the likelihood of a tipping point positive feedback loop, you know, that runaway global warming or something, the melting of the Greenland ice caps because we hit a tipping point, said in complex systems that have multiple potential outcomes, that kind of all-or-nothing tipping point is unlikely to obtain in a simple system that is characterized by the probability of a radical state. They change like water freezing, for example, so I thought I can't evaluate that argument, you know it's outside my domain of scientific competence, but I thought it was an interesting idea, well, to a certain extent, it's true that there is a kind of tipping point that we could encounter, and if this happens, I would expect that human-caused global warming would play only a small role and this is the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is an unstable ice sheet, so that if the ice sheet were removed, the continent would actually be under water, but what is it, you have this huge ice sheet that sits on the continent and part of it is over water, it's fine and it has an overhang and because To this situation dynamically unstable and moving quite fast beneath this ice sheet there are many inactive. volcanoes even occasionally active volcanoes, so if these volcanoes became active and we had, you know, a greater heat source underneath this, combined with sea level rise and a little bit of global warming, this could accelerate and in the time scale of you know, three or four.

For centuries we could see this collapse, you know, that could lead to substantial sea level rise, so that's the only kind, you know, if we saw that happen, are there engineering ways to address it? I don't know, but it was something that would be It's a slow process, but that's the only one of the so-called tipping points that I see that could happen because, if there's going to be solid earth, you know if the Earth wants to have an earthquake or a big one. volcanic eruption. There aren't many of you who know negative feedback in the Earth system to prevent that, so to me that's a bad thing that could happen, but it would take centuries, um, but the others, yeah, I don't see it, so what?

What do you think when you look at the IPCC reports now and look ahead 50 or 100 years? What would you consider a credible representation of so-called climate science? Do you accept the new CPI forecasts or do you think that the models are so riddled with errors that even the hypothesis of a warming of one to two degrees is not reliable enough, although it is the best we have. What is interesting is that IPCC assessment report six working group one also rejected the hypothesis. Climate models were to some extent guided by them in their projections, but they also defined a plausible range of climate sensitivity and looked at the projections from there, so even the IPCC is moving away from global climate models as being useful for projections. and people are going to these climate emulators, these simple climate models, well, for this amount of warming, you know, run it through a broken model or an economic evaluation model or something, so people are really turning away of these great global climate models and it is time. and one of the innovations that i have been making in my forecasting work and this is what i do for clients of my company's climate forecasting application network is that i look at it, i don't just look at the ipcc scenarios and choose the ones from low end, I think they're more believable, but I also look at scenarios of what ocean circulations might be doing, you know, volcanic eruption scenarios and solar variation scenarios and try to present a broader range of what we might be looking for.

So I have a network-based approach to combine all of this to produce a much broader range of scenarios and, at least for the next three decades, the natural variability part of this points toward cooling rather than amplifying warming. It would reduce global warming, whatever the magnitude, due to fossil fuel emissions, so that's the approach I'm taking. Well, let's get into that a little bit. You indicated earlier that you left school in 2017 to pursue a business that you had started at Georgia Tech and you just alluded to that again, so tell me, tell me if you would know how you are modeling and have laid out some of the conclusions, but who is interested in his models and is obviously doing this. on a business basis so people are willing to pay you for your opinion which I think gives an indication of your faith and credibility because people are actually spending money on it, like how are they different your models of the models that are more widely advertised, let's say and um, and who is it that pays you to produce these models, why is there interest in it and why do they do it well, insurance companies, financial institutions have an interest in Atlantic hurricanes, what are we seeing?

The next three decades in terms of Atlantic hurricane activity, a big issue is a possible shift to the cold phase of the Atlantic multidecatal oscillation. This is one of those multidecatal oscillations that I talked about that we would expect to start to slow down. hurricane activities in the Atlantic so this is very important to them, another customer was wind farm owners who wanted to know if the wind will continue to blow for the next 30 years and if my wind farms are in the right location . Well, they wanted to know that. Well, some electric utilities want to know what we might be seeing in terms of how frequent these really bad situations could be, you know, for renewables, like a massive burst of cold air that lasts for weeks, the wind doesn't blow and it's winter. and there's no sun you know how bad it can be and how often they can happen so these are some of the things that I've been watching and also people interested in sea level rise projections that you know in your particular location looking at scenarios of what its location is sparked a lot of interest from people in Florida San Francisco along the Atlantic coast um, you know, what could we be seeing, yeah, yeah, we see that those IPCC projections, in which of Should we believe them?

But we already know that you How will ocean circulation patterns influence local sea level rise? What kind of um what kind of what what kind of trends do I see for the vertical motion of the earth both by local effects and by large planetary scales up and down? For effects, those are some of the projects I've been working on analyzing scenarios, let's say 30 to 50 years, if you are a small or medium business owner who kept employees on payroll during covid, you may have a great cash back. Waiting for you, the employee retention credit is a tax credit of up to twenty-six thousand dollars per employee.

Right now, more businesses than ever qualify. The experts at refundspro.com can help you cut through the red tape and qualify for this government program. Refunds are over one hundred thousand dollars, even businesses that have received PPP funds may be eligible and there are absolutely no fees unless you receive a refund. There is no reason not to apply if your business is experiencing closures, limited capacity supply chain challenges, or reduced revenue due to Covid. you're likely to qualify refundspro.com has already helped hundreds of companies not lose the refund they owe you for missing the deadline start today with a free five-minute quiz at refundspro.com which are refunds with an s pro. com then why?

Do these companies believe their models are credible enough to invest financial resources in them, and why do you believe their Mortals are credible enough to provide them with accurate guidance? I mean, we talked about some of the limitations of the models and so what is it? What you are doing is credible to companies and why do you scientifically believe that you are providing accurate information? Well, the first thing I did, and I did it before most people, I said, look, you're, you're You're wasting your time looking at that extreme emissions scenario. If you look at the International Energy Agency, their scenarios show that emissions will remain fairly stable for the next few decades and I think this is a much more plausible scenario, so let's focus on that one and this one.

Apart from trying to predict what policies are going to be applied and how much they are going to change, the current thinking is that emissions will remain fairly stable for the next few decades and I saw this and, you know, I saw Publicaciones magazine and this is what I was pushing my clients, if you want something realistic, this is what you should look at. The other thing is not to accept the extremely high Ip values ​​of climate sensitivity to the doubling of CO2. I don't go that low. like Richard Lindsen does, but I'm certainly on the lower end and I justify to you why based on posts, including some of my own, why we shouldn't look at these very high sensitivity values ​​and I run it in a range so you can look, but I have right, but I say you know, so I give them all the scenarios they want.

I'll give you the high emissions scenario. I'll give you the high climate sensitivity scenario. Low climate sensitivity. I will say that my best criterion is that. this is what it is, but then I put natural variability scenarios in a unique way and they really like this, they understand it, I mean, they've seen it well, they've seen it and they understand that it's out there, they've just never seen anyone. try to project it before and I have posts about this, you can parameterize your risk given your large number of models, so yes, this is the worst case, this is the best case, this is the likely scenario, this is the range and then they can calculate how uh, you know, you're going to mitigate their risk in those scenarios exactly, I mean, and a lot of times they want to know what's the worst case, what's the plausible worst case, okay, so I give them that and They have this whole range, okay, like that too.

For example, in the wind farm profitability study I gave them 81 scenarios. Well, they're different scenarios of how this could play out over the next 30 years and these different, you know, there were a bunch of scenarios that you know in a certain area and I'm like, I know you can infer that these are the most plausible outcomes because there are multiple different correct ways to achieve that, but this is the worst plausible case, this is the best plausible case, okay, and this gives them information to make their decision. Admit that you admit from the beginning, in a sense, that there are inputs to your models that are somewhat arbitrary, right, that you have to decide on and those could be, for example, your carbon dioxide production projections and then you say given a variety. of initial assumptions here there are a variety of results, but many of the models tend to converge on this View, you already know this range of views, so if the convergence of multiple models constitutes evidence that we generally assume to be the case, then this seems be the most plausible. right path and then how is that different from the iupcc approach?

Well, I'm not saying it's better, first they neglect all the elements of natural variability and I conclude that they are not giving scenarios of volcanic eruptions, they are not giving um. different scenarios of solar activity don't have that, they have many, they have a lot of different scenarios, you know, scenarios of what theinternal variability of the ocean, but I can anchor it more closely to observations and my own network model. In terms of what the plausible trajectories are, I'm giving you a more plausible trajectory for the ocean oscillations and generally, 30 years from now, these other scenarios are colder than the IPCC scenarios and therefore really pointing .

For cooling or just less rapid warming, some of them go as far as cooling well and some are less rapid warming and there has been another post that you never see advertised that shows certain combinations of these ocean circulations or volcanic eruptions or solar activity . that we could see a cooling for a decade or two during the 21st century, that could happen and the ipcc ar-6, did you know that if you read the fine print deep in the chapters, you will see references to these documents and it is recognized, but it's not something you hear in the public debate, it's just this relentless warming that we're going to see, okay, okay, that's interesting because you know that warming advocates have enough doubts about their own forecast that they no longer It's appropriate to refer to global warming, you're supposed to refer to climate change, which I think is a terrible sleight of hand, but in any case that's what happened, but yet the apocalyptic forecasts are still based on this idea of Warming up now.

The claim is that the consensus that this could be apocalyptic never existed to begin with and initial estimates of the magnitude of the warming were off by about a factor of two, in part because people accepted equally apocalyptic forecasts in some sense about the carbon dioxide production, but then if you go further, you're saying that the models are so prone to variability that there is a non-trivial chance that there will be a global cooling trend over the next 30 years rather than a warming trend. global, etc. Given all this, someone might wonder if the situation with respect to these models is as uncertain as you suggest and you also know that it is interesting, apart from that, that financial companies will pay you for your forecasts, which is another form of validation.

In your opinion, why in the world are we stampeding to spend literally trillions of dollars trying to improve a problem that we haven't adequately measured? Like what's happening here, from what you can see, okay, you have to go back. , okay, the policy bandwagon has been way ahead of the scientific course since the beginning, in the 1980s, the UN environmental program, you know, was looking for something that we We hate capitalism, we don't like companies oil companies, we like world government, all this kind of stuff and they held on to the climate chain of the globe, CO2 global warming is what it was called back then and it's sitting, you know, the night that you formation of the United Nations framework convention on climate change and there was a treaty signed by 192 nations in 1992, including the United States.

Well, this was before we knew anything. We had to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change before we had any idea about any of this. that this framework of the climate problem is known in a very narrow framework, all climate now is caused by CO2 and by definition warming is dangerous and why it was such an attractive political hypothesis as why politicians decided that in absentia of this, uh, you know that the rigorously produced scientific evidence is that the proper place for the world's political community to focus is on the cardinal danger of global warming that was anthropogenically produced, like what the hell is going on there, especially since it's very expensive, well, people didn't pay much attention.

For decades, I'm talking about the coyote protocol, a group of countries in 1997 committed to reducing their emissions, but even those that signed did not actually reduce their admissions and of course the United States never signed and reduced their I know, and it was not really until the Paris agreement that they came up with something more voluntary and then they started formulating it and there was an avalanche of, you know, bad weather, Great El Niño and things like that that they latched on to, you know, this extreme, you know, yeah If we got rid of all this, the climate would be better, we would get rid of all these floods, droughts, hurricanes and whatever else and heat waves that were plaguing us. humanity and then people believed that kind of simple argument and then once there was a real change in 2018 after the Paris agreement, you know, the rhetoric was, you know, climate crisis, climate emergency from world leaders, the president from the UN, Obama, macron, Merkel, all these leaders said this, but in 2018 people started paying attention and Greta, that's when Greta Thundberg came on the scene and she was an extraordinary person and she is wrong about many things, but he is a remarkable person anyway, but this what he was doing generated the dawn.

Extinction Rebellion movement all this kind of stuff and journalists amplified this the climate crisis the climate emergency ten years ago the climate even 10 years ago climate change was really a marginal topic in magazines now the mainstream media has a climate desk, You know, I have a whole team of journalists and a lot of money is being invested in things like carbon, short things that focus specifically on climate change and so it just exploded and again there is this social contract between policy makers, the media communication and scientists. It's fantastic because of the signal there is. Nobody 10 years ago, people with a PhD in climate science, you know what it would be like to try to get a postdoc and whatever, and now universities can't even retain them, there are so many jobs in the media and the private sector that you know this.

It's just a hot thing, now every university has some kind of climate, a departmental institute, it's a big deal for everyone, so there is mutual reinforcement between scientists, policy makers and the media, so that's where the positive feedback loops are, that's right. you're on the sociological side, yes, definitely, definitely, yes, well, it's something to behold, so now, what have been the consequences? I mean, you've been ridiculed. I guess I don't think I'm exaggerating. You've been ridiculed or lampooned as some sort of marginal figure on the front lines of customer denial. I think it's fair to say and it's quite easy to smear someone with tactics like that and it's psychologically very effective.

What's happening? You know you said you rose to public prominence in part because you formulated an argument at least to begin with was that the climate apocalypse could hold on and quite effectively, but then you produced all kinds of material, um mitigating, producing a mitigated view of what has been the consequence for you of being involved in Okay, let me tell you what my sin was. People don't oppose my science. I mean, I'm in. You know the likely range of the ipcc is mostly on the low end, but you know it's not Fringe. perspectives and I commonly cite the IPCC.

What happened. The reason I was dragged into the denialist camp is because I criticized the behavior of climate scientists. I criticized the ipcc for some ethical violations and for not paying enough attention to uncertainty, so that was my sin. Well, I offended and criticized the big pubas of the climate community and then I was very quick and the most important thing was in 2011. I criticized Michael Mann's hockey stick on my blog and then he started calling me a denier and that was really the beginning of in the end, so my sin, yeah, so let's talk about that terminology for a second so everyone knows.

This is quite a rhetorical move on the part of the climate, the climate purveyors of apocalyptic doom, and so we have already established it in our society in general terms. in the West that objecting to the idea that the Holocaust was a historical reality puts you outside the realm of normative and reasonable political discussion and therefore you can be a Holocaust denier and if you are such a creature then you are lumped in with the Nazis. and put it on the shelf for no further contact, right, you've entered the realm of the reprehensible now, one of the most effective rhetorical moves by people who make a living or present themselves morally as climate apocalyptics.

The doomsayers were to target people who objected to their views with terminology that was derived directly from that rhetorical move, so now, if you are a climate change denier, the connotation is that you occupy the same category morally as people who They refuse to believe because of their own opinions. their appalling anti-Semitism and their blind historical ignorance that the Holocaust was a historical reality and therefore in some sense there is no real difference between labeling someone a climate change denier and labeling them a Nazi enabler and the rhetorical move was designed precisely to produce that result.

So I'm not a big fan of that kind of comeback move from Oracle and let's talk about Michael Mann for a second too because a lot of people listening and watching won't know what that hockey stick is. was the graph and they don't know what cardinal role the scandal around that graph has played in the discussion, so do you want to go through the hockey stick graph a little bit? If you go back to 2001, this was the launch of the IPCC's third assessment report and Sir John Houghton, director of the IPCC, was giving the press release and the backdrop behind it was this image, a curve that looked like a hockey stick that was meant to represent that you know the climate was very stable for the last thousand years and all of a sudden you have this huge increase, you know, it's caused by humans, okay, and this was based on the work of Michael Mann , was a recent PhD, this was his postdoctoral work before. the ink was dry on his phd, he was named lead author of the ipcc, which was quite an unusual move to the point that it's a crazy move, let me let everyone see and hear, not like your phd is the one putting your foot in the or your toe in the water of scientific endeavor, so I mean, Judith has 190 publications and just the ones I was listening to no, generally speaking, a doctoral thesis requires about as much work as three scientific publications if it's a high quality PhD, and so when you get your PhD, you have entered the domain of genuine scientific contribution, the PhD is actually a marker of that and if you do a postdoc, that means you have the opportunity to do a little bit more research work to establish your credibility. now as a more independent researcher who does not depend on the ideas of his supervisor, so he is a neophyte, he is a beginner when he does a PhD in a postdoc and maybe he has to do one or maybe two and then maybe they can give you hire as a junior professor, but you are by no means at the top of your career and it is very, very rare that initiatory research that could be done at PhD level is considered canonical unless you are a Nobel Prize winner. award-winning, you know, genius on the part of the scientific community and therefore the fact that the man's work has received so much attention even though it was done at this early level of scientific research, I mean, that's not speaks to its validity, but my point is that it is an aberration. in the process and also points to this issue we discussed earlier about the time frame.

I mean, when you build charts you can play with their psychological impact and all kinds of inappropriate ways that you can expand and contract the time frame that you can expand and contract. the scale on the left and you can make what is actually a small effect over a historical time span seem large by playing with the scale and you can create an effect that is not very large temporally speaking by reducing the time scale of evaluation, so the man's graph showed this uptick in climate transformation that was associated with human industrial activity, but he chose a very narrow time frame and a very particularized scale so that this would maximize the psychological impact of the graph, but that brings us to This time scale problem is like well and variability, how much have things changed in ten thousand years, what's the right time scale here and that's a very difficult problem, well, hockey stick problems don't They were as much as the hockey trigger. lever trigger the important one is around 2 000 right after that this was seen by a mining engineer um Steve McIntyre said hockey stick hockey stick I've seen these things this is usually a scam game to try for someone to buy mining stocks, you say.

So he got intrigued, he wanted to see the data, so he asked for the data, they gave him some and he and Canadian economics professor Ross McKittrick took a look at this and found all kinds of errors, you know, mishandling of the data. inappropriate statistical methods again and again, and the man went after these guys in a big way, instead of tryingdestructive way of dealing with this criticism, went after these guys and it turned into a pretty big flame war and then McIntyre and McKittrick published two additional articles. in 2005 and the controversy, you know, was just explosive, there were congressional hearings on this and it went on and on, so it was this big controversy and these climate gate emails that were released in 2009 revealed all kinds of evasions , you know, trying to preserve data. away from McIntyre and McKittrick trying to pressure the Journal editors not to publish their articles and it goes on and on, and you know, this was revealed at Climate Gate, so those were more egregious sins than just choosing a time frame convenient and a convenient scale oh yes, yes, no, but there is a graphical problem and this was the topic of my blog post that was hiding the decline, so the Paleo climate record, you know, showed these little oscillations and for get that kind of hockey stick piece that they spliced ​​together. the observation record besides that is fine and it was not clear in the ipcc report what was done, it was in some sort of footnote or obscure reference, but it never occurred to me as someone in the field that this is what had been done, so no, I don't understand that, go into more detail.

I don't understand exactly what was done there, okay, you see the identifier, okay, if you look at the actual data prior to the tree ring rate they were. in their analysis it was like the flat handle to be able to give the blade the increase of the blade that they spliced ​​into the historical temperature record completely different data set oh oh I see why the tree rings didn't show this increase um this is a what is called hiding the decline um and then you know to me that this is something without doing that is a bad idea but doing it without explaining it is marginal and this is known in some circles later it would be given a label as image fraud um and So , this is what I wrote my blog about and I wasn't particularly attacking the man because he wasn't the only person involved in this little scam, but you know, this got a lot of attention and apparently Michael Mann wasn't happy and very soon.

After that, you know, he called me a denier on Twitter and then I started appearing on all these lists of disinformers and in 2012, you know, I was already firmly established as a denier and the Society of Environmental Journalists put together a list with a description of all the Climate blogs and my blog were on the list of denialist blogs and the description says that unlike most other denialist blogs, Curry is a true scientist, looking at both sides of the issues, digging deeper into the issues, analyzing the uncertainties and all these other things, and I said. Well, that is a beautiful description of my blog, but why did you accept prima facie that my blog is a denialist blog?

I mean, it just shows how pervasive and how stupid this whole thing was. I don't align with either side, you know, I fought preciously for my independence, which included resigning from my academic position, so you know, I think for myself, I think deeply, I look at the evidence, I make judgments, um and it's mostly about of trying to better characterize the uncertainties and what we don't know, this is a key part of rational policymaking, is understanding the uncertainties of what we don't know. We'll be back in a moment. First we wanted to give you a preview of Jordan's new series, Exodus, so that the Hebrews. created history as we know it, he doesn't get his way, so he might think that he can bend the fabric of reality and that he can treat people instrumentally and that he can bow to the Tyrant and violate his conscience without the cost that will pay. the piper will call you out of that slavery to freedom even if it drags you into the wilderness and we will see that there is something else going on here that is much more cosmic and deeper than you can imagine, the highest ethical level.

The spirit to which we are indebted presents itself precisely as that spirit that allies itself with the cause of freedom against tyranny. I want the villains to be punished, but do you want the villains to learn before they have to pay the ultimate price? That is such a Christian question. Well, we have a triple problem here for the sound of things, in some real sense. I mean, the first problem is a kind of positive feedback loop that you alluded to: a lot of attention was paid to this. Potential problem: A lot of money was spent funding research that incentivized the growth of a huge scientific enterprise that incentivized people who were primarily motivated by money, including grants, and I mean it's hard not to be motivated by that if you want to be a practicing scientist and so there was a lot of financial and practical pressure to produce an environmentally apocalyptic story and then you can imagine that is amplified by the fact that reporting that there is no problem on the climate front is not something that is going to produce a Attention-grabbing headline, especially in an era where less and less attention is paid to Legacy Media media, so we know perfectly well that human beings are much more sensitive to negative information comparatively than positive information and that you can get attention with a story. of pessimism and threats much more effectively than one who claims that there is no story or anything positive here, so that is a big problem and then the third problem I would say is that it is easy for venal and narcissistic politicians, and not all of them they cling to convenient money that creates an apocalyptic nightmare to present themselves as White Knights on the moral front and fool eyes and perhaps even their own eyes as to whether or not they are making any practical progress in the real world. and then there is a situation where we have a set of positive feedback loops operating in the sociological space that are producing a sort of Chicken Little outcome and so we run around claiming that the sky is falling and upending our economic systems. in a dangerous position.

Addressing and spending untold hundreds of billions of dollars to address a problem that is ill-defined and probably nowhere near the magnitude that we think it is and so on and then I want to follow up with uh I tried to make a strong case for why it's might look at it with some degree of apprehension from a climate apocalypse perspective, but I'm also curious about this, the fact that's really been the most surprising to me on the environmental front over the last 20 years is According to recent observations, or have been taking place for about five or ten years, perhaps one of the consequences of the additional production of carbon dioxide is that the planet has become greener since the dawn of the millennia and that most of that greening process has been taken. place in what would otherwise have been semi-arid and fairly denuded areas, so I don't see a statistic on the anti-carbon front that is as powerful negatively as the statistic that the planet is 15 greener and that our crops are also As a consequence, it is much more productive on the carbon dioxide front, so you know you made the claim before that perhaps we are in for a cooling period that is within the error

predictions

of the models, but I I'd like to say, well, why shouldn't I?

I look at the fact that the planet has become 15 percent greener in 15 years, that's an area larger than the United States, and I say: why are we so sure that carbon dioxide production is something bad? I'm talking about some of the people who were initially hypothesizing the greenhouse effect were quite effusive in their predictions that this would produce a greener, lusher, more productive world, a more habitable world, so it's not reasonable to present that as a proposal. Once again, the apocalyptic types are pushing the extremes. climate events are caused by warming, you know, hurricanes, Pakistan floods, heat waves, you know, unusual this and that, this is what they're pushing as being caused by warming, you know, it's It is conceivable that there is some element of contribution from fossils. fuel heating to this, but due to the large amount of natural weather and climate variability it is impossible to discern it.

I mean, if we stopped emitting fossil fuels immediately we probably wouldn't notice any changes in the climate for the rest of time. 21st century, so this is the key error in the logic that people have done well. I mean, it's not an error in logic, it's a very effective sales pitch for alarmists, but people have believed it and people have climate amnesia. I mean, if you just look back at the '50s, the '50s, the '30s or whatever, the climate was much worse certainly in North America, so it doesn't make sense, does that mean that we should continue increasing fossil fuel emissions?

We just don't quite understand the consequences of this, but it also doesn't mean that we need to urgently reduce emissions and disrupt global energy systems, which will make people worse off and, you know, less well-off and more vulnerable to either extreme. Weather and climate events could occur, so we are harming ourselves, but we are still not doing much to reduce emissions and are only becoming less prosperous and more vulnerable to extreme weather events. I would say that two consequences of this are that the first is if we harm people by making energy very expensive, by restricting the use of fossil fuels, in an unreasonable way, let's say, or by not looking for nuclear energy, for example, as an alternative. , the main consequence of that. it will be that a lot of poor people who are right on the limit and there are many of them are poorer than they need to be and they will be, you know, outside the limit and the consequence of that is, as you already pointed out, that if something adverse happens What happens on the climate front, they are going to be much more vulnerable to that, I mean, distinguishing between infrastructure insufficiency and if a catastrophe is very, very difficult, even when Katrina hit New Orleans, you could say it was a natural disaster, but you could also say It was an abject failure of planning because the Army Corps' engineered levees were only designed to withstand a once-in-a-hundred-year storm, whereas when the judge built levees they designed them to withstand a once-in-a-hundred-year storm. every ten thousand years, so was it a natural storm? a disaster or a consequence of human foolishness is not exactly obvious and the same applies on the energy front.

You know, if we impoverish those who are already poor by making energy more expensive, we not only expose them to many more risks to their lives and physical integrity, let's say in terms of property. but we also decrease the probability that those same people will adopt an environmentally oriented view because the data indicates that if you can get people to produce or benefit from economic growth to the tune of about five thousand dollars a year in GDP average, then they start to take a medium and long-term view of the future and start to pay much more attention to what could be described as environmental concerns, and panic about the climate in the way that we are doing if the consequence en Raising energy prices and impoverishing people appears to be going to kill more people, firstly because they will be more vulnerable and, secondly, because it is going to result in many fewer of us being able to cope with the kind of change in the medium and long term.

A long-term view of sustainability would be really beneficial in producing a more liveable planet and I still want to ask your opinion on The Greening. Yes, the greetings that are happening I think are mainly attributed to carbon dioxide, but also more rain and warmer temperatures, I mean health. So The Greening is definitely a benefit um that The Greening is happening in a large large part of the world actually um so it is um clearly it is a benefit um well, it's also very perverse uh because one of the most perverse aspects is the fact that Americans reduce their carbon production by returning to fracking.

Nobody predicted that, but here we have a situation where not only is the planet not getting browner and drier, like the apoplectic Apocalyptic Vision was, but many of the areas that were actually brown and dry like the south. edge of the Sahara Desert we are actually seeing vegetation coming in in a way that was unprecedented even 15 years ago and therefore not only is it not what was predicted, it is the complete opposite of what was predicted and it's the opposite in a very, very massive way, I mean, a recent 15 percent increase. Greening is almost beyond comprehension, since I said it is an area larger than the continental United States and then also say that that has also produced a huge increase in the productivity ofhuman crops and allowed us to grow more food in less area, they are facts that must be taken with complete seriousness, they are very positive, perhaps I want to say that one could argue that perhaps that rate of vegetation change brings with it threats that I have not yet imagined and that could be the case, but anyway, it is certainly not the expansion of deserts that made us fear.

Well, that's right again, the framing of this going back to 1992 revolved around dangerous anthropogenics. interference in the climate system, so the focus was on the dangers, they were looking for dangers, the benefits, you know, they weren't even recognized until maybe the fifth assessment report in the IPCC, I mean everything, they were just looking for dangers, um, that there was no counterbalancing of the benefits are very correct and without cost benefit analysis analysis. I mean, I've talked to Bjorn Lomberg a lot, yes, and the reason was because I reviewed all the data that you're describing over a long period of time.

What struck me also educated me about the multiplicity of objectives that the UN was hypothetically pursuing was that no one was systematically evaluating these risks and benefits by classifying them and then I came across Lombard's work and he tried to do a cost calculation . Benefits analysis that looks at our ability to adapt and classify the problems we face in terms of their severity and also what we could do about those problems in some effective way and, as Lumber, like you, accepts the IPCC forecasts in a slight warming trend in the next. hundred years, but he's done calculations that show that the net consequence of that, even if it's kind of economically detrimental if we take all those costs into account, is that we're going to be less rich than we would otherwise be, because our GDP is going to go up. will increase something like 400 percent on average in the next hundred years and one of the negative consequences of global warming will be that it will be a little less than 400 percent and it is clear that we can manage that in any real sense and that we are very good at adapting to a wide variety of climatic conditions, other situations and climatic scenarios.

Some of us live in near-arctic conditions and other people live in the desert, so it's not outside the realm of human adaptation to adapt to one or two. degree of climate transformation and animals should be able to do the same assuming we don't know, you know we're reasonably smart on the environmental conservation front, so I don't know, are you aware of Laurenburg's work? Oh yes, no. Bjorn and I are in close contact and I am very aware of what he is doing and he is doing a very good job of making those points. You know, the UN has 17 sustainability goals.

I think the first is to eliminate poverty, the second is to eliminate hunger or maybe number seven is energy, affordable energy for all, number 13 is climate action and one has to wonder how climate action achieved even a part of that, which is the elimination of fossil fuels come to Trump um pot elimination of poverty and elimination of hunger UN development aid from the World Bank and everything that now focuses on mitigation the traditional objectives of economic development and aid with adaptation those are left in the background, right, that is in favor of mitigation and this is crazy, this is making people less well off and we are wasting opportunities for human development and you know it because of meaningless objectives that are not expected to improve anyone's life in the course of the 21st century. and it could very well make our situation worse for all of us, well, very well, so this is part of the incomprehensibility of this to me because it seems to me that many of the arguments, for example, would force us to take seriously the doomsayer's apocalyptic forecasts.

The moral arguments go something like this, you know, in a hundred years, if there is a lot of climate change, it will be primarily the world's poor who will pay the highest price for it. To mitigate this we have to adopt policies that, no matter how painful that they are in the short term, mitigate it because of our concern for the long-term viability of, say, these poverty-stricken people, but the problem with that is that the models are not very reliable and it is absolutely 100 percent. I'm sure that if we raise energy prices, which we've been doing quite effectively, and food prices, we're going to make life a lot harder for impoverished people across the developing world right now and any way is going to kill a lot of people and it's certainly going to deprive a lot of others of educational opportunities and optimal nutritional intake and all that, I'm sure it's going to happen, but the moral aspect is fine, we shouldn't be doing things that would endanger oppressed and poor people, but the calling policies we are implementing do just that, so, once again, I continue with this complete inability to understand how this can possibly be the case.

I don't understand it because there are so many other things we could be doing right, the leaders in Africa are quite frank, they are on the front line of being victims of all this, they refer to green colonialism, energy apartheid, you know, what face over this, um, global warming policies, right? right, right, and they can't, they can't get loans from development banks to build, you know they have a lot of fossil natural gas, coal, a lot of fossil fuel resources in Africa, they can't get loans to build their own power plants, The only thing they can do is sell their fuel to Europe, so Europe is doubly exploiting them by taking away their fuel but not letting them know that it is politically incorrect for these banks to finance the development of power plants, so it is correct to develop its own economy. just evil and I think green colonialism and energy apartheid are perfect descriptions of what's going on well, it's just, it's just, again it leaves me open with great amazement that we, in the developed world, with our functional economies and our high level of luxury and security, we can Tell the developing world, the developing world, well, you know we have it pretty good here and we're probably willing to cut back a little bit, but you people in the developing countries know that They should be very careful with their carbon. because you know we only have one planet and therefore it's not really obvious that any of you should have the same kind of benefits that we have.

The planet cannot sustain that level of luxury and security, so we are simply not going to let them have money, we are not going to help them develop their economy so that they can benefit from the same Industrial Revolution that has allowed us to educate our children. and have enough to eat. and being warm in winter and cool in summer and then what is even more absurd is that it is the same people who constantly cry out about the oppressive nature of Western culture who are imposing this same story on these developed countries, yes, the The irony is that even if African nations were given carbon credits or whatever and allowed to develop to where they want to be and where anyone expects them to be at most, they would be emitting about five or six percent of global emissions. and this is for about a billion people in the population, so we're not talking about a lot of additional emissions to allow them to develop.

I mean, it just doesn't make any sense and it's evil, it's absolutely Yeah, well, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's how it seems to me too. Well, I'm glad to know that you consider Lombard a credible commentator on these things. Well, you know. I have examined a wide variety of political and scientific thinkers over a 20-year period. trying to identify people that I think are credible at the interface between economic development, energy and environmental management and I like Shellenberger um. I think Epstein has some interesting things to say. I like Marion tupi um um. What's there? The English.

What is his name? um Richard said to Matt Ridley I think Matt Ridley is good, yes, yes, but of all those people I think Laurenburg has done the most credible job and he's also been given a very harsh treatment in the media, I mean, now I think which is going quite well. To promote his message, which is so beautiful, what he presents is such a beautiful scenario because it shows how much good we could do in the world, especially with respect to ameliorating absolute poverty and providing education in such a small fraction. about the amounts of money being poured into this crazy guy, what prevention of a non-existent climate apocalypse and why you know I've been doing everything I can to make his work worth bringing attention to, but you know the fact that He's been pilloried like he's been pilloried, he does it well, there's always a question lurking in the back of my mind, it's like where there's smoke there's fire, if people are constantly attacked for their points of view seen on moral grounds, you know, maybe there is some of that, but I certainly haven't been able to find that my analysis of your work or of Francis I certainly haven't seen any of that in relation to Laurenburg, so the mystery still remains for me. .

Well, they were after Lombborg from the beginning. knows 2003 whatever after his book The Skeptical Environmentalists and the problem was that he didn't consider reducing fossil fuel emissions to be the be all and end all, all he knew was that there were more important things to do and so that got labeled, you know that was a very dangerous perspective because they were so focused on this particular policy, um, yeah, for poorly justified reasons and for reasons that became harder to justify as time went on and they're still stuck. into this and it just defies logic and is going to cause a lot of damage in the world.

It defies logic unless your primary goal is easy moral virtue, so imagine you know the fundamental problem with Lombard's work and this is the problem with the marketing he also offers. a multivariate, multidimensional analysis of the problems plaguing the world, he says, well, we don't have just one problem: the climate apocalypse, we have like 100 problems and then we have the problem of how to classify them and then we have the problem. of generating real Solutions and evaluating them and that actually requires a lot of cognitive effort, you know, to get through them and so on, but if you are a climate apocalypse you can reduce the entire panoply of human problems to a single problem and then you can present yourself as a moral person by saying just well, I'm definitely worried about the fate of the planet and that's all any reasonable person should worry about and because I'm worried that way I'm a totally credible person with a notable reputation. and that's part of the psychological propensity behind this, okay, so every bad thing that happens someone finds a way to blame climate change, okay, and yes, and the media amplifies it and this gives them politicians an easy way out, so instead of dealing with their real problems, you know, poor land use, poor regulations, any inadequate infrastructure, whatever the cause of their real problems, they just blame it on global warming. and that gives them an easy way out.

Yeah, I read an article yesterday that said that climate change was increasing the risk of women being abused in their homes, that was just a classic example, you know, I mean, you know you can argue that anything that produces economic instability It's going to take root, you know the abuse rates, but tie it directly to the climate. The change is a really egregious example of exactly the kind of thing you're describing. Well, look, we're out of time on this segment. I'm going to talk to Dr. Curry for an additional half hour on the daily wire. As well as a platform for those of you who are watching and listening, you may be interested, where I'm going to talk about developing your interest in your scientific endeavors and also in your entrepreneurial endeavors.

Hello everyone, I encourage you to do it. Continue listening to my conversation with my guest on dailywireplus.com