Dr Jordan B Peterson and Dr. Judith Curry discuss climate change, the major error in current models and future predictions, academic fraud, and the need for dissenting opinions.
Dr. Judith Curry is an American climatologist with a Bachelor’s degree in geography from Northern Illinois University, and a geophysical sciences Ph.D. from the University of Chicago. Curry is the professor Emerita and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She has had an accomplished career, working with NASA, the US Government, and numerous academic institutions in the field of climate change. Curry advocates for a non-alarmist approach, acknowledging Earth’s rising temperature with a grain of salt—in-field research, and a refusal to shut the doors of science to those with opposing views and findings. In 2017 Dr. Curry retired from her position at the Georgia Institute of Technology, citing “the poisonous nature of the scientific discussion around man-made climate change” as a key factor. Curry co-founded and acts as president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN), which seeks to translate cutting-edge weather and climate research into tenable forecast products.
Dr Peterson’s extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+:
– Sponsors –
RefundsPro: If your business experienced shutdowns, limited capacity, supply chain challenges, or reduced revenue due to COVID, you likely qualify for Employee Retention Credit. Get started today with a free, five-minute questionnaire at
Birch Gold Group: Text “JORDAN” to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit.
– Links –
For Dr. Judith Curry:
Blog:
Twitter:
Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN)
Forthcoming book: Climate Uncertainty and Risk
– Chapters –
(0:00) Coming up
(1:00) Intro
(3:00) The case for credibility
(12:00) Recognizing fault in your arguments
(13:00) Manufactured consensus
(18:00) Social factors for giving authority to consensus
(19:35) Extreme emissions scenario
(21:38) The error in models, clouds, and vapor
(24:40) The insane complexity of modeling the oceans
(27:00) The Challenger explosion, how the sun affects climate
(29:10) There is no climate catastrophe looming
(32:00) The west Antarctic ice sheet, tipping points
(37:40) The models Dr. Curry helps create
(45:10) What the IPCC neglects
(47:00) Latching onto extremism
(51:00) Greta Thunberg, the sunrise movement, the extinction rebellion
(54:10) Buried for calling out their ethics, climate denialism
(58:02) A PhD is a toe in the water of scientific endeavor
(59:30) Graph manipulation
(1:03:00) Mann, the hockey stick, image fraud
(1:11:20) At the expense of the poor
(1:13:01) More C02 has actually led to more greening
(1:17:25) Lomborg, ranking our problems
(1:22:00) Green apartheid
(1:24:00) The lost potential in demonizing dissent
(1:27:50) Everything is blamed on global warming
// SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL //
Newsletter:
Donations:
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality:
Self Authoring Suite:
Understand Myself (personality test):
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life:
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos:
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief:
// LINKS //
Website:
Events:
Blog:
Podcast:
// SOCIAL //
Twitter:
Instagram:
Facebook:
Telegram:
All socials:
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus
Hello everyone I'm touring again In January February actually until the End of May to discuss my last book Beyond order there's still tickets Available for a couple of venues I Thought I might bring those to people's Attention today Everett Washington USA February 19th at the Angel of the Winds Arena so if you're in those areas or you Can travel there and you're interested In hearing me talk about my book trying To extend the ideas in it then please Come to Everett Washington February 19th You can find more information at my Website jordanbpeterson.com hope to see You there bye bye It leaves me open mouth in amazement That we in the developed world with our Functional economies and our high level Of luxury and security Can say to developing Worlds the Developing World well you know we've Gotten pretty good here and we're Probably willing to cut back a little Bit but you guys down there in the Developing countries you know you should Be pretty damn careful about your carbon Output we're not going to help you Develop your economy so that you can Benefit from the same Industrial Revolution that have that has that has That has enabled us to educate our Children and to have plenty to eat and To be warm in the winter and cool in the
Summer and then what's all even more Preposterous is it's the very people who Are constantly clamoring about the Oppressive nature of Western culture who Are foisting this very story on these Developed countries yeah the irony is That even if the African nations We're given you know the 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 like five or six Percent of global emissions and this is For like a billion people in the Population we're not talking about a lot Of extra emissions to allow them to Develop I mean it just makes absolutely No sense and it's evil it's absolutely Evil Hello everyone on YouTube and Associated Platforms I'm here today with another Climate denialist because you know I've Been racking those up Um it's all part of my attempt to become The most reprehensible commentator on YouTube and so uh at least in the eyes Of my of those who think they're my Enemies anyways I'm talking to Dr Judith Curry today very accomplished scientist She's an American climatologist with a Bachelor in science degree in geography She earned out at Northern Illinois University and a geophysical Sciences PhD from the University of Chicago Curry
Is the professor emerita and former Chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology she's had an Accomplished career working with NASA The U.S government and numerous academic Institutions in the field of climate Change a real scientist with 190 Publications Curry advocates So reprehensively for a non-alarmist Approach acknowledging Earth's Rising Temperature with a grain of salt the Grain being in-field research and a Refusal to shut the doors of science to Those with contrary views and findings In 2017 Dr Curry retired from her Position at the Georgia Institute of Technology citing The poisonous nature of the scientific Discussion around man-made climate Change as a key factor Curry co-founded and acts as president Of the climate forecast applications Network a company Private company which seeks to translate Cutting Edge weather and climate Research into tenable forecast products Insurance companies financial Institutions rely on Dr Curry to provide Them with information that can guide Them with regard to their future Financial decision making She's a controversial figure on the Climate front being somewhat of a
Contrarian with in regard to the Hypothetically the hypothetical Scientific consensus on the climate Apocalypse front so the first thing I'd Like to ask you Dr Curry is if you would Walk people through your professional Qualifications and to let everyone know Why it is that you might be regarded as A credible commentator on such issues Okay well I received my PhD in 1982 and Geophysical Sciences from the University Of Chicago And I spent my entire career in Academia Um 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 at Georgia Tech I served As chair of the school of Earth and Atmospheric sciences for 13 years Um it's I've written Several books and published about 190 Journal articles I'm a fellow of several Major professional societies to you know Received some recognition for my Research I left my University position In 2017. I felt it was too constraining Um I wanted to And do a broader range of things and I Had started a company About 10 years before it was as a
Startup under Georgia Tech's you know Venture lab Program and so then I started devoting Full time to it after I left Academia Um I inadvertently stepped into the Limelight on the Global warming issue in 2005. if you Recall at the time of Hurricane Katrina Which devastated New Orleans I and my co-authors had a paper that was Published in the Journal of science Two weeks after Katrina hit Um And we we had found that the percentage Of category four and five hurricanes Had doubled in recent decades okay and So this was With rather explosive media attention And this was You know the first time you know that I Did TV interviews or anything like that And it was a very A very antagonistic debate people were Coming at us from all sides of course The Enviro advocacy groups thought You know I was the greatest thing since Sliced bread but there are a lot of People on the other side of the debate You know thought I was absolutely evil Um So so for the first time I started you Know giving a lot of public lectures and It
And people would invariably ask me Questions that were you know outside of My expertise or knowledge everyone was Asking about the hockey stick for Example or what's going on with the sun And all these kind of things I figure oh My gosh you know I really need to just Step out beyond my personal areas of Expertise and try to understand a lot More of this you know so so which I did And Eventually the hurricane and global Warming issues settled down a little bit And then a few years later Climate Gates struck this was in November of 2009 with the unauthorized Release of Emails from the University of East Anglia it was it was a big it was a very Big scandal at the time ipcc authors Hiding the decline you know Mike's Nature trick all this kind of stuff Um you know and it it was hugely Important politically and it's believed To have derailed the Waxman Marky A bill that was you know making progress You know towards being passed and it's Just pretty much derailed it and I took The controversial you know Step of saying help you know we need to Do better we need to make all of our our Data publicly available we need to make Our methods transparent we need to pay More attention to uncertainty and be
More honest about the level of Confidence we actually have in this Stuff and we also need to pay attention To Skeptics you know and treat them with Respect and you know pay attention to Their arguments and refute them if They're serious And you know to me this sounded like Motherhood and apple pie right right Absolutely okay but um the people within The climate Community were very angry at Me saying that I needed to be more Sensitive to the feelings of these Scientists who were involved Excuse me no one was sensitive to my Feelings during the hurricane and global Warming Wars and also I wasn't worried About their feelings I was worried about The ipcc and The credibility of it and You know what we what we should be doing About this you know they were much Bigger issues at stake here than the um Feelings of these scientists well Anybody any scientist who talks to you About whether you're hurting their Feelings when you're launching a Discussion of the factual basis of their Claims has immediately stepped outside Of the scientific domain I mean one of The things I loved about being a Scientist was that the rules of Engagement at professional conferences Let's say that were genuinely scientific In nature were pretty damn clear I mean
We were discussing the Empirical reliable empirical and Statistical reliability and validity of Your claims on a technical basis that Was that and if we weren't doing that it Wasn't science and so the idea that what You should be attending to when you're Criticizing someone's work which doesn't Mean denigrating it it means trying to Separate the wheat from the chaff by the Way that has nothing to do with your Regard for the emotional well-being of Your say antagonist I mean you could be Polite and that's helpful but it's also Not mandatory right but well there's a Subtlety here because I was not so much Criticizing the substance of the science But the behavior of the scientists that I felt violated the Norms of Science in Terms of you know everybody you know Universalism you know everybody should You know have a chance or a shot you Know we at the data Um we should listen to Skeptics you know And we should try to Keep politics out of our science to the Extent that we can I mean these are the Kind of behaviors you know these emails Reveal people trying to get editors Fired you know playing fast and loose With the guidelines of the ipcc Evade Freedom of Information Act Requests Um from people they thought would
Challenge their research this kind of Behavior that I strenuously objected to And I thought that we should not defend And we should call out so I was not Challenging the substance of anybody's Science it was really the behavior In the public debate well right well That is that is a form of that is a form In some sense of methodological Criticism right I mean your point was That your there's rules to to the Investigative process and the Communication process and politicization Breaks those rules and the response on The front of the climate apocalypse Apocalypse let's say you see this with Biologists who are concerned about Extinction from time to time too is that Well this this issue is so important That it's unethical to abide by those Normative principles because we need to Do everything we can to draw as much Attention to this looming catastrophe as Possible and in some sense All is fair In Love and War and that would be fine If they were correct and 100 correct Possibly although I still think they're Violating the science politics Distinction but when there's doubt and There's substantial doubt here then That's a real problem I wanted to take Apart some of the things you said so you Came at this in a very interesting way And some sense because the first time
That you Rose to something approximating Public prominence you were actually Putting forth a set of propositions that You could argue supported a more dire View of climate outcome right making the Claim that these hurricanes severe Hurricanes had increased in frequency do You believe now that have they continued To increase in frequency or was that a Momentary Spike do you know that Literature still oh oh yes it's um okay First off there were lots of pot shots Thrown at us okay the couple of Criticisms turned out to be valid one is That the the global data before 1985 is Pretty dodgy you know we went back to 1970s so we you know so realistically You have to throw out 15 years and the Other thing was looking at you know just The natural variability and could really Distinguish a warming signal from the Natural variability and at this point we Still can't with a lot of confidence so Yeah well a big a big part of the Problem here is you know what time frame Over this is a huge problem and I don't Even know how you solve it in some sense If you're trying to define something Like a trend towards cooling or warming Or increased or decreased variability The question and immediately arises well Are you talking about 100 years or a Thousand or ten thousand or a million Like there's an infinite number of time
Frames consider and exactly that that is That that is a key Challenge and one of My major themes you know coming out of The climate gate thing was a more Serious look at uncertainty and I wrote A paper called climate change and the Uncertainty monster and I used that Paper a series of you know to launch my Blog climate Etc Judith curry.com in 2010 and Again this was people outside The Clique Of establishment climate scientists Thought this was great this is important This is obvious however within the Clique they viewed me as trying to Destroy a consensus that they had been Trying to build for 20 years well this Whole manufactured consensus and it was On very flimsy ground you know so and There was okay how would you care how Would you characterize that so-called Consensus is that associated with this Idea I talked to Richard Franzen about This recently Um Is that associated with the idea that Like 97 percent of scientists agree that Well it isn't clear what they agree That's the issue is that climate change Is a severe and catastrophic problem Which is that that statement in itself Is not true by any stretch of the Imagination what's the consensus here oh Okay the the issue is the ipcc the
Intergovernmental panel on climate Change they did their first assessment Report in like 1991 and following that I Mean that was a good report it was a Good assessment at the time and then the Powers that be says we need to strive For consensus in our statements and so This sort of narrowed the framing and The people they were picking to be on The committee were people who were all Going to agree and so they were working To manufacture a consensus you know it Was their view of how the policy process Deals with uncertainty so it was sort of A Speaking consensus to power approach and And this was like formalized by the ipcc And You know people challenging The consensus and there's many Dimensions to it but but the most Fundamental one is that Most of the warming that we've seen Since 1950 is caused by humans I mean That's the most Central There is warming that there is warming Even though now the narrative is changed That there is warming there's a certain Idea about its potential magnitude and Then hypothetically the consensus is That what about 50 of that is no no not An activity no they used to make the Statement more than half but they really Meant a hundred percent
Okay but there's certainly no cons There's certainly no scientific Consensus that a hundred percent of the Global warming that's occurring at the Moment is anthropogenic that I don't Believe it Oh no no no there is the scientist okay There's no measure I mean When you have A complex highly uncertain situation Like this The issue of consensus is scientifically Meaningless it's only meaningful right You know for political purposes this Whole idea Um of speaking consensus to power that That was some pathway you know to policy Making it hasn't really turned out to be Um It yeah so so yeah there's no consensus The most well it's also it's also a Preposterous claim scientifically Because the way science works is that A great scientist Is the first person who challenges the Consensus that's kind of how you define A great scientist and one of the things That's so wonderful about science is That it can reveal when the universal Consensus is wrong And it's it's powerful in its methods Precisely because of that and you know That as a practicing researcher is that The probability that you're going to do
A study and that the data is going to Reveal the consensus of your lab Theory The validity of the consensus of your Lab's theory is basically zero something Unexpected is going to crop up when you Actually test your idea against reality Itself so the idea that science is Consensus based is is wrong it's wrong Okay yeah it's okay it's amazing that The idea got anywhere okay look at the Social factors in play okay there was a Big drive by the U.N You know to deal with human you know Dangerous anthropogenic climate change Again this was a 1992 treaty before we Even had any evidence of human cause Warming at all okay and then you had Scientists become invested in this you Know in their career goals and the Funding that comes into the field and All of this kind of stuff that there was This sort of social contract between the Scientists and the policy makers that Perpetuated this situation and you know And they were the policy makers they we Need you know more you know we need more And more confident statements from the Ipcc even though the dimensions of the Problem were growing and growing and Growing every year and clearly becoming More complex and obvious that there was A lot of things that we didn't Understand but there was this drive you Know well it it it's not as if the IPC
Documents themselves or even that Radical I mean my understanding of the Ipc's doc C documents is that the Projection is something like one to two Degrees of further warming with some Increase in variability especially in The polar regions and a small degree of Sea level rise no indication in the ipcc Reports that this will produce runaway Out of control feedback loops that will Have a devastating consequence no real Vision of Apocalypse um and so that's Not quite correct um until okay until Recently People were looking at projections of Four to five degrees Centigrade more Warming over the course of the 21st Century okay the the Issue was wildly ridiculous emissions Projections which are now believed to be Implausible The more recent ipcc assessment Report With more plausible emissions scenarios Is looking at more two to three degrees Centigrade of warming And we've already had one degree so it's An additional one to two degrees Centigrade of warming that people expect Based on the climate models so that they Were pretty alarming up until recently Because everyone was focused on this Extreme Omission scenario which is now Widely accepted as implausible if not Impossible
So there was a lot of alarm and all the You know when you talk about all the Projections of extreme weather events And we won't be able to grow wide in California and crazy projections of sea Level rise all these projections were Tied to that extreme emission scenario And it's taking a community a long time To reject it in fact this extreme Emission scenario was still the most Often the most widely used in the Sixth assessment report which was Published only like Two years ago So I mean that this is still pervasive These excessively alarming Projections of what could happen in the 21st century mostly driven by Implausible to Impossible emission Scenario but also driven by climate Models that are running too hot okay Let's go into that a bit so so I talked To Richard lindsen about a week ago About the problems with models he said For example that the models are based on Cells let's say so those would be the Whole earth can't be modeled so you have To oversimplify it you have to Clump it Into chunks and the chunks are about 70 Miles wide I think they don't they can't Really model Cloud activity very well There's a lot of error in relationship To projecting and forecasting the effect Of water vapor
Um the models the models have to build a Lot of assumptions in and that doesn't Mean that we shouldn't build models but It does mean that they have very large Potential for error and that error is Magnified as you project out into the Future and so I've read for example you Tell me if you think this is accurate That are estimates of the cumulative Effect of carbon dioxide on global Warming or climate change are smaller Than our estimates of the magnitude of Our error in measuring the effect of Water vapor and like that's a big Problem because water vapor is a major Contributor to to warming in principle And so that carbon dioxide effects are Under the size of the error in that Measurement that's really well well I I Wouldn't put it that way Um We have a pretty good idea of how much Water vapor is in the atmosphere the Question is how is that going to change With warming the bigger issue is the Clouds what clouds are doing clouds have A huge and they're not modeled very well And the observational basis for You know understanding how they're Trending you know only goes back a few Decades so you know that's a tough one But but the The net result of these uncertainties in Water vapor and Cloud feedback is that
We don't know how sensitive the climate Is to increasing CO2 because the way the Model is treated is that CO2 and clouds Amplify the warming Um and what and I think the cloud Feedback might even be negative Water vapor does overall amplify the Warming but in the tropics where Richard Linson has done his research he Proposes that there is a negative Feedback and that's something that's Hotly debated but I think the clouds are The bigger issue but apart from what's Going on in the atmosphere to me is Really the oceans and the Sun that are The biggest Um sources of uncertainty in terms of Understanding what's going on and be Able to project into the future So there are okay why the oceans oh my Goodness okay the the oceans have these Large Circulation systems overturning okay El Nino La Nina people are familiar with That that's a mode of natural internal Variability there's also decadal and Multi decadal Oscillations cycles that change the Patterns of clouds the whole patterns of Sea surface temperature influences Snowfall on Greenland the Arctic sea ice Rainfall Regional climates Etc and the Models don't treat these very good well There's a whole spectrum of these ocean
Circulations all on out to ten thousand Years you have Millennial scale Overturning that influences the climate And the models have Far too little Power You know in in that part of the spectrum So we're just missing that and then so Is that is that a consequence does that Mean that the degree to which the ocean Takes up carbon dioxide is is permeated By error in measurement is it is it also An indication of our lack of Understanding of how the temperature of The ocean itself is regulated by the Motion of water from the depths up to The top all of that oh yeah is that Where the error is well no it vertical Transport of heat and carbon in the Ocean as part of the consequences of the Uncertainty in these large-scale Circulations but more fundamentally These large-scale you know they change The weather patterns and change the Clouds among other things so You know that this is trying to get all That modeled right let alone make Incredible predictions into the future We're not there I mean not even close to Being there okay and and then if if you Once you get into the sun it's even you Know crazier I mean the ipcc Has pretty much dismissed the role of The sun you know in the last 150 years
But the interesting thing is that in the Six assessment report chapter six they Finally acknowledge the great Uncertainty and the amount of solar Forcing in the late 20th century and This arises from there was a gap in this Satellites measuring the sun output that Occur at the time of the Challenger Shuttle disaster if you recall that and So one solar sensor was running out and They were supposed to launch another one But all the launches were put off for a Number of years until they sorted out What was going on at NASA with the Launches and everything so there's this So-called Gap and depending on what was Actually happening in that Gap You know you can tune tune the solar Variability to high variability or low Variability so all the climate models Are being run with low solar variability Forcing but for the first time Chapter 2 in the observational chapter Of the six assessment report acknowledge This issue that there is huge amount of Variability And this doesn't even factor in the So-called solar indirect effects in Terms of there's a lot of it's not just The heat from the Sun there's a lot of Issues related to ultraviolet and Stratosphere and cosmic rays and Magnetic fields and all these other Things that really aren't being factored
In they're at the Forefront of research But they're certainly not factored into The climate models so there are so many Uncertainties out there Um That affect Certainly the projections of what might Happen in the 21st century but also our Interpretation of what's been going on With the climate for the last 100 years Ago and and exactly what's been causing What The current administration's New Year's Goals are to tax spend and turn a blind Eye to inflation if this is at odds with Your goals if you are tired of the Government playing games with your Savings in your retirement plans then You need to get in touch with the Experts at Birch gold today for over 5 000 years gold has withstood inflation Geopolitical turmoil and stock market Crashes with help from the experts at Birch gold you can own gold and attack Sheltered retirement account Birch gold Makes it easy to convert an IRA or 401K Into an IRA in Precious Metals just text Jordan to 989898 to claim your free info Kit on gold and then talk to one of Their precious metals Specialists Birch Gold will hold your hand through the Entire process text Jordan to 989898 and Protect yourself with gold today with an A plus rating with the Better Business
Bureau thousands of happy customers and Countless five-star reviews you can Trust Birch gold to help protect your Savings text Jordan to 989898 today Well so I would say that those who Object to the line of reasoning that You're putting forward I believe would Make an argument analogous to the Following they would say well look we Have despite all the objections on the Measurement front we have pretty good Evidence that there's a warming Trend we Have reasonable evidence that at least a Reasonable proportion of that is a Consequence of anthropogenic activity Most particularly the production of Carbon dioxide the potential consequence Of of this could be apocalyptic a Hundred years down the road or 50 years Down the road Even with all those doubts in mind it's Incumbent upon us to take something like Emergency action now so that we Ameliorate this risk of apocalyptic Transformation and so this is just okay Obstructionist hand-waving your Objections and if you were moral and on Board you'd see that this issue is so Serious and so apocalyptic that it's Inappropriate to stand in the way of the Amelioration and so what what do you Think about that as a counter Proposition okay the weakest part of Their argument is whether all this is
Dangerous Um you know the sea level rise is you Know creeping up you know the ice cap Greenland Antarctic you know it changes From year to year with a little bit of Melting but there's no could catastrophe Looming on those fronts and so they've Turned to extreme weather Oh global warming is calling and I have To say the hurricane and global warming First put this idea into their 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 so this started this whole Trend of every extreme weather event is Associated with um Human cause global warming which just Isn't true right and and if you look Back and and they tend to go back to 1970 or 1950. 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 to the first half of the 20th century The weather was way worse certainly in North America and over much of the globe Also Right now in the U.S West we're being Assaulted by these atmospheric River Events bringing huge amounts of rain and Snow which is going to cause flooding It's still snow yet and you know this is Horrible global warming and everything
Like that but If if you go back to the winter of 1861 And 1862 15 inches of rain and fell in central Um California over a period of a couple Of months which huge floods over a very Widespread area that lasted for absolute Months okay and paleo climate Evidence showed that these tend to Happen about every 200 years or so where You have this massive accumulation of These atmospheric Rivers so this is Nothing at all unusual so if you look Back into the historical record or Better yet the Paleo climate record Invariably you will find worse weather Events so TR so so that's part of the Time frame problem right is like well Over what span do you evaluate these Events before you draw your conclusions So but you can't so do you believe in do You believe that any of the Tipping Point hypotheses Franzen told me Something interesting you know this was A kind of a technical proposition he Said that in complex systems with many Degrees of freedom on the entropy front So many ways they can potentially react The probability of a Tipping Point Positive feedback loop you know like That that runaway global warming or Something like that the melting of the Greenland ice ice caps because we hit a Tipping Point said in complex systems
That have multiple potential outcomes That kind of all or none Tipping Point Is unlikely you get that more more Likely in a simple system that's Characterized by the probability of Radical State change like water freezing For example and so I thought that I I Can't evaluate that argument you know It's outside my domain of scientific Competence but it struck me as an Interesting idea well uh to some extent It's true there is one sort of Tipping Point That we could encounter and if this does Happen I would expect that Human cause global warming would play Only a small part and this is the West Antarctic ice sheet which is an unstable Ice sheet so if you took the ice sheet Away the continent would actually be Under water but what it is you have this Huge ice sheet that sits on the Continent and part of it's above water Okay and and it has an overhang and Because and this just dynamically Unstable situation and it moves fairly Fast Underneath his ice sheet are lots of Inactive volcanoes even the occasional Active volcanoes so if these volcanoes Became active and we had you know a Greater heat Source under this combined With sea level rise and a little bit of Um
Global warming This could accelerate and on the time Scale of you know three or four Centuries we could see this collapse you Know which could lead to A substantial sea level rise so so That's the one kind you know if we saw That happening are there engineering Ways of dealing with it I don't know but It was something that would be A slow process but that's the only one Of the so-called tipping points That I see could happen because you know The If there's going to be some solid earth You know if the Earth wants to have an Earthquake or a big volcanic eruption You know there aren't a lot of you know Negative feedbacks in the earth system To prevent that so to me that that's the One like bad thing that could happen but It would take centuries Um but the other ones yeah I don't see It So what do you think when you look at The ipcc reports now and you look 50 Years ahead or 100 years ahead what what Would you regard as a credible Representation of the so-called climate Science What Do you accept the new IPC Prognostications or do you think the Models are so error ridden that even the
Hypothesis of one to two degrees warming Isn't isn't reliable enough even though It's the best we have well the Interesting thing is that the ipcc six Assessment report work in group one They also sort of rejected the climate Models to some extent they were Guided By them in their projections but they Also You know defined a plausible range of Climate sensitivity and looked at the Projections from there so even the ipcc Is stepping back from the 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 damaged model or an Economic assessment model or something Like that so people are really stepping Back from these big Global Climate Models and it's about time and one of The Innovations that I've been undertaking In my projection work and and this is What I do for clients of my company Um climate forecast applications network Is that I look at it I don't just look At The ipcc scenarios and I choose the low End ones I think those are more credible But I also look at scenarios of what the Ocean circulations could be doing well You know scenarios of volcanic eruptions
Um and solar variation scenarios and try To put forward a broader range of what We might be looking at and so I have Like a network-based approach to combine All this into producing a much broader Range of scenarios and at least over the Next three decades Like the natural variability piece of This is pointing towards cooling rather Than amplifying the warming you know it Would Tamp down the global warming of Whatever magnitude it is from fossil Fuel emissions so that's the approach That I'm taking Okay so let's go into that a bit you Earlier you indicated that you left the University in 2017 to pursue an Entrepreneurial activity that you had Initiated at Georgia Tech and uh you Just made allusion to that again so so Tell me tell me if you would How you are modeling and you've laid out Some of the conclusions but who's Interested in your models and obviously You're doing this on an entrepreneurial Basis so people are willing to pay you For your opinion which gives I think Some what would you say indication of Their faith and its credibility because People are actually spending money on it Like how are how are your models Different than the models that are more Broadly publicized let's say and Um and who is it that is paying you to
Produce these models why is there Interested in that and why are they Doing it okay well Insurance companies financial Institutions have an interest in Atlantic hurricanes what are we looking At over the next three decades in terms Of Atlantic hurricane activity a big Issue is a potential shift to the cold Phase of the Atlantic multi-decatal Oscillation this is one of those Multi-decatal oscillations That I talked about which we would Expect would Start to Tamp down the Atlantic Hurricane activities so this is a very Big deal for them another client was Wind Farm owners who wanted to know is The wind going to keep blowing for the Next 30 Years and are my wind farms in The right location Okay they wanted to know that Um some Electric utilities want to know What could we be looking at in terms of Like how frequent these really bad Situations could be You know for Renewable Power like a Massive cold air outbreak that lasts for Weeks the wind doesn't blow and it's Winter time and there's no sun you know How bad can it get and how frequently Might these occur so these are some of The things that I've been looking at and Also people interested in sea level rise
Projections you know in their particular Location looking at scenarios of what Their location a lot of interest from People in Florida San Francisco along The Atlantic coast Um You know what what could we be looking At yeah yeah we see that those Projections from the the ipcc which of Those should we believe but we already Know that you know how are the ocean Circulation patterns going to influence Their local sea level rise what kind of Um What kind of uh What do I what kind of Trends do I see For the vertical land motion both from Local effects and large More planetary scale up and down Kind of affects so so those are some of The projects that I've been working on Looking at scenarios out say 30 to 50 Years If you own a small to medium-sized Business that kept employees on payroll Through covid you may have a big cash Refund 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 most of their 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's no reason not to apply if Your business experience shutdowns Limited capacity supply chain challenges Or reduced Revenue due to covid you Likely qualify Refundspro.com has already helped Hundreds of businesses don't lose the Refund you're owed by missing the Deadline get started today with a free Five-minute questionnaire at Refundspro.com that's refunds with an s Pro.com So why do these companies believe that Your models are credible enough for them To pour economic resources into and why Do you believe that your Mortals are Credible enough to provide them with Accurate guidance I mean we talked about Some of the limitations of models and so What what is it that you're doing that Is credible to the companies and why do You believe scientifically that you're Providing accurate information okay the First thing that I did and I did this Before Most other people did I say look You're you're wasting your time looking At that extreme emission scenario You know if you look at the International Energy agency their
Scenarios show emissions being fairly Flat for the next several decades and I Think this is a much more plausible Scenario so so let's focus on that one And this is apart from Trying to predict what policy is going To do and how much they're going to Change but The thinking is now that emissions are Going to stay fairly flat for the next Few decades and I saw this and you know I saw the journal Publications and this Is what I was pushing to my clients if You want something realistic this is What you should be looking at the other Thing is is Not accepting the extremely high values Of Ip of climate sensitivity to CO2 Doubling I don't go as low as Richard Lindsen does but I'm certainly on the Low end and I justify why To them based on Publications including Some of my own why we shouldn't be Looking at these very high sensitivity Values and I run it through a range so They can look but I'm right but I'm Saying you know so I give them all the Scenarios they want I'll give the high Emissions scenario I'll give the High climate sensitivity low climate Sensity I'll say my best Judgment is that this is what it is but Then I uniquely put in scenarios of the Natural variability and they really like
This they get it I mean they've seen it Okay they've seen it and they understand It's out there they've just never seen Anybody try to project it before and I Have Publications on this they can Parameterize their risk given your Plethora of models so they yeah well Here's the worst case scenario here's The best case scenario here's a here's The likely scenario here's the range and Then they can calculate how to uh you Know will mitigate their risk across Those scenarios exactly I mean and a lot Of times they want to know well what's The worst case what's the worst Plausible case okay and so I give them That and so they have this whole range Okay so so for example in the Wind Farm Profitability study I gave them 81 Scenarios Okay there are different scenarios of How this could play out Over the next 30 Years and these Different you know there was a cluster Of scenarios you know in a certain area And I say you know You might infer that these are the most Plausible outcomes because there's Multiple different Pathways right for Reaching that but here's your plausible Worst case here's your plausible best Case okay and and this gives them some Information Okay for making their decision
Um right so uh so you admit you admit Right out up front in some sense that There are inputs into your models that Are somewhat arbitrary right that you Have to decide about and and those might Be for example your projections of of uh Carbon dioxide output and then you say Given a variety of initial assumptions Here's a variety of outcomes but a lot Of the models tend to converge at this Vision you know this range of visions And so if the convergence of multiple Models constitutes evidence which we Generally assume it does then this seems To be the most plausible pathway right And so how does that differ from the Iepcc approach okay well I don't say It's the more the first day neglect all The elements of natural variability that I conclude they're not giving scenarios Of volcanic eruptions they're not giving Um Different scenarios of sun activity They don't have That they do a bunch they have a bunch Of different scenario you know scenarios Of what the internal ocean variability Is doing but I can anchor it more Closely to what the observations are and My own network model in terms of what The plausible trajectories are so I'm Giving them a more plausible trajectory For the For the ocean oscillations and generally
Going out 30 years these other scenarios Are cooler than the ipcc scenarios Well and so and do they actually do they Actually point to to cooling or just Less rapid warming some of them go as Far as cooling okay and others are less Rapid warming and there have been Another of Publications you never see Them publicize that show for certain Combinations of these ocean circulations Or volcanic eruptions or solar activity That you could see cooling for a decade Or two during the 21st century That could happen And the ipcc ar-6 did you know if you Read the fine print deep in the chapters You know you'll you'll see these papers Referenced and it is acknowledged but It's not something That you hear you know in the public Debate is just this Relentless warming That we're going to be seeing okay okay So so that's interesting because you Know the the warming Advocates Are doubtful enough about their own Prognostication so that it's no longer 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's happened but nonetheless the the Apocalyptic prognostications are still Predicated on this idea of warming now
Your claim is that the consensus that That might be apocalyptic was never There to begin with and the initial Estimates of the magnitude of warming Were out by about a factor of two partly Because people accepted equally Apocalyptic in some sense Prognostications of carbon dioxide Output but then you're taking that Further you're saying that the models Are so prone to variability that there Is some non-re non-trivial possibility That there'll be a global cooling Trend Over the next 30 Years instead of a Global warming Trend and so in the face Of all that Someone might ask themselves well if the Situation with regards to these models Is as uncertain as you suggest and also You know it's interesting just as an Aside that Financial companies will pay You for your prognostications which is Another form of validation of your Opinion why in the world are we Stampeding madly to spend Untold Literally trillions of dollars trying to Ameliorate a problem that we haven't Properly measured like what's going on Here as far as you can tell okay you Have to go back okay the the policy Part has been way out in front of the Scientific course from the very Beginning In the 1980s the U.N environmental
Program You know was looking for something you Know we hate capitalism we don't like The oil companies we like World Government all this kind of thing and They latched on to the climate chain the Globe The CO2 Global warming is what it was called Back then and and this seated you know The night the you the formation of the U.N framework convention on climate Change and there was a treaty signed by 192 nations in 1992 including the U.S Okay this was before we knew anything we Were to avoid dangerous anthropogenic Climate change before we had any idea of Any of this and so that this Frame the Climate problem you know in a very Narrow frame Um Olive climate is now caused by CO2 And by definition warming is dangerous Why was that such an attractive Political hypothesis like why did Politicians decide that in the absence Of this uh you know stringently produced Scientific evidence that the proper Place for the world's political Community to focus was on the Cardinal Danger of global warming that was Anthropogenically produced like what the Hell is going on there especially Because it's so expensive okay well People didn't pay much attention to it
For decades I mean the coyote protocol a Bunch of country in 1997 a bunch of Countries signed on to reduce their Emissions but even the ones who signed On didn't really reduce their emissions And of course the U.S never signed on And reduced its emissions weirdly enough So that's pretty funny I I know and it Wasn't really until the Paris agreement That They came up with you know this more Voluntary thing and then they started Phrasing it and there was a Spate of you Know bad weather Big El Nino and stuff Like that that they latched on to you Know the this extreme you know if we Just got rid of all this the weather Would be nicer we'd get rid of all these Floods and droughts and hurricanes and Whatever else and heat waves that was Plaguing humanity and so people bought That kind of simple argument and then Once that there was a real shift in in 2018 after the Paris agreement you know The rhetoric was um you know climate Crisis climate emergency from the world Leaders the U.N President Obama macron Merkel all of these leaders saying this But in 2018 people started paying Attention and Greta this is when Greta thonberg came Onto the scene and she was she's a Remarkable person and she's wrong a lot Of things but a remarkable person
Nevertheless but but this what she was Doing spawned the sunrise movement Extinction Rebellion all this kind of Stuff and and the journalists Amplified This the climate crisis the climate Emergency 10 years ago climate even 10 years ago Climate change was like really a fringe Topic at journals now major media Outlets have a climate desk you know I Have a whole team of journalists and and There's huge money going into things Like carbon brief things that Focus Specifically on climate change and so It's just exploded and again there's This social contract between the policy Makers the media and the scientists it's Great for the sign there's nobody ten Years ago people with a PhD in climate Science You know what would be trying to get a Post-doc and whatever and now the Universities can't even hang on to them There's so many jobs in the media and The private sector but you know this is Just a hot thing every University now Has some sort of climity Um Department Institute it's just big Business for everybody and so there's This Mutual reinforcement between the The scientists the policy makers and the Media so that's where the positive Feedback loops are that's right right They're on the sociological side yeah
Definitely definitely yeah well it's Quite something to behold so now what Has been the consequences I mean you've Been pilloried I believe I don't believe I'm overstating this you've been Pilloried or satirized as a sort of Fringe figure on the client denial front I think that's fair to say and it's Pretty easy to smear someone with Tactics like that and it's Psychologically very effective I mean What has it you you know you said you Rose to public prominence partly because You formulated an argument at least to Begin with that was that could be Latched onto by the climate apocalypse And quite effectively and but then you You you produced all sorts of other Material Um mitigating producing a mitigated view What's being the consequence for you of Of being involved in this okay let me Tell you what my sin was People don't object to my science I mean I'm I'm within you know The likely range of the ipcc for the Most part on the low end but you know I It's not Fringe perspectives and I Commonly cite the ipcc What happened the the reason I was Shuffled off into denier Camp is because I criticized the behavior Of climate scientists I criticize the Ipcc
For some ethical violations as well as Not paying enough attention to Uncertainty so that was my sin okay I Offended and criticized the grand pubas Of the climate community and then I was Very quick and most importantly in was It 2011 I criticized Michael Mann's Um hockey stick Um on my blog and then he started Calling me a denier and that was really The beginning of the end so my sin yeah So let's talk about that terminology for A second just so everybody knows so this Is quite the rhetorical move on the part Of the climate the the climate purveyors Of apocalyptic doom and so we already Established in our society broadly Speaking in the west that to object to The idea that the Holocaust was a Historical reality puts you outside the Pale of normative and reasonable Political discussion and so you can be a Holocaust denier and if you are such a Creature then you're lumped in with the Nazis and put on the shelf for no Further contact right you're you've You've entered the realm of the Reprehensible now one of the most Effective rhetorical moves of the people Who are making a great living or putting Themselves forward morally as climate Apocalyptic doomsayers was to Target People who objected to their views with Terminology that was derived directly
From that rhetorical move so now if You're a climate change denier the Connotation is you occupy the same Category morally as people who refuse to Believe on the grounds of their Appalling anti-Semitism and their blind Historical ignorance that the Holocaust Was a historical reality and so in some Sense there's no real difference between Labeling someone a climate change denier And labeling labeling them a Nazi Enabler and the rhetorical move was Designed precisely to produce that Outcome and so I'm not I'm not a big fan Of that kind of return Oracle move and Let's talk about Michael Mann for a Second too now because a lot of people Listening and watching they're not going To know what that hockey stick graph was And they don't know what Cardinal role The Scandal around that graph has Produced in the in the discussion so do You want to walk through the hockey Stick graph a little bit okay if you go Back to 2001 this was the release of the Third assessment report from the ipcc And Sir John Houghton who was the head Of the ipcc was giving the press release And the backdrop behind him was this Image a curve that looked like a hockey Stick which was meant to portray that You know the climate was very stable for The last thousand years and all of a Sudden you've got this big uptick
You know that is caused by humans okay And this was Um based on the work of Michael Mann who Was a recent PhD this was his post-doc Work Um before the ink was dry on his PhD he Was appointed um a lead author of The Ipcc which was a fairly unusual move to A point that's an insane move let me let Everybody watching and listening no like You're a PhD is the is putting your foot In the or your toe in the water of Scientific endeavor So I mean so Judith has 190 Publications And just so those you were listening no Generally speaking a PhD thesis requires Approximately as much work as three Scientific Publications if it's a high Quality PhD and so when you get your PhD Um you've you've entered the domain of Genuine scientific contribution the PHD Is actually a marker of that and if you Do a postdoc that means that you you Have the opportunity to to do a little Bit more research work to establish your Credibility now as a more independent Researcher who isn't dependent on the Ideas of your supervisor so you're a Neophyte you're a beginner when you do a PhD in a postdoc and maybe you're you Have to do one or maybe two and then Maybe you can get hired as a junior Professor but you're by no means at the Peak of your career and it's very very
Rare for initiatory research that might Be done at the PHD level to be regarded As canonical unless you're a Nobel Prize-winning you know genius by the Scientific community and so the fact That man's work got so much attention Even though it was done at this initial Level of scientific investigation I mean That doesn't speak to its validity but My point is it's an aberration in the in The process and it also points to this Problem we discussed earlier of time Frame I mean when you construct graphs You can play with their psychological Impact and all sorts of inappropriate Ways you can expand and contract the Time frame you can expand and contract The scale on the left and you can make What's really a small effect across some Historical span of time look big by Playing with the with the scale and you Can make up an effect that isn't very Large temporally speaking by shrinking The time scale of evaluation and so the Man's graph showed this uptick in Climate transformation that was Attendant on human industrial activity But he picked a very narrow time frame And a very particularized scale so that This maximized the psychological impact Of the graph and so but that does bring Us to this problem of time scale it's Like well and variability how much has Things changed over ten thousand years
Like what's the right time scale here And that's a very difficult problem well But the issues of the hockey stick were Not so much That Um The the trigger the hockey stick trigger The important one is around 2 000 right After that this was viewed by a mining Engineer Um Steve McIntyre's at hockey stick Hockey stick I've seen these things this Is usually a con game trying to get Somebody to buy mining stocks he says You know then he got intrigued he wanted To look at the data so he asked for the Data they gave him some of it and he and Um Ross McKittrick Canadian economics professor took a look At this and they found all sorts of Errors you know mishandling of data Inappropriate statistical methods on and On it goes and Man went after these guys big time Rather than you know Constructively trying to deal with these Criticisms he went after these guys and Has turned into a pretty big flame war And then McIntyre and McKittrick Published two additional papers in 2005 And the controversy you know was just Explosive there were Congressional Hearings on this and on and on it went So it was this huge controversy and
These climate gate emails that were Released in 2009 revealed all sorts of Skull dodgery you know trying to keep Data away from McIntyre and McKittrick Um trying to Put pressure on Journal editors not to Publish their papers and on and on it Goes and and you know and so this was Revealed in climate gate So those were murder egregious sins than Just picking a convenient time frame and A convenience scale oh yeah yeah but but There is a graphical issue and this is Was the theme of my blog post hiding the Decline so the Paleo climate record just You know showed these little Oscillations and to get that sort of Hockey stick piece they spliced on the Observational record on top of that okay And It wasn't clear in the ipcc report that Was that was done it was sort of in some Sort of a footnote or an 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 go into that more detail I don't Understand exactly what what was done There okay you see the handle okay if You look at the actual pre the tree ring Rate data that went into their analysis It was just like The flat handle in order to get the Blade the uptick of the blade they
Spliced on the historical temperature Record completely different data set oh Oh I see because the tree rings weren't Showing this uptick Um this is a so-called hide the decline Um and so you know to me this is Something Without doing that is a bad idea but Doing that without explaining it is Uh marginal and and This is known in some circles Subsequently would be given a label as Image fraud Um and so this is what I wrote my blog Post about and I wasn't particularly Attacking man because he wasn't the only Person involved in this little Um Deception But You know this got a lot of attention and Apparently Michael Mann was unhappy and Pretty soon after that you know he was Calling me denier on Twitter and then I Started appearing on all these Misinformer lists and by 2012 you know I Was firmly established as a denier and And this the the the Society of Environmental journalists put together a A list a description of all the climate Blogs and my blog was under the list of Denier blogs and the description says Unlike most other denier blogs Curry is A real scientist she looks at both sides
Of the issues digs deeps into the issues Discusses the uncertainties and all this Other stuff and I said well that's a Beautiful description of my blog but why Did they accept prima facie that my blog Is a denier Blog I mean it just shows How pervasive and how stupid this whole Thing was so I you know I got tossed Into the denier camp Um I don't align myself With either side you know I I Preciously fought for my Independence Which included resigning my academic Position so you know I think for myself I think deep I look at the evidence make Judgments Um and it's mostly about trying to Better characterize uncertainties and What we don't know this is a key part of Rational policy making is to understand The uncertainties and what we don't know We'll be back in one moment first we Wanted to give you a sneak peek at Jordan's new series Exodus So the Hebrews created history as we Know it Don't get away with anything and so you Might think you can bend the fabric of Reality and that you can treat people Instrumentally and that you can bow to The Tyrant and violate your conscience Without cost you will pay the piper it's Going to call you out of that slavery Into Freedom even if that pulls you into
The desert And we're going to see that there's Something else going on here that is far More Cosmic and deeper than what you can Imagine the highest Spirit to which we're beholden is Presented precisely as that spirit that Allies itself with the cause of Freedom Against tyranny I want villains to get Punished but do you want the villains to Learn before they have to pay the Ultimate price that's such a Christian Question Well we've got we've got a three-fold Problem here by the sounds of things in Some real sense I mean the first problem Is kind of a positive feedback loop that You alluded to is that a lot of Attention was paid to this potential Issue a lot of money was put into Funding investigation into it that Incentivized the growth of a huge Scientific Enterprise that incentivized People who were primarily motivated by The money including the 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 a an environmentally apocalyptic Story and then you could imagine that's Amplified by the fact that Reporting that there's no problem on the Climate front is not something that's
Going to produce an attention-grabbing Headline especially in the era of Declining attention being played to paid To Legacy Media outlets and so we know Perfectly well that human beings are Much more sensitive to negative Information comparatively speaking than To positive information and that you can Attract attention with a story of gloom And threat much more effectively than One that states there's no story here at All or something positive so that's a Big problem and then the third problem I Would say is that it's easy for venal And narcissistic politicians and that's Not all of them to latch on to a Convenient money generating apocalyptic Nightmare to put themselves forward as White Knights on the moral front and to Pull the wool over the eyes and maybe Even their own eyes in relationship to Whether or not they're making any Practical progress in the actual world And so there's a situation where we have A set of positive feedback loops right Operating in sociological space that are Producing a kind of Chicken Little Outcome and so we're running around Claiming that the sky is falling and Dumping tilting our economic systems in A dangerous Direction and spending Untold hundreds of billions of dollars Addressing a problem that is ill-defined And likely nowhere near of the magnitude
That we think it is and so and then I I Want to I want to follow that with uh I Tried to make a strong case for why you Might be regarded with a certain degree Of apprehension From the perspective of the climate Apocalypse but I'm also curious about This the piece of data that has really Emerged as most striking to me On the environmental front over the last 20 years is the recent observations They've been going on for about five Years or ten years perhaps that one of The consequences of it except extra Carbon dioxide output is that the planet Has greened 15 since the dawn of the Millennia and That most of that Greening has taken Place in what would have otherwise been Semi-arid and rather denuded areas and So I don't see a statistic on the Anti-carbon front that's as powerful Negatively as the statistic that the Planet is 15 Greener and that our crops Are also in a consequence quite a lot More productive on the pro carbon Dioxide front so you know you made the Claim earlier that maybe we're in for a Period of cooling that's within the Error predictions of the models but I Would like to say well why shouldn't I Look at the fact that the planet has got 15 percent greener in 15 years that's an Area bigger than the United States and
Say well why are we so sure that carbon Dioxide output is a bad thing at all I mean some of the people who are Initially hypothesized about the Greenhouse effect were quite effusive in Their predictions that this would Produce a Greener more Lush and more Productive World a more habitable world So is is it is it unreasonable to put That forward as a proposition Um Again the apocalypse types are pushing Extreme weather events as being caused By warming you know the Hurricanes the Pakistan flooding the heat waves you Know unusual this that and the other This is what they're pushing as being Caused by warming you know it's Conceivable that there is some Element Of contribution From fossil fuel warming to this but It's because of the large Amount of natural weather and climate Variability it's impossible to discern I Mean if we were to immediately stop Emitting fossil fuels We probably wouldn't notice any change In the weather you know throughout the Rest of the 21st Century So the this is the key error in logic That people have been made well I mean It's It's not an error in logic it's a it's a
Very effective selling point for the Alarmist but people have bought it and People have weather Amnesia I mean if You just look back to the 50s to the the 1950s to the 1930s or whatever the Weather was much worse certainly in North America Um so it's just something that doesn't Make sense does that mean we should just Keep amping up the fossil fuel emissions No we just really don't quite understand The consequences of this but but neither Does it imply that we should um Urgently Reduce emissions and disrupt the global Energy systems that will make people Less off and you know less well-off and More vulnerable to whatever extreme Weather and climate events might happen To occur so so we're hurting ourselves But we're not doing much in the way of Reducing emissions anyways And we're just making ourselves less Prosperous and more vulnerable so To extreme weather events well okay so There's there's two consequences of that I would say is the first is if we do Make people less well off by making Energy much more expensive by Restricting fossil fuel use like Unreasonably let's say or by not Pursuing nuclear power for example as an Alternative the major consequence of That will be that a lot of poor people
Who are right on the edge and there's Lots of them are poorer than they need To be and will be you know off the edge And the consequence of that is as you Already pointed out that if anything Untoward does happen on the weather Front they're going to be much more Vulnerable to that like I mean Distinguishing between infrastructure Inadequacy and whether catastrophe is Very very difficult even when Katrina Hit New Orleans you could say that it Was a natural disaster but you could Also say it was an abject failure of Planning because the Army Corps of Engineer dikes were only designed to Withstand a one in a hundred year storm Whereas when the watch Bill Dykes they Designed them to withstand a one in ten Thousand year storm so whether that was A natural disaster or a consequence of Human foolishness is not precisely Obvious and the same thing applies on The energy front you know if we Impoverish the already poor by making Energy expensive not only do we expose Them to much more risk to life and limb Let's say in property but we also Decrease the probability that those Self-same people are going to be able to Take an environmentally oriented view Because the data indicates that if you Can get people up to producing or Benefiting from economic growth to the
Tune of about five thousand dollars a Year in average GDP then they start to Take a medium to long-term view of the Future and start to attend much more Carefully to what you might describe as Environmental concerns So panicking about climate in the way That we're doing if the consequence is To raise Energy prices and impoverish People looks like it's going to kill More people first because they'll be More vulnerable and second that it's Going to make it's going to deliver us Far fewer people who are capable of Taking the kind of medium to long-term View of sustainability that would be Actually beneficial to producing a a More livable planet and I still want to Ask your opinion about The Greening Um yeah the greetings happening I think It's attributed mostly to carbon dioxide But also more rainfall and warmer Temperatures I mean Health Um so so The Greening is definitely a Benefit Um That The Greening is happening over a big big Portion of the globe actually Um so it's um it's clearly a benefit Um well it's also so perverse eh because One of the it's it's perverse is the Fact that the Americans decreased their Carbon output by returning to fracking
Nobody predicted that but here we have a Situation where not only is the planet Not getting Browner and drier which was The apocalyptic apocalyptic Vision but Many of the areas that were really Brown And dry like the southern edge of the Sahara Desert are actually seeing the Ingress of vegetation in a manner that's Well unprecedented even up to 15 years Ago and so you know not only is that not What was predicted it's the very Opposite of what's predicted and it's It's it's the opposite in a in a very Very massive manner I mean 15 percent Increase in and Greening is just it's Almost beyond comprehension as I said That's an area bigger than the Continental United States and and then To say as well that that's also produced Quite an increment in the productivity Of human crops and enabled us to grow More food in less area it's like that's Those are facts that need to be taken With dead seriousness they're very Positive perhaps I mean you could argue That maybe that rate of vegetation Change brings with it threats that we Haven't yet envisioned and that could be The case but nonetheless this it Certainly isn't the spreading of the Deserts that we were led to be Apprehensive of Um well that's correct again the framing Of this that going back to 1992 was
Around dangerous Anthropogenic interference in the Climate system so the focus was on Dangers they were looking for dangers The benefits you know weren't even Acknowledged Until Maybe the fifth assessment report in the Ipcc I mean everything they were just Looking for dangers Um that there was no counterweight of The benefits so right right and no cost Benefit analysis analysis I mean I've Talked to Bjorn lomberg a lot and the Reason for that was that well I looked Through all the data that you're Describing for a long period of time one Of the things that struck me Instruct me as well about the Multiplicity of goals that the UN was Hypothetically pursuing was that no one Was assessing these risks and benefits In any systematic manner ranking them And then I came across Lombard's work And he tried to do a cost-benefit Analysis looking at our capacity to Adapt and ranking the problems that face Us in terms of their severity and also What we could do about those problems in Some effective Manner and like Lumber Like you accepts the ipcc Prognostications of a mild warming Trend Over the next hundred years but he's Done calculations showing that the net
Consequence of that even if it is uh Somewhat detrimental economically if we Factor all those costs into account is That we'll be less more Rich than we Would otherwise be right because our GDP Is going to 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'll be slightly less than 400 Percent and that it's clear that we can Manage that in any real sense and that We're very good at adapting to a huge Range of weather other situations and And climate scenarios some of us live in Damn near Arctic conditions and other People live in the desert and so it's Not outside the realm of human Adaptation to adapt to a one or two Degree climate transformation and Animals should be able to do the same Assuming that we don't you know that We're reasonably intelligent on the Environmental Conservation front and so I don't know do are you aware of Laurenburg's work Oh yeah no I've Bjorn and I are in close Contact and I'm very well aware of what He's doing and he's doing a very good Job of making those points Um you know the thing that you know the UN has the 17 sustainability goals I Think the first one is to um Eliminate poverty the second one is to
Eliminate hunger maybe number seven is Um Energy affordable energy for all the Number 13 is climate action And you've got to wonder how did climate Action even one piece of that which is You know elimination of fossil fuels Come to Trump Um Pot elimination of poverty and Elimination of hunger development aid From the U.N from the World Bank and Whatever is now focused on mitigation The traditional objectives of Economic Development and help with adaptation Those are put on the back burner That's insane this is making people less Well-off and we're squandering Opportunities for human development and You know in for senseless Objectives that aren't expected to Improve anyone's life over the course of The 21st century and could very well Make us all worse off okay so well well So this is part of the Incomprehensibility of this to me Because it looks to me like a lot of the Arguments for example that would force Us to take the apocalyptic Prognostications of the doomsayer Seriously the moral arguments go Something like this well you know A hundred years if there's a lot of Climate change
It's primarily going to be the world's Poor who pay the largest price for that The world's poor and oppressed and to Mitigate against that we have to adopt Policies that however painful they are In the short term will mitigate against That because of our concern for the Long-term viability of let's say these Poverty-stricken people but the problem With that is that the models aren't very Reliable and it's absolutely 100 percent Certain that if we raise Energy prices Which we have been doing quite Effectively and food prices we're going To make life much more difficult for Impoverished people throughout the Developing world right now and in a way That's going to kill plenty of people And it's certainly going to deprive many Others of educational opportunity and Nutritional nutritional optimal Nutritional input and all of that 100 Certain that's going to occur but the Moral the morale moral aspect is well we Shouldn't be doing things that would Endanger those people who are oppressed And poor but the call policies we're Pursuing do precisely that so I again I I'm still left with this complete Incapacity to understand how this can Possibly be the case I I don't get it Because there's lots of other things we Could be doing Well um leaders in Africa are quite
Outspoken they're on the front lines of Being the victims of all this they refer To Green colonialism energy apartheid You know that they're facing 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 plenty 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 that they're able to do is sell Their fuel To Europe so Europe we're exploiting Them doubly by taking their fuel but not Allowing you know it's Politically Incorrect for these Banks to uh fund the Development of power plants so Africans To develop their own economy it's just Evil and I think green colonialism and Energy apartheid are perfect descriptors For what's going on well it's it's just It's just again it leaves me open most In amazement that we in the developed World with our functional economies and Our high level of luxury and security Can say to developing Worlds the Developing World well you know we've got It pretty good here and we're probably Willing to cut back a little bit but you Guys down there in the developing Countries you know you should be pretty Damn careful about your carbon output Because you know we've only got one
Planet and so it isn't really obvious That any of you should have the same Kind of benefits that we have the planet Can't sustain that level of luxury and Security and so we're just not going to Let you have any money We're not going to help you develop your Economy so that you can benefit from the Same Industrial Revolution that have That has that has that has enabled us to Educate our children and to have plenty To eat and to be warm in the winter and Cool in the summer and then what's all Even more Preposterous is it's the very People who are constantly clamoring About the oppressive nature of Western Culture who are foisting this very story On these developed countries yeah the Irony is that even if the African Nations We're given you know the 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 like five or six Percent of global emissions and this is For like a billion people in the Population So we're not talking about a lot of Extra emissions to allow them to develop I mean it just makes absolutely no sense And it's evil it's absolutely evil yeah Yeah yeah yeah that's that's how it Looks to me too well I'm glad to hear
That you're you regard Lombard as a Credible oh absolutely a commentator on Such things well you know I've looked I've looked across a wide variety of Political and scientific thinkers over a 20-year period trying to identify people That I believe to be credible on the Interface between economic development And energy and Environmental Management And I I like shellenberger Um I think Ella Epstein has some Interesting things to say I like Marion Tupi Um What's there's the the English what's What's his name um Richard told Matt Ridley I think that Ridley is good yeah yeah and so but of All those people I think laurenburg has Done the most credible job and he's also Been given a damn rough ride in the Media I mean he's doing pretty well now I think promoting his message which is a It's such a lovely what he lays out is Such a lovely scenario because he shows How much good we could do in the world Especially with regard to the Amelioration of absolute poverty and the Provision of education at such a tiny Fraction of the amounts of money that Are being devoted to this insane What prevention of a non-existent Climate apocalypse and well you know I've been doing everything I can for
Whatever it's worth to draw attention to His work but uh you know the fact that He's been pilloried like like you've Been pilloried makes it Well there's always a question lurking In the back of my mind it's sort of like Well where there's smoke there's fire if People are constantly being attacked for Their views on moral grounds you know Maybe there's something to that but I Certainly I haven't been able to find That my analysis of your work or Francis I certainly have seen none of that Whatsoever in relationship to lomberg so The mystery Still Remains for me okay They went after lombborg early on you Know 2003 whatever following his book The Skeptical environmentalists and The issue Was That he didn't regard you know the Reduction of fossil fuel emissions as The be-all and end-all you know there Were more important things to do and for That he got labeled you know that that Was a very dangerous perspective because They were just so set on this one Particular policy Um yeah for reasons for poorly Justified Reasons and for reasons that became Harder to justify as time went on and They're still stuck on this and it just Defies logic and it's 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 Problem with lamberg's work Fundamentally and this is the problem With marketing it too is that he offers A multivariate and multi-dimensional Analysis of the problems besetting the World he says well we don't just have One problem climate apocalypse we have Like 100 problems and then we have the Problem of how to rank order these Problems and then we have the problem of Generating actual Solutions and Assessing them and that's actually Requires a lot of cognitive effort you Know to walk through those and so and But where if you're a climate apocalypse You can reduce the entire panoply of Human problems to one problem and then You can put yourself forward as a moral Person by just saying well I'm Definitely concerned about the fate of The planet and that's all anybody Reasonable should be concerned about and Because I'm concerned in that manner I'm A fully credible and reputationally Remarkable person and that's part of the Psychological proclivity that is is Behind this okay and so everything bad That happens someone finds a path to Blame it on climate change Okay yeah and the media amplifies it and This gives politicians an easy out so
Rather than dealing with their real Problems you know Poor land use poor regulations poor Whatever inadequate infrastructure Whatever might be the cause of their Actual problems they simply blame it on Global warming and so that it gives them An easy out Yeah I read an article yesterday that Climate change was increasing the risk That women were being abused in their Homes Just a classic example you know I mean You know you could make the case that Whatever produces economic instability Is going to raise the roots you know the Rates of abuse but to link it directly To climate change is a really egregious Example of exactly the kind of thing That you're describing all right well Look on we're out of time on this Segment I'm going to talk to Dr Curry For an additional half an hour on the Daily wire plus platform for those of You who are watching and listening you Might be interested in that where I'm Going to talk about the development of Her interest in in her scientific Endeavors and and in her entrepreneurial Endeavors as well Hello everyone I would encourage you to Continue listening to my conversation With my guest on dailywireplus.com
