The Highwire with Del Bigtree - JUDITH CURRY, PHD.: IN THE EYE OF THE ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’ STORM

Episode Date: March 9, 2024

Disgusted Climate Scientist, Judith Curry, PhD, once one of the strongest scientific voices in the race to fight global warming, has now been labeled a “climate contrarian”. Hear the data behind this marked reversal and why she believes the “climate change crisis” is politically motivated.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-highwire-with-del-bigtree--3620606/support.

There is so many levels of corruption now. It's getting to the point where I question all of the science I grew up reading. How much of it was real? How much of it was like really like got through the scientific method, the gauntlet of challenge, right? A hypothesis should be challenged by all those that say, hey, hold on a second. I think you got this wrong and here's why. Medical journals that go back and forth and you get to see the argument between scientists. As we've shown you, that doesn't happen anymore. Now the paper just gets retracted.

Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter if you just disagree with the hypothesis. Now it needs to be taken down. There's so many parts of this science that is starting to affect us. And one of them is climate change. What is the science behind climate change? We're told it's irrefutable, ad nauseum. Every single day sounds like this. The federal government is full speed ahead to confront the climate change emergency. Climate change is literally an existential threat to our nation and to the world. The UN's latest most in-depth scientific report on climate change warns, the dangers are immediate and growing more acute. Many things trigger migraines, but Dr. Cohen says often patients blame the weather,

and extreme conditions fueled by climate change are now an increasing concern. Passengers were thrown out of their seats after the airplane encountered severe turbulence. Spokesperson for a flight attendants union said this. Severe weather increases chances of turbulence and due to climate change, these kinds of incidents will only continue to grow. Climate change, specifically higher temperatures, is making our children more inactive and more obese. Dr. Santosh Pandapati is also helping his pregnant patients deal with climate-related crisis.

For the past two decades, Dr. Pandapati, Dr. Pandipati has studied and lectured on the evidence that proves climate change can impact pregnancy. When you look at mothers who have been pregnant and then subjected to natural disaster, there is significant mental health harms, anxiety, depression, PTSD. There are so many different things that can dampen your sex drive. You're tired, you have a headache, the kids are bugging you. And now here's another one to add to the list, global warming. That's right, climate change can kill your motion.

Joe. Climate change is having a disproportionate effect on the physical and mental health of black communities. Black Americans are more likely than white Americans to live in areas in housing that increase their susceptibility to climate-related health issues. This morning a new study suggests one reason why sluggers may be hitting it out of the park a little bit more often, climate change. When temperatures rise, the air gets less dense, meaning that there is less air resistance for balls flying through the air. Climate activist Greta Tunberg was arrested yesterday while protesting at an oil facility in Sweden. Two young activists throwing soup onto one of the world's most famous paintings, Bango's Sunflowers.

Are you more concerned about the protection of a painting or the protection of our planet and people? Climate activists glued their hands to sports cars to protest the automotive industry. I'm also going to bring out 96 other scientists. Climate skeptic, please make a case against climate change. Well, I just don't think all the science is in. It's subtle. Okay, and what is the overwhelming view of the entire scientific community? Okay, okay.

Any response to that? Any response? I can't hear you. Amongst the scientists that have been a part of this conversation on climate change is Judith Curry. Many years ago in 2005, she presented. She published an article that got a lot of publicity. Changes in tropical cyclone number duration, intensity in a warming environment. It went on, got picked up by many different circulating the story.

It's a new era of hurricanes, experts, string of intense storms as part of normal cycle. And then Peter Webster and Judith Curry documented a 60% global jump in major hurricanes. As this story went along, she became the darling of really the environmental environmental movement. In local talk, expert linked storms to global warming. We're going up against a natural cycling as being exacerbated by global warming, Kuri said. We're only partway up the cycling. We're already 50% higher in numbers and intensity of storms than the peak of the last cycle. The key is global warming. Now, because of these statements, she was lauded and a part of the entire group that were really pushing this idea.

But then eventually enough science started pouring through the door, saying, I think you should look at something else. Look at our data. Hurricane debates shatter civility of weather science. I think this is just a year later in 2006. Dr. Gray hasn't been shy about firing back at his critics after Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, co-wrote a paper linking global warming and hurricane intensity. He said, Judy Curry just doesn't know what she's talking about. So unlike many of the scientists that we see these days, instead of cooking the books or instead of working on a way to make it still work, she looked at all the science, all of the data, and slowly but surely started coming to different conclusions.

And since then, this is what she looks like in our news. We're now now climateologist Judith Curry. Judith Curry. To now recognize Dr. Curry. president of climate forecast applications networks. The author of a new book called Climate Uncertainty and Risk, Rethinking Our Response. I'm devoted four decades to conducting research related to extreme weather events in climate change.

What passes for climate science is really very political. I mean, the policy card has been way out in front of the scientific course from the very beginning on this issue. Sure, humans are influencing the climate to some extent. to some extent, but natural climate variability is far and away the dominant factor. The sense that extreme weather events are now more frequent or intense because of man-made global warming is symptomatic of weather amnesia. Even the IPCC acknowledges that there's very little relationship between extreme weather and the

warming trend. Between 2012 and 2018, the tornadoes were way below average. And then all of a sudden we get one bad year and it's global warming. The oversimplistic story that were being fed by UN officials and by activists and advocates is just misleading us into a bad direction. I started criticizing scientists for not making their data publicly available, for not being transparent about their method. They quickly started labeling as a denier and tried to discredit me. Anybody who speaks up in opposition to this established UN narrative gets ignored, marginalized, cancelled, insulted and so on.

It happens every single year. Judy disagrees with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. She's an expert. She disagrees with the American scientific establishment. She's out on her own on this. She's not on her own. There are hundreds of hundreds of to agree with it. Climate media has become big business.

10 years ago, there were only a handful of journalists on the climate beat. Now, each major media outlet has dozens of reporters covering climate. This mad rush to tearing down nuclear gas and coal plants and replacing them with wind and solar has proven to be a fiasco. We're going to end up in a worse place at the end of the 21st century. Well, Judith Curry has written a book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk. We're thinking our response. This is a fantastic book.

I'm honored to be joined by Judith now. Thank you. Well, thank you. I'm delighted to be here with you today. It's really good to have you. I want to, you know, you sort of come full circle in some ways, but I want to just get something out of the way up front. Do you consider yourself an environmentalist? Well, I'm an old-style environmentalist.

You know, I care about clean air, clean water, clean sun. soil and preserving habitats for wildlife. And I try to minimize my personal impact on the environment. Okay, but when it comes to these issues, like this global warming phenomenon that's being used to really create hysteria, this is where, you know, obviously you're finding yourself in a much different space. Well, I mean, two things.

I look at the science. This is a very complex problem, climate change. There's a great deal we don't understand. There's a great deal of uncertainty, so we need to be honest about that. And we also have to look at broader issues. I mean, there's 3 billion people on the planet who don't have access to grid electricity. We need to think about them too. So both the scientific and the social issues surrounding climate change are not at all straightforward

or simple. Take me back this moment where you know you look at some science and you come to this conclusion that hurricane the severity of hurricanes is increasing I heard this a ton at that time and I mean I still hear it that is you know this the weather is getting worse because of climate What you know when you wrote that paper? And people started pushing back What made you change your mind or what made you see it differently? Well what happened there? Well, what we did was really novel for the the first time we pulled together a global hurricane data looking at all the hurricanes for the entire globe and what we found was rather astonishing. The percent of category four and

five hurricanes had increased very substantially. And so this got a lot of publicity. It was published two weeks after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. Obviously got a lot of publicity. And, you know, people, you know, the environmental movement lauded us, but some other people came after us big time. These were climate global warming skeptics. There was some scientists from the National Hurricane Center. And, you know, we listened to what everybody had to say. And one of the key points was that in a lot of the ocean regions, the data just wasn't any good in the 70s. and early 80s.

Okay, so we had some spurious trends. You know, we need to go back and take a look and throw out the bad data. And we need to do a more careful interpretation of natural climate variability, which is what we did. I mean, some of the criticisms were stupid, but those were the two that, you know, had some weight. And we went back and took another look and revisited all this. You know, the hurricane wars after flaring up, you know, were over in nine months, you know, because people on both sides of the debate decided to work together and figure it out.

So then, you know, so you realize there's a shift. That's a normal processor it used to be in science, right? Exactly. You know, disagreement and debate is what moves the scientific frontier forward. I mean, anything that you find has to be put up for challenges. And we got lots of challenges and, you know, a few of them stuck and we revised our, the way we looked at the problem. Now, how did that affect your career? Like once you came out and said, I'm changing my mind on this?

That was fine. It was okay. Okay? No, it was okay. I actually backed off. I was exhausted from the media attention. And I backed off from the public debate and went back to. you know, mostly doing my work.

I mean, people were generally okay with it. Okay, so there was a time where we had a conversation. So now why, when I watch the news, are you being called a climate denier? Okay, well, this goes to November of 2009, the so-called Climate Gate emails. Okay. I mean, this was the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia. a number of IPCC authors, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And this revealed all sorts of...

So this is the IPCCC. So what year are we talking about? 2009, you said. 2009. So in 2009, this intergovernment agency comes together to just look at climate change. Take me through it. What was the plan? Okay.

This is the UN Climate Assessment Report. They started in 2001. Okay. Okay, and the fourth assessment report was published in 2007. Okay, and these emails reflected what a number of IPCC authors were doing behind the scenes. Okay, they were trying to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. They were trying to rig the peer review process. Let's talk about what the discovery was that was now being challenged by these emails.

So tell me about the hockey stick, this idea of the hockey stick. this idea of the hockey stick graph. Okay, well, in the, in 2001, the third assessment report, the hockey stick graph sort of was heavily promoted by the IPCC. This is it. We're looking at it here, showing sort of the past thousand years, and then right there coming into 2000, you see this massive spike.

It goes up the red line, especially that lower one. You can see it. It just seems to go up through the roof. And this was extremely surprising because everybody who studied this issues knew that there was a medieval warm period about a thousand years ago and a little ice age about 500 years ago and all of this was flattened out. So that wasn't in there, which sent a few red flags. But how important was this graph? How much did it affect the science of the world? Okay, well, when the chairman of the IPCC did the press release for this report,

he was standing there with the hockey stick icon right behind him. This was Sir John Houghton of the UK. I mean, this was featured. I mean, there it is. And this was prematurely canonized by the IPCC. It was a very preliminary piece of research with, it turned out a lot of sort of shoddy assumptions that went into it. But it was all of a sudden canonized,

and it became an icon for the entire global war. So from that moment on, this, this, you know, spike going, oh my God, we have a heating event like we've never seen in history. So now we, this is the Greta Thornburg. This is, we're all going to die. The earth is heating at rates we've never thought about. And but then 2009, suddenly the emails inside start popping up. I have a couple of them. I'll read them right here.

Let's just look at these emails. Oh, there's so much fun. All right. This is reported by the Guardian, parliamentary climate emails inquire as it happened. This is one, dear Ray, Mike, and Malcolm, I've just completed Mike's nature trick of adding in the real temps in each series for the last 20 years from 1981 onwards and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land in marine values while the other two got April through September for NH land. So just to understand when we look at that graph that then turns out in a hockey stick, apparently the graph is all using one kind of data, but then he inserts a different data group in the end?

Well, it's even worse than that because the first data set, the paleo-climate data set, the tree ring from 1960 to 1980, it didn't show any increase in temperature. at all, it actually showed a decrease in temperature. So they just cut off that data and spliced on the instrumental record. And so for people to understand this, when we're looking at this data that was used, they're using tree ring data, however you read that data over years, and can go back the life of these trees, and see these cooling and warming trends.

But suddenly that data gives us what our past is, But when it stops showing what we want to show, they cut it off and then they start inserting because now it's the 1980s. We have temperature gauges. Let's add the current temperature gauge stuff onto the end of a tree model and suddenly everything changes. That's exactly what was done and that's something that we would now label as image fraud. You can't do that sort of thing in science. I mean, you know, for the layperson, it's like, well, okay, but that's It's really fraud.

It's very misleading. Yeah. It's something, you can't do that. I mean, it's... And if they hadn't done that, what would we have actually seen in the graph? Maybe you've seen a lot of wiggles that sort of went nowhere. Okay. So they created alarm.

There's another email that came from inside of this. Let's take a look at this. I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data. the proxy data, but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don't have a lot of proxies that come right up to date. And those that do, at least a significant number of tree proxies, some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming. I do not think it is wise that this issue be ignored in the chapter. So this is inside the IPCC. You've got someone saying, I don't think we should do this. Exactly. And if we're going to do it, we better

tell people we're doing it, right, that we are manipulating this data. We're supposed to supposed to be an international body of scientists coming together. Isn't transparency the most important part of science? Absolutely. Very essential. But obviously this guy is getting overruled that wrote this email, and so they decide to just roll with it. And from that moment, to me, you say it's misleading.

It seems like fraud. You're not telling people that you manipulated a study. and at the heart of this, really, at the heart of this to understand it is, really the tree data is not very good data. Is that what we can say? Yeah, tree rings make a lousy thermometer. Okay. So looking back, and we could say it might have been doing this,

and we just can't see it. It's doing this and didn't do much even when it was getting warm. We know it's getting warm, but we don't know if it's the first time, the trees aren't seeing it, right? What we know is if we're going to use the trees in the past and use the trees now, the trees aren't seeing the, heat that we're seeing right now. And so we really shouldn't be using this as our understanding of the past temperature issues. Is that? Yeah, pretty much, yeah. Okay. So now, but once this

information comes out in 2009, you would think there's a whole mea copa moment. Well, it wasn't. It was just a big moment of circling the wagons and trying to protect the people who wrote the the emails, the people, you know, trying to protect the IPCC. I spoke up. Okay. Okay. I was concerned about three things. I was concerned about the integrity of science.

I was concerned about what does this mean for the IPCC. But mostly I was concerned about the students. You know, what kind of an example does this present for them? You know, it was terrible. So I wrote... I mean, you're supposed to be the best of the best. I know. I mean, if you're going through school and you're going to be a climate scientist,

you're imagining this IPCCC. This is the best of the best. Yeah, so I wrote three essays, okay, and the three points I had, we need to make our data publicly available. We need to be completely transparent about our methods. Second point was we need to be honest about the uncertainties, about what we don't know, and we shouldn't be overconfident in our conclusions. And the third point was that we need to be respectful of people who disagree with, you know, and pay attention to them, not just try to attack them and marginalize them. Sounds like motherhood and apple pie.

Yeah. Well, the New York Times picked up one of my essays, so there are people out there who were interested in it. But, you know, the important people, the grand poobas of the climate movement, if you will, were horrified at what I'd done. And here I was single-handedly working to tear down this consensus that they'd manufactured for decades surrounding this whole thing. And so they didn't sort of know what to do with me. They were trying to get journalists to ignore me and people to ignore me. And then Michael Mann, the author of the hockey stick paper, came up with the idea, well,

just called Judith Curry a denier. Okay, throw her in the pile with all the scientific cranks and the oil companies and then we can ignore her And this took off like wildfire. You know, everybody just started calling me a climate denier You know even the scientists themselves. This isn't just journalists? No, not the scientists. Okay, no I mean very few science actual scientists would call me a denier But in the media and politicians social media mainstream media even like in the Washington Post or something if they would mention me, they would say, well-known climate denier, Judith Curry. I mean, it was just part of the vernacular.

You know, I became labeled as a climate denier. To this day, I have no idea exactly what it is I'm supposed to be denying. Right, you're just pointing out that we should be transparent with our science. Exactly. I mean, do you imagine that part of that is to sort of threaten anybody else that would consider speaking out and being transparent? Oh, yeah. I mean, people get scientists now get called a denier more for social. reasons rather than for their position on the science. You can get called a denier if you prefer

nuclear power over wind and solar. Or if you think there are more important problems to be spending your money on than climate change, things like that. Those will get you a scientist labeled a denier as well. Now, let's look at the sort of the conversation we're in. As you said at the top, you know, that you want clean air, water, food. I've said the same thing to my audience. I'm that version of environmentalist, though. I'm letting go. The word freaks me out because it implies all of these other things,

bad science manipulation, government controls that I don't like at all. But as you said, you're doing everything you can to try and make the earth a cleaner place. So let's talk about net zero for a second, you know, people that drive electric cars. My people, my family, my brother is totally dedicated. I mean, has a tiny house, drives an electric car. I mean, I really honor and respect that. I mean, he lives his truth. But is net zero possible?

Maybe, but not in the near term. I mean, maybe in the 22nd century, I would expect our carbon footprint to be a lot lower. But trying to force it by knee-capping, fossil fuel companies, you know, isn't going to get us anywhere we need to go. So, I mean, it's a political, it's the deadlines. The concept of net zero, I mean, it's not impossible. Yeah, but the issue is net zero by 2030 or 2050.

It's the urgency that's put onto it that makes no sense. And, you know, it's not technologically, economically, or politically viable. I mean, we're, you know, spending so much of our resources and mental energy and whatever on something that's just impossible. And really ultimately can be very harmful. And we're ignoring things that we can actually fix, okay, and take care of. What would those be? Well, okay, the first thing you need to do is we have three separate problems that have been all convoluted

into climate change. Okay. First one's extreme weather, and then we have energy, and then we have climate. These are three separate problems. Let's reduce our vulnerability to extreme weather. We've always had extreme weather events. We're having them now, and we will in the future. Heat waves, hurricanes, floods, droughts, let's figure out how to reduce our vulnerability.

Okay. Okay. Everyone's going to benefit now. We don't have to wait for the 22nd century to feel those benefits. Right, we shouldn't be playing. Like we submit all of our energy on the ocean's going to rise and cause all of these problems. Which I mean, how fast is the ocean? By the way, kind of is that?

How fast is it rising? Oh, like about maybe eight inches a century, something like that. Really? It's really slow. Yeah. Okay. And then on the other side is energy. We need to decouple energy from the climate problem.

We need abundant, reliable, secure, inexpensive, and clean if we can manage it. I mean, with all the new things coming online, you know, with artificial intelligence, block change, all of these things, quantum this, we need more and more electricity and wind and solar are not going to cut it. Right. I mean, and to the extent that we're wasting resources on that, we're just basically applying a tourniquet to ourselves in terms of restricting economic development. All the while we have three billion people on the planet, mostly in Africa, who don't

have access to griddle. electricity. I mean, this should be a top priority for the world. So, and then you have climate change, which is relatively benign. We have the slow creep of climate change. Yes, sea level rises increasing a little bit and yes, the glaciers are melting a little bit, but this is happening slowly and we can easily adapt to it. And once you separate those three problems, you know, then you can start to tackle. each one of them in a sensible way. But if you lump all of that

and think we're going to prevent bad weather by using wind and solar power instead of fossil fuels, I mean, that's rather a joke. There's a clip that's been going around. We've played it a couple times of John Kerry in a hearing, and he's confronted by Representative Massey. I want to just take a look at this because I have a question for you.

Watch this. We now know that definitively at no point during the least the past 800,000 years has atmospheric CO2 been as high as it is today. When I was in the South Pole, when I was, I wasn't at the South Pole, when I was in McBirdo, we couldn't get to the South Pole because of the weather, but I was given a vial of air which said on it cleanest air in the world, it was 401.6 parts per million. That is 50 parts per million already over what scientists say. The reason you chose 800,000 years ago is because for 200 million years before that it was

greater than it is today. And I'm going to submit for the record. Yeah, but there weren't human beings. I mean, there was a different world, folks. We didn't have 7 billion people. So how to get to 2,000 parts per million if we humans weren't here? Because there were all kinds of geologic events happening on Earth which spewed up. Did geology stop when we got on the planet?

Mr. Chairman, this is just not a serious conversation. Your testimony is not serious. I mind this to be, and by the way, as an environmentalist, I've been a big fan of John Kerry's, of Al Gore's, I mean, years ago, but this argument to me seems like a pretty good one. Is it a decent argument? Because, I mean, is it true what Massey's saying? Which is, for 200 million years or whatever, the Earth was much hotter, we were was teeming with foliage.

I mean, we just, when we think back of our images of dinosaurs, it's like, it's like Eden, utopia, it's green, it's lush, everything can live. And now we're being told that if the CO2 levels go up, we're all going to die. He makes the point. And Kerry says, but there were no human beings then, which is like, right, then what drove the CO2 up then? I mean, to me, this is one of the best arguments there is. Is there anything wrong with this argument that we're not thinking about?

Well, yeah, not really. I mean, through most of Earth's geologic history, CO2 has been much higher, an order of magnitude higher even. Okay, so, I mean, there's nothing primof a sea wrong with high CO2 in the atmosphere. And CO2 isn't particularly a control knob on surface temperature. I mean, the Earth's surface temperature wasn't enormously hotter when temperatures were, when CO2 concentrations, worth 3,000 parts per million. Wow. So, I mean, it's just that there's not, it's not,

the climate system is a lot more complex than that. It's not just about CO2. But this whole climate change problem has been framed very narrowly around CO2, ignoring natural climate variability, which is, to my mind, the main driver. In our clip in the beginning, John Oliver, does this visual with one climate scientist, denier, let's say it would have been you and 99 other scientists saying she's crazy.

And we hear this over and over again. 99% of all climate scientists believe that human beings are causing global warming. Is that true? Okay. Human beings are emitting CO2 and CO2 is a greenhouse gas that acts to warm the planet. So all scientists agree that CO2 does have a warming effect. The question is how much of a warming effect, And is that warming dominating over natural climate variability?

There's no agreement on that. So when we hear they all agreed, was it a lighter question we're told? I mean, was the question basically, do you think that human beings CO2, which is coming out of them, is contributing? It's worse than that. That 97% and 99% is a bunch of climate activists who searched abstracts of scientific papers and categorized them as believing in climate, human-caused warming are not believing. And it was a fairly ludicrous exercise. For example, they classified a paper about cook stoves in India

as supporting global warming. Right. You know, rather than, you know, so it was a complete joke, that study, but it went viral. President Obama tweeted that paper, and it went viral about 97%. So yeah, we're contributing. to warming. But the big question is how much? And the second big question is what's going to

happen for the remainder of the 21st century? We really don't know. We don't know how natural climate variability is going to play out. There's a great deal of uncertainty. And you left, did you leave the university system? I did. I retired prematurely in 2017. There's a lot of political correctness, group think, cancel culture taking off in the universities, and it's very unpleasant for a scientist who thinks independently about a politically charged issue. So I just, you know, I saw, I could have played the game. You know, I could have stayed there, sucked up my big salary, but I said, no, that's not who I am.

So I just resigned my position and went into the private sector. When we look at how this is just sort of steam rolling along and all these scientists get on every new show, oh, it's proven. My study shows this. Is it my understanding, you know, because I've looked at other, I mean, watched the show coming up to here, I'm not going to get into that, but if you only fund one side of the science, then you kind of drive the popularity of the bias, right? I mean, are the universities equally funding scientists like yourself to say, go ahead, let's red team this, right? You go out and knock down, you know, John's paper or Sally's paper and see if you can show us a different angle. That's what science should be doing.

But instead, it silences its critics. It silences those that have science that shows you something else. And it funds and invest. And it's a cycle, right? More and more funding comes into that school. They get more and more grants from government agencies. The government wants to push this. And so you just get this, I mean, it's literally a thought bubble that's going on here in the world.

Pretty much. That's how it works. That's a major theme on my book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk, you know, how we got here. And, you know, it's just a worldview that was put into play by the UN back in the 1990s that has been embraced by, you know, national governments. And the whole problem's been framed very narrowly in terms of human cause warming. Possil fuels are bad, and it's dangerous, so we need to stop burning fossil fuels. And the policies and the science are all, you know, framed in this way.

So what we have is policy-driven science, not science-driven policy. That's what we've got. How dangerous is that? Not a good thing at all. It perverts the scientific process, and it leads us to making bad policy decisions. So it's not a good thing at all. What would be your advice to students, scientists coming up now through the education system? Are they getting a good education?

Are they being taught to be objective? Are they being like what I imagine I would have been taught as a journalist, you know, that we were supposed to be objective? Now I watch the news, and it's completely subjective. has a strong bias, literally propagandizes for whatever side it represents. Is that true for science? Well, back when I was in schools, you know, around the 1980s, the core disciplines were geology, oceanography, and atmospheric science, and students needed to get a firm backing in those fields. Now they don't need that.

There's all these climate studies kind of programs where they learn more about, policy, politics, they can recite certain talking points from the IPCC but they don't have any real understanding and so these are the people that are going off to work for the NGOs and to be journalists and to be congressional staffers and so forth and so on and they don't have any meaningful understanding of climate dynamics what they understand is the how to play the political game Wow it's really scary I keep covering them in this show It's just, you know, it's the death of science.

We are staring in the face, which is very, very scary. And what the problem is, it'd be fine if science, I guess, just disappeared then it went away. But it is such a controlling, powerful industry now, and the fact that it's corrupted the way it is makes it so incredibly dangerous because it's now a tool and a weapon being used against society. Well, yeah. I mean, any politically charged issue in sciences has the same problem. I mean, it's not just climate change.

You see it in the health and biological science and gender studies and, you know, GMOs, all sorts of issues where there's a political component, you know, is very, very uncomfortable for scientists who are thinking independently and not hewing to the party line, if you will. Yeah, I mean, we're bullying now scientists that have any sort of dissenting view. Oh, yeah. It's really, and then how you're going to have it. then you're just making it impossible.

So, you know, a lot of people, a lot of good scientists who keep their heads down and do their work and, you know, publish their paper and put an obscure title on it, you know, so nobody realizes that it's sort of a heretical piece of work. And they just carry on doing their work. And if you dig, you can find a lot of good science out there that challenges the existing narrative. It's just not going to say a headline. I've proved that global warming is baloney. It'll just say something really really.

We see that in the space I'm in in medical science. You can tell once you read the body of this, they're telling you what they're discovering, but they have to be so careful about how they do it. To follow the work that you're doing, what's a good website? Where can we sort of track your work? Okay, well, I have a blog called Climate, Et cetera.

You can find it at judithcurrie.com. I'm on Twitter at Curry, JA. Okay. My company is Climate Forecast Applications Network. And my new book is Climate Uncertainty and Risk. Fantastic. Judith, I'm glad you're out there. I hope you continue to be a voice.

This is the book. Once again, anywhere you want to find a book, you can find a book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk. It's a great book. I highly recommend you read this. It helps with all the conversations. We've got to educate ourselves. But more importantly, check out

her subs deck, check out the work that she's doing, you know, follow her Twitter because we've got to start supporting these voices that are literally these lone voices out there in the wilderness. If we don't want to find ourselves in the wilderness too, then we've got to support great people. Thank you for being, you know, a scientist. Thank you for being able to accept, you know, that a hypothesis was maybe incorrect. It's something that is just becoming so rare these days that It's nice to meet someone that's able to say, yeah, I saw it one way and I see it another. And, you know, in the last thought that you would have, what can we as citizens do as we move forward? Well, first, live your best life.

I'm so concerned about all the kids who are being so stressed out about this. The messaging that the young people get is much worse than what we see and they're upset. They think they have no future. You know, we need to get past us and stop worrying about it. Warming isn't dangerous. There's no particular reason to think that it's dangerous. So we need to get out there and do our best life. And, you know, forget the top-down global solutions.

Let's do bottom-up solutions. work in your community to secure your common interests, to make your environment safe and secure and reduce your vulnerability to extreme weather. And I think the real solutions are going to come from the bottom up. Great. Judith, thank you for your work.