Mike interviews Dr. Judith Curry, a prominent climate scientist, about her views on climate change, the politicization of climate science, and the challenges of transitioning to renewable energy.

Dr. Curry discusses the importance of acknowledging uncertainty in climate science, critiques the behavior of activist scientists, and emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to energy solutions that includes fossil fuels and nuclear power.

She also highlights the ethical implications of energy access for developing nations and advocates for a bottom-up approach to climate solutions.

---

Transcript

Dr. Curry: uh yeah there’s two issues. One was this issue was very narrowly framed by the United Nations, focused on dangerous human-caused climate change. They ignored natural climate variability that was marginalized, and they assumed warming was dangerous without considering any benefits of increased CO2 or increased warming, or considering the regional variability of impacts. You know, Northern climates would generally benefit from more warmth, for example. So it was framed very narrowly in an inappropriate way to support a particular political agenda.

Okay, with that context then, you know, scientists quickly realized that their path to fame and fortune was to embellish this narrative, you know, by cherry-picking the science, the data, and everything else—all to support this particular narrative. So yes, a lot of overconfidence, neglect of uncertainty, and in general just weak justification of many of their arguments.

Mike: the best part about doing Money Talks is I get the opportunity to talk to people like Judith Curry. By the way, her latest book is called Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response—a must-read. Dr. Curry, by the way, a climate scientist, is the author of 180 peer-reviewed articles. She is also the former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology and a former member of the National Research Council Climate Research Committee. She served on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Climate Working Group for five years and was a member of the National Academy of Climate Research Group from 2003 to 2006. I mean, her career has included being awarded things like the Presidential Young Investigators Award from the National Science Foundation and the Henry G. Houghton Research Award. The list is long as you can tell.

And why is that noteworthy? Because after a lifetime of accolades and accomplishments, what is she best known for? Well, she’s been called a climate denier—although she doesn’t question that man has an impact on climate. No, she’s called a denier because she dares to question the political science climate establishment. I mean, it’s an incredible story.

I welcome her now; I’m very pleased to have you with us, Dr. Curry.

Dr. Curry: Thanks for inviting me; it’s always a pleasure. And that’s a heck of a list, by the way—that’s three lifetimes of accomplishments! You know this is such a difficult subject because I personally off the top of my head can’t think of anything that’s been more bastardized or thoroughly politicized by interest groups. You know—you of course know University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke summed it up well when he said: “Can you think of any area of science with a larger difference between what everyone knows for sure—like media politicians activists—and what is actually so?” The data peer-reviewed research—but pointing those kinds of differences out has made you unpopular for well over a few decades.

Yeah, it’s been a crazy ride. My biggest sin has actually been criticizing the behavior of some activist scientists who have been behaving unprofessionally in my opinion. And that was my biggest sin; it’s not so much about my criticism of the science or talking about uncertainty and natural climate variability—it’s my criticism of the establishment such as the IPCC and organizations that support professional science and the behavior of certain activist climate scientists. That was the sin sort of—I broke the fwa by sort of criticizing these people.

Mike: Is there a consensus?

Dr. Curry: No! They throw that word around as we both know—the 97% consensus—which was an absurdity by the way as if science is consensus! It’s not! But you know they throw that around—what do scientists generally agree on though? Which part? Okay well they agree that overall global temperatures have increased since the middle 1800s; they agree that humans have been emitting carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere; they agree that so-called greenhouse gases have an infrared emission spectra—which is the physical property that enables them sort of to heat the planet.

Okay—that’s what people agree on; those are the so-called facts. But the most consequential issues—like what has caused the warming over the last hundred years? How much will it warm in 2100? Is warming dangerous? Is elimination of fossil fuels going to support human well-being in the 21st century and beyond? These are the most consequential issues and there’s a great deal of disagreement and uncertainty on all those.

I mean, in Canada they talk about a carbon tax etc.—I’m not going to debate the method but the impact—I mean if we reduce—you know if I stop driving—is that going to have an impact on extreme weather? For example? No! Even in the worst incarnation of projected warming—the so-called 8.5 extreme emission scenarios—there’s still very little evidence that warming worsens extreme weather events other than heat waves! It makes cold outbreaks less likely—and an order of magnitude more people die from extreme cold than they do from extreme heat! So it seems that overall warming would be beneficial in terms of storms like hurricanes and tornadoes and hailstorms and things like that.

There’s no evidence of an increase; there’s hypotheses but there’s no observational evidence! And the climate models really aren’t fit for purpose for even simulating these extreme events in our current climate let alone making credible projections for future scenarios.

So there’s apart from heat waves—there’s very little support for thinking that warming worsens extreme weather events—and yet there’s an agenda! I mean you were there firsthand watching the politicization of this agenda that continues to this moment.

Mike: The other side of it that you just alluded to—besides the fact that they don’t even examine whether heating a planet or warming up would be beneficial in more areas—but it’s also this incredible use of resources to fight this particular scenario that should be open to a heck of a lot more questioning!

Dr. Curry: Um—you know this idea that we can prevent bad weather by eliminating fossil fuel emissions is just a fairy tale! That said it makes some sense to transition our energy systems over the course of the 21st century to move away from fossil fuels—which have their issues—and will become increasingly expensive and difficult to extract over time.

So I think even if the climate issue wasn’t on the table we would be seeing a transition in energy infrastructure over the course of this century now what this whole climate movement has done through their claims of urgency and code red existential threat—all these artificial deadlines—people say “Oh my gosh we have to do this quickly!” The only thing we can quickly do is wind and solar—but wind and solar—I mean they’re niche solutions but they can’t—you know once you get beyond like 30%—you cause great difficulties to your electric grid infrastructure!

Even with adequate storage there are asynchronicity issues—all sorts of problems—and it requires huge transmission lines huge land use footprints that just aren’t sellable in a country like Canada! You’ve got so much open space maybe it’s not a problem—but even in the US which has a fair amount open space—there’s still big pushback against every new transmission line every new wind farm proposal etc.

So people don’t want that! So you know there’s clearly better solutions that we have on the table now like nuclear power—and next generation nuclear technology—the so-called Generation 4—is extremely exciting! Advanced geothermal is also being developed—and I think this would be a good solution for many regions in Canada as well.

But bottom line is—you know we’re going to need fossil fuels for a while—and you know we just need to let this transition sort of happen driven by rapidly increasing power needs! I mean—the rate of increase for electricity demand is huge with artificial intelligence data centers blockchains things like that—and big tech companies are investing heavily in nuclear power to develop plants right near their big data centers!

So they’re leading the way—and some of these technologies just because they see them as sources for so much future demand for electricity! So if we let market forces and capitalism just have its way—we would see an orderly transition over this century towards more abundant more inexpensive cleaner energy sources!

But we’re interfering with that—you know by insisting on rapid deployment of wind and solar—which are just going to make things worse once you get beyond about 30% penetration into your grid—even with adequate storage it doesn’t help grid stability issues! So those technologies—they sound cheap—oh wind and solar radiation is free! Well it’s not—the generation may be inexpensive but it’s storage and transmission that get you into trouble!

And may I add on—is that I just can’t believe how much we ignore developing nations in all this—whether you’re talking about COP this COP that—I mean literally going so far as to say off top my head—I thought it was Glasgow Accord saying “You know we’re not going to help anybody in Africa develop with fossil fuels” which is another way saying we’d like them live in poverty!

You know—the list is long—I mean to ignore power needs in developing Africa parts South America China—you know—the list is long one—and it’s just been a blind spot!

Yeah there’s more than a billion people on this planet without access to grid electricity—in large majority are in Africa—and they still farm you know with wheelbarrows picks axes—you know without any machines or anything—it’s terrible state affairs! And there’s lots intelligent industrious people in these countries but they need electricity—and we need to give them a leg up!

You know it’s so bad they can’t even take out loans from European banks because they don’t want stigma loaning money help them develop natural gas resources—they’re very rich coal oil natural gas but can’t afford develop infrastructure use them on their continent!

And so Europe Asia are just sort effectively taking maybe purchasing—but they’re sort raping those countries fossil fuel resources support use Europe Asia—and that’s just about most unethical thing going on planet today in my opinion!

I’m with you on that—you wrote Climate Uncertainty and Risk released last year rethinking our response—and I’m looking inside book—it’s worthwhile because it frames challenges there—but you’re alluding one here—that even if you go into North American marketplace want do wind for example you’ve got huge opposition—you know well not in my backyard kind approach—you’ve got huge grid problems—you know solar uncertainty intermittent power!

I’m just astounded—you know Germany for example—it’s as if they woke up one morning said “Gee you mean sun doesn’t shine every day?” You know—that wind doesn’t blow every day? And course huge vulnerability geopolitically because they were relying Russian gas—you know now they’re massive coal importers—I mean mess sort hazy thinking has really come home roost!

Dr. Curry: Oh yeah—it’s terrible! I mean Germany’s really destroyed its whole industrial base effectively over this crazy issue! So I think people are starting realize—not everybody—but some countries some states US realizing this bad idea pushing hard nuclear—which I think really good solution!

In US regulatory environment crazy so we can’t build anything—it takes more than decade build anything when should only take two or three years just because regulatory environment needs be addressed—but nuclear great solution!

Personally I’m very excited about advanced geothermal—that’s really good solution US West many parts Canada—I’m optimistic about one! And I still think rooftop solar good solution because put energy where need it—with batteries have pretty good solution gives household company whatever energy security if grid goes down—not as great having own local nuclear power plant but think it’s very good solution households!

But issue you know net metering policies surrounding how electric utilities funded makes awkward—we need rethink all this economic infrastructures utilities terms how accommodate rooftop solar because think that’s solution—it doesn’t really hurt environment doesn’t take up additional land—it’s right your rooftop gives people autonomy security over their own energy supplies!

So I think rooftop solar around stay—the big solar farm that’s another story again huge land footprint huge ecosystem impacts—I can’t believe environmentalists buying one—you know Greenpeace got its start you know 70s save whales now with offshore wind turbines Mid-Atlantic Coast US killing all these whales—and Greenpeace doesn’t seem care—you know this whole climate issue trumps everything even real environmentalism—so common sense left room!

Mike: Your point though—that it trumps everything—is so apparent whether we’re talking amount money going into it—and no other priority—it doesn’t matter what there’s no other priority—even when look numbers western net zero haven’t costed note because couldn’t get accepted public—but been or nothing—and I think that’s where danger but—and other thing especially alarmism around we have do yesterday—that world going end if don’t do next week—which I think prevented practical solutions realistic solutions!

Dr. Curry: Okay—I mean it’s not just stupidity behind this—I mean there’s worldview political agenda sort neo-Malthusian view humans are blight planet—we’re overpopulated—we need destroy capitalism—all these kind things—we need go back nature how people lived 200 years ago—I don’t know what want—but it’s really antihuman worldview—to support all this we need world government through United Nations!

So there’s big worldview out there—you know—with its political embodiment being United Nations—that we’re up against! And so you know—the way forward is from bottom up I think—with individual countries individual state governments individual companies coming up solutions experimenting—we have all these mini laboratories all these different countries trying see works trying advance technologies!

And big tech company really pushing hard small modular nuclear reactors—and on goes—all experimentation by all these different groups going generate learning curves so figure out what works what doesn’t—we figure out how lower cost okay then we’re off running for 21st century energy transition which I think would almost be farther along at point if hadn’t been all these net zero mandates whatever because we do need more abundant more inexpensive cleaner energy everybody acknowledges!

So let’s unleash ingenuity economic tools government support some extent then let’s run with it get on with rather wasting all our energy over politics accusing people deniers misinformation so can litter environment with wind solar farms—it just makes no sense!

Mike: Well as I say there’s—as you mentioned—and I certainly agree—there’s other agendas work here besides climate—that have created opportunity much we can go into—but meantime want thank you taking time recommend book—I think people have responsibility opportunity get informed name book can get Amazon right now Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response Dr. Judith Curry thanks much finding time hope can visit again near future.

Dr. Curry: Okay thanks Mike—I enjoyed it!

---

This interview will be archived in WUWT Climate TV, a collection of over six hundred videos, featuring new interviews and analysis, and covering dozens of media sources discussing, debating and analyzing the latest in climate science, climate politics, and energy policy, including topics concerning temperature, sea level, polar bears, ocean acidification, extreme weather, censorship, wild fires, and more.