Richard Helppie 0:23
Hello, and welcome to the Common Bridge. I’m your host, Rich Helppie. This is the fiercely nonpartisan, policy-oriented discussion, where we talk about the issues of the day, we talk about the opportunities of the moment, and some possible policy solutions to each of those. We’re available– just about wherever you get your podcast, Apple, Amazon, Spotify, IHeart Radio, Buzzsprout, and on YouTube TV, as well. And of course from our website, RichardHelppie.com. We have a great guest with us today, Dr. Judith Curry, welcome to the Common Bridge. Thank you so much for taking part of your day to join us today. (Dr. Curry: Oh, well, thank you for inviting me. I look forward to it.) We’re going today to talk about a topic that affects of course, everyone on the planet, our climate and the risks of climate change from our listeners. Dr. Curry earned a PhD in Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago. And I’m sensing she’s an Illinois person because her first degree is a Bachelor of Science and geography from Northern Illinois University. Good MAC school home of the Huskies. She is recently the professor emeritus and the former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Dr. Curry has held faculty positions at some of the most prestigious universities in America, including Penn State, Purdue, University of Colorado at Boulder and the University of Wisconsin- Madison, Dr. Curry served on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science subcommittee, whose mission was to provide advice and recommendation to NASA on issues of program priorities and policies. She’s a member of the NOAA climate Working Group, from 2004 to 2009, a member of the National Academy Space Studies board from 2004 to 2007, and a member of the National Academies Climate Research Group from 2002 to 2006. In my readings, I think I would say Dr. Curry is a passionate advocate for increased scientific discussion. And so today we’re going to cover as much of this vast topic as time permits. Again, Dr. Curry Welcome to the Common Bridge, where we will explore the issue and potentially some of the climate change on the discussion. But first, just a little bit about yourself, was I right, were your early days in the state of Illinois?
Dr. Judith Curry 3:03
Oh, yes. I’m a Chicagoan and spent my early decades in Chicago. And since then, I’ve moved all over the country. I’m currently in Reno, Nevada–we have a brief respite from the heat waves at the moment. But we have another big one coming this weekend.
Richard Helppie 3:21
Indeed, and what’s occupying your time today? What’s your job today, and what kinds of things you involved in?
Dr. Judith Curry 3:27
I retired from Georgia Tech in 2017, to spend full time with my company, which is Climate Forecasts Applications Network. And my company provides weather forecasts of extreme events and we also help companies and governments figure out how to grapple with climate change and what their risks might be and how they might respond in a robust way. The way I approach this whole problem is very different from a lot of other people in academia and in the private sector. And maybe we’ll get to some of that later.
Richard Helppie 4:13
We will open up some of that. And I would also like to invite our listeners to hear Episode 91 with Penn State University professor Dr. Richard Alley. He talked a lot about what we know about climate change, what’s being done, what more can be done. And so Dr. Curry several years ago, I attended a point counterpoint session at an Institute of Science. And the interesting thing for me was that both of the scientists agreed that the Earth was exiting a mini ice age near the end of World War Two. And now in my adult lifetime, I’ve been told to brace for a coming ice age, and then it was global warming. And then Okay, now wait a minute, it’s climate change. And so I’m a non scientist, and that’s confusing to me. So, first question, is there a common or lay definition for what the heck climate change is?
Dr. Judith Curry 5:04
Until about two decades ago, there was a geological definition of climate change that related to the variation or the longer term variations of climate that were driven by the sun, geologic activities, volcanics, ocean circulations and things like that. There was a little ice age from around the 1500s, and ended in the middle of the 1800s. Since about 1860, we’ve been coming out of the Little Ice Age. And there’s been an overall warming trend since about 1860. But in the second half of the 20th century, the warming has been amped up to some degree, which is debated by man made emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
Richard Helppie 5:55
So you would agree the earth is warming?
Dr. Judith Curry 5:58
The earth is warming, and at least since 1950 or so humans have contributed a significant amount to that warming. But the challenge is somewhere along the line that was, I don’t know, 20 years ago, or so that the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, sort of redefined climate change just to be manmade climate change. And then anything else was climate variability. So the whole discussion about climate change, which used to mean the sun and volcanoes and long term this that the other became, you know, any climate change then automatically became manmade climate change. And it’s added to a lot of confusion, and also a neglect of natural climate variability.
Richard Helppie 6:45
So it’s been very unfortunate this change of definition of what climate change actually means. And I think I’ve read some of these models, and they’re very complex to change one variable, some purport that they’ve taken out all natural phenomena, and confirmed, as you’ve said, that there is humankind contribution to climate change. Is there a group that has the best model? I mean, it’s I don’t know, is there a way to know that? And are there any proof points that our listeners might be interested in?
Dr. Judith Curry 7:17
Okay, the best global climate model — that’s a little bit ambiguous about how you would define it. But what I regard to be of primary importance for trying to understand what’s going on with the climate on decade to century scale- century timescale is to really be able to simulate those large scale ocean circulations and how they evolve. And the one model that does the best job of that is the so called GFDL climate model. It’s a US climate model developed in Princeton by the GFDL Lab that’s funded by NOAA. So personally, I think that one is the best. But there are some other things that I don’t like about the model in terms of how they deal with clouds, or whatever. So there’s no single model that does the best, there are some that do pretty bad. But there’s a deficiency of all the climate models. First off, they don’t predict what’s going on with the sun– solar variations, they just specify it usually to be constant, relative to a recent solar cycle or something. They also don’t predict volcanic eruptions, they either assume it’s zero or it’s going to be a repeat of the 20th century. And then the other thing is they don’t really get these ocean circulations in the correct phase. So you know, you understand the timing and the evolution and how this influences not only temperature, but it influences all aspects of regional climate. So the global climate models are very important tools to help us understand how the climate works, but as prediction engines I think they are fairly useless. You know, if you want to figure out how much warming from emissions, you know, you can sort of do that calculation on the back of an envelope, you don’t need a big global climate model for that, you know, just in terms of whatever you assume about the sensitivity of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide emissions and what the feedbacks– how much it might be amplified by increasing water vapor, how clouds will influence it, you know, these are the big question marks, and the global climate models don’t provide any answers. So in all honesty, if you’re just looking to predict the global temperature from emissions, you can use much simpler models than these huge global climate models.
Richard Helppie 9:52
So speaking of emissions, and it seems that we hear a lot about carbon neutrality and I’ve done some reading, and I’ve spoken with people and said, Look, the carbon neutrality is that we’re going to put up carbon dioxide and that the average American puts up, I guess, 16 tons of it every year. And we either have to take it down, or we have to quit putting up so much. Are we on a track to either limiting the amount of carbon that goes into the atmosphere? Or are we on a track to pull it out after we put it up there? Am I getting that right?
Dr. Judith Curry 10:27
Basically, I mean, at this point, the emissions seem to be fairly flat, they were increasing for a long time, we seem to have turn the corner and they’re fairly flat. So we’re still increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but the rate isn’t accelerating, so it’s just sort of a sort of a constant steady rate of emissions. And that looks to be, I would guess we’re gonna see that for the next several decades. (Rich Helppie: But why would emissions slowed down or, or flattened or stop?) Okay, emissions are flat, a combination of more efficiency, really, a reduction of coal. Really, the reduction of coal is a big deal, renewables contribute a little bit, you know, just some efficiencies in the systems everybody’s trying. Okay. But you know, it’s flat, I mean, the objective, their objective is to reduce it, but so far, it’s flat, at least, is not increasing anymore, in terms of the the amount of emissions per year. So and it’s a mistaken assumption to think that, Okay, once you put it into the atmosphere, taking it out, the same amount of carbon dioxide isn’t necessarily symmetrical on the climate, because you influence the sinks, of carbon dioxide, on land and in the oceans. So it’s not that easy to unring this bell, if you will, in terms of taking out the carbon. And and even if you take out the carbon, it’s going to be a very long time for the surface temperature to respond because there’s a lot of inertia in the oceans. So it’s not that easy to unring this bell.
Richard Heppie 12:12
I see. In May, you wrote a paper called Projecting Manmade Climate Change Scenarios to 2050. And I will admit to reading through that three times and still saying, I think I need to talk to the author. And in that paper, you cite that the International Energy Agency, which I understand was established to make sure that we had enough oil and such when the OPEC countries were gaining so much control, that they published an assessment of the challenges of reaching net zero carbon emissions by 2050, along with clear milestones, and what I think they said was that if the policies that we’ve already implemented are maintained, that the Global again, just not United States, Global carbon dioxide emissions three decades from now would be similar to what they are today. And I thought to myself, well, you know, does that account for things like population growth? Does it count for carbons from other sources, or perhaps other geographies?
Dr. Judith Curry 13:16
Okay, they only look at emissions from, you know, manmade emissions, they don’t look at natural sources of carbon, natural things and stuff. They focus only on the emissions, and they project, the amount of emissions to be flat to 2050. And I think that’s about right, based on the current policies, based on people’s promises, you know, as part of the Paris Agreement, you know, they should be decreasing a little bit, but nothing like getting it to net zero. And so they go through the exercise of saying, “Well, what would it take to get to net zero?” And it’s a really a lot of draconian actions that are probably not politically viable in most countries. One of the biggest problems why we’re not making headway is, you know, people are adding renewables and stuff like that, which helps a little bit, but they’re tearing down their nuclear power plants. That’s the best, you know, carbon free source of energy that we currently have. But people don’t like nuclear for other reasons. But by getting rid of the nuclear energy, what do you fill that in with? With natural gas, so that’s not helping, it’s hurting the emissions, no matter how much you know, renewables you’re adding and the renewables really can’t. I mean, more than about 20% of our power supply from wind and solar, I don’t think is feasible, just in terms of the intermittency of the power and also the large amount of land that it requires, particularly for wind farms. So I don’t see wind and solar, at least in the near term, as providing more than about 20% of our power. And we’re still far short of that globally. It’s about 8%, from wind and solar. So you know, that transition is very, very slow. And we’re not going to make all this happen using 20th century technologies, no matter what people say.
Richard Helppie 15:21
And sometimes I wonder when they say, well, we can’t get it all from solar, or it gets capped out at 20%, which, you know, sounds reasonable to me as someone with an engineering mind, but then I’m wondering, are they building that as if a power grid needed to deliver all that? Because solar panels on the roof and solar panels on recreation vehicles, they don’t put generators on them anymore, they put solar panels is that being factored in, in some way,
Dr. Judith Curry 15:49
The need for a 21st century transmission grid extends beyond, you know, the renewable issue, we need it for a whole host of reasons, we need a combination of micro grids, and we need some, you know, the capability to transmit power long distances, like, you know, there’s a lot of policy barriers, but the recent, you know, in February, we had that really big cold spell in Texas, and they just couldn’t get enough power. And since they have their own local transmission system, and they can’t, they don’t have the ability to import from other regions. I mean, they were really just caught way, way short for a whole host of reasons. But we need– and especially if we’re relying on renewables– if the wind is blowing, okay, like I live in– Okay, if you’ve seen the movie “Nomad Land”, there’s nothing there. There’s nothing there. I mean, 85% of the land is completely empty, and it’s owned by the feds. And it’s a great place to put wind farms, it’s complete desolation, and it’s reasonably windy here. So this could be used to provide when, if you can transmit it far enough away where people can use it, but do you want to really build this whole infrastructure to be set up for 20th century technology of wind farms? You know, I’m not sure that entirely makes sense.
Richard Helppie 17:19
Yeah, it just seems to me, we can distribute it. And I had heard that term before about smaller network. In reading your article, which we’ll put up on RichardHelppie.com, you talk about something called representative concentration pathways. And I want to ask you two questions. One, is there a lay definition of what a representative concentration pathway is? And one of the scenarios, a representative concentration pathway 8.5 or RCP 8.5, kind of what they call the business-as-usual scenario and applies what is possible absent stringent emissions mitigation that’s kind of like okay, we’re done. If I read that, right, so, so two questions, what exactly is a representative concentration pathway? And second, is that RCP 8.5 like, okay, we’re done, and we’re just going to ride from here on out?
Dr. Judith Curry 18:14
Okay, energy economists have developed models to predict how much emissions we might see accumulating over the 21st century. This includes everything from population growth policies, technology developments, the energy mix, you know, they make all sorts of assumptions. So there’s hundreds of different scenarios, and they produce a certain amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which then provides a certain amount of heating at the surface. So the RCP 8.5 refers to 8.5 watts per meter squared, which is energy per unit area per unit time. So that’s what those RCPs are. Now, RCP 8.5 is a very, very extreme scenario. It assumes like no technology development, a return to coal, like we use five times more coal than we currently are. It makes a whole host of assumptions to get very high emissions in the atmosphere. Okay. Someone called that business as usual.
Richard Helppie 19:22
I do remember them talking about we’re going to keep using more coal, but we there might not even be that much recoverable coal in the ground.
Dr. Judith Curry 19:30
(Laughing) Exactly. Those estimates of coal use are higher than the known reserves of coal. So it just makes no sense. But you know, it’s a, well, so they have this crazy scenario, but the point is the IPCC and researchers focus on RCP 8.5.
Richard Helppie 19:41
For our listeners. That’s the International Panel on Climate Change and they have been charged with coming up with policies around the globe. And they’ve been accused of a number of things. One is shutting down normal scientific debate. And I believe, Dr. Curry you’ve experienced some of that, although you don’t differ with a lot of what their policy conclusions or at least their some of their scientific basis, but also they’ve been accused of massaging data in a way to get an outcome. And I’m loathe to call them the gold standard, but they’re certainly the most referenced.
Dr. Judith Curry 20:29
Okay, let me give you a take on the IPCC. Okay, this is a UN organization that was started in 1988, to provide these periodic assessments of climate change, focused on the manmade contribution to support the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change policies, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, all these kinds of agreements, like these assessments support those protocols and agreements. Okay, so first off their biased because they focus only on manmade climate change, not the natural stuff. While there’s a lot of good information in the bowels of these 1000 page reports. The summary for policymakers, which is the only thing that most people read is very political, and is crafted with the participation of policymakers. And the whole thing is spun in a certain way to raise the alarm. So is it a gold standard? I wouldn’t go that far. But they arguably have a monopoly on getting the attention of the world governments on this issue. They’re certainly a big player, or the big player in all of this. Okay, so individual scientists disagree on both sides. Some are more alarmed than what the IPCC says, and others, like myself are say, wait a minute, you’re way overconfident. We don’t understand this. We don’t understand that. You know, you forgot to include this. You know, that kind of thing. You know, there’s a whole spectrum of what scientists think about this issue. The center of mass is arguably the IPCC. The people on the alarm side, get all the media interviews, and then the people like me, get called deniers. So that’s the social dynamics of what’s going on. But at the end of the day, there’s so much that we don’t understand about the climate system, that these projections are not terribly useful. And there’s a lot of overconfident proclamations. And the biggest issue is the impacts Oh, hurricanes are getting worse. The heat waves are caused by global warming, we’re not going to be able to grow grapes for wine in California and on and on it goes. I mean, crazy impacts from global warming.
Richard Helppie 22:57
So Dr. Curry, I don’t hear you denying anything. I hear you asking questions about are we getting to the right conclusions and the right scenario? Particularly in light of so many policy decisions, it sounded like policy was driving the science versus the opposite?
Dr. Judith Curry 23:19
That’s exactly right. Yeah, I’ve often used the frame, you know, the policy cart is driving the scientific horse. And this happened in the late 1980s, when they set up the IPCC and they said focus only on manmade climate change. And by the way, we’re trying to develop this big policy to prevent dangerous climate change. So if you want to stay in business, you better talk to us about dangerous manmade climate change. Okay, so that set the stage for them to clearly focus on finding or manufacturing whatever evidence of dangerous manmade climate change. And that set us on a very biased path, to try to understand how the climate of the 21st century might play out.
Richard Helppie 24:07
What would be some sensible policies today, in that we do have a planet with a rising population, that there is migration, and some of that is perhaps driven by climate change, people trying to get to a place where they can actually raise enough food and we do know that there’s carbon there and other pollutants, what would be a and I know we’ve talked a little bit about like the worst case scenario, and maybe we’re doing too much at the expense of a lot of other societal upheaval and perhaps impoverishment. What would be a reasonable approach today and maybe if you just kind of riff a little bit on you know, best policy as you see them today, and given that it may change as more information is known, and maybe what are some of the worst things we could be doing?
Dr. Judith Curry 24:55
Okay, well, there’s three issues food, water and energy. This is what people need. This is what people want. Okay, all the focus is on the energy in terms of reducing reliability, reducing security, reducing them out and telling which people can’t develop, you know, grid infrastructure that makes no sense in terms of human development. The biggest single issue which I think overarches both food and energy is the water issue, water supply. The problem is either too much or too little. The bigger problems are too little, and people drill in Asia, they’re just using up all of their groundwater supply and they have nothing. You know, they’re very close to having nothing left. You’ve got China damming those big rivers that come from the Tibet plateau that potentially shuts off the water supply for most of South and Southeast Asia. This is a huge geopolitical issue. You know, all of these big rivers that supply water for half the population of the globe, have headwaters in Tibet, which is owned by China. You know, to me, this is the scariest geopolitical thing out there, we need to think about, really how we manage our water resources in terms of reservoirs in terms of dams, in terms of desalinization, things like that. So dealing with the water problem, to me is the most urgent thing. And that’s really the driver of migration–there’s not enough water. Occasionally, it’s too much, like you know, if they get smashed by a hurricane or a big flood, but it’s usually too little, which is what drives people to migrate. So dealing with the water issue, to me is the biggest single issue. In terms of energy, you know, there’s an all things being equal, of course, people prefer clean rather than dirty energy. Over time, we will transition in that direction, what the UN Framework Convention is trying to do is rapidly accelerate this transition to zero emissions using primarily renewables. Well, the only, if this is your goal, the only thing that’s going to work is really nuclear energy. And there’s a lot of exciting new technologies for the next generation nuclear power plants, small modular reactors, molten salt and stuff that’s much less difficult to deal with than the current set of nuclear power reactors. So if I had to place my bet on anything that’s going to improve the situation, that co2 emissions is really going to be on nuclear power. I don’t see this happening any other way. There’s a lot of unintended consequences. With doing some of this other fuels, I think biofuels has been a disaster in terms of you know, you don’t want to burn your feed, like your your food and deplete your soils in the process and use up a massive amount of your land, that makes zero sense. And then you’ve got you know, people call, you know, burning wood is renewable. Yes, renewable, but it pollutes and it, you know, adds a lot of co2. We have this ironic situation where we cut down trees in North Carolina, ship them across to England, where they burn it –in big power plants, the Drax Power Plant, and then claim it is renewable energy. I mean, that’s absolutely insane. So it leads you to do stupid things. When you focus on this very rapid emergency, we need to reduce fossil fuel emissions, and we need to reduce co2, it leads you to do stupid things that aren’t beneficial in the long term. So it’s really you know, to me land usem, water management, and agricultural practices. You know, these are things that we have to do to promote human welfare and diminish the worst problems, potential problems from any climate change, it will increase our resilience, reduce our vulnerability, if we tackle these things, and in tackling that you can figure out ways to you know, reduce your emissions and store more carbon and stuff like that. But dealing with land use, restoring, you know, wetlands, all this kind of stuff, better agricultural practices, and better water management, you know, take care of these things, and the world is a way better place.
Richard Helppie 29:27
It’s sound environmental policy that we need to focus on, more broader-based, and that will lead us to less emissions as we’re conscious of it. And I wish time permitted us today to dive into the water usage just in mining, the materials needed for lithium ion battery, and the amount of energy expended in building an electric vehicle over an internal combustion engine car. And, you know, we talked a little bit about the reliability of the energy grid. Our two largest states by population have both had blackouts, two diametrically opposed political philosophies and controlled by different parties, yet they can’t keep the lights on, yet now we’re going to use that same power to propel us where we want to go. Dr. Curry, we could spend hours on this. And I know you’ve been quite generous with your time. What didn’t we cover today that perhaps we should have? And is there any thoughts or actions that you’d recommend people take? Or perhaps, you know, write to their representatives about or any, any other closing thoughts? Just what didn’t we cover? What should people do? And, and what might be some closing thoughts for people to take home?
Dr. Judith Curry 30:42
Well, you know, the challenge is that it’s very difficult for the average person to understand all of this, you know, it’s a very complex, wicked problem, it’s very difficult, unless you spend a lot of time on this problem, it’s hard to understand. And even amongst research scientists, many of them only focus on a little piece of the problem, and they don’t really understand a lot of the other things. And I realized that myself in 2005, when I entered the public dialogue, and I needed, I said, I need to take a step back and explore all these different areas, you know, so I can speak intelligently about this issue in a broad way. Because my research was just focused on the Arctic, and clouds and hurricanes, and just a few little topics. But, you know, a lot of studying and research is needed to wrap your head around it. So the average person isn’t going to do that, the average scientist isn’t even gonna do that, you know, so what are we left with? We’re left with what you hear in the media, which is driven by scientists with a political agenda, who are activists and who are raising the alarm, who are calling people like me deniers because we interfere with their agenda, which involves politics and career advancement, and who knows what else. The political dynamics of this are horrible, not just in terms of Democrats versus Republicans in the US, but the academic politics of this are horrible. And the climate scientists were like forerunners of the whole cancel culture thing. Okay, back, you know, 20 years ago, they were trying to get rid of various journal editors. And so it’s a very, very unhealthy situation for climate science. And that disturbs me greatly. So, you know, we just have, you know, it’s become so politicized and so polarized and tribal, that it’s very difficult, you know, someone like me, who just tries to be as objective as I can, I disdain both tribes, if you will. And so I sort of take potshots from both sides. I mean, it’s not a comfortable place to be. And there’s not that many people who are really, you know, trying to be objective and listening to both sides and thinking deeply about all aspects of the problem. And people come to different conclusions and disagree legitimately. There’s lots of scope for disagreement here, inadequate data, whether you believe the climate models or not how you link the evidence, politicisation, all sorts of reasons why scientists disagree, even when they look at the same evidence, so it’s a very, very messy problem, and thinking that we understand it, and that we can really justify these very detailed targets, and timelines and all this kind of stuff. I mean, we’re fooling ourselves.
Richard Helppie 33:49
So much of what you said just summarizes what we’re doing on the Common Bridge. And we say, look, we’re more here to inform versus influence. We want to understand what the policies are, what the real problems are. It’s not about sound bites, it’s not about you know, and I loathe the terms red, blue. It’s not that it’s not any of the other societal divisions that are being foisted on us. We all have an interest in a clean climate, we all have an interest in reliable energy. We all have an interest to your point about adequate food and water supplies for this world. And that’s what we need to be working on. And for anyone of any stripe to come in and say, you know, they’ve got all the answers, and we’re going to force march everyone in that direction, that hasn’t worked in the history of humankind ever about any thing. We need to keep the dialogue open. I think that many more people are looking for that kind of reporting, those kinds of opportunities to learn, and especially these kinds of opportunities to discuss, way more than they’re looking for the talking points, partisan half truths that they’re getting in the reporting industry. And if we get more people that are on board with this kind of conversation, I think we’ll demand better performance from our government and those that we elect, and hopefully get better reporting from those that are entrusted with that. Dr. Curry any final thought for our group, and I want to take this opportunity to invite you to come back because I know you’re on a number of topics, you have a fresh way of thinking about things. And we would be honored to have you come back and talk with us at any time that you might be willing to do that.
Dr. Judith Curry 35:35
Oh, sure. Thank you. Well, I really applaud what you’re doing. I mean, what you’re trying to do is really pretty rare. You know, I’ve tried to develop a little bit of a community on my blog, JudithCurry.com where people from across the spectrum, come to talk about a range of things, and disagree and try to justify their arguments, also trying to build a little community on Twitter, where we discuss some of the things off the beaten path. You know, there’s the big headline stuff, you know, which always has an alarming title. But there’s also a lot of other very interesting stuff that gets forgotten and neglected, that’s really, you know, providing important pieces of the puzzle. And I tried to highlight those. So, you know, I think there’s a lot of room in the space that you’re trying to carve out for reason and intelligent dialogue. And for, you know, allowing, acknowledging that people disagree, but try to understand the disagreement, and then maybe try to find some common ground,
Richard Helppie 36:40
Right, it’s why it’s called the Common Bridge is that if one group says, I’m going to build this great pillar on this side, someone else I’m going to build around this side, you’re not getting anything done until you figure out what’s in the middle. You know, there are absolutes, like physics, and there are certain scientific absolutes, of course, those have to be incorporated. But there’s a keen appetite. And if history is any guide, when we publish, and you invite people to come view this show, they’re going to participate and look at other aspects of things going on in our society. And indeed, people going to your blog and finding out more about you should rise as well. It is really a virtuous interconnectivity of people that just want to have discussions and want to talk about things with a 360 degree view, and are interested not in the politics but interested in what’s the policy and the thing that always astonishes me no matter what the topic, you can get Party A yelling, Party B yelling, all the reporting done, and no one tells you the content of the policy or the legislation. It’s just an astonishing thing. And I don’t think the audience wants that anymore. And perhaps it will give them some small place to come to.
Dr. Judith Curry 38:01
Well, I’ve really enjoyed the discussion. Thank you for inviting me.
Richard Helppie 38:04
It’s been a pleasure and I look forward to the future conversation. This has been absolutely educational for me. I’m sure it will be to our listeners. I again want to invite everyone to listen on your favorite podcast channel or to YouTube please subscribe, please rate us, please rate as high, thanks. Come to RichardHelppie.com and register for free and become part of the Common Bridge community. This is Rich Helppie today with our special guest, Dr. Judith Curry talking about climate change, climate models, and the right policies for the next century. So long until next time, this is Rich Helppie, signing off.
You have been listening to Richard Helppie’s Common Bridge podcast. Recording and post production provided by Stunt3 Multimedia. All rights are reserved by Richard Helppie. For more information, visit RichardHelppie.com
