Is climate denialism on the rise? Prof Katharine Hayhoe on science, faith and algorithms

This transcript has been generated using speech recognition software and may contain errors. Please check its accuracy against the audio.

Katharine Hayhoe, Paul Whitfield Horn Distinguished Professor and Endowed Chair in Public Policy, Texas Tech University:
Today, compared to two years ago, more people have been directly affected by extreme weather. So many more people are seeing the impacts and experience them personally today. And as a result, the number of people who are actually worried about climate change has increased.

Robin Pomeroy, host, Radio Davos: Welcome to Radio Davos, the podcast from the World Economic Forum that looks at the biggest challenges and how we might solve them. This week: is climate change denialism on the rise? We speak to an expert who says that, the opposite is in fact true - but that social media is amplifying voices seeking to stop action on climate change

Katharine Hayhoe: Compared to two years ago, we are facing a much more uphill battle online as algorithms have been changed, whether deliberately or not, such that the ultimate result is that false information continues to be magnified even more than it was even two years ago.

Robin Pomeroy: Katharine Hayhoe is a climate scientist and an evangelical Christian who lives in Texas and knows how to reach out to conservatives who might see climate change as a party political rather than a science-based issue

Katharine Hayhoe: Faith-based values are actually uniquely suited, perfectly suited to motivate climate action.

Robin Pomeroy: So why are even some of the most prominent people denying climate science, that has been widely accepted for decades?

Katharine Hayhoe: I really believe that that's what we're seeing today is the last ditch effort to prevent the transition to a sustainable world.

Robin Pomeroy: Follow Radio Davos wherever you get your podcasts, or visit wef.ch/podcasts.

I’m Robin Pomeroy at the World Economic Forum, and with scientist and communicator Katherine Hayhoe on the online and real world discourse on climate change…

Katharine Hayhoe: I practise hope. I practise it like an Olympic sport.

Robin Pomeroy: This is Radio Davos.

Two years ago on Radio Davos, we published an episode called “How to talk to a climate change sceptic”. It was an interview with Texas-based climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe who had written a book called Saving Us: A Climate Scientist's Case for Hope and Healing in a Divided World.

As an evangelical Christian living in big-oil country in the US, Katharine was used to talking about climate change with conservatives, many of whom were not convinced it was a real problem. In that interview form two years ago, which is still available on your podcast app - she had tips on how people can engage in constructive conversation on the issue, even if at first it seems like they don’t agree.

Two years later, I wanted to get her impression of whether climate denialism was really on the rise and why? Her answer was not what I was expecting.

I started by asking Katharine Hayhoe why it was so important to her that we should all be talking about climate change.

Katharine Hayhoe: It's very important for me that we have these conversations because data shows that we aren't, most people don't even hear someone else talk about climate change more than once in a blue moon.

And so when I say have these conversation though, I'm not advocating going after the people we know who are dismissive.

So I live in the U.S. where about 10% of the population is dismissive. I'm from Canada where about 6 or 7% is dismissive. We have the same blocks in the EU, the UK, Australia and more. People who are dismissive are absolutely convinced it cannot be true.

In fact, my own personal definition of a dismissive is someone who, if an angel from God with brand new tablets of stone appeared before them saying global warming is real, in foot-high letters of flame, they wouldn't change their mind. So I do not advocate for arguing with dismissives.

But for all of the people who are wondering, does it matter to me or not? Or even increasingly the people who say, well, I'm really worried but I don't know what to do. That's where having those conversations is so important. Connecting everything we know, which I think of as the head, you know, it's real, it's bad, we have to do something, to the heart, why it matters to me and the things that I care about, the places that I'm passionate about, the people that I love most, and then connecting our heart to our hands. What could we do together to make the world a better place? Head, heart, and hands is how we have those conversations.

Robin Pomeroy: And in that interview from a couple of years ago, you said that you had to find common ground with people, connect with people and it's quite a hopeful message. I wonder if over those two years we haven't seen things swing away from that, though. I mean, everyone talks about being polarised. I don't see much advance in everyone agreeing the facts on climate change. Do you think the pendulum is swinging away or is that just making more headlines?

Katharine Hayhoe: So comparing where we were two years ago to now, there's even more rhetoric online, on social media and headlines of people claiming that climate is not changing or the impacts aren't serious or there are no solutions that work or even that it's too late.

But when we look at the polling data, it tells us a different story. And what's fascinating to me is the polling data shows the same story around the world. It's in the US we're seeing these trends, in Canada, Australia, the UK, the EU, Asia and beyond we are seeing the same trends.

Today, compared to two years ago, more people have been, or they know people who have been, directly affected by extreme weather.

And the most common way that climate change is affecting our lives is by supersizing typhoons, cyclones and hurricanes. Increasing the frequency of devastating heat waves, droughts, floods, and more.

So many more people are seeing the impacts and experience than personally today. And as a result, the number of people who are actually worried about climate change has increased.

In almost every country around the world, the majority of people are already worried.

So that begs the next question, right? The next question is, well, why aren't we doing more about it?

And that's because worry is important. But it's not enough. We could have the whole world worried, but if we don't know what to do about it, we'll just be paralysed.

And that's the situation that we're actually heading towards today. I think of that as the head. We know that it's real, it's bad, and we need to fix it, but we still haven't made that heart connection.

Whether I'm someone who works at a large corporation, how is climate change affecting our supply chain, our facilities, our bottom line? Whether I'm a homeowner paying my home insurance, it's gone up a lot the last year or two. How has climate change made that happen? If I'm the parent who cares about the air that my child is breathing that's filled with pollution or wildfire smoke. We haven't made that head to heart connection yet.

And then we have to make the heart to hands connection. How can I as an individual do everything I can to make a difference?

Around the world, when you ask people, what can I do to make a difference? You know what the number one answer is that we get, whether we're talking about Singapore or New York? Recycle. Now don't get me wrong, I recycle with the best of them, but that isn't going to fix climate change. Neither is your personal carbon footprint reduction going to fix the climate change, although that's also important too.

The most important way each of us can make a difference is to use our voice, to advocate for action wherever we live, wherever we work, wherever we worship, whatever organisation we're part of. How does social change begin? It begins when someone uses their voice.

And to use that voice effectively is not just about the head. We have to connect the heart and the hands.

So that's where we are today that's different than where we were two years ago.

Robin Pomeroy: I wasn't aware of that polling data, that's really interesting, and I think it probably shows once again there's more heat than light. From social media we always see the extremes of opinion.

Katharine Hayhoe: Well, if you don't mind, I have spent a lot of time on social media, and I have seen some changes on social that are amplifying this rhetoric.

So I was an early adopter of Twitter back in 2009, a really long time ago, and for many years I was the most followed climate scientist on Twitter, I'm also very active on LinkedIn, on BlueSky, Threads, Instagram, YouTube, Substack, you name it.

And so what I have noticed over the past two years is that the algorithms on many of these platforms have been changed.

So I have data on Twitter and X going back years of posting the same truths that everyone needs to know, for example, climate change is real, it's human caused, it's serious, and there are solutions if we act now.

And so I have data on how many people responded and how they responded to the same information over multiple years on Twitter an X. And what I've seen is that the amount of trolling, the amount people calling me horrible names, telling me that I should just kill myself, it has increased by a factor of 10 to 15 times.

In the last two days alone, now that we're talking today, Robin, the last two days alone I have received hundreds of comments on X, not even on posts that I myself created, but posts that others created of videos of me speaking this week, calling me absolutely the worst names in the world and saying absolutely horrible things, as well as that nothing I'm saying is true.

On threads, my Threads and my Bluesky account, both of those platforms came out about the same time. They were growing together equally at exactly the same rate until the U.S. election. All of a sudden my threads account froze and then dropped while my Bluesky account continued to grow.

So compared to two years ago, we are facing a much more uphill battle online as algorithms have been changed, whether deliberately or not, such that the ultimate result is that false information continues to be magnified even more than it was even two years ago.

And about six years ago, an MIT study already showed then that false information on Twitter spread six times faster around the world than accurate information on Twitter.

So it's not a level playing field, it's an uphill slope trying to get the truth out today.

Robin Pomeroy: Have you ever asked the platforms about that? Have you changed your algorithm? Why is this happening? Are you going to do anything about it?

Katharine Hayhoe: I have certainly analysed and posted my data online, and I have had conversations on the challenges of moderation on these platforms in the past with some folks at the old Twitter before it was purchased and turned into X, with some folks at TikTok and with some folks at LinkedIn as well. And I fully recognise that it is almost impossible to control for all this information because our human brain is wired such that we're more attracted to false information or information that makes us outraged, than we are to truth.

But at the same time, I do think that algorithms do play a role and moderation plays a role as well. And there is a responsibility, I think, to at least ensure that we are doing more good than harm. And right now I think with some platforms, the balance has tipped in the opposite direction.

Robin Pomeroy: I suppose it's hard to say whether there's genuine move of public opinion, although you cite poll data which would suggest not so much, but has there been a move of kind of fury against climate action in a way it looks, if you have spent your time on some of these social media channels, it looks like there has been. Do you think that is confined to those channels or does it actually express itself then in the real world?

Katharine Hayhoe: Another big difference between two years ago versus now is the fact that we are this much closer to the clean energy economy.

Multiple countries have already passed the economic tipping point for electric vehicles, for solar energy plus storage. For the last few years, every year China has installed more solar energy in a single year then the United States has in its entire history. Last year, the country of Pakistan installed more solar energy in one year than the entire country of Canada has in its entire history. The clean energy technology exports from China taking into account also all the fossil fuels used to produce them, it's estimated they reduced global emissions 1% last year all by themselves.

Wherever we turn, we are seeing evidence of new technology, clean energy, more sustainable ways to use our water, our food, our infrastructure, our resources and more. We're closer than ever to the possibility of a tipping point for that better future.

And so all the more reason for those who have everything to lose from that transition to fight even harder. And so I really believe that that's what we're seeing today is the last ditch effort to prevent the transition to a sustainable world.

Robin Pomeroy: Can I ask you about the psychology of some of these things? It strikes me that climate change denial or scepticism has been wrapped into the kind of the woke issues. These lefty, do-gooder causes, and that might be on gender or it might be on racism and it's on climate change.

Whereas in fact, I would have thought climate change is not one of those issues, and certainly some parts of the world it's never been a left-right thing. I think in Europe, certainly until recently, it was pretty bipartisan. Conservative parties, right-of-centre parties, were just as much in favour of climate action and climate treaties as the left-of centre parties.

Do you have any insight as to why climate change is kind of lumped in with the more general culture war?

Katharine Hayhoe: Well, you're perfectly right. A thermometer does not give you a different answer depending on the way you vote. And a wildfire or a hurricane doesn't knock on the door of your house and say, excuse me, are you conservative or liberal or green party, before it destroys your home and puts your family in danger.

So there's nothing inherently political about the simple facts that climate is changing. Humans are responsible. We've really checked. It's not the sun or volcanoes. In fact, according to natural factors, we should be getting cooler right now, not warmer. And it's bad. Yes, there's a few places where there's some benefits from warming. I'm Canadian, so I'm always looking for low warmer conditions in the winter. But my goodness, even in a northern country like Canada or Greenland or Mongolia, we see huge impacts, negative impacts from climate change on people's health, on our food production, on our water quality and availability. Increasingly on our infrastructure and the economy, the insurance industry, and more.

So there's no question that this issue affects us all no matter who we are, no matter where we live, no matter how we vote.

So back in the 1990s, when Gallup first started polling Americans in the United States about global warming, as they called it then, back then, Republicans and Democrats were neck and neck. Just under 50% said, yes, I'm aware of it, and I think it's a problem.

There was no difference between them. And there shouldn't be.

But then they started to separate. And within 10 years, the number one predictor of whether someone agreed with the simple facts I just shared - it's real, it's us, it bad and we need to fix it - it was not how educated they were. It wasn't how smart they were, it wasn't much science they knew. It was simply where they fell on the political spectrum.

Why is that? It's because there was a concerted investment framing climate solutions as a threat to people with conservative values.

There's an excellent book and documentary called Merchants of Doubt that explains how this was done in the US. There's one called The Petroleum Papers that explains it was done Canada.

And as a result, as the United States and increasingly the world has become more and more polarised, it's taking this toxic stew of issues with it and climate change is one of those.

But for myself, I mean, I'm a scientist. I just go with what the data says. And if you had to place me on the political spectrum, I'm not even sure where I'd go. I'm an evangelical Christian, and that's actually why I became a climate scientist because it affects the poorest and most vulnerable among us. Yet I advocate for climate policy because I know it affects all of us, especially my neighbours in the deep red state of Texas where I live, which is also a leader in wind and solar energy.

So my dream is that people and politicians across the spectrum would agree it's real, it's us, it's bad and we need to fix it. And then they would argue over who has the best solutions.

I want all the best and the most politically savvy minds in the world to be arguing over I want to do it this way. No, I could do it, this way, this technology is better. No, this policy is better.

We need those arguments. And instead we're wasting time arguing over the numbers of thermometers is giving us.

Robin Pomeroy: How do we change that?

Katharine Hayhoe: So the objections people have to climate change, it's not real, it's us, it not bad, we can't fix it. They sound different, but they all have the same goal. The goal of any objection, whether it's wind turbines kill birds or scientists are making this up to line their pockets, both of which I've heard from the same, in the same breath from many people, the objection is to ensure we don't act. The point of any climate denial is to prevent action.

Why is that? Because people are convinced that climate action poses a greater threat to whatever they hold dear than just letting it roll. That might've been true 50 or 60 years ago, but today it is not.

Let me just give you one example from the US. Back in the 1980s, they had about one billion plus dollar weather and climate disaster every four months. So three a year. Now there's one every two weeks and we know that the direct impact is only 10% of the long-term impact. So take any billion dollar plus disaster, which could be $48 billion, $96 billion, $126 billion for a big hurricane. And then multiply that by 10 to get the full knock on impacts.

And those are just the impacts you can put a dollar sign on. There's a lot more impacts in terms of health and loss of productivity that you can't.

When we look at these impacts, they're already happening today, and the solutions are starting to happen too. So I live in Texas, which has more wind energy than any other state. It is neck and neck with California. One month, Texas pulls ahead, then the other month California catches up for the most utility scale solar.

And when we introduce people to solutions, and when they see themselves in the solutions, and they understand how they can benefit from the solutions, whether materially or in terms of wellbeing, then that often erases all the denial.

Can I tell you a story about my colleague, John?

Robin Pomeroy: Please do.

Katharine Hayhoe: So I have colleague, Don Cook from Australia who, every time he went home to have dinner with his father, his father lived in a rural part of Australia and was very politically conservative and heard from people he trusted that climate change wasn't real. So every time John went home to have dinner with his dad, his dad would be like, oh, well, I heard there's more polar bears now than there ever were. So what about that global warming, John?

So John, who was already a solar physicist, got so irritated by his dad pulling up all of these arguments that he went and created the premier climate denial debunking website in the world. It's called Sceptical Science, and it actually lists over 200 arguments about climate change that people often use and debunks them using science-based information.

John didn't stop there. He went back to school and he ended up getting a PhD in cognitive psychology and became a global expert in misinformation.

Now, do you think any of that changed his dad's mind? It did not.

But the Australian government, a number of years ago, was offering a rebate on solar panels in the rural area where his dad lived. His dad prized being independent, being thrifty and it doesn't hurt to stick it to the government either. So John brought this rebate to his dad's attention using those arguments, nothing to do with climate. His Dad got the solar panels and pretty soon, he was emailing or texting or telling John every month, Look at how much I've saved on my solar panels.

So about two years after his dad got his solar panels, they were having dinner again. And in the course of conversation, his father said, Oh yes, global warming. That's such a serious issue. And I've always thought so.

John said he almost fell off his chair. With his degree in cognitive psychology, he couldn't even conceptualise how his dad had not just changed his mind, but had forgotten that he ever had.

So what happened was the solutions became part of his dad's identity. It made his father more thrifty than he already was more independent than he already was smarter than he was.

And the epilogue is his dad since moved into an assisted living facility and he was outraged that they were wasting his money by not putting solar on the roof. So now he's on a campaign to use his voice to make a difference because he sees himself in the solutions and the solutions help him be an even better and more genuine version of who he already is.

We can take that lesson and we can apply it to almost anyone we know. Who are they? What values do they prize? What things do they care about? And then what climate solutions could help them be an even better parent? An even shrewder business person? An even more loving neighbour or family member or community member? An even more genuine member of their faith?

Whoever we already are, I truly believe that we have every single reason we need to care. And those of us who do already care and want to use their voices to make a difference, all we have to do is to help them figure out how what they already care about, not what we care about, but what they already care about, makes them the perfect person to advocate for climate action.

Robin Pomeroy: That's actually kind of my next question is, is a large part of this follow the money in that? Proponents of climate action will say green energy is cheaper, it's not only cleaner, it's cheaper. I honestly think if utility bills were coming down to someone who's, you know, they've got wind farms near them or whatever, very often that doesn't happen. Do you think that's a policy failure that if my energy, electricity bills are going up, which they are in most of the places I know about, is that why they keep installing all this green stuff and if people are telling you, well, that's more expensive, well, it's showing up on your utility bill. So that's the challenge for policy makers or maybe for the utility companies, do you think?

Katharine Hayhoe: I think it's a challenge for policymakers and for communication as well.

So for example, where I live in Texas, I can actually choose whether I want all wind or not from my power producer, and they tell me how many cents per kilowatt hour it is. So I actually know if I'm paying a difference, and it turns out the plan that I'm on, I'm not, and I'm 100% wind.

But for some people, it's not broken out, and electricity prices have been soaring at the same time as solar. Plus storage, prices have been plummeting.

So in many countries around the world, like Pakistan, for example, which again, last year, they installed more solar energy in one year than the entire country of Canada in its whole history. They did that because solar is affordable. But in the United States, for examples, power prices have spiked, and a lot of that is because of increase in demand, especially those massive colossal data centres that are being built to run extremely inefficient AI models. We have much more efficient ones that use a lot less energy. In fact, already before the data centre revolution, 67% of the energy produced in the United States was wasted. Other countries are a bit more efficient. Germany leads the list for most efficient, but we could still be so much more efficient with the way we use our energy.

So it's not the fault of the green energy that the price is skyrocketing, but how is anyone supposed to know it if they're not told? And even worse, if they're told it is, and they're not inoculated in advance, like John Cook's research actually shows that we can inoculate people against false information by telling them the true information and explaining it in advance. But if they are not inocculated and they don't hear the true inoculation, what are they supposed to believe?

Robin Pomeroy: Tell us something about your Christian faith then, because faith isn't science, it's belief, it's not based on data, and people who follow fundamentalist versions of Christianity or any other religion may say they believe things which can be disproven by science. I'm talking about like the age of the universe or, you know, the fact there were dinosaurs before there were humans. Does that trouble you, or have you come to peace with that?

Katharine Hayhoe: So for me, there's a verse in the book of Hebrews in the Bible that says that faith is the evidence of what we do not see.

And if I had been there 2,000 years ago, sitting beside whoever wrote that, I would have jogged their elbow and I would've said, you forgot the second half of that verse. Science is the evidence of what do see.

So for me there are two different sides of the same coin.

Another way to put it is science can tell us if we go in this certain direction, if we make this certain decision, here's the consequences of that decision. I'm a climate modeller and so that's exactly what I do. I say depending on the choices we make, here's what the future's going to look like and here's how it will impact our food, our water, our infrastructure, our health and more.

But where our values come in is in helping us choose the right decision to make, the right direction to take. And for over 80% of people around the world, their values are informed by their faith. And no matter what faith it is, almost every single faith has at its core ideas of being good stewards or caretakers of this incredible planet that we've been entrusted with and of caring for those less fortunate than us.

And that makes us the perfect person, that gives us the exact values we need to care about climate action.

So where has this whole idea come from that climate is somehow in conflict with faith? People say, well, if God's in control, then why does it matter? And I say, we'll just open your Bible and read Genesis 1. I say that because it's typically Christians who say that to me. If they weren't Christian, I wouldn't say that to them. But if you read Genesis 1, it says, God gave humans responsibility over every living thing on this Earth, which of course includes our brothers and sisters as well.

And then they say, well, if the world's going to end anyways, why does it matter? It turns out 2,000 years ago, people back then were saying the same thing. Not about climate change, but just about doing good. And the apostle Paul wrote to them and basically said, get out of bed, get a job, support your family, care for the widows, the orphans, and the poor. You don't know what the future holds, but in the meantime we're called to love others as we ourselves have been loved by God.

So faith-based values are actually uniquely suited, perfectly suited to motivate climate action. But over the years, and this has happened throughout human history, people build up cultural constructs around their theology. Constructs like the age of the Earth, for example.

And so I often interact with people who believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. But you know what? When it comes to climate action, doesn't really matter. As long as we believe the earth is at least 300 years old, because that's when the industrial revolution began, then we have all the information we need to take climate action. In fact, if you take our ice core data, which stretches back hundreds of thousands of years. And our ice core data shows this regular pattern of glacial and interglacial cycles driven by changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun. And right now where we are on those natural cycles is we should be gradually heading into a cooling period, but instead we're warming faster and faster. If you take that ice core record and you just plot the last 6,000 years, you know what you see? You see that we were gradually cooling very, very, slowly. Until about 200 years ago and all of a sudden straight up.

So honestly, if we believe or someone believes the Earth is young, they have even more reason to be extremely worried about what's happening because it is completely unprecedented in the history of the planet.

Robin Pomeroy: Are you optimistic that things will get better?

You've got very prominent people saying climate change is a hoax and people will be listening to that and taking it at face value and believing it.

What gives you hope that that can either change or that action will happen anyway, that it won't matter, that those things are still being said? Carry on saying them if you like, but things will change.

You strike me as a very optimistic person. What do you have faith in that will change and that will help us avert climate catastrophe?

Katharine Hayhoe: I'm not sure I would say I am an optimistic person because I'm not convinced it's going to turn out OK. I know that what happens in the future depends on the choices we make today.

And so that's why I'm doing everything I can to use my voice and to encourage others to use their voice to help people understand what's at stake.

It is nothing less than everything we love at stake, as if you could imagine everything, every place, and most particularly every person you love tied to the railroad tracks of life with climate change and the biodiversity crisis right behind it, barreling down the track. Wouldn't you do everything you could to stop that train? I would, and I think if everybody knew that was the situation, they would too.

So although I wouldn't say I'm optimistic, I'm definitely hopeful because I practise hope. I practise it like an Olympic sport. I practise that like I want to win my own personal competition of hope.

Because for me, hope is not, oh, everything's going to be okay, because it's not going be OK unless we do something. When you look at what hope actually is, it turns out that hope begins with the recognition that things are bad.

Think about London during the Blitz. Things were terrible. That's when you most need hope, when the situation looks most dire. If you look the activists advocating for abolition back in the 1800s, or the civil rights activists in the U.S. advocating for civil rights in the fifties. Or those who are fighting apartheid in South Africa, even more recently.

It seems darkest before the dawn often. But by practising hope, that's what keeps you going. So it begins by recognising it's bad, that's the first ingredient to hope. The second ingredient recognises that a better future is possible, although it's not guaranteed.

But here's the third ingredient. The third ingredient is that there's a pathway to get from here to that better future. And that if we do everything we can to move each other along that pathway, it will make a difference.

Now, this is not just psychology. It's actually climate science because what science says, when it comes to climate change, when it come to carbon pollution, it says, every bit of warming, we avoid matters. Of course, we should do everything we can to strive for the 1.5 degrees C goal, but if we strive for one and a half degrees and we end up at 1.6, well that's better than 1.7. If we end up at 1.7, well, that's better than if we had aimed for 2.

Every bit of warming matters, every choice matters. Every action matters. And so for me, hope is a practise where I go out and I look for good news about people, organisations, and more who are making a difference. And when you go out and look, there's thousands of them all around the world making an incredible difference. Whether it's a teacher. Whether it's somebody working in industry, whether it somebody in the faith community or the sports and entertainment industry or even just somebody living down the road from you. And then what I do is I share that.

So a couple of years ago, I started a newsletter called Talking Climate, and every week I share good news about climate solutions, not so good news about how climate change is affecting us. So not the polar bears or the ice sheets, how it's affecting fertility rates, the matcha tea harvest, our home insurance rates, our own health during heat waves. Not so good news, and then I always share something we can do, head, heart, and hands. That's how we can build a better world.

Robin Pomeroy: Katharine, thank you very much.

Katharine Hayhoe: Thank you for having me.

Robin Pomeroy: Katharine Hayhoe.

We have lots more episodes on climate change in our backcatalogue find those wherever you are listening to this, or on our website wef.ch/podcasts.

And find out what the World Economic Forum is doing on climate change visit the Centre for Nature and Climate online - link in the show notes.

Please follow Radio Davos wherever you get your podcasts and please leave us a rating or review. And join the conversation on the World Economic Forum Podcast club on Facebook.

This episode of Radio Davos was written, presented and edited by me, Robin Pomeroy. Studio production was by Taz Kelleher.

We will be back next week, but for now thanks to you for listening and goodbye.