Scientist admits the ‘overwhelming consensus’ on the climate crisis is ‘contrived’
We are told that climate change is a crisis and that there is “overwhelming scientific consensus”.
“It’s a fabricated consensus,” climate scientist Judith Curry tells me.
She says scientists have an incentive to overdo the risk in order to seek “fame and fortune.”
She knows about it because she once spread the alarm about climate change.
The media wowed her when she released a study that appeared to show a dramatic increase in hurricane intensity.
“We found that the proportion of category 4 and category 5 hurricanes doubled,” says Curry.
“That got picked up by the media,” and then climate alarmists realized, “Oh, here’s the way to do it.” Link extreme weather events to global warming!”
“So this hysteria is your fault!” I tell her.
“Not really,” she smiles.
“They would have picked it up anyway.”
But Curry’s “more intense” hurricanes gave them fuel.
“I was adopted by the environmental groups and the alarmists and treated like a rock star,” says Curry.
“Flyed everywhere to meet with politicians.”
But then some researchers pointed to gaps in their research – years with few hurricanes.
“Like a good scientist, I did some research,” says Curry.
She realized that the critics were right.
“Part of it was bad data. Part of this is natural climate variability.”
Curry was the unusual researcher who dealt with criticism of her work and actually concluded “they were right.”
Then she learned from the Climategate scandal that other climate researchers are not so open-minded.
The aggressive attempts by alarming scientists to hide data pointing to climate change not A crisis has been revealed in leaked emails.
“Ugly things,” says Curry.
“Avoiding Freedom of Information Act Requests. I am trying to get magazine editors fired.”
This made Curry realize that there is a “climate change industry” designed to reward alarmism.
“The origins go back to the. . . UN Environment Program,” says Curry.
Some United Nations officials were motivated by “anti-capitalism.” They hated the oil companies and used climate change to drive their policies.”
The UN established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“The IPCC shouldn’t focus on just anything Advantages of warming. The IPCC’s mandate was to look for it dangerous Man-made climate change.”
“Then the national funding agencies led all the funding. . . provided There are dangerous implications.”
Researchers quickly found that the route to funding was by making alarming claims of “human-caused climate change.”
In this way, an “established consensus” emerges.
Even if a skeptic received funding, publication would be more difficult because magazine editors are alarmists.
“The editor of Science magazine wrote this political tirade,” says Curry.
She even said, “The time for debate is over.”
“What kind of message does that convey?” adds Curry.
Then she answers her own question: Advertise the alarming newspapers! Don’t even send the others out to check. If you wanted to advance in your career, like be in a prestigious university and get a good salary, have large laboratory space, get lots of grants, or become the director of an institute, there was clearly a way.”
That’s what we have now: a massive government-funded climate alarmism complex.
John Stossel is the author of Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.
