While the scientific community widely accepts that the Earth’s climate is changing and humans are playing a significant role, Judith A. Curry, a prominent American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, questions the prevailing narrative.
In a recent interview with New York Post‘s John Stossel, Curry presents her perspective that the “overwhelming consensus” is largely “manufactured.”
“It’s a manufactured consensus,” Curry told Stossel. She points to a system where scientists gain more recognition, and subsequently, more funding by promoting catastrophic scenarios.
This ‘alarmism,’ she asserted, plays a pivotal role in shaping their careers.
“There’s an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue ‘fame and fortune,’” she added.
Curry is no stranger to media attention. When she published a study indicating a sharp rise in Category 4 and 5 hurricane intensity, the media spotlight shone brightly on her.
“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” she said.
She was widely celebrated, especially by climate activists who were eager to link extreme weather events to climate change.
“I was treated like a rock star,” she recalled, describing a period where she was in high demand among politicians and climate alarmists.
However, her meteoric rise faced challenges when other researchers observed inconsistencies and gaps in her work, particularly during years with fewer hurricanes. Unlike many, Curry heeded the criticisms, delving deeper into her own research.
“Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability… They had a point,” she acknowledged. Her ability to admit faults and consider external critiques marked her as an exception in the field.
Describing what she sees as an established “climate-change industry”, Curry traces its roots to the United Nations’ environmental programs.
In this incident, leaked emails exposed some climate scientists attempting to withhold data and stifle opposing views.
“Ugly things,” Curry told Stossel, referring to the tactics revealed in the emails, including efforts to sidestep Freedom of Information Act requests and attempts to influence journal editors.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was primarily set up to find evidence supporting the narrative of “dangerous human-caused climate change.”
“The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. The IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change,” she said.
“Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding . . . assuming there are dangerous impacts.”
Per New York Post, this is how “manufactured consensus” happens.
Curry also criticized academic journals for their bias. Highlighting an instance where an editor from a leading scientific journal openly discouraged debate on climate change, Curry raised concerns about the implications this has on scientific discourse.
“What kind of message does that give?” she asked.
Curry believes that this has led to a one-sided trajectory for those in academia: “Promote the alarming papers! Don’t even send the other ones out for review. If you wanted to advance in your career, like be at a prestigious university and get a big salary, have big laboratory space, get lots of grant funding, be director of an institute, there was clearly one path to go.”
Curry is not alone. Nobel Prize winner in Physics, John Clauser, lashed out at the science heretics who continue to push global warming and who “threaten the well-being of billions of people”
Clauser criticized the prevalent climate models as being unreliable and not accounting for the dramatic temperature-stabilizing feedback of clouds, which he says is more than fifty times as powerful as the radiative forcing effect of CO2.
Clauser believes there is no climate crisis threatening the planet.
Also, Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Green Peace and has been a leader in the environmental movement for more than 50 years, echoed Clauser’s sentiment.
“Dr. John F. Clauser, Nobel Prize in Physics, 2022, pulls no punches in his critique of the “climate crisis” hoax. He is now a board member of the CO2 Coalition,” Moore wrote.
In an interview, Moore said, “One of my missions is to turn on its head the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and somehow dangerous, when in fact it is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth. And without it, this would be a dead planet.”
“I say not only is carbon dioxide good, it is essential. And it’s a good thing that we are putting some more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because it was running low before we came along. If we had definitive proof that CO2 was causing serious problems and we could prove it, don’t you think they would write that down on a piece of paper somewhere so people could read it? They don’t have definitive proof.” he added.
In a recent interview with New York Post‘s John Stossel, Curry presents her perspective that the “overwhelming consensus” is largely “manufactured.”
“It’s a manufactured consensus,” Curry told Stossel. She points to a system where scientists gain more recognition, and subsequently, more funding by promoting catastrophic scenarios.
This ‘alarmism,’ she asserted, plays a pivotal role in shaping their careers.
“There’s an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue ‘fame and fortune,’” she added.
Curry is no stranger to media attention. When she published a study indicating a sharp rise in Category 4 and 5 hurricane intensity, the media spotlight shone brightly on her.
“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” she said.
She was widely celebrated, especially by climate activists who were eager to link extreme weather events to climate change.
“I was treated like a rock star,” she recalled, describing a period where she was in high demand among politicians and climate alarmists.
However, her meteoric rise faced challenges when other researchers observed inconsistencies and gaps in her work, particularly during years with fewer hurricanes. Unlike many, Curry heeded the criticisms, delving deeper into her own research.
“Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability… They had a point,” she acknowledged. Her ability to admit faults and consider external critiques marked her as an exception in the field.
Describing what she sees as an established “climate-change industry”, Curry traces its roots to the United Nations’ environmental programs.
In this incident, leaked emails exposed some climate scientists attempting to withhold data and stifle opposing views.
“Ugly things,” Curry told Stossel, referring to the tactics revealed in the emails, including efforts to sidestep Freedom of Information Act requests and attempts to influence journal editors.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was primarily set up to find evidence supporting the narrative of “dangerous human-caused climate change.”
“The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. The IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change,” she said.
“Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding . . . assuming there are dangerous impacts.”
Per New York Post, this is how “manufactured consensus” happens.
Curry also criticized academic journals for their bias. Highlighting an instance where an editor from a leading scientific journal openly discouraged debate on climate change, Curry raised concerns about the implications this has on scientific discourse.
“What kind of message does that give?” she asked.
Curry believes that this has led to a one-sided trajectory for those in academia: “Promote the alarming papers! Don’t even send the other ones out for review. If you wanted to advance in your career, like be at a prestigious university and get a big salary, have big laboratory space, get lots of grant funding, be director of an institute, there was clearly one path to go.”
Curry is not alone. Nobel Prize winner in Physics, John Clauser, lashed out at the science heretics who continue to push global warming and who “threaten the well-being of billions of people”
Clauser criticized the prevalent climate models as being unreliable and not accounting for the dramatic temperature-stabilizing feedback of clouds, which he says is more than fifty times as powerful as the radiative forcing effect of CO2.
Clauser believes there is no climate crisis threatening the planet.
Also, Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Green Peace and has been a leader in the environmental movement for more than 50 years, echoed Clauser’s sentiment.
“Dr. John F. Clauser, Nobel Prize in Physics, 2022, pulls no punches in his critique of the “climate crisis” hoax. He is now a board member of the CO2 Coalition,” Moore wrote.
In an interview, Moore said, “One of my missions is to turn on its head the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and somehow dangerous, when in fact it is the most important nutrient for all life on Earth. And without it, this would be a dead planet.”
“I say not only is carbon dioxide good, it is essential. And it’s a good thing that we are putting some more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, because it was running low before we came along. If we had definitive proof that CO2 was causing serious problems and we could prove it, don’t you think they would write that down on a piece of paper somewhere so people could read it? They don’t have definitive proof.” he added.
