© IMDBClimate scientist Judith Curry says climate change is a "manufactured consensus."
"It's a manufactured consensus," climate scientist Judith Curry tells me.
She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue "fame and fortune."
She knows about that because she once spread alarm about climate change.
Media loved her when she published a study that seemed to show a dramatic increase in hurricane intensity.
"We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled," says Curry.
"This was picked up by the media," and then climate alarmists realized, "Oh, here is the way to do it. Tie extreme weather events to global warming!"
"So, this hysteria is your fault!" I tell her.
"Not really," she smiles.
"They would have picked up on it anyways."
Curry claims scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune” regarding to climate change.
"I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star," Curry recounts.
"Flown all over the place to meet with politicians."
But then some researchers pointed out gaps in her research — years with low levels of hurricanes.
"Like a good scientist, I investigated," says Curry.
Curry adds on, “This was picked up by the media,” and then climate alarmists realized, “Oh, here is the way to do it. Tie extreme weather events to global warming!”
"Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability."
Curry was the unusual researcher who looked at criticism of her work and actually concluded "they had a point."
Then the Climategate scandal taught her that other climate researchers weren't so open-minded.
Alarmist scientists' aggressive attempts to hide data suggesting climate change is not a crisis were revealed in leaked emails.
In regards to the Climategate scandal, it taught Curry that other climate researchers weren’t so open-minded.AFP via Getty Images
"Avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests. Trying to get journal editors fired."
It made Curry realize that there is a "climate-change industry" set up to reward alarmism.
"The origins go back to the . . . UN environmental program," says Curry.
Some United Nations officials were motivated by "anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along."
The UN created the Intergovernmental Panel on 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."
"Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding . . . assuming there are dangerous impacts."
The researchers quickly figured out that the way to get funded was to make alarmist claims about "man-made climate change."
This is how "manufactured consensus" happens.
Even if a skeptic did get funding, it's harder to publish because journal editors are alarmists.
"The editor of the journal Science wrote this political rant," says Curry.
She even said, "The time for debate has ended."
"What kind of message does that give?" adds Curry.
Then she answers her own question: "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."
That's what we've got 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."
Where do a lot of these green parties get their money? How many green parties are pro-war? Most if not all of them?
Climate change science has a direct ancestor called “the Anoxia Model for Oil Shale Formation.” All of the heavy metals in oil shale including uranium just precipitated out of seawater according to the anoxia model.
The actual cause of the metal concentrations being fallout from an interstellar impact is non-existent in the scientific literature.
The connection between fake anoxia science and climate change is that anoxia was fictionally caused by an increase in climate temperature and the shutting down of ocean currents causing the lack of oxygen on the seafloor. Not a big rock vaporizing everything.
The Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) occurred in some fuzzy time about 55 million years ago. It only happened in the oceans because the CIA ran the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP) which redated the massive ecological trauma of the K/T bombardment by making it younger by 10 million years. On land it is still the K/T boundary.
A drilling rig is dangerous so no one gets to see when a particular core is actually extracted. And the deep state (USGS) has been lying about the age of rocks since the technology was created. On board ship you can move the core samples left and right on the core sampling table changing their age like 3 card monte.
It is what happens to the environment when the planet is bombarded by interstellar asteroids. This extinction event (which killed the dinosaurs) might have created the conditions for producing as much as 30-40% of the oil used on this planet.
The PETM is supposed to be the model for what happens with high carbon dioxide levels. Except it is fake.
Nobody wants to be “seen” with big oil men or pedophiles.
Big oil has faked so much climate science in the course of its normal business practices that creating climate change as a political vehicle was a no-brainer. Funding a fascist green movement which uses apocalyptic messaging to brainwash young people was an idea from German immigrants coming to America in 1945.
The oil men still need to keep the Deep State in business to save their own necks.
And the “Green Parties” are a way of getting young people to talk to the devil. Pretend to be one thing then use that influence to do Satan’s good works.