Climate scientist Judith Curry, once the darling of environmental advocacy groups, says the doomsday consensus around climate change is “manufactured”. In a bombshell interview with John Stossel, she speaks openly about being part of the government-funded climate alarmism complex. Here’s an excerpt from Stossel’s piece about the interview:
We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus”.
“It’s a manufactured consensus,” says climate scientist Judith Curry in my new video. 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 Four and Five hurricanes had doubled,” says Curry. “This was picked up by the media,” and then climate alarmists realised, “Oh, here is the way to do it. Tie extreme weather events to global warming!” …
“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. She realised that the critics were right. “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.
“Ugly things,” says Curry. “Avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests. Trying to get journal editors fired.”
It made Curry realise that there is a “climate change industry” set up to reward alarmism.
“The origins go back to the… U.N. environmental programme,” says Curry. Some U.N. officials were motivated by “anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along.”
The U.N. created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“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.” …
The researchers quickly figured out that the way to get funded was to make alarmist claims about “man-made climate change”.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Shocking, not shocked.
And yet I know that if I sent details of this interview to the “scientists” in my family, I’d continue to be denounced by them. “Terrible behaviour,” they say about me behind my back.
Speaking the truth really is an act of revolution.
Yep all too often it’s a depressing pattern reading the Daily Sceptic. I saw this video days ago. I saw the article today, seeing the words “bombshell interview” and my heart rate raised a little at the exciting sounding wording.
“Ooh has that video hit mainstream Fantastic!”
I click through in anticipation and enthusiasm, and find myself at exactly the page I saw a few days ago knowing immediately precisely no-one in my circle of friends will have seen it and that I am still one of the “unclean” living in “conspiracy land.”
I have to have faith with the likes of The Daily Sceptic, Joe Rogan, Michael Schellenburger, Matt Taibbi, Glen Greenwald, Tucker Carlson, Jordan Peterson; even Russel Brand, things are changing. Their audience share is growing and growing. Perhaps it feels so frustrating because aged 55 I’m still taking my cues from the cultural references of my youth. Broadsheet papers, broadcast TV (which I barely ever watch, never now live broadcast, and I stopped paying the license fee years ago) but my goodness it feels like a frustrating, slow and painful process.
Science (as distinct from “The Science”) is a frustrating, slow, painful process. How could it be otherwise, my friend?
Winning hearts and minds is an inevitable part of science, because if the majority do not believe something to be true, then it is not true. What is truth if the mass do not believe it? What value does truth have if – through refusal in the minds of the masses to believe it – we cannot profit by that truth?
It is said that truth is that which remains after you’ve stopped believing in it. Until then, the truth we seek – and which we may even find – remains, at most, a curiosity for us, and a thorn in the side of those who seek to enslave us.
Yes – I would predict they would say she was merely seeking fame and fortune from her dissident stance, as well as (of course) being paid by the evil oil companies (who are not eveil when they finance, and get on the boards of, green energy think-tanks).
Excellent piece about a courageous woman. In normal times it would be called a “smoking gun”, but the times are far from normal.
Those who support the climate agenda are now more or less in charge; and the metropolitan middle class is grossly prejudiced; it has been taught to turn the fabled intolerance of “respectability” upon anything resembling doubt where “climate” is concerned and will dismiss such findings out of hand – even if it hears of them.
Sadly, there is a host of issues in response to which this same middle class will offer the same chorus of poisonous bromides – immigration, “Europe”, housing, health; you name it, they will dunderheadedly parrot the current party line, even as their private arrangements contradict it entirely – with health insurance, private schools, gas boilers and so on.
The secret of their mental imprisonment (other than the capture of leading institutions by the hard left and the indoctrination of their children) is fear: fear of each other, fear of authority, fear of “the boss”. Only a Brexit style rebellion will help them – but our idiot Tory party led for far too long by that flaky waste of space, Johnson – has stymied such a possibility.
The real agony of our time is this: that we so very nearly reversed from the brink of disaster and drove away; but because the driver and his successors have proved so purblind and spineless, we’re going off the edge after all.
purblind
I’d forgotten that word. Thanks.
And so excellently put. The message reminds me of HelenaHancart, someone who used to comment here before the paywall was introduced. Wonder where she is these days.
Be not afraid.
N’ayez pas peur.
Indeed, Rumpo, and the Net Zero/climate alarmist cheerleaders are now so firmly embedded into the cogs and wheels of every level of our society that it is almost impossible to crank a gear without setting off the same old tropes about being for the common good and only so many years to, big yawn, save the planet etc. It is Agenda 21 of course and the slumbering middle classes have drunk deeply from the well of Kool-Aid to the point where they don’t even know they’re indoctrinated. Can they ever find their way out of the maze? Probably not with our help. It’s not that they don’t wish to entertain the notion that what they thought was true is a lie, it’s that they can’t.
Unfortunately the industrialisation of these woke ideas has given too much fame, money and power to some people intent on its perpetuality for their own ends, for it ever to stop at anytime soon.
Great comment..I like the term the great Julie Birchall used recently in a piece in Spiked when she talked about Gary Lineker…she called them ‘luxury beliefs’ …which I think fits the bill perfectly…it was ever thus..the people who push this nonsense on others always have the luxury of not suffering from the consequences…?!
“Dunderhead”—–Never heard that one for a while ——or as my gran used to say “Dunderheed”
“Climate skeptics have seized on Curry’s statements to cast doubt on the basic science of climate change. So it is important to emphasize that nothing she encountered led her to question the science; she still has no doubt that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are in large part to blame, or that the plausible worst-case scenario could be catastrophic. She does not believe that the Climategate e-mails are evidence of fraud or that the IPCC is some kind of grand international conspiracy.”
Climate Heretic: Judith Curry Turns on Her Colleagues – Scientific American
Important to point out that the article in Scientific American was written in 2010.
That’s an old article – since then she has woken up.
And/or Scientific American was misrepresenting her position. “It is important to emphasize” that scientific journals have become deeply politicised.
Woken up, nice one
https://judithcurry.com/
Bookmark. Heroine of the climate waters; repeatedly slandered by fraufypants Mann, she left the trade to go solo. Smart, and to the point. Follow Judith,
We live in a fake world where experts are paid a lot of taxpayer money for lying.
And it’s a new book of prayers for most projects that have to say certain things to justify their progress. E.g. this one: https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/south-west/a417-missing-link/ . If one delves into it a bit, there are items that describe how good they are re Net Zero and Climate etc. I’m not criticising the project – it’s just as well that they seem to be starting some work on site before long. However, it’s entirely possible that compliance with the latest philosophy costs a bit extra. Incidentally, I hope they get it done before the climate scarers successfully argue that road improvements are a bad idea, as they encourage their use too much.
Scientific consensuses included:
The Sun orbits the Earth
Stress gives you ulcers
Doctors don’t need to wash their hands after working on cadavers
A consensus in any scientific discipline has to be manufactured because consensus has no place in science. Its root meaning is knowledge, not opinion or belief; that is known as religion..
So it’s the UN again! How a giant organisation can be designed ‘to spread freedom’ when most of its members aren’t from the ‘free world’ is beyond me! The UN and its goals reflect the majority of its members: manipulative, totalitarian, authoritarian, tyrannical, corrupt and fraudulent. It’s been clear for many years that the UN doesn’t work and neither do any of its agencies.
Ayn Rand pointed out in an open letter to Harry Truman during the Korean War that it was stupid to have the UN Security Council overseeing the US and Southern Korean actions in Korea when the Soviet Union (in particular) and the communist Chiang Kai-Shek’s Republic of China (aka Taiwan) ideologically supported the North. In effect, N Korea was given access to S Korean decisions.
The UN needs to be defunded and a League of Free Nations created that doesn’t involve the likes of Red China.
It’s a scam. It’s obviously a scam.
I’m astounded so many ordinary people are taken in by it. But then I never understand why some post-menopausal women seem to genuinely believe that a 24 yr old Nigerian man is deeply in love with them.
Or why millions of educated Brits fell for the Covid scam.
Currently reading her book “Climate Uncertainty and Risk” ——Along with “Energy and Climate Wars”, (Economides) “Hubris” (Michael Hart) and “Taken by Storm” (Christoper Essex and Ross Mckitrick) this is another excellent book. None of this you will ever hear on Climate Activist News Channels like BBC and SKY News. Because they want to only present the Climate Crisis narrative for political purposes.
Judith knows———– “It ain’t what you know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure just ain’t so” —Mark Twain
The climate change industry is very lucrative for those inside it.
They will create reports that say that climate change is a crisis to ensure the money keeps flowing to them.
It’s about job retention.
If you don’t go with the ‘flow’ or ‘accepted truth’ then expect to be persecuted, condemned, criticized and marginalized.
But only by advocating for your ideas will science and people’s minds be changed, and society will progress.
Traditional media outlets give only one side of the story about climate change.
This shows they are afraid of allowing other opinions because they know their side would not stand up to being criticized.