Climate change is often portrayed as a crisis backed by an “overwhelming scientific consensus.” However, climate scientist Judith Curry challenges this narrative, suggesting that this consensus may be manufactured. Curry believes that scientists have a vested interest in exaggerating the risks associated with climate change in order to gain fame and fortune. She speaks from personal experience, as she once contributed to the alarmism by publishing a study that seemed to show a significant increase in hurricane intensity.
Curry’s study gained widespread attention and she became a celebrity in the media, championed by environmental advocacy groups and alarmists. She was flown around the world to meet with politicians, enjoying the limelight for a while. However, as other researchers began to question her findings, Curry realized that there were gaps and flaws in her research, including periods with low levels of hurricanes. Rather than dismissing the criticism, she took a scientific approach and investigated the concerns.
Upon reevaluation, Curry acknowledged that the critics were correct. She discovered that some of her data was flawed, and she recognized that natural climate variability plays a role in hurricane intensity. This realization led her to question the integrity of other climate researchers, especially after the Climategate scandal exposed their efforts to hide data that contradicted the crisis narrative of climate change. The leaked emails revealed a disturbing pattern of tactics employed by alarmist scientists, including attempts to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests and exert influence over journal editors.
Curry’s observations led her to conclude that there is a “climate-change industry” that rewards alarmism and punishes dissenting voices. She believes that some United Nations officials and organizations, driven by anti-capitalism sentiments and a disdain for oil companies, have seized upon climate change to advance their policies. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created by the UN, was meant to focus solely on identifying dangerous human-caused climate change, effectively excluding any consideration of potential benefits from warming.
Funding agencies and researchers quickly realized that making alarmist claims about “man-made climate change” was the key to obtaining funding and publishing opportunities. Those with alternative viewpoints, particularly skeptics, faced more significant obstacles due to biased journal editors who favored alarmism. Curry highlights the case of a politically motivated editorial in the journal Science that declared the end of debate on the subject.
The current state of affairs is a reflection of a massive climate alarmism complex fueled by government funding. Curry’s insights shed light on the inner workings of the industry and the ways in which it stifles dissent and promotes a singular narrative for personal gain.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
