The Fake Climate Consensus

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 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.”

But Curry’s “more intense” hurricanes gave them fuel.

“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 realized 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 realize that there is a “climate change industry” set up to reward alarmism.

“The origins go back to the … U.N. environmental program,” 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.

“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.

Photo by Tina Rolf on Unsplash

28 thoughts on “The Fake Climate Consensus

  1. How can we convince the people that they are being manipulated and lied to and some if not all should be a criminal act to scream fire with no fire.

      1. Both wings belong to the same bird. It doesn’t matter who u vote for, the government always wins

    1. It’s interesting that you write an article about Judith Curry and her doubts about climate change. How about writing an article about the 97% of scientists who disagree with her. I think you’d rather politicize the problem and bow to the right wing Than print the actual truth.

      1. Sadly, I would agree with you on the 97%. That’s about the same breakdown there is among the population of people that can bought being 97% of them would agree that elephants can fly, if the incentive is their grant money. Only about 3 percent of the population, has the integrity to not go along with a lie.

        It always boils down to ‘follow the money’. FWIW, I’ve been fighting against the deception of the consensus process since I was in college in the mid 90s where it was forced on students. In the past, ‘Science’ was provable and repeatable. Simply put, a ‘consensus’ is simply a group of people agreeing to something.

        The ‘consensus process’ was specifically designed to deceive people and is a fraud. It was designed to manipulate large amounts of people with the least amount of effort, as well as causing people to look away from scientific provable fact. Using the consensus process, they moved people away from documentation, to a mere, group of people, (that you can bet are hand picked) to agree to something. All it takes for a consensus, is a group of so called scientists, to be working for a university, that relies on grants and the group of scientists will agree to whatever goals that the grant is looking for out of the scientists.

      2. What is interesting is the people who disagree like her are being silenced by being fired(my local weather guy for example), not allowed to speak (polar bear lady now gone), wiki defines them as misinformation spreaders- even ex green peace guy disagrees with climate crisis. How about it’s an environmental crisis- windmills killing animals- they will rust and stop working in ocean then what? Masks dumped by billions of pounds into ocean, plastic everywhere- its total hypocrisy! Wild fires of natural are good for forests do we ever hear that some pines need fire to regrow? To even think there isn’t something wrong with our media and govt is being a fool- we debate that’s what we do- look at the super wealthy buying up tangible assets- you think gates is a farmer? His impossible burgers are unhealthy!

        1. Is it possible that you missed the point this badly?
          That’s just it. 97% of CLIMATE scientists DONT disagree with her.
          That number has been thoroughly debunked fir more than a decade and you are lost so far behind that you still use it?? Very sad for you.

  2. Even if all scientists agreed on the “science” and the IPCC findings were accurate, all people talk about in the US wind solar and electric cars, which wouldn’t even begin to help solve the problem.

    1. They are making problem worse- it’s an environment issue- climate change happens it’s naturally occurring- we have proof- it is not human caused unless you’re a fool like bill gates who will try to block sun. People need to pay attention

  3. It is much more important than most people realize. If they manage to remove any significant portion of the CO2 from the atmosphere, we will all die. CO2 is plant food and of course plants are the base of our food chain. We must stop this insanity. CO2 makes up .04% of the atmosphere. It is inconsequential as far as greenhouse gases go.

  4. Curry, per Wikipedia, accepts that the planet is warming, that human-generated greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide cause warming, and that the plausible worst-case scenario is potentially catastrophic, but on the other hand she also proposes that the rate of warming is slower than climate models have projected, emphasizes her evaluation of the uncertainty in the climate projection models, and questions whether climate change mitigation is affordable.

    Seems a reasonable standpoint for scientific debate about timelines for action.

    1. So accepting something “non-disputable” is the prerequisite for a debate?
      Besides: What debate?

  5. Spread articles like this around social media and all your contacts. No good waiting for the MSM to come clean – they have as much of a vested interest in this as the deceitful scientists and politicians.

  6. its all based on the same format of lies fear and propaganda that Covid was founded on, they just swapped out the words “Covid and “safe & Effective” for climate change

  7. The UN has become the enemy of the people.
    The IPCC’s brief is so restricting that it can only deliver catastrophic conclusions, although the data tells a different story.
    Overall, we’ve had predictions of calamity for half a century. Not one has come to pass.

  8. The obvious solution is nuclear, including small-modular units, using AI at plants that make it extremely safe, molten salt reactors that can’t melt down, and eventually fusion.

    But the very same alarmist won’t consider nuclear. They don’t want a solution. They merely despise capitalist consumerism. If you call it a crisis, government control in every part of our lives would not only be accepted, but celebrated.

  9. John, Take a look at “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America” by Iserbyte. The forward will get you started in the correct direction.


  10. Yes, even science can be bought. Just like politicians and public policy. And China is laughing it up at how they got us to strangle ourselves.

  11. I have not seen any discussion on the “Little Ice Age” It is mentioned in some books that I have read on periods in history. I understand it began approx. 1300 and officially ended 1900.

    We recently was on a tour in Glacier National Park. I asked how old the water was that was feeding the Glacier feed streams. The ranger said not that old because these glaciers were formed during the “Little Ice Age”. (First time I heard anyone mention that.)

    I have been thinking all along: What happens after an Ice Age ends? The warming period begins. Right? And if these glaciers were formed during the Little Ice Age, they must not have been around before the Little Ice Age. Which seems to me that the earth must have been a little warmer at that time.

    We have always enjoyed your take and style of presenting the facts. The Little Ice Age would be an interesting topic.

    Thank you

  12. The manufactured crises are the bread and butter of the Progressive movement, established by Democrats during the 1900s circa, as a response to the mass immigration.
    Progressives are the Third Reich.
    Every program disguised as a helpful and humane solution to a crises involves genocide and the environment is that. Charles Lindbergh was a Progressive and had many meetings with Nazi Party leaders and was a dedicated environmentalist.

Comments are closed.