Originally published August 10, 2023 8:30 am PDT
In a revealing discussion with climate scientist Dr. Judith Curry, she offers a dissenting perspective on what has been described as the “overwhelming scientific consensus” on climate change.
Dr. Curry asserts, “It’s a manufactured consensus,” suggesting that many scientists might be motivated by personal gains, including “fame and fortune.”
Years ago, Dr. Curry herself published a study indicating a significant rise in hurricane intensity.
“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” she recalls.
The findings were rapidly embraced by the media, fueling an emerging connection between extreme weather events and global warming.
Reflecting on the immediate aftermath of her discovery, Dr. Curry comments, “I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star.”
However, subsequent research highlighted certain inconsistencies in Dr. Curry’s data, including periods that witnessed lower hurricane activity.
Addressing her reaction to these critiques, she states, “Like a good scientist, I investigated.”
Upon closer examination, she recognized that the critics “had a point” and attributed the discrepancies to “bad data” and “natural climate variability.”
Dr. Curry’s reassessment of her findings was paralleled by her growing skepticism of some practices within the climate science community.
The Climategate scandal, in which leaked emails unveiled alleged attempts by some climate scientists to suppress data contradicting the predominant climate change narrative, further galvanized her suspicions.
Commenting on the incident, she remarks, “Ugly things,” and elaborates on concerning behaviors like “avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests. Trying to get journal editors fired.”
The origins of this so-called “manufactured consensus,” according to Curry, can be traced back to the United Nations’ environmental program.
She notes that some UN officials, driven by an “anti-capitalism” ideology, sought to capitalize on the climate change narrative to further their agendas. This gave birth to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with a specific mandate “to look for dangerous human-caused climate change,” as Dr. Curry explains.
Such a structured focus, she argues, has inadvertently shaped the direction of research funding.
She emphasizes that funding was directed “assuming there are dangerous impacts,” which, in turn, conditioned researchers to produce findings consistent with this perspective to secure funding.
Highlighting the challenges faced by dissenting voices in academic publishing, Dr. Curry points to an instance where the editor of the journal Science wrote a “political rant.”
Citing the editor’s proclamation that “The time for debate has ended,” she ponders the implications of such a statement, and concludes with her own answer: “Promote the alarming papers! Don’t even send the other ones out for review.”
Such dynamics, Dr. Curry warns, have given rise to what can be termed a “government-funded climate alarmism complex.”
