Renowned Climatologist Exposes ‘Manufactured Consensus’

by Andreas Wailzer , August 10, 2023, at LifeSiteNews

[Note: Contrary to Facebook’s unsubstantiated banners claiming 97-99% consensus, as we reported in Hot Air Behind the Wind, recently published survey of top-level climate scientists found that 41% do not believe in catastrophic ‘climate change.’ Only 0.3% of science papers state humans are the cause of climate change. And when surveyed, only 18% of scientists believed that a large amount – or all – of additional climate change could be averted.1]

A renowned climatologist has said that the alleged scientific consensus on “climate change” is a “manufactured consensus” perpetuated by the United Nations (U.N.). 

In an interview with libertarian journalist and pundit John Stossel, climatologist Judith Curry said that the “manufactured consensus” existed because a scientist would achieve “fame and fortune” for exaggerating the risks associated with “climate change.”

Curry, who formerly served as the chair of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, admitted that she used to spread alarmism about “climate change” herself. 

“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” says Curry. “And so, this was picked up by the media. Alarmists said, ‘Oh, here’s the way to do it: Tie extreme weather events to global warming!’” 

“So, this hysteria is your fault!” Stossel told Curry. 

“Well, sort of. Not really. They would have picked up on it anyways,” she replied. 

Curry said that she became a darling of the mainstream media due to her study tying the alleged increase in intense hurricanes to global warming. She was “flown all over the place to meet with politicians, and give these talks and [received] lots of media attention.”  

“I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists, and I was treated like a rockstar,” Curry recalled. 

When researchers pointed out incongruities in her research, namely years with fewer hurricanes, Curry investigated these claims and realized that her critics had a point.  

“Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability,” she told Stossel. 

The journalist seemed pleasantly surprised about Curry’s integrity and willingness to be corrected. “So you are the unusual researcher who looks at the criticism of your paper and actually concluded they had a point.” 

Curry said that the 2009 “Climategate” scandal, in which internal emails from research facilities showed that scientists were trying to hide controversial data, showed “a lot of really ugly things,” like “avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests” and “trying to get journal editors fired from their job” if they disagreed with the mainstream “climate change” paradigm. 

Stossel said the Climategate scandal 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,” she recalled. 

Curry said that 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.” 

According to the climatologist, that was the reason that the U.N. created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

“The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming,” instead “the IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change,” she said. 

“Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding…assuming there are dangerous impacts.” 

READ: UN chief feeds climate panic, announces ‘era of global boiling has arrived’ 

READ: Nobel Prize winner denounces alarmist climate predictions: ‘I don’t believe there is a climate crisis’

Curry explained that to receive public funding, scientists must follow the climate alarmism narrative. 

“The announcements of opportunity for funding are really tied to assuming that there are dangerous impacts [of climate change],” Curry stated. 

“So the researchers aren’t stupid; they know what they need to say to get funding?” Stossel asked. 

“Exactly,” Curry replied. 

The former faculty head recalled that “about ten years ago,” the editor of the prestigious academic journal Science, Dr. Marcia McNutt, “wrote this political rant about ‘we need to stop emissions now,’” in which she stated that “The time for debate has ended.” 

Former "global warming" proponent backtracks
Click the image above to
read the damning “Climategate” emails

McNutt now serves as the President of the National Academy of Science. 

“What kind of message does that give?” Curry asked. “’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,” Stossel said. 

“Why don’t other scientists who recognize the nonsense push back?” the journalist asked Curry. 

“If they work at a university, it’s going to be very uncomfortable for them,” she responded. 

Curry said that she could no longer get a job at a university after her stint at the Georgia Institute of Technology because she was labeled a “climate denier.” 

That is why the climatologist started her own weather and climate forecasting company called Climate Forecast Applications Network. Curry also publishes articles on her blog and has written multiple books, including her latest work, “Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response.” 

READ a full rebuttal to the “global warming” narrative HERE.

Watch the interview with Dr. Curry and Stossel TV:

  1. The Exposé, Janury 23, 2023;[]
Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Website | + posts

Wind Concerns is a collaboration of citizens of the Lakeland Alberta region against proposed wind turbine projects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *