|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
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.
Weather and climate affect every person on earth no matter where they live. This is why the would-be rulers of the world – in this case the WHO and UN – are using it to take over the world. They of course, like anyone, can do nothing to change the climate/weather but the majority are suckers to their propaganda.
They can and have been changing the weather since the Second World War. The British RAF carried out rain making experiments over southern England and the Devon village of Lynmouth was destroyed.
They can and are doing it and the scientists are using it to prove that climate change exists.
Well, maybe these “geniuses” ought to knock it off until they actually understand what they’re doing.
The third element of American Marxism is environmental radicalism that believes in the quasi religion of climate change
Well, they believe that creating a panic over the weather will enable them to obtain dictatorial powers. We’re seeing it already in them trying to eliminate ICE powered vehicles, gas stoves, gas water heaters, etc.
Yeah, it makes me chuckle to think of them trying to get rid of all the Internal Combustion Engines in Asia 🙂
China now owns Code Stink Pink and here come t he Useful Idiots marching to their own ruin
Much historical evidence indicates we are at the end of a warming trend. Then cooling once again begins in the never ending cycle.
My axiom is that the ice always comes back, and has done for the past 2.4 million years. As you say, it’s a never ending cycle, or at least one that goes back since before there were humans. Our species has stoically and creatively adapted to the cold but rejoiced, prospered, and proliferated in the warm times. This time it’s different, with people being told to fear the warmth and young people especially being told not to prosper because our engine of prosperity, hydrocarbons, are BAD, and not to proliferate because every baby contributes to the destruction of The Planet (TM). Of course it’s a load of hooey but it seems like most youngsters and practically all children are living in terror and looking for the government to protect them.
There is no evidence of climate stasis on a global scale over an appropriate timescale, change is constant.
I have been a skeptic of the “global warming” pitch from the beginning. First, I’ll state, I’m not a scientist, but in obtaining my business degree, I did study multiple lineal regression techniques. During these studies, my professor pointed out, if a MLR calculation does not reflect a good representation of known history, then the MLR formula is incorrect. None of the MLR-based calculations presented by the IPCC has shown a reasonable correlation with the history as it is known (certain periods of cooling and warmth in the past 500 years). While some artificial finagling of numbers has made some of the IPCC models sort of match — these are artificial adjustments applied to the data to make them work.
The “hockey stick” (runaway global warming) that develops in the IPCC models is not explained by proper scientific reasoning. (There is talk about “tipping points” — but no plausible scientific proof behind that speculation.) The earth has been in a cycle of ice ages and warm periods for several hundred thousands of years — essentially when plate tectonics moved the continent and oceans into (roughly) their current locations. We’re at an approximate mid=point of the 100,000 year cycle, thus it is possible that we’ll have “global warming” for a time, but eventually, the trend will reverse and we’ll head into another ice age in another 30 or 40 thousand years. (I’m not too worried about it.) There is also considerable evidence that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere follows changes in temperature (that is, the temperature change comes before the increase in CO2). While human activity has increased CO2 levels, it may not actually be contributing to the changes in temperature.
The IPCC focuses on the negatives of “global warming” — I can suggest Fossil Future, a book by Alex Epstein, that explains how our use of fossil fuels enhances human life and can help us better withstand “climate change'” by use of fossil fuels. (A summary version of the book is also available by the same author.)
If you want a brief booklet that describes the case against the IPCC “CO2 based climate model” take a look at The Truth About Climate Change, by Andrew Bernstein. This booklet (less than 70 pages) describes the case that climate change is part of the natural variations in the Earth’s climate (e.g. the 100,000 year ice age cycle) and the factors that operate it. (Hint human-caused CO2 is not even a significant contributor.)
Good post. We grasshoppers, thinking (and irrationally fearing) that the summer will last forever, fiddle away our ephemeral little lives with terrorizing our children rather than preparing for another little ice age, which could happen at any time depending on solar output and/or volcanic activity. Why are the industrious ant-like myrmidon Chinese stockpiling fuel and food? Are they afraid that we’ll attack them? Nonsense. Maybe they have real climate scientists who have concerns about real catastrophic climate change, when the cold and accompanying famines would kill many millions. If they do they certainly won’t share the information with us; it’s in their interest to keep feeding us propaganda about “global warming”.
It would also be wise for us to build small modular nuclear reactors, already approved for use, and park them in appropriate numbers and locations in all over the country. And while we’re at it, it would be wise to harden the grid. I have read Alex Epstein’s earlier book, “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels”. It’s great, and since I live in an energy producing region where many jobs and a lot of income are dependent on the widespread use of hydrocarbons I have an obvious prejudice in favor of their exclusive use for energy production. However, nuclear energy is also important and with use of the new technologies and by removing the unduly burdensome regulations that go with nuclear, it would be a game changer in this country.
Providing that back in the 1970’s it was Global Cooling and New Ice Age was coming those very same liberal rags Time and Newsweek was giving it Tope Coverage back in the 1970’s and episode of In Search Of from 1978 had about the Hard Winter of 1976/77 and Buffalo New York’s hard winter the youth of today are being fed a total Lie by the Eco-Freaks and UN/Globalists
Different day, same shit.
What climate alarmists don’t mention is the distinction between weather and climate. Unlike meteorology, climatology is not an established science with mutable laws and verifiable formuli. It is little more than a study. The IPPC (among others) has turned it into a contemporary theology and skepticism into a heresy, punishable by ostracism. Those of us who can still think need do nothing more than to study Roman history, particularly the vinyards that grew in the British Isles during the Roman occupation, something the current climate prevents. I don’t believe those in the IPPC haven’t noticed this. This is classical control through fear.
And what does fear do? Well, nothing controls populations better than the boogyman. Particularly when the boogyman can tax you and limit your behavior, take away your car and your stove and control your food supply. Classical chicken-little. Here in California, we can be fined for throwing out edible food since it contributes to methane ( a fearful 0.007% of our atmosphere). Go figure…
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”
— H. L. Menken
Variance is a killer. It can really throw you for a loop.
All those who oppose Fossil Fuels should take up living in a Grass Hut without any heat or cool naked and no wood they can gather stuff from the Wild but winter with that snow the idiots claim we would never see again and when it snows no fire(Banned by the EPA over this Go Green nonsense)and lets see them be able to live the type of Primitive way they want to force upon all of us over this whole Global Warming/Climate Change Scam
The climate of Planet Earth changes constantly as it has done since forever… Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter..
Change. in the Northern Hemisphere…
Otherwise Dry Season, Wet Season, Hot Season or really Hot Season are the four Seasons of many parts of the World.
Northern Europe was once upon a time covered in Ice, now no more, and there were no Cars, Factories, Planes or even people around during the times of change, only Iceland remains.
So these people that think they can control the climate are the same people that cant control their own mind.
When people, including scientists, are paid to make a certain finding, they will find a way to keep finding what gets them paid.