John Stossel interviewed climate scientist Judith Curry of “more intense hurricanes” fame. She concluded from her research that Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes were worsening. She later refuted her own work, but climate alarmists jumped on her original findings.
When some scientists pointed to errors in her work, she did what so many won’t do – she re-evaluated and found it wasn’t as bad as she thought. She discovered that the hurricanes were not tied to global warming.
About the climate crisis, she now says, “It’s a manufactured consensus.”
The Climategate scandal of leaked emails showing scientists were hiding data were “ugly things,” she says.
“Avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests. Trying to get journal editors fired.”
She realized a “climate-change industry” was set up to reward alarmism.
“The origins go back to the . . . UN environmental program,” says Curry.
Some United Nations officials were motivated by “anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along.”
The UN 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.
It’s hard to publish the truth. The message was to “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.”
Read the entire interview on this link. Consider how dangerous it is for the UN to be in control. It’s truly the dictator’s club. They want to destroy capitalism. The environmental movement is now a communist movement.
Remembering Climategate
In late November 2009, over 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics say they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming.
The Climate Alarmists will tell you the information in the e-mails is unfounded. The Lefists who see the climate hoax as an opportunity, hid or lied about the leaked emails, and the media helped them. The scandal disappeared into the abyss, but the Internet is forever.
Climategate 1 and 2
On 17 November 2009 a large number of emails, together with other documents and pieces of code, from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were posted on a Russian webserver, and announced anonymously at the Air Vent blog and at the Climate Skeptic blog with the comment:
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
On 22 November 2011, a second tranche of ‘climategate’ emails was released.
As with the first release, a link was placed on six sceptic web sites, including Climate Audit, Joanne Nova, the Air Vent and Tallbloke’s talkshop (see here for full details and timings).
No one knows who leaked these emails to this day. Whoever it was, the person(s) tried to save us from the greatest hoax perpetrated on mankind.
Examples from the leaked emails:
- Email 4419: Ed Cook to Briffa: “there is no evidence for a decline or loss of temperature response in your data in the post-1950s (I assume that you didn’t apply a bodge here). This fully contradicts their claims”
- Phil Jones “…this assumes we fully understand the climate system, and I don’t think we do – in the sense that if we do something, we know what the effect will be”
- BBC apologizes to Phil Jones for going with a story Jones disapproved of
- Another peek inside the settled science sausage factory: Tom Wigley on when the glaciers and small ice caps will melt: “the next step would be to try to get some realism here, but I really have no idea what would be realistic”
- Email 4141, a glimpse into the climate science Mad Hatter Tea Party: “I think the notion of telling the public to prepare for both global warming and an ice age at the same creates a real public relations problem for us”
- Warmist Mike Hulme agrees that “the debate around climate change is fundamentally about power and politics rather than the environment…There are not that many “facts” about (the meaning of) climate change which science can unequivocally reveal”
- Priceless ClimateGate email 682: Tom Wigley tells Michael Mann that his son did a tree ring science fair project (using trees behind NCAR) that invalidated the centerpiece of Mann’s work
- A tip from Michael Mann on how to handle scientific debate: Set up your email server so that it automatically rejects email from people who disagree with you
- Email 3272: From the ultimate insiders, very serious misgivings about the data at the very center of the greatest scientific fraud in human history; Mann says that Folland “definitely overstates any singular confidence I have in my own (Mann et al) series”
- In case you missed it: Phil Jones evidently admits that “The original data for sites for which we made appropriate adjustments in the temperature data in the 1980s” is lost
- Email 1102: Bianca Jagger launches Green Party climate campaign; UEA prof claims that “The climate of the future is what we make it”
- Great quote by UEA warmist Mike Hulme: “I am increasingly unconvinced by the majority of climate impact studies – including some of those I am involved in”
- DeSmogBlog climate hoax promoter Richard Littlemore to Michael Mann, 2007: “I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science)”
- Check out this 1998 email from UEA’s Mike Hulme on using climate propaganda to mobilize opinion and maybe get WWF funding
- 1997: UEA warmist Mike Hulme muses on how to use junk climate science to gain political power
- 2000 ClimateGate email: “there will doubtless be an undercurrent of suspicion that WG II authors are not qualified to make such judgements on climatological matters”; “we could finesse the problem of consistency by NOT including a table at all in the SPM, but rather use some appropriate (weasel?) wording”
- 2005: IPCC reviewer Peter Thorne writes a comment that strikes at the very heart of the worst scientific fraud in history; Phil Jones complains; Met Office’s Chris Folland apologizes
Read more here.
INTERESTING ADDENDUM
Paris Accord “compliance” is composed of deceptive goals, created only to fill the wishes of UN officials … https://t.co/OEX1xjOejK pic.twitter.com/o1lhwGq0i0
— John Shewchuk (@_ClimateCraze) August 10, 2023
Correct. We can expect slow, long-term warming (with various intermittent cooling periods) until the Bray and Eddy solar cycles complete their warming phases. https://t.co/MKsHJlI7Vv pic.twitter.com/HC9Plpz6yg
— John Shewchuk (@_ClimateCraze) August 10, 2023
According to the data, increasing CO2 is good for earth. Severe weather indicators are decreasing, while polar bears and corals are increasing. Plus, additional CO2 helps green the earth. There is no climate change crisis – just a climate education crisis. https://t.co/gFnRvITcyU pic.twitter.com/BXLK8act4Q
— John Shewchuk (@_ClimateCraze) August 10, 2023
I don’t know how worse off kids today have it but I can remember hearing of the climate change lie in various parts of my K-12 science “education” and into college. In fact I originally set out to study chemistry and one of the things I remember telling my RA that maybe I’d get involved with figuring out an alternative fuel source…lol how naive. Anyway I later switched to computer science and eventually after stuff my late father said sunk in while he was alive, stuff I saw on the Corbett report about the origins of the UN climate push and its ultimate goals as well as the rigged 2016 primary for Hillary (ashamed to say I was once a Bernie Bro too) I came to my senses on the whole climate scam. Fun fact only 0.4% of our atmosphere is Carbon Dioxide and once that gets to 0.2% and below plants start to die off. Additionally I read another article about how in Commiefornia they just passed a law to pull electricity from the batteries of EVs plugged into the grid to stabilize the grid. That is all this climate hoax is…an authoritarian power grab masquerading in concern for the planet.
If we define a scientist as a person faithfully following the scientific method, then by definition climate alarmists are not scientists but a faith cult. True t cult form they deny all evidence that shows their position is unscientific.