She herself was originally involved in spreading the now ubiquitous climate alarmism – but after receiving critical comments she questioned her research work and thought better of it. Result: While she had previously been celebrated for her research results that were consistent with the narrative, Judith Currie suddenly fell out of favor because of her reforms. Climate scientists are now warning about the anti-capitalist agenda of the United Nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Curry recently discussed with the New York Post that scientists who exaggerate climate risks are incentivized in the form of fame and fortune. She speaks from experience, because when she once published a study that showed a dramatic increase in hurricane intensity, she was celebrated by the media. According to their findings, the proportion of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled – a gift to the mainstream and a clear signal to other climate scientists seeking attention.
“Oh, here’s why: Link extreme weather events to global warming!” Curry commented to NYP’s John Stossel. “Environmental groups and alarmists adopted me and treated me like a rock star. Flying everywhere to meet politicians,” she said.
However, other scientists then pointed out to Curry the problems with his study. Because there were years when the incidence of storms was less. So, like a good scientist, he did some research, reported back, and then realized: the critics were right. The data was partly insufficient and partly due to natural climate variability.
There’s the Climategate Scandal
Then came 2009 and with it the Climategate scandal. While Currie assumed at the time that scientists acted honestly, admitting errors and drawing new conclusions accordingly, this explosive leak of emails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia Later he thought better of it. Because at the time he revealed, among other things, that climate alarmists had arbitrarily suppressed undesirable data that contradicted the climate crisis story: In the e-mail, CRU boss Phil Jones did not hide the fact that as a reviewer in peer reviews he was “keeping his foot on the ground” to prevent the publication of unpopular studies, that if necessary he would consult experts. The journals wanted to get the editors fired and in case of doubt, one would have to redefine the peer review literature to keep insufficiently worrying data out of the IPCC reports.
I can’t see any of these papers being included in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine peer-reviewed literature!
Translated: I can’t imagine that any of these papers will be included in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine peer-reviewed literature!Climategate leak: excerpt from an email from CRU director Phil Jones
I think skeptics will use this paper for their own ends and if it is not challenged it will set Paleo back many years. I will email the magazine to tell them that I want nothing to do with it until they get rid of this annoying editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but the papers are dealt with by an editor appointed by Hans von Storch.
Translated: I think skeptics will exploit this paper for their own ends and if it is not challenged it will set Paleo back a few years. I will email the magazine and tell them I am not involved until they get rid of that horrible editor. A CRU employee is on the editorial board, but articles are edited by an editor appointed by Hans von Storch.Climategate leak: excerpt from an email from CRU director Phil Jones
Since then, “fact checkers” and the mainstream have been desperately trying to give the impression that the revelations resulting from the Climategate scandal are irrelevant and that they will not change the imminent end of the world – as is claimed today with many vaccines causing side effects and The resulting vaccine failures would have no impact on the safety and effectiveness of Covid gene therapy drugs and would have resulted in millions of deaths without mass vaccination.
The fact that the consensus on man-made climate change claimed by the IPCC is a lie can be considered a lie – Not all climate scientists support this thesis, nor do the studies often cited clearly prove the climate crisis is caused by human CO2 emissions. Rather, analysis of relevant work at the time yielded a “consensus” on only 0.3 percent of anthropogenic climate changes since 1950.
Climate change industry rewards alarmism
It’s easy to answer why climate propaganda is still running at full speed today: Judith Currie talks to the Post about the climate change industry that particularly rewards alarmism. “Genesis goes back…. United Nations Environment Programme,” he said there: Some UN officials were motivated by an anti-capitalist agenda and wanted to use climate change to advance their policies. The United Nations-appointed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) essentially looks for “dangerous, man-made climate change”, ignoring the positive aspects of warming. “The national funding agencies then conducted all funding based on the assumption that it had dangerous implications.” Researchers must have quickly realized that the alarm was a route to financial aid. Thus an “imaginary consensus” emerges.
According to Curry, science journals are certainly involved and are promoting warning studies. Others have little chance of publication. If you want to get anywhere in science, you have to fit the narrative. The New York Post writer concluded, based on Curry’s discussions:
This is what we have now: a massive government-funded climate alarm complex.
Meanwhile, Judith Currie is one of many climate scientists who sharply criticize the conspiracies of the IPCC and the eco-socialist climate agenda – we reported:
