Climate Change is a “Manufactured” Crisis for Control

by Mark Schwendau

So many good and truthful journalists have seemingly been forced off mainstream media. One case in point is the very popular John Stossel. Stossel was watched by millions on both ABC and Fox networks. Now, like so many others, such as Megyn Kelly, Bill O’Reilly, and Tucker Carlson, they have their own websites and channels.

Stossel is much the same with his website. He has a career of 50 years of reporting the news accurately and truthfully. He explains his recent departure from ABC News this way: “After 28 years at ABC News, I left when 20/20 refused to air some of my segments about free markets.

Fox then gave me my own show and never restricted what I could say. But after seven years, I left to start this Stossel TV to reach more young people. I raised funds to open a little studio in Manhattan.  We make at least one video per week.  Each averages more than two million views.”

Stossel dropped a video teaser to his website this past week with a promise of a longer version to come soon.

In his video, scientist Judith Curry explains how she went from being an innie of the inner circle of trust when she advocated climate change to an outie after she became a proponent of climate change.

Stossel exposes the lie of “overwhelming scientific consensus” of climate change in his interview with Curry, as she calls it “a manufactured consensus.” Curry charges scientists have an incentive to exaggerate the risk of climate change to pursue “fame and fortune.”

Curry knows whereof she speaks as she has been on both sides of the debate. The media adored her when she published a study that seemingly showed a dramatic increase in hurricane intensity due to climate change.

She said, “I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists, and I was treated like a rock star.” Curry recounts she was “Flown all over the place to meet with politicians.”

But then, some scientific researchers pointed out gaps in her research. They noted past years with low levels of hurricanes with less intensity.

“Like a good scientist, I investigated,” said Curry. She realized that her critics were right. “Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability.”

Curry was the unusual scientist who looked at criticism of her work and actually concluded, “They had a point.” She was a scientist actually following the science in 2008!

Then, in 2010, the Climategate scandal broke. She learned other climate researchers weren’t as open-minded. Climate alarmist scientists’ were caught in leaked emails attempting to hide data suggesting climate change was not a crisis.

“Ugly things,” said Curry. “Avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests. Trying to get journal editors fired.”

Curry realized a “climate change industry” was set up to reward alarmism and punish those who go against the narrative.

Curry reports, “The origins go back to the … U.N. environmental program.” She holds 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 (IPCC).

Curry notes, “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,” Curry recalls.

Scientific researchers quickly figured out that the best way to get funding was to make alarmist claims about “man-made climate change.”

Curry concludes this is how “manufactured consensus” happens and she notes even if a skeptic did get funding, it’s harder for them to publish because journal editors are alarmists themselves.

“The editor (Marcia McNutt) of the journal Science wrote a political rant,” says Curry. She even said, “The time for debate has ended.”

“What kind of message does that give?” asks 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.”

Curry concludes, “That’s what we’ve got now: a massive government-funded climate alarmism complex.”

Copyright © 2023 by Mark S. Schwendau

~~~

Mark S. Schwendau is a retired technology professor who has always had a sideline in news-editorial writing where his byline has been, “Bringing little known news to people who simply want to know the truth.”   His website is www.IDrawIWrite.Tech.

PowerInbox