In the early 1990s, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union, world leaders were left scrambling for an ideology that would fill the void left by discredited “communism.”
Enter man-made global warming. It was a doomsday prophecy based on a simple thesis: the industrial revolution had spurred a massive influx of temperature-raising gases like carbon dioxide and methane, and without an overhaul of Western society to make a “greenest” planet, the world. would experience a total collapse.
The former Soviet Prime Minister Mikhail Gorbachev, who had undertaken the project of perestroika to reform the “evil empire”, was one of the first prophets.
“This is a problem that cannot be postponed. I think that the environmental problem will be the number one issue on the agenda of the 21st century”, he said in an interview about his environmental legacy. “If we just hope that somehow we’ll get it, that nature will somehow deal with these problems with its own resources and we can just do what we’ve been doing, we could be facing an even more dire situation “.
Former Vice President Al Gore, the Clinton administration’s point person on Russian affairs during the critical years of de-Sovietization, was in line with Gorbachev in advocating global action.
“The planet has a fever,” Gore said. “If your baby has a fever, go to the doctor. If the doctor says you need to intervene here, you don’t say, ‘Well, I read a science fiction novel that told me it’s not a problem.’ If the crib is on fire, don’t assume the baby is flame retardant. You take action.”
Man-made global warming was later transmuted into “climate change,” a loose term that radicals would later turn into “climate emergency.”
The “climate emergency” is now an article of faith among radical activists; it has also evolved into a multibillion-dollar scheme that has attracted scientists and activists alike.
Climate change includes everything from National Science Foundation grants for far-reaching projects like carbon capture to even a quixotic proposal to block the sun. This last proposal, instead of being laughed at by the scientific community, is now being seriously considered by the White House; it is being researched at Harvard University and is supported by “philanthropist” Bill Gates.
The marketing operation that has been carried out to maintain the climate impact has been sophisticated and intense. It was revealed in spectacular fashion by “Climategate,” a blockbuster story that was almost hidden by the corporate press, in a way that would foreshadow the Covid pandemic and the debates about the origins of the new coronavirus.
Climategate revealed leaked emails and documents detailing psychological operations, data manipulation and dirty tricks used by climate fraudsters to terrify the world into taking extreme action.
One indicator of these emails is the revelation that many scientists were critical of the work of James Hansen, who had been a staunch global warming alarmist since the late 1980s.
“At a very quick glance I have doubts,” said one scientist.
But dissent would continue to prove an increasingly contentious issue as dissenting scientists were personally attacked and pushed to the sidelines. Dr. John Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has been criticized for his stance on the issue of climate change.
“This gets to the point that ‘consensus’ reports are now just the consensus of those who agree with the consensus,” Christy said. “Government-selected authors have become gatekeepers rather than honest brokers of information.”
“John Christy is not a good scientist,” said climatologist Ben Santer, who worked at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “I’m not a religious man, but I’m sure willing to thank some higher authority that Dr. John Christy isn’t the ‘guardian’ of what constitutes sound science.”
But who were the keepers? Government-funded scientists like him, of course. Santer after his retirement posed as a dictum of truth that spoke of “science to power”, apparently not realizing that the most powerful people in the world had seized the work of climate alarmists like himself
But one former climate alarmist has bravely stepped forward to speak out about the real “science in power”: Judith Curry, who recently told her story to investigative reporter John Stossel.
“It’s a fabricated consensus,” he confessed in the interview.
Curry explains that there are perverse incentives of “fame and fortune” that are distorting the science.
She was a media darling when she claimed that hurricanes were becoming more frequent and powerful.
“We found that the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” Curry said.
“This was picked up by the media,” and then the climate alarmists realized, “Oh, here’s the way to do it. Link extreme weather events to global warming!”
He told Stossel about the lavish treatment the radical environmentalists immediately gave him.
“I was adopted by environmental groups and alarmists and treated like a rock star,” Curry explains. “Flyed all over to meet politicians.”
When his colleagues began pointing out flaws in his research, showing him evidence that hurricane data was skewed, he realized his critics were right.
“Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability,” he explained.
Subsequent peer-reviewed research shows that everything from hurricanes to tornadoes to earthquakes to precipitation to global temperatures is being skewed by data reporting problems.
Italian scientists show that “the main reason for the increase in the second half of the 20th century is the growing reporting capacity of individual states and that, as this capacity has stabilized at a reliable level, the number of disasters ‘parked or even stopped. down.”
Another groundbreaking study seems to corroborate this problem of overreporting global temperatures. In “Corrupted Climate Stations: The Official US Surface Temperature Record Remains Fatally Flawed”, it is shown how approximately 96% of US temperature stations do not meet the “acceptable” standards set by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
These aggregated data from compliant stations show significantly lower temperature readings compared to those from failing temperature reading stations. This is largely because temperature stations are located on urban “heat islands”.
However, pointing out flaws in the data or their reporting can be dangerous to a scientist’s reputation and ability to work in the field. In Curry’s interview, he goes on about how the climate change industry “manufactures” consensus.
He says the “climate change industry” is set up to reward alarmism.
“The origins go back to the . . . United Nations Environment Program,” says Curry.
Some UN officials were motivated by “anti-capitalism,” he said. “They hated the oil companies and seized the issue of climate change to push their policies.”
Curry then explains this as the reason why the UN created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“The IPCC was not supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. The IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change,” he noted. “Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding . . . assuming there are dangerous impacts.”
The United Nations is now calling for trillions in new project spending. This is echoed by the Biden administration, which earlier in its administration called for $2 trillion in new climate spending. When taxpayers held back the “Green New Deal” bill, he plowed $555 billion in climate spending into the Build Back Better program. He then passed the so-called $369 billion Inflation Relief Act, which was hailed as “the largest climate investment in the nation’s history.”
Radical environmentalists and climate scientists, eager for more, complained that “the tens of billions in investment represent a fraction of the scale required.”
But even climate envoy John Kerry is skeptical that the US reaching zero emissions by 2050 will ultimately do anything to stop climate change.
“We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem is not solved,” Kerry admitted of US carbon emissions, adding: “Not when nearly 90 percent of all global emissions on the planet come from outside the borders of the USA”.
Net zero carbon emissions would not prevent the climate from changing, nor would it significantly slow the increase in global warming.
The World Economic Forum states that “pre-industrial levels” of carbon dioxide were about 278 parts per million (ppm), which is about 50% of today’s level of 420 ppm.
But not only is this very low in historical terms, increases in carbon dioxide naturally fluctuate and may follow natural global warming due in part to the release of oceanic gas. And as more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, plant life tends to flourish and become carbon sinks. In fact, this is the case today, as there are now more trees on the planet than there were even 35 years ago.
A scientist, a Nobel Prize winning physicist named Dr. John Clauser, was recently rejected from speaking at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for expressing dissenting views on climate change. In particular, his association with the Co2 Coalition, a group that emphasizes the beneficial effects of carbon dioxide, landed the innovative scientist in hot water.
“In my view, there is no real climate crisis,” Dr Clauser said. “However, there is a very real problem of providing a decent standard of living for the world’s large population and an associated energy crisis. The latter is being unnecessarily exacerbated by what, in my view, is incorrect climate science.”
This was enough for Dr. John Clauser “Cancelled”.
This is the uncomfortable truth about how the climate change industry manufactures “consensus”: money, fame and power to support the theory that man-made global warming is a threat to the earth, and ostracism , defunding and depersonalization for disagreeing.
NOW READ:
Fauci Knew About Gain-of-Function Research Underway at Wuhan Lab: Newly Revealed Emails
“*” Indicates mandatory fields
OPINION: This article contains comments that reflect the opinion of the author.
English 
Español de Venezuela