Is the concept of man-made global warming truly a crisis? Despite the urgency apparent in numerous international environmental conferences, some prominent scientists argue that the concern over global warming is a fraudulent scheme.
For years, there seemed to be a global consensus regarding the impending environmental threat. Backed by a vast majority of renowned scientists, various treaties were established to address the issue.
The United Nations has taken the lead in promoting this climate consensus, with a clear message that the environment is endangered by human activity and demands immediate action.
However, is this assertion entirely accurate? Some distinguished scientists reject these claims. Dr. John Clauser, a respected physicist and Nobel laureate, is among those who vehemently dispute the idea of a man-made climate crisis, considering it a deliberate deception.
- Advertisement -
Dr. Clauser’s perspective is shared by John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel. Before his passing, Coleman, an experienced weatherman, offered a unique viewpoint. He asserted, “Climate change is not occurring; significant man-made global warming has not transpired in the past, nor is there any basis to anticipate such an occurrence in the future.”
Despite online fact-checkers attempting to quell dissenting opinions, their efforts have not completely suppressed these viewpoints. In recent years, the chorus of dissent has grown louder. Most recently, climatologist Judith Curry, based in the United States, has joined the ranks of dissenting voices. Through numerous scientific papers, the retired professor from the Georgia Institute of Technology challenges the consensus as “manufactured,” asserting that the time for debate has concluded.
Curry also criticizes her peers within the scientific community. She accuses certain scientists of sensationalizing the man-made climate emergency for personal gain and recognition.
Furthermore, Curry raises concerns about the state of the scientific community. She exposes what she labels a “climate change industry,” where scientists become puppets influenced by political agendas and financial interests.
These are serious allegations, supported by Curry’s personal experiences. She discloses her involvement in perpetuating climate hysteria, recounting her treatment as a celebrity by environmental advocacy groups and alarmists. After investigating the matter, Curry realized the fallacies at play.
- Advertisement -
Her research has encompassed a variety of subjects, such as atmospheric modeling, hurricanes, remote sensing, and climate models. Curry claims that her dissent has come at a cost. Scientists who do not conform may lose out on substantial grants and recognition. According to her, the “industry” rewards only those scientists willing to amplify the false alarm.
Every year, substantial sums of money are allocated by the UN and other organizations for climate change conferences. Could these extensive arrangements be constructed upon falsehoods and misconceptions propagated by undisclosed manipulators? The judgment rests with you.