{"id":283029,"date":"2023-10-12T19:46:47","date_gmt":"2023-10-12T17:46:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=283029"},"modified":"2023-10-12T19:46:51","modified_gmt":"2023-10-12T17:46:51","slug":"book-review-climate-uncertainty-and-risk-by-judith-curry","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=283029","title":{"rendered":"Book review: Climate Uncertainty and Risk, By Judith Curry"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prof. Judith Curry is a leading American climatologist. President of Climate Forecast Applications Network.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

From\u00a0CFACT<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Rupert Darwal<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Just over three decades ago, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change<\/a> (UNFCCC) was signed by President George H. W. Bush in Rio de Janeiro. It has one objective: to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so as to prevent \u201cdangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.\u201d This objective incorporates three assumptions that collectively constitute a scientific and policy paradigm of climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first assumption is that climate change is caused exclusively by human emissions of greenhouse gases, principally from the combustion of fossil fuels. The second asserts that all the climate impacts from burning fossil fuels are unambiguously bad for people and the planet. The third is that the solution is the progressive\u2014and preferably rapid\u2014elimination of fossil fuels, requiring mankind to do without its main source of energy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Five presidents and a generation later, this paradigm has been elevated into an overriding planetary imperative. Yet, on its own terms, the UNFCCC has failed. In the ten years before it was signed, global emissions<\/a> of carbon dioxide rose from 18.88 giga-tonnes (GT) in 1982 to 22.58 GT in 1992, a decadal increase of 3.70 GT. By 2022, CO2<\/sub> emissions had risen to 37.49 GT, implying an average decadal increase of 4.97 GT\u2014a rise 34% higher than the increase in the decade prior to the UNFCCC. Despite the UNFCCC being further from its stated objective\u2014global net-zero emissions of greenhouse gases\u2014than when it was signed, paradoxically, the three assumptions that underpin it have hardened into unquestioned and unquestionable propositions driving the West\u2019s futile attempt to decarbonize the global economy. Seen in these terms, the UNFCCC might well be the most consequential international agreement of all time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Initially, these propositions did not command the universal assent of climate scientists. In its first assessment report, released in 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) observed that the average global temperature had increased by between 0.3\u00b0C and 0.6\u00b0C over the previous hundred years. \u201cThe size of this warming is broadly consistent with predictions of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability,\u201d the IPCC declared<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pursuant to the convention\u2019s first proposition, the IPCC\u2019s equivocation gave way to increasingly confident statements ascribing the rise in global temperature to human emissions of greenhouse gases. Pressure to make the science conform to politics was the cause of the IPCC\u2019s first scientific scandal<\/a> in 1995 when the Clinton administration leaned on the IPCC to delete sentences that contradicted the second assessment report\u2019s topline claim<\/a>, written in concert with government representatives, that a balance of evidence suggested a \u201cdiscernible human impact on global climate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A minority of climate scientists have consistently rejected the three axioms of government-approved climate science, a notable exponent being MIT\u2019s Richard Lindzen. Rarer still, and possibly unique, is the climate scientist who once subscribed to the three propositions but subsequently changed her mind. Such is Judith Curry. That alone makes her new book, Climate Uncertainty and Risk<\/em>, exceptional. Subtitled Rethinking Our Response<\/em>, the book not only challenges the third UN climate proposition on policy responses but rethinks the first and second.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, Curry\u2019s position differs from leading dissenters such as Lindzen. In a July 2023\u00a0comment letter<\/a>\u00a0on the EPA\u2019s proposed fossil-fuel power-plant rule, Lindzen and physicist Will Happer wrote that while more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is likely to cause some surface warming, the effect \u201cwould be small and benign\u201d and diminish with each increment added to the atmosphere. From now on, our emissions from burning fossil fuels will have little impact on global warming. We could double atmospheric CO2\u00a0<\/sub>to 840 ppm [parts per million] and have little warming effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Curry disagrees. \u201cYes,\u201d she writes in Climate Uncertainty and Risk<\/em>, \u201cCO2<\/sub> emissions are a problem and should be reduced, but not as an urgent problem that trumps the need for abundant, reliable, and secure sources of energy for the global population.\u201d In her book, Curry questions, rethinks, and rejects the three propositions of the UN climate-change paradigm, and she replaces the paradigm with a new one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proposition #1: Rehabilitate natural variability<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Politicization of climate science became institutionalized with the setting up of the IPCC in 1988, in order to support a political agenda that would be adopted in the UNFCCC\u2019s focus on \u201cdangerous anthropogenic interference.\u201d Its effect has been to marginalize scientific research into, and concern about, natural climate variability. Successive assessment reports ratcheted up the IPCC\u2019s confidence in attributing it to human causation. Thus, in the IPCC\u2019s 2018 Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5\u00b0C<\/a>, which paved the way for net zero by 2050, the IPCC opined that natural variability contributed less than one-tenth of one degree Celsius to the one degree warming from 1890 to 2010.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The conceit of the UNFCCC and the IPCC is that without fossil-fuel emissions, there would be no climate change. Model simulations of internal climate variability are too weak over multi-decadal time scales, and averaging a large number of simulations with different phasing assumptions nets out the effects of internal climate variability. Ignoring internal climate variability in predictions of future warming runs the risk of overestimating warming over the next two to three decades, Curry warns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since 1995, we have been in the warming phase of the 60\u201380-year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which is shortly expected to shift to a cooling phase that has a peak-to-trough impact on global temperature of 0.3\u00b0C\u20130.4\u00b0C. The effect of volcanoes is also left out of computer climate projections, and the past 150 years have been relatively quiet in terms of volcanic eruptions decreasing global temperature. How much cooling could there be from volcanoes over the rest of this century? Curry asks. Then, there is the impact of solar variations. Solar activity in the second half of the twentieth century is estimated to have been the highest in the last 8,000 years, yet the IPCC\u2019s treatment is worse than negligent. Curry quotes a researcher who says that \u201cthe sun\/climate debate is one of these issues where the IPCC\u2019s \u2018consensus\u2019 statements were prematurely achieved through the suppression of dissenting scientific opinions.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Incorporating the main components of natural variability produces a very different picture of future climate change from that promoted by the IPCC. When summed, Curry writes, \u201ctheir magnitude approaches, or could even exceed, the magnitude of the emissions-driven warming for the next three decades.\u201d What game is the IPCC playing by excluding the probable effects of natural variability? Its climate projections are deployed to promote the UN\u2019s net-zero climate agenda. By contrast, the climate scenarios that Curry outlines are designed to inform practical decision-making. The outcome is that the IPCC risks badly misleading policymakers. In its efforts to fight climate change, the European Commission is consulting<\/a> on proposals for \u201csolar radiation modification\u201d by seeding man-made aerosols in the stratosphere to artificially bring about falling global temperatures when they might be falling, anyway. That could very well bring about a genuine climate catastrophe.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a similar vein, the IPCC keeps policymakers in the dark about the presence of 183 volcanoes under the West Antarctic ice sheet, producing a steady flux of heat, something that net zero can do nothing to affect. Even more reprehensible than this omission is the IPCC\u2019s promotion of the discredited RCP 8.5 climate scenario, which Curry says biases climate assessments in an alarming direction, the outcome\u2014presumably intended\u2014being that \u201cthe scientific literature has become imbalanced in an apocalyptic direction.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Curry also has harsh words for economists<\/a> who dip their toes into climate science to fabricate spurious climate catastrophes from so-called fat-tail distributions that have no scientific validity, their extreme values \u201cunjustified by either observations or theoretical understanding.\u201d In any case, brandishing catastrophic fat tails to justify draconian emissions cuts does not remove the sting from the fat tail:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"Book<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

If unknown tipping points exist that are associated with natural climate processes, there can be no certainty that the risk of climate catastrophe would be eliminated even if emissions fell to zero.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even the virtuous risked being damned by a fat tail.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proposition #2: Restore balance to assessing climate-change impacts<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The fundamental presumption of the UNFCCC is that human-caused climate change is dangerous and that all its impacts are bad. As Curry points out, this is irrational: \u201cFew would choose the pre-industrial climate of the eighteenth century.\u201d If the world\u2019s climate were warming solely owing to natural causes, it is unlikely that humanity would feel obligated to slow down future warming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

People would adapt to the changing climate as they always have.\u2026 There would be no motivation to attribute every extreme weather event to the warming because there would be no political gain to be obtained from such attribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first half of the twentieth century had more extreme weather than the second half. \u201cThe disconnect between historical data for the past 100 years and climate model\u2013based projections of worsening extreme weather presents a real conundrum,\u201d comments Curry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A warmer climate is associated with more rainfall, notably in regions affected by the Asian monsoon. At least 60% of the region\u2019s agriculture is rain-fed, and these areas are home to about half the world\u2019s population. For this reason, the Asian monsoon is one of the most studied weather systems in the world. If climate policy were decided by popular vote, wonders Curry, would a majority vote for more CO2 <\/sub>emissions so that there would be greater water availability?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Proposition #3: Prioritize adaptation to a changing climate<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of policy responses, the first two of Curry\u2019s propositions point away from the UN\u2019s goal of rapidly phasing out fossil fuels toward adaptation as the rational policy response. As Curry notes, climate activists view adaptation as undermining the cause of emissions cuts, a message reinforced by the IPCC and its drumbeat of alarm<\/a> about a \u201cbrief and rapidly closing window to secure a liveable future.\u201d The IPCC\u2019s view of a liveable future excludes billions of people over the next few decades. \u201cMitigation via emissions reductions helps no one for decades to come, whereas people are helped in the near term as well as in the future by locally designed and implemented adaptation,\u201d Curry explains. Rehabilitating natural variability inevitably requires adaptation, unless the threat of extreme weather is used merely as a rhetorical device to secure support for emissions cuts. In all the analyses that Curry has undertaken of regional scenarios of extreme weather events over the next three decades, \u201cvariations associated with natural climate variability substantially exceed any expected change from global warming.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Curry points to practical examples of successful adaptation. In 1970, up to a half-million Bangladeshis lost their lives because of a tropical cyclone. In 2007, a similar-magnitude cyclone cost 3,000 lives. The enormously reduced toll on human lives is thanks to the building of cyclone shelters, early warning systems, and mangrove restoration. A heat action plan that Curry helped devise for Ahmedabad, one of India\u2019s hottest cities, involved mapping high-risk hot spots, providing more access to drinking-water stations, and more green spaces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Curry contrasts the doctrine of sustainability, which aims to put a dynamic world into a stationary balance, with resilience, which looks for ways to manage weather risk in a continually imbalanced world. Superstorm Sandy<\/a> in 2012 hit New York hardest, where it had been most recently redeveloped. Lower Manhattan had been rebuilt to be sustainable, not resilient. Blaming the destruction caused by extreme weather events on climate change gives politicians a free pass. They can blame the horrifying wildfires on Maui this summer on climate change, but responsibility for the lack of preparedness and consequential loss of life lies squarely on the negligence of state and local officials.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The slow pace of warming and sea-level rise over the past century has allowed time for adaptation, Curry argues. Ten years ago, the extreme RCP 8.5 emissions scenario was regarded as the business-as-usual trajectory. Since then, RCP 8.5 has been viewed as increasingly implausible, and a trajectory closer RCP 4.5 has taken its place, implying a 2\u00b0C\u20133\u00b0C end-of-century warming. In the past, the prospect of such an outcome would have been regarded as a policy success, Curry says. She is rightly cynical that as the lower emissions and warming trajectories gained acceptance, the goalposts were moved by the IPCC in 2018, and the target lowered to 1.5\u00b0C, which is how we wound up with net zero by 2050.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An alternative to the UN climate-change paradigm<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Curry rejects the UN climate-policy paradigm and what she calls the \u201cpolitics of climate scarcity\u201d and the associated politics of energy and material scarcity, and she advises abandonment of arbitrary temperature targets. Instead, the focus should be on appraising specific regional risks and vulnerabilities and proactively developing responses to them that have greater benefits than costs, noting the importance of prosperity, as people are less exposed to weather and climate shocks if they are not poor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is much less pressing than the IPCC and the UN contend because of the implausibility of extreme emissions scenarios such as RCP 8.5 and of high values for the climate sensitivity of carbon dioxide (the warming caused by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). Natural variability is likely to slow down the rate of warming over the next few decades, and further time can be bought by targeting greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, which account for up to 45% of human-caused warming.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate Uncertainty and Risk<\/em> is more than a book. Curry has produced a single-author counter to the IPCC that offers a radical alternative to the UN paradigm of climate change that could well serve as a manual for a future Republican administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article originally appeared at\u00a0Real Clear Energy<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n


Rupert Darwall<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rupert Darwall is a Senior Fellow at the RealClear Foundation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Prof. Judith Curry is a leading American climatologist. President of Climate Forecast Applications Network. From\u00a0CFACT By\u00a0Rupert Darwal Just over three decades ago, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed by President George H. W. Bush in Rio de Janeiro. It has one objective: to stabilize concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":283036,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Prof. Judith Curry is a leading American climatologist. President of Climate Forecast Applications Network.","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818056,691823570,691818076,691820922,691820662],"class_list":{"0":"post-283029","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-climate-change","9":"tag-climate-uncertainty-and-risk","10":"tag-co2","11":"tag-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-ipcc","12":"tag-judith-curry","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/image-315.png?fit=2400%2C1598&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1bCZ","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":264758,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=264758","url_meta":{"origin":283029,"position":0},"title":"CLIMATE UNCERTAINTY and RISK: An Interview With Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"30\/06\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Tune in to the show for a review by the Dr. Curry herself. We'll also take a look at some of the silliest climate news of the week!","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0Screenshot-2023-06-30-195704.png?fit=941%2C528&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0Screenshot-2023-06-30-195704.png?fit=941%2C528&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0Screenshot-2023-06-30-195704.png?fit=941%2C528&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0Screenshot-2023-06-30-195704.png?fit=941%2C528&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243637,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=243637","url_meta":{"origin":283029,"position":1},"title":"The Models Are OK, the Predictions Are Wrong | Dr. Judith Curry | EP 329","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"07\/02\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Dr. Jordan B Peterson and Dr. Judith Curry discuss climate change, the major error in current models and future predictions, academic fraud, and the need for dissenting opinions.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/00Screenshot-2023-02-07-132647.png?fit=894%2C503&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/00Screenshot-2023-02-07-132647.png?fit=894%2C503&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/00Screenshot-2023-02-07-132647.png?fit=894%2C503&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/00Screenshot-2023-02-07-132647.png?fit=894%2C503&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":260992,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=260992","url_meta":{"origin":283029,"position":2},"title":"Publication day!","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/06\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Climate Uncertainty and Risk\u00a0is now published!","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0climate-change-uncertainty-no-excuse-for-inaction-key-2col.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0climate-change-uncertainty-no-excuse-for-inaction-key-2col.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0climate-change-uncertainty-no-excuse-for-inaction-key-2col.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0climate-change-uncertainty-no-excuse-for-inaction-key-2col.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/0climate-change-uncertainty-no-excuse-for-inaction-key-2col.jpg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":238196,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=238196","url_meta":{"origin":283029,"position":3},"title":"BANNED (see description) Climate Goals vs. Human Well-Being: A LIVE Discussion with Dr. Judith Curry","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"06\/01\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The estimable Dr. Judith Curry joins The Heartland Institute's Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, and Linnea Lueken to discuss \"Climate Goals vs. Human Well-Being\" on the next episode of Climate Change Roundtable.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0Screenshot-2023-01-06-193106.png?fit=896%2C502&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0Screenshot-2023-01-06-193106.png?fit=896%2C502&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0Screenshot-2023-01-06-193106.png?fit=896%2C502&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/0Screenshot-2023-01-06-193106.png?fit=896%2C502&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":231173,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=231173","url_meta":{"origin":283029,"position":4},"title":"\u201cThere\u2019s No Emergency\u201d \u2013 Dissident Climatologist Dr Judith Curry on Climate Change","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"26\/11\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Curry made sense of recent extreme weather events and indicated that \u201cEarth has survived far bigger insults than what human beings are doing\u201d.","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/0Screenshot-2022-11-26-163106.png?fit=897%2C505&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/0Screenshot-2022-11-26-163106.png?fit=897%2C505&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/0Screenshot-2022-11-26-163106.png?fit=897%2C505&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/0Screenshot-2022-11-26-163106.png?fit=897%2C505&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":273428,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=273428","url_meta":{"origin":283029,"position":5},"title":"The Fake Climate Consensus","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"14\/08\/2023","format":false,"excerpt":"We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an \u201coverwhelming scientific consensus.\u201d \u201cIt\u2019s a manufactured consensus,\u201d says climate scientist Judith Curry in my\u00a0new video. She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue \u201cfame and fortune.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In \"climate alarmism\"","block_context":{"text":"climate alarmism","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-alarmism"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/0fdrzdpxbjrpy.png?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/283029","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=283029"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/283029\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":283038,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/283029\/revisions\/283038"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/283036"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=283029"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=283029"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=283029"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}