photo #9128207

𝐂𝐋𝐈𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐒𝐂𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐓 𝐉𝐔𝐃𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐂𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐘 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 “𝐒𝐂𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐂 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄𝐍𝐒𝐔𝐒” 𝐎𝐍 𝐂𝐋𝐈𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐄 𝐈𝐍 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐖 John Stossel sat down with Dr. Judith Curry, a climate scientist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and what she said should be mandatory viewing for anyone who’s ever been told “the science is settled.” Her first point cuts to the core of the entire debate. When you talk about a scientific consensus like the Earth orbiting the sun, “𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘴” — it’s self-evident. The moment you have to invoke “consensus” as an argument, “𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘶𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵”. That’s not a scientific consensus — it’s a 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭. What does actual science agree on? Three things, according to Curry: temperatures have risen for over 100 years, burning fossil fuels emits CO2, and CO2 has a warming effect “𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘭”. “𝘉𝘦𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘪𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨”. Specifically, she identified the 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 that remain unresolved: “𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘴? 𝘞𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸” and “𝘐𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴? 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘴”. Read that last line again. The entire multi-trillion dollar climate policy edifice — the Paris Agreement, the Green New Deal, the EV mandates, the war on natural gas — rests on the assumption that warming is dangerous. And the scientist saying there’s 𝐧𝐨 𝐚𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 on that question isn’t a right-wing pundit. It’s a career researcher who chaired a major atmospheric science department. Curry also pointed out that climate alarmists have politicized the field so aggressively that “𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘹 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘌𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩’𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦” — which she called “𝘤𝘳𝘢𝘻𝘪𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘹, 𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘰𝘶𝘴, 𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯” — gets reduced to bumper sticker slogans. And any researcher who pushes back risks career destruction. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐢𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝.