(LifeSiteNews) — A renowned climatologist has said that the alleged scientific consensus on “climate change” is a “manufactured consensus” perpetuated by the United Nations (U.N.).
In an interview with libertarian journalist and pundit John Stossel, climatologist Judith Curry said that the “manufactured consensus” existed because a scientist would achieve “fame and fortune” for exaggerating the risks associated with “climate change.”
Curry, who formerly served as the chair of the School of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, admitted that she used to spread alarmism about “climate change” herself.
“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” says Curry. “And so, this was picked up by the media. Alarmists said, ‘Oh, here’s the way to do it: Tie extreme weather events to global warming!’”
“So, this hysteria is your fault!” Stossel told Curry.
“Well, sort of. Not really. They would have picked up on it anyways,” she replied.
As the sanctity of human life is degraded around the world, we are seeing a particularly horrifying phenomenon – the euthanasia of children.
As if killing adults is not bad enough, giving lethal injections to children was first legalised in Belgium in 2014, and the Dutch health minister has recently announced that the country is expanding eligibility for children to be given lethal injections, from infants and older teenagers, to include children aged one to twelve. In both countries, there were reports that these so called mercy killings of children occurred before it was legalised.
Sign our petition to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, calling on them to take action against states that permit this horrific practise.
In The Netherlands from 2005 to 2018, official reports indicate that 14 children between the ages of 12 and 18 were actively euthanased; that is, about 1 per year. However, a death certificate study in 2001, of children aged 1 to 17, in found that there were about 5 cases per year (0.7% of all deaths of minors; narrowly defined as only those with a request from the child).
Importantly, another 15 children per year (2.0%) were actively euthanased with no specific request from the child, but instead one from the parents. This 2001 death certificate study occurred before the law changed to permit euthanasia of minors, hence illegal euthanasia of minors (older or younger than 12) was happening.
In Belgium in 2007/2008, a death certificate study revealed that while there were no cases of active euthanasia narrowly defined as by request only, 7.9% of all deaths were in fact active euthanasia (by lethal drugs) without an explicit request from the child, amounting to about 10 per year in Flanders alone. Again, this occurred at a time when euthanasia of minors was illegal in Belgium.
Reports from Belgium and Holland up until 2010 show that between 7% and 9% of all infant deaths involved active euthanasia by lethal injection.
This push to kill sick children is not just happening in Europe. In Canada, a parliamentary committee has recommended that Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) should be extended to ‘mature minors’.
This Report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, recommended that ‘the government of Canada amend the eligibility criteria for MAID set out in the Criminal Code to include minors’, with the stipulation that, without lethal intervention, their death should be ‘reasonably foreseeable’.
The committee emphasised that ‘MAID should not be denied on the basis of age alone’ and therefore, it should be accessible to any child whom doctors believe has ‘requisite decision-making capacity’. What child has the capacity to make a life or death decision?
Horrifyingly, the report further recommended that, ‘where appropriate, the parents or guardians of a mature minor be consulted in the course of the assessment process for MAID, but that the will of a minor who is found to have the requisite decision-making capacity ultimately take priority’. This means that parents would be powerless to stop an anxious teenager who wants to be euthanised from being killed by doctors.
Sign our petition to stand up for sick children and their parents.
We are calling on the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to make a statement condemning the euthanasia of children, and to take action against state parties who practise it.
The Declaration of the Rights of the Child states that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, as the body responsible for monitoring implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, has a clear duty to take action to protect children from being killed by the state.
Sign the petition now!
Photo: Shutterstock
Curry said that she became a darling of the mainstream media due to her study tying the alleged increase in intense hurricanes to global warming. She was “flown all over the place to meet with politicians, and give these talks and [received] lots of media attention.”
“I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists, and I was treated like a rockstar,” Curry recalled.
When researchers pointed out incongruities in her research, namely years with fewer hurricanes, Curry investigated these claims and realized that her critics had a point.
“Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability,” she told Stossel.
The journalist seemed pleasantly surprised about Curry’s integrity and willingness to be corrected. “So you are the unusual researcher who looks at the criticism of your paper and actually concluded they had a point.”
Curry said that the 2009 “Climategate” scandal, in which internal emails from research facilities showed that scientists were trying to hide controversial data, showed “a lot of really ugly things,” like “avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests” and “trying to get journal editors fired from their job” if they disagreed with the mainstream “climate change” paradigm.
Stossel said the Climategate scandal made Curry realize that there is “a climate-change industry set up to reward alarmism.”
“The origins go back to the…U.N. environmental program,” she recalled.
Curry said that 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.”
According to the climatologist, that was the reason that the U.N. created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
“The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming,” instead “the IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change,” she said.
“Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding…assuming there are dangerous impacts.”
READ: UN chief feeds climate panic, announces ‘era of global boiling has arrived’
Curry explained that to receive public funding, scientists must follow the climate alarmism narrative.
“The announcements of opportunity for funding are really tied to assuming that there are dangerous impacts [of climate change],” Curry stated.
“So the researchers aren’t stupid; they know what they need to say to get funding?” Stossel asked.
“Exactly,” Curry replied.
The former faculty head recalled that “about ten years ago,” the editor of the prestigious academic journal Science, Dr. Marcia McNutt, “wrote this political rant about ‘we need to stop emissions now,’” in which she stated that “The time for debate has ended.”
McNutt now serves as the President of the National Academy of Science.
“What kind of message does that give?” Curry asked. “’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.”
“That’s what we’ve got now: a massive government-funded climate alarmism complex,” Stossel said.
“Why don’t other scientists who recognize the nonsense push back?” the journalist asked Curry.
“If they work at a university, it’s going to be very uncomfortable for them,” she responded.
Curry said that she could no longer get a job at a university after her stint at the Georgia Institute of Technology because she was labeled a “climate denier.”
That is why the climatologist started her own weather and climate forecasting company called Climate Forecast Applications Network. Curry also publishes articles on her blog and has written multiple books, including her latest work, “Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response.”