A Google Scholar search for the phrase “climate change” reveals studies exploded from the years 2000 to 2020, peaking at 900,000, but extrapolations for 2026 now show just 175,000 – an 80% collapse.
A Google Scholar search for the phrase “climate change” reveals studies exploded from the years 2000 to 2020, peaking at 900,000, but extrapolations for 2026 now show just 175,000 – an 80% collapse.
A Google Scholar search for the phrase “climate change” reveals studies exploded from the years 2000 to 2020, peaking at 900,000, but extrapolations for 2026 now show just 175,000 – an 80% collapse.
Climatologist Judith Curry argues the boom was never organic.
“This is not a natural scientific consensus that has emerged over a long time,” she says. “It’s a manufactured consensus of scientists at the request of policymakers.”
Curry says funding, promotion and professional acceptance rewarded researchers who stayed inside the narrative, while dissent carried a price.
Curry says she paid it herself: “I was essentially unhirable academically… they pretty much finished me off.”
Over time, more and more social, economic and environmental problems were folded under the same climate umbrella.
This led to policy where subsidies, carbon taxes and renewable mandates worked together to restructure Western energy systems (and economies). And so follows Curry’s warning: “The biggest climate risk right now is the so-called transition risk.”
The climate machine has not disappeared, not entirely, but the academic frenzy paid to feed it looks to have peaked. This is likely because the establishment now has a new obsession: AI, which, amusingly, demands vast quantities of cheap, reliable 24-7 electricity – things wind and solar cannot provide.
So something has to give, and that something looks to be ‘climate alarm’.
https://twitter.com/Electroversenet/status/2090091426554012157/video/1
budbromley 