For years, the promoters of the spurious ‘settled science’ narrative have claimed that there is a 97-99% consensus among scientists about humans causing climate change. The claim is meaningless since it fails to address differences in the extent of human involvement and how harmful the warming is thought to be. A recently published survey of top-level climate scientists found that just over five in 10 attributed the human contribution to recent climate change to be 75% or above. Only around four in 10 scientists believed that the frequency and severity of extreme weather events had increased significantly in recent years.
The above graph from the poll is the only realistic way to gauge scientific support for anthropogenic climate change. It is clear that there is not 99% support for humans causing all or most climate change. Of course, it is not a surprise that there is considerable support for the unproven anthropogenic hypothesis (92% believed that a majority of recent warming was due to humans), since sceptical science in this field does not generally attract money, prestige and coveted academic posts. Emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen recently called the current climate narrative “absurd”. Perhaps, he added, it was the trillions of dollars diverted to green projects and the relentless propaganda from grant-dependent academics and agenda-driven journalists that had persuaded people it is not absurd.
There is a vast amount of money pouring into academia designed to support the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. The hope is to shore up the invented 99% ‘consensus’ backed up by helpful, unquestioning media commentators. But the new poll shows that even after 25 years of relentless propaganda, there is considerable debate over the subject in scientific circles. Over the last year, the Daily Sceptic has attempted to bring some of this debate to a wider audience.