Claims of a consensus was an early sign climate science was political.
It was used to support official science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in a public relations campaign to offset and divert from bad science, inadequate data, and incorrect assumptions. It’s in use again as the science of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis fails and people are not persuaded.
Many scientists were fooled, including James Lovelock, a central figure to environmentalism with his Gaia hypothesis. In 2007 he said,
“Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic.”
Recently he revised his view;
“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.”
“We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.”
How could a reputable scientist be so wrong?
The first time I heard a MSM reporter announce that the earth was going to burn up because of mankind I thought I have heard similar stories before. And when this reporter said that the debate was over and all scientists agree I knew she was ill informed. Or maybe she was just lying and had a political agenda. I have been around long enough to know how this BS works. First they try to scare the crap out of you and then tell you its your fault. The whole theory that world destroying man made global warming (climate change) is the bigggest hoax ever perputated on mankind. I could rant and rave about this subject for hours. but the truth they lie and you die.