Claims "that the science is settled" and  "97% of 2,500 IPCC scientists agree CO2 causes climate change"  are highly contested yet persist.

Arguments have been presented that of the 2,500 scientists only 600 looked at the science involving CO2, and of these only 308 were part of the second review process, and only 62 of these reviewed the last chapter as to the causes of climate change, and only 7 of these could be considered as being fully independent, and 2 of these did not agree that there was a 90% certainty that CO2 caused climate change.

So only 62 out of 2,500 scientists (2.5%%) could be considered to  have been fully informed, and only 7 of these could be considered to be fully independent,  and only 5 of these (0.2%), attributed climate change to CO2.

Climate alarmists are always quoting the '97% consensus' line and where do they get that number from? Find out here. You'll be surprised. via 


The exceedingly arrogant arguments contesting "the settled science" seem to revolve around, if you are not a climate scientist your contribution or scientific opinion is worthless, unless of course you are Al Gore, David Attenborough, or some other favoured worthy. There are plenty of other scientists: chemists, physicists, geologist, biologists, astronomers, &  engineers who also have relevant expertise to bring to this topic. Expertise and knowledge that climate science purists may be unaware of. 

A petition among American scientists in opposition to the view that CO2 is causing catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere has been produced & circulated under the auspicious Professor Frederick Seitz, Past President of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, and President Emeritus, Rockefeller University.  The nature, origin and authenticity of this document has been questioned  but may be accessed at the web link below: 

                     Web site link :  

The view that “the science is settled”, still prevails in the wider community, but is a  meaningless statement in the context of science. Anyone who believes such statements have any validity does not fully understand the nature of science. Statements such as these from both sides of the argument are political statements, not scientific pronouncements.  Even if 100% of 100,000 scientists agreed with a scientific view does not make it any more true. 

How can science and society cope with controversial issues being commandeered by radical groups and being whipped up by varied political and commercial interest for their own advantage. The consensus view has no scientific basis and is pure politics and invariably very poor science. Science needs to be repeatedly debated, challenged and severely scrutinized and should never be considered "settled".   

Although there are many scientists, very few are suitably knowledgeable on any particular issue, and in these cases, non-expert opinions from scientist from other fields lack credibility and are still more based more on faith than knowledge and should not be given too much credibility.  

The persistent failure of a great many climate models to match or predict present climate conditions or future conditions in the past, casts serious doubt on atmospheric CO2 as a serious contender as a climate trigger. The vast effort and expenditures devoted to failed climate models seriously calls into question the level of understanding of any warming processes based on atmospheric CO2.

124 Years of Failed Climate Claims & Prophecies

Web link to a litany of major  failed climate claims & prophecies going back over 120 years. Proof positive if any was needed that alarmist predictions are the currency of charlatans, and those wanting to manipulate public opinion for their own purposes.