Scientists conclude the “97% consensus” climate change hoax is backfiring, and they are really, really concerned that the public hasn’t swallowed the lie
by: Jayson Veley
(Natural News) If you’ve ever debated climate change with a leftist or an environmentalist, chances are you’ve heard the one talking point that is repeated more than all the others: That 97 percent of scientists agree that human activity is playing a significant role in the warming of our planet. While the left routinely uses this talking point to bolster their argument and make it sound as though they are more in touch with the scientific community than their political counterpart, the reality is that this “97 percent” figure has been debunked time and time again.
According to an expert commentary published last month in Environmental Communication, climate change campaigns that focus on convincing people that there is a scientific consensus on the issue are likely to backfire. Maybe now the left will rethink their strategy and actually look at the facts, rather than continuously spread the myth that 97 percent of scientists agree on the impact of man-made climate change.
The six authors of the commentary note that the messaging strategy has generated much confusion over whether or not consensus extends to the various effects of climate change such as extreme weather or rising sea levels. Instead of ending the debate on climate change, the repeated talking point that 97 percent of climate scientists agree has only lead to more debate and more division on the matter, not less.
The authors also explain that there is much debate over whether or not consensus messaging is effective enough to win over hearts and minds. In the past, social scientists have challenged the idea that the consensus messaging strategy changes the attitudes of the public, which would mean that constantly using the 97 percent figure to argue that climate change is caused by human activity is completely pointless.
Of course, consensus messaging isn’t the only strategy that the left uses to advance their radical environmental agenda. Whenever they get a chance, liberals in the mainstream media, in Hollywood and in Washington DC use scare tactics to generate fear over what will supposedly happen unless we take immediate action to combat climate change. They tell us that the polar bears are dying as a result of increasing global temperatures, even though polar bear numbers are actually on the rise. They told us that the Arctic sea ice would be completely melted by September 2016, which of course turned out not to be true. They’ve been telling us for years that ocean levels would rise and flood U.S. cities, but that too turned out to be nothing more than a scare tactic.
But regardless of whether their strategy is consensus messaging or scare tactics, one thing we know for sure is that the left is hell-bent on convincing the public that climate change is a real and immediate threat to our world. But why would they work so hard and for so long just to sell the people a lie?
According to former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer, it’s all about the redistribution of wealth. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,” he said. “This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”
Edenhofer went on to admit, “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” Just five years prior to making this comment, Edenhofer said that “The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
Indeed, climate change was never about the environment. Rather, it is a vehicle used by the left to advance their radical, redistributive agenda. By making comments like “97 percent of scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change” and through the use of scare tactics, the left has convinced millions of Americans that the only way to avoid our imminent doom is to surrender our liberty and massively expand the size of the government – the progressive’s idea of utopia.