# Surprise: Consensus on Climate Change was a Lie **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 16, 2010, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423 "2010-06-16T14:59:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/21 "2010-06-16T17:06:05Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > I personally believe in evolution, but global warming is not accepted by as many scientists as many claim it is. [Actually, it is.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus) ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/22 "2010-06-16T17:08:08Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > I guess you don’t believe in POTENTIALLY EXTREMELY HIGH ROI from green energy and carbon regulation. From who? Which companies that are currently rich and powerful are pushing this? Or are you suggesting that little companies which are not yet rich and powerful are somehow forcing the hand of the entire scientific community and also the goverment and international community against the wishes of the already existing powers that be, with their huge industries and infrastructures and power structure and money and bought politicians? The idea that global warming is only a plot by big money is just bizarre to me. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/23 "2010-06-16T17:08:33Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > I guess you don’t believe in POTENTIALLY EXTREMELY HIGH ROI from green energy and carbon regulation. > > Just because big oil has market share NOW and has the money NOW, doesn’t mean that someone else isn’t trying to get in on their action. And personally I think that this is what it’s about. Even a little bit of a multi-trillion dollar industry is A LOT. Bring the cites. If the kinds of investors/executives you’re thinking of are pumping money into AGW-acceptance the way the oil industry, etc., have been pumping money into AGW-denial for decades, there should be **plenty** of proof on the public record for the former, as there is for the latter. ---
**Author:** ![flickster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7bcc69/32.png) [@flickster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flickster)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/24 "2010-06-16T17:19:02Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > From who? Which companies that are currently rich and powerful are pushing this? > > Or are you suggesting that little companies which are not yet rich and powerful are somehow forcing the hand of the entire scientific community and also the goverment and international community against the wishes of the already existing powers that be, with their huge industries and infrastructures and power structure and money and bought politicians? > > The idea that global warming is only a plot by big money is just bizarre to me. Wrong direction…I suspect if there is arm twisting or enticement for producing findings, it from the politician/government/university administration side in order to maintain the grant $$$ train running ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/25 "2010-06-16T17:31:39Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > The idea that global warming is only a plot by big money is just bizarre to me. I never said it was. You are taking my statements out of context. I am saying that the motivation for lying about the facts are motivated by a desire to keep funding, and that funding comes from mainly those with interest in green technology to replace oil. That is a huge ROI if they can even get a small portion of the market… and we’re starting to see it now. The mass hysteria surrounding the issue is another thing entirely. If you claim that the world is going to end if we don’t take action… that can be very persuasive. More persuasive than any amount money. The fear mongering is how they combat the differences in finance between them and big oil. It’s been a great political tactic. As was the fear of WMDs to get us to attack Iraq, which might as well have been a ploy by the oil companies. The fear is so great that any argument you present otherwise is taken as an attempt to back the oil companies. Big oil doesn’t stand a chance really. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/26 "2010-06-16T17:31:50Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > The debate shouldn’t be about painting the other side as evil, but from what I can tell… if you’re going to lie about something there has to be an intention as to why you’re doing it. Probably money. You say we shouldn’t paint the other side as evil but then you claim that most (all?) pro-AGW scientists are liars. That’s quite a disconnect. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/27 "2010-06-16T17:33:43Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > I am saying that the motivation for lying about the facts are motivated by a desire to keep funding, and that funding comes from mainly those with interest in green technology to replace oil. That is a huge ROI if they can even get a small portion of the market… and we’re starting to see it now. Bring the cites. If the kinds of investors/executives you’re thinking of are pumping money into AGW-acceptance the way the oil industry, etc., have been pumping money into AGW-denial for decades, there should be **plenty** of proof on the public record for the former, as there is for the latter. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/28 "2010-06-16T17:37:09Z")
> [@flickster](#): > > Wrong direction…I suspect if there is arm twisting or enticement for producing findings, it from the politician/government/university administration side in order to maintain the grant $$$ train running Could you name some of the villains here? _Which_ politicians? _Which_ universities? _Which_ governmental powers (remembering who was in charge until quite recently)? Do you have some examples of those evil grants? I’ll join the chorus asking for cites. > [@](#): > > Big oil doesn’t stand a chance really. How sad. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/29 "2010-06-16T17:38:29Z")
[Linkety link.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#History) > [@](#): > > The Guardian reported that after the IPCC released its February 2007 report, the American Enterprise Institute offered British, American, and other scientists $10,000, plus travel expenses, to publish articles critical of the assessment. The institute, which had received more than $US 1.6 million from Exxon and whose vice-chairman of trustees is Lee Raymond, former head of Exxon, sent letters that, The Guardian said, “attack the UN’s panel as ‘resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work’ and ask for essays that ‘thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs’.” More than 20 AEI employees worked as consultants to the George W. Bush administration. Despite her initial conviction that with “the overwhelming science out there, the deniers’ days were numbered,” Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer said that when she learned of the AEI’s offer, “I realized there was a movement behind this that just wasn’t giving up.” > > The Royal Society conducted a survey that found ExxonMobil had given US$ 2.9 million to American groups that “misinformed the public about climate change,” 39 of which “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence”. In 2006, the Royal Society issued a demand that ExxonMobil withdraw funding for climate change denial. The letter, which was leaked to the media, drew criticism, notably from Timothy Ball and others, who argued the society attempted to “politicize the private funding of science and to censor scientific debate.” > > ExxonMobil has denied the accusations that it has been trying to mislead the public about global warming. A spokesman, Gantt Walton, has stated that ExxonMobil’s funding of research does not mean that it acts to influence the research, and that ExxonMobil supports taking action to curb the output of greenhouse gasses. Gannt stated, “The recycling of this type of discredited conspiracy theory diverts attention from the real challenge at hand: how to provide the energy needed to improve global living standards while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Tell us more about getting paid to produce particular results, please. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/30 "2010-06-16T17:40:00Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > I guess you don’t believe in POTENTIALLY EXTREMELY HIGH ROI from green energy and carbon regulation. Another request for cites. Exxon alone made over [$45 billion in profits](http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/30/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm) in one year in 2009. Not gross, profit. In the bank money. I am having a trouble finding specific amounts Exxon donated but there is this: > [@](#): > > ExxonMobil is still funding groups that deny climate change, despite claiming last year that it had stopped doing so. > > Reports the Independent: > > ``` > Free-market, anti-climate change think-tanks such as the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in the US and the International Policy Network in the UK have received grants totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds from the multinational energy company ExxonMobil. Both organisations have funded international seminars pulling together climate change deniers from across the globe. > > ``` > > \ > > In fact, they’ve been the top source of climate-change-denier funding for some time, as Chris Mooney reported for Mother Jones in 2005. Exxon gave Atlas $100,000 in 2008, according to the oil company’s reports, and Atlas has in turn supported at least 30 other foreign think-tanks that spread climate change misinformation. > > SOURCE: [Exxon Still Sponsoring Deniers – Mother Jones](http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2010/02/climate-denial-still-brought-you-exxonmobil) So, a few hundred-thousand dollars? Heck, let’s be generous and say Exxon spends $50 million or even $100 million on this (which I think is far over whatever the number really is). Talk about ROI! Please show anything similar for the other side of the coin (and note that Exxon is only one such company funding these things…there are others). ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/31 "2010-06-16T17:42:56Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > You say we shouldn’t paint the other side as evil but then you claim that most (all?) pro-AGW scientists are liars. That’s quite a disconnect. No it’s not. If you read the sentence again it will all be quite clear. It shouldn’t, but unfortunately it is. ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/32 "2010-06-16T17:46:39Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So, a few hundred-thousand dollars? Heck, let’s be generous and say Exxon spends $50 million or even $100 million on this (which I think is far over whatever the number really is). Talk about ROI! > > Please show anything similar for the other side of the coin (and note that Exxon is only one such company funding these things…there are others). Again people are taking everything I said out of context. there is a reason I put POTENTIAL in caps. ---
**Author:** ![M.Constant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/3ab097/32.png) [@M.Constant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/M.Constant)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/33 "2010-06-16T17:47:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Here are the arguments against me: > > 1. I’m brainwashed by the oil industry. > A)I actually support alternatives such as electric cars. I don’t see the correlation. Oil companies are hiring the same lobbyist groups that Big Tobacco hired back in the 80’s to try to confuse the question if smoking and second hand smoke were harmful. These lobbyists are hiring scientists to try and confuse the science. You didn’t have to be a fan of tobacco to be confused by these apparently independent scientists. On the other hand, you have scientists hired by governments who I think would prefer AGW not to be true. Barring conspiracy theories anyways. > [@](#): > > 1. I am a global warming denier. > A) To be correct I am a ‘man-made global warming skeptic’. I do believe the Earth might be warming, but I don’t believe it has anything to do with pollution. In the end, human caused warning is a tertiary question. The first two questions are is the Earth warming, and if so, is it bad. Assuming the answer to the first two questions is yes, then we start looking at ways to fix it, and part of that process is figuring out what the cause is. For what it’s worth, there is some very strong data that the Earth is warning, and some compelling theories that it is bad. > [@](#): > > 1. I’m evil and that I support corporations polluting. > A) I don’t and would rather companies not put toxic chemicals into our water and our air because it can cause cancer and other health problems. I am just not sold that carbon emissions from man or any other living creature on the Earth is the problem. Meh, strawman. I’ve seen no evidence people think you, or other skeptics are evil. > [@](#): > > 1. I saw a Mythbusters episode and the ice melted faster when it was exposed to carbon dioxide. > A) That’s no surprise because carbon does trap heat, but most of the heating comes from water vapor. Had the ice been exposed to water vapor it would have melted just as quickly. There is 60x more water vapor in our air than C02. If anything is to blame for global warming it would be sunspot activity evaporating our oceans more quickly resulting in more water vapor in our atmosphere. > -[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse\_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect) There is a quick mechanisms for getting excess water vapor out of the atmosphere(rain). CO2 has a much longer half-life, which allows it to build up. Even though there is less of it, it keeps adding a slight, but accelerating, upward force on the average temperature of the planet. > [@](#): > > 1. Sunspot activity is bad science, and it’s not proven to be related to climate change. > A) Completely wrong. Even before today’s corporate environmental movement, sunspot activity was closely monitored and was thought to correspond with the Earth’s climate changes. > -[Sunspot Activity at 8,000-Year High | Space](http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sunspot_record_041027.html) The Sun is obviously where we get practically all of the heat on the planet. There is a lot of science correlating the various cycles of the Sun with global temperature changes. But in recent decades the Sun has been in a period of producing less than normal energy, while it appears temperatures have been going up. Oh, and the whole consensus thing, the author of the quote disputes the interpretation: [http://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-solomon-and-morano-straight/](http://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-solomon-and-morano-straight/) ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/34 "2010-06-16T17:47:48Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Again people are taking everything I said out of context. there is a reason I put POTENTIAL in caps. Because you can’t provide any of the cites asked for? ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/35 "2010-06-16T18:05:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Because you can’t provide any of the cites asked for? Are you claiming that this research is independent and unfunded? All I have said so far is that the people funding this research OBVIOUSLY have an interest in green technology. It’s safe to assume that any of the green industries such as carbon credit brokerages, clean energy resources(wind farms, solar, etc), electric car tech, etc… probably contributed. Not to mention there are political motivations for governments to spend tons of money to combat the threat of global warming to appease the scared masses. It’s genius really. Make everyone afraid of something. Get them to push their government to give you a lot of money to do something about it. Profit. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/36 "2010-06-16T18:15:33Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > Are you claiming that this research is independent and unfunded? > > All I have said so far is that the people funding this research OBVIOUSLY have an interest in green technology. > > It’s safe to assume that any of the green industries such as carbon credit brokerages, clean energy resources(wind farms, solar, etc), electric car tech, etc… probably contributed. But surely those groups are interested in green technology being shown to be needed, or impressive. Just having an “interest” in the area would include those groups who would benefit more from such research showing green industry isn’t needed. Isn’t it just as obvious, given that both “sides” have considerable interest in the area, to conclude that it’s safe to assume there’s money from big oil, standard car companies and so on is in the pot as well? ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/37 "2010-06-16T18:27:19Z")
[Mike Hulme says Lawrence Solomon story was phoney](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/mike_hulme_says_lawrence_solom.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink) [Mike Hulme sets Solomon and Morano straight](http://deepclimate.org/2010/06/15/mike-hulme-sets-solomon-and-morano-straight/) > [@](#): > > The latest false scandal in climate science hit the blogosphere over the weekend. National Post columnist Lawrence Solomon wrote a column with the outlandish claim: > > ``` > The UN’s IPCC misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. > > ``` > > Charges of a “phony UN IPCC consensus” are already reverberating on contrarian blogs around the world, thanks to the quick efforts of climate science disinformation specialist Marc Morano. > > But now Mike Hulme, a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, has set the record straight. His “correcting and clarifying” statement is unambiguous in its disavowal of Solomon’s and Morano’s misinterpretation: > > ``` > I did not say the ‘IPCC misleads’ anyone – it is claims that are made by other commentators, such as the caricatured claim I offer in the paper, that have the potential to mislead. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![nilum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ed8c4c/32.png) [@nilum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nilum)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/38 "2010-06-16T18:29:04Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > But surely those groups are interested in green technology being shown to be needed, or impressive. Just having an “interest” in the area would include those groups who would benefit more from such research showing green industry isn’t needed. Isn’t it just as obvious, given that both “sides” have considerable interest in the area, to conclude that it’s safe to assume there’s money from big oil, standard car companies and so on is in the pot as well? Most definitely big oil companies are probably investing in green tech. I think Exxon is doing something with deep sea algae… but that’s not the problem. I’m not supporting the oil industry either, but I think the mass hysteria surrounding this issue is more emotional than it is scientific. Pollution is bad and oil companies are evil, and if we don’t act quick the world is going to end. That’s the mantra of a typical environmentalist. I’m not saying that there is nothing to fear, and there is no good reason to switch to cleaner fuels because there obviously is. The problem has always been cost and the market has spoken on that issue. Oil wins. The only other alternative to push your political agenda is through fear. Honestly, I know I’ve talked a lot about money being a prime culprit (which I believe it is) but I believe another huge motivator is politics and ‘ethics’. I believe people are forcing their agenda onto others by making broad claims about some disaster in the unforeseeable future. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/39 "2010-06-16T18:35:07Z")
> [@](#): > > Not to mention there are political motivations for governments to spend tons of money to combat the threat of global warming to appease the scared masses. > > It’s genius really. Make everyone afraid of something. Get them to push their government to give you a lot of money to do something about it. Profit. It’s just like back in the thirties when the government pretended there was some disease called polio. Have you ever considered the other more likely possibility? That the reason there’s a scientific consensus on global warming isn’t some conspiracy? That maybe it’s just unbiased scientists reporting their findings truthfully? Because nobody has been able to show who it is that’s supposedly bribing all these scientists to lie. > [@](#): > > Science isn’t faith-based, but that’s not to say crooked scientists working towards a political and financial goal won’t sacrifice their scientific credibility if they think they can get away with it. And what about those who feel pressured to accept it out of fear of losing their funding or their jobs: > > “But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.” > -[http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220](http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220) > > It’s not longer acceptable today to be skeptical about certain scientific ‘facts’ because you’re likely to be ostracized for it. Or maybe these scientists find it hard to get support for the same reason alchemists and astrologers find themselves unable to compete with chemists and astronomers. Because they’re not longer doing real science. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2010, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423/40 "2010-06-16T18:35:24Z")
> [@nilum](#): > > The only other alternative to push your political agenda is through fear. > > Honestly, I know I’ve talked a lot about money being a prime culprit (which I believe it is) but I believe another huge motivator is politics and ‘ethics’. I believe people are forcing their agenda onto others by making broad claims about some disaster in the unforeseeable future. :rolleyes: Ah, yes, the claim that environmentalists are “watermelons” (green on the outside, red on the inside). I think if you examine the environmentalist agenda closely you will find it is actually no more than it purports to be. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/surprise-consensus-on-climate-change-was-a-lie/543423.md?page=3)