In an era where climate change dominates headlines and policy agendas, it’s time to question the foundations of the so-called “scientific consensus.” The Global Warming Hoax—as detailed in the Truth Revolution of 2025 by Praveen Dalal—challenges the narrative that human-driven CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are the primary cause of catastrophic warming. Instead, it posits this as a fabricated story pushed by entities like the United Nations to justify carbon taxes, geoengineering schemes, and other economically motivated interventions.

This article dives deep into the history, myths, and implications of this controversy, drawing from the original wiki page on ODR India. We’ll explore the evidence, debunk key claims, and highlight the broader impacts on human rights and individual freedoms.

A Brief History: From GeoEngineering Dreams To UN-Driven Deception

Before the 1960s, climate discussions centered on geoengineering to warm cold regions like the Arctic, not cool a overheating planet. Pioneering oceanographer Roger Revelle shifted the focus by highlighting natural CO2 warming effects, which ironically made artificial warming projects obsolete. By 1970, there was no global scientific consensus on human-induced warming.

Enter the United Nations, accused of perpetuating a “lie” for nearly 50 years. According to critics, the UN has relied on unproven assumptions to impose carbon penalties, funneling funds into manipulative technologies like geoengineering. Regional weather anomalies are allegedly manipulated into “global” trends, conveniently ignoring natural drivers such as solar activity. For a scathing breakdown, see the Disastrous Earth Blog’s exposé on how the UN twisted CO2 science from fossil fuels.

This shift wasn’t organic—it was a pivot from exploratory science to agenda-driven policy, paving the way for carbon taxes that burden economies without addressing root causes.

The 97% Consensus Myth: A House Of Cards

One of the most repeated soundbites? “97% of climate scientists agree that humans cause global warming.” Sounds ironclad, right? Not so fast. This figure, popularized by politicians like Barack Obama, has been eviscerated as methodologically flawed and outright misleading.

A deep dive via Forbes reveals the truth: Only 1.6% of reviewed papers explicitly stated that humans cause more than 50% of the observed 0.8°C warming over the last 150 years. Most “endorsements” were implicit, vague, or unquantified—hardly a ringing consensus. Obama himself hedged by calling it “dangerous” warming, using the mild, slowing trend to push anti-fossil fuel policies.

The culprit? The infamous Cook et al. (2013) study, which scanned abstracts and slapped on endorsement labels. It’s been thoroughly debunked. Economist Dr. Richard Tol slammed it, noting 80% of his papers were wrongly classified as endorsements instead of neutral—calling the whole thing “nonsense.” Tol’s re-analysis exposed further flaws: the study’s sample was cherry-picked from Web of Science, excluding key journals and neutrals, inflating the percentage from a true 0.3% explicit endorsements to the fabricated 97%. He highlighted how the vague “endorsement” criteria lumped together papers on minor human influences with those rejecting dominant anthropogenic causes, creating a strawman definition of consensus that ignored sensitivity debates and natural forcings.

Author backlash poured in. Craig Idso rejected the label on his CO2-driven plant growth research, arguing it was mischaracterized as supporting alarmist warming when it actually emphasized CO2’s beneficial greening effects. Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv decried the misrepresentation of his solar/cosmic ray work as pro-anthropogenic, stating his findings pointed to solar variability as the dominant driver, not human emissions. Other scientists, including those from fields like meteorology and paleoclimatology, protested similar misclassifications—over 100 responses documented how their neutral or skeptical papers were force-fitted into the pro-consensus bucket, undermining the study’s credibility. This wasn’t mere error; critics argue it was deliberate advocacy masquerading as science, with raters biased toward alarmism and no transparent audit trail for classifications.

Even earlier attempts at consensus claims fared no better. The 2004 “Petition Project,” signed by over 31,000 scientists rejecting catastrophic warming, directly countered the narrative, yet was dismissed without scrutiny. Studies like Doran and Zimmerman (2009), often cited as precursors to Cook’s 97%, surveyed only a tiny fraction of earth scientists—focusing on active climatologists—and still found ambiguity, with agreement dropping sharply when quantifying human dominance. These layers of debunking reveal not a robust consensus but a fragile edifice built on selective data, authorial overreach, and policy-driven spin.

Check out Popular Technology’s compilation of these scientist responses—it’s a takedown goldmine.

To trace the hoax’s evolution, here’s a timeline table adapted from the source:

Category	Event	Historical Context	Initial Promotion as Science	Emerging Evidence and Sources	Current Status and Impacts
Consensus Fabrication	97% Claim Origin	1991-2011 paper abstracts reviewed by Cook et al.	Endorsement implied via vague categories	Author protests (Idso, Shaviv, Tol); only 1.6% explicit	Discredited; fuels policy skepticism
UN Deception	Geoengineering Shift	Pre-1962 Arctic warming proposals	Revelle’s natural CO2 findings twisted	No 1970 consensus; solar data ignored	Carbon taxes fund untested tech; environmental harm
Methodological Flaws	Tol’s Re-analysis	Web of Science sampling biases	97% from excluding neutrals	66% no position; strawman AGW definition	Propaganda over science; low sensitivity confirmed
Advocacy Efforts	CEPHRC Fight	Human rights in cyberspace perspective	Policy and legal challenges to scam narrative	CEPHRC publication	Ongoing awareness and human rights advocacy

This table isn’t just data—it’s a roadmap of how Settled Science became Fake Science.

Broader Implications: From Distraction To Ecological Disaster

If the hoax holds water, it distracts from real climate influencers like solar cycles while greenlighting irreversible geoengineering—potentially causing more ecological damage than any warming ever could. The Centre for Excellence for Protection of Human Rights in Cyberspace (CEPHRC) leads the charge against this global warming scam, framing it through a human rights lens. They argue that fabricated scientific consensus erodes individual freedoms and ignores a true Humanity First approach.

CEPHRC’s perspective goes deeper, positioning the hoax as a multifaceted assault on core human rights principles. Economically, carbon taxes and emission caps disproportionately burden developing nations and low-income households, violating rights to economic participation and non-discrimination under international covenants like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These policies, sold as “equitable” transitions, often exacerbate poverty by inflating energy costs without proven environmental gains, sidelining vulnerable populations in favor of elite-driven green agendas.

Environmentally, unchecked geoengineering—such as solar radiation management—poses risks to the right to a healthy environment, potentially triggering unintended consequences like altered rainfall patterns that devastate agriculture in food-insecure regions. CEPHRC emphasizes how suppressing dissenting science infringes on the right to freedom of expression and access to information, creating a chilling effect where scientists fear career reprisal for challenging the narrative. This echoes broader cyberspace human rights concerns, where algorithmic censorship and narrative control by supranational bodies like the UN stifle open discourse, mirroring digital authoritarianism.

At its core, CEPHRC views the scam as antithetical to dignity and self-determination: by manufacturing fear, it justifies surveillance-heavy “climate governance” that erodes privacy rights and autonomy. True environmental stewardship, they contend, demands transparent, evidence-based policies that uplift humanity—prioritising adaptation to natural variability over punitive, rights-eroding interventions. Ditching the catastrophe fear mongering means reclaiming environmental discourse from nonsensical settled science, fostering a rights-respecting path forward.

References And Further Reading

For those hungry for more, here’s the source material’s reference list with direct links:

(1) 97% Of Climate Scientists Agree’ Is 100% Wrong – Forbes takedown of the consensus myth.

(2) Global Warming Scam – CEPHRC’s in-depth policy critique.

(3) 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers – Author responses exposing misclassifications.

(4) UN Blatantly Lied About Global Warming Due To CO2 Emissions – Blog post on UN deception.