I'll say from the start that I have little evidence for this post! It is however based on various discussions and observations online and in newspapers and books; I'm not just making it up! I will however revisit this as I get more info.

That said, here's the jist of the argument. It's in note form because I'm rushing it, but wanted to get something down.

1) Funding for scientific research has decreased in recent years.
2) Science departments have been able to secure funding for research into climate-related issues, particularly since the formation of the IPCC in 1988.
3) The IPCC remit is to study human-induced warming (I note the website makes no specific reference to human-induced climate change, but I am not sure this hasn't been edited since it came under heavy criticism from sceptics)
4) In the last two to three years, we have seen the fruits of this research: a lot of science papers discussing human-induced climate change and the effects, taking as their starting point the observations of and data from the IPCC.
5) IPCC models have not been subject to significant, independent peer review. I believe Steve McIntyre has discussed this before (www.climateaudit.org).
6) Scare stories sell.

So, we have a situation where a whole bunch of scientists have been taking as their starting point work and data that intentionally set out to prove climate change was a result of human emissions.

At this point I should state that I do think the climate is influenced by humans. I am just aware that it has been massively exaggerrated by scientists looking for research funding and newspapers looking for good headlines. I should be pleased about the focus it has brought to the issue of sustainability, however I am aware how it distracts otherwise well-intentioned people from some more pressing issues of the world.

I was reminded of all this reading SeasideMan's blog recently, his excellent article on Tolstoy Syndrome.

What do you think?