More than that, this near cult of scientific denial also believes that there is a multi-agency, multi-media and almost global government conspiracy to hide the truth and twist the facts. They ignore data that doesn't suit them, and cherry pick the small but inevitable errors and anomalies in this vast field of combined science.

Having analysed their links, argued back with countervailing data, I'm now convinced the bulk of popular climate warming scepticism is a conspiracy theory, like 911 truthers who believed Bush was behind the Twin Trade Towers, or those who still believe the Moon Landings were staged. Like all conspiracy theories, it's impervious to evidence because - a priori - anyone who disagrees with them is in cahoots with the conspiracy. So it goes round and round, becoming more extreme, paranoid.

Let's imagine, rather than 97/3, that scientific opinion was split 50 50 in terms of man made carbon emissions creating global warming. Calculate the risks.

1. If the sceptics are right: the downsides or reducing carbon outputs are pretty minimal - higher energy costs for sure, but less dependence on peak oil. They are also reversible

2. If the sceptics are wrong: the downsides of not reducing carbon emissions are catastrophic: desertification, loss of species, rise of sea level, and countless positive feedback loops in the oceans and tundra which make warming irreversible.

It's pretty simple; the risks of doing something are lower than the risks of doing nothing.