A recent study has revealed significant skepticism among young people regarding climate alarmism, a development that poses a challenge to advocates of urgent climate action but welcomed by those who see stoking fear about the supposed ills of global warming as exaggerated and harmful, especially to young people.

The study was released on 16th January by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), a left-leaning organization that was sued by Elon Musk for allegedly engaging in a “scare campaign” to drive away advertisers.

Researchers found that roughly one-third of teenagers (the predominant YouTube audience) hold views such as “climate policies cause more harm than good” or consider “climate change a hoax to control and oppress people.”

The findings – which the CCDH calls alarming and “startling” – suggest that there’s a growing rejection of climate narratives that emphasize imminent global catastrophe.

The group says it finds the trend troubling—and is urging big tech platforms such as YouTube to censor content that “contradicts the authoritative scientific consensus” on climate change.

In other words, they are promoting ‘cancel culture’.

However, the trend revealed by the research is likely to be seen as a breath of fresh air by opponents of climate alarmism, as well as by those who believe that climate activism is about political control or has morphed into some kind of secular religion, which is sometimes labeled the “climate cult.”

Researchers at the CCDH gathered transcripts from more than 12,000 videos posted across 96 YouTube channels between 2018 and 2023, then analysed the content from the perspective of climate change-related narratives.

They found a sharp increase in what they call a “new climate denial,” defined as three increasingly prevalent narratives: “climate solutions won’t work,” “climate science and the climate movement are unreliable,” and “the impacts of global warming are beneficial or harmless.”

The prevalence of these three narratives among climate-skeptical content on YouTube has risen sharply between 2018 and 2023, the study found

The narrative that “climate solutions won’t work” surged to 30% from 9% of climate-skeptical YouTube content in that time period.

Content expressing the view that “climate science and the climate movement are unreliable” is up to 35% from 23%, while the narrative that “the impacts of global warming are beneficial or harmless” has jumped to 6% from 4%.

This shift, labeled the “new denial,” by left-wing activists now constitutes a majority (70%) of climate-skeptical content on YouTube.

At the same time, content expressing the view that “global warming is not happening” is down to 14% (2023) from 48% (2018) among climate-skeptical YouTube content.

A poll carried out as part of the study also found that 33% of teenagers think that “climate policies cause more harm than good” and 30% believe that “climate science and the climate movement can’t be trusted.”

The spread of ‘New Climate Denial’ can have a catastrophic impact on climate action,” the CCDH said in a statement in which the group called on Google, which owns YouTube, to dial up its policy of demonetizing and de-amplifying climate-skeptical content.

Charlie Cray, senior strategist at Greenpeace USA, made a similar point in a statement regarding the study:

“Climate deniers now have access to vast global audiences through digital platforms. Allowing them to steadily chip away at public support for climate action – especially among younger viewers – could have devastating consequences for the future of our planet.”

And, no doubt, for funding of Greenpeace and other left-wing organisations!

By contrast, more than 1,600 scientists and informed professionals recently signed a pledge declaring that there’s “no climate emergency,” arguing that flawed modelling and alarmist rhetoric have drowned out scientific reality for the sake of money and power.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration reads. “Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

The signatories include Nobel laureates, theoretical physicists, meteorologists, professors, and environmental scientists from across the world.

Climate change, or the “climate emergency” as many activists insist on calling it, has become an increasingly vocal globalist rallying cry in recent years.

Much ridiculed former US Vice President Al Gore, warned of “rain bombs” and “boiling” oceans in an emotional speech about climate change at a gathering of global elites at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland last year.

Somewhat psychotic U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres made a similarly alarmist and ridiculous speech at the event, saying that “we are flirting with climate disaster” and that “every week brings a new climate horror story.” He earlier claimed “The era of global warming has ended. The era of global boiling has arrived.”

But a number of experts say such alarmism is unhelpful and that, while some aspects of climate change are a problem, there’s no need to panic.

One such expert is Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He said that although the rise owing to a greenhouse effect is real, the increase is small and certainly does not pose any existential threat.

“The greenhouse effect is primarily caused by water vapour and clouds. Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide are minor constituents of the greenhouse effect,” he said.

Another expert is Steven Koonin, a professor at New York University’s Department of Civil and Urban Engineering, who once served as Undersecretary for Science at the Department of Energy and holds a doctorate in theoretical physics from MIT.

He threw cold water on the U.N. chief’s alarmism in a recent interview with psychology professor Jordan Peterson, arguing that humanity adapting to climate change may be a challenge, but it’s far from an emergency.

Responding to a question by Mr. Peterson about what percentage of scientists “take an apocalyptic view” on the climate change issue, Mr. Koonin said he thinks that about 95% are not in the climate panic camp.

“None of them are kind of jumping off the roof and saying ‘My God, we’d better do something or we’re headed for the climate highway to hell’ or something, which is what the secretary-general of the U.N. said a couple of months ago,” Mr. Koonin said, referring to Mr. Guterres’s remarks at the COP28 climate conference.

“It’s an issue. It’s a long-term problem. We can deal with it. But there’s no reason to ring alarm bells.

While the detrimental effects of global warming are exaggerated, its benefits are ignored by climate alarmists, he said.

For example, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have benefits such as greater greening of the planet, as well as increased agricultural yields.

Mr. Koonin also discussed a widely cited report from the International Panel on Climate Change; he argued that policymakers tend to read summaries rather than the detailed report itself and, as a consequence, formulate incorrect conclusions.

The detailed report acknowledges natural variation in temperature, not just human-caused, and there are basically no extreme weather event trends, he said.

It appears that younger people have joined a growing number of adults in challenging the climate activists’ narrative. They are beginning to realise that their purpose is to scare people so they can then appear virtuous by ‘saving the planet’.

The Teals are a classic example of this – they have totally conned their electorate voters into thinking they’re all going to die if we don’t spend trillions of dollars on entirely unnecessary renewables.

They are primarily funded by ‘Climate 200’, a political funding company led by Simon Holmes à Court who is a renewables investor and wind farm operator.

There is a lot of money to be made in promoting the need for renewables!

Unfortunately, Communist China is the greatest beneficiary when it comes to wind turbines, solar panels, EVs, and EV batteries, so Xi Jinping undoubtedly goes to bed every night with a big smile on his face while we in the western democracies continue to make complete fools of ourselves.

Thanks to author Tom Ozimek and The Epoch Times for much of the factual information in this article