I wonder if those espousing the certainty of man-made climate change, and thus the need to take drastic mitigative action, have realised they’re on a losing wicket? My guess is not if journalist Alan Rusbridger’s recent comments in Prospect are anything to go by. ‘The days of when people could get away with outright climate change denial are mostly behind us,’ he said.

It is a revealing comment since it infers that we are now in some post-debate ‘settled science’ era (where have we heard that before) where Net Zero and other climate policies will simply be enacted – no questions asked.

What the wider man-made climate change lobby don’t seem to appreciate is that there is change afoot. Growing numbers of people are beginning to question their narrative, and many simply don’t buy it anymore. So, what’s driving this?

Well, for starters, more people are prepared to openly challenge the scientific basis of the narrative, including academics. Take Steven Koonin (an undersecretary for science in the US Department of Energy under President Obama, and ex-Caltech professor) for example. His book, Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters challenges much of today’s climate narrative. Then there’s William W. Hogan, Professor of Global Energy Policy at Harvard Kennedy School, who happily reviewed Koonin’s book, saying, ‘Essential reading and a timely breath of fresh air for climate policy. The science of climate is neither settled nor sufficient to dictate policy.’ Prominent and respected academics are now far more comfortable speaking out.

And these dissenting voices are being amplified by popular alternative media platforms like The Joe Rogan Show. Social media platforms like X and Substack are also allowing other dissenter voices and commentators to circumvent mainstream media gatekeepers, thereby bringing their counterarguments to further millions.

Then there are government policies like Net Zero that are now materially and negatively impacting people’s day-to-day lives. The rubber of climate change policy is well and truly hitting the road. And people are not too happy. This wouldn’t be so bad if the people thought we were all in it together. But they don’t.

Take the next COP30 climate meeting in Brazil later this year, for instance. It’s estimated that over 50,000 people will attend, flying in from across the globe. While politicians, unelected mandarins, billionaire businesspeople, celebrities, and academics will jet in for an 11-day all-expenses-paid jamboree, the ordinary man and woman on the street are left wondering how they’ll pay their next heating bill – a heating bill that has risen dramatically because of government energy policy.

I’m no politician, but I suspect that making your citizens’ lives harder, restricting their rights, and making them poorer – all while using your boot-clad foot to stamp their face in a stinking puddle of hypocrisy – may not be a vote winner.

And then there’s trust. Or to be more accurate, the lack of it. A recent 2025 Edelman report found that 70 per cent of UK citizens agreed that ‘my sense of grievance against business, government, and the rich is moderate or higher’. More worrisome for the climate change lobby are the record numbers who now believe government and business leaders, journalists, and reporters, etc., ‘purposely mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations’.

Trust in nearly all institutions has declined for decades in what the report calls a ‘generation of institutional failures’. The findings are replicated across most Western countries driven, the authors say, by myriad events, including the Iraq War (2003), Financial Crash (2008), UK expenses scandal (2009), Brexit (2016), and Covid (2020).

And it is the latter (Covid) that may well be the straw that broke the camel’s back. For many, government and institutional responses to Covid crossed a line. They broke the social contract. And the knock-on effect is that people are now much more likely to interrogate or outright disbelieve anything the government or institutions say.

And this doesn’t play well for those espousing the current climate change agenda, especially as people are increasingly noticing the similarities between Covid and climate change lobby’s behaviour, messaging, policies, and tactics (e.g., see writing by Ramesh Thakur, Lionel Shriver).

Take, for example, the appeals to authority (‘Trust the Experts’) and claims of ‘scientific consensus’ as incontrovertible proof. The demonisation of dissent, ad hominem attacks, and censorship. The alarmism and fearmongering (‘Climate Hell’), and the need for drastic governmental intervention to deal with a ‘crisis’ – not to mention the almost cult-like moral fervour of some proponents. Then there’s the mismatch between the scientific models that inform policy and empirical observations, allied to the misuse and misrepresentation of data. Lastly, there’s the lack of empirical evidence to suggest any of the proposed mitigation actions will have (or have had) a demonstrable impact.

The similarities are stark. And people are drawing their own conclusions. I have spoken to many people (friends, colleagues, and even fellow academics) over the past 12 months who, five years ago, were ardent climate change champions but are now questioning that belief. Others have turned full 180 from climate change champions to sceptics.

Governments and the wider man-made climate change lobby therefore have a problem. Increasing numbers of the public simply don’t believe them. Many are being hurt by them. And a substantial percentage of the population don’t trust them. That’s not a great recipe for future success. So, where next?

Well, the climate change lobby and governments could reflect, change course, and begin to engage in good faith with the public and dissenters. They could enact common-sense, evidence-based policies that either improve people’s lives, or at the very least don’t harm them. Such a change would go a long way to rebuilding trust between government, allied institutions and the public. It would also make the public more amenable to their arguments and calls to action.

I suspect, however, this won’t happen. Governments will more likely tinker at the edges of policy to try and win back votes from an increasingly disillusioned and angry public. All the time, climate change advocates will charge full steam ahead with their agendas and ramp up the rhetoric. Their agendas and policies will increasingly harm the public, and their imposition will become more authoritarian, further alienating people and undermining trust. The whole Net Zero edifice, and by association the man-made climate change narrative, will then become politically toxic – in the same way Covid did. It doesn’t sound like a winning ticket to me, although I bet it’s one the UK Reform Party is praying Labour and the climate lobby stick to.

The man-made climate change lobby are, then, stuck in a doom-loop. And unless they radically alter course (and there’s zero evidence to suggest they will), vast swathes of the public will likely turn against them and use their vote for change. And at that point, they will lose everything they have worked for decades to achieve. They just haven’t woken up to this reality yet. And probably won’t until it’s too late.