Claim: Climate change is a “cult” with “no definitive evidence”

Summary of the Claim

In a 2020 speech at the European Parliament, Rupert Lowe described climate change as a “cult” and argued that there was “no definitive evidence” for human-driven global warming. He suggested that climate policy was based on ideology rather than science and implied that the scientific consensus was uncertain, exaggerated or politically motivated.

This fact-check examines whether those statements are supported by the scientific evidence available at the time and whether Lowe’s framing accurately reflects established climate research.

Where the Claim Was Made

Lowe made the remarks in the European Parliament during discussions on EU climate targets and environmental policy. His comments aligned with a broader narrative used by some climate-sceptic politicians, asserting that the climate movement is ideological while scientific findings are unreliable or inconclusive.

Verdict: ❌ False

The claim is factually incorrect. By 2020, the scientific evidence for human-driven climate change was overwhelming, robust and supported by decades of peer-reviewed research, as well as all major international scientific bodies. Describing climate science as a “cult” is rhetorical, not factual, and denying the existence of “definitive evidence” contradicts the extensive empirical record recognised worldwide.

Evidence and Analysis

1. Scientific consensus was already established long before 2020

By 2020, the fact that the planet is warming and that humans are the dominant cause had been confirmed by:

  • the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
  • NASA
  • the UK Met Office
  • the Royal Society
  • the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2014), which pre-dated Lowe’s claim by six years, concluded with 95 percent to 100 percent confidence that human activities, especially greenhouse gas emissions, are the dominant cause of observed warming.

The evidence was already definitive in the scientific sense.

2. The data clearly shows long-term warming driven by human activity

NASA’s climate data shows a clear and accelerating warming trend over the past century, with the last decade (2010–2019) being the warmest on record up to that time.

NASA’s analysis explicitly states that the current warming is “extremely likely” to be the result of human activities, not natural cycles.

The UK Met Office also confirms the same conclusion, noting that greenhouse gas emissions from industry, transport, and agriculture explain the warming trend.

These datasets are not political interpretations but direct measurements.

3. “No definitive evidence” contradicts thousands of peer-reviewed studies

Meta-analysis of climate research demonstrates that approximately 97 percent or more of peer-reviewed scientific studies agree that humans are causing global warming.

This percentage remained consistent through multiple reviews leading up to 2020.

Calling this a lack of “definitive evidence” ignores:

  • satellite temperature measurements
  • ocean heat content records
  • shrinking Arctic sea ice
  • sea-level rise
  • atmospheric CO₂ measurements at Mauna Loa
  • long-term global temperature reconstructions

These are empirical, repeatable data, not ideological claims.

4. The word “cult” is rhetorical, not supported by fact

Using the term “cult” implies:

  • irrational belief
  • dogmatic adherence
  • lack of empirical basis
  • rejection of evidence

However, climate science is built on measurable data and internationally reviewed studies. The IPCC process alone is one of the most rigorous scientific assessments in the world, involving:

  • thousands of scientists
  • peer review
  • transparent methodology
  • open data
  • reproducibility

Presenting this as a cult is a political framing, not a factual assessment.

5. International institutions recognised climate change as a critical risk

By 2020, all major scientific and governmental institutions had identified climate change as one of the most significant global risks.

Examples include:

These organisations are scientific or intergovernmental bodies, not ideological movements.

6. Climate models have accurately predicted warming trends

Climate models have successfully forecast:

  • temperature increases
  • polar ice loss
  • sea-level rise
  • heatwave frequency increases

A 2020 study comparing historical climate models with actual outcomes found they were generally accurate.
Source: Hausfather et al., Geophysical Research Letters – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085378

This directly refutes the idea that there is “no definitive evidence”.

Conclusion

Rupert Lowe’s 2020 assertion that climate change is a “cult” with “no definitive evidence” is false. The claim contradicts a deep and consistent body of scientific research, global datasets and authoritative assessments from major scientific institutions.

By 2020, there was already overwhelming, clear and definitive evidence that the planet is warming and that human activity is the primary cause. Lowe’s comments dismiss this in favour of political rhetoric that does not align with the empirical record.

The claim is rated ❌ False.

Sources

Return to Archive Fact-Checks
Return to Fact Checking Hub