27 Points That Highlight The Scientific Inaccuracies And Dishonesty Of The Climate Cult - Part 1

Before I begin this article, I should mention that I did not come up with these points myself. They were brought up by Climate Depot in a rather lengthy article where they explain that paper copies of their 36-page report of what they call “Skeptical Climate ‘Talking Points’” were distributed at the UN Climate Summit in Madrid on December 10th, 2019.
 
However, I feel the need to write about this and highlight their points to you guys, so here we go: the 27 talking points that point out how the hysterical climate cult either alters facts, uses non-scientific “facts” or outright lies about things in an effort to scare people into submission for the purposes of building a global communist government:

1. There is no such thing as a “97% scientist consensus.”

 
Many have attempted to say that the “facts are undisputed” on climate change because there is a “consensus” of scientists who agree that we are facing a “climate crisis” or some such nonsense. However, there are a couple of problems with that. First of all, there is no study or poll that gives credence to that figure. UN IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol said of this so-called consensus: “The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.”
 
The second problem with this argument is that, even if there actually was a consensus on this, that doesn’t mean it’s scientifically accurate. There used to be a consensus that the Earth was at the center of the universe. There used to be a consensus that people could be witches in Salem. There used to be a consensus that the atom was the smallest thing in the universe. And yet, each and every one of these things were corrected as more scientific evidence became available.
 
      2.  CO2 is not the “control knob” for the climate
 
To say that CO2 is the only, or even the biggest, influencer of climate change is simplistic at best and outright ignorant at worst. There are many factors that influence the climate, from sun activity, to volcanic activity, to ocean cycles, land use, tilting of the Earth’s axis, etc. The levels of CO2 we see today are actually, geologically speaking, among the lowest in earth’s history, as far as we know.
 
     3.  We are not facing a “climate emergency” 

The preferred terms in previous years and decades have included: global cooling, global warming, climate change, etc. “Climate emergency” is nothing more than a marketing ploy to sell people on the idea that they must act quickly before it’s too late. It’s no different, conceptually, to seeing an ad that screams at you: “Act now, before it’s too late!” or “If you call now, you’ll get double the items for the same low price as one!” or something else that is meant to get people to act with urgency and with little thought.
 
     4.  Doomsday clocks have been around for centuries and are nothing but garbage
 
As explained in previous articles, the first prediction of an ecological catastrophe dates back to 1864, when George Perkins Marsh, who is known as the father of American ecology, warned about the earth’s “noblest inhabitant” going extinct as a result of “climatic excess” and a home becoming “unfit”.
 
What’s honestly hilarious about this is that there isn’t even much consensus about when exactly we’re all going to die. AOC famously claimed we would die in 12 years if climate change wasn’t “addressed”. Prince Charles, in July of 2009, warned that we would be at a “point of no return” in 96 months. That was 125 months ago and people are still pushing back the “tipping point” because they keep being proven wrong but they won’t admit they are totally wrong about the climate.
 
     5.  Actual scientists don’t demonize CO2 as a pollutant 

Physicist Freeman Dyson, often known as “Einstein’s successor” says, “I like carbon dioxide, it’s very good for plants. It’s good for the vegetation, the farms, essentially carbon dioxide is vital for food production, vital for wildlife.”
 
CO2 has been demonized by the Left as a “pollutant” and a “poison” both for the Earth and for people. And while high levels of CO2 inhalation are fatal (as most high levels of consumption of anything usually is – if you drink more water than you should, you would die, despite how essential water is for us), carbon dioxide is essential for life on Earth. We, ourselves, are carbon-based lifeforms. Eliminating carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would prove to be fatal for us, and as previously mentioned, CO2 levels are among the lowest the Earth has seen (again, as far as we know).
 
     6.  The GND is not “green” or “new” 

The GND, according to Bloomberg News, would cost roughly $93 trillion over the next ten years if made into law today. This, put simply, is totally unaffordable. Right now, we have a debt over $21 trillion. If we had anywhere close to the amount necessary to pay for the GND, we would’ve gotten rid of our debt long ago. Over the last ten years, we’ve accrued over $10 trillion in debt. This, long-term, is unsustainable and will play a part in the collapse of the United States, much as high levels of spending and debt led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. A country that can’t pay its fees isn’t a country that is very healthy and can last for a long time. Adding on nearly 10 times the amount we accrued in the last decade over the next decade would be a death sentence.
 
What’s more, it’s nothing but a communist ploy. Back in 1970, Amherst College professor Leo Marx (apt surname) warned about the “global rate of human population growth. All of this only to say that, on ecological grounds, the case for world government is beyond argument.” The guy envisioned a global government with the power to dictate people’s lives to the point where it can regulate birth rates and the population. This is communism under another name, what the GND aims to achieve (will talk about this in the following point), and this was proposed, again, back in 1970, making the Green New Deal neither green nor new.
 
     7.  GND is not about the climate 

As previously mentioned in other articles, the GND is not about the climate, even to the admission of the very architects of the GND. Former AOC campaign aide Waleed Shahid admitted the GND was a “proposal to redistribute wealth and power from the people on top to the people on the bottom.” AOC’s former chief-of-staff also said that the GND was less a climate thing and more a “how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” What’s more, only about $8-12 trillion of the $93 trillion plan would be spent on cutting carbon emissions and environmental stuff. The rest would be used for the Left’s economic agenda, healthcare and jobs (none of which would actually be provided, realistically), so the Green New Deal is about employing communism, not about solving any sort of “crisis”.
 
     8.  “Hottest year to date” claims are scientifically meaningless 

When someone like, say, Obama, says that “this year was the hottest year to date”, what would someone who believes in the climate hysteria think? That the Earth is heating up by a lot of degrees, right? Well, when various years were claimed as being the “hottest” to date, closer examination of the data revealed the claims were “based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few hundredths of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that were within the margin of error in the data.”
 
Basically, people claiming one year to be the “hottest to date” are making scientifically meaningless claims that are only true on a technical, virtually-impossible-to-discern level.
 
     9.  Earth’s temperature not outside of natural variability 

Arriving to the last point for Part 1, we find Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever pointing out that “.8 degrees is what we’re discussing in global warming. [Just] .8 degrees. If you ask people in general what it is, they think – it’s 4 or 5 degrees. They don’t know it’s so little.”
 
Similar to the previous point, people think that, when discussing temperature increases due to global warming, the Earth is heating up by a good bit, usually 4 or 5 degrees, with some maybe thinking it is increasing double digits. But we are talking about less than a degree of difference. Award-winning climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson said: “We are creating great anxiety without it being justified… there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic… The warming we have had the last 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have meteorologists and climatologists to measure it, we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”
 
For brevity’s sake, this is the last point we will discuss today. Tomorrow, I will release a Part 2 to this, going through points 10-18, and on Monday, Part 3, covering points 19-27, so 9 points for each part.
 
The reason for this is that, even if I’m covering each point with two paragraphs, there are a lot of points to go over and I don’t want to make an article that is about 5,000 words long. That wouldn’t be easy on me as the writer or on you as the reader. So for now, this is where we will leave off.
 
But to briefly conclude on the observations of today, it is quite clear how dishonest and actually dangerous the climate change cult can be. If allowed to succeed, we will see a global communist government dictating every aspect of our lives, using lies and deceit to drive fear into people to entice them into willingly giving up their freedoms in exchange for “safety” from climate change.
 
Psalm 118:8
“It is better to take refuge in the Lord than to trust in man.”