Why the Climate Crisis is a Scam
Updated 11 October, 2025
Something to get straight from the outset: Questioning the legitimacy of existing climate narratives does not make one selfish or reckless. There are many variables at play, and to ignore them can empower a very parasitic few while disempowering and in some cases destroy the many.
The section below is a summary from Clintel.org – an organisation that has gathered over 2000 signatures of scientists and professionals who declare that there is no climate emergency – just a manipulation of facts. The page can be accessed here.
The 5 factors below are a good starting point in rebuttal against the "climate change is an imminent threat" argument that is posed by mainstream narratives.
1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
The geological archive reveals that Earth’s climate has varied as long as earth has existed, with natural cold and warm phases. The Little Ice Age ended as recently as 1850. Therefore, it is no surprise that we now are experiencing a period of warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted
The world has warmed significantly less than predicted by IPCC on the basis of modeled anthropogenic forcing. The gap between the real world and the modeled world tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models
Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as global policy tools. They blow up the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.
4. CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters
There is no statistical evidence that global warming is intensifying hurricanes, floods, droughts and suchlike natural disasters, or making them more frequent. However, there is ample evidence that CO2-mitigation measures are as damaging as they are costly.
To believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.
Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific. In particular, scientists should emphasize that their modeling output is not the result of magic: computer models are human-made.
What comes out is fully dependent on what theoreticians and programmers have put in: hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc.
Unfortunately, in mainstream climate science most of this input is undeclared.
The World Climate Declaration (WCD) has brought a large variety of competent scientists together from all over the world. The considerable knowledge and experience of this group is indispensable in reaching a balanced, dispassionate and competent view of climate change. Find a .pdf of their declaration and signatures here.
Why have their positions on climate change been banished from the corporate mainstream information sharers?
What are the conflicts of interests and who benefits from climate change policy?
* It is not the number of experts but the quality of arguments that counts
The message you’ll hear from climate alarmists
If we have to summarise IPCC reports in one paragraph, it might sound like this:
Current warming is unprecedented in at least 125,000 years and the current CO2 concentration is unprecedented in at least two million years. CO2 and other greenhouse gases have caused all or most of the warming since 1850. As a result, some changes, like sea level rise, are already irreversible for centuries to come. Climate change is already making the weather more extreme. Around half of the global population is very vulnerable to climate change. Only urgent climate action, i.e., reducing CO2, and other greenhouse gases, can secure a liveable future for all. Luckily, renewable energy has become much cheaper in the past decade, so we can do it.
An even shorter summary would look like this:
The current warming is unprecedented, is caused by us, is very dangerous, and we should stop it by reducing our CO2 emissions, preferably by enhancing the production of renewable energy.
PROBLEM
Breaking down the climate crisis deception, point by point.
The Suspicion:
- New Zealand’s Government, Corporate News Media, and Corporate Industry Leaders, are pushing a narrative that man made carbon dioxide emissions are the primary cause of an existential climate threat to humanity.
Data:
- Carbon Dioxide accounts for 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere.
- Human caused carbon dioxide accounts for a heavily debated range of between 5 to 35% of total Atmospheric C02.
- New Zealand accounts for 0.09% of the world’s carbon dioxide (C02) emissions.
SUMMARY OF NZ’s WORLDWIDE C02 EMISSIONS: New Zealand accounts for 0.09 % of 5-35% of 0.04% of Worldwide Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.
Questions:
- Why is there so much urgency towards reducing man made C02 emissions in New Zealand if New Zealand accounts for less than 1/10,000th of a percent of total CO2 emissions?
- Who benefits the most (profits the most, gains the most power/influence) if New Zealand adopts a C02 reducing strategy.
- Why are fact checkers biased and why is there no open and balanced public debate?
- What are the risks and costs of implementing policies and strategies aimed at reducing C02?
- Why is New Zealand’s corporate media not pointing any of this out?
- How much are New Zealanders currently paying in taxes and other expenses towards Net ZERO climate policy decisions in New Zealand?
- What other sacrifices will New Zealanders be asked / forced to make in order to meet these (completely unnecessary) Net Zero goals?
ASSERTIONS
Assertion #1: Legacy Media have a heavily one-sided bias that human caused carbon dioxide emissions are causing an existential climate crisis.
Assertion #2: Governments benefit significantly from the increased powers gained and tax revenue collected if Assertion #1 was to be accepted as fact.
Assertion #3: Carbon Dioxide (C02) is a vital ingredient for plant life to survive and thrive.
Assertion 4#: Blaming Carbon Dioxide (C02) and not the Government’s own chemical pollution of the environment is an indictment on the Media’s objectivity and independence to report factual and balanced news.
Assertion #5: Climate policy targeting CO2 is not about protecting the environment. It is an excuse for hijacking control over the population.