Chris Martz: 10 fundamental questions that climate pant-soilers never answer

[Note: Chris Martz is a must-follow on X, a meteorology student who has been driving climate alarmists nuts for the past year or so on that platform with posts questioning their prevailing narratives. He published the post below yesterday that is really astute and well worth taking a few moments to read.]

Full text:

Here are 10 fundamental questions that climate pant-soilers never answer.

➊ You claim that the Earth is overheating. That it’s “too hot.” So, what is the correct global mean surface temperature (GMST) for life on Earth and why? 🌡️

Please provide a numerical answer. Use units and round it to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius. Then, explain why that value is ideal and cite evidence to justify your answer.

➋ What is the correct atmospheric CO₂ level for life on Earth?

What is best to optimize our agricultural productivity? 🌽

What CO₂ level will make da weatha less scary? 🌪️

Give your answer as an exact value as a mole fraction or volume percentage, and then explain why that value is ideal.

➌ What exactly makes CO₂ “pollution”?

The EPA considers CO₂ to be a pollutant, legally speaking, under the Clean Air Act, and their scientific justification is simply that, it “…𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑛ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑔𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑙𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑠 𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐 ℎ𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑡ℎ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑒.”

🔗https://epa.gov/climate-change/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a

That’s pretty ambiguous.

Because by that measure, water vapor should also be classified as a “pollutant” because it’s also a “greenhouse gas” (GHG) — it’s also the most abundant and potent GHG; it absorbs a wider spectrum of IR wavelengths than CO₂. 🌈

So, what actually makes CO₂ pollution?

➍ Why are temperature departures from 1850-1900 climate conditions deemed as the human welfare control knob given that the overall human condition has never been better than it is today? How is was climate during the end of the Little Ice Age — the coldest period in the last 10,000-years — preferable to today’s? On what account was the weather more benign? By what measure? Be specific. Tell me how the climate was supposedly less dangerous in the 17-19th centuries.

➎ The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) that President Biden signed into law in 2022 was popularized as the “biggest climate bill in history,” but ever since the bill was signed, climate alarmists insist climate change has only gotten worse.

Why are we not seeing the bill work its magic? 🎩 🪄

🔗https://axios.com/2024/07/21/biden-legacy-election-2024

➏ If we spend $75 trillion to decarbonize the economy by 2050, by how much will it reduce the GMST by the end of the century? Please provide your answer to the nearest tenth of a degree Celsius and show your calculations.

What does the perfect climate look like? How will we know when we get there? By what measure?

➐ The estimated cost of net zero by the year 2050 in the U.S. is $75 trillion ($3 trillion per year), according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen. 💰

🔗https://politico.com/news/2024/07/27/yellen-amazon-climate-change-00171522

That’s a hefty price tag. 🏷️

And with ~260 million adult taxpayers, it would cost each of us $288,461.54 to get to “net zero emissions” by the target date. That’s 3-6-years’ worth of peoples’ salaries.

Are you willing to shell out that money, or do you just expect that everyone else will foot the bill for you? 🤔

Secondly, if you don’t know the answer to question six, then are we supposed to just spend that $75 trillion and see what happens? 🤨

➑ If “combating climate change” is a global concerted effort, why do China and India get a free pass to continue emitting carbon dioxide without bound?

➒ Why are you so vehemently opposed to the deployment of nuclear power? It is the safest, most sustainable “carbon-free” energy technology and without the compliance regulations, isn’t expensive when compared to solar PV and wind, which are inefficient, intermittent, costly add-ons to existing electricity generation sources.

➓ If humans are a parasite to the Earth since we are destroying it, why then are you worried that climate change could wipe us all out? Wouldn’t that be better for Earth? Why don’t you be the change you want to see and “net zero” yourself?

I guarantee not one person will give me a coherent point-by-point answer.

[End]

Great stuff, and of course, he’s right: No adherent to the Global Church of Climate Alarm™ has provided any coherent answers to these questions, mainly because they can’t. Climate “science” is not a real science at all, but a mere exercise in rigging statistical models using bastardized data and illogical assumptions to produce pre-determined outcomes. The entire thing is in fact a dogma-based religious cult.

This explains why the disciples of the GCCA™ and their media slaves had to jointly declare the debate to be “over” starting roughly 30 years ago in what has been a quite successful effort to shut down public discourse on the validity of their dogmatic beliefs. It is also why government agencies like NOAA in the US, the Meteorological Office in the UK, and the UN spent years going back and “revising,” i.e., rigging the past temperature records to make prior centuries appear to be cooler than they actually were, thus creating the basis for their claims of global warming over the last 46 years.

Incidentally, the first column I wrote demonstrating why what we then called “global warming” was in fact a religious exercise was in March, 1996. I posed some of the same questions then that Mr. Martz is posing out on X today. Like him, I’ve never received a cogent answer to any of those questions and know full well I never will.

The dogma of climate alarmism is strong; the facts surrounding it are not.

That is all.