Al Gore, former U.S. Vice President, received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his global advocacy on manmade climate change, urging radical measures to address the imminent threat. Sharing the award with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which Gore praises as the leading scientific body on the climate crisis, the recognition highlights their efforts to build and disseminate knowledge about this issue. However, the IPCC's reports have been criticized as U.N. policy statements masked by questionable scientific research, with recent reports showing a retreat from earlier severe global warming projections, aligning them with normal historical temperature fluctuations. Without the hysteria driven by activists like Gore, the global warming threat appears as little more than a typical variation. Gore's documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, has also faced scrutiny, with a British High Court judge ruling it alarmist, exaggerated, and one-sided, listing nine scientific errors on issues like sea level rise, CO2-temperature correlation, and various catastrophic claims. The Nobel Committee's justification for the award links climate change to potential large-scale migration, resource competition, and increased conflict, suggesting that addressing climate change might prevent future wars. Yet, this connection remains tenuous, as current global conflicts over resources are not driven by climate change, rendering the award a speculative gesture toward hypothetical future peace rather than a response to present actions. Instead, the climate change narrative is seen as a tool to assert control over human activity through treaties, laws, and regulations that limit rights and progress, particularly in developed nations, ultimately fostering power rather than peace.

Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump's choice for head of the Environmental Protection Agency, staunchly opposes environmentalism and denies the scientific consensus on climate change. In a National Review piece, Pruitt argued that the debate on global warming is far from settled, with scientists disagreeing on its extent and connection to human actions. Trump and many conservatives label climate change a hoax, suggesting it is a deceptive narrative used to gain money and political power. They claim scientists seek government grants, politicians desire control, and businesses profit from environmental policies, perpetuating what they call climate change hysteria. This deception, according to critics, dates back to the early '70s with shifting fears from global cooling to warming, predicting catastrophic sea level rises and displacement. Despite claims of a warming earth being more productive by opening arable land, global temperatures have remained static for over a decade, leading to a rebranding from global warming to climate change. Past predictions, like the infamous hockey stick graph and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, have been criticized as flawed. Recent revelations show environmentalist researchers fudging temperature data in climate models to align with exaggerated outcomes, prompting governments to spend billions on environmental causes with minimal impact on temperature reduction. Critics argue this supports the notion of a hoax, distinguishing between fluctuating weather and long-term climate patterns, asserting that current fears are driven by ulterior motives rather than genuine environmental concern.

Despite the extreme weather events occurring globally, there is no logical basis to conclude that the world is undergoing radical climate change as some environmental activists and politicians suggest. The distinction between weather and climate must be understood: weather reflects short-term atmospheric conditions, while climate represents long-term averages. Therefore, isolated instances of severe weather do not constitute evidence of climate change. The assumption that rare weather extremes predict catastrophic future climate shifts is illogical, akin to assuming a birth defect signals imminent evolutionary change. Climate is too complex for such oversimplified conclusions, and trends over decades or centuries provide more reliable insights. Honest scientists acknowledge that the current gradual warming trend, rising only tenths of a degree, is expected as we emerge from the Little Ice Age, and that human activity through fossil fuels has minimal impact compared to solar and volcanic activities, which are more significant drivers of temperature and precipitation swings.

Climate change has become a pervasive belief, likened to a religion by Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where many find meaning in saving the planet through attention to their carbon footprint. This belief system is filled with lies, half-truths, and manipulated data, driven by individuals whose pretentiousness knows no bounds. President Obama, in his 2015 Earth Day proclamation, declared climate change as the greatest threat to future generations, a statement seen as hyperbolic yet sincerely believed by him and his followers. Non-believers are labeled climate deniers, with Al Gore suggesting they face political and economic punishment, despite his predictions since 1997 failing to materialize as global temperature rises have been negligible, oceans have not risen significantly, and a mini ice age is now predicted by Russian climatologists. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is criticized as a corrupt entity, far from a beacon of truth, with its former head, Rajendra K. Pachauri, viewing the protection of the planet as his religion and dharma. Professor Judith Curry, once aligned with the IPCC, now emphasizes a balanced approach to environmental stewardship, acknowledging the need to minimize mess while extracting resources, but not to the extent of believing personal actions like driving electric cars save the planet. Electric cars, despite their environmental claims, contribute significantly to carbon emissions during production, with a deficit that requires extensive mileage to offset, and federal subsidies far outweigh the minimal climate damage savings. Climate change fanaticism is seen as lacking balance, with misplaced priorities such as funding electric car chargers over security needs, as evidenced by budget allocations during the Benghazi crisis. Historical climate variations, from the Roman Optimum to the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, demonstrate that climate has always changed naturally, without modern interventions being the cause. Claims linking specific events like Hurricane Sandy to climate change, as made by former mayor Michael Bloomberg, are viewed as pretentious, ignoring historical disasters like the 1900 Galveston hurricane that killed far more without blame on human activity. Innovations like fracking, which have lowered gas prices, face opposition from climate change advocates who see cheap gas as fostering public apathy toward emissions, despite significant reductions in tailpipe emissions over recent decades through private enterprise. Wind farms, promoted as green solutions, cause substantial bird and bat deaths, revealing inconsistencies in environmental policies that protect such industries while penalizing individuals for similar harms. The overarching narrative of climate change is seen as shifting focus from God's control over nature to human responsibility, fostering a belief that mankind can alter weather patterns, a notion deemed feeble in the face of God's ultimate power over creation.