My point is that you are both factually incorrect, and that your thinking about the subect is seriously logically flawed.
Your public policy perscription about the science that you think illogically about, and actively, provably misrepresent, is quite arguably disasterous, and the worst effects you claim about not adopting your policy perscription are simply not plausible.
You are about as wrong on this as it is possible to be on a subject.