Gay Patriot Header Image

The Psychology of the Global Warming Cult

The ONT on AoSHQ last night linked to this article on how easy and fun it is to pick on the Global Warming Cult.

The global warming alarmists are the easiest people to troll in the entire world. You don’t even have to make a particularly good or original joke to set them off. Just say “Man, this cold weather sure does disprove global warming,” sit back, and watch the fireworks.

The thing about the Global Warming Cult is that the vast majority of them know as little about climatology, atmospheric science, meterology, or indeed basic science as the average Obama voter knows about economics; that is to say damn little and what they think they know is wrong.

Those ignorant dupes believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (a.k.a. ManBearPig) because they believe that nature is good and people, especially male white capitalist people, are bad. This narrative has been drilled into them by schools, media, and politicians since they were young and it shapes their worldview.

They don’t believe in ManBearPig because of science, but because ManBearPig aligns with a fairytale narrative that they can understand: White people with money are giving mother Earth a fever and killing polar bears.

This is what makes them incredibly easy to mock; and incredibly hopeless to see reason.




  1. The world is getting warmer. That’s just a fact. What’s not a fact is the “why.”
    Folks who say its due to Human activities have lots of data that shows that its possible that Carbon is a factor. Its not a proven fact, but there is evidence that suggests a coloration. I know you are trying to be humorous but to discount those folks as “ignorant” is the height of arrogance and just silly. Which I suppose is your point.

    The real threat of carbon based power is ocean acidification and the #1 reason why humans ought to change their power supply.

    Comment by mike — January 10, 2014 @ 1:42 am - January 10, 2014

  2. The world is getting warmer, unless a global cooling cycle began in 1998, as some read the data.

    It used to be said that the real threat of carbon based power was rising temperatures and melting polar ice caps, but you say now the real threat is ocean acidification? Except that the Scripps paper suggests that ocean acidification is being overhyped. Call it the next big hoax.

    My brother once told me that any scientist who denied global warming was being paid off by the oil and coal companies. “So,” I responded, “you claim that some scientists will deny global warming for pay, but no scientist would ever hype global warming to attract grant money and research dollars?”

    Comment by Conservative Guy — January 10, 2014 @ 2:43 am - January 10, 2014

  3. If only we had embraced uranium based power when we had the chance 🙁

    Comment by Sathar — January 10, 2014 @ 7:31 am - January 10, 2014

  4. I am a meteorologist, and libs will come to me after hearing about my career, and they inevitably ask about global warming. I chat with them about it, and they are skeptical, thinking I am one of those fundie Christian types. At a Christmas party, one liberal (think he was) was polite but I could see he didn’t believe me when I stated that global warming was only a bit caused by humans. Plus I said there was no way we meteorologists could definitively state how much is caused by man and what is propelled by nature.

    Comment by davinci — January 10, 2014 @ 9:40 am - January 10, 2014

  5. There is a lot packed into this statement @ #1:

    Its not a proven fact

    A fact is a bit of truth. It is not a theory. It is not an opinion. It is not subjective as in almost a fact or not an actual fact or kind of a fact or a widely believed fact or a temporary fact or a fact believed by some to be true or …….

    A “proven” fact is a redundancy. But it does leave the door open to the notion that there are “unproven” facts, which there are not.

    Scientific inquiry is a process of informed notions in search of facts. When you light a match near gas fumes emanating from your gas tank, you might just introduced yourself to a scientific fact. If you don’t explode things, there are mitigating circumstances that intervened and those circumstances can be unraveled by other scientific facts.

    We started out with man made global warming as the argument. “Anthropogenic” is the dolled up term: (chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity. We were sold carbon credits and sent forth to reduce CO2 emissions and stop sheep from farting.

    This green house gas theory is the CO2 acts like a blanket and adding CO2 makes the blanket thicker, more dense, heavier and it keeps energy from escaping into space a dissipating. Thus it warms the globe and as human continue to add more CO2 to the blanket, the global warming will increase.

    Now, is that a fact? Or is it “informed theory” or scientific postulation? This is where it becomes useful to start fudging a bit by touting the consensus of scientists in their belief in a theory as being as good as a “proven” fact as we have got. Blah, blah, blah, blah. It is language gymnastics. I can’t hear you because I am clapping my ears and yelling “I can’t hear you.”

    The moon and the Earth are virtually the same distance from the sun. The CO2 blanket is the ceiling under which the Earth’s atmosphere is trapped. The moon has no atmosphere or CO2 blanket. So, theoretically, if we were to pipe a bunch of CO2 to the moon, it would serve to create a ceiling for a moon atmosphere and ….. well, pigs could fly. Ain’t theoretical science grand?

    So, do we in fact, (can we prove) more energy is remaining in the atmosphere of the earth in current time than in periods of the past and distant past?

    The whole man-made global warming debate balances on its pivotal premise that there is a large, noticed, global temperature increase in the past 30 years that requires explanation.

    Is that premise a fact? Is that premise true? Or is it an unproven “fact” which serves the self-infatuation needs of a popular theory?

    First, 30 years is a fly speck in the time spans of global climate changes. Secondly, the last 10 of those 30 years have produced data which conflict with the global warming theory. But, the second point is largely irrelevant when one posits the first point.

    The 30 year period is interesting because it encompasses the beginning records from computerized weather stations, satellites, ocean monitors, etc. From this data we have begun to accumulate a mountain of data which reveal “trends” we seek to analyze.

    Trends are evidence, not facts. Evidence is analyzed and used to test theories. But everything points to weighing the information on the scale of doubt, reasonable doubt, probability and darned likely. Facts are used in the process, but conclusions are not fact, they are deductions.

    I attended a meeting in South Africa in which poaching Rhinos for their horns was the topic. It is almost an impossible puzzle to solve without taking the Rhino out of its open environment.

    How do we cure the Earth of the mysteries of man-made global warming on a global scale with all hands on board and chipping in to save the planet when the poor old Rhino can’t survive aphrodisiac fanatics that pay exorbitant prices for a little Rhino horn dust?

    That really is the stubborn “fact” that need so be addressed and which underlies the narcissism of global warming yahoos. Meanwhile, we replace killer incandescent light bulbs with mercury tainted twisty lamps that we pay the Chinese to make so that the industrial pollution and human misery is somebody else’s back yard.

    Comment by heliotrope — January 10, 2014 @ 10:18 am - January 10, 2014

  6. My skepticism of Climate Fearmongering would be diminished, somewhat, if the fearmongerers advocated something other than massive Government expansion as their proposed solution.

    Comment by V the K — January 10, 2014 @ 10:31 am - January 10, 2014

  7. Libs gnore the scandel that the University of East Anglia unveiled in 2009, that global warming was hoax, and that the so called scientists hid every report and statistic that contradicted their opinion. Climate change is natural and cyclical. The left, including the U.N., is trying to control industries to eradicate capitalism. There was a report that claimed that the 12th Century had warmer weather. If this is true, what caused it? The only thing I think of were the farts from cows and horses.

    Comment by Roberto — January 10, 2014 @ 11:15 am - January 10, 2014

  8. #1: “The world is getting warmer. That’s just a fact.”

    Not so fast. The world has been getting warmer and colder for many millions of years. Remember the Medieval Warm Period? The unusually good weather that contributed to the prosperity of the Roman Empire, that allowed wine grapes to be grown in England?

    Comment by pst314 — January 10, 2014 @ 12:45 pm - January 10, 2014

  9. #5 “he 30 year period is interesting because it encompasses the beginning records from computerized weather stations, satellites, ocean monitors, etc.”

    Including poorly sited earth stations, whose temperature readings are rendered useless by being situated next to asphalt parking lots, air conditioner exhausts, and so on. But we must Believe Science.

    Comment by pst314 — January 10, 2014 @ 12:47 pm - January 10, 2014

  10. The global warming cult is part of the “modern industry and technology are bad, and we should all return to the middle ages” cult.

    Of course, most of these cultists don’t really want all of us to become peasants scratching out a subsistence living; they expect that they will be part of the ruling elite that will continue to have access to radios, televisions, computers, gasoline-powered machines, and modern medicine. They may not realize that if they reduce 99.9% of the population to subsistence farming, there will no longer be enough of an economy to support modern industry and technology.

    Comment by pst314 — January 10, 2014 @ 12:51 pm - January 10, 2014

  11. I think climate is cyclical and I think that sun spots have much to do with the warming and cooling.

    I think one thing that bugs me about the whole global warming crowd is that they blame everything (overly warm temps and overly cold temps on global warming). I also think the global warming alarmists are overly addicted to government intervention.

    There is a case to be made for clean running factories and exhausts-there is a case to be made for recycling and reducing waste-that case should be more focused on wanting to keep the world we live in clean and safe to live in-not this alarmist-the world is going to end doom and gloom the global warming crowd tries to sell.

    Comment by Just Me — January 10, 2014 @ 1:02 pm - January 10, 2014

  12. Just Me, they’ve solved the problem of too much cooling by renaming the crisis, first “climate change,” then “climate chaos,” all blamed on the basic global warming. I’m sure you’ve heard that this global warming COULD lead to another Ice Age, which is far scarier than weather like Southern California and Florida have (and to which places cold-weather dwellers like to retire).

    But none of the evidence matters. They’ve got their hands on regulators who are willing to kill the coal industry and regulate CO2 and fracking and drilling till fossil fuels can no longer produce energy economically. And no evidence that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming, that temperature readings are wrong due to misplacement of temperature reading devices, that their computer models are in error, or that global warming might be a positive thing for mankind, will change their course.

    How much damage can they do in the next three years? I’m guessing LOTS. And if Hillary is elected and continues the assault on, well, capitalism, LOTS MORE.

    Comment by Polly — January 10, 2014 @ 5:21 pm - January 10, 2014

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.