Is the Global/Climate Change hoax a Cult?

[Dargil]

It has all the earmarks of a pseudo-religion, replacing G0d.

*It has a god, which is Gaia/The Planet.
*It has disciples, the "Climate Scientists" and endless useful idiots in academe, corporations, media, entertainment and government. And all those Gen Z and Gen Alpha's
*It has doctrines and prophesy, the continuing predictions that are simply revised when their "end times" don't occur. Seems like it's always 10 years away.
*It has a path to salvation, achieving Net Zero carbon by whatever means.
*And they have the single, most important thing, CERTAINTY, like all those radical fundamentalist branches of religions we all know and love. They live without doubt.

“When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.”

... C. K Chesterton

Updates

+1 y

The presence of CO2 in the atmosphere has improved to 400ppm over time and is proving to restore rain forests and green the margins of deserts all over the world. Imagine what 800 ppm will do. Probably end worldwide except when Spectre (the WEF) and tin horn dictators interfere with economic activity. I think I'll drive one of my V8 powered cars 100 miles this weekend to help out.

Updates

+1 y

I don't do Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or Tic Toc. I don't look for agreement, follows, etc. All I do add my fuel to the fire. I do not expect to convert Gaia Zealots. Only to raise doubt, so later I can say I told You So. MMGW us one of the greatest hoaxes in the history of Mankind. There is no duplicatable evidence other than endless (how to lie with) statistics that have proven false for 50 years. Why do you think Obama and Biden bought residences at nearly sea level?

[DonkeyKong1979]

Accepting climate change is just rationally accepting the scientific evidence and increasingly, the evidence of your own senses - no 'cult' made London 40 degrees or set Canada & Australia on fire.

'climate skeptics' are just a joke these days. In a lot of ways they remind me of the people who were still trying to say smoking didn't cause cancer in the 80's. They fall into the same 3 categories as they did back then:

- Corporate shills

- Attention seeking cranks

- Sad middle aged blokes who try to claim the mantle of 'rational skeptics' but will unquestioningly embrace any crackpot nonsense that says its ok to continue the lifestyle they've built their whole identity around. In the 80s smoking, now it's jamming burgers into their fat faces and driving way bigger cars than they need (overcompensating methinks).

The tragedy is that they were taken way too seriously for way too long.

[Dargil]

Any crackpots you know about?

[DonkeyKong1979]

Just look through your Twitter follows, suspect that will give you a pretty good list.

[Dargil]

Accepting that the earth was flat was just rationally accepting the scientific evidence of the day and the evidence of your their senses. The horizon LOOKED flat.

The climate always changes. I live in the US Southeast. This is the coolest spring/summer I have experienced in years. I love it when Warmists attribute ant climate disturbance as warming. Its just like blaming everything on systemic racism, another cult.

[WindAtMyBack]

There is no reason or red flags that make me think it's a hoax. I have a pretty darn good BS meter, and there is nothing about climate change that triggers it.

Ultimately, with most things we know, we are just taking someone's word for it. I not only have a good BS meter, I'm a natural skeptic. Whether or not I believe what I'm told depends on:

1) Who is saying it. How many are saying it. How long they've been saying it.
2) Does it make sense?
3) Are there any reasons to not believe it?

I'm told there is a country called Australia on the other side of the world from me. Since I haven't seen it myself, I'm just taking someone's word for it. This is true of almost everything I know.

The existence of Australia passes all the above tests. So I have no reason to doubt it's existence. The same is true of global warning. Do I know for a fact that it's true? No, but I have no reason to doubt it.

[provokeesmokee]

Well, considering you can see the evidence, no.

What is a cult is climate denialism.

There's studies of humanity's affect on climate funded (and buried) by Shell in the 70s.

There's more proof now.

When people freeze to death in Texas and climate deniers go "see, that's not global WARMing" - THAT is there cult.

When you have a belief system that can't stand up to scrutiny (aka science) and relies on misinformation and trying to tie people to their identity as deniers, THAT IS THE CULT.

Most Americans and global politicians are just too stupid and greedy to learn.

[Dargil]

Nobody with a brain denies the climate is changing. Minnesota was under 2 mi of ice 40,000 years ago and it will be again in 50,000 years.

It is a leap of faith to believe man can control the climate.

[DonkeyKong1979]

yes, it's a 'leap of faith' to think that the dominant life form on Earth can change the makeup of the atmosphere, change the global climate and cause a mass extinction.

Except that it's happened before.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

[uwotm8e]

@Dargil plenty of species in the past were the cause of climate changes

[Dargil]

Nobody with a brain denies the climate is changing. What they deny is any verifiable evidence that Man is causing it.

[uwotm8e]

@Dargil well that's dumb

[MollyLolly21]

Nah, it’s neither. There is far too much pseudo-science, denialism and lack of rationality that some people seem to lack the tools to discern fact and reason from everything else.

I highly suggest to those looking for information on climate change to refer to scientifically accurate and reliable sources. Wikipedia is a good place to start as sources are usually referenced. NASA, NOAA are also good sources.

Avoid comment sections (especially ones that appear to have angry 10 year old on, or boomers), avoid rabbit holes, unreferenced or uncited ‘research’.

[strateguy632]

wikipedia? we can't use that as a source in university, because "unreliable" so can't assume an expert in each field won the edit wars. wikipedia is a company with agendas so not "reliable" on the reliable list, for several agendas, including promoting that hoax.

[goaded]

@strateguy632 You're 47 and still in university? Wikipedia isn't a source, but it's a reasonable place to find sources.

[richardcory]

@strateguy632 Wikipedia is not a bad starting point. The original papers are far better, but few people outside of the field are able to read them.

[SoIcyGang]

Sure it is real. But the best method to combat climate change in my opinion is to free up the economy and allow carbon capture technology or some other technology be developed.

This is essentially what conservatives WANT to think but they never say "free up the economy to allow for private enterprise to solve our problem. Government intervention only slows our response."

Conservatives never make that argument.

Instead, they deny climate change to achieve the same goal of keeping government out.

[reds-noro]

Slight problem... Big Corpo don't care

[SoIcyGang]

Before you can say that, you have to agree that a free market is overall more capable.

It just happens that the greedy capitalist doesn't care about the environment, thus, without government intervention there is nobody to stop them from destroying the world.

That's fine, as long as you admit that a free market makes things go brrrrrrrrrrr.

Free market go brrrrr and brings us prosperity. But the evil capitalists will bring humanity to ruin without government intervention.

Like I said, that's fine. The only truth I want people to ingest, is the idea that when markets are free, there is more stuff for everyone.

[reds-noro]

Without government intervention the crater between rich and poor will grow much bigger than it already is. There might be more stuff, but it's just very poorly distributed. You know what, I'm not going to make a long comment listing all the downsides of a completely free market. Sure, free market encourages innovation to an extent, but very few are actually going to benefit from it in the long run. There is an up, there is a down. And while fully state regulated markets are an absolute disaster, a fully free market is just enticing big companies to do some slavery. Too big a downside for the upside of (limited and specific) innovation.

[SoIcyGang]

You know what would actually change my mind?

You would have to show me that you understand the free market perspective and it's answers to those exact problems that you have posed.

Then I would know that you know what I see, but disagree.

And nobody has ever done that. Because the people who are upset most by the idea of free markets, have absolutely never even learned about them.

THAT would change my mind. You knowing better than I do, about my own views would be impressive and I would be forced to contend with your arguments.

I can answer your arguments if I had to. Because of course the free market people have answers.

But I don't want to sit here and have a pointless debate with someone who doesn't have the first clue about my perspective, when your perspective is the standard that we all believe.

[reds-noro]

The only way someone can show you they understand the free market perspective is if they wholly agree with it. It's always the same. Always the same with these kinds of things. 'If you understood you would agree with it' is the entire idea behind it isn't it? That is your perspective, whether you are aware of it or not, you would only say that I understand the moment I fully agreed with your views.

[SoIcyGang]

You do not need to agree in order to understand. That is silly. People go to college and learn deeply about a spectrum of political beliefs.

I don't expect anyone to believe what I believe.

What I wish for, is for a truly educated and intelligent liberal, who knows about these ideas as well as I do, to have a conversation with.

But that is impossible. Such ideas only inspire anger. But those who are angry, I argue, are merely ignorant of my beliefs which I see as moral, and I believe them, BECAUSE of the same morality that I had when I myself was a liberal and a leftist full of rage and anger towards those who believed differently than me.

The liberals have the backing of all of higher education. They already know anything. Any conclusion they have drawn was only done so with absolute scientific certainty.

That's how I used to be. And that's how liberals and leftists are in general.

Not a single one of them has EVER demonstrated understanding of free market thinkers.

But that is what I am searching for most is one damn intelligent educated person out there. Just one.

Sure I've read books. Political science books and philosophy and things about politics.

But it's not good enough. They aren't solving the problem that I am searching for.

That problem being the truth about what I believe in now. Because once I understood these ideas my mind was changed.

I try to change my mind back, but I only get angry liberals in response.

For some reason I keep trying despite knowing that they do not have 1 ounce of honesty within them.

[reds-noro]

Do you consider me one of those angry liberals? Just so I understand the context a bit better.

[SoIcyGang]

I don't know what you are but usually when someone replies they want to have a little debate about it because they're upset that someone would believe in such a horrible thing as allowing rich corporations to be free to harm us, enslave us, and destroy the environment.

So I'm expecting someone to come and be angry, furious that somehow I was not born with morals and never learned morality lol.

[reds-noro]

Nah, you are just intrigued by the concept and don't want to let it go. No lack of morality, just a simp for free market.

[richardcory]

@reds-noro Some do. I work for Big Corp - and am very well funded to work on this. You can argue that they care becuase of popular opinion - but in the end they do still care

[reds-noro]

@richardcory Only some. It's usually the lower ranks that are more directly in charge of the regular employees actually care. I am not suggesting that every CEO tries to be the most horrible person on earth, I am just saying that they (most of them) don't care about regular workers, unless it negatively impacts revenue.

[richardcory]

The problem is that there is no natural economic force driving carbon capture. Its has to be artifically supported by govts. (standard tragedy of the commons problem).

But I do think we can improve techonology to where we don't need to burn fossil fuels because there are better alternatives (solar / nuclear, eventually fusion)

[SoIcyGang]

I would ask to anyone who believes that without government intervention all would be chaos, we would become slaves to out corporate overlords.

Than why would I believe in it? What reason do free market people have for desiring what seems to be such a clearly obvious outcome?

That is the question that no liberal can answer because no liberal will ever take the time and effort to investigate ideas they disagree with.

They are afraid. I know because when I was a liberal I was also afraid.

I'm not looking for a debate. I'm looking for a smart liberal who can answer that question. That way we can have an honest conversation about this because I got here by questioning my beliefs. Now I'm trying to question them in reverse, but I cannot because liberals are so high and mighty believing they know everything. But they're just blind. They don't realize they're clueless.

Even in good liberal spaces they just can't understand the free market perspective.

If a single liberal could convince me they understood my view, I would know that their disagreement is valid and that I should listen.

Why should I listen to someone who has never entertained my view at all? It's like someone who never did science saying they are an authority on science.

I'm not here for a debate with you. I'm here to poke at peoples motivations and find a smart liberal who isn't another know nothing like literally everyone.

Lord please 🙏 send me an intelligent and honest liberal capable of discussing these ideas.

I've been waiting for years lol.

[reds-noro]

Too bad for you I'm not a liberal. I am a Dutch centrist.

But here goes nothing: Free market drives businesses to invent, develop and produce/offer higher and higher quality products/services that are demanded by the public while not upping the price despite the higher quality (when you exclude inflation) as the higher quality becomes the baseline.
This also means that the most competitive, capable and hard working companies are the ones that do the best. This is great for 2 reasons. Better products and services and more fair opportunities for a hard working individual.
Of course there is always the possibility that you just aren't fond of the government as it often is corrupt and not fully trustworthy.
If a company does bad things the public could always just boycott it, no government action necessary.

And most importantly, the economy will grow and it will grow with the people.

Sadly this is all just in theory. In practice it would not work this way. A few companies will gain a monopoly on their respective markets and nobody will be able to compete. For instance; Shell has shut down development of hydrogen engines several times to prevent more competition. Most people value convenience too much for us to collectively boycott a big company, especially if it controls regularly used products or services. Ali-express would not be a thing in the western world if we were capable of collectively boycotting companies on a whim.
Most theories completely fall apart in practise. An intelligent and well informed person is aware of that.

Tell me if I missed something. I will probably go back to shorter replies as to keep a clear focus on the subject.

[SoIcyGang]

Just for perspective I imagine a free market future. But the past could not have worked free market. We had yet to understand liberty yet. Case in point slavery, women not being allowed to vote, own property, or even work often times.

So I don't think of free markets working on a population which has not consciously voted for free markets.

In order for free markets to ever arise, intellectuals would have to be convinced of freedom's efficacy. Said intellectuals then influence voters and change would come.

I don't imagine simply voting republican. Voting away laws that protect people just because "less government = better."

I don't know how people would choose to dismantle government's influence over time, but it would take into account people's well being on the way out. I imagine welfare being the last of things to go, if we are to say there would be no welfare just to be consistent in the end. But that should be last to go. First to go probably corporate welfare.

So all of this means that free markets can only come to fruition should our population become mindful enough to catch on to what I see as truths.

So a free market, realistically, is a society that is ready for it. Because it cannot be voted into being without such a society.

[SoIcyGang]

But I disagree with the idea that a free market is wrought with monopolies.

Monopolies are almost always government sponsored. Government handouts, favors, tax breaks, play favorites with companies and with resources.

A company grows large and begins predatory lobbying. Creating new safety standards and convincing government to put into effect new laws.

These laws are aimed at eliminating competition.

In a free market I think corporations would be nothing like they are today.

I think it's an absolute lie that things will grind to a standstill. With no government interference in the way, there is always a way for one company to out compete another company.

The gollaith is always slain by a David. We've seen it a million times it happens in our economy all the time.

And that's with tons of red tape and restrictions in the way of entrepreneurship.

The bad things that happen are on the margin. And we can deal with those.

Maybe not with the mindless drones of society we have today. But maybe some day, if we can just recognize that a free market is the ideal system.

Right? Take away the bad things you can imagine, and you now look at 99% of a free market. The bad things are on the margin and CAN be dealt with given the system is set up correctly.

[SoIcyGang]

As far as climate change goes I 100% believe that if the government stepped out, entrepreneurs would find a solution for climate change faster than all the money government wastes on trying to fix the problem.

That money is better spent in the hands of geniuses, not government.

The people demand reduced emissions and the market will provide.

As countries become wealthy they become more environmentally focused.

Let's let the other countries of the world become first world too. Let them have capitalism too. Let them have middle class lives too (if only they recognized that's the path).

People want to live in harmony with the environment. I don't think we need government to make sure it happens. The market will provide.

Even today I think it would. We don't have to wait for a smarter society. We are better off without their meddling in my opinion.

With so much restriction and red tape all it does is slow everything down.

[reds-noro]

So in essence you just think it will be different enough to not suffer from the same problems the market suffers from nowadays... I guess that's fine.

[NamerOfStars]

You know how space travel is impossible, because the vast majority of the planet's water is encasing it in a massive ice shell? Of course not, because that ended during the Permian.

Climate change isn't a hoax, and claiming that it is just drives more people into the cult you so decry- which is very much a cult. But opposing something bad doesn't make you good. Back in the 60's, we polluted the Cuyahoga river so badly that it caught fire. Multiple times, in fact. There's no shortage of photographic and even video evidence of it. Unless you're prepared to deny that, on what basis do you claim we can't affect the biosphere as a whole? It's the same thing; simply on a bigger scale.

Saying that we HAVE done so is not the same as saying that we CAN, of course, but dismissing it all as a hoax is making the cult into the good guys. You really don't want that.

[KetoJames]

AOC said the world would end in 12 years. Idiots like her and Greta are brilliant scientists.

Both of them are useful idiots that are helping to usher in the new world order.

[richardcory]

Anthropogenic climate change as described in reasearch papers is real, though the popular media often gets a lot of things wrong about it and there are crazies who have turned it into a religion.

CO2 levels are rising, average temperatures are going up, sea levels are rising - all by an amount that will have significant impact on human civilizaiton

There are models where the earth turns into Venus and everyone dies - but things can get very ugly if nothing is done

[bingbongbangbung]

you should realize if we reduce C02 by enough, that can actually kill off life as we know it right?

[reds-noro]

@bingbongbangbung... There are a couple of reasons why we are aiming for a net neutrality instead of a deficit. Stabilizing the climate is one of them. Your fear is quite irrational.

[richardcory]

@bingbongbangbung Sure, life needs CO2. But no one is suggesting lowering CO2 below the level it would have without industrial activity, and most people are looking for a level somewhat above that.

There is no risk of reducing CO2 so far that it because a serious issue to plant life. We have neither the desire nor the technology to do that

[EricSummer]

Let me add that there are "climate sinners", too. There is no forgiveness, though.

I agree it has become like a religion for many, but it is still real and based on science. Unfortunately, we cannot be reassured by these similarities to religion.

[slatyb]

Not a hoax. The data is clear and a scientists agree that's true works is getting alarmingly warmer. Every year is warmer than the last. The sea level is rising. Low-lying coastal areas are flooding much more frequently.

[Dargil]

The data is clear and a scientists agree that's true works is getting alarmingly warme.
EXCEPT FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS OR SO.
Every year is warmer than the last.
ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
The sea level is rising.
BY A MILLIMETER OR SO EACH YEAR? A METER IN 1000 YEARS? SELLING MY BEACH FRONT PROPERTY NOW!
Low-lying coastal areas are flooding much more frequently.
COMPARED TO WHAT?

GWARM-ist Shamans (aka subsidized scientists) do not factor in planetary movements, plate tectonics, volcanism or the sun's cycles. Only power companies and tailpipes. Like basing a religion on Jesus walking among Aztecs and gold plates engraved in "reformed Egyptian".

[Dargil]

Oops I forgot. Farting Cows.

[asphaltrhymes]

Sometimes I think it can be exaggerated, like anything is often, and sensationalism by media. Or anyone. Like anything can be "pushed" or "promoted" versus other topics get the ignored treatment lol 😆😔

[asphaltrhymes]

Excellent photo, I know that movie well 🎥🍿

[asphaltrhymes]

@Dargil have a good, safe drive then Asker. however wouldn't premium engines require premium petrol which is not as "dirty" as standard petrol or standard gasoline? 👀

[asphaltrhymes]

Ah well what would I know but enjoy your drive then lol and your contribution to mother earth lol 🌎🌍 on your drive lol 🚗 lol 😆

[reds-noro]

Mate, I just want a future that doesn't look like shit. I'm gonna say it: Pollution is bad. Now call me a monster and run away scared out of your mind. Fucking wappie

[Dargil]

I'm not Italian.

[reds-noro]

That's completely irrelevant but ok

[Dargil]

But you said Wappie. An ethnic slur.

[reds-noro]

It's Dutch. Are you thinking of guappo?

[reds-noro]

Was it guappo that you meant or not?

[Siri137]

I've always liked that Chesterton quote, because it's just SO true.

As for the crazy environmentalists, yes, it's clearly a cult, and one of the worst I've ever come across.

[OfMiceandMen]

I think climate change is very real, however, I think some of things we are trying to do like overpriced electric cars that could also have a dubious footprint is cultish.

[supercutebutt]

You are the one who is in a cult and it's sad. :(

Baby Jesus would cry for you if he was real.

[ChooChooHaha]

If only I believed in Jesus. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Snakeyes7]

Yes. It is the only explanation I can think of for people who still believe the government and corporations about it even though humanity wouldn't have lasted this long if they were ever correct.

[gorydetails]

It's a religion. They worship a god (earth). Humans are committers of sin (using fossil fuels) who have to pray for forgiveness and can only be redeemed by repentance (paying more taxes).

[goaded]

That's a strange way of saying people would like where they live to stay inhabitable. The largest insurance company in California has stopped selling wildfire policies because they're so likely.

[gorydetails]

@goaded until china and india clean their shit up, shut the fuck up and leave me alone.

[goaded]

So you think Americans should go back to poisoning themselves, because other countries are doing it.

[MollyLolly21]

What a load of crap. It has zero to do with religion or a deity and everything to do with the reality.

[Dargil]

Do I hear an AMEN? goaded has been goaded into believing propaganda.

[Dargil]

@goaded They used to deny insurance or surcharge for red cars, too. They BELIEVED red car drivers drove faster.

[goaded]

I suppose there's always the hope of a nuclear winter curtesy of Putin.

[Dargil]

Please, be respectful. Don't goad goaded.

[goaded]

Oh, please. You can avoid that by telling the truth or at least not lying.

[Dargil]

@MollyLolly21 The reality of Leftist propaganda.

[MollyLolly21]

If you’re so far into the rabbit hole of blaming everything on a huge group of people, then nothing will change your point of view.

[gorydetails]

@MollyLolly21 Oh, there’s also the predictions of doom that never come true as well. Unless you repent!

[MollyLolly21]

Yeah I don’t know about that. Doomsdays have been thrown around for millennia. Scientific predictions are hugely different though.

[KetoJames]

@MollyLolly21

It is a religion. Then came Covid, and that was a religion. Now transexualism is a religion. If you get up on stage at an award ceremony and talk about climate change, the left will overlook that you arrived via private jet.

[RoosterBreast]

@KetoJames throw the first stone if you haven't sinned. When was the last time you drove a non electric car?

[gorydetails]

@RoosterBreast you are heretic unless you’re typing this on a gluten free non-petroleum based vegan phone or laptop

[KetoJames]

It went from a Hollywood piece of shit flying in a private jet, to me driving a non electric car. I wonder if the idiot knows that electric cars run off of coal?

[RoosterBreast]

@KetoJames damn you need to pump less stress hormones until you're able to understand jokes as simple as the previous last 2 replies.

It's a joke about electric cars being part of the religion.

[Dargil]

@goaded Courtesy of Grandpa Girlsniffer.

[goaded]

@Dargil Why am I not surprised that you believe myths? www.caranddriver.com/.../

[Dargil]

@goaded Sure! I can tell the truth without lying.

[richardcory]

There are religious climate people - but they are different from the serious climate scientists.

[Dargil]

@goaded How are Americans poisoning themselves?

[goaded]

No, that would be the global warming deniers.

[Dargil]

And they believe in...

[goaded]

Disbelieving evidence and science, apparently.

[Dargil]

How do you believe in disbelief?
What "evidence" is there?

[goaded]

Seriously? I'll re-phrase my previous response: Avoiding evidence and science, and calling everything they don't like a "hoax".

[Dargil]

There is zero supporting evidence for man-caused global warming. Z E R O. That makes man-caused global warming a hoax, or, at best, an hypothesis, unless repeatable evidence can be presented. Not narratives from paid "scientists" fearing they will lose tenure or donors. And not statistical guesses.

[goaded]

See? "Avoiding evidence and science, and calling everything they don't like a "hoax". Avoiding evidence and science, and calling everything they don't like a "hoax"."

The basic science has been know for over a century, that it overwhelms the natural cooling rhythm has been known since the 1970's, and now the climate is going to shit, and you want to deny it's even happening.

[strateguy632]

to go, notice how you changed the topic from idea to personal attack "deniers" people. your reflex proved that anti denier like yourself are blind faith in one side instead of admitting every issue has two sides and hearing both sides.

[strateguy632]

also the generalization if they dont believe "one detail" from a scientist you say "disbelieve science" generalizing like no e=mc either! this also indicated the blind faith... if there was doubt about cult behavior you exhibited it.

[goaded]

@strateguy632 You're strange. No, not believing a body of evidence built up over decades is disbelieving science.

[Dargil]

Easy to avoid evidence when it is non-existent or, at best, ad-libbed. (I like the libbed part. It fits.)

[Dargil]

There is absolutely no proven scientific research that proves man-caused GW. The endless, unrealized predictions re the prophesy of Gaiaism.

[exitseven]

I just think it is a sad commentary on the lack of sophistication of a lot of people.

[In_Trance]

Complete Hoax

[CuriousMufuxka]

Nay to either. It's the middle of June and I'm still using my furnace so global warming is out.

[Anonymous]

The way we have so much evidence of climate change and y’all call it a hoax. Like get an education.

[Anonymous]

It's not a hoax in the sense that it isn't happening. But it's greatly overblown.

[gothbxtch]

no, nor is it a hoax.

[BarryLiverstone]

Our climate is always changing

[BarryLiverstone]

Told you so? Seems odd

[Pterodon]

Most definitely

[ChooChooHaha]

Yes.