grumpydenier
_____________________________________________
A Guest post
by Christina
The neo-fascist, quasi-religion of “Warmism”, followed by proponents of the ludicrous CAGW hypothesis, is quackery-meets-fundamentalism wrapped in post-normal demagoguery for those who despise God. Like most religions (and Warmism is just like most religions) all you need is belief and a good story, rooted in just enough historical fact-y-ness, to keep the gullible reading, believing and most importantly, paying.
If you believe hard enough, and have an unshakeable faith in the words of your priests, you too can justify ignoring the massive gaps of truth, logic, reason, fact and scientific proof, upon which the dogma is undeniably based if only to yourself and your fellow travellers.
This is Creationists v Evolutionists Pt 2; this time though, it is the “deniers” who must have 100% of their fossil record ready for inspection, all day, every day, while the warmists support their case with faith, smear, the bitterest of invectives and very little else.
The CAGW myth is the perfect quasi-religious death cult for collectivists of all flavours; from the casual left-ish folk on the Clapham omnibus who distrust “organised” religion and think nebulous concepts like social justice, equality and fairness might not be too bad, despite not being fully aware of what they actually mean in practice, right up the lefty food chain to the committed hard core, lunatic fringe fanatic who will gladly help set fire to the world as long as they get to rule the cinders once the flames subside.
It ticks every single box just as it covers all the bases.
As much as anything, the left seek out policies and positions that make them feel better about themselves and superior to those they despise (i.e. anyone who disagrees with them). The Warmist religion allows them to do just this. It allows them to indulge their Marxist/socialist redistributive tendencies to the full. The pipeline of cash from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries, in the name of Warmism, is likely to only benefit arms dealers and German car makers but this fact barely raises a flicker of concern in the Warmist and why should it? How much better can you make yourself feel than when you’ve just convinced yourself you are saving the world? Questions, especially those that may spark doubt, are to be avoided at all costs.
Ask any semi-literate subsistence farmer, in the developing-world, why the crops failed, chances are you will be told it was God’s will, you will be told the same thing should the crop be bountiful, or if his goat gives birth to twins or dies of disease. This is the fundamental and unshakeable truth and no amount of argument or reason can lay a glove upon it. The parallels with the pronouncements of the CAGW fantasists are obvious and just as deluded; if it’s cold – that’s a sign of global warming, if it’s warm – that too is a sign of global warming, if it’s a long cold winter, that’s just weather but if it’s a long hot summer THAT is climate change. God’s will, GIGO-coded and fudge-factored, biddable and compliant, finally subservient to the socialist redistributionist New World Order and its Warmist acolytes.
In addition to feeling good about themselves, of equal importance of course, (especially to the committed leftist devotee of the Warmist religion), is the acquisition and ruthless exercise of power. To the adherents of this particular sect of the Warmist religion, ideology is as much a tactic as anything else. In precisely the same way as championing the rights of downtrodden workers, women and homosexuals are simply the means to a particular end (militant power through the Unions or the ballot box, through the support of special interest groups).
In the apocalyptic religion of Warmism, today’s particular cause (tactic), is nothing less than saving the entire world. Although the cause may have evolved from working practices and the closed shop, the villain, the embodiment of evil, the Warmist’s depiction of the Devil (every religion needs one by the way) betrays the cult’s Marxist/socialist/collectivist roots; the banker, the wealthy industrialist, the capitalist, the land owner, the church and the conservative remain constant as figures of hatred and envy, with the so-called “denier” replacing the heretic at the stake.
Other articles by Christina
- Warmism – A Very Modern Death Cult For Trendy Lefties
- So then James, what do I, as a UKIP member, want?
- The Left Have a Problem With Women
- Mythbusting – The UK and the EU (Part 1)
- Mythbusting – the EU and the UK (Part 2)
- Salad Bowls, Melting Pots and a Failure of Duty
- I Love Men
_____________________________________________
Discussion
7 thoughts on “Warmism – A Very Modern Death Cult For Trendy Lefties”
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
Pingback: - April 13, 2013
grumpydenier 
Why do you people take readers as idiots? You assume that intelligent readers just want to hear endless bitter sentences filled with terms like ‘eco-loons’, ‘fascist’, ‘marxist’, etc etc, as if the science can be brought to its knees because the political ramifications are not to taste.
I prefer the approach in another blog I just read, that states it does not matter wether its true or not, its just better dealing with it by adaption. At least this approach does not mean having to somehow claim that everyone, yes – EVERYONE involved in scientific research is involved in some big scam.
I took it upon myself to read up on this stuff, you know we can all access the information these days – and it soon becomes obvious that it is complex and requires serious study – and is nothing like dealing with creationism. Every fact from one side has its reasonble discussion from the other, and after a mountain climb you can come to your own reasonable conclusions.
For an educated person this process is a million miles away from accepting the kind of argument that says ‘its obviously all junk, because eco-fascist loony lefties believe it and they make me sick.’
Yeah, I know extremists on the other side do it as well.
But serioulsy read that again
“The neo-fascist, quasi-religion of “Warmism”, followed by proponents of the ludicrous CAGW hypothesis, is quackery-meets-fundamentalism wrapped in post-normal demagoguery for those who despise God.”
Lovely sentence, but seriously? That applies to all those people scattered sround the world doing important difficult work in space, on ice sheets, in the sea? Really? Scientists are actually creationists who despise God?
A plague on both your houses.
–
Posted by Miles | May 29, 2013, 7:16 pm“The neo-fascist, quasi-religion of “Warmism”, followed by proponents of the ludicrous CAGW hypothesis, is quackery-meets-fundamentalism wrapped in post-normal demagoguery for those who despise God.”
Sounds about right to me. Still, I’ll let the author answer for herself.
Posted by grumpydenier | May 29, 2013, 8:38 pmWell thank you for your reply Miles. Sorry my post didn’t quite live up to your obvious high standards. I will do my best to make sure I write something you fully approve of very soon. I promise. Thanks for the “lovely sentence” compliment by the way, I found it hiding behind one of the very many straw men, non sequiturs and fallacious arguments spread throughout your response. It made my day.
I guess if you are happy to see the radical and often militant left, hijack an unproven scientific theory that is based almost entirely on dodgy computer models for their own narrow ideologically driven ends then that is your prerogative. Just don’t expect everyone else to be as supine.
Have a lovely evening.
Posted by Christina | May 29, 2013, 8:56 pmThere are no fallacious arguments in that response.
It makes sense for NO radicals from the left or the right to hi-jack this debate – thats what I argued. Both are an insult to intelligent people. You can discuss the political ramifications of climate chage without having to write off the whole scientific establishment. That makes people look like creationists. It means you have to excuse Margeret Thatcher and many others as being supine or somehow being duped. And why bring God into it? What has that to do with the facts of the matter? Cant you see the dangers in these crass polarizations of the debate – attempting to herd people into catagories?
For every person who parrots the “97% of scientists” – not really ‘fact’ – someone else lets off the “its only a model” thing they read on a blog.
Thats not a straw man – its the flesh and blood reality of the way this debate is carried out, mainly because someone thought it was more likely that ‘lefties’ are pretending the earths warming up as some kind of backdoor to world communism, than the more rational reality that interests from all powers would try to hi-jack this entirley accidental problem for thier own ends.
Posted by Miles | May 30, 2013, 8:10 amYou are entitled to your opinion Miles but that I’m afraid is all it is. Your criticism seems to be based on the false assumption that I lump everyone into the same pot including scientists on ice-floes. This is false, it is a misrepresentation IT IS A STRAW MAN. Nowhere do I say this, nowhere do I suggest this, nowhere do I imply this at all, ever, anywhere, in the whole piece.
I know you’ve read a load of stuff on the internet, ‘cos you were very clear to make sure you told me, which is great and you may think that makes you a bit of an expert right? Wrong. As I said, you are entitled to an opinion but you are not entitled to make things up and frankly I don’t care what nonsense you read on the internet.
Now, excuse me as I have better things to do with my time than beat your straw men down for you.
Posted by Christina | May 30, 2013, 9:22 amOK, fair enough, I know nothing, I have read only nonsense, and all I have are opinions – and those are only offered as straw men.
Posted by Miles | May 30, 2013, 10:00 am