Cult: “More To Climate Change Than Warming”

It’s not just a sin, ya know. Here’s Ms. Ann McFeatters practicing climate witchcraft

More to climate change than warming

Folks, climate change is real. And, dear fellow citizens, we have to do something about our infrastructure.

I know, I know. You are muttering something about a polar vortex, and how this deep freeze has been really unusual and what you will tell your grandchildren: “It was so cold my swear words froze over the hood of the car that I couldn’t get started. I couldn’t even get through to AAA!”

The trouble with climate change is that “they” started out calling it global warming. That was fine when the weather was 102 degrees and the nation’s sweat would have overflowed the Hoover Dam and crops were crumbling from lack of moisture.

But the truth is that climate change, subscribed to by more than nine out of every 10 scientists (picture them standing in lines with the truly dweebily hopeless ones refusing to hold up their hands), means that extreme weather gets more extreme. Hot weather and droughts get more intense. Cold weather and snow and ice get worse.

(PS: This is what Jeffrey calls “science” from Warmists.)

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Cult: “More To Climate Change Than Warming””

  1. Jeffery says:

    Also from the essay. “On the other hand, there are millions of Americans, even some in that august body of government known as the House, who deny evolution and subscribe to the theory that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. … They scoff at the idea that manmade carbon emissions could alter the climate.”

    Read more here:

    Those that deny evolution, a cornerstone of biology, have little standing to be taken seriously regarding any scientific question. If your religion commands you to deny science, perhaps it’s time for a new religion.

  2. So you’re saying that the New Science is simply unquestioning obedience to the popular trend, that no one should ever question established dogma, no one should be skeptical or think? And you call us “anti-science”? Then, we’re aren’t the morons who think greenhouse gases will make it colder.

  3. jl says:

    J- “If your religion demands that you deny science, then perhaps it’s time for a new religion.” Exactly. Then why are you still a member of the global warming religion?

  4. Jeffery says:


    It’s a bit more nuanced than your either/or stance. You have a position on global warming and appear to craft the evidence to fit your position. I have no specific knowledge of how you arrived at your position on AGW or what your position is on the process of evolution.

    Of course science requires skepticism, and robust disagreements on the interpretation of solid evidence continues. The debate on global warming is NOT occurring in the scientific community. There is no debate in the scientific community over evolution. If you reject the body of evidence of evolution how can you be trusted to judge any scientific evidence?

    Do you really not understand the argument about arctic air moving southward or do you understand the argument and reject it, and mock the idea with your “greenhouse gases make it cold”? Your “bumper sticker” writings suggest you don’t even understand the argument.

  5. Jeffery says:


    Science is not a religion, and understanding the data and evidence supporting global warming is not a religion.

    Accepting facts are not evidence of a religion. Ten years ago when every “skeptic” was denying that the Earth was warming in the face of overwhelming evidence, their refusal to recognize a fact could be construed as evidence of a religion. Now it’s difficult to find a “skeptic” who hasn’t been bludgeoned with facts to the point of accepting the evidence that the Earth is warming. This is not to say that the science deniers of ten years ago are wrong now about the causality of the fact of our warming Earth (that would be to use a logical fallacy that the Pirate uses). As evidenced in this blog, the current denier meme is that the Earth is warming but by natural variability of climate, and to interfere with that process would 1) be unnatural and 2) disruptive to humans (primarily by wrecking the economy).

    In my opinion, the far-right cares little about the actual data and evidence, and is more concerned that any global warming mediation will result in more of their most feared bête noir, big government. Their strategy is to stop further government intervention by using the tactic of impugning the scientists, the science, and the evidence by lies and ridicule. Why not just be honest and admit your motives and have that discussion?

  6. The Quadfather says:

    We don’t have to deny your so called science. The climate denies it. When have global warming scientists ever gotten a prediction right? Where are the flooded coastlines, the missing arctic ice, the boiling seas, and whatever else you said would happen? Answer: nowhere! No, it seems that big government and socialism are your goals. You want me to admit my motives? Yes, my motive is to reject stupidity. So now your idiot president wants to send our money as reparations to poor countries that get hit by tsunamis and hurricanes? These things have been happening with regularity since the dawn of time. Millions have been found dredging up old treasure ships that got caught in hurricanes. So it got cold for a few days. It’s January, it happens. Giving the jet stream a fancy new name doesn’t make it any different. Polar vortex, my butt. Your ship of fools that got caught in the antarctic ice, did so because they weren’t expecting ice. Of course the earth has temperature variations. it always has. And we will always be powerless to affect it one way or another. We don’t even know that if the earth was warming that it wouldn’t be a good thing. I knew this CO2 causes GW business was nonsense from the first day I heard about it. CO2 is a very small percentage of the atmosphere. If you doubled it, it would still be a very small percentage, not even breaking one percent. But plants love the stuff, and if it increased, they grow faster, thus producing a regulating effect, because they turn it into oxygen. But to believe that such a small percent of CO2 can cause the world to “run a fever” as Algore put it, is just plain silly.

  7. david7134 says:

    We have consistently asked you for some simple answers to simple questions, yet all you can do it call everyone names and refer to a so called “mountain of evidence and opinion” that confirms your point. Why don’t you look in this mountain of evidence and tell answer the questions that have been put forth.

    Now, I am a scientist and I can assure you that the peer review process does not work at any level in our country. If you want an answer to a scientific question, and you desire a particular answer, then it is very easy to obtain that answer, especially with money. As the whole AGW situation is nothing but political and formulated around a desire to further control our lives, then the “science” is highly questionable and the solutions have nothing to do with the problem.

    So, please educate us. And don’t make references to Wikipedia and popular science. That is insulting.

  8. Jeffery says:

    daisy duke,

    And I have asked you for a specific question – ask and I’ll answer.

    The Earth is rapidly warming as a result of humans burning fossil fuels. What more do you need to know?

    The mythical conspiracy created by the unhinged and paranoid far-right that liberals are out to enslave everyone in a big government/socialist paradise is unsupported by facts.

    Why do facts have a liberal bias?

  9. david7134 says:

    All I did was ask two questions fundamental to climate science. In turn, you have called me names, you have expunged the credibility of those on the blog that have questions or concerns, you have been obnoxious and showing a distinct inability to logic and critical thinking. You take on faith that you will turn more power over to the government and that significant consequences will not occur. You have not indicated how you will stop climate change in your models or how it will be effected in any way. You seem like a very troubled individual.

  10. Jeffery says:

    Two questions? Were these the questions about to what acid is CO2 converted to when dissolved in water and how CO2 distributes in the atmosphere? If you wish to discuss, let’s go ahead. But you have to agree to engage the issue, not run and hide as you did last time.

  11. jl says:

    J- “Science is not a religion.” True, which is why “global warming” reaches cult religion status. “Their strategy is to stop further government intervention.” Yes, that’s true. Because it’s not needed. Simple to understand. As I’ve said before, what “government intervention” did early man use to adopt to the changing climate? None, you say? How could he survive? But now, even though there’s no scientific link between CO2 and warming, our advanced civilization can’t adapt as those thousands of years before us did? That’s the fatal flaw in your “theory”. It totally, without any reason whatsoever, leaves out the adaptation variable. You know, that key component of evolution.

  12. Jeffery says:

    jl –

    There are several flaws in your “argument”, such as it is.

    Your slur that global warming comprises a cult is an opinion, and silly. Look up cult, look up religion.

    Your strategy to stop government intervention, not science, DRIVES your opposition to slowing CO2 emissions.

    What “early man” are you talking about? A million years ago, 100,000 years ago or 10,000 years ago? Man is a resilient species and will survive even the current rapid warming period as he survived previous climate changes. Man as a species almost didn’t survive the Toba volcanic eruption some 70,000 years ago. But we are not talking about the species surviving, are we? We’re talking about major dislocations in our civilization – and climate not seen for 12,000 yrs. It’s not a fatal flaw in the argument – it is the argument.

    But why worry about the future, after all, the Earth is just warming by natural means and will cool back down naturally. There will be no need to adapt, right?

  13. gitarcarver says:

    Your slur that global warming comprises a cult is an opinion, and silly. Look up cult, look up religion.

    Let’s see…….

    religion: the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
    cult: intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity
    something regarded as fashionable or significant by a particular group

    So much for jl being “silly.”

    Instead, he is dead on.

  14. Jeffery says:

    A small amount of CO2 in water (H20) combines with water to form carbonic acid (H2CO3).

    Please explain what you mean by upper atmosphere.

    CO2 is widely distributed and well mixed in the atmosphere by natural circulations, winds, storms etc.

  15. david7134 says:

    With 6 years of chemistry and having authored several papers as part of scientific investigation, I am well aware of the production of carbonic acid. Now, tell me, what acid is predominant in the oceans, its history of rising, and how many moles are in a given unit of water. Someone who is well versed in the subject would have given that information with the first question. I would flunk a medical student for the answers you have given. Now tell me about the acidification of the oceans which is a major tenet of the AGW mantra.

    Now, the CO2 numbers that you are worried over have been taken from the upper atmosphere and for the “greenhouse” effect to occur, this is where it is postulated that the blanket of CO2 begins to trap radiation. Now, how does CO2 get to the upper atmosphere? I am aware of the diffusion principals of gases. You on the other hand are not aware of the stream effect in the atmosphere and the fact that in order to have a diffusion to occur the percentage of CO2 must increase at our level, thus poisoning us. Or diffusing into the sea, which really does not make sense as this would nullify the diffusion effect. So answer the question like someone that knows what they are talking about, or shut up and assume the position.

  16. Jeffery says:

    daisy duke,

    You asked what acid was responsible and I told you. You need to write better exam questions. The pH of the ocean has dropped about 0.1 pH unit. Carbonic acid forms when dissolved CO2 combines with water. As the atmospheric CO2 increases the amount of CO2 in sea water increases. pH is the inverse log of the molar concentration of H+ (hydrogen ions or protons) so pH 8 is [H+] of 1×10-8 M. To calculate the concentration of H2CO3 necessary to drop the pH from pH 8.1 to pH 8 is more trouble than I care to invest right now. The concentration can be calculated (assuming the pH drop is solely from H2CO3) and depends on the dissociation constant of the weak acid, H2CO3.

    Your take on CO2 distribution in the atmosphere assumes that gas movements are due solely to diffusion. This is untrue. Bulk movements by wind circulation, convection, and weather fronts are much more important for mixing the gases than diffusion. You imply that CO2 must reach the upper levels of the atmosphere to contribute to the greenhouse effect. What is the basis for your claim?

    Oh, and kiss my ass, you white supremacist cretin.

  17. david7134 says:

    You still haven’t answered either question. All you are doing is assuming. You failed again. I hope you are presenting these comments to your mental health professional, you need more lithium.

Pirate's Cove