Moms Are A Growing Force In Climate Cult Activism Or Something

Wait, doesn’t the climate cult tell us that having kids is Bad for ‘climate change’? What this is really about is attempting to create an “absolute moral authority” moment

A growing force in the climate movement: Moms

Many of you write to us and tell us about your feelings of powerlessness in the face of a global climate catastrophe (LOL). That sentiment is giving rise to a small but potentially potent force in the climate movement: moms, who have been catapulted into action by the hazards facing their children.

In Brooklyn, moms are taking aim at the world’s biggest asset manager, BlackRock. (but, not giving up their own big carbon footprints)

In Phoenix, Pittsburgh and Denver, moms are pushing lawmakers in Congress for climate legislation. (failing to understand that it will take their money and freedom)

In LondonLahore and Delhi, moms are pushing their governments to clean up the air from the very pollutants that warm the planet. (CO2 is not a pollutant. Granted, fossil fueled vehicles can create smog)

Chandra Bocci, mother of a 4-year-old in Brooklyn, summed up her motivation this way: “I want to be able to say to my kid, ‘We’re trying to do something.’” (OK, make your own life carbon neutral, rather than forcing your Beliefs on Everyone Else)

I’ll let you in on a little blogging secret: when it comes to certain articles, I do not necessarily know where it’s going, just a guess. I read the headline and the blurb at news sites, and it points me. I may not have read more than a paragraph or two before starting the post, because I typically know where this will go, after doing this for 17 years, and reading news articles, online and in the newspapers, for most of my life. I have a good grasp what the news is trying to do. And sometimes I read the whole thing first. This time? Just the headline and blurb. When I wrote at the beginning about absolute moral authority I thought the NY Times would be more circumspect. Nope

Of course, many climate groups have long been led by women who happen to be mothers. But what I’m referring to here are groups that deliberately deploy mom moral authority. Grief and rage drive them and, as Bocci put it, “a desperation as moms of young kids.”

So, see, because they’re Moms, you must Do As They Say. Period. Go to your room. Do the dishes. Brush your teeth. Give your money and freedom to government.

Thing is, moms are never just moms. Some are climate scientists who call themselves Science Moms, and who have created tip sheets and online videos to help others grasp the science. “As scientists and moms, we want to provide other moms the climate change information and the resources they need,” said Melissa Burt, an atmospheric scientist at Colorado State University and a co-founder the group. “Moms are worried, overwhelmed and anxious about the climate crisis, and the way to push through the anxiety is by taking action.”

Because they’ve joined a cult you must practice what they preach.

Several of the members of Sunrise Kids said they felt consumed by the climate crisis once they became parents. They found individual action, like composting, to be inadequate. They turned to each other to take on what Fontes, mother of a 2-year-old and another due soon, called “the levers of power.”

“We are a mostly white, middle to upper class group based in Brooklyn,” she said. “This is a constituency that has access to power and resources and has a responsibility to take action.”

Who’s surprised?

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

14 Responses to “Moms Are A Growing Force In Climate Cult Activism Or Something”

  1. drowningpuppies says:

    Thing is, moms are never just moms.


    Bwaha! Lolgf

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:


      Thank you for this. But understand that this blog supports Russia, not Ukraine.

  2. Dana says:

    The car guy from Carolina quoted:

    “We are a mostly white, middle to upper class group based in Brooklyn,” she said.

    Translation: whatever comes, they can afford it.

    In the county seat where I live, there are two ‘payday loan’ businesses, on the same road, within a mile of each other. Payday loans are the ‘services’ that some working class families have to use when a bill has to be paid, now!, to keep the water or sparktricity from getting turned off, and payday is a week away. The “mostly white, middle to upper class” moms don’t know about those, and ignore them if they’ve somehow heard of them, because the concept of not being able to pay a bill is simply outside their paradigm.

    It’s like Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg telling everyone that if gas prices are too high, they should buy a brand-new Tesla, totally clueless that most people can’t afford one. Oh, they know that there are poor people out there, as an abstract concept, but there’s just no understanding what it actually means to be poor.

    So the “mostly white, middle to upper class” moms can agitate for policies which will increase costs on everybody, costs that they can, themselves, bear with little problem, but for working-class Americans is a significant burden.

    Working-class Americans lost 1.9% of their income, in real terms, due to inflation by the February year-over-year inflation numbers. If you assume a family income of $50,000, that’s a loss of $950 in purchasing power. That might be rent for a month, but the “mostly white, middle to upper class” moms just don’t get that.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      As Mr Dana, MLK and others describe there are “two Americas” – one America living paycheck to paycheck and one bad break (illness, blown engine, layoff) from destitution – and the other, not.

      Your 10 yr old car won’t start one morning and you get fired from your minimum wage job. (My car is 11 yr old!).

      Our elites in Congress, corporations and media mostly don’t understand that. They don’t understand the plight of a family with 6 kids without any outside support trying to make ends meet day to day.

      It’s encouraging that the American right appears to finally be concerned about the poor in America!! We hope it’s not just a political ploy. Previously Mr Dana had advised the nation to allow poor people without health insurance to die.

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    Teach keep whining that “CO2 is not a pollutant”. He’s just playing a semantic game.

    It’s a fact that a trace gas absolutely responsible for life on Earth (without CO2 the Earth would be an ice-covered rock with no humans!) can also be a pollutant in the wrong place or at the wrong concentration. During a tornado no one argues whether 160 mph winds are a “pollutant” since we have wind every day.

    Over the past 1 million years* (by coincidence the period of human evolution) the atmospheric CO2 concentration has ranged from 180 ppm (glacial periods) to 280 ppm (interglacials). Our burning of fossil fuels have caused the unprecedented increase (during human existence) in atmospheric CO2 causing warming.

    *We realize the link above is to NASA, which most wingers feel is less reliable than WUWT or NTZ.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Rimjob: It’s a fact that a trace gas absolutely responsible for life on Earth (without CO2 the Earth would be an ice-covered rock with no humans!) can also be a pollutant in the wrong place or at the wrong concentration. During a tornado no one argues whether 160 mph winds are a “pollutant” since we have wind every day.

      (Ergo because there are tornados, CO2 is a pollutant.)

      Perfect example of the fallacy of non sequitur (“it does not follow”).

      Thanks, dumbass.

      Bwaha! Lolgf

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        cumBreath: blah, blah, blah…

        Thanks, shit-for-brains. (We know, we know, “He tries so hard!!”

        But he’s such an irrelevant shit-for-brains, the only point he gets is a ‘hot-dog’.

        Bwaha! Lolgf

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Ah, now with the ad hominem.

          Very convincing. Thanks for another lesson with the logical fallacies, dumbass. Guess that’s all you have.

          Bwaha! Lolgf

    • Jl says:

      “One million years..180ppm to 280ppm..” And J leaves out the inconvenient data that shows as CO2 increased, life spans increased, world population increased, crop yields increased, poverty decreased, the earth continued to green, ect. J—please help me spot the climate crisis…

  4. Elwood P. Dowd says:


    Are you really suggesting that CO2 increases life span, etc, LOL?

    Have you ever typed, “Correlation does not equal causation”, LOL??

    What else correlates with increasing CO2? Murders? Porn? facebook users? Suicides? Purses for professional golf tournaments? Vegans? Gays? trumps? billionaires? DJIA? Home runs? NBA teams? adipose tissue? pet dogs? cable channels?

    Nice try, Jill.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Ah, on to the fallacy of the false equivalence.

      Rimjob is giving a course in the use of logical fallacies today. Kinda like every day.

      Bwaha! Lolgf

      • david7134 says:

        How many years have we told him that CO2 does nothing, and he still believes in the hoax? The guy spends his whole day on the internet as his corporation goes down the drain.

Pirate's Cove