Behold the Mighty Omnipotent Power of Climate Change!

Behold the Mighty Omnipotent Power of Climate Change! January 29, 2014

Find any trendy fad or slogan such as the current panic about the “War on Women” and voila!  Global Warming, er, Global Climate Disruption, er, Climate Change is responsible.  So naturally, House Democrats have discovered that Climate Change turns women into prostitutes.

It also hides your car keys, scratches your CDs, dates your girlfriend behind your back, and short sheets your bed.  It planned the Kennedy assassination, wrote that embarrassing piece of graffiti in that one bathroom stall back in high school, and rigged “American Idol”.  It causes body odor, that funny taste in Easter chocolate, and excess ear wax.

Don’t I believe in Climate Change? Two points: 1) Sure.  What else does climate do except change? 2) Have you noticed, gentle reader, how the language of faith is perpetually deployed to discuss the omnipotent god  Climate Change?  Nobody asks if you believe in pressure gradients, hydraulics, or nuclear fission.  But Climate Change is always discussed in terms of faith language.  Why is that, do you think?

"Since we have sort of jumped the gun and made the issue of sexuality the ..."

I don’t buy all of this, ..."
"Isn't it weird how so many of these people who accuse Trump of being a ..."

A good compendium of every lie ..."
"While I hear and read lots of examples of the way church communities extraordinarily come ..."

I hear fairly often from victims ..."
"Okay, I find this story interesting. I am homeschooled and also part of a large ..."

I don’t buy all of this, ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Stu

    Funny, I thought it just changed Al Gore into a “prostitute.”

    • Glenn

      Wow. Now that was a witty *and* funny way to start my snowy day. Thanks Stu.

  • Andrew Simons

    Mark, “believe” just means to accept something as true. I’m surprised you’re advocating against this, given the science. If you have time, you might want to check out these links (and also, note the crackpot-links from deniers that will certainly come). From the Woods Hole Research Center: From NASA

    • Unaware Poet

      I think Mr. Shea’s point is that discussions of any other scientific reality never involve the word believe and so it’s simply an “odd phenomena” that “this particular science” is couched in the language of faith. Contrast climate change debates with evolutionary theory debates. No one ever asks that we believe in evolution, they simply present their theories (with a certainty usually reserved for conclusions from measurable, repeatable results, of course). I would be much more comfortable with the climate change discussion if they called it the Climate Change Theory, or Global Warming Theory, instead of using the ad hominem epithet of “deniers” when someone has legitimate questions concerning their theory. That’s just bad, and lazy, science.

      • introvert_prof

        This is simply not true; we talk about “believing in” evolution vice creationism all the time. But for the sake of argument, if you leave out two letters (“in”), Mr. Simons still has a point: why don’t you believe the evidence? It’s pretty strong. The common objections are either obfuscation or simply lies.

      • chezami

        Actually, evolution is constantly steeped in the language of faith as well.

  • jroberts548

    But this is actually right. Any thing that creates disruption is going to lead to women becoming prostitutes. This would include things like war and climate change, anthropogenic or not.

    • Mike

      Maybe these Democrates are right and many women really are this easily pushed into selling their bodies for money to survive?

    • PalaceGuard

      Then again, if things all so totally awful that the women are selling themselves, who is it who can afford to buy?

      • jroberts548

        Yes, because climate change, which has happened before in human history and is not some mysterious unknown quantity, immediately reduces everyone to absolute indigence, rather than affecting different people differently.

        Don’t be stupid. Things like climate change and war are going to reduce some people to indigence. Other people will be okay, or even make a profit. Every single time something massively disruptive has happened, it’s had unevenly distributed effects.

        • PalaceGuard

          It’s called “sarcasm”, dude. . Don’t be stupid, yer darn self.

          • jroberts548

            Sorry. Poe’s law.

            In my defense, most of the apparently sincere comments are at the level of “herpy derp. How could something that will make some women very poor possibly lead to prostitution?”

            • PalaceGuard

              Thank you. Umbrage cancelled! 🙂

  • Ye Olde Statistician

    “Believe” means more than that. The “be-” is cognate with the German intensifier “ge-” and “lief” is a now-archaic form of “love.” “Belief” is thus “belove” or “geliebt.” To accept something as true is to “trust,” which is the Anglo-Saxon form of “faith.” Belief in something transcends trust in that thing by adding the element of love. There are people who love the idea of global warming, for any of a dozen reasons; not the least of which is that a warmer world means fewer deaths, longer growing seasons, etc.

    However, blaming all sorts of things on “climate change” is like explaining the motions of the heavens by appeal to “location change.” It doesn’t actually explain anything.

    • Andrew Simons

      YOS — “believe” and “believe in” is how people talk about things we know based on trust of reputable others. I don’t “believe” my feet smell (my nose knows) but I do “believe” the reason given by reliable experts why they do smell (bacteria).

      • Mike

        Yes but you can say i believe that the US is the greatest country on earth and be correct without being able to prove it.

  • MarylandBill

    Mark, yes climate changes over time, and yes, for the average person, they ultimately are using faith to accept what science tells them. That being said, they may not use the language of faith, but they are using faith with lots of other information they receive about science as well. The vast majority of us (myself included) have never performed an experiment to confirm nuclear fission, we just have faith that that is what is happening in nuclear power plants.

  • People also talk about “believing” in evolution, but that’s not for any doubt of its reality among those in a position to know.

    • ivan_the_mad

      I generally take belief in the natural sciences to be synonymous with accepting the conventional wisdom on a matter; however, if somebody is using belief in a more religious sense, I will hasten to remind them of the distinction between different species of knowledge. Personally, being inexpert in global warming and evolution, I defer personal judgement on the matter to the consensus among qualified persons, i.e. for all intents and purposes I accept them as true.

    • Mike

      When my co-worker, after finding out i was a Catholic, asked me if i believed in evolution, i said i don’t believe in it because it is a fact of nature, it just is, it doesn’t require believing in. I quickly followed that up by pointing out that I also believe we don’t know exactly how it works and that it currently can’t account for the origin of life, which i believe was “initiated” by God but not directly controlled by him via divine intervention.

      • You said “believe”. 😉

        • Mike

          Good eye! Darn it i did :).

  • silicasandra

    “that funny taste in Easter chocolate”

    I’m glad to know it’s not just me who notices that. I’d ask what it is, but considering our food industry I’m not sure I want to know.

    • introvert_prof

      “Raisins” have long been associated with bunnies.

      • silicasandra

        This reminds me of the time I ate a Cadbury creme egg, then got sick with the flu. I couldn’t even look at one of those eggs for years without feeling sick to my stomach.

        Guess my son won’t be eating his favorite snack food anymore! 😉

    • said she

      Some brands of chocolate are better than others. Palmer’s is the worst! A waste of good sugar. And they make more choc Easter bunnies than anybody… ruining a great holiday.

  • Pavel Chichikov

    Mark, you are still unqualified and off-the-wall on this topic, and you are beginning to sound like a crank on the subject. Sorry to see it.

  • I’m not sure what the point of this post is except to make fun of something without engaging its substance at all.

    Wait, I guess I do know what the point of the post is.

    • Mike

      I think Mark’s main point is this: But maybe human induced climate change is real and is responsible not just for women taking to selling their bodies in greater numbers but also for divorce, out of wedlock child bearing, same-sex marriage, the Grammy ceremony on sunday and the success of the Hunger Games? Who knows, right? It’s alittle like saying well Katrina happened because Americans are decadent slobs? Who knows maybe there is a connection between people’s actions and the climate.

      • But the original authors do make an argument that environment and social upheaval do disproportionately harm the poorest members of society who have the fewest resources to deal with change, leading them to more desperate survival strategies.

        But if your interpretation of Mark correct, then he’s just ignoring all that and bringing in a “Who knows?” argument about a bunch of topics that don’t fit that causal reasoning at all. So I’m back to wondering what the point of his post is.

        • Mike

          Maybe it was to try to point out that to go from global climate change is being caused by human activity to women are going to sell their bodies unless we stop burning fuel is a bit of a stretch. And bad logic and reasoning.

          • But as I said in my first comment, he didn’t engage the logic and reasoning. He mocked it without explaining why it’s “bad” or “is a bit of a stretch.”

            When someone mocks an argument without even attempting to refute it, it leaves me thinking that perhaps they can’t.

            • said she

              or don’t see the need to

  • Elmwood

    this kind of thing isn’t unique to global warming, i remember reading similar stupidity in planning documents about north slope alaska oil and gas leasing on federal land. The government authors speculated that prostitution and contraceptives needed to be addressed because of all the potential sex-crazed oil workers in proximity to native villages.

    this has nothing to do with science but with liberal academia where people have made careers making this crap up.

    • Not to endorse whatever cockamamie theory Mark’s ridiculing here, but we Catholics are the ones who believe there’s a serious unity to everything in the universe that leads to all sorts of real moral connections between phenomena that look utterly disparate.

  • The Next to Last Samurai

    I’m so old that I remember that Experts were predicting we’d all die in a new ice age in the 21st century, and I noticed that global warming conferences always took place in fun places like Kyoto, never in places lIke Akron, which has a woeful shortage of geisha. But then large insurance companies, and DOD, began taking global warming seriously, so I’m much less skeptical of the idea than I used to be.

  • Loretta

    According to my wonderful leather-bound 1947 Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 188, “climate” is “the average condition of the weather at a place, over a period of years, as shown by temperature, wind velocity, rains, etc.” Yes, “etc.” is in the definition. It appears we’re well into the etc.