While it is certainly tempting to write off environmentalists as mentally deluded or the victims of mass hysteria, we think it is a mistake to do so. The trouble with touting such psychological explanations is that it makes environmentalism unchallengeable on political grounds. Environmentalism is a political phenomenon, not a medical one. And anyway, while many Greens are plainly hysterical, a political movement that is supported by only a minority of the public can hardly be described as mass hysteria.

However, we do nearly agree with you on the significance of the Make Poverty History movement. But surely, the dashing of optimism that you describe is the result of political, not psychological exhaustion. And remember that environmentalists believe that they are helping the world’s poor. The trouble is that a western world that is so lacking in direction itself is reticent to help in the very ways it can help – using and sharing the fruits of its own development. Rather, with so little idea of how to build on its own success, it is prone – as Alex suggests – to pull up the development ladder behind it in the mistaken belief that that development is at the root of the problem.

It’s also interesting that accusations of mental deficiency are a staple of environmentalists’ attempts to undermine those who disagree with them. There’s Andreas Ernst, who compares the psychology of sceptics to that of rats, and Steven Moffic, who thinks that aversion therapy involving the use of “distressing images of the projected ravages of global warming” can cure sceptics of their sociopathy. We’ve covered this stuff here.

Note how “tackling the environment” in the poll becomes “tackling climate change” in the article. This Humpty Dumptyesque attitude to language is symptomatic of more than sloppy logic. You frequently point out the psychlogical impetus behind the adoption of global warming hysteria by politicians. Others in the sceptic blogosphere occasionally refer to “mass hysteria” or “cognitive dissonance”, but I’ve yet to see a serious psychological analysis of the warmist phenomenon. Here’s a possible starting point, and I’d like to see some competent person (maybe you?) explore it.

Three years ago there was a movement to “Make Poverty History” with Mandela in Trafalgar Square and Blair strutting and fretting on the world stage to universal applause. It seemed a key moment, in world history, like the abolition of slavery or of apartheid (Mandela’s comparisons, not mine). A significant part of Western public opinion seemed determined, even at the cost of financial sacrifice, to do some good in the world. Then suddenly, within matter of two years, the very same people were obsessed by their carbon footprint, determined to deprive themselves, and a posteriori, everyone else, of the benefits of three centuries of technical progress. Nothing happened in the meantime to cause this sea-change, so I can only assume the change was psychological, within the minds of the participants. I have some ideas on the subject, but would like to know if anyone else in the blogosphere has been looking into this.

You see the AGW crowd are not the guilty enviro-lovers they claim to be. They represent two personality types, both flawed, and both shameful. The first are the sad bitter people. For whatever reason, factors in their lives have led them to feel meek, inferior, and powerless. This is why their guise usually fails to cover the obvious fact that their anger is directed towards creature comforts enjoyed by those who have accomplished more than them. Is it a coincidence that luxury cars, big houses, airplanes, appliances etc, are the things most demonized by the enviros? They are sad people that feel so unempowered, and incapable that the only way they can envision leveling the playing field is by destroying your nice stuff. The idea of going out and achieving their own success is totally off the radar. It used to be cults that wooed these types. But as religion has fallen from prominence, the AGW agenda has stepped in to play the role of enabler. To feed this totally misguided thinking for “their” own benefit.

But who are “they”. “They” are the other half of the enviro movement. The empty soul less scum of the earth. They are the ones running the cult, and recruiting the downtrodden. They are the ones who will stare you in the face and swear unblinking that “the science absolutely proves A” knowing full well the science actully proves B. They are the ones who call AGW skeptics “deniers” and claim they are all agents of big oil. Meanwhile they remain heavily invested in big oil and get rich when their friends in the media hype carbon trading schemes that speculate the cost of oil up and up for their benefit. They are the ones who call the $15 million the oil companies spent studying the validity of the AGW hypothesis is “dirty kickbacks”. Meanwhile they bestow the Nobel Prize on Al Gore who admits to having hundreds of millions of dollars invested in business that hinge on political outcomes that he and his cronies are involved in deciding.

So no my friend these people would not feel a shred of guilt if they found us in a hole. They would smash us with our own luxury items. And when we’re good and dead, they’d come down, pillage our wallets, take the luxury items back, and move into our abandoned homes with them. They are nothing but phonies. Claiming some moral high ground while they try to legislate themselves a free pass to same things that good, right-minded people earned through hard work.

Plenty of study by real scientists has shone a positive light on the grim predictions of AGW. That this should make the so-called environmentalists so angry, makes you wonder if they are even environmentalists at all…