spiked93%

Eco-hysteria is the real threat to humankind 91%

By Brendan O'Neill97%

7/3/2026, 3:08:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 37 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Ad Hominem, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 69.4% saturation with 795 hits. Analysis detected 4,371 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,145 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.2% and a BS Rank of 91% (1,943 of 21,175 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.80% of the article peer group.

There’s nothing like a heatwave to shine a light on the medieval lunacy of eco-alarmism. 
The minute the thermometer spikes, all the bourgeois doomsayers are on their soapboxes haranguing humankind. 
This is ‘hell on Earth’, they cry. 
It’s ‘global boiling’, they wail. 
A ‘hound from hell’ is dragging the heat of the ‘Underworld’ into our world, say media scribes, like absolute nutters, blissfully unaware of what faux-priestly, pre-modern fools they sound to the rest of us. 
And of course  you already know this  it’s all our fault. 
We brought this hell upon ourselves by flying and driving and existing. 
We are reaping the scorched harvest of our own sinful endeavours. 
As the UN’s climate chief says, it’s our ‘addiction to burning coal, oil and gas’ that is making the crimson sun blare so brightly and causing ‘climate change [to] run rampant’. 
Your modern living is ‘boiling the planet’ and ‘wrecking our world’, nagged a <em>Guardian</em> writer this week. 
Repent! 
Sweat! 
Is anyone else tiring of this? 
Has anyone else had a gutful of the fact that we can’t even enjoy a hot day without being accused of planetary genocide by posh twats in haircloths? 
Is anyone else sick of those weather maps where the hot countries are Merlot coloured to drive home the crank idea that Cerberus himself has risen from the abyss to put his fiery ass-crack on our planet? 
I’m not even a fan of heatwaves  being Irish  yet I cannot abide this weaponisation of weather to bully the public. 
It’s going to get worse  the heat <em>and</em> the hectoring. 
Another heatwave is coming. 
London might even reach 29C, cries the BBC, alongside a blood-red map of our scorched capital. 
Am I allowed to say that Londoners frequently fly overseas to lounge around in weather hotter than that, or will I be accused of ‘heat-stress denial’? 
That’s the latest species of ‘denialism’, according to mad old George Monbiot, who says the ‘billionaire press’ has ‘hit rock bottom’ with its denial of the ‘impacts of the heatwave’. 
We could strap them to the stake for their blasphemous speech, but apparently we’re all on the stake now  we’ve ‘[set] fire to the planet’, says Monbiot. 
Witches burn themselves these days. 
No one is ‘denying’ the impact of the heatwave, of course. 
Certainly not me. 
I had to flee a London bus last week. 
It was a sweatbox on wheels, a rolling tomb of flushed bodies. 
If only we had air conditioning. 
But green hysterics, including Monbiot’s own paper, have been wringing their untoiled hands over AC for years. 
‘It’s destroying the planet’, said the <em>Guardian</em> during last year’s heatwave. 
It’s ‘philosophically problematic’, apparently. 
Nothing  and I mean nothing  better captures the supercilious indifference of our eco-overlords than this vision of a well-fed Guardianista telling the sun-baked masses that it’s ‘philosophically problematic’ to cool your home in a heatwave. 
It’s the cruelty of the heatwave hysterics that most startles. 
For years the climate-change cult has warned us that Earth will shortly be consumed by a hellfire of Man’s own making. 
Yet anyone who said ‘Let’s get air-con, then’ was damned as a devilish contributor to these End Times fires. 
The <em>Wall St Journal</em> asked an apt question this week: ‘Europe is hot as hell  why doesn’t it want air-conditioning?’ 
It reported on the hospitals of our Old World where the ill and elderly are ‘forced to endure… heatwaves’ because their well-fanned rulers have decreed that air-con is an ‘energy-hungry technology’ that undermines ‘the fight against climate change’. 
The fantasy cause of ‘saving the planet’ takes precedence over the earthly cause of saving the sick from heat. 
Air-con is ‘not the solution’, says <em>Time</em>. 
I don’t know, it’s the solution to my sweating. 
More importantly, it’s the solution to the sweltering discomfort of elderly folk forced to live in heat-trapping homes and poorly people crammed on to roasting wards because society now fears a fictional apocalypse more than disease. 
There will be excess deaths this summer, and that’s awful. 
But it’s far more the fault of the eco-preaching classes than it is of the polluting masses. 
A hill I’ll die on: the climate-change ideology is a worse killer than climate change itself. 
I mean, it isn’t Mother Nature going into people’s homes and ripping out the air-con. 
This is the story of our times: the elite panic about modernity is far deadlier than modernity. 
The truth, as Bjorn Lomborg says, is that deaths from climate-related disasters have plummeted in the era of industry. 
In the 1920s, half-a-million souls perished each year in storms, floods, droughts and heatwaves. 
In 2020, it was just 14,000. 
Global annual deaths from climate madness fell by 96 per cent. 
It is those who libel modernity as a uniquely murderous phenomenon who are signing the death warrant of humankind, for they seek to roll back the very developments that have insulated us from the violent whims of nature. 
Which includes air-con. 
To agitate against AC even in a heatwave is to exhibit a staggering misanthropic disregard for one’s fellow humans, especially the vulnerable ones. 
And yet still they come, the heatwave hysterics, demonising the very tech that defends us from the heat and wind and water of amoral Nature. 
‘[It] seems like End Times  and it’s our own damned fault’, said a green-leaning writer of recent heatwaves. 
The 2023 heatwave was christened Cerberus, after the hound from hell who rips sinners apart. 
How fitting. 
‘Cerberus’s inferno’, newspapers cried. 
Even Greta Thunberg, the most celebrated hysteric of our age, has taken a break from berating the Jewish State to say, basically, ‘Fuck, it’s hot’. 
I guess that’s one upside of the hot weather  it will drag the attention of the idle pricks of the activist class away from the Jews and back to the ‘climate emergency’. 
Breathe easy, Israel  they’re wanging on about weather, again. 
I’m sick of all this luxury apocalypticism. 
Its medieval strain is undeniable now. 
Just like our forebears, these fruitcakes see all weather  rain, storm, heat, hail  as a punishment from God / Gaia for our wicked ways. 
Though at least our ancestors had the excuse of being uneducated. 
Nature isn’t punishing us. 
We’re punishing ourselves. 
The greatest threat to humanity is not the weather but an elite that feverishly seeks to appease the gods of weather by winding back modernity. 
They’re the reason you’re baking. 
Rage against them, not the eye of heaven. 
Brendan O’Neill is <em>spiked</em>&#8217;s chief political writer and host of the <em>spiked</em> podcast, <em>The Brendan O’Neill Show</em>. 
Subscribe to the podcast here. 
His latest book  <em>After the Pogrom: 7 October, Israel and the Crisis of Civilisation</em>  is available to order on Amazon UK and Amazon US now. 
And find Brendan on Instagram: @burntoakboy. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.8%Brendan O'Neill: 8.0%spiked: 8.8%Confirmation Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.0%spiked: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Brendan O'Neill: 2.0%spiked: 3.9%Availability Heuristic4.6%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.6%spiked: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.7%spiked: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Brendan O'Neill: 1.4%spiked: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias2.3%This article: 0.6%Brendan O'Neill: 12.9%spiked: 8.4%Framing Effect0.6%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.2%spiked: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.1%spiked: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.9%Brendan O'Neill: 0.1%spiked: 0.9%Optimism Bias0.9%This article: 3.0%Brendan O'Neill: 1.1%spiked: 2.5%Pessimism Bias3.0%This article: 69.4%Brendan O'Neill: 14.7%spiked: 12.9%Negativity Bias69.4%This article: 7.1%Brendan O'Neill: 2.1%spiked: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias7.1%This article: 1.5%Brendan O'Neill: 2.3%spiked: 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error1.5%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.1%spiked: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Brendan O'Neill: 8.0%spiked: 3.7%In-Group Bias2.0%This article: 8.1%Brendan O'Neill: 10.4%spiked: 4.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.3%spiked: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 1.8%spiked: 1.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.5%Brendan O'Neill: 0.7%spiked: 1.1%Recency Bias0.5%This article: 2.6%Brendan O'Neill: 0.2%spiked: 0.6%Primacy Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.0%spiked: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 40.3%Brendan O'Neill: 18.0%spiked: 7.4%Ad Hominem40.3%This article: 12.0%Brendan O'Neill: 11.1%spiked: 5.0%Straw Man12.0%This article: 5.9%Brendan O'Neill: 1.2%spiked: 2.6%Appeal to Authority5.9%This article: 17.3%Brendan O'Neill: 5.4%spiked: 3.9%False Dilemma17.3%This article: 7.6%Brendan O'Neill: 2.5%spiked: 3.0%Slippery Slope7.6%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.3%spiked: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.5%Brendan O'Neill: 15.4%spiked: 15.0%Hasty Generalization8.5%This article: 1.8%Brendan O'Neill: 0.9%spiked: 0.5%Red Herring1.8%This article: 0.5%Brendan O'Neill: 1.0%spiked: 0.9%Bandwagon0.5%This article: 30.9%Brendan O'Neill: 13.6%spiked: 7.9%Appeal to Emotion30.9%This article: 6.4%Brendan O'Neill: 1.6%spiked: 2.1%Begging the Question6.4%This article: 13.5%Brendan O'Neill: 2.1%spiked: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.5%This article: 2.4%Brendan O'Neill: 1.6%spiked: 0.6%Tu Quoque2.4%This article: 10.7%Brendan O'Neill: 1.7%spiked: 1.0%Burden of Proof10.7%This article: 3.1%Brendan O'Neill: 0.2%spiked: 0.2%Appeal to Nature3.1%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 1.0%spiked: 0.7%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.9%Brendan O'Neill: 2.2%spiked: 3.9%Anecdotal5.9%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.4%spiked: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.3%Brendan O'Neill: 1.1%spiked: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.3%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.0%spiked: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.1%spiked: 0.1%Middle Ground1.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.0%spiked: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.1%spiked: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan O'Neill: 0.6%spiked: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.6%Brendan O'Neill: 3.2%spiked: 2.5%Unattributed Quote11.6%This article: 8.7%Brendan O'Neill: 2.6%spiked: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection8.7%This article: 59.0%Brendan O'Neill: 43.9%spiked: 25.5%Biased Writer Voice59.0%This article: 8.3%Brendan O'Neill: 3.8%spiked: 3.2%Indoctrination8.3%This article: 2.6%Brendan O'Neill: 0.1%spiked: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.6%This article: 7.1%Brendan O'Neill: 16.4%spiked: 9.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.1%This article: 4.8%Brendan O'Neill: 3.3%spiked: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.8%

1145 words analyzed.

Speakers

9speakers23%attributed speech885writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageUN • 31 words • 100.0% coverageGuardian • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageBBC • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Monbiot • 30 words • 100.0% coverageGeorge Monbiot • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageGuardian • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWall St Journal • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWall St Journal • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageTime • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageBjorn Lomborg • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageGreta Thunberg • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coveragespiked • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

George Monbiot

100%flagged-word coverage
58 attributed words22% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice-19.5 ptsWriter: 71.2%George Monbiot: 51.7%51.7%Politically Left Leaning B+51.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%George Monbiot: 51.7%51.7%Unattributed Quote+43.9 ptsWriter: 4.4%George Monbiot: 48.3%48.3%Indoctrination-10.7 ptsWriter: 10.7%George Monbiot: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%George Monbiot: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -4.2 ptsWriter: 4.2%George Monbiot: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%George Monbiot: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.