This is South Park material. I would love to see an episode with ManBearPig, Al Gore and the crying meteorologist.
If you want to make an argument that Climate Change is not an issue: Make it. If you want to say that this person's reaction is irrational, make that argument. Don't be snide and claim "This person's emotional response is obviously stupid, and he deserves to be mocked without justification".
As it stands, we have no idea why you feel that this is stupid (though your reasons are probably crap). You're simply being offensive, and not adding anything to the discussion. People who disagree with you are disadvantaged, because you've made no actual points; and so you can dodge any criticisms with "Where did I say that?". Which of course, is the main point, you haven't said anything. You're just being an ass.
Even if that weren't the case it would still be pointless to worry about it as trying to change people's behavior outside the marketplace can only be done with totalitarian methods, which is exactly what environmentalists propose. Not to mention, since this is Hacker News after all, that I would love to see CO2 concentrations go up 50 times to reach those recorded during dinosaurs' time (sorry, too lazy to check exact era), as a much denser atmosphere would allow almost car-sized airships to be built, or even human flight with wings and how cool would that be.
Environmentalism is the new communism and Gaia-worshiping is a religion with Al Gore as its main tele-evangelist. The guy has even set up his own company selling carbon credits. I am certainly not going to write a lengthy exposition identifying the errors in Benn Hinn's theological doctrine. Ridicule saves time.
What you present here is, as far as I can tell, an argument that there are (well-monied) interests that stand to gain from having people believe in AGW. That is a valid point to make, but it does nothing to prove the conspiracy that you sketch. Do you have any proof?
You go on (sorry, it's cumbersome to quote on my phone) to suggest that the fact that there are people who take a religious view towards environmentalism matters for the debate. I agree to a certain extent that this is a problem, but the solution is simple: don't listen to the enviro-religious people. Listen instead to the science.
If you really want to troll em, try something like "history is nothing but billions of years of climate change, so paleoconservatives who want to preserve the 1500s eternally are anti-scientific".
Another hilarious one is going into geographic politics. Everyone living along the coasts has roughly the same weather so they freak out at the idea of temp going up or down. Non-coasties (and their ecologies) thrive in areas with dramatically varying temps, but coasties always excrete vast clouds of smug over non-coasties so anything good thats not coastal cannot exist. For example, worst case delta T scenarios are unthinkable for coasties who think +/- one degree counts as "weather" but for me, the worst case is basically like moving about 40 miles south. This is a fun one that gets them all wound up.
There's also a hilarious personal responsibility game. People who build stuff in stupid places are about to have their chips cashed in, displaying their epic fail. And the problem with that is what exactly? Right up there with those people who get flooded out by rivers every other year and get .gov to pay to rebuild them every time, oh how my heart aches for them LOL. Hey did you just hear? The coasts are going to flood in a century. I suggest... moving? You've only got a century best start getting moving or start those .gov financial claims...
Now thats the way to really get them going...
In my office, I found out that the cleaning crew had been trashing the carefully segregated recycling for months. I had a good laugh.
But that's not the point, and I presume you know that as well. Sometimes I try to imagine how future generations may experience living in totally totally artificial environments where nothing can be taken for granted, not even the breathable air or the (living) space. If you can envision such perspective (and at least some reasons for its necessity), you may then deduce that there is a transitory path that must be prepared ahead.