Enuff with the doomsdaying, already

The Guardian, UK: 'Apocalyptic climate predictions' mislead the public, say experts.

Experts at Britain's top climate research centre have launched a blistering attack on scientific colleagues and journalists who exaggerate the effects of global warming.

The Met Office Hadley Centre, one of the most prestigious research facilities in the world, says recent "apocalyptic predictions" about Arctic ice melt and soaring temperatures are as bad as claims that global warming does not exist. Such statements, however well-intentioned, distort the science and could undermine efforts to tackle carbon emissions, it says.

A welcome call, but one I do not think will be heeded. There is too much money to be made by the most strident voices. Moderated commentary is mostly ignored by the media and scientists or research centers who say that things are not really all that bad, no matter the soundness of their science, don't get big grants and awards. Why? Because the money, hence the agenda, is controlled not by scientists but by politicians. The article points out,

The criticism reflects mounting concern at the Met Office that the global warming debate risks being hijacked by people on both sides who push their own agendas and interests. It comes ahead of a key year of political discussions on climate, which climax in December with high-level political negotiations in Copenhagen, when officials will try to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto protocol.

So the Met Office's call for sanity and sound, non-politicized science is welcome, but won't be heeded. Whole careers, both scientific and political, have been made and depend upon climate alarmism.

I again commend to you my essay, "Environmentalist religion explained," which explains how environmentalism long ago became, as Michael Crichton wrote, "a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths." Environmentalism emphasizes apocalypticism, which has in fact become central to its entire belief system. So it won't be surrendered easily (or, say I, at all).

The apocalyptic nature of climate alarmism forms a perfect confluence between science and politics. has there ever been a time in all history when scientists (not, mind you, actual science) have been hailed by politicians as so essential to forming policy for the future of the world? The permanent interest of politicians is to retain their power and then increase it. Environmentalism is the best vehicle going to do that.

No less a personage than physicist Freeman Dyson pointed out (cited in my essay) that, "Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion." I demur. Environmentalism has not replaced socialism at all. Instead, the old-line socialists, faced with decades of the failure of political socialism, have jumped on the environmentalist bandwagon to keep socialism alive. Environmentalism has become a much better vehicle to achieve a rigid regulation of people's lives than political socialism ever was. After all, the fate of the entire planet is at stake!

Environmentalism has already led some British members of Parliament to propose that the government regulate almost every aspect of buying and selling by private individuals. If this is not socialism, it is a distinction without a difference.

So there you are. At bottom, modern environmentalism has discarded scientific rigor to embrace something not much different than Leninism, the desire to control the major components of the way individuals live. From there it is a short step for environmentalism to Leninism's successor: Stalinism, the desire to control every aspect of the way we live. That's our future, minus the gulags. We hope.