I tend to go much further with my criticisms of the politics of environmentalism – as Longrider alluded to, eco-worriers avidly avoid the issue of the effects of the Sun on our climate. If environmentalists really want to stabilise the climate on the Earth – they need to stabilise the Sun first.

I honestly believe that humanity will outlast the Earth, after all, the Earth will not be here forever (because of the Sun). If humanity wants to survive, it must find another Earth like planet, which is what we are currently doing. Environmentalists care nothing for such projects, all they seem to care about is inanimate objects like trees or mountains. The welfare of humanity is the last thing on their minds – I bet Dan was one of those eco-worriers who opposed the use of DDT like many environmentalists, 25 years, and 25 million dead people later, they changed their minds and admit they got DDT all wrong.

It’s extremely difficult (but not impossible) to see the death and destruction caused by environmentalist policies like the banning of DDT – now the very same people are adamant that we in the West should spend billions upon billions trying to fight against CO2 – I wouldn’t mind, except that CO2 is not a terrible poisonous gas – we need it to make food grow ect..

As to your question; why do people seem to relish the prospect? Because as they rise from the ashes, they can say with satisfaction “I told you so!”

…and what do you say:
“The only people still denying climate change are either in the pockets of oil companies or just plain stupid.”

Sigh. Who is denying climate change? Climate changes. That’s what it does. That’s what it has been doing throughout all of human history, indeed throughout the history of the earth. The question is, what proportion of that change is caused by human agency, and the evidence is by no means as strong as you imply that humans are significantly involved.

You seem to have bought into the myth that there is some kind of stable ‘climate’ that humans have wickedly disturbed. There isn’t and there never has been.

You can’t ‘stop climate chaos’, for goodness sake – the climate is a chaotic system. And you can’t stop climate change – the world is much too big and humans much too small. All we can do is learn to adapt to the changes.

“The masses of data showing that the rise in temperature exactly matches emissions”

The fact that it doesn’t ‘exactly match the rise in emissions’ doesn’t make you sceptical? The fact that temperatures in the recent pre-industrial past were for extended periods higher doesn’t make you wonder what the real mechanisms of change might be?

“The thousands of climate scientists agreeing…”

Really? Thousands of climate scientists agree that a disaster is on the way? Are they related to the thousands of physicists that were sure the aether existed? The thousands of biologists who agreed that cell proteins carried inheritance? You should read this – even one who believes that humans play a significant role thinks all the talk of climate disaster is hype.

“The fact that people are already experiencing severe floods and droughts directly because of it ”

Some actual evidence of this would be handy. You can’t be unaware of the fact that regional scale droughts and floods have been a feature of human history. You must be aware that there is no evidence that weather patterns have changed as a result of the measured warming.

“you’re still clinging on to your beliefs that the Earth is flat.”

Insult is not argument. Show me the evidence.

“To suggest that it’s because they want it to happen is ridiculous.”

Perhaps a little over the top. It was intended to be somewhat polemical. Yet for many I genuinely wonder – they speak of the coming disaster with such relish. And the worse the purported catastrophe, the more they seem to like it. These are the ones who speak of mankind as a ‘virus’, who say things like ‘the world would be better off without humans’. Have you really never heard people say that? Isn’t the environmentalist movement full of people saying exactly those kinds of things? Now I find that offensive, particularly since the only ‘cure’ on offer will also condemn millions to poverty and death. There is only one workable answer to climate change – adaptation.

“Congratulations, you’ve lost a reader”

Read what I actually wrote. You’ve just exactly epitomised what I said in the very first paragraph. Which bit of ‘climate change is real’ did you miss? Do you really only want to read people who agree with you, who will reinforce your cherished beliefs?

I am always worried by religious fervour, and it is clearly that which motivates many climate protesters – that plus the thrill that seems to motivate a large number of people in belonging to a group which gets to tell other people how to live their lives (‘we’re right, you’re wrong, so shut up and do as you’re told’).

You may not be as old as me, I don’t know. But I remember that the cooling between 1940 and 1975 was also supposed to be down to human activity, and in some extreme reports (not the scientific ones) was the herald of a new ice age, and in all reports was going to get worse and be very bad. In the 1970s (and later) all sorts of resources were soon going to run out (indeed by now they should all be gone); in 1970 the population of Britain was, by 2000, going to be 100 million (an increase more than fourteen times bigger than what actually happened, and most of the actual change in the last forty years has been through immigration), and there would be a world-wide Malthusian crisis; indeed western civilisation was supposed to have collapsed under its own weight about twenty years ago. A little cynicism is more than warranted.

Scare stories sell papers and tv advertising space. Scare stories attract readers and supporters. Fear sells. And it’s much easier now to scare a lot of people rather quickly. How much coverage does ‘Earth to warm by 1 degree over 100 years – not much effect expected’ get? Only the horror stories make it into people’s consciousnesses. The question is – why do people prefer stories of impending doom? Why do they seem to relish the thought?

The other question, of course, is cui bono? Who benefits from keeping everyone frightened all the time?

The masses of data showing that the rise in temperature exactly matches emissions isn’t enough to convince you? The thousands of climate scientists agreeing that humans are responsible isn’t enough? The fact that people are already experiencing severe floods and droughts directly because of it doesn’t shake you? Presumably you’re still clinging on to your beliefs that the Earth is flat.

Yet as protestors gather for a rally under the banner of ‘Stop climate chaos‘, I want to issue a, probably forlorn, plea to them to look inside their minds and ask themselves why they are so filled with enthusiasm, why their faces glow with the light of fanaticism at the thought, or rather the conviction, that humanity faces a catastrophe.

It seems that for many, this end is not to be feared, but rather embraced – they simply cannot wait for the promised catastrophe and the billions of deaths that will ensue. Mere change is not enough – it must be the end of the world.

It’s quite simple really. People are protesting because they don’t want millions of people to die. To suggest that it’s because they want it to happen is ridiculous. It’s like criticising people who donate money to charities working in Africa on the grounds that they subconsciously want millions to die of famine.

The only people still denying climate change are either in the pockets of oil companies or just plain stupid. Which are you? Your comments are completely offensive to people, like myself, who truly, genuinely care about the fate of the planet and its inhabitants. Congratulations, you’ve lost a reader.