The End of the World

Two years ago, the media had a prolonged belly laugh at a group that predicted the end of the world. Now media outlets from The New York Times to The New Republic to The Economist are wrestling with the question of why their own ideology’s doomsday predictions are not coming to pass.

“If scientific models can’t project the last 15 years, what does that mean for their projections of the next 100?,” the New Republic asks. It means that the world isn’t going to end.

Even as Obama exploits Global Warming to launch a War on Affordable Energy, the doomsday environmentalists look as foolish as any other group that set a date for the end of the world, only for the world to stubbornly go on existing.

True believers in Gore would say that’s the difference between science and eschatology. But when bogus science warns us of an apocalypse if we don’t follow the tenets of their ideology, then how much difference is there anyway?Of course no one expects MSNBC to do sneering reports of global warming activists freezing at a protest or Al Gore being forced to watch a count down of a solidly frozen North Pole. Such mockery is only directed at people who believe in more unpopular forms of apocalypses. At least unpopular at the broadcasting studios of Manhattan.

It’s fashionable to mock religious leaders for hypocrisy, but there isn’t a peep when the Vice President turned Prophet of Gaia lectures on watching our carbon footprint and then flies on jet fueled carbon wings to another concert on behalf of the planet.Other aspiring prophets like Prince Charles, who admires poverty, but lives in privilege, are no better. Or Obama who told Americans that they couldn’t heat their homes as they pleased, while keeping his thermostat up to Hawaiian standards.

If the invariably prosperous believers in Death by Global Warming really believed in the creed, wouldn’t they be selling their homes and cars, and going off to live a simpler life in the Himalayan mountains. But it’s easier to believe in something than to practice it.Like all liberal social engineering projects, environmentalism is meant to change everyone’s life. And there’s no point in its proponents doing more than paying lip service to it, as they make it the law of the land. If Osama bin Laden could preach Islamic morality while stocking up on X rated tapes, surely Al Gore can foretell the doom of the North Pole and still take a private jet around the world.

If liberals have turned to doomsday predictions, it’s because they have discovered that religion and the apocalypse can be a marvelously effective way of controlling human behavior. But their religion is materialistic, concerned with the human presence in the natural world. Even its materialism is consumeristic.The Reds had no truck with environmentalism. To a Communist, the natural world was a mass of raw resources to be used to build socialism. But to the children of the capitalists, concerned more with what they buy, than with what they do, environmentalism restraints and directs their buying habits. As religions goes, environmentalism is the Consumer Reports of theologies.For all the talk of apocalypse and melting poles, the environmentalists really only care about your economic activity. Buy or don’t buy. But preferably buy, so long as you’re buying green, or buying carbon credits along with whatever you’re buying.

The sinner fills up on paper towels, but the righteous man buys paper towels with a green stamp on the box. The man of little faith may drive an SUV, and the faithful may also drive an SUV, but the faithful man’s SUV has a bumper sticker warning everyone to conserve something or other. Such hypocrisies are constant, pervasive and little commented on.

What began as a movement for the responsible stewardship of the earth has been corrupted from the ethical to the fanatical. Conservationism kept humanity in the picture. Environmentalism rages at humanity. Behind its colorful drawings and its dolphin key chains is the vision of a world in which humanity and its fire sticks are the original sin.

That primal rage has been channeled and diluted into a million businesses, into countless regulations and profitable ventures. The new environmentalists are regulatory robber barons like Al Gore, green rent seeking tycoons looking to use cap and trade, and a thousand mandatory revenue streams to fleece both the faithful and the unfaithful. There is no further way to corrupt environmentalism, its existence is already an abiding corruption. For the false prophets, the lab coated peddlers of junk science and the writers dreaming up ever more fanciful depictions of the day when the oceans rise and man finds himself paddling for safety besides the polar bear, there is nothing left but the lie.

The religious apocalypse is the break between a fallen world and a better world. But in the environmental apocalypse, it is only the end. Materialistic eschatology cannot see any way past the end or any purpose for it. Only a Waterworld in which some of us develop gills and others have to learn to kayak.

The threat of their end of days is meant to badger us into bowing our heads and opening our wallets. Buy Green or the North Pole will end in 5 years. Bicycle to work or a polar bear will chew your ear off. Their end of days lacks imagination and proof. It is constantly imminent, yet never arrives. It is held to be proven so thoroughly that it can never be disproven. And who would want to disprove it, except someone who doesn’t already have a grant to prove it.

There’s hardly a problem in the world that the media doesn’t blame on Global Warming. When it’s hot, they point to Global Warming. When it’s cold, they also point to Global Warming. Earthquakes, civil wars and the end of WiFi are all laid at the door of one single phenomenon. The difference between religion and science is that one is revealed truth and the other is theory. But when men and women in lab coats start predicting the end of days if the heretics don’t repent and cast out their incandescent light bulbs and SUV’s, then what you have is theory as revealed truth. An experiment in eschatology.

Science requires objectivity. Combine science with ideology and you get a mandatory belief in absurdity. Everyone who self-righteously insists that global warming is science misses the point. The scientific orthodoxy of every generation has embraced ridiculous and wrongheaded theories. Science is not a pure form of revealed truth, it is the trial and error process by which we crawl toward a better understanding. A less flawed picture of the universe. Turn the scientific orthodoxy of any era into a mandatory ideology and you have killed the science and left only another belief system.

Environmentalists parade around the corpse of science on their shoulders, mount it on their walls and proclaim that science is on their side. Once you completely murder a system of using trial and error experimentation to confirm a theory, then you might as well use it as a banner on a flagpole or a trophy in your living room. But the environmentalist’ science has as much relation to a living field, as the head of a dead moose mounted over a bed and breakfast’s fireplace does to a living creature.

Ideology has killed science and now claims its intellectual credibility for its own. But purging dissenting scientists, burning books and silencing all critics with jeers is not science, no more than what passed for it in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was science. It is the fanaticism of an ideology, the championing of backwardness, the exploitation of titles and terminology to silence debate and betray the ethical trust of inquiry.

The end of the world? The same people who ridicule religious people waiting for the end, are waiting for their own end of the world without any real faith in it.

Their end of the world is only another consumeristic strategy for convincing people to buy the right brands and donate to the right causes. It is as hollow as everything else.

No one will hang around with a count down clock in 2014 and wait for the North Pole to end. Not even if Gore’s prediction were better known. Those who believe in Global Warming, paradoxically don’t really believe that the world could actually end. They may eat up the cinematic spectacle of oceans rising, cities sinking underwater and whales doing belly flops over the Grand Canyon, but it never really touches them.

To understand why is to understand the purpose of environmentalism. Its harsh criticism of consumerism turns it into a moral activity. The Whole Foods shopper is elevated above the Wal-Mart shopper. The woman who buys sneakers made of recycled tires isn’t shopping, she’s engaged in an ethical communion with the earth. Environmentalism is the theology of consumerism, uplifting it rather than proscribing it, taking a cut of ordinary economic activities in exchange for its blessing.

Environmentalism is the religion of the comfortable, and the theology of the convenient. It injects a false spirituality into the materialism of the faithless. There is nothing to it but greed. From the false prophets spinning tales of the end, to scientists doing a more elevated version of the same for grant money to scribes envisioning the end for a lucrative book or movie deal. It’s not the end of the world they’re waiting for, but a commercial break.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • UCSPanther

    Environmentalism is both a racket and a cult movement that urgently needs to be put down for good…

    • Rocky Mountain

      Yeah, let’s pave everything over so we can get to the mall faster.

      • OfficialPro

        I see your strawman and raise you a slippery slope.

      • weirdpeter

        Yeah, Let’s build more windmills so we can slice and dice a few million more birds while adding virtually no energy to our country’s resources

      • ziggy zoggy

        Lets tear up the roads so we can wade through the mud to milk our goats slower.

      • davarino

        Lets work on that perpetual motion machine for free energy that puts out no pollution except petuli oil
        pass the dubie man

      • Aizino Smith

        We need more malls and more pavement, because Chucky Schumer and company need a new mob for the elections just like the old romans Senate. You can’t have 3 to 5 million more people a year immigrating and not have more stuff paved over. Just saying.

        I am a hunter but the masses will always win over habitat just like agriculturalists always win over pastoralists and they both win over hunter gatherers.

        But keep voting Democrat or for Ralph Nader .Ya, that’s the ticket!

      • Jim45acp

        Now your talking!

      • Paul of Alexandria

        Interesting and typically Progressive response. Why is it that you automatically assume that the only alternative to one extreme is the other extreme? Why not examine the data, discern the truth, and come up with the solutions that inconvenience the least number of people? (Don’t bother, it’s a rhetorical question).

        If this were a sane world we’d be pushing nuclear power and moving heavy industry into space.

      • UCSPanther

        Here’s one for you, environ-MENTALIST:

      • glpage

        If you’re truly interested in improving the environment I suggest you head to China, it needs you to help them clean up their mess.

    • tagalog

      If “environmentalists” get what they claim they want, they will find that the clouds of mosquitos and the unheated frigidity of the weather make them extremely uncomfortable. Then they will reveal their true colors and become elitists, seeking the use of pesticides and CO2-producing heat mechanisms for themselves while consigning us peasants and serfs to the dark cold of our mud hovels. They’ve already gotten us part way back to candle light with these new light bulbs that don’t provide half of the light of incandescent bulbs.

  • American1969

    Guess the Global Warming hysterics are now the “Flat Earthers”. Morons.

    • Rocky Mountain

      “Morons” How incredibly original.

      • OfficialPro

        Flat Earthers ARE morons.

        • Snorbak

          Hey, careful who you call a moron or some idiot will try to convince you that the Earth orbits around the Sun

      • ziggy zoggy

        Since when is being a moron original? The most hilarious thing about environmentalism is that the real environment would render genetic dead ends like you extinct if people like me weren’t protecting you. Pathetic weakling.

      • TXLadyPatriot

        Okay – how about this one:

        “You (Rocky Mountain) are the environmentalist’s weakest link!”

      • putthehammerdown

        No more or less ‘incredibly original’ than the tired cliché at your opening statement, above
        {See : Paving]
        He meant to say ‘massive douche bags’ but he just couldn’t bring himself to do it, as he’s too polite…
        …but I’m not, in any way or fashion.
        I can smell the Summer’s Eve Scent from waayyy over here………….Vinegar and Sandalwood, isn’t it?

      • Jakareh

        American1969 wasn’t trying to be original. He was trying to be accurate. And he succeeded.

  • Texas Patriot

    I think you’re on to something here, Daniel. The flip side of course are the capitalists who could care less about dumping waste directly into the rivers and oceans of the world or pumping toxic gases directly into the atmosphere. The key is remembering that Adam Smith was not only the greatest proponent of free market capitalism of his day, he was also the greatest moralist of his day. Everyone knows about his revolutionary economic treatise “The Wealth of Nations”, but not nearly so many know of his moral treatise “The Theory of Moral Sentiments”. Unfortunately, neither unbridled capitalism nor unbridled environmentalism holds the key to a prosperous future for mankind on earth. False capitalism values money as the ultimate good, whereas false environmentalism values the earth as the ultimate good. Neither values the human being as the ultimate good. What we lack is a combined theory of constructive economic capitalism and constructive economic conservatism that puts equal value on radical economic development and radical preservation of the environment that we all need to survive. We all need food, clothing, shelter, transportation and communications, but we also need clean water, clean air, clean energy, and unpolluted lands. If we have either one but not the other, we die.

    • Jim45acp

      Well said Tex. There is always that blend of capitalism & good stewardship of the earth. There is nothing wrong with making money. There is something wrong with making money while destroying the area we are making money in. The sun controls our weather. The computer models that the environmentalist use don’t even recognize clouds. Don’t think I’ll put much faith in their predictions. The idea of politicians imposing a carbon tax on us is repugnant. It means they have found a way to tax the very air you breath. If that happens, time to vote them out and get some people in there that work for us.

    • tagalog

      Obviously you know what you’re talking about, but the concept of free marketeers as resource-protecting agents seems to have gotten by you. It’s not surprising, though; Adam Smith doesn’t seem to have given much thought to the preservation of natural resources, as they just didn’t think about that kind of thing very much in his time.

  • 13guns

    Linked on brilliant. Sadly we can scream the truth but this is what the UN communists and Alinsky communists are using to control the world. The truth seems to have departed us for good.

  • tagalog

    The continued degradation of our culture in the name of a spurious freedom that is really Satanic libertinism in disguise will not escape the notice of God, who will act as He has acted in earlier similar times in history, and send floods or fire/brimstone down on us, or allow us to be scattered to the four winds, enslaved, and hated and despised for centuries. This historically validated turn of events is far more likely than catastrophic global warming.

    I must say that it’s psychologically gratifying to see the returning legitimacy of the term “global warming” to the public discourse. The term “climate change” was such a rhetorical (and factual) trap for the advocates of some anticipated anthropogenic climate disaster.

  • mtnhikerdude

    The advocates of Global Warming still believe the World is Flat , the Taliban are banana counters , the more money you spend that you don’t have will fatten your check book balance ,that tax payer funded free cell phones don’t buy votes ,that the B.O.’s tax payer funded lavish vacations help our economy and that Islam is a religion of peace. I have always found it insane to argue with insanity.

  • Paul of Alexandria

    Great article. Gaiaism is merely another false religion.

  • The Dead Critic

    It’s the SUN stupid. That, and a billion tons of human POLLUTION every year. You want to blame people, then blame the inventor of the internet, and his GREEDY liberal scientists. The ONLY green they see is a steady job and the money that goes with it.

  • PouponMarks

    It will take 30 years of overwhelming majorities in both Mouses of Congrows and a President to undo the damage done in the last 50 years from Progressive/Socialist/Marxist/Liberal/Democrats. Either that, or a massive, off the charts revolt, a 2nd American Revolution by the Middle Class.

  • Harry Black

    Greenfield is all windy rhetoric. Some facts please if you want to try to counter the indisputable fact of global warming. Is it a massive fraud? Or settled science? if you doubt it’s settled science, ask the insurance companies how they now calculate risk. Or you can try to explain away the devastating tornadoes and once in a century storms that turn up every two or three years, not to mention the droughts and wildfire plaguing Texas and the southwest. Talk about how ideology blinds! Either you take science seriously or you end up with Limbaugh and all the little Limbaughs spreading the myth that somehow science is now a racket and that global warming isn’t happening. Everyone enjoys a conspiracy theory. But you may change your mind if a tornado blows down your house, a wildfire burns up your property, or you discover that your paid-up Miami condo is literally under water. So at this point you would do well to ask, cui bono? And the answer is obvious: big coal, big oil, and those folks, paid and unpaid, who so willingly front for them.

    • Gary Dickson

      “Talk about how ideology blinds.” Are you not blinded because of your own ideology?

      Because of the enormous number of variables – the effects of the sun’s activity on the earth, changes in the earth’s internal activity, continental drift, changes in the atmosphere, cosmic radiation, to name just a few – and their very tight interrelationships and interactions, it is virtually impossible to attribute climate change to one reason. In my view, it is a massive leap of logic to attribute the majority of climate change to anything, including the activities of humans. It is also a massive leap of logic to attribute any one event, or a series of similar events, to activities of humans. That is why I lose confidence in “the indisputable fact of global warming.” That is why I do not trust the “settled science.”

      Moreover, using those leaps of logic as a means of imposing societal change by government fiat and taxes is equivalent to the Prohibition Amendment. If you take the Prohibition rhetoric of the late 19th century and the early 20th century and change the words “intoxicating liquors” or “alcohol” to “global warming” or “climate change”, you will end up with the same unmitigated disaster of attempting to engineer society or humanity. The unintended consequences of Prohibition – one of them being the transformation of the U.S. Federal Government to Marxist-type collectivism – have been devastating to American society and governance.

      As a result, I cannot begin to imagine what economic and societal disasters will occur if the Global Warming proponents and political followers attempt to impose their prohibitions not only on the U.S. but on the world.

      • Harry Black

        Climate change is the number one “unmitigated disaster.” I also notice that when it comes to “social engineering,” there’s not a peep of protest from Frontpage officialdom when it comes to the many recent laws designed to limit women’s access to abortion and basic prenatal care. As for “economic and societal disasters”–they are already happening and not because of “prohibitions” imposed by what you call “global warming proponents” but by the phenomenon itself. Hurricane Sandy cost $100 billion, Irene, $20 billion at a minimum, billions more for Colorado wildfires, burned up crops in Texas and elsewhere, etc. And did you by any chance notice the unprecedented flooding in Pakistan in 2010 which killed 1800 people and affected 21 million people? None of this the result of anthropogenic global warming?

        • Gary Dickson

          “None of this [sic] the result of anthropogenic global warming?” By all means, make that leap of logic! Be my guest and science be damned. Oops, sorry! That’s “settled science.” My bad.

          I’ve got a solution to climate change that you’d probably very much enjoy: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

          We’ll put you in charge of the collective.

          • Harry Black

            Gary, it’s time to grow up. The issues raised here have nothing to do with Communism or Marxism. As usual with those in denial, you are incapable of dealing with scientific fact, so you resort to innuendo. (Like so many of the zombie yea sayers on Frontpage, you play your tapes rather than think through the issues at hand.) Yes I’ve read the Communist Manifesto. No, I don’t believe it has anything to do with climate change? You can bury your head in the sand Gary, but global warming is happening even if that studious climatologist, Daniel Greenfield, says otherwise.

        • swemson

          That’s correct.. NONE of it is the result of AGW.

          Extreme weather events do not and never have predicted long term climate trends, which are predominantly caused by completely natural changes in solar activity which occurs in cycles.

          The recent example of global warming hysteria, is the 4th such event since the advent of the 20th century. One only need to look back as far as the 1970’s to see the previous cycles of global cooling hysteria:

          which interestingly enough was blamed in part, by the same pseudo scientists, on our use of hydrocarbon based fuels:


          “Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin’s Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.”

          In “The notebooks of Lazarus Long”, Robert Heinlein wrote”

          “Climate is what we except, weather is what we get”

          You’re confusing climate with weather….

          For some basic but inconvenient facts about this subject see:



  • alpha2actual

    It is a misconception that the Environmental Movement is benign, well intentioned, and monolithic– it is not. In reality the movement is extremely factionalized and schizophrenic. The legitimate players are the rent seekers, grant chasers, and politicans pandering to a constituency, the Green Lobby. The True Believers are the Luddites, Malthusians, Narcissistic Xenophobes, Gaia cultists, Margaret Sanger Eugenics disciples, and Pathological Altruists to name but a few. Review your “Silent Spring” and the attending banning of DDT, Erlich’s “Population Bomb” and the Club of Rome literature. Science is intended to drive policy not the other way around. Policy driven Science misallocates capital but more importantly takes lives.

    Read some of the well crafted New York Times, Mother Jones, Village Voice etc. comments to articles relating to things “environmental” and invariably you will find references to the “carrying capacity” of our planet. This is code for their distain for Third World inhabitants.

    These modern environmentalists, and I’m including the Global Warming Alarmists, are immoral and inhuman and have racked up a body count that surpasses that of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combined. 100 million and counting, 80% children under five and pregnant women.

  • alpha2actual

    It irks me when people conflate Anthropogenic Climate Change with Climate Change and Anthropogenic Global Warming with Global Warming. Climate Change is studied by Paleoclimatologists who work with ice and ocean sediment cores. They are interested in time frames of tens and hundreds of thousands of years and geological epochs. For instance, the climate record shows that there have been 5 interglacial (warm) and 4 glacial (cold) episodes during the current 400,000 record. We are obviously enjoying an interglacial event but 12,000 years from now all of Canada and 40% of the United States including Manhattan, thankfully, will be under 5,000 feet of ice. It is undoubtedly true that 99% of scientists believe in Climate Change however to state as fact that 99% believe in Anthropogenic Climate Change is both absurd and a statistical improbability. The climate record also shows that global temperature increases precede attending increases in atmospheric CO2 by periods ranging from 400 to 1400 years. QED

    • ChangeHopeInAZ


  • Brother Mark

    You know, while you’re at it… guys might want to remember that less dependance on foreign oil is a GOOD thing.

  • Howard Philipson

    The Earth has always incurred Global cooling and warming periods, but they tend to take hundred’s of thousands of years to develop. Obama thinks he is G_d which is why he feels he can hang around long enough to manage the changes. He must have cut all his science and biology courses, because humans and animals emit CO2 when they breathe. Ah! Maybe he does know that, and he is working on curing that ill with his Obamacare planning board.