Stardate 20010808.2151 (On Screen via long range sensors): This is a very interesting article, since it utters heresies. It discusses myths associated with environmentalism, such as predictions from the 1970's of world-wide famine by now (which didn't happen). I think the most interesting point it makes is that environmental organizations have a vested interest in exaggerating the seriousness of the situation, since the worse things sound, the more donations the environmental organizations will take in. Announcing that the polar icecaps will melt in five years will result in a lot more money than announcing that they'll melt in five hundred years. Announcing the imminent extinction of 50% of the world's species will raise more funds than an announcement of 1%. So when (to be charitable) the evidence is ambiguous and permits many different extrapolations, the environmentalist organizations will tend to interpret it in the worst possible light.
Another interesting point made is that even if the US had ratified and complied with the Kyoto protocol, the result would have been a negligible change in the global warming scenario. As the article puts it, the expected state of affairs in 2094 would have been postponed to 2100, at colossal expense. Hardly seems worth it, does it? (discuss)
Update 20010809: Here's more coverage about the same guy.
