I see the term "climate denier" being used by some extremists.
That is a silly term indeed. I assume we all acknowledge the existence of climate.
Is the term meant to equate a sceptic to a "Holocaust denier"?
Is the term meant to transfer the distaste generally felt for such people on to those who don't feel that the sky is likely to fall if we do not do as the extremists say.
I do use the term "extremist" advisedly. Remember peak oil?
I have seen a few end of the world scenarios come and go, and this global warming stuff is just another in a long history of panics caused by the Chicken Littles of this world.
The world may well experience overall warming, or not.
Either way mankind will soldier on. There will be mass die-offs, there have been so many in the past and they are not ever going to cease, no matter what any saviour of the world does.
The best chance for any particular human culture to survive the inevitable slings and arrows of outrageous fortune will be to build wealth and technology, both of which combined will provide the best chance of survival while not guaranteeing it.
There are no guarantees. The universe owes you nothing.
A poor, technologically backward society will suffer more from the absolutely inevitable climatic changes in the future, whichever way the mercury goes.
That brings up the argument as to which is the best way to increase wealth and technology, and the answer is free enterprise, unfettered to the greatest degree possible by governments and religion. ( and Chicken Littles )
Look at the world and you will notice that the people are inevitably worse when government and/or religion have more power than personal freedom to create wealth. I class environmental extremism as a religion, the organisational structure and mind set is quite the same.
