Hmmm...lrjones, you deserve a reply not only because you seem to be confused but because you also raise some interesting points.
"He has a few graduate degrees in science (so has been around the traps a bit) and said it is ALL about funding for research and is political and based on generally poor and inadequate science."
Firstly, I agree that much of todays science is predicated on what the applicant thinks the grant giving body to whom he is applying for funding wants to hear. This is a shame and emanates directly from a shift in policy which used to simply reward good science rather than seek to pick winners for some commercially profitable development of technology. Some scientists are now "guns for hire" as governments seek to find those who will support their particular spin. You can't blame them I suppose, they probably have families to feed like everyone else. In the end though, their peers will find them out and their work will be discredited. That's how science works.
"My view for a long time has been that the leading edge environmentalists are religious zealots (paganism) and stand in the ignoble tradition of all the great religious persecuters."
History shows us that we should expect violent swings as one group reacts to the perceived excesses of another group. Here I'm referring to the many years during which the environment was totally ignored. So I think it only to be expected that you will find zealots whose cause first and last, right or wrong is the environment. They are reacting against years of powerlessness and neglect and they seek converts and disciples. Many of these disciples are just as you would find them in religion, mindless and unquestioning I agree. However this is not to say that the environmental movement does not have an important message for us. Just as Christianity arguably has given us our values by which we live, (even if we are unbelievers) so the environmental movement is in the process of defining the ways we need to look after this planet.
"The persecution of course will be on a global scale and all of us will suffer a much worse fate than that due to some supposed environmental degrading of our life support systems if these characters get their way. "
Pure hype and not to be given any credence. In the end, good science will win simply bacuse its correct. The current thread is an excellent example of this. The Exxon disaster brought out all the angst of the environmentalists and there was claim and counter claim all based on complete lack of knowledge. As a result of the research that was conducted, we now know a whole lot more about what the results were and will be able to apply this to the current oil disaster. What we have here is convergence to a point where ultimately enviromentalsts and the community in general will be in general agreement.
"This is just one of those movements which is a good indicator that we are slipping back into the pre modern world of superstition and religious ideas. (Notice how all these movements are talking about spirituality. ie.the things science taught us to call superstition.)"
Here is where I have a problem with your logic. The environment depends on science. We have scientists lots of them, all beavering away, some doing good work others doing mediocre work. Their results are passed on down the chain, in publications, reports etc. What happens to those results depends on you and me not the scientists. Sure there may be some individuals who with religious fervour will get the wrong end of the stick. Sure there will be politicians who will twist the data to their own ends but in the end, I believe good science will win and old farts like yourself who can't look beyond their own politics will be assigned to the scrap heap of time...
