Leaving the Church of Environmentalism

Leaving the Church of Environmentalism

“Suggesting that humans actually have any effect on the weather is absurd.” – Alan Carlin, former Sierra Club member.


Leaving the Church of Environmentalism

By Alan Caruba


In March 2009 while the Environmental Protection Agency was rushing to fulfill a presidential campaign pledge to document that carbon dioxide (CO2) and five other greenhouse gases endangered public health and the environment, a longtime employee, Alan Carlin, put out a 93-page report challenging the science being cited and the drift of the agency from its initial role to one captured by fanatical activists and alarmists, treating environmentalism more as a religion than based in science.

At the time Carlin was a 72-year-old analyst and economist who, as The New York Times put it, “had labored in obscurity in a little-known office at the Environmental Protection Agency since the Nixon administration.” His EPA career would span 38 years.

Cover - Environmentalism Gone MadThe website for his new book, “Environmentalism Gone Mad” says, “Dr. Alan Carlin is an economist and physical scientist with degrees from Caltech and MIT and publications in both economics and climate/energy, who became actively involved in the Sierra Club in the 1960s as an activist and Chapter Chairman. This led to a career as a manager and senior analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency.”

As he says in the preface “The purpose of this book is to explain why I changed from my lifelong support of the environmental movement to extreme skepticism concern their current primary objective of reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.”

“Although I and the many other climate skeptics are now referred to as ‘deniers’ by the climate alarmists, that does not change the science—and there is no valid scientific basis for the alarmists’ catastrophic climate predictions—or justify their fantastically expensive and useless ‘solution.’”

Carlin went from being a dedicated environmentalist, based on its initial philosophy of conservation, to an observer of the movement that was taken over and distorted to advocate falsehoods about global warming and a transition from fossil-fuels to “clean energy” meaning wind, solar and bio-fuels. As an economist he understood how absurd it was to suggest rejecting fossil-fuels, the key element of modern industry and society.

“The climate alarmists,” says Carlin, “have now been making their apocalyptic predictions for almost thirty years and it is now possible to compare their predictions with actual physical observations.”   Suffice to say all the predictions of a significantly higher temperature—the warming—have been wrong.

In fact, the Earth has been in a natural cooling cycle since 1998 and shows no indication of warming

Predictions about the North and South Poles melting, a major rise in ocean levels, increased hurricanes and other climate events have been wrong along with countless other climate-related apocalyptic predictions.

Having observed how the EPA has functioned for more than three decades, Carlin warns that its current “environmental policy has been hijacked by radicals intent on imposing their ideology by government fiat on the rest of us whether we like it or not…If environmental policy is based on government fiat or ‘green’ policy prescriptions the results have been and are very likely to continue to be disastrous.”

At 625 pages, Carlin’s book takes the reader from his early days as a Sierra Club activist and chapter leader to being an EPA outcast, denounced for telling the truth about the false claims of global warming, climate change, and what is now being called extreme weather.

As an economist, Carlin is particularly upset that “the Obama Administration’s climate/energy policy is wasting very large sums on non-solutions to minor or non-problems.” The book has come along as President Obama has been flogging “climate change” as the greatest threat to the nation and the world.

“It has been long recognized that weather is chaotic,” says Carlin. While we operate within the four seasons, the weather that occurs can only be predicted in the most general terms. Suggesting that humans actually have any effect on the weather is absurd.

That is why the predictions made by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and all the others based on computer models are, by definition, worthless. Computer models cannot predict anything about the vast chaotic global climate system. Even today, meteorologists are mystified by the actions of clouds which can form and disappear in minutes.

It’s useful to keep in mind that climate is measured in centuries, while the weather is reported as what is occurring today and forecast, at best, for no more than a week. Weather records are maintained for purposes of comparison and within the larger context of determining the Earth’s climate cycles. Like those in the past, the present cooling cycle is based on a comparable one of the Sun that is producing lower levels of radiation. You don’t need a Ph.D. in meteorology to understand this.

Carlin does not hesitate to excoriate the blather put forth by the alarmists; particularly their claims that the weather is affected in any significant fashion by human activity and development in particular. “There is simply no evidence thus far that the normal activities of man have or will result in catastrophic outcomes for either man or nature.”

The actions the alarmists call for do nothing to enhance and benefit our lives. They drive up the cost of energy and food. They ignore how dependent modern life is on the use of fossil fuels.

“Despite all the lavish funding by liberal foundations and the federal government on their global warming doctrine-inspired programs, the radical environmental movement has long since gone so far beyond rationality that it is counter-productive in achieving its own ends.”

So long as it remains heavily funded and backed by the federal government, we must, like Carlin, speak out against environmental extremism. We must elect new people to govern in a more realistic, science-based fashion. We must urge our current legislators to rein in the rogue Environmental Protection Agency.

© Alan Caruba, 2015


Alan Caruba’s commentaries are posted daily at Warning Signs, and shared on dozens of news and opinion websites. His blog recently passed more than 3.1 million page views.

If you love to read, visit his monthly report on new books at Bookviews.com. It is ideal for anyone who loves to read, reporting on many new fiction and non-fiction titles.

For information on his professional skills, carubaeditorialservices.blogspot.com is the place.


Harry Dale Huffman said…

Radical environmentalism–which is now being preached as politically and morally correct by all of our authoritative institutions–is not just a church, or religion, but a religion on a jihad, a holy war as it were. And they are out for revenge (against the Bush years, “Capitalism”–as they see it, “Big Oil”, “Big Corporations”, etc. ad infinitum); their self-righteousness is what is driving them, what has in fact made them insane in so many of their ridiculous claims and demands, without regard for how many innocents they are harming (including the false education of recent generations and the reputation of modern science itself). And they are but one part of the coalition of radical groups that now feel supremely empowered by the Obama administration–and by a man clearly lacking in character.

Mankind needs to learn from the many varieties of war being waged because of religiously-held, but patently false, beliefs now.

There is a basic–inalienable–right of Man that needs to be brought out and explicitly made a foundational part of all our laws. A new injunction must be strictly enforced upon all merely religiously-held beliefs (those lacking observational support, i.e., for which there is objective evidence AGAINST the belief): “No coercion, in any form, of unbelievers.” We should already know this; millennia of hard experience already gave birth to “the separation of church and state” in the U.S.A..

9 thoughts on “Leaving the Church of Environmentalism

  1. Physics observes that a potential difference is necessary for there to be any action – be that forces moving objects, electricity powering your TV or simply boiling the kettle over a flame.

    And so it is for weather. The circulation of air due to the location of high and low pressure systems drives the weather.

    If global warming increases minimum temperatures thus effectively reducing the intensity of winters and resulting in a more uniform warming world (as the IPCC and many others have long claimed – remember “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,”) then this is in effect a reduction in the natural potential difference driving weather systems.

    How a reduction in potential difference can result in a more powerful effect caused by such potential difference is scientifically impossible.

    Your torch doesn’t shine brighter because the batteries are going flat.

    I am disturbed that environmental organisations think they have the right to achieve their goals at all costs. The fixation on CO2 will likely lead to their actually becoming less relevant when the succession of failed prophecies become so obvious.

    It is a shame that environmentalism has had a fixation on a non problem like CO2 for political purposes – “Save the Planet”.

    Even the “success” of banning DDT on spurious grounds were a disaster for fellow humans scourged by malaria.

    But the achievements in dealing with real pollution were remarkable as a trip to China today will clearly show.

    Shame that radicalism is seen as necessary for a non problem like CO2.

  2. Lost on the Greens is the indisputable fact that but for fossil fuels, we’d have no trains, no steam ships, no airplanes, no cars, no trucks, no buses, no computers, no electric lights, no air conditioning or food refrigeration, no tractors . . . we’d be traveling on foot or horseback at 5 mph, and a billion horses would drop 30 billion pounds of horse manure on the streets of America every day . . . a lotta pollution there!

    And the air in our cities would be black with swarms of flies.

  3. But, trying to tell the Climate Changers that CO2 isn’t gonna kill us all is like trying to tell good Catholics that the Pope isn’t the Vicar of Christ.

  4. There is a thought that if you don’t stand for something, you will fall for anything. That is certainly the case with water melon environ Mentalists. Their anger was firsts driven by self righteous fright that the planet was in danger from us & we should be punished for following Willard Duncan Vandiver’s dictum to Congress “…… frothy eloquence neither convinces nor satisfies me. I’m from Missouri, and you have got to show me.”

    Now they rage at us, because they are desperately afraid their computerised pseudo religion has false models & that global temperatures have followed Physics & Nature rather than Climate Change Lysenkoism. It must be so awful to be as terrified as they are, pissing their pants 24 hours a day.

    My mother told me that a coward dies many times & a brave man dies but once. Which is why atheism is so appealing.

  5. Considering that the whole plan to reduce carbon emissions stems from the UN/IMF/IPCC fairy-tale of man-made global warming (through carbon dioxide emissions = anthropogenic global warming, AGW for short) which is altering the Earth’s climate, no less, to near extinction if all that hype were true, is nothing but the biggest political and intellectual fraud ever.

    Having myself arrived at this opinion, I relied on two sources: on what I have seen with my own eyes, on what I have read. Since this post should not itself become a long extended read, I refer with links to some of my earlier blogs giving relevant details on the points raised. The penultimate of my posts as CleanEnergyPundit (which Google will find promptly) explains; but more worrying is the latest one, which goes beyond just Climate frauds.

  6. As far as environmentalism being a religion, seminars have been scheduled by religious groups to teach ministers how to preach about global warming.
    This fake-religion is now using actual religions to force their members to follow the religion of global warming.
    I wish I was making this up, but it is happening.

  7. Yes indeed it is arrogant to believe that man can have any significant effect on the weather at all. Personally I think such arrogance will come back to bite those that practice it right in the back side. It is a question of when not if.

Comments are closed.