Is het dan eindelijk zo ver dat de media snappen dat  ze betere headlines hebben als ze eens vanuit de sceptische hoek redeneren, dan vanuit de alarmistische? pakt vandaag groot uit met het verbluffende redactionele commentaar van de New York Times van de hand van de filosoof  Dennis Button. Hier de twee cruciale afsluitende alinea’s:

Apocalyptic scenarios are a diversion from real problems — poverty, terrorism, broken financial systems — needing intelligent attention. Even something as down-to-earth as the swine-flu scare has seemed at moments to be less about testing our health care system and its emergency readiness than about the fate of a diseased civilization drowning in its own fluids. We wallow in the idea that one day everything might change in, as St. Paul put it, the “twinkling of an eye” — that a calamity might prove to be the longed-for transformation. But turning practical problems into cosmic cataclysms takes us further away from actual solutions.

This applies, in my view, to the towering seas, storms, droughts and mass extinctions of popular climate catastrophism. Such entertaining visions owe less to scientific climatology than to eschatology, and that familiar sense that modernity and its wasteful comforts are bringing us closer to a biblical day of judgment. As that headline put it for Y2K, predictions of the end of the world are often intertwined with condemnations of human “folly, greed and denial.” Repent and recycle!

Hieronder de links naar het hele artikel en nog iets leuks van voormalig NYT medewerker Revkin.

It’s Always the End of the World as We Know It

En wat twitterde Andrew Revkin – voormalig opperalarmist van de NYT op 1 januari?

Revkin: “Joe R(omm) still sees Aussie’s Big Dry (drought) as co2-driven event Not what climate scientists see: