Chiefio has a post up in which he muses about what name should be used to designate those who are invested in the global warming push. He suggested “global warming theorist.”
I did not quite agree, and wrote the following in response:
I wound up, years ago, settling on “catastrophist.” Everyone involved has theories on global warming, from the idea that there is little evidence for it at all to the idea that it is likely to be net-beneficial to the idea that it is the greatest threat mankind has ever faced. All of them could be called “global warming theorists,” it seems to me.
But the latter group, the “greatest threat” folks, are captured by the term “catastrophists.” They believe in catastrophe resulting from Man’s actions, and this will still be true when/if they give up on warming and simply focus on “pollution” or “ocean acidification” or “ozone” or any of the other alleged ills that do not specifically require the Earth to be getting warmer.
Take away the warming entirely; the catastrophists are still there. They were there decades ago, led by Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich in their demands for government control that had nothing to do with Earth temperatures.
Warming was a convenient cause more recently, but the lust for control and taxation and reduction of US power (which suits bureaucracies, nations lining up for handouts, and nations looking to handicap their adversaries) means that there will always be such causes with us.
And as fear is the primary motivator to goad the people into action, the catastrophists speak the language of doom in whatever accent is trendy for the day.
The name “catastrophist” is intended to be descriptive rather than derogatory, they frequently speak and write of imminent catastrophes. And those who think that the world is getting warmer but that this is not a catastrophe are automatically excluded.
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle