For me, environmentalists are a greater than terrorists. They frighten me because they claim to be on the side of righteousness. Countless of millions have been killed throughout history by others who also have claimed to be on the side of righteousness. If they were truly on the side of good, they would be on the barricades trying to overthrow every despotic regime which violates the rights and freedoms of its people. But they are conspicuously absent because this might force them to admit that Western civilization and democracy aren’t that bad after all.

Environmentalists frighten me because they are arrogant and intolerant. Environmentalists frighten me because all they might really want is power and control. They are a cult!

I have stated publicly that I favor a very large carbon tax, with most of the proceeds returned to taxpayers through lower tax rates. My position is not based on concerns for climate change. There might be a problem, but I am not yet persuaded by the evidence. And even if there were a problem, I am more supportive of the position of Bjorn Lomborg who convincingly argues that there are better ways to spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually to improve the health of hundreds of millions and raise hundreds of millions out of abject poverty.

I staunchly support a massive carbon tax imposed by the U.S. and the EU for geo-political reasons only. Such a tax would destroy the oil market and permanently reduce oil prices, with the subsequent collapse of a number of oil producing regimes.

But back to the environmentalists. They are thin-skinned and hyper sensitive to criticism and differences of opinion.

The Friends of Science, a Calgary-based group, is running a national radio advertising campaign in Canada mocking climate change. This is infuriating environmental groups. James Hoggan, chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, lashed out at the Friends of Science, calling it a mouthpiece for the oil industry that is trying to create uncertainty about climate change in order to undermine next month’s UN climate change meeting in Copenhagen. (James doesn’t realize that an agreement is DOA at Copenhagen.)

Since when is freedom of speech illegal or unacceptable? If environmentalists are so confident of their position, let them defend it. Let’s have a good old fashioned and well argued debate based on facts and not on hyperbole.

Every critic has been labeled a heretic by the environmentalist movement, and usually has been attacked as a front for some evil corporation, always a Western corporation. There is no debate, just vicious attacks.

The there is Maurice Strong, the Canadian architect of the Rio Conference. He does not hide his true goals, which likely are the real objectives of the die-hard environmentalists as well. Writing in the summer issue of the World Policy Journal, he suggested: “Our concepts of ballot-box democracy may need to be modified to produce strong governments capable of making difficult decisions.

Neil Reynolds, writing in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday, stated: “Mr. Strong gives humanity a provisional way out. Reform democracy by more or less getting rid of it.” Reynolds added: “It is this parallel affinity for authoritarian governments that emerges as the dominant theme in Mr. Strong’s essay.”

Am I being hysterical? Is Reynolds overly dramatic?

Let me conclude with an excerpt from a recent speech by Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic:

“The people who had never believed in human freedom, in impersonal forces of market and other forms of human interaction and in the spontaneity of social development and who had always wanted to control, regulate and mastermind us have been searching for a persuasive argument that would justify these ambitions of theirs. After trying several alternative ides – population bomb, acid rain, ozone holes – that all very rapidly proved to be non-existent they came up with the idea of global warming… Politicians accepted that doctrine at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 and – without waiting for its confirmation – started to prepare and introduce economically damaging and freedom endangering measures.”