Environmentalism claims to be based on science but contains all the aspects of a religion. Since this religion has the backing of the UN, we shouldn’t ignore it.

Religion: It’s as old as man himself. As long as humans have inhabited this Earth, there has been evidence of religious beliefs of some fashion or another. While the “enlightened” West has largely become secular and has done away with “religion” in the traditional sense, and has claimed to have embraced secularism, religion is still alive and well in the hip urban centers of North American and European nations.

And what religion is this? This religion is Environmentalism, or what some are calling “Greenism.” Its practitioners are sometimes referred to as “Greens.” It is a “stealth” religion in the sense that many Greens would not consider themselves religious. But they are.

First, we have to define what we mean by “religion.” Truly, Environmentalism is not organized as an official religion with a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status; it’s not a religion in the sense that Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, or Hinduism are religions. But from an anthropological or sociological perspective, it absolutely functions as a “religion-style” belief system. Contrary to what most Greens would say, Environmentalism is not really based on science, but on something much deeper than that. It’s more of an emotional commitment to some deeply held, unshakeable beliefs.

Let’s look at some of the core beliefs of Greenism and see if they fit the pattern and thought processes of a religious belief system, a new religion that many “enlightened” people have adopted in place of Judeo-Christian religion and culture. We will see if Environmentalism is indeed a religion, containing a god, an “Eden,” a priestly class, prophets, sin, redemption, atonement/indulgences, holy books/documents, a church, holy days, official doctrine, orthodoxy, and heresy.

Fundamentals of the Faith

God: Religions need a god or some object of worship. For Environmentalists, the Earth, or Nature, functions as that god. The Earth, sometimes referred to by her Greek goddess name “Gaia,” is regarded as a living organism that should be, if not worshipped outright, at least highly revered and cherished. This goes beyond, say, a Judeo-Christian concept of the Earth as a part of creation, something that was made by the God who should be worshipped, and thus should be respected and cared for, but never seen as somehow “divine.”

Eden: The concept of “Eden,” an unspoiled paradise where sinless humanity lived in harmony with God, is also present in Environmentalism. Since Nature, or Gaia, takes the place of “god” for Greens, Eden would be a state of paradise in which humans lived in harmony with Nature. Just imagine a planet with no man-made CO2 emissions because there is no industry. Imagine, also, a world where there is no overpopulation, deforestation, overhunting, overfishing, air pollution, water pollution, desertification, habitat destruction, etc. To Greens, this represents a perfect idyllic world, a paradise, an Eden. The concept of “Eden” for Greens is a pre-industrial Earth, where humans tread lightly on the face of Gaia.

Sin: Sin is a concept found in many religions. Sin for Greens is anything that supposedly offends or harms Gaia. This could include industrial carbon emissions, overuse of resources, overpopulation, or owning private property. The whole idea of free-market capitalism, based as it is on a Judeo-Christian worldview, is considered sinful to environmentalists, with its belief that man has dominion over the Earth, and that, while man should be a good steward of God’s creation, the Earth’s resources are for man’s use.

Salvation/Heaven: Traditionally, salvation was seen as a way to escape sin and damnation and achieve heaven or some form of paradise. For environmentalists, this means creating (or, perhaps, re-creating) an earthly paradise or Eden with humanity living in harmony with Nature (whatever that means) and no pollution, and no ugly industry ruining Gaia’s complexion. Sustainability is the new salvation.

Atonement/Indulgences: So how can humanity make atonement for such sins as polluting the environment and using up too many resources? Paying a carbon tax or purchasing “carbon offsets” is a good way to cleanse a guilty Green conscience. Donating time and money to environmental causes is another way Greens can make atonement for their sins against Gaia. Of course, doing personal penance by lowering one’s living standards and consumption is always a great thing to do, according to Environmentalists. And since the world is overpopulated and their aren’t enough resources to go around, having fewer (or no) children is smart. While how much one consumes is important, it is equally important to pay attention to exactly what one is consuming. High preference is given to locally raised, organic food. Certain foods should be avoided if they were not raised, harvested, processed, or shipped sustainably.

Church: Religions typically have some form of gathering spot, be it a temple, church, mosque, etc. This can refer to the building where religious adherents gather to worship, receive instruction, and fellowship with like-minded individuals, but it often has more significance. In Christianity, for example, “the Church” is often referred to as an official authority of the religion, one that sets doctrine and dogma for Christians. For Environmentalists, the United Nations would fit the bill as a sort of “church” that serves as a seat of authority for the religion of Environmentalism, providing guidance on a global scale regarding environmental issues. The “church” of the UN has published official doctrine and dogma for Greens to follow and preach throughout the world.

Holy Days and Hymns: Religions typically have holy days, or days of special significance to that particular religion. Environmentalism is no different.

Earth Days certainly function as “holy days” for Greens. In 1969 at a United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Conference in San Francisco, “peace activist” John McConnell proposed a day to honor the Earth and the concept of peace, to be celebrated on the first day of spring in the northern hemisphere. This was approved by the UN, and the official United Nations Earth Day has been celebrated on the March equinox ever since. Margaret Mead, a cultural anthropologist whose work helped spawn the American “sexual revolution,” added her support for the UN equinox Earth Day, stating in 1978,

Earth Day is the first holy day which transcends all national borders, yet preserves all geographical integrities, spans mountains and oceans and time belts, and yet brings people all over the world into one resonating accord, is devoted to the preservation of the harmony in nature and yet draws upon the triumphs of technology, the measurement of time, and instantaneous communication through space.

Earth Day draws on astronomical phenomena in a new way — which is also the most ancient way — by using the vernal Equinox, the time when the Sun crosses the equator making the length of night and day equal in all parts of the Earth. To this point in the annual calendar, EARTH DAY attaches no local or divisive set of symbols, no statement of the truth or superiority of one way of life over another.

Notice how Mead, in what can be seen as a profoundly religious statement, calls the UN Earth Day a “holy day.” A separate Earth Day was founded by former Wisconsin Governor and U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson as an environmental teach-in to be held on April 22, 1970. While this April 22 Earth Day was focused on the United States, where it is undoubtedly more familiar than the UN Earth Day, it has since gone international and is observed in 141 nations.

Offering further evidence that Earth Day is a holy day for Greens is the fact that various songs are sung on that day, just as observers of most other religions have special hymns accompanying their holy days. UNESCO has deemed a song by Indian poet-diplomat Abhay Kumar as the “Earth Anthem” to be sung on the UN Earth Day. Another Earth Day anthem is set to Ludwig van Beethoven’s Ode to Joy:

Joyful joyful we adore our Earth in all its wonderment.

Simple gifts of nature that all join into a paradise.

Now we must resolve to protect her,
Show her our love throughout all time.

With our gentle hand and touch
We make our home a newborn world.

Now we must resolve to protect her,
Show her our love throughout all time.

With our gentle hand and touch  We make our home a newborn world.

In addition to the two Earth Days, there are other special days in the religion of Environmentalism. The International Day of Forests, for instance, was established by the UN in 2012 to be observed on March 21, after Forest Day (not to be confused with the U.S. Arbor Day) had been celebrated since 2007 in several countries. UN-Water coordinates the celebration of World Water Day every March 22, to help global citizens focus on sustainable water use and universal access to clean water. One can observe a seeming reverence for the spring equinox in these Green holy days.

Sacred Writings: Most religions feature scared writings, such as the Christian Bible, the Jewish Tanakh, the Muslim Koran, or the Hindu Vedas. Environmentalism, as you might have guessed, has sacred writings of its own: the Earth Charter and the Temenos Books.

The idea of the Earth Charter originated in 1987 when the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development called for a new charter to guide a global transition to sustainable development. At the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, then-UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali further urged the creation of such a charter. In 1994, the late Canadian billionaire oilman and environmentalist Maurice Strong (chairman of the Earth Summit) and former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, working through organizations they each founded (the Earth Council and Green Cross International, respectively), restarted the Earth Charter as a civil society initiative. Between 1994 and 2000, the Earth Charter was drafted, and the final text was approved at a meeting of the Earth Charter Commission at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris in March of 2000. The “sacred” document was officially unveiled on June 29, 2000 in a ceremony at The Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.

Comprised of roughly 2,400 words, the Earth Charter is divided into four “pillars,” each containing four main principles. One such pillar is “Ecological Integrity.” According to earthcharter.org, “The Earth Charter is an ethical framework for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century. It seeks to inspire in all people a new sense of global interdependence and shared responsibility for the well-being of the whole human family, the greater community of life, and future generations. It is a vision of hope and a call to action.”

The Temenos Books are a collection of handmade, hand-illustrated books filled with pages of visual prayers/affirmations for global healing, peace, and gratitude. The word temenos, originating from the ancient Greek term for a special parcel of land set aside as a sacred space, refers in modern occult parlance to a circle demarcating a space where one can do spiritual “work,” i.e., witchcraft, spells, etc.

Both the Earth Charter and the Temenos Books, in mimicry of Judeo-Christian tradition, are placed inside the Ark of Hope.

Ark: The concept of an ark as a method of rescue or preservation of either humans or sacred artifacts is present in various religions, most famously in the Judeo-Christian faith. Believe it or not, Greenism has its own ark: the UN’s Ark of Hope. According to arkofhope.org,

The Ark of Hope, a [49″ x 32″ x 32″] wooden chest was created as a place of refuge for the Earth Charter document, an international peoples treaty for building a just, sustainable, and peaceful global society in the 21st century.... The Ark of Hope also provides refuge for the Temenos Books, Images and Words for Global Healing, Peace, and Gratitude.... The Ark was designed and painted by Vermont, USA artist Sally Linder, built by cabinetmaker Kevin Jenness and lined by fabric artist Beth Haggart. It was crafted from a single plank of sycamore maple from a sustainable forest in Germany. The five painted panels that form the sides and top of the Ark each represent the flora and fauna of the world as seen through the images of the world’s traditional artists. Each panel visualizes a season, a direction, an element, and a universal symbol. Symbols of faith from traditional religions and indigenous societies surround the top panel of “Spirit” that honors the children and young animals of the world. The 96″ carrying poles are unicorn horns which render evil ineffective.

The Ark of Hope was created in 2001 in celebration of the Earth Charter. After the 9/11 attacks, the Ark was marched — on foot, à la Old Testament — from its origin in Vermont to New York City to rest in the “temple” or “church” of the United Nations headquarters complex. In a grand ceremony at the 2002 World Summit on Sustainability in Johannesburg, South Africa, the Earth Charter was placed symbolically inside the Ark of Hope, where the Temenos Books already rested.

The imagery of all of this is unmistakable: We have a new ark (the Ark of Hope), new holy books (the Earth Charter and Temenos Books), a new church (the UN), a new religion (Greenism), and a new god (Gaia) to replace the supposedly outmoded Judeo-Christian belief system.

Priests and Prophets: An important feature of a religion is a priesthood, or some body of religious leaders who make pronouncements that are considered authoritative, if not infallible. Prophets also serve to make predictions that adherents to the religion are expected to believe without question, whether these predictions come true or not.

Environmentalism certainly has its coterie of “priests” and “prophets.” Such individuals come from the ranks of climate “scientists,” wealthy industrialists, philanthropists, writers, politicians, and other sundry “movers and shakers” of society. Below is a collection of quotes from some of Greenism’s priests and prophets.

• Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

• Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist and former public-relations official for the EPA: “We routinely wrote scare stories.... We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment.”

• Daniel B. Botkin, ecologist and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at University of California, Santa Barbara: “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”

• Bill McKibben, climate “scientist,” author, and founder of 350.org: “A spiritual voice is urgently needed to underline the fact that global warming is already causing human anguish and mortality in our nation and abroad, and much more will occur in the future without rapid action”; “In 50 years, no one will care about the fiscal cliff or the Euro crisis. They’ll just ask, ‘So the Arctic melted, and then what did you do?’”

• James Hansen, climate “scientist” and author: “Imagine a giant asteroid on a direct collision course with Earth. That is the equivalent of what we face now [with climate change], yet we dither”; “We are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption”; “What we are doing to the future of our children, and the other species on the planet, is a clear moral issue”; “The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”; “Global warming has already triggered a sea level rise that could reach from 6 metres [around 20 feet] to 25 metres [around 80 feet]”; “Chief executives of large fossil fuel companies [should] be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

• René Dubos, French scientist, environmentalist, and author: “Our salvation depends upon our ability to create a religion of nature.”

• Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN IPCC from 2002 to 2015: “For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and the sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.”

• Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, multi-millionaire, and author of An Inconvenient Truth: “The fate of mankind, as well as religion, depends on the emergence of a new faith in the future. Armed with such a faith, we might find it possible to re-sanctify the earth.”

• Mikhail Gorbachev, former head of the Soviet Union: “I envisage the principles of the Earth Charter to be a new form of the ten commandments. They lay the foundation for a sustainable global earth community”; “Nature is my god. To me, nature is sacred; trees are my temples and forests are my cathedrals.”

• Robert Muller, former UN assistant secretary-general: “Little by little a planetary prayer book is thus being composed by an increasingly united humanity seeking its oneness. Once again, but this time on a universal scale, humankind is seeking no less than its reunion with ‘divine,’ its transcendence into higher forms of life.”

• Maurice Strong, billionaire Canadian oilman, environmentalist, and “power behind the throne” at the 1992 UN Earth Summit: “It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.”

• George Monbiot, “environmental journalist” for the U.K. Guardian: “Every time someone dies as a result of floods in Bangladesh, an airline executive should be dragged out of his office and drowned.”

• Jill Singer, Australian Green and “journalist”: “I’m prepared to keep an open mind and propose another stunt for climate sceptics — put your strong views to the test by exposing yourselves to high concentrations of either carbon dioxide or some other colourless, odourless gas — say, carbon monoxide.”

• Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

• Charles Alexander, science editor for Time magazine: “I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”

• David Roberts, journalist for Grist magazine: “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards [global warming skeptics] — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

• Christian Anton Mayer, a.k.a. Carl Amery, German environmentalist and writer: “We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels.”

These quotes are not indicative of measured, cool-headed scientific thinking, but betray a deep religious zeal and conviction.

Official Doctrine: All religions have official doctrines that are recognized and followed by devotees. Environmentalism does so as well.

The “church” of the UN hosts the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC publishes reports every five to seven years that reflect the consensus of so-called climate scientists (who are often adherents to Greenism themselves), and these reports are used by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to set and update policy goals for UN member nations to follow regarding regulations to lower CO2 emissions.

The UNFCCC was adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, which also gave rise to Agenda 21, a program for global sustainable development in the 21st century. The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in September of 2015 and known formally as “Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” or simply Agenda 2030, are 17 “Global Goals” comprised of 169 “targets” for the nations of the world to meet in order to ensure a more sustainable, Earth-friendly future.

This “doctrine” put forth by the “church” of the UN is non-binding and has no official global enforcement mechanism (yet), but UN member states are expected to follow these guidelines and transform their economies, policies, and the lives of their citizens to meet the UN’s recommendations. As former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said regarding the importance and urgency of global sustainability and environmentalism, “We don’t have plan B because there is no planet B.”

Orthodoxy and Heresy: All religions have orthodox and heterodox beliefs. For Greens, orthodoxy is the belief that the Earth is sacred and must be protected. Human industrial activity is ruining, and to an extent has already ruined, the Earth. Human industrial CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic warming of the planet’s climate, and this can, and must, be slowed or reversed by reducing CO2 emissions and adopting a more “sustainable” lifestyle. Sustainability includes lowering one’s standard of living (for Westerners) and using less resources, and living in an environmentally conscious fashion. This could include riding bicycles or taking public transportation rather than driving a car; recycling as much as possible; using less water and electricity; using electricity from “green” sources such as solar or wind; eating local, fair-trade, or organic food; living in “tiny houses,” and the list goes on.

Many environmentalists adhere to these orthodox beliefs with a religious zeal, and anyone who denies these beliefs is a heretic and roundly criticized. For instance, those who — often for legitimate scientific reasons — dispute the claim that human CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming are labeled “deniers,” a term that calls to mind a Holocaust denier. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman even wrote that “global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” People who, for whatever reason, do not wish to go “sustainable” and lower their standard of living or refuse to condemn fossil-fuel companies as the greatest of all sinners are condemned as heretics who are blaspheming against Gaia.

These labels and accusations seem extreme and unfounded, but are completely sensible when understood in the context of a religion.

Just Another False Religion

The observation that Environmentalism functions as a religion is not entirely new. A number of writers and academics, usually of a more “conservative” bent, have noticed this phenomenon in recent dec­ades.

As Paul H. Rubin wrote for the Wall Street Journal in 2010, “While people have worshipped many things, we may be the first to build shrines to garbage.” Rubin (writing from a secular perspective) states that religion has, historically, given identity and meaning to human society, and “it is this identity-creating function that environmentalism provides. As the world becomes less religious, people can define themselves as being Green rather than being Christian or Jewish.”

Ray Evans, an Australian businessman, politician, and global-warming skeptic, has also noticed the parallels between Environmentalism and religion:

Almost all of the attacks on the mining industry being generated by the environmentalist movement [in the 1990s] were coming out of Northern Europe and Scandinavia, and it didn’t take me long to work out that we were dealing with religious belief, that the elites of Northern Europe and Scandinavia — the political elites, the intellectual elites, even the business elites — were, in fact, believers in one brand of environmentalism or another and regardless of the facts. Some of the most bizarre policies were coming out of these countries with respect to metals. I found myself having to find out — “Why is this so?” — because on the face of it they were insane, but they were very strongly held and you’d have to say that when people hold onto beliefs regarding the natural world, and hold onto them regardless of any evidence to the contrary, then you’re dealing with religion, you’re not dealing with science....

Secondly, it fulfills a religious need. They need to believe in sin, so that means sin is equal to pollution. They need to believe in salvation. Well, sustainable development is salvation. They need to believe in a mankind that needs redemption, so you get redemption by stopping using carbon fuels like coal and oil and so on. So, it fulfills a religious need and a political need, which is why they hold onto it so tenaciously, despite all the evidence that the whole thing is nonsense.

As the late science-fiction author Michael Crichton said in a brilliant speech to the Commonwealth Club in 2003,

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can’t be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people — the best people, the most enlightened people — do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths....

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday — these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don’t want to talk anybody out of them, as I don’t want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don’t want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can’t talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith.

And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

But so what? What if Environmentalism really does function as a religion? Is this really a bad thing? In a word, yes. More precisely, it’s a bad thing for two reasons: 1) It is based upon false premises, and 2) Using those false premises, it seeks to impose its vision for the world via the force of government (namely, the United Nations).

The false premises that Greenism is based upon are manifold. As Crichton pointed out regarding the Environmentalists’ concept of Eden:

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago? When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke? Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

Crichton continued,

And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare.... In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature.

One test of the validity of a religious belief is determining the accuracy of prophetic pronouncements. As The New American has reported in detail in many articles, both in print and online, environmentalists have been embarrassingly wrong about their “prophecies” of impending climate catastrophe. For example, throughout the 1970s, various prophetic pronouncements were made predicting dire consequences if humanity did not change its sinful ways, particularly regarding population growth and industrialization. Mass starvation of the world’s people owing to overpopulation and crop failures, mass extinction of the world’s living animals, a new ice age caused by air pollution blocking the sun, and the depletion of the world’s resources were all predicted to happen before the year 2000.

Many people were (understandably) frightened by these predictions at the time, and since the predicted disasters were to take place more than two decades in the future, they seemed believable. But obviously, none of these “prophecies” came to pass. Were the prophets branded as kooks and run out of their prestigious university or government positions? Hardly — by 2000, people had forgotten the claims, and the prophets simply changed their tune. And so the prophecies continue.

In 2000, scientists were predicting that winter snowfall would be “a rare and exciting event” “within a few years.” In 2003, the Pentagon released a report claiming that, within a 10-year time frame, California’s coastal areas would be flooded, Arctic ice would be gone, and low-lying countries such as the Netherlands would be unlivable. In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) predicted some 50 million “climate refugees” by 2010 from people in low-lying areas fleeing rising sea levels. Perhaps most (in)famously, Al Gore predicted in 2007 that Arctic sea ice would be gone by 2013. He repeated the claim in 2008 and 2009, extending the timing for the fulfillment of his prophecy out to 2014 or 2016.

Again, people were frightened by these predictions. And again, none of them came to pass. And again, the prophets were never run out of town. They were criticized by those who don’t adhere to Greenism, for sure, but by mainstream media and government, they were given a pass.

In addition to the myriad failed “prophecies,” the Green priesthood continues to publish doctrine via UN IPCC reports insisting that the Earth’s climate is warming, and something must be done to stop this warming, even though data show that global average temperatures have remained essentially flat for nearly 20 years.

This level of false pronouncements, scaremongering, and ignoring evidence to the contrary is not a phenomenon of science, but of a religion. This is one striking feature of Environmentalism that makes it a religion: It doesn’t need any “proof” or facts. The facts disprove the claims of Environmentalists, but this doesn’t seem to faze them in the least.

Apparently, a massive amount of cognitive dissonance is required to be Green. In fact, true to their status as die-hard religious believers, many Greens won’t even listen to other views. For example, an article at thenewamerican.com entitled “Climate Alarmists Have Been Wrong About Virtually Everything,” which simply pointed out many of the failed predictions of the Green prophets, had this critical comment posted in the comment section:

The issue has already been adjudicated by every legitimate scientific organization that has looked at it. Can anyone name a national science academy, no matter how conservative a country they come from, that disputes human-caused global warming? The reason other countries are running circles around the USA in science and math is articles and forums like this one that attack legitimate science with propaganda masquerading as science. How more anti-American can you get than to believe the stuff in this article. It’s time to join the true conservatives and offer conservative solutions to the climate change issue.

So basically, despite the article offering many examples showing how Greenism’s prophets and priests were dead wrong in their predictions over the past few decades, we are fools to question what they say because lots of them are saying it. In other words, “Just take it on faith.” Sound familiar? Is this not the same attitude that religious people are often laughed at for having?

There are many religions in the world, saying many different things. What makes Environmentalism so deceptive and dangerous is the fact that it is becoming the religion of choice for the global-government crowd. And it’s especially dangerous because it’s not being presented as a religion; to the contrary, it’s being presented as science. It’s presented as something non-religious, so people who, for whatever reason, reject traditional religion can follow it and not even know they’re being “religious” about the environment.

As we’ve pointed out for years at The New American, the United Nations is essentially a global government under construction. The fact that the UN functions as the “church” for the religion of Environmentalism reveals just how dangerous this religion is. Give a global government the authority to essentially “sponsor” a religion, and you won’t just have a state religion, something now anathema to many Western nations, but a world religion.

So what should the “climate heretics” do? The best thing to do in response to this false religion, as with any false religion, is to continue to bring the truth about Greenism to as many people as possible. Once enough people, especially those who nominally believe some of the environmental doctrine but are not totally sold on it, see how blatantly hysterical and power-hungry many of these Green leaders are, they will refuse to go along with the dictates of the new global religion. But this must be done before it’s too late. Already, the Agenda 2030 goals are reaching into classrooms throughout traditionally freedom-loving countries such as America and brainwashing children with Green religious doctrine. If this issue is ignored, it might only be a few more generations, at most, before all the world goes Green.