Assuming such religious fervor cannot be done away with altogether, what would the best (or least worst) place to put such energies?

I agree that there is a obsessive, quasi-religious irrationality to some of the rhetoric of certain persons, but Monte above has it right. The doomsday predictions may not come about, but mankind is slowly but surely changing the world in which he lives. The questions relating to the way in which this change will occur and what consequences it will hold for us cannot really be answered, but they must be asked, and not merely be swept under the carpet.

Let me ask you this: Given that climate change is a fact, and all prejudices aside, is it not better to proceed cautiously and try to mitigate/retard the changes that are probably coming, at least until we can really do something about them?
One can only assume that the posters above have not followed the scientific debate on climate change.

Yes, I know Al Gore shows pictures of Manhattan underwater, but that was obvious nonsense. Mild temp rise and mild sea level rise will be adapted to and dealt with, just like in the past.

Kyoto was basically a joke, given that even incurring it’s costs wouldn’t do anything to affect global warming.

It’s all a show to gain political advantage. Nobody on the mainstream Left is willing to implement draconian enough policies to really effect global emissions.

All that’s happened in the last two decades is 1) a lot of older Communist era plants in eastern europe have been shuttered and 2) the West has shifted a lot of dirtier manufacturing to China and the developing world.

We’ll be fine. It’s 98% nutter hype by the eco-crazies. Who don’t even believe their own lies judging by how they live their life. Besides the core of the enviro ethic is deeply anti-human, anti-progress and basically evil. The enviros stand against practically everything good since the Enlightenment. It’s a Rousseauian backlash against progress, technology, and modern civilization.

There’s also a non-trivial watermelon factor. And the petty tyranny of the progressive busy-bodies.

The enviros do impressively unite most of the anti-human, anti-progress, anti-freedom forces in the world today. So that’s something.

It would be nice if when you stripped all that away, there was nothing left to be concerned about: no hard core of undisputed data and atmospheric physics, no consistently improving (if always imperfect) models and projections, no additional Germany’s worth of coal power generation being added in China and India every year.

Unfortunately, the numbers don’t care how many irrelevant culture-war arguments each side layers onto its position. They are what they are. They’re changing in the direction they’re changing. And they will continue to do so no matter how vehemently (or even accurately) anyone says “you’re worried [or not worried] about the numbers for the wrong reason.”

I had enough of doomsayers in the 1970s and 1980s. What was it they said again…? Oh yes: in the year 2000 the overpopulated Earth’s population would starve to death while they were searcing for gasoline on the roads blocked by the glaciers of the new Ice Age, just before the super powers would unleash global nuclear war for no reason whatsoever.

Or something.

Finally, he expressed concern about the sheer number of people who showed up at the conference who were very ‘fervent’ about global warming, yet had very little conception of the science behind it. That is to say it had become a movement and it disturbed him a little.

This phenomenon is quite succinctly summed up by Lexington Green here
“Modern mass political movements often have become cisterns for the religious fervor which has drained out of the traditional religions of the world. This is the source of much misery, since eschatological goals cannot be humanly achievable, only frustration and worse can result by attempting to achieve them.”