Our society’s obsession with mass catastrophes is nothing new. We were all there for the Y2K and mad cow disease scares. The Soviet bomb and an invasion from Mars haunted the dreams of our parents.

A new fad is now being added to the cultural tombstone: anthropogenic global warming.

From Al Gore’s fantastically horrible film, An Inconvenient Truth (which was banned in public schools by Britain’s High Court for containing nine substantial falsities), to school curricula nationwide, we have been fed this global warming dogma for years.

All the while Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology and Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was telling us this was nothing to worry about. Countless scientists throughout the country agreed with Lindzen and tried to have their voices heard.

The climate change crowd drowned out the voices of reason, shouting monumentally stupid jargon like “99 percent of scientists agree! The science is settled!”

Their first challenge should have been to produce a list containing 100 percent of all climate scientists. This should have been no problem since they already collected 99 percent of them. Secondly, maybe they would like to explain how any self-respecting scientist would come to a conclusion on a theory based on democratic vote.

The very basis of the argument warning against a change in climate is that climate should never change. This is an absurdity in itself. We grew up learning about ice ages and times of a worldwide subtropical climate, and we’re supposed to freak out about a change in temperature?

Alas, even amidst the warning from top scientific skeptics and the buffoon-like blunders made by the climate change crowd, many have still not questioned the settled science of global warming.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a report at the beginning of September that showed, contrary to all the howling, that 1. the earth’s temperature is experiencing quite a chill and 2. there hasn’t been any warming in over 15 years.

This report should not be that shocking. Much of the evidence that lends itself to global warming hysteria is often constructed using smoke and mirrors.

Think of the hockey stick graph or Oregon State University’s Shaun Marcott’s discredited report on climate change. As it turns out, the only way to give the theory some credit is to fudge 11,000 years of climate data.

My university’s own student newspaper runs a column about green issues and climate change. Two weeks ago it proclaimed: “Climate change must be a larger priority.”

A compendium of logical and scientific wrong steps, the column spouts off some of the most egregious lies concerning climate change.

First, that DDT, an often-used pesticide from decades ago, is harmful. Ever since Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring, which warned that DDT is harmful and would drive away bird populations, the war against the chemical has been strong.

So strong that DDT has been banned from many parts of the world, including sub-Saharan Africa. The result: without the use of this highly effective mosquito deterrent, malaria has run amuck, killing an estimated 660,000 in 2010 alone. Most of the victims were African children, according to the World Health Organization.

If it’s any consolation, the mothers of the dead children got to hear the sound of birds chirping at the funeral.

Second, we’re told that the earth’s polar ice caps are melting and leading to floods. Cue the polar bears playing tiny violins.

As if public policy revolved around the preferences of arctic animals, I assume we’re to ignore that the NASA-funded National Snow and Ice Data Centre observed that the amount of ocean covered by ice has grown by 29 percent, or the equivalent of 533,000 square miles in less than a year.

Finally, the column gleefully states: “coal is still a dying industry.”

But what will power the electric cars – sun, wind, vegetable oil? Electricity isn’t powered by running hamsters anymore. Except for a small amount of people living in coastal California, New York, and Florida (which have invested in nuclear power), electricity comes from burning coal.

Does someone have to tell the over-220,000 Americans employed by the coal industry that their jobs are now unneeded because of the adverse effects carbon dioxide is not having on climate change?

I happen to know that 99 percent of them don’t care.