A special United Nations panel on climate change is warning that the Earth is warming faster than at any time in the past 1,000 years. 

Such apocalyptic visions of the future are nothing new. For centuries, many of the world's leading thinkers have predicted imminent catastrophe unless we radically changed our ways. Although most of these forecasts were later proven false, such setbacks have never discouraged subsequent generations of alarmists.

Plato and Euripides can be forgiven for their worries that population growth would cause wide-spread famine.

We can also excuse Thomas Malthus who, in 1798, predicted disaster for humankind if we continued to expand. Even the irrational fears of England's 19th century anti-technology Luddites can be understood when you consider the sorry state of public education at the time.

However, the United Nations, and other modern I day eco-catastrophizers, should know better than to continue to issue grim forecasts.

Recent events have shown that even late 20th century predictions are already hopelessly out-of-date.

For example, in 1969 the secretary general of the United Nations, U Thant, warned that humanity had "perhaps 10 years left" in which to solve our global environmental and other problems or these challenges "will have reached such staggering proportions that they will be beyond our capacity to control."

Earth Day 1970 provoked a torrent of irresponsible predictions. "We have about five more years at the outside to do something," ecologist Kenneth Watt declared. "If present trends continue, the world will be… 11 degrees colder in 2000 ...about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age."

Washington University biologist Barry Commoner joined in the chorus: "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”

Thirty-one years later, the world hasn't come to an end. In many ways, the state of the environment has improved significantly. Yet, the endless stream of reports coming out of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on climate Change (IPCC) continues the tradition of forecasting apocalypse and completely ignores extensive scientific evidence that human-induced climate change is insignificant and, at this point, simply one of several possible theories.

Climate specialists from , around the world, including organizations such as NASA and the American Meteorological Society, tell us that the science of climate change is immature.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the world's foremost atmospheric scientists, said last month: "Major media outlets announced, incorrectly, as early as 1988 that the issue of global warming was scientifically settled, and the IPCC has been spending over a decade trying desperately to make their reports conform to this belief."

In a recently published paper in Climate Research magazine, Willie Soon of Harvard concludes that today's computer models "are not sufficiently robust to provide an understanding of the potential effects of CO2 on climate necessary for public discussion."

Philip Stott, a professor of Biogeography at the University of London, sums up the situation well: "It is surely time ...for a more adult scientific openness about the limitations of our current knowledge."

So then, what is the real objective of the alarmists?

First, climate science has become big business. Governments regularly award millions of dollars in climate change research grants and thousands of scientists, environmentalists and graduate students make their living exploring this issue. The last thing that some of these groups want to hear is that climate change is natural and beyond human control.

But there is more to it than that. According to Sir John Houghton, the UN panel's longtime chief scientist, climate change is a "moral issue."

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will, he says "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference."

Canada's former minister of the environment, Christine Stewart, gave us a hint of what may be another strong motivation behind environmental agreements when she said: "No matter if the science(of global warming) is all phoney...climate change (provides) the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."

While generous and effective foreign aid is important, it should be discussed for what it is, not hidden as an underlying rationale for environmental treaties.

The recycling magazine, Garbage, said it best: "Deceit nonetheless."

There is no question that climate change should continue to be a well-funded topic of scientific research.

However, this is a highly complex field and no amount of UN propaganda should hide the fact that no one really knows the future of our planet's climate.

Lindzen explains: "The aura of certainty with which the IPCC's conclusions are being reported is clearly more a matter of politics than science."

Later in his life, Malthus had the humility to completely rescind his forecasts of humanity's demise. Let's hope the United Nations eventually comes to its senses as well.