17 year old articles
You're smart. Abstraction shouldn't be beyond you. That "17 year old article" made a strong point about philosophy and mindsets that can't be ignored in the current controversies.
It might have occurred to you that Jeremy Rifkin, Paul Erlich, and others are not exactly unknown names in the modern environmental movement.
"What these statements of opposition to an almost ideal energy source show is that the relevant agenda is not about energy or the economics of energy. Indeed this could not be the case, since the question from the Los Angeles Times was originally formulated 'what if cold fusion would be cheap and clean?'
Instead the opposition is based on a different agenda, focused on the potentially damaging consequences from using cold fusion. Essentially, the criticism points to other values, arguing for a change to a decentralized society which is less resource oriented, less industrialized, less commercialized, less production-oriented. Such an agenda is entirely valid, but it is important to realize that the discussion is no longer primarily about energy."
- From Bjorn Lomborg, who has learned a thing or two about the relationship between science and politics in the past few years.
The situation is rapidly getting to the point where opposing views are being stifled, not discussed. "The question is settled. Sit down and shut up." is not something you want to hear in science.
Warning signs of an approaching dogma: statements like "you really think you are a better judge of the facts than the NAS?"