The inverted religion of global warming...

Kim Strassel reports in the WSJ:

'The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, "As administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."

'Around this time, Mr. [Alan] Carlin and a colleague presented a 98-page analysis arguing the agency should take another look, as the science behind man-made global warming is inconclusive at best. The analysis noted that global temperatures were on a downward trend. It pointed out problems with climate models. It highlighted new research that contradicts apocalyptic scenarios. "We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by EPA," the report read.

'The response to Mr. Carlin was an email from his boss, Al McGartland, forbidding him from "any direct communication" with anyone outside of his office with regard to his analysis. When Mr. Carlin tried again to disseminate his analysis, Mr. McGartland decreed: "The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."'

I have an acquaintance, the son of a good friend, who works for NASA as a meteorologist. He has considerable experience and told me a story of a Congressional hearing fifteen years ago. A NASA meteorologist was called to Washington to discuss climate change. Knowing the political nature of the mission, he was determined to keep his testimony short for the good of his career.

Nonetheless, a Republican congressman pressed him about the apocalyptic projections generally attributed to global warming. He responded under repeated questioning that the most apocalyptic projections are based on scientific models of global warming and atmospheric trends run through computers. They are by no means certain because the variables are numerous.

As he walked out of the hearing, a Democratic congressional staffer told him: "You just cost us billions of dollars!"

In the long scheme of things, climate change is real. The climate is changing all the time based upon solar conditions, volcanic and atmospheric activity, and yes, man-made activities to some extent. Fairly young skeletons of hippopotami can be found in the middle of the Sahara Desert. During Roman days, one could ride a horse across the Sahara. Since Muhammad's day, you need a camel or a car with good coolant.

Am I willing to give up my life, liberty, and property to the benevolent bureaucratic fighters of global warming (who, incidentally, do not believe that liberty and private property are closely related)?

No.