When the issue is global warming, why bother about science? Cynical politicians have already pronounced the science as settled, so they can go ahead and negotiate. Like the good lawyers that they are, they simply stipulate the scientific conclusions. No more research needed; the science is “settled,” “compelling”—or whatever; you scientists can now go away and let us do our job. And for heaven’s sake, don’t come up with any new scientific facts that could mess up our sandbox and ruin our fun.


So why this charade? Why do politicians and others willfully ignore scientific data that contradict the predictions from flawed computer models? After spending just a few frustrating days at the Kyoto Climate Conference last winter, I have come up with several answers.

First, there are the upper-middle-class overanxious, who are truly concerned and don’t have any hidden agenda. We might be able to educate them by presenting scientific facts and also informing them that the claimed scientific consensus on global warming is a hoax. They might even agree that nuclear energy, emitting no CO2, could be an answer worth pursuing.

Then there are the opportunists, who see the global warming business as a chance for career advancement, political influence, bigger budgets, more perks, or just more money. Lord knows, plenty of money is available. The federal research budget for global change is around $2 billion a year—and that keeps a lot of scientists and assorted academics in business, say, studying the effect of a putative warming on the bee industry in Utah or whatever. And by scaring people, the Green lobby has managed to achieve annual budgets of more than a billion dollars, with their executives drawing industrial-sized salaries. And why not pay a quarter-million bucks to someone astute enough to recognize that global warming has become sexier than protecting seal pups and dolphins?

Another group are the one-worlders. They favor an international control regime—any international regime—as a way of building U.N. sovereignty at the expense of national sovereignty. A climate protocol controlling the use of energy would be the ultimate in central government control, requiring reports to a U.N. authority, international inspectors, and international sanctions—all controlled by non-elected and non-accountable bureaucrats. It would be the European Commission in spades—and a socialist dream.

Finally, and potentially the most dangerous, are the ideologues, the New Age fanatics returning to paganism, worshiping the nature goddess Gaia, calling for equal rights for all species, including animals and plants, intent on saving the planet from the ravages of humanity.


Just listen to the guru of the new religion, Al Gore, preaching to the faithful in Kyoto. First, the preamble: “We have reached a fundamentally new stage in the development of human civilization . . . in the relationship of our species and our planet.” Then the punishment, backed up by vivid imagination and no science at all: “The human consequences of failing to act are unthinkable. More record floods and droughts. Diseases and pests spreading to new areas. Crop failures and famines. Melting glaciers, stronger storms, and rising seas.”

Then the utopian remedy—constructing a new man: “Our fundamental challenge now is to find out whether and how we can change the behaviors that are causing the problem.” And finally, the spiritual epilogue: “To do so requires humility, because the spiritual roots of our crisis are pridefulness and a failure to understand and respect our connections to God’s Earth and to each other.”

Right on, Reverend Gore!