The "or else" is that we’ll face horrendous global warming that could make our country uninhabitable, although our extremist left wing policies already appear to have that aim.

In a recent interview splashed across daily newspapers, Anderson, a Liberal MP, may have inadvertently revealed one reason why he was kicked out of cabinet. He told a reporter that climate change was more important than health care.

Anderson is as adamant as the mainstream news media that falsely argues that the world is warming and we are dying. This conclusion has herded journalists onto a bandwagon large enough for the United Nations as well as many fringe elements.

The United Nations is particularly mischievous when it comes to climate. Its Framework Convention and Climate Change states in Article 3.3 that countries "should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures."

When you’re not the one footing the bill it’s easy to tell others to spend money on what is scientifically uncertain. But we live in the age of feelings, not hard realities. How else can you explain oddities such as the United Nations appointing Libya, a terrorist sponsoring state, as the chair of its human rights committee?

The hard reality is that no climate disaster is on the way. Humans are causing an increase in carbon dioxide that does build up greenhouse gas but that will likely cause a very slow increase in temperature over time – not something we can’t handle with our creative problem-solving minds. Besides, the crops love the added CO2 and thrive on it, gobbling up half of the CO2 that we produce. Farmers should be pleased, as CO2, let’s not forget, is the lifeblood of the planet not the doom of mother earth.

At any rate, temperatures have only increased by about 1.5 C in the last 50 years and we simply don’t know how much of that increase is caused by people. We do know that the earth’s surface temperature rises and falls naturally. And why not? The world’s temperature is not constant. Never has been. It goes up. It goes down.

Our attempts at capping CO2 emissions as outlined in the misguided Kyoto Protocol will hardly have any effect on temperature anyway. Suppose every country met the Kyoto objectives. "The science indicates that the net impact on global temperatures over the next 100 years would be at most an almost undetectable 0.2F," argues Dr. John Christy, professor of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama. "Will democratically accountable governments truly subject their constituents to economic pain for a result that is this miniscule? Such a move appears scientifically, economically, and politically untenable."

Prime Minister Paul Martin appears poised to do the right thing when it comes to Kyoto and quietly shelve it.

Meantime, the alarmists should relax a little, take a deep breath, and come to terms with the fact that their theories come from scientific models. Their conclusions are derived from air in a bottle. Models can be very unreliable indicators of the world at large. Models have shown temperature rising throughout the atmosphere. In reality, while the earth’s surface temperature has risen, temperatures higher up haven’t.

Moreover, since satellites have been tracking global temperature since 1979, John Christy argues that "there has been little trend at all in the temperature."

It would be nice to explain this to alarmists like Anderson but how do you reason with a man who thinks the sky is falling?