American Thinker Blog: Global warming jihadists

In my view, the attachment by many on the left and in the environmental movement to the entirely speculative theory of global warming falls into the category of religion, and not science. And it is a fundamentalist religion -- unwilling to consider other explanations, or criticism, and closed off to the possibility that the theory is false. Al Gore, a loser in more ways than one, will have as his legacy, not a Nobel prize, but this new extremism for which he has played the role of the Pied Piper, or L. Ron Hubbard (see below).

And by "anti-science", we mean "disagrees with us"

That comment about the "top five anti-scientific think tanks" got me thinking. Clearly the Discovery Institute deserves a place on the list (and in private email, Romm agrees). But who else should be on the list, and what criteria should we use to decide which think tank is the very most anti-scientific?

Other likely selections include Heritage, George Marshall, Heartland, Cato, and AEI. The Annapolis Center for Science-based Public Policy never quite took off in a big public way, but has been working away behind the scenes for a while to promote "sound" science. The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness has worked behind the scenes for years to undermine effective regulation of pollutants, including second-hand smoke and carbon dioxide. Several of these are well-documented in The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney.