Let a scientist suggest that man plays a very puny role when it comes to determining the earth’s climate, and you can count on Al Gore’s goon squads trying to bully him into silence, and even questioning his right to teach or to conduct research.

When it’s pointed out that in the 1970s, in a world very much like the one in which we now live, the same crowd was worried sick over the coming ice age, it’s either dismissed as irrelevant or condemned as heresy.

The last time I argued with a left-winger about global warming, he actually said, “But what if we’re right?”

What logic! What insight! I felt as if I were arguing with someone transported from the Dark Ages, someone convinced that the earth was flat. Even if you showed him photos taken from outer space, showing the curvature of the earth, he would still say, “But what if I’m right?”

Funny, isn’t it, that these alarmists are always anxious to play the “what if” game when it comes to global warming, but not when it comes to global terrorism. Ask them, for example, what happens if we simply pull our troops out of Iraq, leaving it ripe for Al Qaeda? What happens if we ignore Iran and its threat to nuke its enemies? Or what happens if we decide to quit policing the world and leave such matters strictly up to the U.N.? (After all, they did a bang-up job in Cambodia in the 1970s and are doing equally fine work today in Darfur.)

The reason it’s so easy to despise liberals isn’t simply because they’re such blockheads, but because they are so hypocritical and self-righteous.

Understand, though, that I’m not suggesting they are entirely worthless. What I am suggesting is that we establish whether my suspicion is correct that they not only think like chickens and squawk like chickens, but actually taste like chicken. We could then raise them as livestock.