The same cannot be said of cap-and-trade. It would take some $600 billion out of the private sector economy in order to avoid an environmental crisis that is supposed to arrive in -- oh, some time around 2055. In other words, we are not dealing with here-and-now facts, as we are in the financial crisis, but with predictions based on theories ... theories that have not done a very good job of predicting the climate over the last decade (they said it would get warmer; it's gotten a little colder). Theories that do not retrospectively explain climactic variations in the past.

We are dealing here with something more like religion and less like science. We are told that all argument about global warming must end. We must have faith! But it is religion that asks us to have faith; science presents us with theories that can be tested by observation and produce replicable results -- and the results for 2055 aren't in.

We are told that we must repent of our misdeeds, for driving SUVs or (unless you're Al Gore or a Hollywood liberal) flying in private jets. And we are told that we must atone for our sins, by paying more for every bit of energy we use and remembering to recycle.

It is religion that asks for repentance and offers rituals for atonement; science suggests ways we can adapt and cope with change. It makes sense to understand how the physical environment may be damaged by changes in climate and to prepare for repairs that may be needed, and we are already doing that. It makes no sense to cripple a struggling economy in order to prevent damage that may or may not occur many years from now.

Voters seem to understand that. Gallup reports that 60 percent of Americans say global warming will not pose a serious threat to them or their way of life in their lifetimes. Or as Stuart Taylor, another moderate critic of the Obama budget, puts it, when your house is on fire, you don't water the lawn.