How do scientists react when religious beliefs will not allow certain groups to accept research findings and even logic as legitimate?

Scientists, and those who follow science, are saddened and sometimes angry when people reject evolution, for example, because it does not conform to certain religious beliefs. The same can be said concerning certain theories in physics or cosmology.

Scientists know they are dealing with religious emotion and not with logic when research facts are rejected because they cast doubt on pre-set assumptions.

This is exactly why we know that environmentalism has become a religion.

Our current culture is dependent upon energy. Our very lives depend upon it. Neighborhoods, at one time, had alleys down the middle of all blocks of homes. This was a pragmatic response to the need to physically deliver the fuel needed to keep the houses warm and for cooking the family meals. This fuel was typically coal or wood.

Most modern homes simply have a wire or pipe that enters the house at some point, which supplies the necessary energy. Many people are not even aware where these features are located in their house. They have no idea where the energy comes from, or anything about it, except for the utility bill they receive every month from some hated "big" business.

Without electricity, for example, my house has no heat, no cooking facilities, no communication outlets and nothing else that requires energy. In a typical Iowa winter, without outside assistance, my family and I would be in danger of dying without a source of consistent electricity.

No matter what utopian view any group has about what the earth "ought" to be, the planet currently is in a state the allows a large number of human beings to live fairly decent lives. Changing this is very dangerous, which is exactly what the global warming folks are preaching.

At the same time, it would be to our advantage to clean up the earth as much as we can without putting large masses of human beings into jeopardy. This means we must continue to generate large amounts of energy.

It would make sense then, and be very logical, to reduce greenhouse gases, while recognizing the obvious facts of energy dependence.

Here is where many environmentalists turn into religious zealots.

New coal plants are cleaner and much more efficient than old coal plants. It would make logical sense then to build them as fast as possible, replacing older facilities. No. The environmentalists, from high priests to acolytes, will not allow it because coal is bad.

"Calling coal clean is just propaganda to keep this dirty energy source into the mix for the future," says Eric Pica, a representative of the environmental group Friends of the Earth.

A Democratic bill introduced this year would forbid the EPA or the states from issuing permits for coal plants. The moratorium would extend until the federal government established a policy for regulating global warming pollution.

Natural gas is even cleaner, producing only half of the greenhouse gases of coal. Yet, while I worked in Montana, a natural gas field of immense potential, made possible by new technology, was found. Environmental groups tied all of this up in court before development could even start.

What about nuclear power? France produces so much electricity using nuclear power that they export 18 percent of it to other countries. New reactors are cleaner, safer and more efficient than older reactors.

The U.S. produces 20 percent of our electricity by nuclear power, but we haven't built a new plant since 1977. They are "too expensive." Why?

Because lenders never know if they can get a return because of political and regulatory delays, and the hundreds of millions that must be paid to lawyers before anything can be done in the United States.

New reactors produce much less nuclear waste that must be stored, and most of the stored material can be recycled as it is currently done in France, Canada, and Russia. As you may have guessed, it is illegal to recycle this material in the U.S.

So, because of the illogical religious beliefs of the environmentalists, we must rely on dirty technology because any newer cleaner technology is "impure."

Give me a creationist any day. At least they don't require me to bet my life and standard of living on them being correct.