The first juicy seam

Let's start with the skeptics. This site keeps popping up in various searches, so I'll assume it's quite influential and perhaps representative of that side of the argument. In that context it's a reasonable place to start looking for links, but ultimately it represents just the sort of political partisanship that I'm trying to get away from.

But wait, there's more: on closer inspection it is actually a big blow to the credibility of skeptics, at least the ones presented by Senator Inhofe. Here is one of them, tubby TV weatherman Chris Allen, who explains his ultimate motivation for AGW skepticism:

My biggest argument against putting the primary blame on humans for climate change is that it completely takes God out of the picture. It must have slipped these people's minds that God created the heavens and the earth and has control over what's going on. (Dear Lord Jesus...did I just open a new pandora's box?) Yeah, I said it. Do you honestly believe God would allow humans to destroy the earth He created? Of course, if you don't believe in God and creationism then I can see why you would easily buy into the whole global warming fanfare. I think in many ways that's what this movement is ultimately out to do - rid the mere mention of God in any context. What these environmentalists are actually saying is "we know more than God - we're bigger than God - God is just a fantasy - science is real...He isn't...listen to US!" I have a huge problem with that.

Whoa! Now that's an angle I've not seen before, but perhaps there's more of it out there. This 'skeptic' has accepted the premise that a magic man with a kindly beard created everything (except the shaving kit) in six days without so much as putting in for overtime. (Reminds me of another AGW skeptic, one Sarah Palin, who predicted that 'God will decide the election'. I thought even devout Christians believed in free will.)

Furthermore, here's a list (from The Daily Green, obviously a totally partisan site and certainly not one that I'd normally visit for information) that suggests nearly a quarter of Inholf's skeptics could be accused of having financial incentives toward being such.

What about the rest? Could there be a religious motivation there somewhere? Is this why the religious right tend to be in the anti-CAGW camp? I think religion is a personal issue and everyone is free to practice theirs (although I do have a problem with those who'd like to cut my head off because I don't share their faith). And being a personal thing means to me it's wrong to have it influence public policy. If I like the colour yellow I can have a yellow house and car, but I have no right to insist public buildings and roads are the same colour.