Recently, 18 Brigham Young University professors accused the Legislature's Public Utilities Committee of politicizing the science surrounding global warming. Unfortunately, the science has already been politicized and some have an agenda.

I do not question the professors' sincerity or academic integrity, but global warming is no longer simply an academic question; it's a political one, since people in rural Utah and around the world already suffer from the recommended "cures" (production of corn-based ethanol has caused a global food crisis and millions suffer needlessly).

One professor complained that members of the committee want too high a level of scientific certainty about the threat of catastrophic global warming. It would be irresponsible to expect otherwise. Are the BYU scientists so certain that they are willing to burden Provo households with a $2,500 to $4,000-a-year tax increase? That's what will happen if a cap-and-trade policy on carbon emissions passes the U.S. Senate. Provo City Power is part of a co-op that derives 85 percent of its power from coal and Provo consumers will be penalized.

Three questions must be answered before any responsible action can be taken.

First, is global warming occurring? Since the Earth is coming out of an ice age and been significantly warming throughout its history, most agree this is true.

Second, is human activity the primary source of this warming, and if so, is it enough to cause catastrophic harm? Catastrophic predictions are possible only if climate models assume positive amplification of minor man-made warming. Many "nonconsensus" scientists doubt this and other assumptions and are concerned about the reliability of the complex models.

Finally, even if man is causing global warming, can man do anything about it, or will the solution be worse than the problem?

More U.S. manufacturing jobs will simply be lost since China and India have stated that they will not abide by any treaty. Chinese steel mills produce twice the carbon dioxide per ton that U.S. mills do. Their power plants produce four times the CO2 per kilowatt hour. To meet greenhouse-gas reduction targets, European Union member nations simply moved polluting industries to other countries. The net result was an increase in global greenhouse-gas emissions. Such strategies simply make no sense.

When I said in committee that "global warming is the new religion that has replaced communism," I was simply quoting Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and an internationally recognized economist with more than 50 papers and 20 books to his credit.

Klaus states: "As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."

Klaus's concerns are just some of the many scientific, economic, social, national security, and yes, even political factors that must be weighed before any solution can be adopted. I am concerned, however, with the rigid dogma surrounding global warming and the name-calling (i.e., "fringe," "climate-change deniers"). This is eerily similar to the propaganda and indoctrination surrounding communism, where reputations were destroyed for simply questioning.

One thing is for certain, a cap-and-trade policy would cause the greatest redistribution of wealth this world has ever known, severely impair, if not bankrupt, our economy, make the world more polluted, and hurt individuals.

Before we wreak havoc on our economy, strengthen our potential enemies and become more of a debtor nation, responsible elected leaders must conduct an honest cost-benefit analysis.

I admit my bias. I fear a global economic meltdown and the loss of freedom much more than any global warming theory, but I am still open to discussion. Please convince me with the science; not by simply saying "there is consensus."

Chris Herrod is a Republican member of the Utah House of Representatives representing District 62 in north Provo.