The equivalent question for me is, since I have concluded that absolute hereditary rule is the best form of government, where do I stand with respect to Christian Monarchy?

My current position is to associate my proposals with the trappings of traditional monarchy, while eschewing explicit divine-right arguments. I’m far from certain this is the best route though — am I encumbering my arguments with a self-contradiction, in the shape of archaic principles dependent on a religious justification which I deny? Would it be better to clearly base my political argument on a purely rational foundation, without comic-opera distractions? Or, alternatively, to go the whole hog and explicitly claim for my preferred regime a divine sanction in which I don’t genuinely believe?

I take the compromise path because the problem I am addressing, of good government, is fundamentally a collective action problem, and the power of ritual and tradition is intrinsically part of my proposed solution, and not merely a means of reaching it. For you, if you believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, the fundamental problem is physical, and the collective action problem, though daunting, is an obstacle to the physical solution, not the fundamental problem itself.

I would imagine that would tend to discourage you from promoting a mystical or ritual aspect of your cause, particularly given that climate prediction is a hard enough scientific problem without confusing the issues with religious considerations.

On the other hand, perhaps you are one of those that sees the fundamental problem being the tragedy of the commons — the need for collective action to preserve the environment in general, with CAGW as just one particular concrete instance. You could even believe that cloud feedbacks might be negative, but that that would only mean some other form of self-destruction lies in wait for us. If so, you and I are effectively in the same boat. (Indeed, others have already argued that democracy is incompatible with environmental sustainability). You might advocate a pseudo-religious form for the same reason I do, as a tool for generally more effective collective action. Note that my ideal political development would, as it happens, put my country into the hands of an outspoken and committed environmentalist.

Let’s say global warming is real and dangerous and based on the laws of physics. Whether you call doing something about it “religious” or whatever, what does it matter, if it’s real and dangerous?