Off the top of my head, I can't tell you who our Climate Secretary is. He/she will be replaced next time there's an election. That's a position that certainly could do with a committed person for life.

--

Absolutely agree. Poland got in trouble for introducing retirement age for their supreme court judges, though. Critics argued that it was an attempt by the government to replace judges with THEIR people. Which it probably was, but I still think it beats lifetime appointments. 

When I was in high school in the 90s, they hit is over the head with dire predictions about global warming and *none* of them have come true.  That's why these scare reports are meaningless to me.  The person teaching our AP Biology class said that by the year 2010, Crater Lake (in Oregon) would be nothing more than a mudhole, she said the arctic passages would be easy sailing year round, she said snow would be a distant memory in our hemisphere, she said polar bears would die out. 

None of these things have happened.

Furthermore, when the UN comes out with these scare reports, the "solution" is always massive redistribution of wealth for some reason.  I suppose you could say that the UN has always been goal oriented.

Michael Crichton had a book about this whole thing (State of Fear), and even testified to congress about climate models, talking about how Michael Mann's computer model created a hockey stick graph even if fed random data.  There was also climategate where leaked emails proved that climate scientists were cooking the data in order to hide their own inconvenient truths.  (eg. "Hide the decline" in temps). 

We will be fine. 

Michael Crichton was an enjoyable sci-go writer and a well-educated guy, but I don’t know why he’d be considered an authority on climate science. 

This is an incorrect statement. Multiple investigations turned up no wrongdoing. What had happened is a bunch of non-scientists with an agenda took comments out of context.