Whatever the truth about global warming, one aspect is not in doubt: the rising emissions of hot air from politicians and pundits. When the Stern report — claimed to be the most thorough study so far of the economic effects of climate change — was published this week in Britain, the air was thick with superfluous superlatives. According to the report’s author, Sir Nicholas Stern, carbon emissions are not only the greatest threat to the planet, life as we know it, etc. etc., but could lead to “the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen.”

However did he work that one out? Even if you accept the scientific arguments of those who believe that humanity is generating enough greenhouse gases to cause catastrophic climate change, the economic arguments for global government intervention are much more finely balanced. As the Cato Institute commented, the more apocalyptic predictions of a collapse in growth do not stack up because there are almost as many gainers as losers from climate change.

In any case, “market failure” does not accurately describe an effect of man-made environmental changes such as deforestation, air and water pollution, or desertification. On the contrary, markets provide solutions to these problems.

Global warming is no different. Without the market, which spontaneously generates and disseminates knowledge on a colossal scale all the time, we would still be ignorant of our environment. You only have to compare the rapid development of green technologies in the West with their neglect in totalitarian systems that lack free markets to see that capitalism is the key to survival for our species.

This is not to say that human beings are not their own worst enemy. They are — just not in the way that environmentalists mean. The main threat to our world does not come from the benign order created by the democratic individualism of the West, but from the malign disorder created by the autocratic collectivism of the Islamists.

This was brought home to me vividly at a meeting two weeks ago with “Bibi” Netanyahu. The former Israeli prime minister and current Likud leader needs no introduction to New York Sun readers, most of whom will recall his highly effective spell in Manhattan as Israeli ambassador to the United Nations during the mid-1980s.

His political career has been through many vicissitudes since then, but Mr. Netanyahu can claim to have been right in at least two predictions. In 1995, his book “Fighting Terrorism” prophesied that political Islam would replace Soviet communism as the principal enemy of Western civilization. He recalls a debate with Norman Podhoretz about this thesis, in which the then editor of Commentary magazine expressed skepticism about the magnitude of the Islamist threat. Mr. Podhoretz (who has an even more distinguished record of prescience) may well remember this friendly exchange somewhat differently, but it is worth pondering the fact that, as late as the mid-1990s, most hawks did not take Islamist terrorism seriously.

Since 9/11, Mr. Netanyahu’s thesis on the Islamist threat has been less controversial — unlike his second prediction, which was that the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 would prove to be an historic mistake. All Western governments, including America, still support Ariel Sharon’s decision to pull out of Gaza, as does his successor Ehud Olmert. By contrast, Mr. Netanyahu staked his career on his opposition to that decision, which divided Israeli society as never before.

Today, without gloating, he feels vindicated. Not only did this retreat hand victory to Hamas in the Palestinian election, it also turned Gaza into an “Iranian base” to add to the Hezbollah-controlled areas of Lebanon, thereby threatening Israel with a pincer attack from north and south. The psychological impact on Israel of the failure of the Gaza withdrawal to bring about peace with the Palestinians has been profound.

As leader of the opposition, Mr. Netanyahu is naturally highly critical of the conduct of the war in Lebanon last summer. Yet what concerns him now is not Hezbollah and Hamas, which he describes as “sideshows,” but their primary sponsor, Iran. His estimate is that the West has two, at most three, years to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear device, and he reckons that the weak response to North Korea’s nuclear test will have encouraged the Iranian regime to redouble its efforts.

Why should the West take Iran more seriously than other rogue states? After all, the roof did not fall in after the North Korean nuclear test. The Western media was told that the Chinese had forced Kim Jong Il to back down from his threat to carry out another test. (Whether this was disinformation is unclear. Those who visit North Korea report that mass rallies in support of the regime’s nuclear program are still being held.) At worst, a nuclear-armed North Korea is a regional, rather than a global, threat.

But Iran is in a different league of megalomania. Its leaders are driven by their ideology to dominate not only the Middle East but also, ultimately, the world. Moreover, the rational calculus of deterrence does not work with death or victory fanatics who prefer martyrdom to survival. Naturally Israelis feel most immediately at risk, but the Jewish state is seen by the Tehran regime as merely the local manifestation of the “satanic” forces, the infidels, led of course by America. Only a few days ago, President Ahmadinejad warned Europeans not to try to prevent the destruction of Israel, hinting that their homelands would soon be in range of Iran.

It is important to grasp the root-and-branch nature of the political theology of men like Mr. Ahmadinejad. They believe that they are living through an apocalyptic period heralding the return of the 12th imam, in which history is being directly guided by Allah to bring about the final triumph of Islam. This chiliastic theology confers on the Islamic revolution quasi-divine authority over life and death, in which the sacrifice of millions of lives counts for nothing — indeed, less than nothing, for “Allah will know his own.”

Just how far we in Britain are from appreciating the genocidal potential of the Iranian theocracy was demonstrated this week, when St. Andrews University gave an honorary degree to Iran’s former president, Mohammad Khatami. St. Andrews is Scotland’s oldest university, founded in 1413, which makes it one of the most venerable seats of learning in Europe. Though the Western media persists in treating him as a kind of Iranian Gorbachev, Mr. Khatami fully supports the regime he once led, including its nuclear ambitions. Not even at the height of appeasement in the 1930s did a British university honor Goering or Goebbels.

It is so much easier to talk earnestly about the science fiction of future climate catastrophe than to confront the present reality of enemies whose agents are already killing Americans, Britons, and Israelis. Nature is often said to be pitiless, but this is mere anthropomorphism. Humanity can adapt to climate change. The aptly named axis of evil, however, will show us no mercy.