"...you realize that we've probably never figured out a way to hate our neighbors around the world much more effectively." Until this type of inflamatory rhetoric stops, your movement will always be an "alternative" one.
That same 4% is almost completely responsible for the medical/infrastructural advancements throughout the world, enabling people to live longer/better. Yes, there is room for higher responsibility and accountability in that 4%, but demonizing them, carte blance, is just as dishonest as those on the right that completely ignore the issue altogether.

Posted by: Blake | February 27, 2007 5:39 PM

You guys need to determine how you're going to use this word! Brian | Why? I find many making a big deal about semantics to no useful end. Could a Christian position on global warming be; "waste not want not" or be "stewards of the land".
Waste not with cars; don't buy a bigger car than you need to keep from wasting fuel not because you can't afford one? If your manufacturing process produce's a pollutant then clean it up before you bury it in a landfill. Don't buy a product in plastic when it can be purchased in a box that can be recycled. Yes, I know plastic can be recycled but it is far more complicated.

Posted by: butch | February 27, 2007 6:06 PM

"Did anyone see the story today about Al Gore using $30k worth of energy every year in his house in TN alone? What a joke..." I think of Al Gore as more of a punchline than an actual entire joke.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 27, 2007 7:06 PM

Kevin S, Wolverine as soon as tmks gets here we'll have the Republi-Nazi Apologist trio singing harmony.

Posted by: butch | February 27, 2007 7:22 PM

Wolverine, I agree with you that Bill's use of the word "hate" is a little out of place. Is Bill saying that anyone who doesn't march to his drum on cimate change hates the third world? Or maybe just those of us who use more than their "fair share" of the earth's resources.

Posted by: Eric | February 27, 2007 7:42 PM

Don, Facts? Experts? It seems like everyone in this climate change debate has their own facts and experts that say whatever they want them to say. Unfortunately, it's Bill's side of this debate that doesn't want to look at and dispute the facts of the other side. They just dismiss people who don't agree with them as "deniers." As if it's a matter of absolute truth that climate change will result in the deaths of millions around the world. And sorry, I'm trying to ignore Al Gore but he won't shut up...he's everywhere.

Posted by: Eric | February 27, 2007 8:11 PM

Eric: I've been perfectly able to ignore Al Gore. I haven't seen his movie; I haven't heard him on any talk shows (I avoid them). So what if he won't shut up? Bill McKibben's side of the debate is not the side that is refusing to look at the facts. The PEER-REVIEWED scientific literature doesn't even debate the issue any more. Human activity is contributing to climate change. Period. It's as strong a consensus as we are ever likely to see within the scientific community.
The so-called experts who are being paid by industry to deny the human factor in climate change are the ones who are saying what people are paying them to say. These are similar to the so-called experts in the pay of the tobacco companies who said that smoking isn't a serious health hazard. Those who write in the PEER-REVIEWED journals don't have such an industry axe to grind. As far as the deaths of millions, from what I understand, that is the possible result of some of the models and projections that have been analyzed. There is still scientific uncertainty about the long-term effects of climate change. Predicting what will or might happen inherently involves contingencies and uncertainties. Models aren't perfect. But that doesn't change the fact that human activities are contributing to climate change. Like I said, learn the facts. Don't base your opinion on popular literature or news reports, on Al Gore, or Bill McKibben, or anyone else. Go to the sources. Go to the PEER-REVIEWED literature. These ARE the experts. Peace,

Posted by: HASH(0x1258fea0) | February 27, 2007 8:45 PM

If I might make a general observation, it appears to me that somewhere along the line the Christian left got the idea that being angry equals being prophetic. As if any of us is actually in a position to call down the wrath of God on anyone, however deserving they might be of a can of divine whup-ass. Maybe they picked it up during one of their excursions into the fever swamps of the Christian right -- I won't pretend there isn't some of that sort of thinking on our side. But not only isn't it very pretty, it isn't very effective either. Anyway, I'm going back to emitting carbon dioxide, 'cuz Lord knowns folks in the third world aren't miserable enough yet... Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 27, 2007 8:49 PM

moderatelad: The publication you cited comes from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). They are likely to be an industry-sponsored organization that pays "experts" to deny the reality of the human causation of climate change. According to some watchdog groups, they received funding from Exxon-Mobil. Don

Posted by: Don | February 27, 2007 9:37 PM

Don | 02.27.07 - 4:42 pm | #
Most of the organizations that promote Global Warming have direct ties to the gov't for their funding and have a good reason to keeping saying what they are saying. This group at least has access to the core drillings that is a better indicator of what is happening than an unproven 'theory'. Please understand I believe that we need to become better at protecting the environment - but let us make decision based on science and info. that we can prove and not an agenda that could prove to be very destructive to our economy and the economy of the world. Later - .

Posted by: moderatelad | February 27, 2007 10:28 PM

"Carl, as long as the McKibben's of the world spend their time accusing the other side of global hate, his position will be polemic." But if an action is tantamount to hate, is it wrong to point that out? Or are you arguing that it's simply a bad tactic politically? Sometimes, strong rhetoric is needed. Have a good day Mark. I appreciate the way you often provoke thought (and, LOL, occasionally a bit of righteous indignation). :)

Posted by: carl copas | February 27, 2007 10:48 PM

Another myth, moderatelad. Fighting CO2 emissions could become a boon to the economy, not a threat. A whole array of green industries are waiting to blossom. Ignoring a real or even possible threat to civilization, in my mind, would be far more destuctive in the long run. Funny that folks who post on this blog like to banter the 'conservative' and 'liberal' labels (or their synonyms). Let us not forget that the words 'conservative' and 'conservation' have the same Latin root. In my minds, erring on the side of caution, taking the climate threat seriously, and working to reduce our emissions of carbon, would be the conservative thing to do, not this lassiez faire mentality that passes for 'conservative' in our day and age. And I don't know about government funding providing incentives for scientists to "promote" global warming. The scientists who write in the peer reviewed literature are mostly interested in doing good science to the best of their abilities, not in earning brownie points with funding entities, government or otherwise. Besides, if government funding were behind all research into climate change, why isn't the government at the forefront of pushing for change? And you don't think they have access to core drillings and similar evidence? I know of one researcher at Ohio State University whose team has risked their lives to collect such samples from remote glacier locations in places like Peru. And, given our experience with tobacco-industry-funded health "experts," I'm far more willing to trust scientists are funded elsewhere, even government, core drillings notwithstanding, than those who work for agencies with direct industry funding who definitely do have an axe to grind. The big question to ask is, do those scientists who publish for the NCPA also publish in independent, peer-reviewed scientific journals? If the answer is no, I would take their "research" with a large grain of salt. Once again, I suggest reading the peer-reviewed literature before passing judgment on it. Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 27, 2007 10:57 PM

Regarding Al Gore's purportedly excessive home energy use, the following was recently posted on CNN.com: But a spokesman for Gore quickly fired back Monday night, claiming, "The Gore's purchase all of their power through the local Green Powerswitch program -- it is 100 percent renewable power." "In addition, they are in the midst of a renovation which includes installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Gore's spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said in a statement.

Posted by: Julie | February 27, 2007 11:03 PM

Don--good points. This is what I have observed, and I am a scientist, although not a climate scientist. I do have to say, though, that it is true that the MAJORITY of climate scientists are in agreement that the earth is warming and it is because of human activity (someone else made the point which I will reiterate--check the scientific peer reviewed literature. Yeah, you'll hear plenty of mixed messages from popular media--remember, it's a POLITICAL issue. But the peer reviewed lit is the best resource to learn what scientists actually think about the matter). The MAJORITY of those who don't agree that global climate change is occurring and is the result of human activity tend to be get their paychecks from the oil or coal industries.
What is particularly offensive to me, as a scientist (and forgive me if I get on my soapbox, but there is this bee in my bum, and it bugs me), is that *I* would never even consider telling you I know more about your job than you do. I assume it is your job, and you are well trained in your job, and you are even perhaps an expert in your job. However, there are so many people, some who have commented here, who have spent almost no time or energy looking at the evidence for and against global warming (I mean--you bash Gore--have you at least bothered to see the film?) and very little time in a science course or lab, who then think because they have watched this or that news report, they are now experts. There is an inherent lack of respect for scientists who spend their lives studying science and who are EXPERTS in their chosen fields when you use that attitude. Let me know where you work, and I'll stop in and tell you I know more even though I haven't spent anytime learning your profession or how it works, and you will know how scientists feel. How is that attitude even justified? Please, someone explain it to me, because I don't get it at all! As for "hating our neighbors." True, the rhetoric is strong. Maybe it would have been better if he had said, "a way we could love our neighbors is to stop using so much of the world's dwindling resources in such materialistic and thoughtlessly wasteful ways."
It is, nevertheless, ridiculous to get so caught up in the semantics. Let's face facts--we are incredibly wasteful in this nation, whether we realize it or not. The majority of us don't think for even two seconds about the energy we use--we take it for granted. People in third world nations often spend their entire day gathering food or fuel for their fires. Do not ever forget how blessed we are in this country. Do not ever take it for granted. It is nothing more than an accident of birth, not a priviledge, and our lifestyles need to reflect that.
And more than anything, our use of resources needs to be fully and wholly acknowledging the wonders of God's creation. He did not give us the resources to selfishly waste--He gave them for us to use wisely and with respect for His creation. It doesn't mean we don't mine for mineral resources--it means we mine but make sure to the best that we can, that we don't cause irreperable damage to the environment in the process.
I'll shut up now.

Posted by: Squeaky | February 27, 2007 11:27 PM

MCKIBBEN HAS TO BE KIDDING. THIS IS ANOTHER FEEL GOOD POST BY THE WALLIS TEAM. WHO ARE THESE GUYS ANYWAY? AND NICE TO SEE JULIE IS IN LOVE WITH AL GORE. MUST HAVE BEEN THAT FITTED TUX HE WAS WEARING. most of the comments are good conversation but we all know the jury is still out on this subject. this globe has been here a long time and this latest "marketing" theory will indeed develope into an industry. whsy can't i stop thinking about the ice ages and dinosauers? maybe we should start looking at the mckibbens and carrs and gores and wallis' a little closer. if this is God's politics, where is He in mc kibbens post? painting placards for the march.

Posted by: jerry | February 28, 2007 12:42 AM

"I don't mock Al Gore for attempting to raise consciousness, I mock Al Gore for doing so sanctimoniously." Kevin The first thing I look for is how a message is delivered and if I don't like the messenger then I won't pay attention to what they say. In fact, if I don t like the message I shoot the messenger.

Posted by: butch | February 28, 2007 12:47 AM

Don, "would be the conservative thing to do, not this lassiez faire mentality that passes for 'conservative' in our day and age." Really well said, I used to think of myself as conservative when Barry Goldwater was around.

Posted by: butch | February 28, 2007 12:53 AM

"But if an action is tantamount to hate, is it wrong to point that out? Or are you arguing that it's simply a bad tactic politically? Sometimes, strong rhetoric is needed." Agreed. And there are many things far worse than blunt speech. Yes, I am saying it's a bad political tactic, especially if he's trying to make his movement mainstream. To be honest, it doesn't bother me that he said what he did. I've been known to say more inflammatory and polemic things. There's nothing wrong with angling for the visceral response, and he certainly hit his point home. But if he's trying to take a marginalized movement more inclusive, he needs to try to make it more palatable. (I also enjoy the banter, carl, and don't take impassioned ranting for anger :) )
"Let us not forget that the words 'conservative' and 'conservation' have the same Latin root." (and out pops the liberal arts ass) Both come from the verb conservare (itself a stronger form of servare) which means "to preserve" or "to save." And you are very correct to associate conservative and conservation. True conservatives seek to preserve the best things, from philosophy and politics to nature. All true conservatives are preservationists when it comes to nature (see the English distributists, notably GK Chesterton, or the American Southern Agrarians and their manifesto [if you will] "I'll Take my Stand", or Russell Kirk [who called himself a "northern Agrarian" in line with "I'll Take my Stand"]. True conservatives support a fully free market while decrying both capitalism (as originally coined -- the avaricious sense of the term) and the environmental indifference of today's typical conservative. The methods a traditional conservative would take in support of environmental stewardship would, however, contrast sharply with the progressive agenda.
"Another myth, moderatelad. Fighting CO2 emissions could become a boon to the economy, not a threat. A whole array of green industries are waiting to blossom." Echoing kevin, if this is a viable industry, companies will absolutely pursue this without need for government incentives. Guaranteed.
"Please, someone explain it to me, because I don't get it at all!" I think it's disillusionment due to scientists who go wild publishing before they should to try to draw attention and get famous... and the sensationalism in the media. For me, it's not so much that I'll tell you what to do. Rather, it's just cynicism about the scientific community because everybody bickers and, particularly when you ARE ignorant on these matters (as I am), it's difficult to sort out which salad bar of PhD's and research scientists is actually right. Granted, that is the scientific process and in the end it's great, because through the process of peer review, eventually a consensus is reached by forcing the perfection of hypothesis. BUT... it's difficult for yahoos like me to know when a consensus really is reached and when some guy just wants it to be a consensus so he can get his name slapped on some theory. And I don't mean specifically on this issue, but the disillusionment spills over.

Posted by: Mark P | February 28, 2007 1:17 AM

okay butch. if there is consensus on the question. where can i find it. does consensus mean a bunch of guys agree on the question? or does a majority of meterologists agree? or what. maybe there are statistics that show thet tempertures have increased a little over a short period of time - so what? and how do they prove that co2 emissions from al gore's s u v in the united states is causing the temperture increases? this whole thing is a joke on us if we continue to take it seriously. maybe it's sun spots? duh? or more population. or oceanic volcanic action. hello. and where is wallis' Gods politics in this? is mckibben saying that God wants us to march in washington to protest/support what?

Posted by: jerry | February 28, 2007 2:51 AM

First off, there's actually three questions that need to be addressed: The first is: Is the earth warming? The answer to that among most of the scientific community appears to be a tentative yes, but that alone only gets you a third of the way home. The second question is: is the warming severe enough to warrant large-scale government action? This is where things get dicey, because planet-wide temperature shifts are not at all uncommon. This is the point where most of the hysteria comes into play, because some people are prone to assume the worst when they hear the answer to question #1 (the oceans are going to boil, we're all gonna die, etc.) when the effects are more mixed, and even positive (longer baseball season, Toronto, Detroit, Chicago have a couple hundred more years to prepare for the next ice age.) Anyway, even if we assume that the question to number 2 is affirmative, we still have to deal with... The Third Question: what can we do about it? This is where causality comes into play. The thing is, there are factors other than man that can effect climate. Among them is the sun. Those of us who live in the North know (or should know by now) that the sun isn't static, it has processes that change too: sunspots create auroras and knock out electronics. And there is research that indicates that the sun has been radiating more heat than usual over the last several years. It isn't hatred, it's humility. We've just gotten to the point where we can get a three-day weather forecast with a better than 50-50 chance of getting it right, who the heck do we think we are pretending that we know what the climate's going to be like 50 years down the road? The sun alone could blow all our projections away -- if the sun cooled off by more than a hair we could be scrambling for ways to pump CO2 into the air to prevent the next ice age. The truth is we're still guessing at a lot of things. We shouldn't do anything drastic until we actually know what we are doing. Anything else is equivalent to calling out "ready, fire, aim!" Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 28, 2007 3:45 AM

"The truth is we're still guessing at a lot of things. We shouldn't do anything drastic until we actually know what we are doing. Anything else is equivalent to calling out "ready, fire, aim!" Wolverine By the time we know it will be to late to do anything, of course Exxon will have all the money but where will they spend it. There are many things that can be done that isn't panic reaction and won't really cost anything.

Posted by: butch | February 28, 2007 4:13 AM

Squeaky asked: If we don't do anything about climate change and scientists are correct, we are in deep doo-doo. If we do something, and scientists are wrong, what have we lost? Fair question, here's a first stab at an answer: 1. We will have regulated our economies, drastically reducing emissions for no good purpose. 2. We will have spent precious research and development dollars to create technologies that we don't need at the expense of other technologies that we might have a use for. 3. Developing nations that cannot afford super-duper no-emissions technology are forced to meet emissions quotas the old-fashioned way: shutting down industries. 4. This is admittedly something of a nightmare scenario but it's not out of the range of possibilities: we guess entirely wrong, or some completely unforeseen factor (such as a solar cooling cycle) kicks in and we accidentally bring on an ice age. If it's true that we have the power to shape our climate on a planetary scale, for crying out loud let's get to a point where we know what we're doing before we start trying to manipulate things. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 28, 2007 4:33 AM

"2. We will have spent precious research and development dollars to create technologies that we don't need at the expense of other technologies that we might have a use for." Wolv How do you know what technologies we don't need, and your justification is other tech... we "might" need. Such a bad argument I'm embarrassed for you to address it. There is room for more than one direction for research; all basic research leads to a better life.

Posted by: butch | February 28, 2007 4:51 AM

"If it's true that we have the power to shape our climate on a planetary scale, for crying out loud let's get to a point where we know what we're doing before we start trying to manipulate things." Reducing poluents and waste are not manipulating anything.

Posted by: butch | February 28, 2007 4:56 AM

Bill You probably won't get this far if you are slogging through this high emissions smogosphere. There are a crew of right wing Christians who have appointed themselves the watchdogs of God's Politics. You know compassionate conservatives with built-in standard equipment fact filters.Their heightened level of emissions means this is topic which has roused them to new levels empathy. They got all weepy over Anna Nicole Smith and almost came up to the level of giving a rat's ass over the devastation and mass casualties beginning to come from from global warming. Still one has to be impressed with their like totally awesome expertise on global warming,huh? Ain't nobody gonna be putting any scientific data over on these boys.

Posted by: theyfartwellbutsaylittle | February 28, 2007 5:21 AM

The problem with agreeing with evil people on anything, is that in their sociopathic minds, they think you agree with them on everything. Even an evil person takes out their rubbish and uses common sense on some things like placing the trash in trash cans, but, like the global warming facade covering the socialist movement in Leftist everything, the "Lefties," think that just because some Christians agree with them on Global warming, that somehow they have made inroads to alter the Gospel to include celebrating abominations. I'm sure this is why the good advice in the New Testament not to yoke yourself with unbelievers. Agreeing to look at Global Warming as something important does not validate Liberal and Progressive heresy as anything other than satanic actions. I do not want to be communist and will oppose Progressives and Liberals and their true godless agenda in any guise they presetn it in. Global Warming is just a ruse to implement Progresive evils the world over.

Posted by: Donny | February 28, 2007 11:51 AM

I thought I would chime in one more time on this issue. My previous posts have been focused on acknowledging the reality of the global climate change problem and particuar the human causation factor. I have not indicated what I feel are appropriate measures to take for solving the problem. The presumption of some seems to be that massive government intervention is the preferred and only viable solution. I credit this perception to the infusion of what I earlier called a lassiez faire mentality among political 'conservatives,' specifically an antipathy toward any and all forms of government oversight or regulation. The association of those like me who support the acknowledging of human involvement in climate change with big government is understandable but false. Here are just a few thoughts of mine, and then I'll probably sign off on this topic. First, global warming isn't a conservative vs. liberal issue. We're all in this together--there's only one Earth. So liberal conspiracy theories won 't fly, at least not with me. And as I said before, and as someone else confirmed, conservative and conservation have the same Latin root. I believe reducing carbon emissions is conservative in the true sense. Lassiez faire policies that encourage more carbon burning are not. Next, I don't understand why Christians, even politically conservative Christians, should oppose government regulation so violently. The biblical teaching regarding the realities of our fallen human nature should inform us that we can't trust ourselves completely. And when people collaborate with each other as in business or government, these realities are magnified. Government regulation at its best is simply a check on our human nature, and is important for that reason. Of course it isn't perfect, because government regulators are themselves infected by the same human nature. But regulation isn't the big nemesis that it often is portrayed to be. Specifically, and to put it bluntly, environmental regluations are opposed primarily by business interests who want to continue polluting with impunity and who don't want to invest in the things necessary to clean up their acts. They forget that a clean environment is a benefit to them as well as to the rest of us, and it is becoming good business to be seen as environmentally friendly. Second, one major thing the government could do to reduce our use of carbon emissions is not regulatory at all. It is simply leveling the playing field for transportation methods. Transportation is by far is the biggest user of fossil fuels. So any increase in transportation efficiency is bound to have a positive effect. However, since approximately the 1950s, our government has subsidized the least efficient forms of transportation--motor vehicles and airlines--to the neglect of the most efficient forms--especially rail. If our government would simply stop favoring the auto, trucking, oil, and road construction industries, that would be a big step in the right direction. Ironically, the Bush administration has been pushing to pull the government funding from Amtrak. How foolish and short-sighted! We should instead be taking some of our road-construction dollars and using it to improve rail service. Other countries (particularly Japan and Western Europe) have developed high-speed and magnetic rail systems that are on the cutting edge of technology. A network of high-speed trains could reduce traffic on the highways, thus lower highway maintenance costs, and it could also reduce air traffic, since for shorter distances high-speed rail could actually be faster than flying, when the time needed for airport security and such is factored in. At the same time as the government is ending our subsidy of inefficient transportation means, we can use the tax laws to encourage people to patronize the more efficient means--tax breaks for train fares, public transportation fares, etc. Cities could be given money not for roads but for innovative transit systems, bicycle routes, and other alternative to our high carbon-emitting current systems. And the big one would be imposing a gasoline tax to keep the price of fuel in the $3.50-$4.50 range. This would encourage both conservation and the developing of alternative fuels *without* big-government regulation (such as raising auto fuel efficiency standards) and it would keep governmebnt out of subsidizing inefficient start-up alternative energy companies. Let them develop on their own as a result of demand for their products and services. High gasoline taxes have been used in Europe for years, and they have the best public transportation systems around; moreover their carbon emissions have not increased appreciably over the last ten years or so. And driving isn't such a necessity there; that makes it a lot more enjoyable. A gasoline tax would also make us more independent from the Saudis, the Venezualans, and other opressive regiemes. The money from gasoline sales would stay in our pockets instead of being transferred to theirs, where they use it to bankroll their opressive ideologies. Instead we could use the money to improve our public transportation and provide assistance to those for whom higher fuel prices would be a real hardship (and I'm not talking about the sucker who would have to trade in his guzzling SUV for a Honda Civic). Sure there's no political will for such a move, but that's where the leadership factor comes in, something that someone else also mentioned. If we had leaders willing to make the right case for a gasoline tax, and for these other changes, the public would support it. It only makes sense to do this. Other non-interventionary strategies for reducing carbon emissions have been proposed, such as buying and selling carbon credits. It doesn't necessarily require a big-brother government approach. It does require thinking smarter about what we do. And government has a role, especially since government has skewed the current system with its favoring of high-carbon-burning industries. That's all I have to say. Maybe this will stimulate more thought. Maybe some of you will think I'm pontificating. But the important thing is we need to come up with solutions, because the consequences of inaction appear to be serious. Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 28, 2007 1:22 PM

butch | 02.27.07 - 10:04 pm | #
If they are wrong what do we loose, if we ignore them what do we loose. Please - that type of thinking is so lame. It is morally wrong to enforce anything based on flawed science. If we allow this type of logic to rein supreme - our whole economy would be at risk.
later - .

Posted by: moderatelad | February 28, 2007 2:02 PM

God calls us both to prayer and action. So, regardless of your feelings on this issue, I ask you to pray for God's gift, the Earth, and pray that both us and our leaders will be responsible with its dominion. At the same time, let's let our actions match God's call. Finally, think of these verses and how they apply to this issue: Colossians 1:16-17. All things were created by him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together. Psalm 8:3-8. When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man. -----All things are created for Him, should we not take care of them then? Job 12:7-10. But ask the animals, and they will teach you; or birds of the air and they will tell you; or speak to the earth and it will teach you; or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the lord has done this. In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind. Genesis 1:26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground." ---If the Lord has given us dominion over the Earth, should we not use it wisely? Lev. 25:23-24. The land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land. Ezekiel 34:17-18. As for you, my flock... Is it not enough for you to feed on good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet? Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet? Jer. 2:7. I brought you into a fertile land to eat its fruit and rich produce. But you came and defiled my land and you made my inheritance detestable. ----We should not defile God's gift to us. Exodus 23:2. Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. ----Perhap most importantly, as Christians, we need to live differently and not follow along with all that everyone else is doing. We must live by Christ's example and give an example for others to follow, of which good stewardship of the Earth is a big part.

Posted by: ChristianityisMore | February 28, 2007 2:43 PM

"Give me your references? More well crafted BS or back this up with who agrees or disagrees with their references." I think you are asking for some names of scientists. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, Fred Singer, an atmoshperic scientist at George Mason, Patrick Michaels, professor of environmental sciences at the Universtiy of Virginia.
David Legates, of the University of Delaware, while he concedes that humans have had an impact, but that scientists have overblown that impact by the way they have interpreted their data.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 28, 2007 3:54 PM

"That stuff's supposed to make us happy, and with all the depression, stomach upset and sleep aid commercials out there, clearly we aren't happy in our stuff." May I be so bold and ecclesiastic as to say, then, that fixing the excess problem in America has nothing to do with government regulation? That the only way to create stewards is to fill that hole of dissatisfaction with the all-satisfying treasure of the nations, Jesus Christ?... There are a lot of people, Christians largely included, who do not actually believe that Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of their desires. Until I truly believe that, I will always be looking for something to substitute for the Lord God. Each replacement will fall short; each need will go unfulfilled, and I will seek out more, better, other... 1. "Economic rule; waste can never ever ever be recovered. The good purpose is conservation, no better reason is required." -Macroeconomic control is largely a myth. If such things as an aggregate good and aggregate supply and demand actually DO exist, they are still completely out of our control. Keynesian economic control is a Russian roulette guessing game. Again, this is the fundamental flaw of progressivism: "That man seems to be ill; here, give him this tonic." "What is it?" "I don't know, but something must be done..." "What if you kill him?" "We can think about that later, but for now we have to act. Time is of the essence." (again, of course, the conservative fatal flaw is that they're likely to recognize that the tonic is actually cyanide... but then they'll sit around talking about how the cyanide tonic is such a bad idea... until the guy dies of old age) 2. "There is room for more than one direction for research; all basic research leads to a better life." -What about the testing of the Manhattan project? And what happens if it turns out that the time and money and energy spent into reducing emissions could have cured cancer? Of course it's an extreme case, but you seem to be missing the point that dispensing the time, energy, and resources used in research is a zero-sum game. "How do you know what technologies we don't need"... -I'll also be ballsy enough to say that anytime the government has to steal money from the public to create research, it's probably for technologies we don't need or want. Father Government, in fact, doesn't know best. The market will drive research for necessary technologies (because people will pay for what they need, and companies will build what people will pay for) 3. "Another simple minded argument, what do we or they need with a poluting industry." -Haha, oh me oh my. Coal = CHEAP. If you say that they can't use coal, they'll just shut down because they CANNOT AFFORD to pay for the higher-priced low-emissions energy sources.
For a "fun" little example of "Oh-we-didn't-think-about-that-we-just-wanted-to-be-nice-to-the-environment" progressive activism, see the mass protests (read: soon to be bread riots) in Mexico City caused by hunger caused by a spike in corn tortilla prices (corn tortillas are a staple of the diet of poor Mexicans) caused by a spike in corn prices caused by... you guessed it... hiked demand for ethanol fuels and research. Lovely, we're starving Mexicans by following a pipe dream. (source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6319093.stm). The ole act-now-think-later mindset at work (for another example, see Mao Zedong's wonderful Great Leap Forward program to revolutionize agriculture in China, creating a bountiful plenty for all Chinese! [oh wait, 30 million+ starved to death]) (for yet another example, see how laws "protecting" endangered species like the California buzzard or wood owl are actually resulting in people going out of their way to KILL said animals and bury them). Look, it's not the environment doesn't need to be sustained... it's that hasty action generally creates a worse reality than the current one... That progressive government regulation generally leads to more evils than it ends. As a conservative, I support preserving nature, but I also recognize that most preservation laws actually cause more harm than good (and often to the very things they seek to protect). "It is simply leveling the playing field for transportation methods." Government subsidized mass transportation does NOT work, regardless of how environmentally efficient it is. "*without* big-government regulation" And how is price alteration NOT big-government regulation? [I do, however, agree that this type of tax regulation is highly preferable to direct subsidies to research companies] "Other non-interventionary strategies for reducing carbon emissions have been proposed, such as buying and selling carbon credits" As in privatizing the air? I actually don't mind that so much. If Exxon Mobile could find a way to make air a commodity, they would ASSUREDLY protect their assets... granted, there are a THOUSAND other implications to worry about first... (same thing with endangered species -- if you gave bald eagles to Disney Corp, I guarantee they'd be safe from extinction). Again, though, the excess issue comes down to human nature -- where are you finding your satisfaction and meaning and fulfillment in life? If it's not going to be Christ, it's gonna be other stuff...

Posted by: Mark P | February 28, 2007 4:56 PM

For those who point out that if 'there is money to be made', business will do this on their own, there's a few problems with that scenario. First off, there's a difference between just a 'new product' and a product intended to actually replace an existing one.
Business is not a monolithic entity. For all the businesses out there wanting to make money with the new product, there's others who are fully invested in the old product and don't like the new competition. And that's what it is, competition. Secondly, change is risky. Status quo is safe, as long as it is continuing to make money, and it is.
Do you think there wasn't resistance to automobiles from the 'Horse and Carriage' industry, no matter how much money, as we all know now, there was to be made from cars?

Posted by: Kannbrown65 | February 28, 2007 5:25 PM

Mark and Kevin:
"Government subsidized mass transportation does NOT work, regardless of how environmentally efficient it is." I guess you missed one of my main points. Our current inefficient transportation system is HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED by government, through everything from tax credits for oil companies to favored treatment of the auto and trucking industries through massive infusions of tax money into highway building and maintenance. I'm only suggesting that we divert some of that money into more efficient systems, and then give people incentives to use these alternatives. Either that or let's eliminate ALL government involvement with road construction and maintenance, and let users (i.e., drivers) pay for the costs of highway building and maintenance on their own through user fees. For you laissez-faire anti-regulatory folks, maybe that ought to be the way to go. And BTW, $3.50-$4.50 a gallon still doesn't equal the probable cost of gasoline, when the environmental and social costs of its use are factored in.

Posted by: Don | February 28, 2007 5:32 PM

There is no free and open flow of government sponsored climate research as is shown below. The Bush administation appears to dislike scientific data as much as many of you do( As is shown by the following report to the US Cogress, one of several similar reports). Those of you opposed to regulation; why are you not opposed to the government actively suppressing and therby regulating research purchased with tax dollars. The regulation argument is ludicrous we regulate traffic in dangerous materials for our own health and safety . You can't hit someone, or shoot them or whip your employees and any government that allowed such would be barbaric. Neither should you be able to harm the shared environment, by mishandlng toxics, creating life-threatening working conditions or otherwise. The need for regulation is inescapable if you want a means of moral self government
This written testimony contains an overview of the issue of scientific integrity, a summary of the report Atmosphere of Pressure released today and recommended government reforms needed to restore scientific integrity to the policy making process. Also included are a timeline of abuses of science compiled by UCS, selected essay responses from UCS s survey of federal climate scientists, the text of the statement signed by 11,000 scientists, and summaries of UCS s surveys of scientists working at the Food and Drug Administration, the Fish & Wildlife Service, the NOAA Fisheries Service, and climate scientists working at seven federal agencies. In a nutshell, here is the problem we face political interference is harming federal science and threatening the health and safety of Americans. UCS has surveyed more than 1,800 federal scientists and found the following: 145 FDA scientists reported being asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or change their conclusions in an FDA scientific document. Nearly half (44 percent) of all FWS scientists whose work is to evaluate endangered species reported that they have been directed, for non-scientific reasons, to refrain from making findings that would protect a species. And, from the report we are releasing today, 150 federal climate scientists report personally experiencing at least one incident of political interference in the past five years, for a total of at least 435 such incidents.

Posted by: Joseph T | February 28, 2007 7:47 PM

"Do you think there wasn't resistance to automobiles from the 'Horse and Carriage' industry, no matter how much money, as we all know now, there was to be made from cars?" Sure, but we transitioned to cars anyway.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 28, 2007 8:01 PM

Aaron Aaron. Let's not be silly. A LAW THAT CREATES A MORAL HAZARD IS A BAD LAW. (a moral hazard is created when the incentives to break a law outweigh the incentives to follow the law) If you make people pay $1000 every day they DON'T break the speed limit, is that a good law? That's EXACTLY what the endangered species act does -- it punishes people who own land that is friendly to endangered species and who abide by the law, while REWARDING people who destroy friendly habitats and/or ignore the law. That's just a ridiculous argument. You're basically saying we shouldn't have any environmental regulation at all, yet environmental laws work every day. The problem is in the political process. Take the teeth out of the regulation and fines, and of course there's great incentive to not follow the law. They'd rather spend the money lobbying or pay the assessed fines as cost of business because the regulations have no balls.

Posted by: Aaron | February 28, 2007 8:08 PM

Aaron, What Mark is referring to is the perverse incentive to kill endangered animals on your property because, once they are discovered, obscene regulations are placed on your ability to develop or sell that property.
The laws are often used by enivronmental protection groups to curb development. Once animals are placed on the list, groups will spend enormous amounts to keep them on that list, even after their numbers improve, in an attempt to prevent land development.
The endangered species act is an example of bad law. By argument, you have to claim that bad law does not even exist.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 28, 2007 8:14 PM

As for the notion that politics interferes with the interpretation of scientific data, I have been making that point all along. Yes, I believe it was also you who made the comment that climate scientists have an incentive to keep the GW scare alive to keep the federal funds rolling in. But what I wonder is how much government money is at stake versus how much the oil and coal companies have at stake complete with their lobbying efforts and ability to get their men into high office? We're probably talking pennies on the millions. And it was always "strange" when following the money, that anti-GW arguments, more often than not, could be traced back to fossil fuel companies and conservative think-tanks.

Posted by: Aaron | February 28, 2007 8:32 PM

Mark, I was explaining exactly THAT, what you said. Someone, maybe you or Kevin, was saying 'if they're all waiting to make money, why aren't they?' Because of that resistance. I didn't say it wouldn't happen. I didn't say it would work forever. But, as you said, it SLOWS IT DOWN. And then the car makers point at the dearth of hybrids, as they, themselves, refuse to put in the research, or dribble out small runs of the ones that are available, even as there are huge pre-orders and waiting lines for the ones made.
Again, doesn't STOP, but explains why progress is SLOW. Because business isn't monolithic, and while there are those who support the progress, there are those who equally kick against it. And eventually, they will lose out. But it isn't like most established businesses look further ahead than the next buying season, or the next day, in the case of those who worry more about their stock market prices than the products they produce.
And some struggle to preserve their monopoly over products that don't rely on the existence of a few derricks in very limited places, but could be produced anywhere. Even by private individuals.
And when the sole issue is profit, can't blame them for doing so.

Posted by: Kannbrown65 | February 28, 2007 8:40 PM

Don: "I fully agree, Joseph T. Time to get real." I'll chime in with my agreement also. The time for debating the reality of global warming is over. We operate on less than 100% perfect certainty all the time. I'm damned if I'm going to sit by and let my kids' future be ruined just because some people refuse to accept a preponderance of evidence.

Posted by: carl copas | February 28, 2007 9:00 PM

Joseph T gave a list of "market failures" that included New Orleans, nuclear testing, and Chernobyl I won't pretend that the market is flawless, but these three items simply don't belong and suggest that you weren't paying attention to what you were typing. NEW ORLEANS: The levies that failed, which was the main reason the city flooded as badly as it was, were government projects. Corruption at the state level, combined with bad coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers, left the levies in a weakened state. NUCLEAR TESTING: This was strictly a department of defense operation. Conservatives have never supported privatized nukes. CHERNOBYL: The reactor failure in the Ukraine took place long before Perestroika. All major industries, including nuclear power plants, were under the direct control of the Soviet state. Free markets had little to do with Katrina, and nothing to do with Chernobyl or nuclear testing. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 28, 2007 10:44 PM

Joseph T: You presented an interesting list of claims of interference in scientific work. Source? Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 28, 2007 10:55 PM

Aaron, have you ever considered rewarding people for protecting endangered species rather than punishing them? Of course, implementation is tricky though. Take your example, $1,000 would hardly prevent you from still killing an owl when you have 100,000acres of timber profits. So what do we do? Invoke emminent domain and pay the fair market value? Now you have the beginnings of a subset of the timber lobby using federal funds to guarantee a set amount of money. What happens when the owl is delisted? Does the gov't then lease back the timber rights to bidders, set aside the land for the public? Here's another example I'm more well-versed in. In our state, when a surface water body is used as a public water supply, certain density restrictions are emplaced and 100 foot vegetated buffers are required (for high density) around all streasm in the watershed. This means (with the exception of variances and exclusions for existing uses), that no new development can happen within 100 feet of the water. Should the property owners be compensated? If so how? The buffers are necessary to protect water quality afterall. I freely admit there's no easy answers, but I know the market doesn't always magick-up solutions either, just as I know some laws are bad.
Of course people *should* obey the laws, but it is simply unjust to tell someone that they are legally bound to dip their hands into acid. Thank god I've never seen a law like that ;)

Posted by: Aaron | February 28, 2007 11:15 PM

Kevin S. wrote: I don't really think the debate is about whether there is blogal warming. Neither do I. There's no shortage of hot air at this blog. (Sorry Kevin, I just couldn't resist) Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | March 1, 2007 1:32 AM

"Take your example, $1,000 would hardly prevent you from still killing an owl when you have 100,000acres of timber profits." The point is that if you, as a governmental body, are going to overstep your Constitutional bounds, you better not do it in such a way that you are destroying someone's business or property (durned property rights). You seem to assume that these loggers have some owl vendetta. The only reason they feel inclined to off the poor things is because if they DON'T, their business is wrecked. The long and short of it is that the government rarely solves problems, and I'm afraid I don't trust the future of my children to government regulation.

Posted by: Mark P | March 1, 2007 2:10 AM

"So, where are they? Other than things like the Prius, out for years, and in limited runs. Likely to justify making it cost more." Honda, Nissan and Toyota and Ford have them. Mercury and Chevrolet are debuting there's shortly. Saturn and Hyundai have there's in develoment.
"Like the risks that theirs won't be as good as the competition." If this were an issue, then Chevy would cease to make cars altogether.
"That customers, seeing totally new technology, will use more to gauge its value other than if it looks good" See above. " Exxon-Mobile and BP are." Sort of. It is interesting, though, that we are not supposed to question the scientists, for the reason that they are scientists... Except when they disagree with us. Then we clearly ought to question them.
Either way, none of this represents a compelling argument for the investment of billions of tax dollars, or the excessive regulation of industry.

Posted by: kevin s. | March 1, 2007 4:14 AM

Mark P: "I think it's disillusionment due to scientists who go wild publishing before they should to try to draw attention and get famous... and the sensationalism in the media. For me, it's not so much that I'll tell you what to do. Rather, it's just cynicism about the scientific community because everybody bickers and, particularly when you ARE ignorant on these matters (as I am), it's difficult to sort out which salad bar of PhD's and research scientists is actually right." Okay, this comment got my dander up. I guess I'm the only atmospheric scientist following this blog (MS in atmospheric science from Colorado State University, PhD in climatology from Kent State University). So who, exactly, are these scientists seeking fame and fortune by wild publishing? I certainly have never encountered any. The atmospheric scientists I know are hard-working, dedicated, detail-oriented, circumspect, and generally very shy people who love the atmospheric system. Serious atmospheric research has been going on, quietly, for a very long time, a couple hundred years in fact, long before cameras, media, and political pundits came along. I can't think of a single scientist who's motivation is to be in the lime-light. As for myself, I was on the fence for a number of years about the extent of anthropogenic contribution to the rising surface temperatures we are observing, until the lastest findings of the IPCC working group I came out. The report is quite convincing, especially given the huge amount of research done from disparate sources, both observational and modeling, resulting in this broad-based consensus. For those interested, here is where you can find the summary for policymakers: http://www.ipcc.ch/ then click on 'Download Summary for Policymakers' The summary presents a concise overview of the physical science basis for how and why the climate is changing, and man's contribution to it.

Posted by: Doug | March 1, 2007 7:59 AM

No, Kevin. They went through their risk early on. Sure, now that its gotten big, and more people are noticing who funds most (and no, I did not say ALL, so if you manage a name or two, that says nothing about most of them) of the opposing view. NOW they are suddenly popping out with the same technology that's been available the whole time. There's no 'scrambling'. But yes, there IS risk. And yes, they would've put out cars in the first place. Why? They weren't part of the status quo to want to protect it. If they were buggy manufacturers, then it might be equivalent.
You don't fight to protect the status quo, unless you are PART of it, and its no risk if you have nothing in the first place. The first manufacturers might have risked it not being profitable, but they weren't dipping into already existent profits from a competing technology in order to do so.

Posted by: Kannbrown65 | March 1, 2007 9:40 AM

And my point is, even the buggy manufacturers didn't go hand in glove, in lobbying and in financing research with tack and feed manufacturers to try and slow down the process.
Yes, they eventually would, but the type and level of resistance and the methods that had been used, until they couldn't be used anymore (with what was practically a consumer uprising.. talk about not leading the market, but having to be dragged along..) don't really have the kind of precedent that this one did.
We've got people so persuaded that they're acting like making an auto that puts out less emissions is going to create war, economic disasters, and somehow be an untested manipulation of the environment. I don't think those first auto manufacturers had that problem. Indeed, they had the help and subsidies of the government, for their fuel source, their creation, the development of the necessary network of surfaces for them to be more than a novelty item.
Of course, now that's considered somehow tampering.. when applied to OTHER new developments, while auto and fuel suppliers act like they are solely the product of the market, free capitalism and good old American in