Evangelicals urge action on global warming

[VinVega]

Yahoo linky (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060208/pl_nm/environment_evangelicals_dc)
By Alan Elsner
29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of 85 evangelical Christian leaders on Wednesday backed legislation opposed by the White House to cut carbon dioxide emissions, kicking off a campaign to mobilize religious conservatives to combat global warming.

The group which included mega-church pastors, Christian college presidents, religious broadcasters and writers, also unveiled a full-page advertisement to run in Thursday's New York Times and a television ad it hopes to screen nationally.

"With God's help, we can stop global warming for our kids, our world and our Lord," the television spot declared.

The campaign by evangelicals coincided with a call on Wednesday by a leading U.S. think tank for the United States to take immediate steps to fight global warming, including working with other nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Pew Center for Global Climate Change said in a report that America has waited too long to seriously tackle the climate change problem and spelled out 15 steps the United States could take to reduce emissions it spews as the world's biggest energy consumer and producer of greenhouse gases.

"This transition will not be easy, but it is crucial to begin now," the Pew Center said. "Further delay will only make the challenge before us more daunting and more costly."

The campaign by the evangelical leaders represented a possible split in President George W. Bush's political base, in which Christian evangelical voters are heavily represented.

However, the names of most of the president's most influential Christian political backers were notably absent from the list of signatories joining the campaign. Possibly the best-known signer was Rick Warren, author of the best-selling book, "The Purpose Driven Life."

TRADING SYSTEM

Specifically, and mirroring a proposal by the Pew Foundation, the leaders called on Congress to pass laws to create a trading system that would spur companies to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which scientists say is a major cause of global warming.

One such bill, The Climate Stewardship Act, first introduced in 2003 by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) and Connecticut Democrat Sen. Joseph Lieberman (news, bio, voting record), would require that U.S. emissions return to their 2000 levels by 2010.

The United States, with around 5 percent of the world's population, accounts for a quarter of its greenhouse gases and U.S. emissions rose by 2 percentage points in 2004 alone, according to government figures.

The McCain-Lieberman bill has failed to win passage twice in the Senate, although a majority there did adopt a non-binding resolution to cap emissions. The issue has not come up for a vote in the House of Representatives.

The Bush administration opposes imposing mandatory limits and backs voluntary efforts by companies. It has also refused to join the Kyoto Protocol, an international accord signed by the European Union, Japan and most other industrialized nations that sets hard targets for cutting emissions.

The Christian leaders said they were impelled by their faith to launch the campaign out of a growing realization that the threat of global warming was real and that the world's poor would suffer the most.

Paul de Vries, president of New York Divinity School, said: "However we treat the world, that's how we are treating Jesus because He is the cosmic glue."

The leaders said a poll they commissioned of 1,000 evangelical Protestants showed that two thirds were convinced global warming was taking place. Additionally, 63 percent said the United States must start to address the issue immediately and half said it must act even if there was a high economic cost.

The Pew Foundation also recommended boosting renewable fuel output and providing financial incentives to farmers to spur absorption of greenhouse gas emissions on farm lands.

U.S. government weather forecasters reported on Tuesday that the nation's January temperatures were the warmest on record, beating the average for the month by 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit (4.7 degrees C). Two weeks ago NASA scientists confirmed that 2005 was the hottest year ever recorded worldwide.
Maybe this might make the admin take notice. Nah, probably not. Oh those wacky Evangelicals. :lol:

[Venusian]

there is a big push in the "evangelical" movement to return to the NT church idea of helping the poor. a lot of this is starting on the liberal or progressive side of the church but is being embraced by a lot of people. I think this ftis in line with that if the people believe global warming is harming the world's poor

[Thor Simpson]

Maybe I better stop praying for warmer weather. :(

[nemein]

I'm sure there's a "hotter than hell" joke in here somewhere I'm just not sure how to work it in ;)

[Mopower]

It just comes natural to some to believe in many things that may not exist.

[eXcentris]

Evangelicals, post global warming:

http://accordionguy.blogware.com/Photos/2005/02/hairy_beach_dude_for_jesus.jpg

[bhk]

Well, looks like that guy is going somewhere warm after death for the cardinal sin of wearing speedos while being fat.

[Groucho]

As a liberal atheist, my head just exploded.

[Jason]

This is an odd turn of events. I'm sure once the members of this group become known, they'll be discredited by the new media as not really being "evangelicals" but as fringe wackos.

[Thor Simpson]

Every expert I've seen on television has said there is pretty much unrefutable evidence of global warming. I know this forum tends to disagree with that notion... can someone link me to a thread that would explain why? It sure seems to be the general concensus these days but I would love to be able to argue against it intelligently with my friends.

[movielib]

Every expert I've seen on television has said there is pretty much unrefutable evidence of global warming. I know this forum tends to disagree with that notion... can someone link me to a thread that would explain why? It sure seems to be the general concensus these days but I would love to be able to argue against it intelligently with my friends.
There are those misconceptions again. The forum (most of us skeptics, anyway) does not disagree with the statement that global warming exists.

Every scientist global warming skeptic of which I am aware believes that global warming has been happening and will continue for probably at least another century and that there is a human component. It can't be denied that the world has warmed about .6 degrees celsius in the last 100 years.

The relevant questions are: (1) How much will it warm in the next hundred years? (there are wild variations in predictions); (2) How much is caused by humans? (the alarmists say most or almost all of it; the skeptics say only an insignificant amount); and (3) What can we do about it? (most of the alarmists say Kyoto-type actions are important - although some of them have admitted they would do very little) and the skeptics say Kyotos will do almost nothing while decimating economic growth and technological advancement - the very thing necessary to deal with any real problems which may arise from global warming.

Unfortunately, the alarmists constantly mischaracterize the skeptics' position. Apparently they believe that if they can get the skeptics marginalized and can make them look stupid and silly, they can win the public relations war. Since the mainstream media in general and the schools will regurgitate anything the environmental groups feed them the alarmists are probably right.

[sash]

There are those misconceptions again. The forum (most of us skeptics, anyway) does not disagree with the statement that global warming exists.

Every scientist global warming skeptic of which I am aware believes that global warming has been happening and will continue for probably at least another century and that there is a human component. It can't be denied that the world has warmed about .6 degrees celsius in the last 100 years.

The relevant questions are: (1) How much will it warm in the next hundred years? (there are wild variations in predictions); (2) How much is caused by humans? (the alarmists say most or almost all of it; the skeptics say only an insignificant amount); and (3) What can we do about it? (most of the alarmists say Kyoto-type actions are important - although some of them have admitted they would do very little) and the skeptics say Kyotos will do almost nothing while decimating economic growth and technological advancement - the very thing necessary to deal with any real problems which may arise from global warming.

Unfortunately, the alarmists constantly mischaracterize the skeptics' position. Apparently they believe that if they can get the skeptics marginalized and can make them look stupid and silly, they can win the public relations war. Since the mainstream media in general and the schools will regurgitate anything the environmental groups feed them the alarmists are probably right.

Yet another opportunity for our own Hannity impersonator to say the word "alarmists" as many times as possible in a single sentence.

[movielib]

Yet another opportunity for our own Hannity impersonator to say the word "alarmists" as many times as possible in a single sentence.
Yeah, Hannity is a libertarian like me.

[SeekOnce]

There's an article about this very topic in the latest issue of Newsweek. It centers around Rev. Richard Cizik, who is a "Reagan movement conservative" and Bush supporter. The line under the title reads "A new call to combat global warming triggers soul-searching and controversy among evangelicals."

Now I find that statement kinda odd, since being a good steward and caretaker of God's creation is in line with being a Christian, obviously. I see no contradiction with an evangelical making a call to combat global warming.

And honestly, I don't understand the reactive stance of the skeptics especially with the potential stakes involved. If the likely effect of global warming makes the lives of our children more difficult, why not take the initiative now to curb those effects? Do we just wanna hope that everything's fine and dandy 100 years from now? 200 years from now? Why take the chance? We should err on the side of caution since we're gambling with the conditions that our future generations will live in. Higher rates of cancer and erratic climate behaviour don't sound like fun to me.

Global warming exists. Most skeptics agree. And global warming is leading us in a direction that we don't want to go. Right? That way bad. No likie. So what's wrong with implementing reasonable steps such as the trading system proposed by the OP's article? That tackles the economic concerns associated with CO2 regulations. Don't like Kyoto? Okay, propose amendments and changes for it. At least come up with a plan for the US, because voluntary emission cuts as an environmental policy, well, is pretty laughable IMO.

[uberjoe]

Yet another opportunity for our own Hannity impersonator to say the word "alarmists" as many times as possible in a single sentence.

Yeah, a whopping 2. Good thing you pointed that out for us.

[movielib]

There's an article about this very topic in the latest issue of Newsweek. It centers around Rev. Richard Cizik, who is a "Reagan movement conservative" and Bush supporter. The line under the title reads "A new call to combat global warming triggers soul-searching and controversy among evangelicals."

Now I find that statement kinda odd, since being a good steward and caretaker of God's creation is in line with being a Christian, obviously. I see no contradiction with an evangelical making a call to combat global warming.

And honestly, I don't understand the reactive stance of the skeptics especially with the potential stakes involved. If the likely effect of global warming makes the lives of our children more difficult, why not take the initiative now to curb those effects? Do we just wanna hope that everything's fine and dandy 100 years from now? 200 years from now? Why take the chance? We should err on the side of caution since we're gambling with the conditions that our future generations will live in. Higher rates of cancer and erratic climate behaviour don't sound like fun to me.

Global warming exists. Most skeptics agree. And global warming is leading us in a direction that we don't want to go. Right? That way bad. No likie. So what's wrong with implementing reasonable steps such as the trading system proposed by the OP's article? That tackles the economic concerns associated with CO2 regulations. Don't like Kyoto? Okay, propose amendments and changes for it. At least come up with a plan for the US, because voluntary emission cuts as an environmental policy, well, is pretty laughable IMO.
The reason is that the alleged cure is much worse than the problem. If the warming will be on the low side of estimates and if humans do not actually contribute much and if it will ultimately cost trillions of dollars and slow economic growth and technological progress (most skeptics believe all these things), then Kyoto type measures are not erring on the side of caution, they are going to do a lot more harm than good. That is why they are not jumping on the alarmists' bandwagon.

I've posted this a number of times and I will post it again: The Kyoto Count-Up Clock:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

Perhaps you don't agree but if you did, wouldn't you be against this sort of thing? That is why the skeptics oppose the alarmists' agenda.

[SeekOnce]

The reason is that the alleged cure is much worse than the problem. If the warming will be on the low side of estimates and if humans do not actually contribute much and if it will ultimately cost trillions of dollars and slow economic growth and technological progress (most skeptics believe all these things), then Kyoto type measures are not erring on the side of caution, they are going to do a lot more harm than good. That is why they are not jumping on the alarmists' bandwagon.

I've posted this a number of times and I will post it again: The Kyoto Count-Up Clock:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

Perhaps you don't agree but if you did, wouldn't you be against this sort of thing? That is why the skeptics oppose the alarmists' agenda.
But that example is pretty much a worst-case scenario for the skeptic. Sure it'll do alot more harm than good, but that's alot of ifs. To meet all those conditions, not very realistic.

For me, I just don't feel confortable with the wait-and-see-and-hope-for-the-best attitude which the skeptic argument seems to be.

[movielib]

But that example is pretty much a worst-case scenario for the skeptic. Sure it'll do alot more harm than good, but that's alot of ifs. To meet all those conditions, not very realistic.

For me, I just don't feel confortable with the wait-and-see-and-hope-for-the-best attitude which the skeptic argument seems to be.
It may be a lot of ifs but that doesn't mean they are all not true. In fact, I think they are all true. About the only questionable one is how much the warming will be. And if it's more than the skeptics think it will still not change the other factors which are, as far as I can see, quite solid. As I have said, it's better to grow the economy and advance technology so that whatever problems do arise (and, actually, there are some benefits from warming also; it's not all bad), they can be dealt with.

Let's look at the alarmists' ifs: If the warming will be on the high side of estimates (not likely) and if the human contribution is a great part of the warming (I think the evidence is clearly on the side of the skeptics that the human induced increase in CO2 does not contribute significantly) and if Kyoto will not be very costly (no question that's not true) and if it will not slow economic growth and technological advancement (no question that's not true), then the alarmists have a good case. They have just as many ifs as the skeptics with a lot less support.

The skeptics' attitude is not "wait-and-see-and-hope-for-the-best." It is grow the economy, advance technology, deal with problems as they arise (try to anticipate them, of course) with the increase in wealth and the advanced tecnologies that become available. If we do not grow the economy and advance technology we will be less equipped to deal with future problems. And don't forget, the skeptics believe Kyoto is virtually worthless and ineffective to begin with. They wouldn't support it if it cost only 1% of what it will cost.

[movielib]

For what it's worth, it appears that the alarmist faction of the evangelicals may be a small minority of them:

http://www.junkscience.com/feb06/religion.htm

Religion, science and blarney

“Evangelical Climate Initiative” does not represent vast majority of evangelicals

NAE and “Who’s Who” of evangelical leaders do not endorse ECI position

Paul Driessen

Activists recently had breakfast in hoary Senate chambers and a briefing at the National Press Club, in an attempt to convince America and the world that the evangelical Christian community is united in concern about global warming and the need for immediate federal action. Don’t be deceived.

Just last month, the executive council of the 30-million member National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) passed a motion saying there is “ongoing debate about the causes and origins of global warming,” and a “lack of consensus among the evangelical community on this issue.” Reverend Ted Haggard, President of the NAE, subsequently sent a letter to leading evangelicals, assuring them that his group was not taking a position on climate change policy.

Haggard urged evangelicals to become involved in the debate, however. “For too long we’ve allowed a liberal faction with a humanism mindset to determine the national tenor of the discussion,” he said. “It is time for Bible-believing evangelicals, who believe that God created the Earth and we are to be its steward, to be a voice at the table.”

The February 8 breakfast meeting, hosted by Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman, was intended to counter this, by introducing a new organization that calls itself the Evangelical Climate Initiative or ECI. This small but vocal group is lending its support to environmental activists who want to point to the involvement of religious conservatives as further evidence that momentum is growing across the political spectrum for immediate action to reduce what they say is potentially catastrophic climate change.

The federal actions they have in mind would likely include mandatory emission controls, restrictions on energy use, and/or higher energy taxes to “encourage” conservation by driving up the costs of nearly everything.

Their assertions are contested by the vast majority of evangelicals. Even as the ECI released its policy statement, top evangelical leaders took issue with the new group and declared that “there should be room for Bible-believing evangelicals to disagree about the cause and severity of global warming, and solutions to this issue.” Those leaders include Charles Colson (Prison Fellowship Ministries), Dr. James Dobson (Focus on the Family), Dr. D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church), Dr. Richard Land (Southern Baptist Convention), Dr. Richard Roberts (Oral Roberts University), Rev. Louis P. Sheldon (Traditional Values Coalition), and Donald Wildmon (American Family Association).

They and the NAE have made it clear that mankind has “a sacred responsibility to steward the Earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part.” But they also underscore the need to recognize the adverse impacts that energy and environmental policies can have on the poor.

The desire to make religious and ethical concerns, sound science and economic progress cornerstones of public policy prompted the recent formation of the Interfaith Stewardship Alliance (ISA). This new organization also reinforces the fact that the majority of evangelicals in the United States do not share the ECI's viewpoint and do not embrace its policy.

“While there is a lot of debate about the causes and hazards of climate change and how best to respond to it, there is no debate about the Bible’s priority on helping the world’s poor to improve their lot,” ISA national spokesperson Dr. E. Calvin Beisner noted. “By declining to embrace anti-warming policies that would delay economic development and access to clean air, clean water, and reliable food and energy supplies in poor countries, we and the NAE are putting the needs of the poor at the forefront.”

The science is not settled on global warming, he and the ISA emphasize. More than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition, which states: “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” And the ISA has issued a report, “An Examination of the Scientific, Ethical and Theological Implications of Climate Change Policy,” addressing the moral, theological and scientific aspects of climate policy.” (see www.interfaithstewardship.org/pdf/ISA_Climate_Change.pdf

In that report, Dr. Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and former senior climate scientist with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, observed: “We cannot say for certain how much the planet may be warming, how much is due to human activities versus natural cycles, or whether these changes in global temperature would be mostly good or mostly bad for the majority of people.” (Beisner and this author also wrote sections of the ISA report.)

Our atmosphere and climate are so complex that meteorologists have only a rudimentary grasp of what actually causes storms, droughts, heat waves, cold snaps and climate conditions that have changed many times over the centuries, often dramatically. In addition, as pointed out in the ISA paper, feedback mechanisms are poorly understood and “only a couple percent increase in low clouds would offset the warming effects of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use.” All this makes climate models inherently suspect.

“We believe the embrace of mandatory greenhouse-gas emission reductions would pose very high risks to the world’s poor and low-income people, without offsetting those risks with sufficient benefits from such a policy,” Beisner said. “We don't think that’s a ‘right-wing’ concern, but a basic human and indeed Christian concern.”

By making energy less affordable and accessible, mandatory controls would drive up the costs of consumer products, stifle economic growth, cost jobs, and impose especially harmful effects on the Earth’s poorest people. The Kyoto climate treaty, for example, could cost the world community $1 trillion a year – five times the estimated price of providing sanitation and clean drinking water to poor developing countries, the ISA report observes, citing various studies.

According to the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, even “full and perfect compliance” with the Kyoto Protocol would mean the average global temperature in 2050 would be only 0.2° F lower than it would be in the absence of emissions controls. Its impact on minority communities in the USA, on the other hand, could cost Black and Hispanic families 1.3 million jobs in 2012.

A panel composed of eight of the world’s most distinguished economists examined various proposals for dealing with climate change by reducing carbon emissions. The panel’s “Copenhagen Consensus” concludes that these proposals are “bad projects” whose “costs were likely to exceed the benefits.”

Neither constant drumbeats about climate catastrophe, nor the blarney of venerable statesmen like Senator McCain, can change these facts or the need to address these concerns. Moreover, it would be morally wrong to focus on distant theoretical concerns about global warming – while ignoring the real, immediate and often life-or-death dangers faced by our poorest citizens.

_____________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ∙ Black death (www.Eco-Imperialism.com)

[VinVega]

movielib, I don't think it was implied in the article I posted that the whole of Evangelicals were backing the legislation. It said 85 leaders backed it. There's a lot more Evangelicals out there, especially considering the Mega Churches out there.

[movielib]

movielib, I don't think it was implied in the article I posted that the whole of Evangelicals were backing the legislation. It said 85 leaders backed it. There's a lot more Evangelicals out there, especially considering the Mega Churches out there.
I'm not saying you or the article implied anything like that. But the fact is that the alarmists would love to be able to say they have strong, across-the-board agreement and if they do not point to this group of evangelicals and say: "See, even these right wing Christians are on our side" I will be very surprised. The article I posted puts the group in perspective and should lessen the propaganda value to the alarmists (if the true, more broad story is not ignored in the mainstream media which could certainly happen).

[Venusian]

some of those that do support action, particularly Rick Warren, are very influential right now

[Chaos]

Every expert I've seen on television has said there is pretty much unrefutable evidence of global warming. I know this forum tends to disagree with that notion... can someone link me to a thread that would explain why? It sure seems to be the general concensus these days but I would love to be able to argue against it intelligently with my friends.

As has been said, we know for a fact that the earth is warming, (by .5C in the past century I think) - that's indisputable. What IS in dispute, is whether the warming is nartural or human-caused.

Human-causation says CO2 and other gases (It's projected the ozone will repair the damage done by CFC's fully by 2050) are warming the planet, via fossil fuels primarily, and other human activity.

Natural causes says the earth is going through a natural warming phase (Note: if the planet only warms 1C per century, that's plenty of time for flora and fauna to adapt, so it's really no big deal if its that slow): some say its a cycle of the earth, some say the sun is warming up the earth (which it actually is as it ages. The sun will increase in heat output as it eventually turns into a red star in a few bill. yrs; but as to how much or if this warming is affecting earth isn't clearly known).

How do the environmentalists claim human activity is causing it all? GCM's (General Computer Models). Scientists feed collected data into a computer and make models based on that data and the computer then makes projections; these projections have been proven wrong in the past though.

Example: the atlantic conveyor (atlantic ocean currents) are slowing down like in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but its not causing a cool down as the computer model predicted. Why? Scientists found out that their data was lacking, there were other currents, winds, etc and factors that they didn't take account of, and so the computer model they used was incomplete and didn't properly predict the present day outcome from past data.

All the predictions are based on computer models; the computer can only make a prediction with the data it's given, which means sometimes it exaggerates the warming, sometimes it underestimates it; bottom line is that we aren't 100% sure how all the Biosphere (earth as a whole) really works. We can't reproduce a successful large scale closed ecosystem, which means there are factors and interactions we are still missing; scientists are trying to figure out the interactions, but it's extremely complicated. Anyone who says they understand all the interactions is full of it: our best computers make mistakes, and to this day scientists are still refining them.

[classicman2]

I almost cringe everytime I see the media use the word 'evangelical.'

I just thought I would throw that in.

[Venusian]

since there is hardly a concensus on the definition of evangelical, I agree with cman :eek:

[heimerSWT]

some of those that do support action, particularly Rick Warren, are very influential right now
I think you read that sentence wrong: "However, the names of most of the president's most influential Christian political backers were notably absent from the list of signatories joining the campaign. Possibly the best-known signer was Rick Warren, author of the best-selling book, "The Purpose Driven Life."

[Thor Simpson]

I almost cringe everytime I see the media use the word 'evangelical.'
Strong agreement.

[B.A.]

there is a big push in the "evangelical" movement to return to the NT church idea of helping the poor. a lot of this is starting on the liberal or progressive side of the church but is being embraced by a lot of people. I think this ftis in line with that if the people believe global warming is harming the world's poorSo "evangelicals' haven't believed in helping the poor in the past?

:hscratch:

I thought that was one of the central tenets of Christianity.

[B.A.]

I almost cringe everytime I see the media use the word 'evangelical.'Yeah, I prefer "Born-Again Bible-beater" myself.




;)

[SeekOnce]

It may be a lot of ifs but that doesn't mean they are all not true. In fact, I think they are all true. About the only questionable one is how much the warming will be. And if it's more than the skeptics think it will still not change the other factors which are, as far as I can see, quite solid. As I have said, it's better to grow the economy and advance technology so that whatever problems do arise (and, actually, there are some benefits from warming also; it's not all bad), they can be dealt with.

Let's look at the alarmists' ifs: If the warming will be on the high side of estimates (not likely) and if the human contribution is a great part of the warming (I think the evidence is clearly on the side of the skeptics that the human induced increase in CO2 does not contribute significantly) and if Kyoto will not be very costly (no question that's not true) and if it will not slow economic growth and technological advancement (no question that's not true), then the alarmists have a good case. They have just as many ifs as the skeptics with a lot less support.
Well I don't agree with that last statement, but we can go back and forth on that all day so we'll leave that be. :) As always, the truth of the situation is probably somewhere down the middle of both viewpoints. Now I know the implementation of Kyoto by the US is not realistic. So then my question is, what about coming up with a policy with more modest reduction targets instead? Something reasonable. Why is it either one extreme or the other, and nothing in between?

The skeptics' attitude is not "wait-and-see-and-hope-for-the-best." It is grow the economy, advance technology, deal with problems as they arise (try to anticipate them, of course) with the increase in wealth and the advanced tecnologies that become available. If we do not grow the economy and advance technology we will be less equipped to deal with future problems. And don't forget, the skeptics believe Kyoto is virtually worthless and ineffective to begin with. They wouldn't support it if it cost only 1% of what it will cost.
Okay, I'm confused because that standpoint is still saying that nothing is to be done NOW. Only after the natural progression and advancement of the technology and the economy should we act? So sometime down the road then. Sounds like a passive wait-around attitude to me. :shrug:

The skeptics approach proposes we do nothing for the moment. I can't interpret it any other way.

[Venusian]

I think you read that sentence wrong: "However, the names of most of the president's most influential Christian political backers were notably absent from the list of signatories joining the campaign. Possibly the best-known signer was Rick Warren, author of the best-selling book, "The Purpose Driven Life."
huh? i thought i said the same thing

[Venusian]

So "evangelicals' haven't believed in helping the poor in the past?

:hscratch:

I thought that was one of the central tenets of Christianity.
it is. and most churches do help the poor as a central part of their involvement in community. however, the vocal part that most people see are the policical movements etc. many "evangelicals" are tyring to change taht

[movielib]

So then my question is, what about coming up with a policy with more modest reduction targets instead? Something reasonable. Why is it either one extreme or the other, and nothing in between?
Because the reductions, modest or not, will not really do anything. The warming "savings" would be even less than Kyoto (which are almost nothing as it is) so they will still be a waste.

Okay, I'm confused because that standpoint is still saying that nothing is to be done NOW. Only after the natural progression and advancement of the technology and the economy should we act? So sometime down the road then. Sounds like a passive wait-around attitude to me. :shrug:
No, it's not that nothing should be done now. We do have technology right now that could combat some possible effects of global warming. Although there is precious little evidence that sea levels are rising enough to cause problems (the island problems going on now are due to tectonic and volcanic activity, not warming), we could nevertheless build some levees where needed and that would be far less costly than reducing CO2 emissions. But as we do increase our wealth and improve technology, we will be able to do much more of this type of thing. That, again, will be more effective and far less costly than reducing emissions which is almost useless anyway.

There are also some ideas out there right now. For example, a scientist noticed that, while kangaroos and cattle have essentially the same diet, cows emit much methane into the air through farting (and methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) while kangaroos don't. He is studying whether introducing enzymes found in kangaroo stomachs into cattle would accomplish a reduction in the methane they emit. There is work being done with aerosols to counter warming and a lot of other stuff. All would have much less negative economic impact than reducing CO2 emissions. Some may be harebrained or crackpot but it's a pretty sure thing that some will prove helpful. Reducing CO2 emissions is so slightly helpful that it hardly measures on the radar.

The skeptics approach proposes we do nothing for the moment. I can't interpret it any other way.
Well, I think you should. Just because they are against reducing emissions (on solid ground, I believe) that hardly means they are doing nothing. The money for R&D that could be put into handling potential problems will simply not be there if we waste trillions (or even billions) on reducing emissions. Keeping world economies on track, increasing wealth and advancing technology is doing a great deal - and it will accomplish a great deal more than Kyoto at far less cost.

[Ky-Fi]

Evangelicals, post global warming:

http://accordionguy.blogware.com/Photos/2005/02/hairy_beach_dude_for_jesus.jpg


eXcentris,

I'll have you know that I was so enraged by that disrespectful photo that I went outside and burned a flag of Quebec, crumpled up an old Guy LaFleur hockey card, and overturned my own car.