Global warming (or "climate change", a term I prefer because it doesn't limit itself solely to warmer temperatures) is a "fundamental part of Christian ethics" for at least two reasons. 1. It has significant negative implications for human life (as well as non-human life). 2. To the extent that humans have exacerbated potentially harmful climate change, we have done so largely out of greed, avarice, selfishness, ignorance, and an unwillingness to sacrifice for "the greater good." In that sense, our actions that have contributed to climate change have been sinful.

Posted by: D4P | February 7, 2007 8:41 PM

It would be nice to see Evangelicals and scientists working together. p

Posted by: Payshun | February 7, 2007 9:09 PM

I wonder how "green" the evangelicals are. How many of them drive gas-guzzling SUVs, eat, drink, sleep, and consume in wasteful ways? The beginning of any document that has "signatures" is a commitment to a lifestyle that, I dare say many evangelical "hipsters" are far from ebracing. Dissecting American consumerism is the key to this movement. In a few years, the young evangelicals will become the older conservative group, replacing the current ones who appeared at Woodstock 40 years ago.

Posted by: Antonym | February 7, 2007 10:02 PM

I am one that has never bought into the 'global warming' craze. There are too many 'holes' in their theory and this same group has been telling me that the sky is falling for decades. NOW - that being said - I do believe that we should make every effort to reduce pollution anywhere and everywhere we can. There are a significant number of scientists that make a very good argument for the 1500 year warming that the earth goes through. They believe that we are in that warming cycle right now. Core drillings in the artic ice reinforce this theory. Al Gore will never buy into this because he can't make any money on this premise. Why is it that the US is being held to a higher standard than India and other countries that pollute much more than we do? Just my take...

Posted by: moderatelad | February 8, 2007 1:03 AM

moderatelad, To what higher standard is the US being required to comply? I'm responding to: "... Why is it that the US is being held to a higher standard than India and other countries that pollute much more than we do?...".

Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 8, 2007 4:41 AM

Kevin S. Thank you for your 7 questions. The fact that what we really know falls apart at question #2 really puts this issue into context. I am sure that the answers to the cost/benefit analysis questions (#4 and #5) are not favorable. The answer to #6 is also "yes" which makes the answers to the previous two questions even worse. However, it is your last statement that everyone has to understand. Politics has taken absolute control of this issue to the point where junk science is prefered over proper analysis. Christians must not only reject the ugly economics of these issues that are put forth by the right, but we must reject the over-the-top socialist agenda regarding conservation issues that come from the left.

Posted by: DBIX | February 8, 2007 5:29 AM

I want to echo the points raised by Kevin S. Especially in the category of spending millions of dollars on research in areas where there is little indication that we can make a significant difference. Yes, climate change seems to be happening, but as was in the news recently, it may be more nature tha man-made and thus little we can do about it. However, while we spin our wheels, there are other issues that can have more direct impact on people's lives that have yet to touched. Examples include: * Clean Drinking Water. * Clean Electricity for Refrigeration of medical Supplies and Food. * Sustainable, Culturally Appropriate technology. * Medical Research and Drug distribution for diseases like Malaria. * Studies to determine methods of prevention of such diseases prior to it becoming a medical issue. For example, DDT my not be viable due to the long term effects, but with it banned, what has been done to find a more friendly alternative. In my opinion, global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it, is in some ways a safe cop out to say one is doing something. It is so big and nebulous, it is easy to say that we are doing something of import with little real commitment.
Let's focus our efforts where we know we can do some good. The people dying of unsanitary water, preventable diseases, and a simple lack of food are here now. If we fail to address the issues right in front of us, I think we will be more culpable before God than we will over global warming.

Posted by: David B. | February 8, 2007 1:32 PM

David B. | 02.08.07 - 8:37 am | #
Let's focus our efforts where we know we can do some good. AMEN!!!!

Posted by: moderatelad | February 8, 2007 2:24 PM

Kevin S.,
Several of your answers to questions are wrong, based on the research I have done. There are questions at the margins, but there is virtually no dispute that human activity -- specifically the increased production of CO2 since industrialization -- has and will continue to cause significant warming because a dramatically enhanced greenhouse effect. This warming can be documented even taking into account predictable variations in temperature. While it is unclear how much reducing emissions can mitigate this trend, it is pretty clear that if we continue our trend of ever increasing emissions will cause the problem to get substantially worse.
Several of your questions are simply the wrong questions. The notion that the US is not obliged to act if major [sic] players like China do not act, when the US produces 25% of CO2 emissions, is, frankly immoral.

Posted by: sophie brown | February 8, 2007 3:36 PM

CP I am glad you care. I suggest that you begin talking to friends and neighbors about the issue. That is what my church is doing; here is our web site: www.moscowclimatechange.com. The community response has been tremendous. Perhaps you can look at your own behavior and see whether there are steps you can take to lessen your own carbon footprint. Did you know that every gallon of gas that you use in your car produces 22 pounds of carbon? Can you reduce your driving by 10 per cent? 20 per cent? Can you join others in your community in working for mass transit and other options that would reduce our use of carbon based fuels? Can you change your light bulbs and reduce your thermostat by 5 degrees?
Human behavior is malleable. We can change our priorities and change our course. It happens one person, one community, one church at a time. peace.

Posted by: sophie brown | February 8, 2007 4:15 PM

"This same argument is made about China and the rest of the world. Should we have our behavior determined by anyone else? If it is the right thing to do then do it.'' And we are doing it. However, when it comes to international treaties, there is an international component, by virtue of them being international, wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: kevin s. | February 8, 2007 4:59 PM

"He is asking us to care. Okay, I care... Now what?" kevin s. | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 11:01 am | #
Act

Posted by: butch | February 8, 2007 5:13 PM

Kevin, "Scientists should stay away from politics?" Sorry... I've had enough.
A scientist has just as much right to participate in the political process as anybody else. Why should a scientist have to "stay away from politics"? Scientists being excluded from the climate and ecological debate has led to industries and organizations with vested interests in obscuring the issue to control the debate for far too long. If the powers that be had listend to, rather than tried to discredit, the scientists who have been doing climate reasearch, global warming might not be such a problem. And it IS a problem. The almost unanimous scientific consensus is that global warming is real, and that is is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Why would anybody have a problem with educated, informed EXPERTS with research on their side having input in the policy-making process? What useful purpose could be achieved by EXCLUDING them? It would be a little like the family of a sick person ignoring a doctor who might have the expertise to save the person's life.... Of course, this current administration is famous for ignoring expert advice if it does not conform to the political ends they wish to make manifest. Since when did political expediency take precedence over cold, hard, impirical research?

Posted by: Matt Channing | February 8, 2007 5:39 PM

lol, ok just checked the epa website, I was wrong...

Posted by: Aaron | February 8, 2007 5:45 PM

lol, ok just checked the RNC website, I was wrong.....

Posted by: butch | February 8, 2007 6:06 PM

Global warming is a Leftist tool for bashing Capitalism. Beyond that it is anti-American, aimed directly at destroying our economic power specifically and western economic dominance in general. These "scientists" can't tell us with any accuracy what the weather will be 10 days from now yet we should believe them when they say that we will destroy the earth in 100 years, or whatever the current prediction is? The whacko Left and their fellow travelers have been predicting cataclysmic events of this nature for years. Let s see there was the new ice age, then there was overpopulation. Those didn t pan out so now it is on to Global Warming. I pray the Lord will protect us from evangelicals of the mold displayed on this Blog. Amen.

Posted by: Art T | February 8, 2007 7:31 PM

Soylent Green Is PEOPLE! You've got to tell them!

Posted by: fasternu426 | February 8, 2007 8:41 PM

"Why should a scientist have to "stay away from politics"?" So that we can be comfortable that his or her experimentation is independent and without ulterior motive.
"Several of your questions are simply the wrong questions. The notion that the US is not obliged to act if major [sic] players like China do not act, when the US produces 25% of CO2 emissions, is, frankly immoral." This doesn't mean that it is wrong to ask what we do if India and China would render our efforts moot by refusing to adhere to our standards.
These questions are necessary in the forging of sensible environmental policy. If you propose a policy to reduce carbon emissions that will cost Americans 40 trillion dollars, it isn't going to fly. The questions of what we can do, what good it will do if we do it, and what will it cost us to do it, are highly relevant to the debate.
Environmentalists would serve their cause well to consider them before asking people to apply their signatures to documents.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 8, 2007 9:46 PM

kevin s -- in what sense are the authors of the report injecting themselves into politics as you mention? They just prepared the fourth installment of a report as they were mandated to do. What motives do you fear here? How is the self interest of climatologists served by advancing this position? On the other hand, those willing to take the contrary view are being paid handsomely by exxon funded think tank, and can get their mug on the fox channel and others who are still trying to frame this as a debate. That's where the money and glory lies.
China and India would not "nullify" conservation efforts within the united states. If people in this country were to significantly change their behavior, the problem of climate change would be reduced, regardless of what those in what other countries do.
I am glad your own personal behavior is sustainable. That's certainly a first step. But your fatalism is very dangerous. I know people very involved in this issue who believe that we have a window of opportunity to substantially reduce the rate of increase of carbon by changing us behavior.
As for India and China, they too are players in the international economy, subject to incentives and pressure like others. They are also generating a lot of this waste in the service of western materialism.
Can we do something? We have to try. This is a time when a little optimism and a little hope in human nature is the only viable alternative.

Posted by: sophie brown | February 8, 2007 11:17 PM

So the best you can come up with for politicization is that some conclusions were leaked in advance? Do you know the source of leaks? Was it the scientists? How many of them? Does it impact their conclusions. In any event, I understand the agitation of the scientific community, and their desire to generate more publicity about this issue, because we've ignored it for years. I have friends in the field and they are speaking out for the first time ever, because they understand that they have been called to do so. You can't compare the fame and notoriety of the climate change contrarians with those scientists who are part of the consensus. The former have sought to make names for themselves and have found corporate backers. The latter are nameless volunteers. Do you know the names of any of the authors of the ICCC (sp?)report? I doubt it. Your case for politicization and self interest simply doesn't fit the facts. If the US reduces its consumption by 20% that will make a major difference for carbon levels REGARDLESS of what developing countries do, because we are one of if not the largest generators of carbon waste. Conversely, if the US doesn't act the problem will never be solved. In addition, when the US becomes engaged in this issue, and begins to act on its own, it will be an position to put pressure on developing countries, and we won't have to rely on france. Again, without the US the likelihood that effective pressure will be placed on developing countries is nonexistent. Am I advocating government intervention? No, I am advocating a change in consciousness. I am hopeful that the better angels of our human nature -- not our greed or obsession with bigger and more -- will lead individuals and communities to come to terms with their own overconsumption of fossil fuels. Of course, we'll need government action. But mostly we'll need a change of heart.

Posted by: sophie brown | February 9, 2007 12:58 AM

Carl Copas | 02.08.07 - 3:51 pm | #
The same scientist that are currently talking about global warming/climate change were trouting the coming ice age when I was in junior high. I am in favor of taking care of the earth. We should do everything we can so that we can give it to our children in the best shape possible. I just can not agree with the wackos that promote and scare people. Let us improve our way of life and how we manufacture goods etc without causing harm to the economy. I believe that we can make it so that corp. america will want to clean up because it is their best interest to do so. not throw the baby out with the bath.

Posted by: moderatelad | February 9, 2007 2:44 AM

"So the best you can come up with for politicization is that some conclusions were leaked in advance? " They weren't leaks to my knowledge, it was a summary released to the press by the organization itself. Correct me if I am wrong. Does it impact their conclusions? No. Does it impact how they present their conclusions? Of course. "because we've ignored it for years." We certainly ignored it during the Clinton administration. We'll ignore it again if a Democrat is elected in 2008. Perhaps we should elect a Republican so that people can get mad enough about this to continue to care. "The latter are nameless volunteers. Do you know the names of any of the authors of the ICCC (sp?)report? I doubt it." No. Do you know the names of the contrarians? I doubt it. I don't. Doesn't mean both sides aren't making money off this issue. "Am I advocating government intervention? No, I am advocating a change in consciousness." Really? Then I stand (implicity) corrected. But you should understand that what Wallis is advocating (again, implicitly) is governmental intervention.
On this, perhaps we agree. People should care about the contributions they make to the destruction of the environment. To this end, we should take the steps available to us to clean up our act (e.g. buying a Ford Focus instead of a Chevy Tahoe).
We can use our faith to convince others to rebel against the trend of living 35 miles from our city centers, and encourage people to recycle.
But when it comes to governmental action, we must be more calculated in our approach.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 9, 2007 6:46 AM

Chris C | 02.09.07 - 11:37 am | #
You know - I thought that this was about 'global warming' and you bring it around to Bush Bashing. Grow up and keep on topic. It is not about IRAQ - it is not about the current admin. It is about the theory of Global Warming. .

Posted by: moderatelad | February 9, 2007 6:22 PM

moderatelad: i just tried to post a response and it got lost in cyberspace. I don't see the "ice-age" scare as the equivalent of global-warming fear. the ice-age thing came and went in a few short years. global warming, on the other hand, has been a public issue for some 15 years and the subject of serious scientific research for even longer.

Posted by: Carl Copas | February 9, 2007 6:47 PM

Carl Copas | 02.09.07 - 1:52 pm | #
Yes - but there are other 'theories' out there that are not being given the press because they do not fit the agenda. There is a '1500 Year Warming' where core drillings of the artic ice cap validates this theory. Every 1500 or so years the earth experiences a 'warming' and they say that is what is happening currently. Many of the scientists that promote the global warming theory are tied to the gov't with major grants and so have a reason to not shoot the cash cow. Let's be responsible - not Wacko. .

Posted by: moderatelad | February 9, 2007 9:31 PM

Here are some links: http://www.ictsd.org/weekly/07-02-07/story5.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm p

Posted by: Payshun | February 10, 2007 12:52 AM

Payshun | Homepage | 02.09.07 - 7:52 pm | #
by the way - 'headed by the UN' means nothing to me. They have shown themselves to an untrustworthy group. later -

Posted by: moderatelad | February 10, 2007 3:39 AM

Carl Copas | 02.09.07 - 1:52 pm | #
just a thought - maybe the 'ice age' came and went to quickly because it was not the 'cash cow' that they needed? later -

Posted by: robstur | February 10, 2007 3:08 PM

Oh, Robstur, good to see you pal.

Posted by: Carl Copas | February 10, 2007 7:24 PM

Mike, George Bush is only following the precedent set by the Clinton administration. In 1997 the Senate approved a resolution 95-0 that stated that the US should not sign a treaty with binding limits unless those limits included both developed and developing nations. The Clinton adminstration decided shortly thereafter not to submit the treaty to the Senate. Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | February 11, 2007 12:28 AM

"My impression is that the US and other wealthy nations pollute on a much higher per capita basis than do developing nations." That is changing rapidly. Any effort we engage in must bring India and China to the table, or it will do nothing to solve the problem.
"Many of the wealthy nations signed on to the Kyoto treaty." And one (the U.K.) is adhering to it, which is a major problem.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 11, 2007 1:41 AM

"The US hesitancy to participate is not helping its ability to influence other nations, generally." So we should participate in a charade in the hopes that it might convince other countries to care? I don't understand this logic. If we get involved, then it seems they will have even less incentive to meet their goals, especially if we fall short.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 11, 2007 6:59 AM

kevin, I just think that the president is being very determined to stick by the recommendations of his advisors on a number of issues and that the US is becoming isolated. It is time for the US to do some compromising with our allies and expect that there will be additional opportunities in the future to persuade other countries to compromise with us. Wayne, I agree.

Posted by: Mike Hayes | February 11, 2007 3:38 PM

" It is time for the US to do some compromising with our allies and expect that there will be additional opportunities in the future to persuade other countries to compromise with us." Fine, but if this is what you are left with in terms of an argument for the Kyoto treaty, would you consider the possibility that another course of action might be more suitable? Incidentally, do you think the personal actions of Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy (I'm talking windmills here, not drownings and the rest) reflect poorly on us before the international community?
These are supposed to be the champions of radical environmental policy, and they seem not to care at a personal level. Would you consider them "green" or morally superior on this issue?

Posted by: kevin s. | February 11, 2007 6:21 PM

moderatelad: "Yes - and some of these same scientist 15+ years ago were blaming the deterioration of the Ozone layer on cows farting." ROTFL: Talk about confusing global warming gases (including methane) with ozone depletion chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons... Actually, the relationship between human-produced compounds and the depletion of the ozone layer is pretty well established. Furthermore, the removal of CFCs from the market in the '80s seems to be slowing ozone depletion and the ozone layer appears headed for recovery in the mid- to late-decades of this century. As for the "winter" scares of the earlier decades: That was never the concensus view of most atmospheric/climate scientists, in contrast to current research results on global warming. elsewhere... Many of the scientists that promote the global warming theory are tied to the gov't with major grants and so have a reason to not shoot the cash cow. On the whole I don't find that a strong argument. Many scientists don't have a vested interest in either direction. And most have a thing called "professional integrity". If you're a scientist and make a habit of slinging pure BS, it eventually comes back to haunt you -- Scientific careers live or die depending on the quality of one's work. It's hard to run away from bad papers because everyone in the field reads and remembers them. The fact that so many scientists in the same field can actually reach a broad consensus on such a previously contentious subject leads me to suspect that they're really on to something.

Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | February 11, 2007 9:25 PM

Mike Hayes | 02.10.07 - 3:03 pm | #
Maybe C. T. Whittman went out on a limb that the adm. told her not to? Would not be the first time and won't be the last. later .

Posted by: moderatelad | February 12, 2007 12:15 AM

"On the whole I don't find that a strong argument. Many scientists don't have a vested interest in either direction. And most have a thing called "professional integrity"." Is professional integrity unique to scientists? Are they somehow immune to the promise of job security? Analyzing global climate change is tremendously complex. The manner in which these enormous complexities are reduced to simple statements (e.g. "shocking people") is very subjective.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 12, 2007 12:25 AM

"kevin, can you be specific? I hope you're not going to bring up the Pelosi jet thing--talk about a non-issue. and yes, if she were Republican, i'd still say it's a non-issue." I don't have an issue with the jet thing (other than her playing the gender card). I do have an issue with her clamoring for her own jet while her party is benefitting from their supposedly "green" stances. This is why I have trouble tying morality to opinions on enivronmental policy.
Ted Kennedy, and a number of other famous liberals, including Walter Cronkite, famously opposed the placement of windmills in the Nantucket Sound (where they often reside), for aesthetic reasons. Again, I'm sympathetic to the argument, but what kind of statement does it send internationally? "Are you just saying Kyoto won't decrease any pollution? I am not trying to attack you. I am trying to understand." My point about Kyoto (and I bring it up because it is the only policy proposal I have seen advanced on this board) is that the cost/benefit ratio is horrendous.
The goal of Kyoto was to raise the temperature by 0.07 degrees Celsius by 2050. This nominal correction would have cost billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Further, it would not have been achieved, because the other participating countries are showing little interest in adhering to the treaty they shame us for not signing.
Reducing pollution is merely a means to an end. If it does not result in a reversal of global warming, then it is not inherently "good", particularly if it costs money, jobs, and (as a consquence of the former) lives.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 12, 2007 12:39 AM

Along the lines of politicians and wind farms: Note that former MA governor Romney also opposed the wind generators off the cape and finagled the right to veto the project.

Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | February 12, 2007 3:09 AM

Unsympathetic Reader: "Actually, the relationship between human-produced compounds and the depletion of the ozone layer is pretty well established. Furthermore, the removal of CFCs from the market in the '80s seems to be slowing ozone depletion and the ozone layer appears headed for recovery in the mid- to late-decades of this century." I would like to see this information. Where is it? I have worked in the refrigeration industry most of my life and I have yet to see any data to substantiate that the so called ozone layer hole is anything but a natural phenomenon. It occurs every year when the south pole is turned away from the sun because ozone is produced through a catalytic reaction with sun light. No sun light, no production of ozone, ozone content drops. Furthermore, this idea of the ozone layer being depleted by CFC's is bogus for one simple reason. CFC's are heavier than air. No one ever bothers to mention that the models used to prove the dangers of CFC did not include density of the materials involved. If you dug a hole and vented a bottle of CFC's or HFC's (the CFC replacement) they would stay in the hole because they are heavier than air.
There were two reasons we shifted from CFC's. First, a bunch of scientists needed to justify their funding. Second, Dupont and other refrigerant producers saw it as major chance to improve their margins. The switch from CFC's to HFC's put billions of dollars from the sale of the new materials and equipment into their pockets. It also caused the escalation of prices for all refrigerants especially R12 which is currently at $20.00/lb versus about $2.00/lb ten years ago.

Posted by: David B. | February 12, 2007 1:27 PM

"The US by its stance on Kyoto and the war in Iraq is appearing to ignore the opinion of other nations, which otherwise would likely participate with the US in deciding how to approach these and other issues." Setting Iraq aside, are you saying that we should have signed the Kyoto treaty even though it would have cost us between $100-$400 billion dollars, and even though none of the other signers (save one) had any intention of keeping their end of the bargain?
Kyoto was a bad idea. Bill Clinton (and just about everyone else) realized this. Should we embrace bad ideas in hopes that it will allow for future compromises?
David B. has a perfect illustration of how money can influence science, btw. The banning of DDT is another.
"Along the lines of politicians and wind farms: Note that former MA governor Romney also opposed the wind generators off the cape and finagled the right to veto the project." As I said, I have no problem with the opposition to wind energy. I think the windmills are unsightly, and I wouldn't want them near my property, either. But Mitt Romney isn't running on environmental issues (though I'm sure he pays lip service to alternative fuels) and certainly isn't enjoying the support of environmentalists, or receiving praise from Jim Wallis for being "green".

Posted by: kevin s. | February 12, 2007 2:59 PM

David B. I would like to see this information. Where is it? I have worked in the refrigeration industry most of my life and I have yet to see any data to substantiate that the so called ozone layer hole is anything but a natural phenomenon." Where have you looked? A quick Google pulled out papers well back to the 1990's. Some starting websites: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/2006/chapters/twentyquestions.pdf http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/ http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/chemistry/ It occurs every year when the south pole is turned away from the sun because ozone is produced through a catalytic reaction with sun light. No sun light, no production of ozone, ozone content drops." Correct, the formation of ozone there has a seasonal component and there is year-to-year variation. But sunlight and "natural" mechanisms are not the only factor in the cycle of ozone creation and depletion. With the introduction of chlorofluorocarbons an additional ozone depleting reaction was added, shifting the steady-state toward reduction of ozone concentrations. The hole over the Antarctic used to be smaller and would refill more quickly. Now, it's larger and no longer rebounds as far. Natural causes were investigated and appear to be insufficient to account for the magnitude of change. In contrast, ozone depleting compounds were measured in the upper atmosphere and from the chemistry we know, it probably does contribute to the increased loss. Over the last couple decades there has been a measurable loss in global ozone levels, not just over the Antarctic. "Furthermore, this idea of the ozone layer being depleted by CFC's is bogus for one simple reason. CFC's are heavier than air. No one ever bothers to mention that the models used to prove the dangers of CFC did not include density of the materials involved." That would be a good point if there were no wind or flow. But it turns out that most stable chemical species become pretty well distributed via convection and turbulent mixing. Unfortunately, there are transport mechanisms in the atmosphere that allow ozone destroying CFC and its byproducts to reach the upper atmosphere. It can take a while to make it up there (even in the neighborhood of 15 years), but CFC molecules last a long time. BTW - This seems a perennial question: I also found a FAQ describing this info that dates back over a decade. There were two reasons we shifted from CFC's. First, a bunch of scientists needed to justify their funding...DuPont... As I mentioned to kevin s., I'm not going to respond to conspiracy theories.

Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | February 12, 2007 6:17 PM

And I am seeing hot air in statements such as "I hope that this will shock people". The truth is that the IPCC is backing off many of the more drastic claims from the same report years ago.
If you are unwilling to engage in a discussion of the different motives at play in these scientific investiagtions, and how results are interpreted, you are simply missing part of the discussion.

Posted by: kevin s. | February 12, 2007 8:40 PM

I'm not sure I could. So when you suggest that the complexity of the models are daunting, can you say you've actually investigated them in sufficient detail to properly evaluate them? This is part of the hot air I think I'm seeing. Unsympathetic reader | 02.12.07 - 1:30 pm | #
Unsym, this is so well reasoned and stated, if you were dealing with someone with a concience it would cut to the quick. You are dealing with people paid to disrupt the discussion and keep this blog off balance.

Posted by: Butch | February 12, 2007 9:04 PM

Pay, that is read meat for the Republi-Nazi's. They've moved you off topic, the scientist have spoken with one voice and they are clear. If someone has different proof otherwise then that might be worth looking at. But changing the subject to "questioning their motives" is a clever dodge. If you want to question motives then question those here who change the subject from any issue that is at odds with the Neo-Cons.

Posted by: Butch | February 12, 2007 9:19 PM

"It is still a theory - and only a theory." So is gravity. So is the germ theory of disease. So is evolution. So is quantum physics. You might look up the scientific definition of "theory." Scientists use this word in a very different way than does the general public.

Posted by: Carl Copas | February 13, 2007 12:27 AM

Unsym, you miss my point which is that Republi-Nazi's change the subject to anything other than the subject. If I were certain industries negatively affected by restraints on emissions I would pay lobbyist to interrupt any on line group that might get wheels. If Kevin and others are doing what they do here for free then they are wasting valuable ability that lobbying firms pay big money for. Also I don't need help pointing my finger, I know why I'm doing it and will support those positions anytime you want a reference. I do appreciate asking someone challenging scientist for the references to support those challenges, except it is a waste of time, they just dodge and turn the question to something else anything to keep off topic.

Posted by: butch | February 13, 2007 3:34 AM

Carl Copas | 02.12.07 - 7:32 pm | #
But with 'theory' - there are more than one. In talking about what the issue is you take into consideration the differing theories and give them equal weight so that discussion can happen.
Al Gore - An Inconvenient Nut Later .

Posted by: moderatelad | February 13, 2007 4:07 AM