RJS-
I think there are some other reasons for the lack of response to the issue.
First, many see our stewardship over creation = do whatever we want to creation.
Second, and I am sure your realize this, there is an element of distrust of scientists (evolution, etc…).
Third, the voices that many Christians listen to are outside of Christian circles (ie. Rush L.), who downplay the problem.
However, I do think research funding is needed (not easy during these economic times). It will be an easier sell since not only environmental aspect a plus, but the advantage of not depending on others is becoming more obvious.
All that said, the man-made aspect of the warming seems weaker than the other research (not saying it is not man-made, but if it is, the degree of impact seems uncertain). If scientists are wrong (or vastly have overstated their case), the damage to the scientific community will be huge.

Lazy man’s theology is theology that all ends up with the “well, i’m checking out anyway” and “God ordained this, who am I to get in the way?”
A only slightly less lazy man theologian well tell you that it is our job to bring as many people to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and take them to heaven as well.
What both do not realize is that the apathy and complacency in this situation sends more people to hell quicker and that we need to care. 50 million SUV’s on the road will make live miserable for those south of the equator already living in poverty. As we know those in poverty have a POWERFUL advocate and we will be judged in relation to how we treat them.
Am I saying that we all go and trade our SUV’s so others can drive them and I can feel better driving a green car? No. But we can be advocates, we can be the voice of the poor, we can work within existing systems (academia and political) and add the third voice, the middle way voice of the Church. Together we can all work in the same direction.

It’s a simplistic, reductionist answer, but while there is no conflict between science and faith, I don’t expect scientists to guide our faith nor Christians to guide our science.
There should not exist a “Christian” response to these environmental issues, because to do so injects what we have now: a range of approaches based not on facts but on scriptural interpretation.
I have an MBA in technology management and a couple of decades experience in it, and I can say what I’d do in Obama’s shoes.
If a company needs to implement a new technology or move to a new way of using what it has, there’s no tolerance for an ‘invisible hand’ to somehow magically align what’s good for all different business units with what is good for the firm.
For example, if we need to increase the mileage of our vehicles, we don’t wait on the free market to somehow do that for us. You mandate it, and you reward those who do well and you punish those who don’t.
You can manage technology or you can let it manage you, but what you never do is trust that what is good for the sub-organization is good for the organization as a whole.
Long story short, you decide what is good for the country/company/organization, and you actively and consciously move the country/company/organization in that direction.

RJS said: “if Armageddon is coming and the world will end in a firestorm, why worry about pollution, renewable energy, global warming, or acid rain? But if the new creation is not a destruction of the world and the space-time universe – but a healing and a restoration – everything is changed.”
I don’t see how “everything is changed.” The end result is the same either way.
“What should be the Christian response to the challenges of pollution, global warming, and renewable energy?”
First and foremost, we should never take a “the sky is falling” approach — to anything, but including this. Is God sovereign? Then nothing is beyond hope.
Second, it never hurts to remember that, on many things, the majority is wrong.
Third, if I might self-link, I put together some thoughts on a Christian approach to environmental issues a while back.
Joe,
I disagree. Sometimes the way in which we approach issues is just as important as what we do.

Chris B,
Perhaps I should put it a little differently. As Christians shouldn’t we take the same approach to preservation of the earth as we take to preservation of our physical health and well-being?
With respect to health – we are both proactive and reactive. We consider the long term health benefits or risks of various activities. I know of few if any who advocate the position that we all die eventually so there is no need to practice medicine or dentistry, that good hygiene is a waste of effort and so forth. Sooner, later, what difference does it make?
Yet with respect to the earth some do take the position that we are commanded to use it up – and it doesn’t matter because God will bring a New Heaven and a New Earth.

ChrisB,
Interesting post you’ve got – I should have read it before responding. We probably agree on much (most?) of this.

Perhaps it’s important to note that the well-being of millions of people all over the world is tied, almost inescapably to the quality of the natural environment in which they live. For many of us in the west, we have been able to pay/engineer our way around environmental degradation via the use of river manipulation, fast-growth plantations and intensive farming. Not so for all.
The loss of water quality, reduced biodiversity, poor urban air quality, invasive species transport etc. are HUMAN issues too, not just ANIMAL’s issues. You don;t even have to buy into ‘climate change’ to accept that. And, if climate change IS happening, and if it IS human exacerbated, then all of the above and much more besides will get worse.
I’d never suggest that the whole system will collapse, but many millions of people have already had ruined lives becasue other of us have messed with the environment. To say, “God is soveriegn and won’t let that happen” is simply wrong. It already has happened. London’s Great Smog of 1952 anyone?

I can’t help but feel that someone should state another opinion here.
First, I’m sure this will be considered naive of me but I for one haven’t completely bought the party line that human beings are contributing to climate change. I think that there may be enough difference of opinion, even among scientists, that we shouldn’t jump to a doomsday scenario just yet. I tend to believe that climate change hysteria, much like the over-population hysteria a couple of decades ago, will eventually die down. Then something else will come along to scare the masses from the cover of Newsweek and TIME.
Second, I think personal responsibility and care for the creation that God has given us is incumbant on every one of us. I don’t like to see government using Climate Change as a platform for laws and regulations that are of debateable worth.
It does seem strange to me that some who are so careful to dismiss the authority of the bible are so happy to hand so much authority to a handful of scientists and politicians.
OK. There it is. Fire away.

I personally think the “It’s all gonna burn” mentality, while in general a bad thing, is overrated in terms of its contribution to Christian failures in this particular area. While I might nuance some things differently today, a couple of years ago I talked about 5 reasons why Evangelical Christianity has tended to fall short in the area of creation stewardship:
http://steamdoc.s5.com/writings/enviro.html

What should be the Christian response to the challenges of pollution, global warming, and renewable energy?
Christians should care for the earth as the doctrine of creation teaches, based on the best scientific conclusions available, applied using the best psychological, ethical and spiritual principles available. The problem, it seems to me, is that faith does not seek understanding. There is a widespread anti-intellectualism in the Christian world that rejects intellectual work as conspiratorial and in opposition to Christan faith. While most Christians accept medical research and practice as legitimate, conclusions in regard to pollution, global warming and renewable energy are rejected. I would maintain that the scientists working in those fields use the same standards for their research that medicine does and there is certainly no more politics or conspiracy either. Solutions to these issues are extremely complicated, but I do think we can ignore the many “canaries in the mine” who are warning us of much grimmer futures. (Need I list them: receding glaciers, threatened amphibians, reduced bird populations, ocean acidification, overpopulation, tropical rain forest destruction, overfishing, etc.)

Woops – cannot ignore the many “canaries in the mine”

“The problem, it seems to me, is that faith does not seek understanding.”
Don’t you think this might be a little bit of a generalization? If I don’t buy into every politically correct talking point that doesn’t make me anti-intellectual. I have faith. I have sought to understand this issue. As of yet I have not found the “canaries in the mine” to be convincing.
Isn’t it possible that “anti-intellectual” is just a label we apply to anyone who dissagrees with us just to discredit their position?

RJS asks, “What should be the Christian response to the challenges of pollution, global warming, and renewable energy?”
Is this a “Christian” issue? I suppose “everything” is a Christian issue for those who follow Jesus. But when we try to put a “religious stamp of approval” on issues like climate change, we face the risk of making Jesus into a politician. It’s the same reason I sometimes find Jesus-political-action groups off-putting (e.g., Focus on Family, Sojourners, etc.) – we use Jesus as a political tool to (try to) fix our cultural ills. But I think the Jesus way is more subversive than this, more memotic and viral – less by human law and more by Spirit. In this respect, I think the Anabaptists have it right.
Climate change? I don’t need to follow Jesus to know that we’ve made a mess of this planet, its resources, and its long-term prognosis. We need to change our collective environmental ways, not because we’re Christians, but because we’re caring, thinking human beings.

John L,
You are right – it is not a “Christian” issue, it is a human issue.
But I put the questions in this form for three reasons, and only the first is a “Christian” issue – the others are political issues.
First, I was floored a while back when told by a Christian man I respect that we are commanded to be fruitful and multiply and to subdue the earth – thus conservation and green laws are unnecessary, and possibly unChristian. This person also brought the destruction of the earth into the discussion.
Second, I have also heard the line that pollution control and energy conservation laws are unwarranted governmental meddling with individual rights (including rights of businesses).
Finally, there are those who claim that we should not invest Federal funds in research into alternative energy sources and alternative fuels because industry will do it faster and more efficiently when there is a real need.
I am not so sanguine.

Hi. Sorry to sound like a clanging cymbal here but I thought I might could try one more time to see if anyone would respond to a view that differs from the overwhelming majority:
“First, I was floored a while back when told by a Christian man I respect that we are commanded to be fruitful and multiply and to subdue the earth – thus conservation and green laws are unnecessary, and possibly unChristian. This person also brought the destruction of the earth into the discussion.”
I don’t understand why this is to be dismissed so easily. The passing away of this earth and the creation of a new heaven and new earth is in the bible. You may read it differently but it’s not a ridiculous notion.
“Second, I have also heard the line that pollution control and energy conservation laws are unwarranted governmental meddling with individual rights (including rights of businesses).”
Also not ridiculous. Less government seems better to some if not to you. I for one think government regulation is a slippery slope and that history bears this out.
“Finally, there are those who claim that we should not invest Federal funds in research into alternative energy sources and alternative fuels because industry will do it faster and more efficiently when there is a real need.”
Since I don’t buy into all of the green hype I would tend to think that this might not be the best use of federal funds. Like I mentioned above, there are plenty who don’t support the hysteria. Or are we just taking global warming as fact here without any discussion?

Articles like this one from CNN and Fortune mag make me less certain that either the problem or the solution is what many believe them to be:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm
There are enough (albeit a rarely heard minority) such credible voices saying “hold on a minute” with regard to (1) the amount of climate change due to human causes, and (2) the likely result of climate change, and (3) the amount which many of the proposed measures will actually help alter climate change, that I’m not certain there is a clear “Christian response” to fears about climate change.
That’s not to say that we shouldn’t take measures to pollute and destroy as little as reasonably possible, and to clean up messes where we’ve made them. I agree with much of ChrisB’s article – we are stewards of God’s creation and answerable for how we care for it. I’m just less certain than many that the fears of permanent Global Warming are more substantial than were the fears 20+ years ago of Global Cooling.

Dave #15,
On the first issue I don’t think that it is entirely relevant whether the earth will be restored or destroyed. Shouldn’t we exercise proper stewardship over the world as we do over our own bodies and over our families?

Theologically there are definately (at least) two schools of thought here. Some would say that things are getting better here on this earth and that God, through the church, is going to usher in a new day. Others, like I, would say that things are getting worse and that the only hope for humans and creation is the return of Jesus Christ. That’s why Paul speaks of creation groaning in Romans 8.
Because:
1. I don’t buy into the global warming hysteria to begin with and
2. I understand the bible to teach that there is a future hope for creation and
3. I find the need for the salvation of souls to be a far more compelling mission,
therefore I don’t consider this to be an issue worth getting worked up over. I do want to be a good steward of that which God has entrusted to me. I do not hope for aggresive action on the part of the government or the church in light of more pressing concerns.

Good one, ChrisB. I will keep some of that in mind next time I’m in a relevant discussion.
I think there is unwarranted hysteria about this subject. However, a poor argument against environmental laws that I have heard too many times is something like “it’s arrogant to think that humans can either save or destroy the planet/climate.” Yet, there are beaches that are full of trash, rivers that are no longer beautiful, cities that have so much smog it burns your eyes. Seems to me we DID change things there.

#15 “are we just taking global warming as fact here without any discussion?”
Global warming is a fact. There is debate as to if, or how much of it, is man-made. I’m not willing to risk my grandkids’ future with an overly skeptical position on this. But there’s actually a much larger continuum of critical issues in play today – and the overarching concept is “sustainability.”
With or without climate change, nearly 3 billion people on this planet are now pursuing accelerated industrialization – just as the USA did for the last 100 years. Their appetite for energy and natural resources is just beginning. But industrialization isn’t a purely “economic” equation any more (it really never was). Natural resources are no longer, as some economists say, an “external event.”
I was particularly moved today by (1) Paul Hawken’s commencement speech at University of Portland ( http://cforjustice.org/2009/05/06/and-the-earth-is-hiring/ ) and (2) Ray Anderson’s absolutely brilliant TEDTalk from TED2009 ( http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ray_anderson_on_the_business_logic_of_sustainability.html ). I have the utmost respect for both these men as leaders in their field (Ray is a Christ-follower), respectful of our natural resources, and pointing the way forward into an era of what may likely be characterized by great social disruption.
By the way, this attitude that “Jesus is returning soon, so we shouldn’t be concerned about the planet” is a toxic combination of arrogance and superstition. An abuse of faith. I look forward to Christ’s return (whatever that actually means), but I don’t assume it will happen in my lifetime. Such an assumption, taken to its logical extreme, can lead to the kind of sociopathic behavior RJS alludes to.

“…a toxic combination of arrogance and superstition…An abuse of the faith…Such an assumption, taken to its logical extreme, can lead to the kind of sociopathic behavior RJS alludes to.”
Nice. Why offer reasons for why you think what you think when it’s easier to just throw down some insults?

#21 – no insult intended Dave. did i hit a nerve?
let me restate the position. if “faith” is allowed to override a perennial and fundamental empathy and care for people and creation, that faith is misplaced. such is a toxic faith which can justify just about anything in the name of god.

If we are to take the position that environmental care is an excercise in vanity – becasue the world will burn one day anyway, why do we bother with any kind of health efforts, infastrucutre planning, long term research efforts or environmental care? The reason is, most of us know we have a responsibility to the future. Fact is we all think we should look after our own. Why is the wider natural environment any different?
As for the “human exacerbated climate change is hype” argument -> the efficacy of that all depends on where one is getting the information. I could just as easily say that the skeptical crowd is all “hype”. The media are driving alot of this, on both sides. The media know that to publish the one-in-a-thousand opinion (on whatever subject) can be passed off as “objective” reporting, when all they’re really after is sotking controversy, often where there isn’t one.

John L said: “Global warming is a fact. There is debate as to if, or how much of it, is man-made. I’m not willing to risk my grandkids’ future with an overly skeptical position on this.”
I’m not at all convinced it’s a fact. Even if it is, there’s 1) no proof we’re the cause, 2) no proof we can change it, and 3) not universal consensus that we should even if we can (only recently was “warm weather” considered a bad thing in this world, and another “little ice age” would be a much bigger problem).
Most of the proposed changes to fight global warming would be hugely expensive and promise few results. If we destroy our economies to fight a non-existant or insignificant “problem,” we’ve also ruined our kids’ futures.
The problem is that this has become more of a political than scientific discussion. We have to fix that problem before we can decide what (if anything) to do about global warming.

Would I be wrong in saying there is a huge overlap between not believing in global warming, evangelical Christianity, and Republicanism?
I don’t see opposition to doing something about global warming to be a religious issue. It’s a political view, driven by a fear of government and an attachment to our current way of life.
To me — and this is just my opinion — global warming is akin to abortion in that they both place the lives of unborn children against convenience, with the children losing.
You are free to disagree, of course, but to me addressing our environmental impact for the good of future generations is a moral imperative and I have no tolerance at all for those who oppose it.

Let me also add that if it were free, absolutely no one would have any issues with addressing human-driven climate change.
But it costs, and we live in a society in which everything from justice to health care to political representation to education is based on how much money a person has.
We live in a society fundamentally based on greed (and have the nerve to call it “Christian”) and the chances of a society based on greed acting in a moral manner are slim to none.

John L.
Yes, you did hit a nerve. I have to wonder if you would speak like that to someone in your church face to face?
I disagree with you. I happen to think your wrong. But I am happy to discuss without accusing you of things like arrogance and superstition. I also think that statement like those in your final paragraph ado not serve to further discussion. They are an attempt to end it.
Joseph -
I think that it is possible to look at the information regarding global warming (man made) and come to the conclusion (as many have) that it has been over hyped by the media, Hollywood and politicians.
I’ll tolerate your point-of-view. I sorry you won’t tolerate mine.

Joseph #25
“Would I be wrong in saying there is a huge overlap between not believing in global warming, evangelical Christianity, and Republicanism?”
Would I be wrong in saying there is a huge overlap between believing in global warming, progressive/liberal Christianity, and being a Democrat?

The public policy issue is one of risk management not right/wrong or good/evil. If there are real threats from global warming and we do nothing, then a few decades hence we will look back and decry the lack of action. If we aggressively attack global warming spending of trillions of dollars in unneeded changes, and it turns out we were wrong, then we will look back and decry the waste of resources that could have used to address infectious diseases, aids, food challenges, and host of other issues. Prudence is the key virtue here.
Bjorn Lomborg has a great piece on this at the TED site. Click here

#27 – “Yes, you did hit a nerve. I have to wonder if you would speak like that to someone in your church face to face?”
my comments were addressed rhetorically, not personally.
would i call someone arrogant? not usually.
would i label certain beliefs as arrogant and superstitious? when such beliefs prioritize pie-in-the-sky screw-the-planet and all the heathen unbelievers ’cause jesus gonna burn it all…. yeah. that whole mindset is fraught with psychological underpinnings of fear, herd behavior, illusions of grandeur, religious triumphalism, etc… when someone’s interpretation of some prophetic passages trumps love, care (for people and all creation), compassion, long-suffering for others, love of neighbor, love of enemy, care for the outcast, unending forgiveness… yeah – in my book that’s hard-core religious imperiousness based on a “it’s all about me and my place in heaven” mentality.

Michael,
Assuming there is a problem we need to address (and whether global warming is or isn’t “manmade” – I think it is clear that we need to address sustainability and alternative energy)…
Which approach do you think is better: (1) incentive for industry or (2) direct federal funding for research?

I am reading NT Wright’s “Surprised by Hope” at the moment. I am nearly through it. Wright presents addresses the question of the coming/present Kingdom of God and contrasts a careful biblical study of biblical eschatology with the much-hyped popular theology presented by such books as the Left Behind series.
I have got a great deal out of this book and it has stirred up a lot of thought in me about our purpose in life and our inclusion in His new Kingdom.
Wright does a good job, I think of showing how the Kingdom of God has been established in part through the resurrection of the Christ, and also how this current earth will be joined with the new earth (ie, Heaven is coming here, we are not going to some other place).
He explains that because the new earth is going to be joined to this earth at the final resurrection (which is the renewal of this earth), the things we do now have echos in the earth to come. The task we have now is to continue the work of establishing the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth (“Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done here as it is in Heaven”). He uses this logic as the moral imperative to improve this earth (including ecologically).
However, I do not think he does a very good job of linking the “why”. Let me lay this out as a flow of logic:
A) The things that we do now will have some echo in the new earth
B) The earth is going to be renewed
————————————-
C) Therefore, we must work at (among other things) improving the environmental state of this earth
But I have a problem getting to the conclusion, and I think this is something akin to ChrisB’s comments in #4: ‘I don’t see how “everything is changed.” The end result is the same either way’.
RJS’s answer was effectively that perhaps this was true, but we are responsible for looking after things anyway and we must not neglect that responsibility.
I agree with that sentiment, but after getting as far through “Surprised By Hope” as I have, I was hoping this discussion would throw a little light on Wright’s logic, about why it matters that much if things do get out of hand here since they will one day be renewed. I guess I am approaching this from a pessimistic viewpoint that 1) I can’t see how the increasing world population is going to be manageable, and 2) if it really is going to be renewed then does that matter?
I am certainly not advocating that we let things go to hell in a handbasket – I am very moved by Wright’s arguments. I just don’t understand how all the logic fits together yet.
Any thoughts?

Global warming was predicted almost from the instant that humans understood the basic notions of thermodynamics, radiative heat transfer, and the infrared absorption properties of triatomic (greenhouse) gases. As a “theory” it is over 100 years old ? that is, older than the theories of relativity, the discovery of the atomic nucleus and the neutron, the theory of the Big Bang, and continental drift to name a few. Over that time the physics has never been in serious doubt; the question has been whether humans would physically be able to modify the atmosphere sufficiently to noticeably affect average global temperature, and as a consequence the climate.
The flurry of climate related measurements over the last 50 years has been about two issues ? measuring how much CO2 is actually in the atmosphere and of that amount the fraction that is due to human activity; and what the actual sensitivity of the earth’s climate is to the increase in CO2. The former has been done quite precisely: humans have increased the atmospheric content of CO2 by over 30% in the last two hundred years, and are on a trajectory to add that much again within the next 50 years. It is difficult to see how opinions to the contrary expressed in this thread can be based on anything other than ignorance of the details of the scientific progress of the last few decades. While such a concentration of CO2 content is not unprecedented in the history of the earth, it will have been millions of years since it has been that high. Furthermore, the rate of change in concentration is orders of magnitude higher than any known natural change in the earth’s history. If a change of the magnitude and speed which is now occurring were observable as a historic event in the climate record, it would with no doubt be termed catastrophic. The second issue, that of sensitivity ? precisely how much the global temperature will rise for a given change in greenhouse gases ? is more uncertain, not because of lack of understanding of the basic physics, but because of the difficulty in accounting for all the details in the inherent complexity of the climate system (nuclear physics, or special relativity are in their details much simpler). This leads to uncertainty in our knowledge of the rate at which the earth system will respond to the change in energy balance, but there is no uncertainty about the inevitability of these changes. The final uncertainty is that we do not yet know what the total deposit of CO2 in the atmosphere by humans will be, since such results depend not only on what has been done in the past, but on what we do in the future. It is disconcerting however, that as time goes on yesterday’s conservative estimates of the effect on the climate appear more often than not to have been on the low side of things.
Just as there is a constituency that opposes the scientific theory of evolution for non-scientific reasons, there is a natural constituency that opposes the concept of global warming. In both cases the scientific establishment has even been accused of being conspiratorial, fomenting a “hoax” on the public (such a claim is, to anyone with the smallest experience within the scientific establishment, ridiculous on its face). The fallaciousness of testable “scientific” arguments with respect to evolution has been recognized on several occasions in the past on this blog. The situation with respect to global warming is similar; the “scientific” objections that can actually be examined (e.g., global warming is actually due to increased solar activity, or variations in cosmic ray flux) do not pass the muster of basic physics or explaining the data. The most substantive objections, if they can be called that, come from people like John Christy whose interview was linked in another post. The claims that Christy made both about the California temperature contradictions and the inconsistency between satellite and surface temperature data have been shown in the scientific literature (which as one might suppose does not include Fortune magazine where the interview appeared) to be based on erroneous data analysis. Other objections are simply wrong in their statement of the facts and appear legitimate only because of the scientific ignorance of the press and general public (I’m thinking here of recent columns on the subject by people like George Will and Charles Krauthammer that have appeared in the national media).
While the layperson can understand the basics of evolution, it is not possible to appreciate the strength of the theory merely by reading a few paragraphs in a blog post or newspaper column. Time must be spent to learn the basic facts and absorb the coherence of the science. The same is true for global warming. Excellent resources for the layperson exist, however, in books by Richard Alley, David Archer, William Ruddiman, and Sir John Houghton (also an evangelical Christian), all of whom are experts in climate science. Reading one or more of these authors would be a worthwhile investment of anyone’s time. An alternative is to study the history the discovery of global warming as detailed by Spencer Weart on the American Institute of Physics website (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/).

#31 RJS
“Which approach do you think is better: (1) incentive for industry or (2) direct federal funding for research?”
Ideally, I think a carbon tax that makes carbon fuels more expensive would be the place to start. That creates greater economic incentives to innovate. Cap and trade might have some similar benefit.
This is primarily an economic/technological problem. Government involvement tends to lead to political solutions, not optimal economic/technological ones.
Nations with market economies and political freedom are the most environmentally clean places on the planet. Just visit former Soviet bloc nations or many emerging nations for comparison. I think the answer lies in keeping the tension alive between market driven innovation and the ability of the people to bring political pressure to bear in achieving a better environment.
Theoretically, almost everything we use (not just energy) could be made of renewable resources. The first great wave of industrialism was power generation. Nonrenewable resources have been the cheapest to use in our production. But as the price becomes higher for them (although commodity prices have been on a downward slope for at least 150 years, the recent spike not withstanding) innovation will eventually make the transition costs into renewable resources viable. I think the natural trajectory is toward renewable resources, government policy or not.
That’s my 2 cents.

The discussion seems to focus more on US policy. I am not from the US, and so I can’t say much about its policy. But one things that’s been in my mind for sometime now… Can’t the government invest more in harvesting solar energy? There can be solar cars, solar fan, solar lamp etc. This will reduce the world’s dependence on fuel. And I think lesser dependence on Middle East for fuel will reduce the tension there, and lesser funds for terrorists too. If the money spent in stationing army in say, Saudi Arabia, is diverted to harvesting solar energy I guess US and other countries will be better of.

ChrisB “The problem is that this has become more of a political than scientific discussion. We have to fix that problem before we can decide what (if anything) to do about global warming.”
Indeed, much of the discussion has become political, but that’s becasue it HAS TO. Politicians, not scientists are the one’s charged with providing the necessary infastructure to anticipate the kinds of imapcts expected from climate change. If politicians did nothing, there would be outrage.
“only recently was “warm weather” considered a bad thing in this world, and another “little ice age” would be a much bigger problem”
Isn’t it about time we all dropped the term “warming”? We’re not talking about a few extra sunny days in the year here. Increase in sea temperature is a potenitally massive issue, and probably the most importsant in this debate.
Ron’s post above is very good. The basic physics of C02 and atmospheric change resulting in changes to radiant heat transfer are well established. It is the ‘uncertainty’ attached to the outworking of any possible increase in C02 concentrations that is problematic. The earth’s climate is a complex beast – and this uncertainty is what the skeptical crowd and media are jumnping on. Fortunatley for most of us, there is a little thing called the precautionary approach. This principle is critical for ethical science. Our potential impacts on the climate from carbon-related emissions included.

From “Runaway World: How Globalization is Reshaping our Lives” by Anthony Giddens:
“?Most scientists well versed in the field believe that global warming is occurring and the measures should be taken against it. Yet only in the mid-1970s, orthodox scientific opinion was that the world was in a phase of global cooling. Much the same evidence that was deployed to support the hypothesis of global cooling is no brought into play to bolster that of global warming ? heat waves, cold spells, unusual types of weather. Is global warming occurring, and does it have human origins? Probably ? be we won?t, and can?t, be completely sure until it is to late.
In these circumstances, there is a new moral climate of politics, marked by push and pull between accusations of scaremongering on the one hand, and of cover-ups on the other. If anyone ? government official, scientific expert or researcher ? takes a given risk seriously, he or she must proclaim it. It must be widely publicised because people must be persuaded that the risk is real ? a fuss must be made about it. Yet if the fuss is indeed created and the risk turns out to be minimal, those involved will be accused of scaremongering.
?Paradoxically, scaremongering may be necessary to reduce risks we face ? yet if it is successful, it appears as just that scaremongering.” (29-30)
And:
“Some say that the most effective way to cope with the rise of manufactured risk is to limit responsibility by adopting the so-called ?precautionary principle?. The notion of the precautionary principle first emerged in Germany in the 1980s, in the context of the ecological debates that were carried on there. At its simplest, it proposes that action on environmental issues (and, by inference, other forms of risk) should be taken even through there is insecure scientific evidence about them. Thus in the 1980s, in several European countries, programmes were initiated to counter acid rain, whereas in Britain lack of conclusive evidence was used to justify inactivity about this and other pollution problems too.
Yet the precautionary principle isn?t always helpful or even applicable as a means of coping with problems of risk and responsibility. The percept of ?staying close to nature?, or of limiting innovation rather than embracing it, can?t always apply. The reason is that the balance of benefits and dangers from scientific and technological advance, and other forms of social change too, is imponderable. ?” (31-32)

I’m wondering if any of the posters who are convinced that human-caused global warming presents a real danger that must be addressed aggressively, could read and comment on the short article I posted above at comment #16. The article interviews John Christy:
“A veteran climatologist who refuses to accept any research funding from the oil or auto industries, Christy was a lead author of the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as well as one of the three authors of the American Geophysical Union’s landmark 2003 statement on climate change.”
Christy suggests that fears of global climate change are way overblown, and that the proposed measures to address them would make little discernible impact, yet would be tremendously costly. What are your thoughts on this?

RJS, i just want to thank you for posting this. recently, i’ve been researching the climate change issue and to hear from a christian who is a scientist is certainly helpful with all the surrounding controversy. i think what was mentioned about the restoration of creation not being an all-at-once event is key. just as we begin eternal life the moment we receive christ while still on earth, i wonder if the earth will also be restored progressively. additionally, i wouldn’t be surprised if a case can be made for environmental destruction and what we see in scripture about the cataclysmic events in the end times. i’m surprised i haven’t heard more about this.
whether or not one thinks the earth is important to preserve in and of itself, we need to realize that climate change is a social justice issue as the poor will be/are being affected most adversely. for me, this is the core issue. when the actions of the developed world have consequences for the developing world that further impoverish them i believe it is time to wake up and change our ways. conspicuous consumption is not only immoral in light of world poverty but is now creating greater problems for the world’s poor. while we will always have the poor with us it is no excuse not to do all we can to help them. i’ve come across this paper where one can read about the adverse effects of climate change already happening to the most vulnerable among us: http://dscholar.humboldt.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/2148/213/1/ClimateJustice.pdf

Michael (#37) with regard to “in the mid-1970s, orthodox scientific opinion was that the world was in a phase of global cooling”:
Please see this link (http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html) which discusses the results of a survey of the scientific literature at the time (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf).
The second link points out that bulk of the scientific literature at the time (this does not include magazines like Newsweek, Fortune, or the Wall Street Journal) was concerned with the potential for global warming, and the only serious scientific discussion of the possibility of cooling involved the effect of aerosols, which partially block the light from the sun. The speculation at the time was that, in the absence of other effects like that of increased CO2, the earth would cool if aerosol concentration increased. The physics of this is correct; climate models continue to take into account the cooling effects of aerosols. But in fact aerosol concentration did not increase, it decreased.
But even if it were the case that the bulk of scientific opinion believed in global cooling, that fact by itself would be an exceedingly poor reason to discount the science of today. More than thirty years of observations have taken place since that time: CO2 levels have been continuously monitored, their sources and sinks largely accounted for; numerous ice cores taken in Greenland, Antarctica, and from glaciers around the world have provided details of the climate history along with information about the mechanisms for natural climate change going back nearly a million years; satellite measurements, surface monitoring, and an almost unimaginable increase in computing power have provided data and insight into the climate problem at a level of detail that would have been hard to conceive of thirty years ago. So even if every climate scientist of the 70s thought the earth was cooling (and that was definitely not the case), to claim that their opinions based on an infinitesimally smaller set of data should have remained unchanged is simply unreasonable. It is like not trusting your doctor today because other doctors once used leeches.
Karl (#38): I did comment on the article you cite (#33). “The claims that Christy made both about the California temperature contradictions and the inconsistency between satellite and surface temperature data have been shown in the scientific literature (which as one might suppose does not include Fortune magazine where the interview appeared) to be based on erroneous data analysis.” I saved no links, but you find critical discussion of his work is at http://www.realclimate.org and http://atmoz.org/blog/ (of course you need to search on his name). Here is a link to a discussion of his work with satellite data, giving more detail about his erroneous analysis of satellite data: http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

Phil Style said: “Indeed, much of the discussion has become political, but that’s becasue it HAS TO.”
Point taken, but what I’m referring to is how fighting global warming has become an industry that must be funded (and so people’s livelihood depends on keeping the furor alive) and a moral issue (so that those who disagree are not mistaken but evil) to the extent that we cannot discuss facts or critique studies. Our society does not discuss this issue (like so many others) but yell at each other about it.

Thank you Ron #33. This to me is faith seeking understanding. The best approach is to continue to present the peer-reviewed science as well as possible to everyone as the basis for broader political and personal positions. At some point maybe a proportion of people will accept good science in other areas to the extent they do in medicine.

Ron @ #33 at #48. To me this is Faith seeking understanding. Our goal should be to present the best peer-reviewed information as the basis for political and personal decisions. Maybe we could get to the place where people accept the conclusions of other kinds of scientists and practitioners that they do for medical science.

Thanks Ron. Can you comment on this portion of the Christy interview?
Q: “During your House Ways and Means testimony, you showed a chart juxtaposing predictions made by NASA’s Jim Hansen in 1988 for future temperature increases against the actual recorded temperature increases over the past 20 years. Not only were the actual increases much lower, but they were lower than what Hansen expected if there were drastic cuts in CO2 emissions – which of course there haven’t been. [Hansen is a noted scientist who was featured prominently in Al Gore's global warming documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth."] Hansen was at that hearing. Did he say anything to you afterwards?”
A: “We really don’t communicate. We serve on a committee for NASA together, but it only deals with specific satellite issues. At the Ways and Means hearing, he was sitting two people down from me, but he did not want to engage any of the evidence I presented. And that seems to be the preferred tactic of many in the alarmist camp. Rather than bring up these issues, they simply ignore them.”
(Contacted by Fortune, Hansen acknowledges that his 1988 projections were based on a model that “slightly” overstated the warming created by a doubling in CO2 levels. His new model posits a rise of 3 degrees Celsius in global temperatures by 2100, vs. 4.2 degrees in the old one. Says Hansen, “The projections that the public has been hearing about are based on a climate sensitivity that is consistent with the global warming rate of the past few decades.” Christy’s response: “Hansen at least admits his 1988 forecasts were wrong, but doesn’t say they were way wrong, not ‘slightly,’ as he states.” Christy also claims that even Hansen’s revised models grossly overestimated the amount of warming that has actually occurred.)

Karl,
OK, I?ll comment. Unfortunately, it?s a little long.
I am not familiar with the specific chart or with the specific encounter between Hansen & Christy the article refers to. However, since 1988 and even now the estimates of climate sensitivity have ranged between 2 and 6 degrees for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Because of the complexity of the climate system the real value of the sensitivity is uncertain, and this range of values for it is a matter of serious debate within the climate change community. If Hansen is using a different number today than he was 20 years ago, that in itself says nothing about his competence or his integrity.
To comment on the comparisons of predictions of temperature rise (whatever they were) for the 20 years from 1988 to the present — global temperature data is very ?noisy?, as can be seen by looking at a chart of annual values of global average temperature over the last century (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig1.gif). If the only driver of global temperature were the increasing greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere, a slow but steady increase would be observed. In fact there factors that drive the global temperature both up and down from one year to the next (most notably the el Nino/la Nina oscillations in the Pacific), and magnitude of these effect are larger than the annual increase due to greenhouse gases. While the trend over the last 100 years is definitely up (see the chart), the ?noise? is such that during the last 100 years there are 20 year periods during which the temperature trend is constant or even slightly negative. In other words twenty years is really too brief an interval for making an accurate determination of the temperature increase due to greenhouse gases.
The quibbling within the third paragraph (the one in parenthesis) strikes me as a bit unseemly. As I mentioned, there is no reason to berate Hansen for using a value of three rather than 4.2 for climate sensitivity (the impression I have is that generally people are more confident that it has a value of around 3 than they were twenty years ago). Furthermore, what the temperature will be in 2100 depends on at least two other factors: first, the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere between now and then, and second on the rate at which the climate responds to the increase. Both of these are unknown ? the first because it depends on how humans get their energy in the future, and this ? duh — has yet to be determined.
The second is problematic because while adding CO2 to the atmosphere changes the energy balance of the earth, it takes time for the planet to come back into balance, which it does by adjusting its temperature. The oceans are the primary actors in this process ?covering 70% of the earth, they have a huge capacity to absorb and store heat energy. They are warm (sort of) on top, and cold on bottom, they move around, and sort of flip over every 800 years or so. Until the oceans warm up, the new balance will not be achieved, and no one knows exactly what that time is, but reasonable guesses are on the order of several decades to a century or more. Thus if the temperature has not gone up as much as Hansen originally predicted, it may not be because the sensitivity he used was wrong, but because the earth is taking longer than anticipated to respond.
What is often lost in such discussions about using high or low sensitivities, is that even if we use the ?low? number of 3 degrees, such an increase is very, very likely to produce significant climate disruptions, mostly bad, with serious consequences for huge swathes of humanity. Continuing on our current fossil fuel consumption trajectory we will easily double the pre-industrial levels of CO2 in the atmosphere well before 2100. This would make avoiding such an increase in temperature impossible.
ronspross@gmail.com

I’ve been traveling and am late following some of these discussions, but wanted to mention a good Christian resource for some of these things. As in some other issues, it seems like the UK Christian community (perhaps due to different politics?) contributes quite constructively. There is something there called the John Ray Initiative.
The website is:
http://www.jri.org.uk
If you click on “Briefings” you will see many useful summaries at an accessible level, some primarily scientific and some more theological. The Sir John Houghton you see there on some of the briefings is one of the leading climate scientists in the world.