I hope I can answer your question. I think the potential “cost” I feel, is in the possibility of giving too much power to government.

I am skeptical of government and politicians, especially when they start throwing around such large sums of money in the name of the “environment.” I am fearful of the power that they will be able to squeeze out of climate change cause.

Although I must admit it is hard for me not to pay attention to all of the science, as well. Some of which can lead to healthy skepticism (which usually is a good thing in scientific fields). I don’t think it is a question of “good science” or “bad science.” Rather, I choose to let my eyes linger on suggestions and temporary conclusions from scientists who may differ from others.

As I wrote earlier, though, this does not make me want to go and trash the environment. I still think that most of the things that are suggested could potentially help stop climate change are good to do regardless. I still think we should recycle. I still think we should use less electricity (as I write my feet are freezing!). I still think we should preserve natural areas and undiscovered species in the Amazon. Yes, we should be putting money into discovering sources of renewable energy. Reasonable hikes in mpg requirements seem wise to me.

The crux of it is, this one issue seems to have become a lightening rod for gathering power from the governments of all the nations. And I shudder to think what could be the result of that.

there is one thing i really don’t understand in this whole debate. For the climate change skeptics, what is the basis of your skepticism of climate change? (please don’t tell me “bad science” because that would be denying the obvious truth that the overwhelming majority of scientists are convinced.)
i’m just having a hard time understanding why evangelicals are so committed to the skeptic side. what would be the “cost” or “risk” involved in trusting science, or the world body?

Based on their response at Copenhagen, I wonder if their agreement on the science is just their PR strategy and not genuine.

Their actions seem to imply that they really don’t believe in an imminent catastrophe.

To answer your question; I love people that have committed their lives to science. I think it is one of the highest callings. I cringe at those that approach the environment from a bias of fear; the earth is coming to an end, etc., because something just seems wrong with that approach. I don’t think people are the problem on earth. I don’t think population is a problem. I think there is plenty of room on the earth for billions more, if we manage it properly.

I think the decisions to fix things should be made from an abundance standpoint, rather than from a lack. Those that would play on our fears, fall into the trap that Mr. Friedman so eloquently explains in his book. I think the environmental movement has almost taken on a mob mentality in some circles.

But the answer is, no I don’t think people are environmentalists are wacked. If they are armchair environmentalists, I would maybe have some hesitation until I found out what their bias was. Does this answer the question?

In my experience, if a person is evangelical, there is a very high likelihood that they are also climate skeptics. I think the polling data bears this out as well. You could be a roman catholic, untouched by the fundamentalist movement, or an evangelical who for some reason isn’t affected by th fundmentalist posture toward science—though it’s a powerful influence in American evangelicalism still. You might a “none of the above” person–I just don’t know. So if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.

One of the great challenges in trying to be more considerate of the environment is how easy it is to be charged with being a hypocrite once one decides to move in that direction–especially if you speak out about the need for it. There is so much that we could/should be doing that we’re not; it’s a thousand and one little habits and we’re embedded in a culture that is designed to use energy in a certain way. I wonder if lots of people don’t want openly advocate for better environmental stewardship because one immediately becomes vulnerable to the hypocrite charge.

Question:do you think you tend to believe the best about those who would identify as environmentalists or not? The tendency, in my experience, is for those who are part of the American Evangelical cultural landscape, is to lean toward not believing the best about those who identify as environmentalists. Some of this lean, is I think, cultural bias, not objective assessment. Do you think that’s a fair observation on my part (not of you, but of AMerican evangelicalism as a movement)

The information age generation has the biggest carbon footprint in the history of mankind, and they are the most hypocritical judgmental generation ever to burn across the planet. If these are our new morals, then “…you who judge others do these very same things.” While Chuck may think he is a hypocrite, I think he is just a sinner like the rest of us. I prefer to go to a church that is full of sinners, not hypocrites.

The “moral” generation was obviously our parents, they ate at home, read books, didn’t drink bottled water, had one car, no computers, no plastic, maybe one tv, no ipods, no iphones, washed dishes by hand, actually saved money, and the list goes on and on.

Ken, I’m trying, but I am not picking up what you are laying down. Pray for me, I need it…

A big fear in global warming is that the Earth has never been this warm while humans have been on it.

I once read that Greenland was named as such because it was green when 1st discovered by Europeans (Vikings, I think, though I know there were ‘native Greenlanders there before).

The story goes that there were Viking settlements there (ruins have supposedly been found) that were eventually abandoned because temperatures began to drop (global cooling?) and the Vikings living there could not adapt, eventually leaving or dying off.

This suggests to me that the world has been warmer than it is today and apparently humanity did just fine, and with less technology. (I don’t think Greenland is green yet.)

Also, it raises the question of what caused it to be so warm then? I assume not Hummers.

So if that story is true and not a hoax, as far as temperature change, it seems to me it’s the change that is a problem, not the actual temperature.

Just a thought.