When we approach a problem we forget the Bible and look at the manefestations of the curses contained within it.
Gobal warming is one such case.  We focus on the mechanisms by which these curses unfold and not on our contribution to the curse because as we turn further and further away from God even though we proclaim that we are God’s children we forget the warnings contained in the Bible.
The Bible tells us that in these times we will become more and more self centred and that we will selfishly only be looking out for ourselves, and what benefits us alone.
This is idolatrous worship.
The environment is crying out for the people of the earth to repent, can’t you hear that cry, and if you are, are you going to repent or are you going to keep suffering the curses?

The case for man made global warming fails on three counts: 1. History 2. Science 3. Political.

History—History of the earth suggests there have been multiple ice ages, which logically had to be accompanied by warming periods in between. The Smithsonian reports the last ice age occurred 15,000 years ago. If we assume this is true, what then created extensive warming since the industrial revolution and prior to the last 200 years? It should be obvious to any observer that global warming is a natural phenomenon far more profound than autos, airplanes, air conditioners, etc.

Science—Man made global warming is a recent crusade without a sound basis. A scientist typically will establish a theory and then perform research to prove the theory. Any reputable scientist must develop a model that can be tested and replicated to the point that the application of the model provides consistent results. If the actual results demonstrated do not conform to the model the theory fails. Earlier models of global warming forecasted radical changes that have not come true. Now new models have been constructed with less dire forecasts but still perpetuate huge impacts. We should ask where are the models created in the 1970’s predicting a coming earth cooling period? The continued predictions are no better than results from the dartboard. The impact of solar flares on the Sun that requires light years to reach the earth has seemingly vanished from the atmospheric debate.

Political—Also, to the astute observer the current global warming stampede is a movement spawned by socialists agenda that have found tough sledding of government directed economic redistributions. There is growing evidence “man made” global warming is primarily about economics. The recent UN proclamations call for countries to purchase “Carbon Offsets” from lesser “Carbon” dispensers. Thus, we have a new form of asset redistribution. The economic system of the western world should stand firm on opposing regulatory mandates in favor of free enterprise solutions. The further development and deployment of nanotechnology that can combine energy efficiency and economics is just one example.

Rather than “err on the side of safety” I suggest we err on the side of good judgment.

There are honest, well-qualified, Christ-loving scientists and economists with a wide variety of opinions on the matter, and Mr. Sikes’s reticence to take a firm position one way or another is thoroughly understandable, indeed commendable, especially if he has not pretty intimately studied the scientific and economic arguments for the various positions.

I generally embrace the view that recent and foreseeable climate change are largely natural in cause, moderate in magnitude, and likely more helpful than harmful, and that efforts to reduce future temperatures by CO2 emissions reductions will be almost entirely ineffective while diverting trillions of dollars from more worthy uses such as lifting poor nations out of poverty and thus preventing millions of premature deaths every year. Scientific and economic evidence for that view is available in “A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection for the Poor: An Evangelical Response to Global Warming.” A list of the over 150 signers, including many evangelical climate scientists and environmental and developmental economists, is here.

I would like to offer some contrasting comments.

First, what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in February was not its Fourth Assessment Report but the Summary for Policymakers. The two are not to be confused. The 4AR is thousands of pages of technical scientific writing and will not be released until May, though drafts have been available to scholars online since early last year. The SPM is of course shorter, but it also differs importantly in that it is written almost entirely not by the scientists but by anonymous government negotiators. The SPMs of all three previous IPCC reports have been justly criticized for exaggerating alarms and muting scientific uncertainties, and there is already good evidence that this is the case with this new SPM. It is fortunate, therefore, that a group of climate change scientists and economists has prepared an Independent Summary for Policymakers, available at the Fraser Institute.

Second, while Mr. Sikes says (as do many media reports) that with the 4AR the IPCC “escalated the forecasts of damage,” that is not clear at all, and indeed there are two very important counterindicators in the 4AR itself (not the SPM): (1) The 4AR’s estimate of the added heat retention due to manmade greenhouse gases is 35 percent LOWER than the 2001 report’s estimate.  This means less warming than earlier feared, which entails less of all the impacts earlier feared. (2) The 4AR’s high-end projection of sea level rise (arguably the most damaging impact of warming) for this century (16.5 inches) is 50 percent LOWER than that of the 2001 report. What IS increased in this year’s SPM is the confidence with which IPCC scientists assert the reality of human influence, but what it amounts to is saying, “We’re more sure now that human activity influences warming than we were six years ago, but we also think it has 35 percent less influence on the warming and 50 percent less on sea level.”

Third, and perhaps most to the point of Mr. Sikes’s article, Pascal’s Wager does not properly apply. Pascal’s Wager applies only to a situation in which, between two options, the person choosing has everything to gain and nothing to lose from embracing the recommended option. That is certainly not the case in deciding what to do in response to claims of man-made catastrophic global warming.

On the one hand, if it is real AND can be reduced significantly by actions the benefits of which outweigh the costs, then we lose much if we either wrongly decide it isn’t real or, though deciding it is real, decide to do nothing about it (either because we are irresponsible or because, though we care, we mistakenly think we can’t do anything about it in a manner the benefits of which outweigh the costs). On the other hand, if it is not real, but we decide it is AND we pursue costly but ineffective policies to reduce it, then we waste all the costs we incur.

In short, the policymaking situation is much more complex than that faced in Pascal’s Wager and calls for a correspondingly complex analytical process. I have summarized such a process in “Biblical Principles for Environmental Stewardship,” which is the last of three parts of “An Examination of the Scientific, Ethical, and Theological Implications of Climate Change Policy” (I explain the analytical process in the conclusion, which begins on p. 17).

Evangelicals and other people of faith should indeed be thinking carefully about these issues, and Mr. Sikes’s article is a welcome contribution to that.

With all due respect to the distinguished author, I was hoping for more.  We already know there is a lot at stake. That’s why it’s such a provocative topic. But this essay has nothing in it to provoke more than a ho-hum. You say: “But I cannot confidently conclude there is little if any threat and cannot analytically prove the alarmists wrong.” Would you dare to say you conclude that there is probably a signficant threat and that there is a good chance the alarmists are correct?  God gave us intelligence to form opinions and his Word to guide us in doing so. I go along with Mr.Filiatreau, but might add that if fewer flatulent cows also result from our efforts, that too might not be such a bad thing (much as I enjoy my cheese and a good steak now and then!)

Pascal’s wager is to bet on the side that, if right, has incalculable reward, and if wrong, still not worth the risk of losing the incalculable reward.  The best thing that can happen if immediate steps are taken to halt global warming is the incalculable reward of avoiding unprecedented disaster.  We will also have weaned ourselves off polluting fossil fuels that are as expensive as the occupation of Iraq and that are destined to run out anyway. And if the bet is wrong? We will have weaned ourselves off polluting fossil fuels that are as expensive as the occupation of Iraq and that are destined to run out anyway.  What is there to agonize about?  The country that developes alternative energy sources first will be the economically healthiest and more independent of foreign entanglements.

I’d rather use Okham’s razor than Pascal’s wager.

What is more simple:
1. As seasons are cyclical, so are periods of climate change
2. Global warming is caused by cow flatulence and car exhaust

Mankind has been engaged in a 300 year experiment with industrialization.

My profession of engineering, which applies laws of math and discoveries of science to the universe’s natural resources to create artifacts intended to improve public health safety and welfare, has and does play an essential role in the industrial base of modern civilization.

At root, the modern global economy is based on using energy in prodigious quantities to manipulate materials.

There is not now and never has been an organized Christian influence in the engineering profession.

There is not now and, in past 150 years, has not been an organized Christian influence in science.

Specifically, the American Scientific Affiliation, http://www.asa3.org, eschews its being a vehicle to facilitate the development and expression of an organized Christian influence in the science profession.

Perhaps that is proper, after all, the natural sciences are focused on determining “truth.” They are focused on determining “what is.”

Engineering, on the other hand, is focused on public health and safety - it is focused on “what ought.” It creates artifacts which previously “never have been.”

The organizational vehicle’s that so mediate human existence today are fairly new and there is little developed theology about them - corporations, government agencies, NGO’s, unions, professions, trade associations, etc.  The lack of an organized Christian influence in the engineering profession is a direct result of there being no theological treatment of the issue.

While a single engineer can influence the profession, any single engineer who tries to change anything relevant to global warming without the organized support of the profession, is pursuing a losing wager for his career interests.

This is pretty thin gruel. When James Dobson calls Richard Cizik of the NAE on the carpet (or even to resign?!) because he is convinced that there is a real problem and that we must change our policies and behavior, what we really need is discussion of the science or the public policy implications from a Christian perspective. Dobson’s position on this seems driven more by ideology than by theology.  I would have expected more from the Trinity Forum than the suggestion that “it’s OK to have this on the agenda.”

It started strong. What happened? I feel the same way about the urgency of sorting trough this issue and very much enjoyed the novel State of Fear for the information woven into the story. If we take the “Pascal wager” analysis, I suppose we should err on the side of safety and just assume that we are responsible for global warming and spend billions of dollars cleaning up our act. Or, —perhaps the alarmists are wrong. I’m no closer to truth.