in my experience, that characterization is not really true of global warming (NB: it is now generally referred to as 'global climate change') scientists, but more of the politicians and pundits who get a hold of the reports. For example, Mark Maslin Global Warming: A Very Short Introduction is fairly reasonable in tone through out.

In order for this chain of posts ('Global Swarming') to be edifying, you will have to eventually recognize the kernel of truth in what climate scientists, etc are saying: that we shouldn't crap up God's planet in the name of capitalism, free-market forces, etc; that humanity is adversely effecting the planet at a faster than ever rate; and that there is a lot of strange data (e.g., low snow pack levels, melting at the poles) that needs to be explained one way or another.

Remember: antithesis, in the Van Tillian sense, means that non-Christians are radically wrong in their starting points, not necessarily in their conclusions which are formulated based on borrowed capital.

shalom leka

Thanks for entirely missing my point. I'm not saying all climate change science is good, entirely objective, or even correct. What I'm saying is that they are right in pointing out that it is an incredible waste of what God has given us to use disposable, Styrofoam plate for every meal, to drive everywhere in our own cars instead of car-pooling, and to burn our trash--neighbors' noses be damned.

The first question is not 'How much climate change is caused by an excuse for money and power,' but 'To what extent is climate change research affirming things that I too, as a Christian, should affirm.

...disposable, Styrofoam plate

for every meal, to drive everywhere

in our own cars instead of car-pooling,

and to burn our trash--neighbors' noses

be damned

Only those things that were already known before climate change research was thought of (i.e. biblical stewardship) and that stand regardless of whether climate change research is bunk. That is to say, it's not really the best way to go about things to collect broken clocks on the theory that if you have enough of them, the one you look at might be right at the time you look at it. It's even worse to defend people who do that against people who suggest finding a working clock.

By meddling I take you to mean unnecessary involvement on the part of the government, which I readily concede is a bad thing. But then again, I'm not advocating any sort of law or ban, only that we recognize that there is an ecological dimension to ethics.

Jane

I'm fairly confused by your post. Granted --the timeless truths of the Bible are what we should be affirming. But that does not negate the responsibility of the Christian to be informed in making ethical decisions.

Interesting BBC article on the cooling trend of the last 11 years...

I'm glad to see to see that we agree. If I am splitting hairs, please forgive the wisdom of a fool. I still have to lodge the formal complaint that in 2+ years of reading your blog, I have seen numerous posts on why global warming is hooey, but can't remember any posts advocating specific forms of stewardship of creation (or even the stewardship of creation in general).

Misleading emphases can be as harmful as bad science.

Good luck with good luck with the cold weather!

Granted there could be positive side effects to the above listed, but it is pure irrationality to argue for an action that demonstrably has negative effects because it could potentially have positive unknown and unintended side-effects.

Re: Jason

We are actually told to 'have dominion' not to 'take dominion.' I know its subtle, but you immediately smuggle the notions of creation 'as a tool' and 'meant to be used' into the concept of dominion. Those may be entailed in dominion, but that must be demonstrated--the presence of the word itself, no matter how crunchy-con it may sound, is not really evidence for either side.

Furthermore, the attitude of the Psalmist is that creation is more something to be contemplated, as an beautiful artifact of YHWH, than as a tool to be dominated.

Personally, I'm not at all convinced that Christians, as a group, are guilty of widespread disregard for basic stewardship. It's not even in the top 50 of modern Christian failings. For example, I know lots and lots of Christians who recycle for reasons that have nothing to do with Al Gore's scare tactics.

Nor am I persuaded that the problem with our wider culture is that we care too little about obvious pollution. If someone is creating an obvious mess, our culture is all over it, with peer pressure and word of mouth, volunteer clean-up groups, etc.
However, I am convinced that we increasingly, as a culture and as Christians, do have a problem with gullibility and being controlled by fear. For example, CO2 has been framed for crimes against nature, when it is abundant and completely natural, so that our governments can extend their domain. I believe we are manipulated by fear, and uncritically subject to statist agendas as a result. So it is wise to bring attention where it is actually needed.

I don't want Doug giving equal time arguing against problems we don't have. If someone just wants reassurance that Doug isn't a closet planet hater, I'm sure Doug would be happy to reassure them, as he has done....and then he can get back to popping the bubble of the latest fearmongering statists.

True, but you seemed to be arguing that whether the information is right or wrong is not highly relevant, so long as it promotes the correct ethical concerns. My point is that the ethical concerns lie outside the information, and so incorrect information should not be patted on the back for promoting the right ethics (granting that climate change rhetoric does this, though I'm actually more of a mind with katecho on this point), but rather rejected outright as falsehood.

I'm confused how Christians who readily acknowledge the finitude of humans can think that the earth taken as a whole is somehow infinite. The Creator/creation distinction entails the finite nature of the world. As such resources are inherently limited. Do you really think the best use of the resources of creation from now till kingdom come is making styrofoam plates for the convenience of the modern world [let alone the fact that it is only for a fraction of the world's population]? Do you really think the best use of creation is digging wholes and burying trash in enormous landfills because people don't want to do dishes?

No has contended on this blog that there should be a simple correlation between using disposable plates and Christian obligations. Rather, we have been suggesting that it is irresponsible of Christians to sit on the side lines, taking potshots at climate change science, while offering no visible alternative in the form of a comprehensive view of creation care.

Providence doesn't negate jack-assery. Sometimes, God wipes humanity out with floods...

I'm also confused where the unjustified premise that personal liberty is an unqualified good. Paul doesn't really seem to care about all the limits placed on personal freedom by the Roman empire, by the institution of indentured servitude, by patriarchal marriage.

And yet with context, which was given, it sounds more like an exhortation not to bind others' consciences or judge another's servant.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not at all persuaded that Christians are in denial about their duty as stewards. It's not even in the top 50 of modern Christian failures. Also, in the wider culture around us, I am similarly not at all persuaded that it lacks enough environmental sensitivity. If anything, the culture is zealous to apply peer pressure against any who are perceived to be creating messes. So all this preaching to the choir is a bit odd.

Rather I see the problem as Christian and cultural gullibility. We are very easily manipulated by statist fearmongering about the environment. There is an agenda at work, and it is more dangerous than CO2 will ever be.

People need to get some perspective, keep loving their neighbors by cleaning up after themselves, and love their neighbors by continuing to laugh loudly at the fearmongers.

Valuing those around us and those who come after us is a primary Christian duty. We can argue about the details, but there should be no argument about our fundamental duty. That's why there is more buzz on these environmental posts than just about anything Doug puts up. He 9and so many others here) get the this fundamental wrong and enough people who comment won't let it ride.

Missed you by two weeks on your trip to Enterprise. I was bummed!

(1) I'm still unclear on why the individual is taken as the basic category over the communal. At risk of sounding like an oatmeal hippie, the earth's problems are everybody's problems.

(2) Despite all the rhetoric about 'people being busy-bodies,' the fact of the matter is that every ethical discussion involves normative claims which are, by definition, universally applicable {sorry--you can't justify every premise in these short comments}. Thus, Christian ethics entails making judgments regarding how everyone should act.

(3) Apart from climate change, environmental problems, though maybe not in Katecho's elusive list of 50 failings, is demonstrably one of the biggest issues facing our generation: droughts are wracking Africa and California; Malaria kills more people than HIV/AIDs but most effective solutions (DDT) have high rates of collateral damage. Caring for neighbors requires positive engagement with environmental issues, even if Al Gore has made it less sexy than a nursing home swim-suit competition...

HIV, malaria, DDT, and droughts in Africa might be in someone's top 50 list of environmental problems, or top 50 list of bad diseases, or top 50 list of poisons, but environmental pietists can't just assume there is widespread ethical failure on the part of Christians.

When it comes to the general attitude of caring about neighbors, even in the area of environmental issues, I find Christians to be as aware and engaged as anyone, if not more so. Nathan might as well start a campaign against kicking puppies. The rest of us will want to focus our energies and satire on issues that represent actual dangers and failures that Christians face in our day.

The desire to love our neighbors isn't the failure. Knowing how to love our neighbors may be-- especially if we think shilling for the statist environmental fearmongers is somehow loving to our neighbors. We need to love our neighbors in a sober-minded way, not because of environmentalist pressure and guilt manipulation, and not because of sky-is-falling statists.