Global Warming: The Theological Implications of Climate Change

[ChristopherHall]

Scientists are telling us that the earth’s climate is drastically changing. Weather patterns all over the planet are underscoring the point. Many scientists claim that they believe that this “global warming” is the result of carbon dioxide gases (greenhouse gases) upsetting the balance of the earth’s ecosystem. While the vast majority of “greenhouse gases” are produced by the oceans and vegetation, roughly 5 to 6% of greenhouse gases are produced and released into the atmosphere by mankind. These scientists tell us that this 5 to 6% of greenhouse gases is just enough to offset nature’s delicate balance. Many well meaning individuals fear that man’s impact is just enough to cause major damage to earth’s ecosystem and they support government controls and regulations on business and production that produces greenhouse gases. These individuals identify with the left of the political spectrum and advocate environmental protection laws.

Other scientists claim that this “global warming” is part of a natural cycle of climate change that occurs in 100,000 year cycles. These researchers present evidence and samples from earth’s past illustrating that changes of this nature are a naturally occurring phenomena in earth’s past and that current warming trends are in line with the cyclical data while underscoring the low percentage of man’s greenhouse gas production (5-6%). Many well meaning individuals believe this data and hold that man’s impact is far too small to upset earth’s natural planetary ecosystem and that current global warming trends are perfectly natural. These individuals resist governmental regulation and controls and identify them as being unnecessary and burdensome on the global economy. These individuals identify themselves with the right of the political spectrum and advocate in favor of business interests and governmental interference. Most Christians, who for the most part lean to the right of the political spectrum, embrace this opinion regarding global warming as it agrees best with their political philosophy.

But I see an issue that’s not been addressed. As a Christian I cannot accept that global warming is part of a natural cycle. Why, you might ask? It’s a matter of theology. Conservative scientists tell us that we are witnessing a natural cycle that occurs every 100,000 years (give or take a few centuries). But as a Christian I cannot embrace that theory because according to Scripture the earth is only between 6,000 and 10,000 years old. Therefore their “evidence” directly contradicts Scripture. Since the earth is only between 6,000 and 10,000 years old (to allow for discrepancies in the biblical lineages) there cannot be a regular 100,000 year cycle as proposed by these researchers. Their data is skewed in that they are interpreting the data according to an evolutionary model that is clearly unbiblical.

So then, if the conservative scientists are in error in regards to their theory of 100,000 year cycles what are we to believe? I cannot speak for anyone else, but I’ll share my opinion here. There are two possibilities I can accept as a Christian:

1.) That man’s production of greenhouse gases indeed is disrupting the balance of the earth’s climate as more liberal researchers claim. Tomes of research papers have been written in support of this theory and the reader is most likely aware of their conclusions therefore I will not comment on them here and allow them to stand or fall on their own merits.

The second theory I may be able to embrace as a Christian would be:

2.) Global Warming - a sign of the impending wrath of God.

The Bible describes a judgment poured out upon the earth in the last days:

“And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.” – Revelation 16:8-9

We are not told in the Revelation how this judgment comes to pass. We do not know the mechanics of such a global judgment that would allow the sun to burn man with great heat. We do not know what early warning signs may exist prior to this judgment being unleashed upon mankind. We do not know if it will be a judgment that is the result of seemingly “natural” causes or if God will allow mankind’s own greed and pollution to contribute to their own judgment of great heat. Either way the end result will be the same, judgment upon man and man’s rejection of God’s divine authority over their lives. Such heat no doubt would melt polar ice caps causing sea levels to rise drastically world wide. Coastal regions would be easily flooded, killing untold thousands, if not millions, and displacing tens if not hundreds of millions. The strain on regional economies would disrupt global markets and send governments into chaos to deal with the global rise in sea levels. If this rise in sea level were to take place slowly over time perhaps the economic and social damage can be minimized. However, if such an event were to take place more rapidly than currently believed the effects could be devastating.

If the earth truly is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old as many biblical scholars and theologians tell us, current trends in climate change are unprecedented in recorded history. However, an examination of biblical history would have us believe that these changes in earth’s climate are the most significant global climate changes since…the great flood. Jesus described the last days as being,

“But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.” – Matthew 24:37-39

With war, sin, and violence filling our world; increasing global temperatures and the potential for global flooding indeed make it a day all too similar to the day’s of Noah. This should stand as a solemn warning to all of us who believe. We are indeed maybe living in the times Jesus spoke about and this should make us ever seeking to be prepared to meet our God.
So if one chooses to believe that climate change is the result of man’s impact on the planet’s climate system or a prelude to the fulfillment of prophesy that is for the individual to decide.

Here are a few questions that have been on my mind:

What are the possible repercussions if we neglect this issue?

If man truly is upsetting earth’s delicate balance, do we as Christians have a moral responsibility toward saving the lives and resources that could be lost as a result of climate change? Do we have a moral responsibility toward preserving God’s creation, planet earth?

Are evolutionary theories regarding cyclical climate change every 100,000 years compatible with the Bible?

What would be a thoughtful Christian response to the issue?

Are we missing an opportunity for a global witness?

Should we care?

Those are just questions on my mind. I know that scientists on both sides have their studies and data supporting their conclusions. I’m not a scientist. All I can do is weigh the moral cost of my response to this issue in relation to each position should it be correct. In all honesty, I don’t have any answers. I’m just asking the questions.

God bless.

[DividedThigh]

you should send these theories to albert gore, he would enjoy them, lol,dt:drama

[ChristopherHall]

you should send these theories to albert gore, he would enjoy them, lol,dt:drama

LOL

I highly doubt Al Gore would appreciate the theory that perhaps global warming is a prelude to the wrath of God on a sinful humanity.

But seriously, we Christians appear to take it for granted that global warming is cyclical (a cycle of 100,000 years) as more conservative scientists propose. However, we rarely consider how this contradicts the Bible's teaching on creation. Earth hasn't been evolving cyclically for billions of years as they suppose. If in deed the world was created as a literal reading of Genesis would suppose...global warming may be a very serous and upresidented shift in climate.

What are the moral implications if we ignore something like this and it proves to be very serious for our children, grand-children, or great grand-children?

[DividedThigh]

sorry chris i guess no body cares about the so called global warming, but i would sure like to have some of it up here in the north, tired of freezing, lol,have a great day, dt:drama

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

I guess you will have to join the Weather Channel.

NOAA scientists have replied to Global Warming as "bunk."

More of a Socialist agenda to try to force the "rich" nations (read prosperious) and advance poor nations (read unwilling to try to achieve) at the expense of the citizens of the "rich" areas. It did not work in the Ural Sea to help Siberia. Why do we want to accept this for the entire world?

Come on Mr Hall, tear down this wall

**apologies to everyone old enough to remember Ronald Reagan.

[scotty]

I also believe the way you do. Weather and climate disasters are related to God "cleansing" mankind. He gave a covenant that He would never again flood the Earth, yet He never gave such covenant after destroying Sodem and Gomorah(spck) I believe famine and sickness in africa is direct result in the many witchcraft religions they believe. Even Uganda christians are touting the changes they have seen since missionaries have started state wide revivals.
The Tsunami in Indonesia, do they not worship idol statues? New Orleans had the highest crime and corruption in the country not including the social immorality prior to Katrina. So far it doesn't look like they learned anything. Ever notice how most Islamic countries lack much to be desired.
God is a rightous judge. I don't see why Global Warming would be any different with the exception it is world wide which could give some meaning to your post. Thing is Bro. Chris, if me and you are correct then what could anyone possibly do about it? That is my argument. Do I really think driving a hybrid is going to reverse the Revelation of the Word? Not really...

[ChristopherHall]

I don't know if there's a political solution. In my opinion countries like China are the worse offenders. I'm just asking the question about the issue...what if we're wrong? Morally speaking. What if those warning us about global warming are correct?

About the cold temperatures...if global warming is taking place it's going to effect pockets of the environment that are most sensitive to temperature changes. Also, global warming can be a prelude to colder temperatures not hotter temperatures. For example, if the polar ice caps are melting and putting too much cold fresh water into the seas, regional currents that carry warm water (and with it warm air) can be disrupted. This will allow for colder temperatures in various regions while other regions experience warmer temperatures. It's pretty interesting.

I work for a Waste Water Treatment plant. We had a little meeting where an environmental engineer was sharing with us global trends and discussing the implications of these trends upon our industry. It was interesting and seriously challenged me. So I asked myself..."What if I'm wrong?" Morally speaking, what if those charting climate change are right and we're wrong? Can you imagine what the world will think of Christians who disregarded a major issue of our day? It would almost make us look like those who wouldn't accept that the world was round.

[ChristopherHall]

Here's an interesting article. Let's read it over, read the related stories, and discuss it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071126143646.htm

[ChristopherHall]

Here's an interesting article:


Arctic Sea Ice Shows "Striking" Decline Since 1960s
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/11/991115145020.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 16, 1999) — WASHINGTON -- Scientists using data acquired by U.S. Navy submarines have reported a "striking" reduction in the thickness of Arctic sea ice, as compared with 20-40 years ago. Writing in the December 1 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, Dr. D. Andrew Rothrock of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues say the average draft of the sea ice (that is, its thickness from the ocean surface to the bottom of the ice pack) has declined by 4.3 feet (1.3 meters). This represents a reduction of about 40 percent as compared with the earlier period.

The decrease in sea ice occurs all across the Arctic Ocean and corresponds to previously reported evidence that the Arctic climate is warming, the researchers say. The sea ice data in the 1990s were acquired by the Scientific Ice Expeditions (SCICEX) program, which consisted of six extended cruises by nuclear submarines. This study analyzed data from three autumn cruises: by USS Pargo in 1993, USS Pogy in 1996, and USS Archerfish in 1997.


The SCICEX cruises covered most of the deep Arctic Ocean basin. Measurements of the sea ice thickness showed a perennial ice cover of from 3 to 9 feet (1-3 meters) in mean draft, which was considerably thinner than previous estimates. The earlier data, used for comparison, began with the first nuclear submarine, USS Nautilus, in 1958 and continued through a cruise of HMS Sovereign in 1976. Data from the earlier cruises were adjusted as necessary for the time of year they took place, to correspond with the autumn data acquired in the 1990s. There are few data available from the 1976-1993 period. The researchers conservatively estimate the overall errors in measurement as less than one foot (0.3 meters).


Rothrock writes that the changes from the earlier period to the present are "striking in the uniformity of their sign and in their magnitudes." That is, every one of the 29 sites compared between the earlier cruises and those of the 1990s showed a decline in ice thickness. In certain areas, such as the Nansen Basin and the eastern Arctic, the thinning is over five and a half feet (1.7 meters). Elsewhere, such as the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Cap, it is around three feet (one meter), and at the North Pole and in the Canada Basin the decrease lies between those extremes. However, the researchers note, this is not an instance of ice thinning in one area while thickening in another, which could be induced by a change in surface wind patterns.


The researchers say the available data are insufficient to provide answers about the cause of the ice loss. They suggest several hypotheses about the flow of heat from the ocean itself, from the atmosphere, and from shortwave radiation. Other avenues to be explored include the amount of precipitation and snow cover in the region and ice movement.


A key topic for future research is whether ice volume has reached a minimum in a multi-decadal cycle or whether the decline will continue into the future. Regardless, the researchers say, the thinning of Arctic ice that has already occurred is "a major climatic signal that needs to be accounted for in a successful theory of climate variability." To help fill the gaps between the earlier and more recent submarine observations, they call for the public release of other ice thickness data gathered by submarines over the past 40 years, which they believe would be "of immense help" in refining this climatic signal.


The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, and NASA.


###

Adapted from materials provided by American Geophysical Union.

[ChristopherHall]

Here is a website for Christians interested in the Christian perspective of environmental stewardship. If believing that the earth is God's creation happens to be merely an academic exercize it's of no value but to tickle the intellect. However, to understand that creation is God's and is therefore worthy of preservation and proper stewardship one takes the belief in creation into the realm of "works." I like to call this, "Applied Creationism." Don't just believe in creation...do something about it. ;)

http://www.creationcare.org/
http://www.creationcare.org/tmp/front-topbanner.jpg

[ChristopherHall]

Quick Facts and References
air pollution | water pollution and water scarcity | mercury (separate page) | global warming | oceans | God's other creatures

http://www.creationcare.org/resources/sunday/facts.php

[OP_Carl]

Christopher,

The young earth theorists believe that the science of carbon-dating is off - way off - as a legitimate measure of an object's age. According to this position, carbon dating of items such as dinosaur fossils, which are usually estimated to be between 65,000,000 and 350,000,000 years old, are actually between 4,500 and 10,000 years old.

I have read the claims of creation scientists about the standard methods used for carbon-dating, which include throwing out results which don't match expectations, and the alleged cover-ups of the discoveries of dinosaur remains that weren't fossilized, etc. Some say the very premise is flawed because we have no way of knowing if the carbon absorption rate for living tissue has remained a constant throughout history's changes in atmospheric composition.

While this topic is mildly amusing intellectually, my surmise is that it doesn't much matter. None of us were living in the beginning, be it 6,000 or 6,000,000,000 years ago, so certainty is impossible. We are just lining up competing guessers in opposing rows.

Back to carbon-dating. Most global warming skeptics (or de-bunkers, take your pick) of note are traditional scientists, classically educated. They avail themselves of traditional tools of their sciences, including carbon-dating.

Therefore, a young earth theorist such as you have presented yourself to be can take timescale estimates such as the 100,000-year climatalogical cycle duration and compress it to the same ratio that you apply to other carbon-dating data to make the span of the earth's age fit within 6,000 to 10,000 years. The near-term climate cycle would therefore be approximately 300-500 years, which would be thoroughly compatible with your beliefs.


As an aside, some of the really interesting stuff unveiling global-warming science as a fraud has been written by a fellow named Viscount Monckton.

The computer simulations used to predict more warming for the future use some fundamentally shaky assumptions, and can scarcely predict what is going to happen two weeks from now, much less the intensity of next year's hurricane season. To trust in their predictive capacity for such spans of time is ludicrous.

And finally, to top it all off, a leading skeptic scientist has challenged the thinking on the topic by suggesting that all of the world, but especially the third world, will actually benefit from a slight increase in temperature.

[ChristopherHall]

Praise the Lord Carl. Nice to talk to you.

I'm aware that there are some scientists that have reservations about global warming and are skeptical. However, the majority of scientists from all over the world have concured that global warming is in fact happening and that mankind is at least partially to blame. Why would the majority of scientists agree if there isn't sufficent enough data as many other scientists propose. I had read about a study by an skeptic and then read a study that discounted his study by pointing out inconsistancy of methods, failure to actually perform field experiments (on sight research in the arctic), and the use of data and statistics nearly 20 years old. The article was well written and sounded very logical and I certainly held it as evidence that the current position on global warming is flawed...however, after reading what researchers had to say about the study I couldn't help but feel...well...mislead. So why do you propose that the majority of scientists concure with global warming conclusions? Even President Bush, an avid skeptic, has voiced that he now sees and understands that there is indeed something happening. I think the real question is; how much impact is from mankind? Most studies I've read indicate that as little as 5% of greenhouse gases come from man and industry. However, this 5% is just enough to push against the tipping point for many ecosystems throughout the planet.

As we can see ice shelves in Russia are nearly....gone. Shelves that have been present during winter cycles as far back as recorded history of the region. Satalite imaging has even given us information that has caused scientists to pause....something is happening. And I believe that wise individuals do well to find out what it is. Especially since it can cause extremes in weather patterns that can disrupt crop production or devestate urban areas. I think we really should take this very seriously until we "prove" mankind is in the clear.

[ChristopherHall]

And finally, to top it all off, a leading skeptic scientist has challenged the thinking on the topic by suggesting that all of the world, but especially the third world, will actually benefit from a slight increase in temperature.

You really don't believe that do you? If sea levels rose exponentially it would cause serious disruption of life and require that environmental refugees move inland, stressing surrounding economies. Consider nations like the Netherlands that could be devistated or face considerable hardship from rising sea levels. It's not all about temperature....it effects the entire fabric, temperature is just the first domino. A holistic approach considers how all systems are interconnected. But I do see what you're saying, a shift in climate may be good for some nations...but let's not forget that it will be devistating to others.

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

Christopher Hall,

Snow fell in Baghdad. It has not done so in as long as any living person there can remember- some 80 year old men said it had NEVER snowed in Baghdad before.

Global Warming is a farce.

[ChristopherHall]

Then there is another issue I'm thinking about.

What to do?

Let's say that global warming is a serious threat and is indeed something that we must take action on. What do we do? Stronger emissions and production standards are a good start. But they have to be fair and applied to all not just the US and Europe. Some rightfully acknowledge that such increased standards would cause fuel to cost even more. But honestly...would one rather have higher fuel prices or a polluted environment? Personally, hate it as I do, I'd rather face higher fuel prices. Besides, people don't have to drive. There isn't a "right to drive." Sure, if you can afford the fuel and drive wonderful...if not buy a bike. That would also solve our obesity problems. LOL No, seriously, I'm just joshin'.

And if global warming isn't a real issue right now...do we wait until it is to act? Many are so driven by profits they can't see past the dollar signs. They don't realize that recovery from a global ecological disaster may be far more expensive tomorrow than doing the right thing now. Do we wait until there is a problem to act or should we act now to prevent environmental issues?

[ChristopherHall]

Christopher Hall,

Snow fell in Baghdad. It has not done so in as long as any living person there can remember- some 80 year old men said it had NEVER snowed in Baghdad before.

Global Warming is a farce.

I'm not here to say it's a farce or a fact. I'm asking an ethical question...what if you're wrong?

And in all honesty, you may be wrong. Is the price of believing you and finding that you're wrong higher than the price for working to prevent an environmental crisis?

Global warming aside, consider the following facts from Evangelical Environmental Network:

Air Pollution
More than one in three Americans live in areas with unhealthy air, and in many areas it is getting worse, especially in poorer neighborhoods. Nitrogen oxides (forms smog) have increased 11% between 1970 and 1997. Sulfur dioxide emissions (results in fine particulate pollution or soot) increased in 1996-98 to more than 9% over 1995 levels.

Water Pollution & Water Scarcity
Over one billion people still lack access to safe water, and nearly two billion lack safe sanitation. More than three million people still die every year from avoidable water-related disease.

Global Warming
Agricultural output in many poorer countries could be significantly reduced. An additional 80-90 million poor people could be at risk of hunger and malnutrition later in the 21st century.

More information can be reviewed at, http://www.creationcare.org/resources/sunday/facts.php Data regarding the oceans is very disturbing.

[ChristopherHall]

As a leader, I always ask myself, "What if I'm wrong?"

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

I don't believe we need to waste our resources, but I am not worried that civilzation needs to come to a halt due to a small species that would be normally eaten by other species. I live in the Pacific Northwest and if it were not for clear cut logging, I probably would not live where I do for there are few trees nearby in the city. Reclaim efforts have proven successful to generate second growth forestry, but this has not helped the loss of thousands of jobs and economic stability for the area. Likewise, diversion of the waters South to Sonoma and Marin counties has all but destroyed the rivers and streams. Some now flow 6 inches deep in the summer. At the same time, sea lions were declared endangered, so they have new habitation. At the mouth of the rivers where Salmon used to migrate, Sea Lions get to over 1600 pounds and fisherman must cut the lines if a Sea Lion takes them while the fisherman is reeling them in.

Somewhere there is a balance to be found. Plastic rings and bags destroy thousands of creatures, but I don't throw them in the water, and I do my part to seperate cardboard for recycling each month.

[ChristopherHall]

I don't believe we need to waste our resources, but I am not worried that civilzation needs to come to a halt due to a small species that would be normally eaten by other species.

LOL Hopefully not eaten to extinction.

Here in town there were protected wetlands down the road from the church we previously attended. A development corporation purchased the wetlands and began to develop it to build a strip mall (like we really need more malls). Naturally the government stepped in and halted the multi-million dollar project...to protect a rare species of salamander. My god, bro, the pastor was ranting from the pulpit about how he hoped every salamander dies anyway because they're, and I quote, "Just dumb lizards." I looked at my wife and rolled my eyes. What he doesn't know is that my wife and I bird watch, fish, and frequent nature trails. Nature was made by the hand of God, not be exploited, but to be preserved and cared for. Adam's first duty was to keep, or tend, the garden. My wife and I had just been down in Bellbrook OH with a local naturalist on our hands and knees in wetlands all day spying out the breeding areas and nocturnal behaviors of these salamanders (they only have three locations in our area where they are found). While many don't care about anything that doesn't bring with it a profit margin...my wife and I have great respect and a deep love for God's creation. His statement revealed a lot about his character. God's Word says,

"10 A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal,
but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel." - Proverbs 12:10

Righteous men care about lower creatures. They are kind and compassionate. Rabbinical scholars have commented on this verse stating that if a man cannot show care and regard for a lowly animal and it's well being it is impossible for him to care for and regard his fellow man.

I agree there has to be a balance. But the question is; do we error on the side of caution or do we error on the side of disregard?

[BoredOutOfMyMind]

LOL Hopefully not eaten to extinction.

Here in town there were protected wetlands down the road from the church we previously attended. A development corporation purchased the wetlands and began to develop it to build a strip mall (like we really need more malls). Naturally the government stepped in and halted the multi-million dollar project...to protect a rare species of salamander. My god, bro, the pastor was ranting from the pulpit about how he hoped every salamander dies anyway because they're, and I quote, "Just dumb lizards." I looked at my wife and rolled my eyes. What he doesn't know is that my wife and I bird watch, fish, and frequent nature trails. Nature was made by the hand of God, not be exploited, but to be preserved and cared for. Adam's first duty was to keep, or tend, the garden. My wife and I had just been down in Bellbrook OH with a local naturalist on our hands and knees in wetlands all day spying out the breeding areas and nocturnal behaviors of these salamanders (they only have three locations in our area where they are found). While many don't care about anything that doesn't bring with it a profit margin...my wife and I have great respect and a deep love for God's creation. His statement revealed a lot about his character. God's Word says,

"10 A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal,
but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel." - Proverbs 12:10

Righteous men care about lower creatures. They are kind and compassionate. Rabbinical scholars have commented on this verse stating that if a man cannot show care and regard for a lowly animal and it's well being it is impossible for him to care for and regard his fellow man.

I agree there has to be a balance. But the question is; do we error on the side of caution or do we error on the side of disregard?

Well, the developer COULD have created alternative wetland areas. I am not against shopping centers. I tend to lean in on the side of your Pastor, that some inbalance on the otherside is hindering progress in many areas.

Elsewise, we would not have stopped development and construction of Petroleum production facilities, and also would have not strangled the Nuclear Industry out of existance (needed to offset fossil fuels used to create electricity). Newer plants are cleaner, and the steel mills of the rust belt closed and all the steel now is imported from remote China- who has NO enviromental controls or regards at all.

[OP_Carl]

Christopher,

You've got to follow the money. There is a lot of government funding being allocated to climate change research all over the world. There is a lot of incentive for scientists to get involved in this research; in any career it's wise to go where the money is. Sadly, there is also an agenda being driven, and scientists that start to buck the status quo are ignored, subjected to intense peer pressure, and even threatened.

Let's take a look at the environmental activist movement. The green party types. Whether the throngs are aware of the intentions of the leadership or not, by all appearances this movement is attempting to accomplish the same goals that communism did: the discrediting and de-construction of the free capitalist way of life. Many key players in the movement have or have had direct ties to communist parties. They are sometimes referred to as watermelons: Green on the outside, Red on the inside. And just like the overt communists before them, they are more than willing to manipulate and take advantage of what the manifesto refers to as "useful idiots." And just like the communists before them, dissention in the ranks is not tolerated. Re-education is the rule of the day. Only now, instead of using an agency like the KGB, a social weapon known as political "correctness" is used.

If a person doesn't agree with all the activists' positions, they don't care about the environment. And if they don't care about the environment, they must be a bad, bad person, right?

One thing that is really telling is the exclusion of the USSR, China, and India from the Kyoto protocols. The Kyoto protocols would throttle economies like no other concept before, but the world's TWO LARGEST polluters are excluded? Even if the theories about warming being caused by industrial activity are true, the cessation of ALL ACTIVITY by the U.S. and the U.K. wouldn't even make a dent in reducing the world's output of pollution. It's a plan that only punishes the cooperative. Since the plan would be ineffective at accomplishing the stated goals, it is only fair for us to speculate about ulterior goals.

This imbicilic notion that switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs is going to help is downright scary. I'd rather deal with some extra sulfur from the coal-fired power plant than some extra mercury scattered throughout the ecosystem by grass-roots littering and such.

You really don't believe that do you? If sea levels rose exponentially it would cause serious disruption of life and require that environmental refugees move inland, stressing surrounding economies.

I don't believe for one minute the stuff about sea levels rising. That is the extreme worst-case scenario stuff . . . . astronomically unlikely to occur. But hey, it's sensational, and gets people to start listening. The third world would benefit from longer growing seasons - that's all.