We're doing our part.

Rove is firing up the magma machine so Mt. St. Helens will blow and we'll have a couple of years of global cooling and beautiful sunsets.

Here is a link to a picture of Casey Stengal as a Brooklyn Dodger in 1915. Good looking in the sunglasses.

Sorry, that's a non-starter. The money bosses won't allow it.

You misunderstand the enviromental movement. Thier purpose is not to solve problems, it is to be problems, which is why they suit the current state of the Democrat Party so well.

Yes OJ, But it won't be a good thing if it's based upon myth instead of science.

send them your "hockey stick" post.

BB:

Yes, we'll reduce our pollution levels because it's responsible, not because Montpelier might become a beachfront town.

This is disheartening news. Environmentalism is, at bottom, anti-people. The folks who dreamed up global warming must be stunned to see their fantasy march on and on. Of course, their co-religionists will not miss a beat as they ratchet up the noise about other nasty consequences of human existence.

curt:

If environmentalism is inherently anti-people what is industrial pollution?

oj -

Are you really suggesting that the goal of the global warming crowd is to address "industrial pollution"? If so, I'm shocked. They do want to curb industry (along with most other human activities), but are not targeting industrial pollution, unless you are offended by CO2.

Industrial pollution in the U.S. is pretty much a thing of the past. To see industrial pollution, spend a few days touring in China, Turkey, or the Czech Rep. for that matter.

"If environmentalism is inherently anti-people what is industrial pollution?"

A temporary (in the grand scheme of things) necessary evil until technology advances enough to solve it.

[cigar smoking fat cat] It's PROGRESS, baby! [/cigar smoking fat cat]

Good one John. Here's another: An unfortunate (albeit temporary) byproduct of processes that led to a near-doubling in the human life-span, with a vastly improved quality of life throughout, in just 5 or 6 generations.

I think OJ is correct about the need of conservative to support laws to prevent pollution of all sorts (air and water). That is merely an extention of protecting property rights.

He is being provocative and naive to think that this will win over the modern environmentalist. Not a chance. However there are non-political citizens who will be won over (hard to believe I know, that such people exist considering the way the media treats the subject)

h:

It won't win environmentalists--it will make it easier on middle class white women to vote Republican.

John:

At the point where you're defending doing nothing about evil you've abandoned the conservative side of the argument.

curt:

No. Their goal is to limit industry. However, their effect will be precisely the opposite. Force reductions and you'll trigger an explosion in innovation and technological upgrading. Think of the global warming hoax as Y2K redux, an accidental boon.

oj -

And the churches ought to use moral suasion to promote the diversion of real resources to "fix" a hoax?

No, churches should promote lives in conformity with Biblical principle, like being good stewards of Creation. The technological benefits of forced pollution reductions are a way for economic conservatives to get over their sulking.

So, spending money, effort and moral capital on a non-existent problem (global warming) instead of a real one (industrial pollution) is what you consider good stewardship?

Of course, reducing pollution is an objective good, whether it causes warming or not.

Our host is more complicated than many of his visitors comprehend. He believes in protecting not only the environment, but also the helpless among us. Consequently he is not a typical paleocon. Good stewardship is not Darwinian.

Where in the cited article is there any mention of reducing pollution? There is no relationship between current efforts to reduce alledged global warming and reducing pollution. I completely fail to understand your argument as other than a bomb throwing non-sequitor.

Crank up the nuclear power plants and bless them all.

AOG:

"BB:

Yes, we'll reduce our pollution levels because it's responsible, not because Montpelier might become a beachfront town.
Posted by: oj at March 10, 2005 01:40 PM "

Yes, OJ contains multitudes, but was also driving a SUV, which could also contain multitudes, last I heard.

However, their effect will be precisely the opposite.
oj, that's just one more variant of the broken window fallacy. Money and talent spent on innovation to curb CO2 is money and talent not spent on innovation in some other field.

joe:

some other less important field.

To politicians, perhaps. To consumers, no.

Even among Republicans:

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et1099/et1099s7.html

Global warming isn't a hoax, just that we have much to do with it. (It should be obvious that coming out of the last ice age was not caused by humans, for instance.)

However, evangelicals are not known for their "considered" opinions; I can see them supporting a knee-jerk reaction that impoverishes people so they can say they are doing something about poverty. It's all about feeling good and knowing that you're doing something -- anything.

Evangelicals, not content with efforts to destroy medicine and biology in America, are now stepping into meteorology too. How long will it take these Bible-thumping scientific illiterates to start banning Calculus?

What good has it ever done anyone?

No doubt Zimbabweans (for example) will be thrilled to learn that the churches are going to turn their attention to the "urgent threat" of CO2.

http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Zimbabwe/0,6119,2-11-1662_1674477,00.html

"The Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group of 51 church denominations, said he had become passionate about global warming because of his experience scuba diving and observing the effects of rising ocean temperatures and pollution on coral reefs."

One of the most astounding things about global warming is how it seems to be targeting the favourite exotic vacation spots of the beautiful people, like coral reefs, the Arctic and the Maldives. Pittsburgh seems safe. Maybe with the Evangelicals on board, we'll come to see global warming as divine retribution for secular excess. Works for me.

Orrin, how about a multilateral treaty enforcing the state line rule?

OJ,

Thus proving my point. Think about pretty much every scientific innovation since Newton and Leibniz.

Yes, that's my point.

Do you really want to go back to the days when medical care was going to your barber for a good bleeding? Do you really want to live without the internal combustion engine?

That's just technology and hygeine.

IOW, scientific innovation.

Innovation rarely has much to do with science.