Andy Crouch was kind enough to respond to my article on climate change (which itself was penned in reply to Crouch’s original piece), and I’ve included a response of my own. His words are in the large blocks of italics below: While I’

One aspect of the evangelical involvement in debates over global warming and climate change that has intriqued me has been what I deem to be a rather large blind spot about the relation of religious conservatives to science. By this I mean that if ther

Remember when I said that I thought there is a dangerous incentive in climate change research to make things seem worse than they are? (If not, that’s OK. I actually called it an “analogous phenomenon” to the possibility that AIDS statis

Quote: “Crouch argues that global warming theory, “is taken for granted by nearly every scientist working in the field,” and that there is “no serious disagreement among scientists that human beings are playing a major role in global warming.””

Surely the many scientists who believe global warming is a natural phenomenon are not being represented by comments such as these. Does anyone have a source showing the innacuracy of these statements?

** IF global warming is as massive in scope and scale, and as cataclysmic in consequence, as the "scientific mainstream" asserts, then there is no basis upon which to expect future generations to be wealthier than the present generation, nor to expect that amelioration will be feasible, much less that amelioration will be less costly in time-corrected terms than preventive efforts now. However, that statement was deliberately framed with an "IF." The global warming argument is not based on hard scientific evidence, because accurate worldwide temperature data is not available much before the beginning of the 20th century, while some climatic cycles are known to be many centuries long. Secondly, while some societies will face new burdens from global warming if it develops, others will benefit, and still others will face a new balance of conditions that will include benefits and drawbacks. Finally, I am very suspicious of the preventive remedies being proposed for "global warming," because they seem to be excessively prescriptive (not just identifying a problem and calling for solutions, but in some cases imposing solutions such as "carbon taxes") and are inconsistently applied (the most severe polluters -- the large developing states -- are given a free ride, while the already moderating polluters -- the developed economies -- are punitively expected to volunteer for long-term economic recession and return to decades-ago levels of energy usage).
** I would argue that desertification and salinization of semi-arid and arid regions due to over-grazing/-cultivation, excessive use of fertilizers, and wastefully subsidized use of ground water for irrigation of dry regions to grow water-intensive crops (not to mention watering golf courses and lawns, etc.) while moister regions are left fallow and see net declines in population, is a much greater problem, and a problem largely created by bad government policy (due to ignorance of "unintended consequences," incompetence, corruption, or combinations of these -- and thus directly and relatively cheaply corrected by human action with far greater socio-economic benefits. Similarly, I would suggest that when a substantial portion of the world’s population lives in significant to severe poverty, denying them any prospect of improvement because development will mean more global warming (indeed, more human population means more global warming), and all available capital is being funnelled into cooling off the world, instead of increasing investment in productivity that creates jobs and markets, is irresponsible if not callously selfish.

--SteveD

Although in French I recommend to read the following book from J. Jancovici.
L’avenir climatique - quel temps ferons-nous ?

Once you’ve read it, I think you come to understand that it is not really disputable that recent human development has left very signicant carbon emission into the atmosphere (far above any natural emission). Also not disputable that it is hardly reversible.

What also becomes clear, is that it is hard to predict the real effect of it on the climate globally and even more so locally ?
And that is the dilemna I think :

+ either you are on the pessimistic side, and one starts to act to avoid a castastrophe (likely over-blown by some)
+ either you are on the optimistic side, and do nothing hoping it’ll sort itself out.

Since the massive emissions are largely irreversible, it seems wise to me to take precautionnary measures.

The interesting thing, from a christian point of view, with the issue is that “climate” is a common good of humanity. Unlike oil, land or other ressources, no one can take ownership of it, no nation, no individual has the solution on its own. It looks like that we are going into the prisonners dilemna. So do we choose for a win/win or loose/loose ?

Hello Andy,

Thanks very much for taking the time to read and respond to my piece. In the spirit of a valued dialogue, I’ve posted a rejoinder here.