What do you mean "there's not scientific evidence to support it"? Of course there is. Perhaps what you meant to say was that there is also evidence against it. Scientific results are never as clear cut as that, and you need to look at the preponderance of the evidence. That is what statistics is for.
This says a lot about man's arrogance and pride -- to actually believe that we can usurp God's control of the planet that he created.
Hey, I'm Christian too. And I don't believe it is arrogant to think we can change the climate on the planet God created. I believe it irresponsible to think that we can do whatever we want and there will be no consequences. Of course we can change the environment. The question is how much.
If we were to detonate the entire nuclear arsenal, nobody would argue that we would not change the environment. We would solve the global warming problem immediately, with a nuclear winter. It would be weird to say that we could not change the environment unintentionally, if we could do so intentionally.
If we put enough CFC into the atmosphere, the ozone layer will disappear, starting at the South and North Poles. People in Australia and Europe will be the first to see increases in skin cancer. The ozone hole is real. We made it.
The arguments we see against global warming is exactly what DuPont was saying against ozone depletion 20 years ago. Nevertheless, 191 countries signed up to the Montreal Protocol. Two decades later, measurements have shown decreases in atmospheric concentrations of most ozone depleting chemicals.
If we dump enough poison into the environment, it will contaminate our water supply and poison ourselves, our kids, our neighbours. Frankly, that is unneighbourly and unChristian.
If we divert enough water flowing into a lake, it will eventually shrink and dissapear. Just have a look of a recent satellite photo of the Aral Sea.
If we burn the entire Amazon, we will turn it into a desert. Did the natives of Easter Island not change their environment but cutting down every last tree?
A couple of years ago, my entire country was covered in smoke. You couldn't see 1km at noon. Planes had trouble landing at the airport. Satellite photos shows the smoke coming from Indonesia next door. The fires from slash-and-burn forest clearing for palm oil plantations got out of control. After a few months, the fires were put out and the smoke cleared. Of course we could change the environment.
We can't even predict the weather accurately from hour to hour for a single town, much less predict the weather patterns of the entire globe for decades or centuries or millenia.
We can predict that the average temperature in London this December would be lower than the average temperature in June next year. Just draw a chart of the temperature over time. Actually looking at the chart, though it zig-zag up and down, you could see the trends.
It is unreasonable to demand unequivocal proof of global warming before we do anything about it. Imagine you are in the management office of a 100-floor building. There's a small fire on the 3rd floor. Do you put it out? The firemen spraying all those water will cause millions of dollars of water damage. Or do you demand that a study be carried out to evaluate if the fire is a risk to the entire building?
We take a short time (only a few seconds) to evaluate the problem, whether it was a crank call, whether we can put out the fire ourselves, or we need to call the fire department. Then we do it. We may make a mistake in calling the fire department unnecessarily. When they arrived ... "uh, we already put out the fire, sorry to trouble you" ... but to err in that direction is prudent. To err in the other direction is catastrophic, and irresponsible. I would not want that person in the management office of my building.
If we debate the problem endlessly, we would be making a choice. The choice to do nothing.
I sense the Bush administration is not acting in good faith. The strategy seems to be a "fighting retreat". We will hold this position as long as possible. Then we will withdraw a little, just a few steps back, and then defend that position. And so on. Delaying as long as possible.