Hate Al Gore all you want. Global warming is real

[hopper]

from "Character and Environment: A Virtue-Oriented Approach to Environmental Ethics " by Ronald Sandler

[forrestkc]

Before you do too much mocking, consider this passage:

First, be aware of this: scoffers will come in the last days to scoff, following their own lusts, saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation." They willfully ignore this: long ago the heavens and the earth existed out of water and through water by the word of God. Through these the world of that time perished when it was flooded by water. But by the same word the present heavens and earth are held in store for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

2 Peter 3:3-7 HCSB

First, understand that I am not accusing you of being a scoffer. But I don't think it is an accident that in a thread centered on global warming, the topic has changed to what God will do at the end of days. The bible seems to indicate what we believe about the nature of the created order and our response to the end times are closely related. Notice that Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, readily admits that people will make conclusions about God's involvement in the world (based on their empirical observations of reality). Peter ties this to peoples view of nature. He says that we should not be surprised that people have begun to scoff, because they have even misread nature. They have based their conclusions about nature soley on what can be empirically observed. According to Peter, their observations have not taken into account the greater reality that lies behind what we call nature. Nature exists because it was spoken into existence by the very words of God. As an example, Peter uses the time immediately after creation. There was much more water in the earth in those days, and people interpreted this as a matter of fact. They did not realize that God had a greater purpose behind this. He used the very things they had empirically observed as naturally occuring, to bring judgement. They missed it because their world view was based on what they could see.

It is the same today. Warming exists. The problem is that people who use the empirical method as their basis of reality ignore the greater reality that is behind nature. God has a greater purpose for the current creation. According to Peter, part of that purpose is a purging. This purging will destroy what we currently interpret as the ultimate reality, in favor of the true reality that is behind it.

This is echoed in Hebrews 11:

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen has been made from things that are not visible.

Hebrews 11:3 HCSB

The delay in the end that many find as a source for scoffing is actually motivated by God's love and patience. This is what Peter said regarding this:

Dear friends, don't let this one thing escape you: with the Lord one day is like 1,000 years, and 1,000 years like one day. The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, it is clear what sort of people you should be in holy conduct and godliness

2 Peter 3:8-11 HCSB

So what to make of all this:

1. What we observe empirically is not the final word in terms of what is real.

2. God is behind what we currently observe, and has a purpose that is beyind what we can observe.

3. Our empirical observations must be screened through the reality that is behind what we can observe empirically.

4. The fact that what God predicts hasn't happened already, is not a reason for scoffing, but a window to draw near to God in faith

5. The current creation is being prepared to give way to the reality behind it.

We should live our lives for the coming eternal reality, not what we think we see now. As Peter said:

Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard, so that you are not led away by the error of the immoral and fall from your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

2 Peter 3:17-18 HCSB

Ok, I think what you are saying is that this could very well be a sign of the end times. (please correct me if I am wrong). That may be the case, but more than likely it is not. Every generation since the dawn of Christianity has looked at current events and sought to fit them around biblical prophecy. Thus far, every generation that has done so has been wrong.

Even if we do absolutely nothing to mitigate Global Warming, civilization will still survive. Life will go on. I think what those in the scientific and now economic community are arguing is that the costs of doing something are much less than eventual costs of doing nothing will be.

At the risk of going on a slight tangent, lets look at this. It is the scientific consensus that a 90% reduction in Carbon Emissions by 2050 will be necessary to mitigate future warming. Now, where I think people on both sides of this make a mistake is in focusing just on the regulatory changes necessary in achieving this. It is the belief of the environmental, economic, and scientific communities that we have to institute either a Cap and Trade Program or a Carbon Tax to provide a market incentive for industry to reduce its carbon emissions. Some see that as being a huge imposition by the government, nothing but a move toward socialism or a restriction of rights. The thing is, a carbon tax or cap and trade program is only going to get us about 20% of the way toward that goal of a 90% reduction in carbon emissions. It is not a panacea. This issue is not like tackling particulate pollutants where all that was necessary was installing catalytic converters on vehicles, and scrubbers on smoke stacks. What we have got to do is decouple energy production from pollution, carbon or otherwise and that is what we should be focusing on.

What we are talking about is investing tens of billions of dollars every year into new energy sources. So instead of focusing on taking your SUV away, we need to be focusing on doing something like investing the kind of money that we are spending in Iraq each year on new energy sources and new infrastructure. I mean think about it. What if we just up and decided that we are going to invest 100 billion dollars a year in solar panels, wind, nuclear, commuter rails, and so on. Just look at these dying cities in the rust belt. Right now, casinos are taking the place of the good paying factory jobs that were there. What we need to be doing is saying that we are going to go into these cities into the rust belt and have a ten fold increase in solar panel production in the next 5 years, and thus significantly bringing down the cost of the technology. I mean instead of pushing up the cost of fossil fuels to make alternative energy competitive with them, lets invest the money into producing alternative energy sources on the scale necessary to make it cheaper than fossil fuels. Then we can sell that technology to China and India. Instead of factory workers watching their jobs go off to China and then having to go to work in a casino, lets put them to work building solar panels, wind farms, nuclear power plants, light rails, and so on. Economists will tell you that any public sector investment in energy and infrastructure has an exponential effect on economic growth. Its a win, win situation.

Even if we find out 30 years from now we were wrong about Global Warming, in the mean time we would have made alternative energy as cheap as fossil fuels. Nations like China and India would be the world's largest consumers of clean energy technologies. I mean to me, something like that is something that just about everyone can get behind.

[Kansasdad]

Yes, look look look, they are going to destroy Israel again. Jerusalem this, West Bank that, the sky is falling. The Palestinians are going to get it, Oh no, Oh no........ Is it a sign of the end times???

Before you do too much mocking, consider this passage:

First, be aware of this: scoffers will come in the last days to scoff, following their own lusts, saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation." They willfully ignore this: long ago the heavens and the earth existed out of water and through water by the word of God. Through these the world of that time perished when it was flooded by water. But by the same word the present heavens and earth are held in store for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

2 Peter 3:3-7 HCSB

First, understand that I am not accusing you of being a scoffer. But I don't think it is an accident that in a thread centered on global warming, the topic has changed to what God will do at the end of days. The bible seems to indicate what we believe about the nature of the created order and our response to the end times are closely related. Notice that Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, readily admits that people will make conclusions about God's involvement in the world (based on their empirical observations of reality). Peter ties this to peoples view of nature. He says that we should not be surprised that people have begun to scoff, because they have even misread nature. They have based their conclusions about nature soley on what can be empirically observed. According to Peter, their observations have not taken into account the greater reality that lies behind what we call nature. Nature exists because it was spoken into existence by the very words of God. As an example, Peter uses the time immediately after creation. There was much more water in the earth in those days, and people interpreted this as a matter of fact. They did not realize that God had a greater purpose behind this. He used the very things they had empirically observed as naturally occuring, to bring judgement. They missed it because their world view was based on what they could see.

It is the same today. Warming exists. The problem is that people who use the empirical method as their basis of reality ignore the greater reality that is behind nature. God has a greater purpose for the current creation. According to Peter, part of that purpose is a purging. This purging will destroy what we currently interpret as the ultimate reality, in favor of the true reality that is behind it.

This is echoed in Hebrews 11:

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen has been made from things that are not visible.

Hebrews 11:3 HCSB

The delay in the end that many find as a source for scoffing is actually motivated by God's love and patience. This is what Peter said regarding this:

Dear friends, don't let this one thing escape you: with the Lord one day is like 1,000 years, and 1,000 years like one day. The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, it is clear what sort of people you should be in holy conduct and godliness

2 Peter 3:8-11 HCSB

So what to make of all this:

1. What we observe empirically is not the final word in terms of what is real.

2. God is behind what we currently observe, and has a purpose that is beyind what we can observe.

3. Our empirical observations must be screened through the reality that is behind what we can observe empirically.

4. The fact that what God predicts hasn't happened already, is not a reason for scoffing, but a window to draw near to God in faith

5. The current creation is being prepared to give way to the reality behind it.

We should live our lives for the coming eternal reality, not what we think we see now. As Peter said:

Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard, so that you are not led away by the error of the immoral and fall from your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

2 Peter 3:17-18 HCSB

I like this!

[JustinM]

Grace to you,

The Green Gospel has at it's center mankind not God. It will Save no one.

Peace,

Dave

Well spoken, those that seek salvation through the environment are misguided.

Who is arguing that one can seek salvation through the environment?

You have asked this question many times: "What are you going to say when God asks you what you did to preserve the environment?" Or some version of it. Now, one of our eternal rewards, as if spending eternity with Christ and God isn't enough, are crowns. Of all the crowns listed, a good steward to the environment isn't one of them.

Do I care about nature, you bet. I live in it and am part of it. It's my world. I want a clean, healthy world to live in, but it isn't my priority. Just like keeping my house clean isn't much of a priority to me either. I clean it and maintain it, but my life doesn't revolve around a clean house or environment. I use energy to get to and from work, but also to live a comfortable life. People have been using energy to comfort themselves since the dawn of Man. Whether it be whale blubber for fuel for a fire, or killing an animal for its fur in order to survive the elements or creating a bed out of hay.

I am humored by the incessant attacks on the "greedy oil barons". Our world is modern and requires a lot of energy to function to the standards we have grown accustomed to. These "Bad Boy Barons" provide a product that everyone needs. Anytime I hear someone criticize an oil company, the first thought that crosses my mind is envy. People envy that kind of wealth.

As it is, the price for the energy commodity is affordable to me and I can afford to live as comfortable as I want. It's my money and my energy. If I want to use more of it, than my neighbor, I know it will cost me more. That is my right as a consumer.

[JustinM]

quote forrestck:

"Ok, I think what you are saying is that this could very well be a sign of the end times. (please correct me if I am wrong). That may be the case, but more than likely it is not. Every generation since the dawn of Christianity has looked at current events and sought to fit them around biblical prophecy. Thus far, every generation that has done so has been wrong."

Well, end-times prophecy didn't become very popular until about 200 years ago. One point you have overlooked is, was it possible for prophecy to be fulfilled as it was written 100 or even 50 years ago? Never in history has the possibility of the events foretold to happen in the bible been more plausible than now. I believe the mocking and scoffing is what he was referring to, not global warming.

"Even if we do absolutely nothing to mitigate Global Warming, civilization will still survive. Life will go on. I think what those in the scientific and now economic community are arguing is that the costs of doing something are much less than eventual costs of doing nothing will be."

So, we should throw a trillion dollars into something that may not be true or even effective? Talk about wasteful spending, NASA would definitely have to be let off the hook if this proposal went through.

"At the risk of going on a slight tangent, lets look at this. It is the scientific consensus that a 90% reduction in Carbon Emissions by 2050 will be necessary to mitigate future warming. Now, where I think people on both sides of this make a mistake is in focusing just on the regulatory changes necessary in achieving this. It is the belief of the environmental, economic, and scientific communities that we have to institute either a Cap and Trade Program or a Carbon Tax to provide a market incentive for industry to reduce its carbon emissions. Some see that as being a huge imposition by the government, nothing but a move toward socialism or a restriction of rights. The thing is, a carbon tax or cap and trade program is only going to get us about 20% of the way toward that goal of a 90% reduction in carbon emissions. It is not a panacea. This issue is not like tackling particulate pollutants where all that was necessary was installing catalytic converters on vehicles, and scrubbers on smoke stacks. What we have got to do is decouple energy production from pollution, carbon or otherwise and that is what we should be focusing on."

The scientific consensus, is hardly the American taxpayer consensus. Forcing that burden on us is tyrannical. So, once again, as many taxpayers have stated, let the burden of researching and developing cleaner sources of energy come from the entreprenaur, not us, what's the point of having a free market system if the citizens have to pay for it. Might as well call it a government controlled market system.

"What we are talking about is investing tens of billions of dollars every year into new energy sources. So instead of focusing on taking your SUV away, we need to be focusing on doing something like investing the kind of money that we are spending in Iraq each year on new energy sources and new infrastructure. I mean think about it. What if we just up and decided that we are going to invest 100 billion dollars a year in solar panels, wind, nuclear, commuter rails, and so on. Just look at these dying cities in the rust belt. Right now, casinos are taking the place of the good paying factory jobs that were there. What we need to be doing is saying that we are going to go into these cities into the rust belt and have a ten fold increase in solar panel production in the next 5 years, and thus significantly bringing down the cost of the technology. I mean instead of pushing up the cost of fossil fuels to make alternative energy competitive with them, lets invest the money into producing alternative energy sources on the scale necessary to make it cheaper than fossil fuels. Then we can sell that technology to China and India. Instead of factory workers watching their jobs go off to China and then having to go to work in a casino, lets put them to work building solar panels, wind farms, nuclear power plants, light rails, and so on. Economists will tell you that any public sector investment in energy and infrastructure has an exponential effect on economic growth. Its a win, win situation."

You should really stop trying to make your case against the Iraq war in global warming discussions. It makes you look obsessive and shortsighted. We know what the results of funding the Iraq war will bear. Another peaceful, democratic ally in the middle east, but it will also discourage Iran from doing something really stupid. America could use more friends and fewer enemies right now. Why sell technology that costs hundreds of billions of dollars to develop? The smartest thing would be to protect that technology and hold a wordwide American monopoly over it. But, maybe you were one of the people calling for an anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft, because they had a "monopoly" over operating systems technology. How much new technology has our Chinese and Indian friends provided? Our strength is our technology, if other people want it, let them start from scratch just as we have. Public sector investment, you mean tax funded experimental program. Once again, our strength lies in our free market. Let someone develop this technology on his own. If someone has to fund something themselves they will design it to be more cost efficient and productive. I'd say give tax breaks to inventors, but that's as far as I would go. I wouldn't give them money, I just wouldn't tax them on the income they are spending to develop this technology.

"Even if we find out 30 years from now we were wrong about Global Warming, in the mean time we would have made alternative energy as cheap as fossil fuels. Nations like China and India would be the world's largest consumers of clean energy technologies. I mean to me, something like that is something that just about everyone can get behind."

So, while China and India aren't punished for their pollution (because that's what taxes are, a punishment) Americans should be punished, then expected to develop this technology, then hand it over to them? Wow, I imagine everyone would love to have a person do all their dirty work for them, then benefit from all the work. Sign me up!

[kari21]

Yes, look look look, they are going to destroy Israel again. Jerusalem this, West Bank that, the sky is falling. The Palestinians are going to get it, Oh no, Oh no........ Is it a sign of the end times???

Biblical endtime issues.

Look, look, look everyone, its the Gay and Lesbian Agenda! Oh no, oh no, there is a war on Christmas. This nation will fall because they are saying Happy Holidays now at Walmart

Biblical "falling away" issues.

Oh no, an evil Mexican with a leaf blower. Everyone run. Terrorists can look like Mexicans. We need to build a 200 foot tall wall on the border!

This ones all in your head. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "terrorists" and everything to do with that word the Libs would rather not we add to "aliens," and that word is "ILLEGAL."

Please cite a single major conservation / environmental organization that is advocating that we all go off the grid.

Hey, you're Mr. Greenjeans here. I say, if you are so "environmental" you should go ALL the way. Get off the grid, use only solar and wind power, and make your own clothes from hemp....Woody.

Hey, I have a great solution that will help you sleep like a baby at night...go Amish.

When have I ever advocating everybody giving up their truck?

Cool! Guess we don't have to feel guilty about our Hummers...

....or is it only OK if we drive the kind of truck YOU drive and ONLY drive it the way YOU drive it?

[Matthitjah]

Yes, look look look, they are going to destroy Israel again. Jerusalem this, West Bank that, the sky is falling. The Palestinians are going to get it, Oh no, Oh no........ Is it a sign of the end times???

Before you do too much mocking, consider this passage:

First, be aware of this: scoffers will come in the last days to scoff, following their own lusts, saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they have been since the beginning of creation." They willfully ignore this: long ago the heavens and the earth existed out of water and through water by the word of God. Through these the world of that time perished when it was flooded by water. But by the same word the present heavens and earth are held in store for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

2 Peter 3:3-7 HCSB

First, understand that I am not accusing you of being a scoffer. But I don't think it is an accident that in a thread centered on global warming, the topic has changed to what God will do at the end of days. The bible seems to indicate what we believe about the nature of the created order and our response to the end times are closely related. Notice that Peter, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, readily admits that people will make conclusions about God's involvement in the world (based on their empirical observations of reality). Peter ties this to peoples view of nature. He says that we should not be surprised that people have begun to scoff, because they have even misread nature. They have based their conclusions about nature soley on what can be empirically observed. According to Peter, their observations have not taken into account the greater reality that lies behind what we call nature. Nature exists because it was spoken into existence by the very words of God. As an example, Peter uses the time immediately after creation. There was much more water in the earth in those days, and people interpreted this as a matter of fact. They did not realize that God had a greater purpose behind this. He used the very things they had empirically observed as naturally occuring, to bring judgement. They missed it because their world view was based on what they could see.

It is the same today. Warming exists. The problem is that people who use the empirical method as their basis of reality ignore the greater reality that is behind nature. God has a greater purpose for the current creation. According to Peter, part of that purpose is a purging. This purging will destroy what we currently interpret as the ultimate reality, in favor of the true reality that is behind it.

This is echoed in Hebrews 11:

By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen has been made from things that are not visible.

Hebrews 11:3 HCSB

The delay in the end that many find as a source for scoffing is actually motivated by God's love and patience. This is what Peter said regarding this:

Dear friends, don't let this one thing escape you: with the Lord one day is like 1,000 years, and 1,000 years like one day. The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief; on that day the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, the elements will burn and be dissolved, and the earth and the works on it will be disclosed. Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, it is clear what sort of people you should be in holy conduct and godliness

2 Peter 3:8-11 HCSB

So what to make of all this:

1. What we observe empirically is not the final word in terms of what is real.

2. God is behind what we currently observe, and has a purpose that is beyind what we can observe.

3. Our empirical observations must be screened through the reality that is behind what we can observe empirically.

4. The fact that what God predicts hasn't happened already, is not a reason for scoffing, but a window to draw near to God in faith

5. The current creation is being prepared to give way to the reality behind it.

We should live our lives for the coming eternal reality, not what we think we see now. As Peter said:

Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard, so that you are not led away by the error of the immoral and fall from your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

2 Peter 3:17-18 HCSB

Amen Brother.

This answers the questions that I asked and no one ventured to answer.

The questions I asked get at the crux of your worldview and your perspective. You have outlined perfectly what I was trying to pick at.

How we see this warming in the larger perspective and how we react to it will reveal how we see things. Objectively or Subjectively and even Brother Forrest brought those words into play.

It is no small matter that he brought up the focus of this Ministry which is Jesus Christ. Which includes His heart towards Israel.

Are we seeing this whole matter according to the heart of our Lord and ultimately His purposes in it. Or we do we merely take an Objective look and react, even as Forrest has said, just like any other Religion or manner of man?

Which gets me back to the heart of the Green Gospel and it's Objectives.

Peace,

Dave

[forrestkc]

The scientific consensus, is hardly the American taxpayer consensus. Forcing that burden on us is tyrannical. So, once again, as many taxpayers have stated, let the burden of researching and developing cleaner sources of energy come from the entreprenaur, not us, what's the point of having a free market system if the citizens have to pay for it. Might as well call it a government controlled market system.

You should really stop trying to make your case against the Iraq war in global warming discussions. It makes you look obsessive and shortsighted. We know what the results of funding the Iraq war will bear. Another peaceful, democratic ally in the middle east, but it will also discourage Iran from doing something really stupid. America could use more friends and fewer enemies right now. Why sell technology that costs hundreds of billions of dollars to develop? The smartest thing would be to protect that technology and hold a wordwide American monopoly over it. But, maybe you were one of the people calling for an anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft, because they had a "monopoly" over operating systems technology. How much new technology has our Chinese and Indian friends provided? Our strength is our technology, if other people want it, let them start from scratch just as we have. Public sector investment, you mean tax funded experimental program. Once again, our strength lies in our free market. Let someone develop this technology on his own. If someone has to fund something themselves they will design it to be more cost efficient and productive. I'd say give tax breaks to inventors, but that's as far as I would go. I wouldn't give them money, I just wouldn't tax them on the income they are spending to develop this technology.

Basic research is hardly ever done in the private sector. This has always been the case. No company can afford to spend billions of dollars researching new technologies that may not pay off for decades. If it were not for publicly funded research, we would have never went to the moon, would not have at least half of the medical advancements over the last 100 years, would not have silicon chips or computers, would not have the internet and so on and so forth. Lets just look at the example of silicon chips. When silicon chips were first developed, it costs over 10,000 dollars just to make one. The government invested in the production of silicon chips and reduced the cost of the production of those chips from 10,000 dollars to 20 dollars per chip. At that point, once the basic research had been done, the private sector took over and the rest is history. You have to have that public sector investment to prime the pump. There is a saying on Wall Street as it relates to new technology. Everyone wants to the first to build the 5th plant. Who builds the first 4? We do.

What you are advocating against is how we built this country. If it were not for the massive amounts of public sector investments in technology and infrastructure in the 50s and 60s, we would have never became the greatest nation in the history of civilization.

So, while China and India aren't punished for their pollution (because that's what taxes are, a punishment) Americans should be punished, then expected to develop this technology, then hand it over to them? Wow, I imagine everyone would love to have a person do all their dirty work for them, then benefit from all the work. Sign me up!

What we are talking about is investing billions of dollars into American industries to produce the energy technologies of the future and then selling them to nations like China and India. Either we invest in these technologies and sell them to the rest of the world, or we sit around and let China do it and sell it to us. We are the world's innovators, we ought to be the innovators here as well.

[forrestkc]

You have asked this question many times: "What are you going to say when God asks you what you did to preserve the environment?" Or some version of it. Now, one of our eternal rewards, as if spending eternity with Christ and God isn't enough, are crowns. Of all the crowns listed, a good steward to the environment isn't one of them.

Are we, or are we not commanded to be good stewards of creation?

[forrestkc]

Yes, look look look, they are going to destroy Israel again. Jerusalem this, West Bank that, the sky is falling. The Palestinians are going to get it, Oh no, Oh no........ Is it a sign of the end times???

Biblical endtime issues.

Look, look, look everyone, its the Gay and Lesbian Agenda! Oh no, oh no, there is a war on Christmas. This nation will fall because they are saying Happy Holidays now at Walmart

Biblical "falling away" issues.

Oh no, an evil Mexican with a leaf blower. Everyone run. Terrorists can look like Mexicans. We need to build a 200 foot tall wall on the border!

This ones all in your head. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "terrorists" and everything to do with that word the Libs would rather not we add to "aliens," and that word is "ILLEGAL."

Please cite a single major conservation / environmental organization that is advocating that we all go off the grid.

Hey, you're Mr. Greenjeans here. I say, if you are so "environmental" you should go ALL the way. Get off the grid, use only solar and wind power, and make your own clothes from hemp....Woody.

Hey, I have a great solution that will help you sleep like a baby at night...go Amish.

When have I ever advocating everybody giving up their truck?

Cool! Guess we don't have to feel guilty about our Hummers...

....or is it only OK if we drive the kind of truck YOU drive and ONLY drive it the way YOU drive it?

Is being a good steward of creation not a biblical issue?

As to the rest of your arguments, thats like saying if you don't live like Mother Theresa, then your not going all the way as a Christian.