Obama's science advisor has stated publicly that he thinks the idea of geo-engineering is the way to hold off global warming (here). I find this idea interesting. I love technology. I love God's creation. But, I am unconvinced about global warming. I've yet to see any good data supporting real warming over any extended amount of time that doesn't mimic natural patterns in the past. If you are aware of this data please leave a link in the comment section!!

The basic idea that Obama's science advisor suggests is that we should use technology to stave off the radical global warming that "could be approaching" (his words in the article). Holdren's idea includes creating a device which would launch particles into the upper atmosphere much like a volcano. To be fair, it is widely accepted that a volcanic eruption was in large part the cause of the "Little Ice Age" (data here). However Holdren himself notes that the effects of such a device are unknown.

Anyone who has read even a little bit about Chaos theory (a good book here, and article here) knows that a complex system with many variables is basically impossible to predict. This is because the same patterns can be caused by different sets of variables. So, scientists really don't know what the effect of this device might be, but Holgren is ready to say that he thinks it is the best bet in the fight against what might be catastrophic global warming.

I would rather see our nation (and Christians in particular) embrace a lifestyle that uses the fewest resources possible, causing the least pollution possible, and only leaving a mark upon human culture, not a scar in the land.

An article on MSNBC.com discusses the discovery of what seems to be a green or moist period in the region which is now the Sahara Desert (read here). To me this isn't that revolutionary of an idea. If the continental drift theory is remotely correct, then it seems likely that just about any region on earth has been green, desert, and mountain at some point...

One interesting point that the author makes in paragraph 18 is that this greener, moister period was caused by a change in the earth's orbit. My question is: How can that possibly be known? One would have to have atmospheric samples from that period (perhaps ice cores?), as well as some sort of evidence for the amount of light that reached the ground, etc. It just seems that there are too many variables to control for this to be "certain".

While I may be incorrect on the above issue, it seems likely that the author has not considered a 2nd issue. If the earth's orbit was the cause, then how are we to know that fossil fuel pollution causes the greenhouse effect? Could it not be a small variation in the earth's rotation, or perhaps a sunspot cycle?

For the Christian, these questions should not keep one from caring for creation. Our motivation is not found in some sort of crisis mentality. Instead, a Christian's motivation for caring for God's creation is the fact that God created it and entrusted it to us. He still uses his creation as a way of blessing us. We shouldn't treat his gift as a trash can, but instead should seek to take care of it, and treat it properly -with the respect that is due a gift from such a wonderful God.