[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

I was pleased to see a thread which combined questions of religious belief with questions of belief in Global Warming.

Both an be disputed for lack of evidence and require a certain amount of faith one way or the other.

My tendency, as a student of Pascal's wager, is to err on the side of saftey and say that the benefits of belief with respect to the expenditure required to do so is a much better value than the dangers of disbelief and the consquences of being wrong.

[Wonder Warthog]

"My tendency, as a student of Pascal's wager, is to err on the side of saftey and say that the benefits of belief with respect to the expenditure required to do so is a much better value than the dangers of disbelief and the consquences of being wrong."

Safety?? And what might constitute "safety"??? There is a great deal of evidence that a warmer earth will actually be SAFER (i.e more benign for life) than the current state. See the "Medieval Warm Period", which was significantly warmer than today, and in which the conditions were much more conducive to living things.

The so-called "negative consequences" of global warming are ASSUMPTIONS not backed by evidence.

I tend to worry one heck of a lot more about the "quick switch" into the next (and overdue) Ice Age than about "global warming".