I do not have the time to address the twisted logic in this article and it is sufficient to say that most of us are hoping to pass on a viable, livable planet to our children and their children.

However as a cleric does the author really believe that his God doesn't mind his works being destroyed by entrepreneurs driven by greed?

What about people who consume far more raw products than (say) and hundred people in a less developed country?

Does God want an American to drive around the block in a six litre two ton tank while spewing gas into the environment or would God like that person to use his/her God-given legs for once?

I think that the Creator would be sickened by the wastage of resource and by the consumerism that leads to blackened skies and polluted rivers and seas.

Meanwhile in Australia Malcolm Turnbull and John Howard have discovered light bulb environmentalism so maybe the author need not worry because the government is in denial about global warming too, but for different reasons - their mates are making a bundle of the status quo and they don't believe they are going to be around when the proverbial hits the fan.

I dont really know what moved Scott to write this article - some form of self deluding self interest I guess.

Putting on my pedantic hat I find it odd he sees concern about the climate as know being all the rage - my guess it was at the fore front of the mind od a lot of policy makers well before the Kyoto agreement - well before 1997 or how the hell did Kyoto get up in the first place ?

the pace of awareness has changed a bit and Howards about face is linked to the electoral climate more than the enviromental one - environmentalism has been with us for decades.

And invoking the memory of Kant also strikes me as odd - there is nothin contradictory with receiving a benefit for what might me altruistic - he is implying the only force behind environmentalism and action taken under that banner is self interest - it can at the same time be driven by an over arching concern about the planet - our children to come and our neighbour etc etc - just becasue we reap a secondary gain is incidental - he should read The Gift Factor by Titmus

Black Adder sums up this article perfectly with his immortal words: Utter Crapp.
I would also say that this article is also an example of the ideological bias of the editor.
Meanwhile why not check out the work of Father Sean McDonagh. He was interviewed by Philip Adams last week--check out the Late Night Live website.
And what about the work of Father Thomas Berry. Try your google.
And then there is the amazing Earth Bible Project directed by Norman Habel via the Flinders University School of Theology.
And I am sure there are hundreds of other religiously(from all traditions.) inspired conservation movements

what a shame that the author really seems to believe that those who are secure enough not to have to base their moral beliefs on authoritarian fairy tales and imaginary friends, somehow actually need religion and are less able to understand science.

environmentalism isnt a religion, but an understanding or long-sighted view of where we are headed, and an attempt to make sure we have a future. religion is about attempting to placate a non existent vengeful deity in the hope that one ends up in an after life and nothing more. it shouldnt be any surprise that many of the worlds most hateful atrocities were committed by the church or under the name of 'god'. shall we add 'climate change denial' to that list also?

If it were up to the Frosty Hardisons of this world (google him) we would sit on our hands while waiting for the earth to cook, heralding the return of jesus... if we're wrong, we go without a plasma tv or two. if he's wrong, we've ruined much of the life on earth all because of a perpetuated fairy tale.

Oh dear. Maybe the universal purpose for Man is to degrade the earth.
Who knows ?
And maybe all this is simply the usual attempts at dialectic many modern humans are prone to - particularly those who sit near keyboards.

Here we go again with Julatron et al and their "get it wrong and we fry/cook/barbeque the planet" bollocks. Get this straight folks, the changes to date are extremely marginal. They are barely, if at all, outside the historical range of variation. Yet we have these hideous replications of some sort of planetary inquisitors who insist on extrapolating to extremes to reel in the gullible.

This modus operandi of the IPCC and the key climate cretins is entirely consistent with the behaviour of people who know full well that they have a tenuous case and seek to shore it up with such unscientific props as "the weight of public opinion", "consensus" and gonzo journalism.

The Gullible Warmers have never, never, been content to let the arguments rest on their scientific merit. Everything they touch is tainted by ideology, spin and demonisation of dissent, to the point where ordinary, cautiously sceptical people who did not come down in the last shower, wouldn't have a bar of them.