Lds Culture, Science, Elder Oaks, And Global Warming

[TheSkepticChristian]

About how many LDS accept that Global Warming is confirmed by scientific evidence??

Not long ago, I found out that too many members in my ward don't believe in Global Warming.

I find it interesting that showed this article to 2 members of our church,

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1991/07/earth-a-gift-of-gladness?lang=eng

But they still remained skeptical about Global Warming.

Elder Oaks said:

"Every day we are assaulted with big worries: global warming, wars and rumors of wars, drought, a possible pandemic of some infectious disease, and a possible recession"

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,538-1-4349-1,00.html

[pcarthew]

....and your point is?

[selek1]

Not long ago, I found out that too many members in my ward don't believe in Global Warming.

Kinda begging the question there, aren't ya?

But they still remained skeptical about Global Warming.

Hmmmm.....considering the hundreds of billions of dollars awarded to AGW scaremongers, the never-ending flip-flops and inconsistencies, and the startling incidents of fruad, manipulation, and outright lying....

...why on Earth would ANYONE be skeptical?

Elder Oaks said:

"Every day we are assaulted with big worries: global warming, wars and rumors of wars, drought, a possible pandemic of some infectious disease, and a possible recession"

You'll note that Elder Oaks didn't say global warming was real, genuine, or the result of human activity.

He merely listed it among all the other possible worries with which the public is confronted.

More to the point, you have failed to demonstrate any link between the AGW cult and Mormon theology.

Edited April 15, 2012 by selek1

[thesometimesaint]

If Jesus is supposed to come back any day now and take care of it ALL. Why worry about the long term environment? Afterall Global Warming like Gravity is just a theory by a bunch of evil scientists trying to get more money to keep us here on earth.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Kinda begging the question there, aren't ya?

Hmmmm.....considering the hundreds of billions of dollars awarded to AGW scaremongers, the never-ending flip-flops and inconsistencies, and the startling incidents of fruad, manipulation, and outright lying....

You'll note that Elder Oaks didn't say global warming was real, genuine, or the result of human activity.

He merely listed it among all the other possible worries with which the public is confronted.

More to the point, you have failed to demonstrate any link between the AGW cult and Mormon theology.

1) There are a lot of scientific evidence and scientific papers that confirm AGW

2) Elder Oaks didn't say that Global Warming is real, but he also mentioned "wars and rumors of wars, drought, a possible pandemic of some infectious disease, and a possible recession," which are all real, or have occurred in the pass

3) AGW has nothing to do with LDS theology, but just like Evolution, the Big Bang, and other scientific facts, it's one more subject that tends to be rejected in LDS culture. We don't have to accept AGW to be saved, but rejecting AGW is like rejecting that the earth is a sphere.

[selek1]

1) There are a lot of scientific evidence and scientific papers that confirm AGW

There is also a lot of scientific evidence- and a great many credible scientists- who are skeptical of AGW.

The nostrum that "the science is settled" is a statement of faith, not reason, and certainly not scientific fact.

2) Elder Oaks didn't say that Global Warming is real

Quite correct. Attempting to extrapolate his meaning beyond that fact is to engage in mind reading and a false appeal to authority.

Elder Oaks has neither endorsed nor advocated the theory of Global Warming. To pretend otherwise is to be dishonest.

3) AGW has nothing to do with LDS theology

Thank you. It also has nothing to do with this purposes of this board.

3) AGW has nothing to do with LDS theology, but just like Evolution, the Big Bang, and other scientific facts, it's one more subject that tends to be rejected in LDS culture.

I'm not quite sure I agree with this characterization of LDS culture, but let's cut to the chase: What precisely are you insinuating?

We don't have to accept AGW to be saved, but rejecting AGW is like rejecting that the earth is a sphere.

In your opinion.

That and six bucks will get you a cup of over-priced gourmet coffee.

Edited April 15, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

If Jesus is supposed to come back any day now and take care of it ALL. Why worry about the long term environment? Afterall Global Warming like Gravity is just a theory by a bunch of evil scientists trying to get more money to keep us here on earth.

Ironically, the only Latter-day Saint to express this sort of all-or-nothing tripe, is you.

This kind of snarky, dismissal- coupled with Skeptic's less-than-subtle insinuation that Latter-day Saints are anti-science, is exactly the sort of uncritical, unthinking dogmatism you are attempting to ridicule.

Reasonable people can and do disagree with the agenda and methodology of the global warming community.

One can be skeptical of the AGW alarmism without being unthinking, credulous, or anti-science.

And all the well-poisoning in the world will not change that fact.

[Bob Crockett]

The environmental movement has almost nothing to do with Christianity. I may believe in global warming but that doesn't mean I should preach a sermon about it.

[TheSkepticChristian]

There is also a lot of scientific evidence- and a great many credible scientists- who are skeptical of AGW.

The nostrum that "the science is settled" is a statement of faith, not reason, and certainly not scientific fact.

Quite correct. Attempting to extrapolate his meaning beyond that fact is to engage in mind reading and a false appeal to authority.

Elder Oaks has neither endorsed nor advocated the theory of Global Warming. To pretend otherwise is to be dishonest.

Thank you. It also has nothing to do with this purposes of this board.

I'm not quite sure I agree with this characterization of LDS culture, but let's cut to the chase: What precisely are you insinuating?

In your opinion.

That and six bucks will get you a cup of over-priced gourmet coffee.

Your comments are the perfect example of why I am concern, it's all anti-science, and there is a lot of anti-science in LDS culture.

1) There are scientists skeptical about AGW, but 97% of the climatologists accept AGW.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

2) There are a lot of scientific papers, respected scientific societies, and recognized universities that accept AGW, it's not faith at all. There are just too many scientific societies around the world that accept AGW, including National Geographic.

There is also an LDS article that endorses AGW

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1991/07/earth-a-gift-of-gladness?lang=eng

3) I didn't say that Elder Oaks endorsed Global Warming, but it wouldn't make any sense that he would mentioned 4 realities and 1 hoax. Elder Oaks mentioned 5 realities.

4) Sorry, but there is a lot of biased propaganda against AGW that a lot of LDS fell for, and we need to do something about this. There is just too much anti-science. For example:

I strongly recommend this website

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Do you know anything about climatology???

Here are two peer-reviewed papers from RESPECTED Journals

Nature Journal

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v412/n6846/full/412523a0.html

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf

[selek1]

Your comments are the perfect example of why I am concern, it's all anti-science, and there is a lot of anti-science in LDS culture.

Thank you for stating your bigotry so plainly.

The irony here is that you don't know diddly about me or my scientific background.

You don't know my profession or vocation.

You don't know my degree of education or anything about me.

You know only that I (like many others) disagree with you about global warming.

On that basis alone, you declare me (and most Mormons) to be "anti-science."

You have not demonstrated that I and the other skeptics are wrong- you merely called us names.

You have not demonstrated that the AGW believers are correct- you merely repeated their talking points.

On the sole basis of your own prejudice and hubris, you have damned everyone who doesn't agree with you a heretic or an apostate from the "one, true faith".

And that's not science- that's a quasi-religious catechism and a witch-hunt mentality.

Edited April 15, 2012 by selek1

[TheSkepticChristian]

The environmental movement has almost nothing to do with Christianity. I may believe in global warming but that doesn't mean I should preach a sermon about it.

Actually some LDS feel that AGW does contradict LDS theology, but it doesn't.

This is an issue that shouldn't be ignored.

[Sevenbak]

Elder Oaks said:

"Every day we are assaulted with big worries: global warming, wars and rumors of wars, drought, a possible pandemic of some infectious disease, and a possible recession"

http://www.lds.org/l...-4349-1,00.html

Back in the 30's, Utah Lake dried up, so that you could walk all the way across from the Provo Boat Harbor to Pelican Point on the other side. My dad did it as a scout.

Droughts come and go, and warming cycles are cyclical. Elder Oaks didn't say he bought into the political scheme. We're warned in the scriptures that droughts and heat would be part of the Lord's plan for the latter days.

Careful you don't read too much into it.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Thank you for stating your bigotry so plainly..

You said: "That-primarily- is why political threads such as this are verbotten."

Nothing to do with politics, it's science, but I won't accuse you of bigotry.

You said: "You don't know my profession or vocation"

No, but you are highly most likely not a climatologists, because 97% of the climatologists do accept AGW.

You said: "On that basis alone, you declare me (and most Mormons) to be "anti-science.""

We are members of true church, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have respected for science.

You said: "You have not demonstrated that I and the other skeptics are wrong- you merely called us names"

With all respect, I didn't call you names, sorry if you felt that way, but I have a lot to back up my claims. I even presented an LDS article.

I presented peer-reviewed papers, and all the RESPECTED scientific societies in the world, agree that AGW is real.

I am not a bigot, but sorry, you don't know what you are talking about.

I respect your opinions, you can believe and reject anything you want, you can also reject that gravity exists, if you want.

Anyways, Elder Oaks mentioned 5 realities, not 4 realities and 1 hoax, it wouldn't make any sense.

[blackstrap]

And yet the population of polar bears appears to be on the increase lately. They must like the new climate change.

[selek1]

You said: "That-primarily- is why political threads such as this are verbotten."

Nothing to do with politics, it's science, but I won't accuse you of bigotry.

Thanks to all the government funding, and all of the politicking-it's politics.

And no matter how you spin it, it's off topic for this board.

You said: "You don't know my profession or vocation"

No, but you are highly most likely not a climatologists, because 97% of the climatologists do accept AGW.

Ah- the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Surely the bastion of an open mind.

You said: "On that basis alone, you declare me (and most Mormons) to be "anti-science.""

We are members of true church, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have respected for science.

And yet the idea that Latter-day Saints DO NOT "respect science" has not been established- only alleged.

That we merely disagree with the theories of AGW is not ipso facto proof that we are anti-science.

It proves only that we are skeptical of AGW.

You said: "You have not demonstrated that I and the other skeptics are wrong- you merely called us names"

With all respect, I didn't call you names, sorry if you felt that way, but I have a lot to back up my claims.

You labeled me- and many millions of others- "flat-earthers" and "antiscience". That's name calling, no matter how you spin it.

I even presented an LDS article.

You specifically and deliberately misrepresented and LDS article.

It does not say what you pretend it does.

I presented peer-reviewed papers, and all the RESPECTED scientific societies in the world, agree that AGW is real.

You presented pre-digested talking points from supporters of the theory.

You did not demonstrate that those claims were correct or accurate.

And for the record, science is based on fact- not consensus.

At one time, the scientific concensus was that the sun orbited around the Earth- but consensus did not make it true.

I am not a bigot

I'm sorry- is there another, more accurate word for someone who condemns hundreds of thousands of others who he does not know based solely upon his own prejudices?

Anyways, Elder Oaks mentioned 5 realities, not 4 realities and 1 hoax, it wouldn't make any sense.

Oaks mentioned worries, not realities.

Again, stick to what the man said, not what you wish he had said.

Edited April 15, 2012 by selek1

[TAO]

Guys, it's important to remember CO2 is a greenhouse gas. However, it is also important to remember that CO2 is not as strong of a greenhouse gas as water vapor. As of such, I think it's a bit premature to be screaming "Global Warming" or "It's a Hoax". There still is a lot of research that needs to be done, imho.

In any case, I think the reason LDS culture can sometimes be somewhat hostile towards science tends to be because of the way mainstream culture integrates it. In a sense, part of LDS culture is counter-culture, and when someone integrates something that could possibly interfere with our values, we start going in the opposite direction (though not completely, more at a skewed angle).

Edited April 15, 2012 by TAO

[selek1]

I think it's a bit premature to be screaming "Global Warming" or "It's a Hoax". There still is a lot of research that needs to be done, imho.

In point of fact, I agree.

That's why I'm a skeptic rather than a denier.

In any case, I think the reason LDS culture can sometimes be somewhat hostile towards science tends to be because of the way mainstream culture integrates it. In a sense, part of LDS culture is counter-culture, and when someone integrates something that could possibly interfere with our values, we start going in the opposite direction (though not completely, more at a skewed angle).

Well said- though I expect it's as much to do with the concurrent temptations to 1) treat "science" as a religion, and 2) to use "science" and "reason" as a bludgeon against anyone who disagrees with you.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Thanks to all the government funding, and all of the politicking-it's politics.

Nope, it has nothing to do with politics, it's science. A lot of scientific societies around the world accept AGW.

AGW has even been confirmed by independent studies.

You said: "And no matter how you spin it, it's off topic for this board"

In your opinion, but my point is that there is a lot of anti-science in LDS culture, too many members don't have respect for science.

Now I am not saying that it's wrong, there is nothing wrong to be anti-science, everyone of us can believe what ever we want.

We are all children of God, and science is not about absolute certainty.

Also, some members feel that AGW contradicts LDS theology.

You said: "Oaks mentioned worries, not realities."

Wars, droughts, pandemic, are all worries and realities.

Elder Oaks didn't mention any hoaxes.

You said: "Ah- the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Surely the bastion of an open mind"

No, I was talking about probability. It's highly improbable that you are a climatologists, because 97% do accept AGW, but maybe you are a climatologists.

You said: "And yet the idea that Latter-day Saints DO NOT "respect science" has not been established- only alleged"

Anti-Mormons have been attacking our church because of this.

Too many members reject biological evolution, the Big Bang, and now Global Warming.

"You labeled me- and many millions of others- "antiscience". That's name calling, no matter how you spin it"

Nothing wrong with that, science could be wrong, science is not about absolute certainty. Maybe the scientific evidences are illusions created by GOD.

You said: "You specifically and deliberately misrepresented and LDS article...It does not say what you pretend it does"

Read the LDS org article, it clearly endorsed AGW. You have to read all of it.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1991/07/earth-a-gift-of-gladness?lang=eng

you said: "You presented pre-digested talking points from supporters of the theory"

AGW is almost certainly real, and a lot of RESPECTED scientific societies agree.

I presented peer-reviewed papers from NASA and the Nature Journal. That's the ultimate expert science.

"At one time, the scientific concensus was that the sun orbited around the Earth- but consensus did not make it true'

Evolution is a science fact, the Big Bang is a science fact, and AGW is almost certainly real, there are powerful empirical evidences that confirm it. I can present a lot of powerful scientific evidences that confirm AGW.

By this logic, then Gravity and plate tectonics are just consensus.

I suggest that we should promote science.

[Freedom]

There is a huge difference between the theories that explain global warming and the policies that are being followed to address the problem. Carbon taxing is a huge failure. We have school districts that are facing massive budget shortfalls because they failed to meat carbon emission reductions and now have to pay a tax that goes to some farcical government program that our attorney general is investigating as a black hole of misplaced funding.

You would have to be a fool to reject the notion that we are polluting and damaging our planet. I challenge anybody to stand behind a car and breath in the fumes to an hour and then report back on how non-threatening it is. We need to reduce our waste, reduce pollution, and respect that we are having a seriously detrimental affect on our planet. The problem is that most of the pollution comes from third world countries which have no requirement to meet any standards, making it difficult for our manufacturing sector to be competitive. For this reason, global warming has become politicized which tarnished the value of the science. Ridiculous movies like 'The Inconvenient Truth' have clouded the issue even further, if you will excuse the pun.

[thesometimesaint]

TAO:

CO2 is a forcing indicator while Water Vapor is a trailing indicator. Of course more research is needed, but that doesn't mean that enough hasn't been done to make highly predictive theories about Global Warming. That is the very nature of science it is always tentative at least to some extent. Futher if we wait until something is absolutely proven. We will probably be dead before you react. IE; We still use Newtonian calculus to send satellites wit hsplit second accuracy to planets,until Einstein came along and improved on Newton, until Quantum Mechanics came along and improved upon Einstein.

Science doesn't impede or further religion. Science is merely a way to understand this earth and universe. It is very valuable in what is can do, but it has nothing to say about God.

[thesometimesaint]

Fredom:

There is no cabon taxing at least in the US. Cap and Trade was a conservative idea until it was supported by the liberals. Further it worked quite well for CFC's.

No; a plurality of emissions come from the US. The US is less than 1/20 of the world population yet consumes 1/5 of the worlds energy resources.

Global Warming is a reality, and reality has the bad habit of biting us on the butt when we try to ignore it.

Whatever the problems with "An Inconvenient Truth" they pale in comparison with the science deniers.

Edited April 15, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Deborah]

You would have to be a fool to reject the notion that we are polluting and damaging our planet.

The great dust bowl which swept across our nation is a great example of this. When all was said and done it was the depletion of the top soil by improper farming which caused that great disaster. I don't know how those people survived but they did and we learned from our mistakes.

The problem is that most of the pollution comes from third world countries which have no requirement to meet any standards, making it difficult for our manufacturing sector to be competitive. For this reason, global warming has become politicized which tarnished the value of the science. Ridiculous movies like 'The Inconvenient Truth' have clouded the issue even further, if you will excuse the pun.

And the U.S. has done a great dealt to cut down on polluting factors but it's like the old days before smoking was banned in public places and half the room was reserved for non-smokers. It didn't do much good because the smoke still drifted to the non-smoking area. Sadly a psuedo-science has arisen for global warming and the real science has gotten lost. Our government seems to be listening to the fanatics rather than the real scientists.

As LDS we do have a responsibility to take care of our resources and to protect the earth. But that doesn't mean we should fall for every false claim made about the imminent disaster of our planet. I also find it amusing that someone would claim that "there is a lot of anti-science in LDS culture" given the great scientists produced by the church and the scientific studies going on at BYU and the many educated people found in the wards and stakes. Just because someone doesn't panic at the cries of the fanatics doesn't mean that he doesn't understand our part in preserving the beauty of our world.

[Sevenbak]

In related news...

Amount of ice in Bering Sea reaches all-time record

"The amount of floating ice in the Arctic's Bering Sea - which had long been expected to retreat disastrously by climate-Cassandra organisations such as Greenpeace - reached all-time record high levels last month, according to US researchers monitoring the area using satellites.

The US National Snow and Ice Data Center announced last week that ice extent in the Bering for the month of March has now been collated and compared, and is the highest seen since records began. The NSIDC boffins said in a statement:"

[cinepro]

About how many LDS accept that Global Warming is confirmed by scientific evidence??

I don't recall seeing any survey data on the subject, but if this thread is any indication, I would suspect the number is very, very small.

Edited April 15, 2012 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Sevenbak:

http://www.nature.co...ature10581.html

Arctic sea ice extent is now more than two million square kilometres less than it was in the late twentieth century, with important consequences for the climate, the ocean and traditional lifestyles in the Arctic^{1, 2}

and

http://nsidc.org/arc...ng-melt-season/

Arctic sea ice reached its annual maximum extent on March 18, after reaching an initial peak early in the month and declining briefly. Ice extent for the month as a whole was higher than in recent years, but still below average.

As the melt season begins, researchers look at a variety of factors that may contribute to summer ice melt. While the maximum extent occurred slightly later than average, the new ice growth is very thin and likely to melt quickly. Ice age data indicate that despite the higher extent compared to recent years, the winter sea ice continues to be dominated by younger and thinner sea ice.

You do know what volume is?

Edited April 15, 2012 by thesometimesaint