Jump to content
bsjkki

Oaks on Global Warming and Trump

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, longview said:

We need more punishing taxes on carbon credits like we need a hole in our skull (sarcasm INTENDED).  This is the only thing driving Global Warming Hysteria.  The science in 'Climate Change' is tragically JUNK science.  Our schools and universities have been 'dumbed down.'

 

Edited by MormonVideoGame

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The same people who pushed the tobacco isn't addictive scandal are pushing the Anti-science agenda.

We're at the point where harnessing that solar power is cheaper than fossil fuel power.

EXACTLY..."anti-science". Those darn big businesses are funding false science unlike the IPCC, NASA, NOAA where their science is sound and not at all faked.

"We're at the point where harnessing that solar power is cheaper than fossil fuel power." - I REEEEAAAAALLLLLLYYYYY don't want to call a CFR on this as it would drag me into a climate change debate.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

We need to increase CO2 levels like we need a hole in our skull. (no sarcasm intended).

I like CO2. If it weren't produced, we'd all be dead.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I like CO2. If it weren't produced, we'd all be dead.

That is true...I think at least half of the Utah Valley population would die off if they didn't have their soda-pop drive thru's.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, pogi said:

That is true...I think at least half of the Utah Valley population would die off if they didn't have their soda-pop drive thru's.

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

EXACTLY..."anti-science". Those darn big businesses are funding false science unlike the IPCC, NASA, NOAA where their science is sound and not at all faked.

Who is mostly doing the scientific research? and who is mostly publishing free articles on the internet? I can't find one scientific paper (published in a Journal that you pay to access) that disagrees with the Global Warming basics. Name just one scientific organization (at least 26 yrs old) that doubts the global warming theory. I say 26 yrs old because the politics began in the 90s. 

Yes, exactly! Not funny now right? 

Edited by MormonVideoGame

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Who is mostly doing the scientific research? and who is mostly publishing free articles on the internet? I can't find one scientific paper (published in a Journal that you pay to access) that disagrees with the Global Warming basics. Name just one scientific organization (at least 26 yrs old) that doubts the global warming theory. I say 26 yrs old because the politics began in the 90s. 

Yes, exactly! Not funny now right? 

Actually, that's hysterical and you're cute when you're mad.

 

Edited by Darren10

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, rockpond said:

In his BYU-H commencement address on 25 Feb 2017, Dallin Oaks made the following remarks:

"These are challenging times, filled with big worries: wars and rumors of wars, possible epidemics of infectious diseases, droughts, floods, and global warming. Seacoast cities are concerned with the rising level of the ocean, which will bring ocean tides to their doorsteps or over their thresholds. Global warming is also affecting agriculture and wildlife. Nations whose prosperity depends on world peace and free trade worry about disturbing developments that threaten either or both of these. We are even challenged by the politics of conflict and the uncertainties sponsored by the aggressive new presidential administration in the world’s most powerful nation."

 

Sounds like an endorsement of global warming and not necessarily the most flattering description of the Trump administration. 

Entire speech is posted on LDS.org in the "Prophets and Apostles" section:

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/push-back-against-the-world?lang=eng&_r=1&cid=HP_WE_1-3-2017_dPFD_fCNWS_xLIDyL2-3

Looks to me like he is itemizing the worries and the worriers.  Not making statements of fact.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Darren10 said:

Actually, that's hysterical and you're cute when you're mad.

I am straight! I like sexy women 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

I am straight! I like sexy women 

You're still cute when you're mad.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, longview said:

We need more punishing taxes on carbon credits like we need a hole in our skull (sarcasm INTENDED).  This is the only thing driving Global Warming Hysteria.  The science in 'Climate Change' is tragically JUNK science.  Our schools and universities have been 'dumbed down.'

Good.... I have great news for you; I don't care to the least what happens to the planet, since I have less than 15 yrs to live...... Go ahead and buy a condo iN Naples (my wife has one).....

I know we will destruct the planet.......It's OK, since atheism rules...once you are dead, that's it.....

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Calm said:

"Global warning is also affecting agriculture and wildlife."

Are you suggesting he is being sympathetic to the feelings of plants and animals here?

Looks like a statement about the physical effects of global warming, not the emotional or political ones.

I've held back on this for a while as I really do not want to get sucked into a global warming debate on this thread but this has been nagging me ever since I first read this post and that nagging has been exasperated by your post (you're welcome :) ). If, "Global warning is also affecting agriculture and wildlife", is a factual-based statement by Dallin H. Oaks, then what in the world is he talking about? What agriculture is affected by global warming? If anything, increased temperatures increase crop yields. Likewise, what wildlife is affected by global warming? I know there are a lot of people who have pointed blame on global warming when they spot things previously unkown in nature but I have found nothing that links the supposed abnormality to an increase in global temperatures. Any insights on this? And if there is no direct evidence-based connection between wildlife disruptions and global warming then doesn't that indicate Oaks was offering empathy to real worries people have over a perceived disruption between wildlife and global warming?

Thanks. I always value hearing from you.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Darren10 said:

I like CO2. If it weren't produced, we'd all be dead.

I live in a forest. CO2 is very important to me as well. I want healthy trees so I can breathe more oxygen.

 

Hopefully, some really way smart person will be able to explain to me why CO2 is bad.:huh:

 

Edited by mrmarklin

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Good.... I have great news for you; I don't care to the least what happens to the planet, since I have less than 15 yrs to live...... Go ahead and buy a condo iN Naples (my wife has one).....

I know we will destruct the planet.......It's OK, since atheism rules...once you are dead, that's it.....

Naples, no. Amalfi coast, yes!

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I live in a forest. CO2 is very important to me as well. I want healthy trees so I can breathe more oxygen.

 

Hopefully, some really way smart person will be able to explain to me why CO2 is bad.:huh:

 

I totally agree with the CO2 providing breathing power to trees and forest provide unique beauty to the world, but, if you think about it, you and I produce CO2 all the time. About every few seconds of our lives. If we did not exhale it, we'd died. I say let's not deprive tress and other plants their CO2. Let's give them ample resources to grow!!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I've held back on this for a while as I really do not want to get sucked into a global warming debate on this thread but this has been nagging me ever since I first read this post and that nagging has been exasperated by your post (you're welcome :) ). If, "Global warning is also affecting agriculture and wildlife", is a factual-based statement by Dallin H. Oaks, then what in the world is he talking about? What agriculture is affected by global warming? If anything, increased temperatures increase crop yields. Likewise, what wildlife is affected by global warming? I know there are a lot of people who have pointed blame on global warming when they spot things previously unkown in nature but I have found nothing that links the supposed abnormality to an increase in global temperatures. Any insights on this? And if there is no direct evidence-based connection between wildlife disruptions and global warming then doesn't that indicate Oaks was offering empathy to real worries people have over a perceived disruption between wildlife and global warming?

Thanks. I always value hearing from you.

I know this was to Calm but I wanted to comment as well... It seems that you left out the possibility that he thought he was speaking factually but didn't really know what he was talking about.  He could just be wrong.  That's an acceptable option - he's a retired attorney/judge, not a climate scientist or botanist.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I know this was to Calm but I wanted to comment as well... It seems that you left out the possibility that he thought he was speaking factually but didn't really know what he was talking about.  He could just be wrong.  That's an acceptable option - he's a retired attorney/judge, not a climate scientist or botanist.

It wouldn't be the first time I judged his opinion wrong. (The other time blatantly so).

Good man though. I'd very much like to be in his position when he stands before Jehovah's tribunal.

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

Good.... I have great news for you; I don't care to the least what happens to the planet, since I have less than 15 yrs to live

It's is mostly older people that are Global Warming deniers, and spreading misleading information. 

35 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

I know we will destruct the planet.......It's OK, since atheism rules...once you are dead, that's it.....

Try Cryonics, it doesn't hurt to try if you have life insurance or at least $28,000. It may be your only hope to live again, and revive your love ones in your heart. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

It wouldn't be the first time I judged his opinion wrong. (The other time blatantly so).

Good man though. I'd very much like to be in his position when he stands before Jehovah's tribunal.

I believe he has nothing but the best of intentions and will be judged graciously for them.  But, like all of us, he'll also have some mistakes to account for.  

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, MormonVideoGame said:

It's is mostly older people that are Global Warming deniers, and spreading misleading information. 

Try Cryonics, it doesn't hurt to try if you have life insurance or at least $28,000. It may be your only hope to live again, and revive your love ones in your heart. 

It worked for Mr. Freeze but he's still working on Nora.

http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/14400000/Mr-Freeze-mr-freeze-14487242-1176-616.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Gray said:

We should probably detonate some more nuclear weapons too. Real scientists are saying the level of strontium 90 in the earth's atmosphere is getting dangerously low. 

True, and if we get enough strontium into the atmosphere we can up the levels of cancer, people die younger, and we can save Social Security too. Plus if we miss with a few we can take out a few people I don't like. There is really no downside to this plan.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, longview said:

The people who fought the tobacco propaganda war in the middle decades of the 20th century were the cigarette companies.  The people against the Climate Scam are mostly conservatives.  The intersection between these two groups may actually be the 'empty set.'  I am very disappointed in your scientific reasoning process.

Yeah, if there is one thing you can say about cigarette company executives it is that they all vote Democrat and support Democratic causes and are incredibly liberal. Pretty much all of their allies are on the political left.

Lets look at the top recipients of tobacco money in the Senate and the House to prove this:

Senate
Top 10 Recipients

1    Mitch McConnell (R-KY)    $175,975
2    Richard Burr (R-NC)    $163,800
3    Mark Warner (D-VA)    $127,749
4    Thom Tillis (R-NC)    $81,000
5    Tim Kaine (D-VA)    $48,551
6    Pat Toomey (R-PA)    $46,157
7    John Cornyn (R-TX)    $41,434
8    Tom Cotton (R-AR)    $38,700
9    Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)    $37,386
10    Dean Heller (R-NV)    $35,000
TOTAL    $795,752

House
Top 10 Recipients

1    Kevin McCarthy (R-CA23)    $62,850
2    George Holding (R-NC12)    $47,925
3    Charles Boustany Jr (R-LA3)    $35,600
4    Paul Ryan (R-WI1)    $30,266
5    Steve Scalise (R-LA1)    $27,399
6    Kevin Yoder (R-KS3)    $24,920
7    Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC9)    $22,749
8    Richard Hudson (R-NC7)    $22,000
9    Mark Walker (R-NC5)    $19,375
10    Jeff Denham(R-CA10) $19,225
TOTAL   $312,309

18 out of the 20 are Republicans? Oh................ :( 

8 hours ago, longview said:

We need more punishing taxes on carbon credits like we need a hole in our skull (sarcasm INTENDED).  This is the only thing driving Global Warming Hysteria.  The science in 'Climate Change' is tragically JUNK science.  Our schools and universities have been 'dumbed down.'

I am of the opinion that some climate change deniers might be helped by a hole in their skull.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MormonVideoGame said:

Try Cryonics, it doesn't hurt to try if you have life insurance or at least $28,000. It may be your only hope to live again, and revive your love ones in your heart. 

Has this world been so kind to you that you would regret leaving it?

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I know this was to Calm but I wanted to comment as well... It seems that you left out the possibility that he thought he was speaking factually but didn't really know what he was talking about.  He could just be wrong.  That's an acceptable option - he's a retired attorney/judge, not a climate scientist or botanist.

Yeah, apostles are known for shooting from the hip without thinking things through and just tossing out their speculation. Especially in the last few decades when everything is recorded.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am of the opinion that some climate change deniers might be helped by a hole in their skull.

Your use of the term 'denier' is proof positive that you admit to supporting the 'Cult of Global Warming Hysteria' and would demonize anyone who would argue against it.  That word is unscientific and emotionally charged.  You attempt to shame and mortify anyone who would ask deeper questions.  Please explain this event at NOAA:

“Now that Dr. Bates has confirmed that there were heated disagreements within NOAA about the quality and transparency of the data before publication, we know why NOAA fought transparency and oversight at every turn.  Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along – that the Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.  The Committee thanks Dr. Bates, a Department of Commerce Gold Medal winner for creating and implementing a standard to produce and preserve climate data, for exposing the previous administration’s efforts to push their costly climate agenda at the expense of scientific integrity.”  (from:  http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2017/02/noaa-caught-manipulating-data.html)

See this Congressional document detailing the time line with NOAA:  (https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/NOAA Karl Study One-Pager.pdf)

< February 22, 2016: Chairman Smith sent a letter to Administrator Sullivan expressing his disappointment in NOAA’s failure to provide a full and complete production in response to the subpoena. He also asked the agency to broaden the scope of the search related to communications regarding the Karl study. Finally, he requested documents and communications related to NOAA’s adherence to OMB peer review guidelines.

March 14, 2016: NOAA provided additional documents and communications in response to the Committee’s subpoena.

March 15, 2016: NOAA replied to the Science Committee’s letter noting their compliance and effort over the course of this investigation, yet the agency still was not in a position to certify that a full and complete production had been provided to the Committee.

March 15, 2016: Chairman Smith sent a letter to Administrator Sullivan reiterating his request for documents and communications related to NOAA’s adherence to OMB peer review guidelines.>

Edited by longview

Share this post


Link to post

Elder Oaks was encouraging a return to civil discourse. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

 

I am of the opinion that some climate change deniers might be helped by a hole in their skull.

I don't think this comment qualifies. After a controversial speaker was shouted down at Middlebury College and a professor was injured in the melee, some professors wrote a Statement of Principles concerning free speech on campus. You can read it here. https://freeinquiryblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/06/free-inquiry-on-campus-a-statement-of-principles-by-a-number-of-middlebury-college-professors/

I think this statement applies to this debate. "A good education produces modesty with respect to our own intellectual powers and opinions as well as openness to considering contrary views."

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...