Mormon Environmental Ethic, Does It Exist?

[MormonFreeThinker]

The so called 97% consensus has been debunked.

 

The so called "debunked" has been debunked 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/wsj-denies-global-warming-consensus.html

 

 

CO2 Climate Sensitivity is overestimated by the IPCC by about 7 times.

 

That Journal is a think tank, not a respected peer-reviewed science journal. 

AnswersInGensis also has so-called journals. There are Bigfoot Journals too.   

 

Anyways, you ignored my points in post 172. I challenge you to read them and respond to them without ad hominem or conspiracy theories. 

Post 172

[MormonFreeThinker]

Don't turn this thread into a political debate too.  Mormonfreethinker you are on limited.  

 

What took you so long? I don't care because most people are not open minded, and I am wasting my time.

 

It is extremely offensive that you say that Global Warming is politics, offensive for the children that are suffering in Africa.  

 

The other thread was about the position of the church, and I said nothing political here, and I am not the one that started to talk about Global Warming in this thread.    

 

I am getting tired of participating in the MD&DB , next year I am going to be extremely busy, I will have no time for online dialogues with people that are not open minded.  

 

That is fine, keep me on limited or completely block me, I am done with what I had to say. 

Edited November 8, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Guest]

There have been some attempts to set forth and promote an environmental ethic. But it doesn't seem to have gained much traction. Is this because of a disbelief in global warming and other environmental issues? There is of course plenty of comments and statements from Brigham Young until Ezra Taft Benson to support and provide the structure for an environmental ethic, but we are seeing young marrieds coming from Utah and Idaho who don't even understand or practice recycling. How is that possible? We even used to have slogans very much like those used in such campaigns?

Painting with a broad bush. We don't all walk in lockstep. And unless you know every young married couple for both states...I am guessing there are more,who,believe recycling. Warning. to do equate garbage practices with sin and apathy.

[thesometimesaint]

List of just some of the scientific organizations that accept global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Edited November 8, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[ERayR]

List of just some of the scientific organizations that accept global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

As an old neighbor of mine would have said:  Some are fer it and some are agin it.  It sure ain't settled yet.

[MormonFreeThinker]

List of just some of the scientific organizations that accept global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

 

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

 

Independent non-profit scientific organizations in the USA (that I know of) 

http://berkeleyearth.org/funders

http://darksnowproject.org/ Real research, not think tank propaganda. 

 

Scientists that have changed their mind (that I know of) 

Richard Muller (Physicist, formerly an aggressive skeptic) 

Barry Bickmore (geologist, former skeptic)

Stu Ostro (Senior Meteorologist, former skeptic)   

 

97% of climatologists agree, here is a peer-reviewed paper from the Environmental Research Letters Journal that proves it. 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

 

There is a consensus because of the evidence, not because of wishful thinking. 

 

 

The so called 97% consensus has been debunked.

The so called "debunked" has been debunked

http://www.skepticalscience.com/wsj-denies-global-warming-consensus.html

Edited November 8, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ELF1024]

List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations

http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

 

Independent non-profit scientific organizations in the USA (that I know of) 

http://berkeleyearth.org/funders

http://darksnowproject.org/ Real research, not think tank propaganda. 

 

Scientists that have changed their mind (that I know of) 

Richard Muller (Physicist, formerly an aggressive skeptic) 

Barry Bickmore (geologist, former skeptic)

Stu Ostro (Senior Meteorologist, former skeptic)   

 

97% of climatologists agree, here is a peer-reviewed paper from the Environmental Research Letters Journal that proves it. 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

 

There is a consensus because of the evidence, not because of wishful thinking. 

 

 

The so called "debunked" has been debunked

http://www.skepticalscience.com/wsj-denies-global-warming-consensus.html

 

At some point you are going to have to learn that just because someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't make them close minded. It just means they don't agree with you.

 

Accusing people of close mindedness when they don't agree with you is not a way to have a productive conversation or discussion. Do enjoy to continue to have conversations with like minded people who agree with you, I'm sure you find the bias confirmation you are looking for.

[MormonFreeThinker]

At some point you are going to have to learn that just because someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't make them close minded. It just means they don't agree with you.

 

Accusing people of close mindedness when they don't agree with you is not a way to have a productive conversation or discussion. Do enjoy to continue to have conversations with like minded people who agree with you, I'm sure you find the bias confirmation you are looking for.

 

There are many open minded people that disagree with me, there is a difference. At some point you are going to learn the difference. 

 

When people ignore my points, misrepresent what I say, invent conspiracy theories, make accusations with absolute certainty, name calling, it is because they are probably not open minded, 

 

I am not 100% certain that man made GW is real, but many here think it is a joke and a hoax. 

Edited November 8, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ERayR]

 

97% of climatologists agree, here is a peer-reviewed paper from the Environmental Research Letters Journal that proves it. 

 

This has been posted before but maybe you did not see it.

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

 

Also you might take a look at this:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Edited November 8, 2014 by ERayR

[MormonFreeThinker]

This has been posted before but maybe you did not see it.

 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

 

That is strong evidence that you do not read what I say. 

 

I did see it, I did respond.  See

The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus

http://www.skepticalscience.com/wsj-denies-global-warming-consensus.html

Edited November 8, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ELF1024]

There are many open minded people that disagree with me, there is a difference. At some point you are going to learn the difference. 

 

When people ignore my points, misrepresent what I say, invent conspiracy theories, make accusations with absolute certainty, name calling, it is because they are probably not open minded, 

 

I am not 100% certain that man made GW is real, but many here think it is a joke and a hoax. 

 

[thesometimesaint]

At some point you are going to have to learn that just because someone doesn't agree with you, that doesn't make them close minded. It just means they don't agree with you.

 

Accusing people of close mindedness when they don't agree with you is not a way to have a productive conversation or discussion. Do enjoy to continue to have conversations with like minded people who agree with you, I'm sure you find the bias confirmation you are looking for.

 

Discussion of relevant points is fine with me. I never accused you, or anyone else for that matter, of being closed minded. All I ask is that their mind isn't so open that their brains fall out.

 

That being said the allegations of lying, criminal conspiracy, and out right fraud by well established scientists working in the field do little to nothing to further the discussion. It is like going to 100 MD's because you think have appendicitis, and have 97 of them run a battery of tests and telling you yes you do have appendicitis. While 3 of them perform no tests and then tell you that you there is no such thing as appendicitis, and those other doctors are in a vast conspiracy to steal your money.

 

Ps.

 

National Associations of Science on global warming

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

 

American Association for the Advancement of Science  on global warming.

http://www.aaas.org/news/global-climate-change-resources

Edited November 9, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[DJBrown]

You asked for evidences, not opinions. I presented them, and substantiated them as presented by and accepted by actual scientists working in that field. Now you are changing the goal posts to suit your agenda. Sure as I already said 97% of the scientists working in that field agree that Global Warming is real and that human activities account for the recent rapid rise in global temperatures over the last 250 years or so. I can find links that claim man would never be in space or on the moon. Do you rally doubt that we have done those things?

 

I am not asking for links that state opinions on data.

 

Can you explain, in your own words, what you believe the best evidences are that support man-made global warming.

 

I am not moving any goal posts.  I have a fairly extensive background in basic science research, statistics, and evaluating statistical methodologies.  In short, I am very familiar with how much BS is out there in any given scientific field of research.

[katherine the great]

High fuel efficiency is a good temporary goal.

Hybrids are getting better all the time, and are a good intermediate stage. But I won't be satisfied until we really reduce the amount of CO2 being put into our atmosphere. The Chevy Volt, Nissan Leaf, Ford Focus, Honda EV Fit all have all electric models. The needed electricity can easily be generated at the household level using photovoltaic panels. For most people the daily commute is around 10 miles easily within the range of electric cars. Buses can be made all electric, and some are already here in southern California. High Speed electric trains can fill in the gap between short and long range people transportation. Lead/Acid batteries are the big problem. They just can't store enough energy for much more than the 40 mile limit. The good news is high efficiency batteries are available. IE; the ones in your cell phone and lap top computer. What we do need is an economical way to upscale them for use in a car.

Eventually we'll all be forced into all electric anyway by pure economics. The price of oil will just get too expensive to burn up in our cars.

I drive a Chevy Volt and I absolutely love it but they are expensive and there is still the problem with the eventual safe disposition of the battery.  I think the main idea behind it was kind of the "if you build it, they will come" or "If you build it, they will figure out a way to safely dispose of the battery before the first one goes bad."  I'm just happy to see human ingenuity working towards making the world a better place.  I hate seeing the wide brush being used on both sides to paint environmentalists as atheists and religious people as anti environmentalists.  I think the bottom line is paradigm.  Atheists, of course, are going to put more emphasis on the earth and promote sustainability because that is all there is.  Religious people will tend to emphasize the afterlife and worry about the quality of their spiritual lives.  In that viewpoint, the earth is a temporary stopping point.  Both are important.

[thesometimesaint]

I am not asking for links that state opinions on data.

 

Can you explain, in your own words, what you believe the best evidences are that support man-made global warming.

 

I am not moving any goal posts.  I have a fairly extensive background in basic science research, statistics, and evaluating statistical methodologies.  In short, I am very familiar with how much BS is out there in any given scientific field of research.

 

Scientific FACT CO2 traps heat. Science isn't science if it can't make accurate predictions/conclusions. Conclusion from that Scientific FACT more CO2, more trapped heat. EVERY recognized scientific organization accepts the FACT that the global warming is real and that human actions are the main contributor.

[thesometimesaint]

I drive a Chevy Volt and I absolutely love it but they are expensive and there is still the problem with the eventual safe disposition of the battery.  I think the main idea behind it was kind of the "if you build it, they will come" or "If you build it, they will figure out a way to safely dispose of the battery before the first one goes bad."  I'm just happy to see human ingenuity working towards making the world a better place.  I hate seeing the wide brush being used on both sides to paint environmentalists as atheists and religious people as anti environmentalists.  I think the bottom line is paradigm.  Atheists, of course, are going to put more emphasis on the earth and promote sustainability because that is all there is.  Religious people will tend to emphasize the afterlife and worry about the quality of their spiritual lives.  In that viewpoint, the earth is a temporary stopping point.  Both are important.

 

The next car I buy is going to be a hybrid. I'm interested in the future development of lithium hydride powered cars, but right now they are just too expensive to be practical for my situation. 

 

I don't see it as an either/or situation. Some of the worlds greatest scientists the world has ever know have been devote Christians. For me it is the dual role of being the best Mormon Christian I know how to be, and the Social Scientist I know how to be.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I am not asking for links that state opinions on data.

 

Can you explain, in your own words, what you believe the best evidences are that support man-made global warming.

 

I am not moving any goal posts.  I have a fairly extensive background in basic science research, statistics, and evaluating statistical methodologies.  In short, I am very familiar with how much BS is out there in any given scientific field of research.

 

 The geological record contains abundant evidence on the ways Earth’s climate has changed in the past. The Earth’s temperature changes naturally over time scales ranging from decades, to hundreds of thousands, to millions of years. In some cases these changes are gradual and in others abrupt. Evidence for climate change is preserved in a wide range of geological settings, including marine and lake sediments, ice sheets, fossil corals, stalagmites and fossil tree rings. Cores drilled through the ice sheets yield a record of polar temperatures and atmospheric composition ranging back to 120,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. Oceanic sediments preserve a record reaching back tens of millions of years, and older sedimentary rocks extend the record to hundreds of millions of years. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world. About 55 million years ago, at the end of the Paleocene, there was a sudden warming event in which temperatures rose by about 6ºC globally and by 10-20ºC at the poles. This warming event, called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM, was accompanied by a major release of 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes or more of carbon into the ocean and atmosphere. This injection of carbon may have come mainly from the breakdown of methane hydrates beneath the deep sea floor, perhaps triggered by volcanic activity superimposed on an underlying gradual global warming trend that peaked some 50 million years ago in the early Eocene. CO2 levels were already high at the time, but the additional CO2 injected into the atmosphere and ocean made the ocean even warmer, less well oxygenated and more acidic, and was accompanied by the extinction of many species on the deep sea floor 

[ELF1024]

Discussion of relevant points is fine with me. I never accused you, or anyone else for that matter, of being closed minded. All I ask is that their mind isn't so open that their brains fall out.

 

That being said the allegations of lying, criminal conspiracy, and out right fraud by well established scientists working in the field do little to nothing to further the discussion. It is like going to 100 MD's because you think have appendicitis, and have 97 of them run a battery of tests and telling you yes you do have appendicitis. While 3 of them perform no tests and then tell you that you there is no such thing as appendicitis, and those other doctors are in a vast conspiracy to steal your money.

 

Ps.

 

National Associations of Science on global warming

http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-evidence-and-causes/

 

American Association for the Advancement of Science  on global warming.

http://www.aaas.org/news/global-climate-change-resources

 

A better example, instead of appendicitis would be... As few as 5 years ago, everyone agreed that eggs and butter were bad for you. However, now they are saying that fat in your diet isn't as unhealthy as they thought, and many are now encouraging both eggs and butter again.

 

The more we learn, the more we find out we don't know.

 

If CO2 was really the driving cause behind global warming, why did we have an ice age when we had several thousand PPM not just 350ppm like we have today?

If CO2 was really the driving cause behind global warming, why have we had an uptick in CO2 PPM, but the temperature has not risen with it?

If CO2 was really the driving cause behind global warming, why are so many scientists refusing to reveal the raw data behind their work. If it was open and closed science it could be proven by another group... if you can't reproduce it, it isn't science... just like Cold Fusion never was recreated.

 

Why were the warmest temps from the 1930s when CO2 PPM was below now.

Edited November 9, 2014 by ELF1024

[MormonFreeThinker]

If CO2 was really the driving cause behind global warming, why did we have an ice age when we had several thousand PPM not just 350ppm like we have today?

If CO2 was really the driving cause behind global warming, why have we had an uptick in CO2 PPM, but the temperature has not risen with it?

 

Your data is not accurate, See post 192 for more evidence. 

 The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history.

 

 

 

If CO2 was really the driving cause behind global warming, why are so many scientists refusing to reveal the raw data behind their work. If it was open and closed science it could be proven by another group... if you can't reproduce it, it isn't science... just like Cold Fusion never was recreated.

 

That is not accurate, see post 181, or simply see a simple science experiment by a little kid. 

 

 

Why were the warmest temps from the 1930s when CO2 PPM was below now.

 

Maybe a regional temperature, not a Global Temperature. 

Edited November 9, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[katherine the great]

The next car I buy is going to be a hybrid. I'm interested in the future development of lithium hydride powered cars, but right now they are just too expensive to be practical for my situation. 

 

I don't see it as an either/or situation. Some of the worlds greatest scientists the world has ever know have been devote Christians. For me it is the dual role of being the best Mormon Christian I know how to be, and the Social Scientist I know how to be.

Amen.  

[DJBrown]

Scientific FACT CO2 traps heat. Science isn't science if it can't make accurate predictions/conclusions. Conclusion from that Scientific FACT more CO2, more trapped heat. EVERY recognized scientific organization accepts the FACT that the global warming is real and that human actions are the main contributor.

 

The issue is infinitely more complicated than this.  And CO2 is not the only "greenhouse gas."  

 

The fact that the models employed by these climatologists have failed miserably and have not come close in their predictions should get our attention.  They have failed in almost all their predictions.  

 

Still awaiting an articulation of the evidences.  I do not think this is an unreasonable request.  

[MormonFreeThinker]

The issue is infinitely more complicated than this.  And CO2 is not the only "greenhouse gas."  

 

We agree, but CO2 is more abundant in the atmosphere than methane. 

 

 

The fact that the models employed by these climatologists have failed miserably 

 

You are reading too many anti-Global Warming websites and blogs, not the scientific literature. The evidence has nothing do with computer models.

Edited November 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[carbon dioxide]

I've always been big on conserving the environment. This planet is our home, so we need to treat it right. You wouldn't let your house/apartment become a mess, would you?

Have you seen my home?

[carbon dioxide]

Your data is not accurate, See post 192 for more evidence. 

 The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history.

 

 

 

My question is just who was recording the CO2 levels of say in the year 76,341 B.C?  I will accept that in recorded history that people have been taking CO2 measurements that CO2 are the highest they have been.  But who is to say that there was not a 500 year period over the last 400,000 years that CO2 levels was not over 400 ppm. 

[carbon dioxide]

I hope global warming is occuring.  I enjoy the warmer weather.  Perhaps we might actually find a warmer climate might not as bad as we are told.