Mormon Environmental Ethic, Does It Exist?

[strappinglad]

I understand that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Is there much of that in the atmosphere? What is its heat capacity compared to CO2?

[emarkp]

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

Richard Muller (Physicist, formerly an aggressive skeptic

I really get tired of people lying for their cause. Muller was never a skeptic. He was branded as such when he rightly condemned the scientists who used a trick to "hide the decline".

His Berkeley Earth project uses the same datasets as everyone else.

And lastly, the 97% state is just as fake as "1 in 5 women are raped" or the gender wage gap. All the 97% say say is that man has had some impact in climate. Stop spamming with global warming, er global weirding, er climate change er global climate disruption links. Unlike evolution, the more I read, the less confirming evidence I find.

[MormonFreeThinker]

I really get tired of people lying for their cause. Muller was never a skeptic.

 

He was a skeptic, 

 

"The issues that there is strong agreement on is that we have seen global warming over the past 100 years. An issue, though, that isn't really settled yet is how much of that is due to humans? And that's a subject that really can use more investigation." - Richard Muller, 11 April 2011

 

 

. He was branded as such when he rightly condemned the scientists who used a trick to "hide the decline".

 

That argument is so bad it is not necessary for me to respond, just see the video. .

 

 

And lastly, the 97% state is just as fake as "

 

Your statements are not evidence, where is the evidence? Why do you ignore important studies? 

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

 

 

climate change er global climate disruption links. Unlike evolution, the more I read, the less confirming evidence I find.

 

Sure, but are you reading the scientific literature? or anti-Global warming websites like the nIPCC? 

[emarkp]

"The issues that there is strong agreement on is that we have seen global warming over the past 100 years. An issue, though, that isn't really settled yet is how much of that is due to humans? And that's a subject that really can use more investigation." - Richard Muller, 11 April 2011

That argument is so bad it is not necessary for me to respond, just see the video

Uh, and here's the video from FEB 2011 of Muller saying exactly what I said he said.

Please, just go make your page of Climate Change apologetics so we can ignore it here like you're ignoring me here, since I'm confident you won't watch that 5 minute video. Instead you'll keep linking to multi-hour videos you haven't watched and lengthy scientific papers you haven't read.

Here's a pic for you, I'm sure you'll ignore:

Note the data falling outside the model prediction.  That's called falsification of a theory, plain and simple.  That of course was put together by an award-winning climate scientist. Now he doesn't belong to your approved priesthood, so you'll dismiss him.  Just go somewhere else to do it, please.

Sure, but are you reading the scientific literature? or anti-Global warming websites like the nIPCC?

Oh, and BTW, I read both. Note that the IPCC is not scientific literature. It's a political group and their reports are expressly political in nature. Edited November 10, 2014 by emarkp

[MormonFreeThinker]

Uh, and here's the video from FEB 2011 of Muller saying exactly what I said he said.

 

LOL I watched your video, now please See this video. 

Muller didn't know what he was talking about back then, he was a skeptic. The "decline" refers to a decline in northern tree-rings, not global temperature.

 

 

Here's a pic for you, I'm sure you'll ignore:

 

LOL Where do you get the graph from? from a blog?  Yes, the models are wrong, it is faster and worst than expected.

You ignored the graph in post 194, and the arguments in post 181 and 192.

 

"Instead you'll keep linking to multi-hour videos you haven't watched and lengthy scientific papers you haven't read."

 

You are not watching them, you are not reading them. 

 

Note the data falling outside the model prediction.  That's called falsification of a theory, plain and simple.  That of course was put together by an award-winning climate scientist. Now he doesn't belong to your approved priesthood, so you'll dismiss him.  Just go somewhere else to do it, please.

 

You dismiss my arguments and many climate scientists. 

You won't cite peer-reviewed papers from respected Journals, you only link to blogs. 

 

Roy W. Spencer is not a climate scientist, where is his university profile? Prove that he is a climate scientist, the wikepedia is not proof. Spencer is a meteorologist, not a climatologist, there is a difference. 

 

I can name many climate scientists, I can link to their university profile, I can prove their credentials.

 

Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organizatio

 

Oh, and BTW, I read both. Note that the IPCC is not scientific literature. It's a political group and their reports are expressly political in nature.

 

I can cite papers from the Nature and Science Journals, you can only cite papers from blogs and anti-Global Warming websites. 

Edited November 10, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[ELF1024]

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

 

For someone not 100% certain, you sure do spend alot of time beating the drums.

 

And yes,  it is a joke and a hoax.

 

And once again, you are incorrect, even climate scientists agree that there was an Ice Age during the Ordovician period.

Edited November 10, 2014 by ELF1024

[MormonFreeThinker]

And yes,  it is a joke and a hoax.

 

That is the reason why I say you guys are not open minded. 

 

The solution to fight global warming is consistent with the position of the church, so even if Global Warming is not real, we still have to "The Church strives to conserve and manage energy appropriately. It has implemented a green building initiative that incorporates sustainable design and construction practices. Water conservation efforts include the use of smart controllers, hydrometers, rain sensors, drip irrigation, and secondary or reclaimed water. In 2013, the Church headquarters campus recycled about 180 tons of cardboard, 65 tons of paper, 26 tons of plastic, and 2 tons of aluminum." 

https://www.lds.org/topics/environmental-stewardship-and-conservation?lang=eng

[katherine the great]

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.

This is a joke right?

[strappinglad]

Allow me to join in to the drum symphony . Consider tobacco use worldwide. Tobacco use is responsible for about 70% of lung cancer and 1.6 million deaths. Can we find any oncologists anywhere that are skeptical about the link between tobacco and lung cancer? Yet people still smoke. The youth still take up smoking, the Chinese smoke like their industries do, Hollywood still produces films that show smoking as ' cool' .Government have made many laws regarding tobacco use. They tax cigarettes heavily and make rules to make it as uncomfortable as possible to smoke and yet, people still smoke.

Whether AGW exists or not, people must have the will to change . When a significant percentage of folks worldwide struggle to feed themselves daily and they see the wealthy nations living high on the hog while making rules to restrict the poor nations from having to debate " paper or plastic " , the will is very weak.

[thesometimesaint]

Allow me to join in to the drum symphony . Consider tobacco use worldwide. Tobacco use is responsible for about 70% of lung cancer and 1.6 million deaths. Can we find any oncologists anywhere that are skeptical about the link between tobacco and lung cancer? Yet people still smoke. The youth still take up smoking, the Chinese smoke like their industries do, Hollywood still produces films that show smoking as ' cool' .Government have made many laws regarding tobacco use. They tax cigarettes heavily and make rules to make it as uncomfortable as possible to smoke and yet, people still smoke.

Whether AGW exists or not, people must have the will to change . When a significant percentage of folks worldwide struggle to feed themselves daily and they see the wealthy nations living high on the hog while making rules to restrict the poor nations from having to debate " paper or plastic " , the will is very weak.

 

SEE

[ELF1024]

"The Church strives to conserve and manage energy appropriately. It has implemented a green building initiative that incorporates sustainable design and construction practices. Water conservation efforts include the use of smart controllers, hydrometers, rain sensors, drip irrigation, and secondary or reclaimed water. In 2013, the Church headquarters campus recycled about 180 tons of cardboard, 65 tons of paper, 26 tons of plastic, and 2 tons of aluminum." 

 

 

None of which have anything to do with Global Warming/Climate Change. I have no issues with many environmental efforts, however the science of Climate Change is absolute garbage.

 

I'm not big on polls, but you seem to enjoy them... as such...

 

 

 

According to a Pew Research Center poll, 35 percent of Americans say there is not enough solid evidence to suggest mankind is warming the earth while another 18 percent says the world has warmed due to “natural patterns” and not human activity.

[thesometimesaint]

None of which have anything to do with Global Warming/Climate Change. I have no issues with many environmental efforts, however the science of Climate Change is absolute garbage.

 

I'm not big on polls, but you seem to enjoy them... as such...

 

97% of scientists will disagree with you.

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

 

25% of adult Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/02/14/277058739/1-in-4-americans-think-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says

[DJBrown]

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

As has already been pointed out, there are more "greenhouse gases."  Among them, water vapor is a big one to leave out.  

 

And you are arguing as if greenhouse gases are the only driving force behind global temperature.  Such a representation is enormously incorrect.  

 

All of the predictions about future climate come from computer models.  Those models are the tool the climate lobby use to scare people and predict badness for the future.  But those models are essentially always wrong.  Hugely wrong.

 

How do you explain the fact that satellites have detected no increase in temperature in the troposphere, the one stratum in the atmosphere in which an increase in temperature would be seen? 

[emarkp]

97% of scientists will disagree with you.

No they don't. Try to keep up.

[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?

Yes we care for the environment, we are commanded to be good stewards in scripture and by the Church. You are panting with a broad brush and assuming that Mormons do no recycle. In fact most people I know do...BUT, I informed my friend and Stake President who put none incandescent light bulbs in his house (which is the only allowed bulb allowed to be sold in many states) He was shocked when I told him I'd thrown I. The garbage that they has mercury in the base, and if landfills, then they degrade that it would seep into the ground water and harm others, as well as fish and many other wildlife. Not to mention your question and statement suggests that we do not care for the earth that our God and Father created for us...well Christ under his direction. More and more threads reflect a distain for fellow Mormons. The problem with this is the pride of those who do so that, "I am righteous but most everyone else are not"...this type of thinking is a sin and hurts out Father and Christ who love us. So again, yes we care!

[strappinglad]

Fluorescent bulbs are a great example of government regulations trying to do a good thing and inadvertently doing a bad one. Same thing if everyone suddenly started to drive electric cars. The battery problems would be enormous .If you are interested, investigate the conditions surrounding electronics disposal and who is doing the work of dealing with the toxic waste there.

The next big thing in light bulbs are the LEDs . The consumer will pay 15-20 dollars a bulb but it lasts 20 years. Sounds like a good tradeoff. I wonder about disposal there.

[The Nehor]

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.

I like the post/user name combination.

On a serious note the mass extinctions resulting from climate change and disruption of ecosystems would probably counterbalance your enjoyment of mild weather.

[MormonFreeThinker]

No they don't. Try to keep up.

 

Your blog says 52% agree that humans are the cause. 52% is still good enough to take GW seriously. 

 

But your blog is not telling us the full story 

"Watts is comparing two vastly different things here. He’s comparing the scientific consensus that was found in the scientific literature to an opinion survey among meteorologists who might not even do any research; these are two vastly different things. What this also ignores is that expertise matters. Remember the table from the survey that I showed you a little while back? This is what the survey says about it: Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change, and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics, were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence. The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the non-publishing climate scientists and non-publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%, respectively. In the middle were the two groups of publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists at 79% and 78%, respectively. What this means is that those with the relevant expertise confirm the consensus in the scientific literature. This is because they are aware of what’s in the literature and have based their position on the evidence. So this survey confirms the consensus, it doesn’t undermine it." 

http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/11/21/97-climate-science-consensus-reality/

 

Here is a serious peer-reviewed study 

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

[rodheadlee]

Ok MFT, what I want to know is what are you doing about it? Have you cut your energy consumption? have you installed solar panels on your home? have a wind generator installed? What do you suggest we do to combat AGW?

[MormonFreeThinker]

As has already been pointed out, there are more "greenhouse gases."  Among them, water vapor is a big one to leave out.  

 

Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming. Water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise. How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

 

 

All of the predictions about future climate come from computer models.  Those models are the tool the climate lobby use to scare people and predict badness for the future.  But those models are essentially always wrong.  Hugely wrong.

 

Please do not ignore post 181, I don't see how your conspiracy theory works. 

Predictions about the future are still debatable, but the science is clear that anthropogenic global warming is happening. 

 

I explained the evidence in post 192.

 

Please do not ignore the evidence and my arguments. 

[rodheadlee]

Mormon Free Thinker please don't ignore post 219. You may have persuaded me to believe in AGW but I want to know the solution. I have wind and solar power, I have sold my gas hog and bought a car that gets more than double the mileage at great expense to myself. (The fuel savings do not pay for the car payment). I want to know what you are doing with your knowledge. We will be subjected to yet another fuel tax in California under the guise of a carbon tax. I fail to see how this will make the air one bit cleaner from carbon dioxide. it will simply increase the coffers of the government.

[thesometimesaint]

Very good.

 

As long as tail pipe emissions are considered without cost then it will always be considered a money loosing proposition. If the actual costs in terms of air pollution is counted then yes a tax on carbon reflects the actual cost to the environment which by definition includes us.

 

I personally have a relatively efficient car 25-30 mpg on the highway, but I know I can do better. So the next car I buy is going to be a hybrid. Overall I've reduced my carbon footprint by a little over 1/3 the last several years, and am constantly looking for new/better ways to reduce it even more.

 

A tax is designed to discourage consumption . IE; Smoking cigarettes. So sure some continue to smoke, but as the price goes up consumption overall goes down.

[MormonFreeThinker]

As has already been pointed out, there are more "greenhouse gases."  Among them, water vapor is a big one to leave out.  

 

Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies warming. Water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise. How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

 

 

All of the predictions about future climate come from computer models.  Those models are the tool the climate lobby use to scare people and predict badness for the future.  But those models are essentially always wrong.  Hugely wrong.

 

Please do not ignore post 181, I don't see how your conspiracy theory works. Predictions about the future are still debatable, but the science is clear that anthropogenic global warming is happening. Please do not ignore the evidence and my arguments

 

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

 

 

No they don't. Try to keep up.

 

Your blog says 52% agree that humans are the cause. 52% is still good enough to take GW seriously.

 

But your blog is not telling us the full story "Watts is comparing two vastly different things here. He’s comparing the scientific consensus that was found in the scientific literature to an opinion survey among meteorologists who might not even do any research; these are two vastly different things. What this also ignores is that expertise matters. Remember the table from the survey that I showed you a little while back? This is what the survey says about it:  Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change, and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics, were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence. The two groups least likely to be convinced of this were the non-publishing climate scientists and non-publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists, at 65% and 59%, respectively. In the middle were the two groups of publishing meteorologists/atmospheric scientists at 79% and 78%, respectively. What this means is that those with the relevant expertise confirm the consensus in the scientific literature. This is because they are aware of what’s in the literature and have based their position on the evidence. So this survey confirms the consensus, it doesn’t undermine it."

http://www.realsceptic.com/2013/11/21/97-climate-science-consensus-reality/

Edited November 11, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[emarkp]

And yet again another lie. At least we agree that the 97% number is garbage. Maybe you can cite the methodology of the that fake 97% number?

And I love how you denigrate blogs. American Meteorological Society surveys with real numbers, are just blogs.

Sorry, going back to ignore mode.

[MormonFreeThinker]

And yet again another lie. At least we agree that the 97% number is garbage. Maybe you can cite the methodology of the that fake 97% number?

 

LOL again your source says, "Climate science experts who publish mostly on climate change, and climate scientists who publish mostly on other topics, were the two groups most likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming, with 93% of each group indicating their concurrence"

 

See the survey,  You don't read your own sources, you just read blogs that do not present the entire context.  

Here is the survey, Survey of American Meteorological Society

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1

 

 

And I love how you denigrate blogs. 

 

blogs are not respected peer-reviewed Journals. 

Edited November 11, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker