Global Warming Is Upon Us Bigtime

[thesometimesaint]

The term is climate change, not global warming, these days. 

 

Both have been used interchangeably since the 1896.

[thesometimesaint]

Have you ever considered that the mainstream consensus is bought and paid for?  As much as we'd like to believe otherwise, "science" is not free from bias.

 

SEE Bad, Badder, Best

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/10/25/bad-badder-best-the-video-is-here/

[Danzo]

My Thoughts

This issue should not be a politcal one, but a scientific and an engineering one.

Temperature is a fact.

Whether it is increasing or not is something that is measurable.

Whether it will or not in the future, (i.e. predicting the weather) is something that still has a high degree of uncertainty (I haven't seen exact predictions, but probabilities)

 

The effects of the increase, or decrease should be measured in a cost/benefit way.

 

Sometimes I feel that some alarmists think that change is bad for its own sake, maybe even a sin, and that this weather change needs to be avoided at any cost.

 

I am skeptical of some proposed policies to address global warming. I haven't heard yet of a measurable benefit a certain policy will have,(i.e. we pass a carbon tax and next year (or ten years later, or whatever) we won't have snow in Atlanta (or whatever the prediction is).

 

I also believe there are other advantages to reducing dependence on fossil fuels that conservatives can agree on (less dependence on foreign oil, less dependence on big energy companies, less dependence on government). Therefore development of renewable energy is something I can support even if there were no such thing as a climate change problem.

 

Most environmentalists that are screaming about global warming are probably using it as an excuse to promote their agenda, and do not believe in it or do not believe it will cause as much damage as they say they it will. If they really believed it was such a problem, they would be pushing for nuclear power like crazy (what is a few potential radiation problems compared to global disaster).  Since they are not, I must believe that they do not see global warming as a big problem.

 

One thing that hurts the global warming proponents case (and annoys me greatly) is how they use it as the unifying theory of everything. (if its cold, its because of global warming, if its hot it is because of global warming, if it rains, it is because of global warming, if it doesn't rain it is because of global warming, if the Seahawks make it to the super bowl, it is because of global warming, etc)

[juliann]

The scriptures say before the Second Coming the whole world will be in commotion. These commotions wii be in response to the cold reception (pun intended) of the world's people to the message of the Restored Gospel, and for this reason the Lord is going to send forth great convulsions of nature. The Prophet Joseph Smith called these chastening meteorological and seismic forces "the sermon of nature." One imagines that when this time of great tribulation comes the spiritually blind will be placing the blame for these cataclysms of nature on all sorts of things except for the right thing -- their own wickedness and refusal to repent.

 Standing exposed on a tall ramp isn't a good position to be in when the Lord gets an urge to kill everyone in your city with meteors and earthquakes.  Just sayin'

[Ares]

Quick someone relate this discussion back to Mormon dialogue and discussion or it closes.

[Sky]

Quick someone relate this discussion back to Mormon dialogue and discussion or it closes.

 

 

How about this for starters?

 

http://mormonmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/JRCLS-Lesson-on-the-Environment-_Updated.pdf

[Ares]

How about this for starters?

 

http://mormonmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/JRCLS-Lesson-on-the-Environment-_Updated.pdf

Point to Sky.

[The Nehor]

Have you ever considered that the mainstream consensus is bought and paid for? As much as we'd like to believe otherwise, "science" is not free from bias.

Yes, but who is paying for it and why? There is no political benefit to horrible news like this. No one wants to have to deal with it.

I can see a financial incentive for people in denying it but none for supporting it. I also see little reason to believe that scientists with no overt bribery are buying it while those who are denying it are almost all openly being paid to be shills and do so.

[drums12]

Yes, but who is paying for it and why? There is no political benefit to horrible news like this. No one wants to have to deal with it.

I can see a financial incentive for people in denying it but none for supporting it. I also see little reason to believe that scientists with no overt bribery are buying it while those who are denying it are almost all openly being paid to be shills and do so.

No political benefit?  Are you kidding?  I suppose carbon taxes won't benefit anyone who is politically connected.

[strappinglad]

So, if a business pays for a study then the study results must be biased. If Government or Nations pay for a study then the results are always pure and untainted. Got it !

[drums12]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100238047/global-warming-believers-are-feeling-the-heat/

[Calm]

Point to Sky.

And apparently only Sky...

[The Nehor]

No political benefit?  Are you kidding?  I suppose carbon taxes won't benefit anyone who is politically connected.

 

Not really. Taxes are never popular. They always tick someone off.

 

 

So, if a business pays for a study then the study results must be biased. If Government or Nations pay for a study then the results are always pure and untainted. Got it !

 

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Of course not. However businesses are there to make profit. They do not commission studies out of sheer intellectual curiosity. Government money going towards studies is less of an issue because they are not nearly as invested. I would trust academic studies more then government. While they can be as petty as anyone else their funding is not usually as tied to making anyone happy.

 

I will say that the pseudoscientific studies being discussed here are beyond simple bias. They are pretty much just flat out lies.

[drums12]

Not really. Taxes are never popular. They always tick someone off.

 

 

 

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. Of course not. However businesses are there to make profit. They do not commission studies out of sheer intellectual curiosity. Government money going towards studies is less of an issue because they are not nearly as invested. I would trust academic studies more then government. While they can be as petty as anyone else their funding is not usually as tied to making anyone happy.

 

I will say that the pseudoscientific studies being discussed here are beyond simple bias. They are pretty much just flat out lies.

Governments make profits too.  The difference is their customers have no choice. 

[Robert F. Smith]

You know what I meant. To fear the gas you and I produce in order to stay alive is stupid and it's disheartening for someone of your intelligence to believe it's gonna kill us all. And I was only offering a possible suggestion alternative to your anthropomorphic global warming creed in that God is unleashing the true kraken upon us mortal men. But when God does so it has everything to do with mam not obeying His commandments and nothing to do with building smoke stacks and driving SUV's.

Good grief

I'm glad to see you've got your ears on, Darren, but I don't think that's gonna help you practice good stewardship in the way that Brother Brigham intended for us to do.  You can read about that in Hugh Nibley's Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints (FARMS/Deseret Book, 1994).  Some great stuff in there about environmental stewardship.

 

You may not care particularly whether millions will die in India, China, Bangladesh, etc., cause, after all, we will remain relatively safe here in fortress America, and Utah may even get around to doing something real about the horrible inversion layer of deadly gases we have to contend  with each winter.  God is not punishing us.  He is letting us stew in our own juices   Simple question:  Are you willing to take the blame?  Or are your children going to look back and wonder why Daddy just didn't get it?  Is that the legacy you want to leave?

 

Please discuss without accusing people of not caring about human life.

[The Nehor]

Governments make profits too.  The difference is their customers have no choice. 

 

Uhhh....no. Governments collect revenue but most do not make profit. The United States certainly does not.

[Coreyb]

All we have yet heard and we have experienced is scarcely a preface to the sermon that is going to be preached. When the testimony of the Elders ceases to be given, and the Lord says to them, “Come home; I will now preach my own sermons to the nations of the earth,” all you now know can scarcely be called a preface to the sermon that will be preached with fire and sword, tempests, earthquakes, hail, rain, thunders and lightnings, and fearful destruction. What matters the destruction of a few railway cars? You will hear of magnificent cities, now idolized by the people, sinking in the earth, entombing the inhabitants. The sea will heave itself beyond its bounds, engulfing mighty cities. Famine will spread over the nations and nation will rise up against nation, kingdom against kingdom and states against states, in our own country and in foreign lands; and they will destroy each other, caring not for the blood and lives of their neighbors, of their families, or for their own lives -Brigham Young (DBY, 111–12).

 

I won't reduce my carbon emissions until all this happens

 

or my sins

[strappinglad]

Scientists are humans too. They need a job. They need funding  and grants provide that funding. Government has funds for those that toe the agenda de jour. Look at the Kyoto accord and the latest accord and see what is being asked of the developed nations and which nations will benefit from the acceptance  of those demands. As Nehor suggested , follow the money. If the West is hamstrung by increasingly stringent regulations and carbon taxes ,while major polluting nations are given a free ride and the world's poorest nations are restricted from developing their resources because  it would involve using fossil fuels , again it must be asked, who ultimately benefits.

 

 The West thinks in terms of a 4 year cycle , the East doesn't mind and even prefers to think in decades if not centuries. while the West in constantly running around putting out fires , the East is calmly gathering kindling.

 

 China is the 900 lb. Tiger in the room. It doesn't have to attack. It just has to put its claws around the Wests wallet  .We shouldn't complain because the Eagle used to do the same thing , when it had money.

[BCSpace]

A fourteen year drought in the American Southwest has Lake Mead dangerously low and the Colorado River drying up.  http://news.yahoo.co...946346-cbs.html .

 .

As sometimesaint pointed out on another thread (http://www.mormondia...ther-end-times/):

Extreme events are increasing and more likely to occur with more heat in the air/water.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...ate-perspective

 

I don't know about Elijah and the climate. But this winter has been the warmest on record in Alaska. The phenomenon of Global Warming is causing the Arctic Oscillation that is freezing much of the north eastern US.

 

Should we respond by denial, or is it time to get real?

 

There is no science whatsoever linking this drought to 'climate change'.   For example and from a leading media AGW supporter:

 

California’s drought will be one of the extreme weather events that the American Meteorological Society will examine later this year to determine whether the cause is natural variability or human-caused climate change, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center said Tuesday.

 

Agency Director Thomas Karl said federal officials have not yet linked the drought directly to climate change. “I’m sure there’s a way, but we haven’t done it yet,” Karl said.

 

Karl made his comments during a conference call with reporters on findings by NOAA and NASA that 2013 tied with 2003 as the fourth-warmest year globally since record-keeping began in 1880.

 

The American Meteorological Society’s study will be similar to one the group undertook of extreme weather events of 2012. In September, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society released a report, “Explaining Extreme Events of 2012 from a Climate Perspective,” finding that a Midwest drought was mainly due to natural variation in weather, but that climate change was a factor in U.S. heat waves that spring and summer.

 

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2014/01/21/federal-officials-cant-say-yet-if-california-drought-due-to-warming/

 

Notice the standard assumption of a link ("I'm sure there's a way") which matches what's been going on the false world of AGW; the fudging of data to match needed results. There is also plenty of science disputing the other actual climate change claims being made in this article.  Proof left to the student since the climate change claims made in this thread were so easily overturned..

[The Nehor]

Scientists are humans too. They need a job. They need funding  and grants provide that funding. Government has funds for those that toe the agenda de jour. Look at the Kyoto accord and the latest accord and see what is being asked of the developed nations and which nations will benefit from the acceptance  of those demands. As Nehor suggested , follow the money. If the West is hamstrung by increasingly stringent regulations and carbon taxes ,while major polluting nations are given a free ride and the world's poorest nations are restricted from developing their resources because  it would involve using fossil fuels , again it must be asked, who ultimately benefits.

 

 The West thinks in terms of a 4 year cycle , the East doesn't mind and even prefers to think in decades if not centuries. while the West in constantly running around putting out fires , the East is calmly gathering kindling.

 

 China is the 900 lb. Tiger in the room. It doesn't have to attack. It just has to put its claws around the Wests wallet  .We shouldn't complain because the Eagle used to do the same thing , when it had money.

No, China pollutes at a level the United States does not. Carbon emissions controls would be a blow to the US. It would do much more damage to China.

[thesometimesaint]

My Thoughts

This issue should not be a politcal one, but a scientific and an engineering one.

Temperature is a fact.

Whether it is increasing or not is something that is measurable.

Whether it will or not in the future, (i.e. predicting the weather) is something that still has a high degree of uncertainty (I haven't seen exact predictions, but probabilities)

 

The effects of the increase, or decrease should be measured in a cost/benefit way.

 

Sometimes I feel that some alarmists think that change is bad for its own sake, maybe even a sin, and that this weather change needs to be avoided at any cost.

 

I am skeptical of some proposed policies to address global warming. I haven't heard yet of a measurable benefit a certain policy will have,(i.e. we pass a carbon tax and next year (or ten years later, or whatever) we won't have snow in Atlanta (or whatever the prediction is).

 

I also believe there are other advantages to reducing dependence on fossil fuels that conservatives can agree on (less dependence on foreign oil, less dependence on big energy companies, less dependence on government). Therefore development of renewable energy is something I can support even if there were no such thing as a climate change problem.

 

Most environmentalists that are screaming about global warming are probably using it as an excuse to promote their agenda, and do not believe in it or do not believe it will cause as much damage as they say they it will. If they really believed it was such a problem, they would be pushing for nuclear power like crazy (what is a few potential radiation problems compared to global disaster).  Since they are not, I must believe that they do not see global warming as a big problem.

 

One thing that hurts the global warming proponents case (and annoys me greatly) is how they use it as the unifying theory of everything. (if its cold, its because of global warming, if its hot it is because of global warming, if it rains, it is because of global warming, if it doesn't rain it is because of global warming, if the Seahawks make it to the super bowl, it is because of global warming, etc)

 

They are scientific and engineering problems. The solution is a political one to implement. IE; When we wanted to go the moon. It was President Kennedy, neither a scientist nor engineer in his own right, called upon this country to put a man on the moon and return him safely within a decade. We hired the best scientists and engineers we could find to figure out how to do it. The politics was beat the USSR there, and we did.

 

The heat on the earth's surface is increasing. That has been measured and quantified.

 

Repeat after me. Weather is not climate. Everyone expects winters to be cold, and summers to be hot. The problem is that winters are getting progressively warmer and so are summers.

 

OK lets look at the costs. What are the costs of the 9 year long drought, so far, we're having right now in California? California produces a great many of the fruits, nuts, and vegetables that the US and the rest of world eats. We're forgetting about the seasonal row crops, and now are trying to save the trees. California is also the 6th-8th largest economic power in the world, depending on whose counting. There are only a few other countries that are economically as large. The taxes Californian's pay subsidizes places like Utah.

 

Now let's look at the benefits. Well the sale of air conditioners goes up, a little. More electricity is used. Plants and animals use more water when it is hot. I guess those are benefits, but I don't exactly to whom.

 

It is not the change in and of itself that is the problem. It is the rate at which it is changing that is the problem. Who gives a darn if it takes 10,000 more years for the climate to change? Overall the earth has gained a little over one degree F. in the last one hundred year. One hundred years on a geologic time scale is less than the blink of an eye. IE; A car that hits you at 1 mile per hour, is going to hurt a whole lot less than one that hits you at 60 miles per hour, assuming you live through the experience.

 

I've never been a alarmist. We shouldn't yell at each other unless our house is literally on fire.

 

What we can and should do is not waist our precious resources. IE; When one of your home appliances wears out. Replace it with one that uses less energy. Don't buy things that have more packaging than product. If you can ride a bike, take a bus, or train to work, ride share. If you can, work from home, more and more jobs use telecommuting. If you can, walk to work on nice days. You'll get needed exercise and feel better at the same time. Plant a garden if you can. A few square feet will produce more than most people realize.. You'll get fresher better tasting produce, and it will cost you less money than going to the grocery stores. These are just a few of hundreds of things we can do to help limit the bad things that do come with climate change.

 

If someone is telling you to sell all you have and give it to the poor. It might be a good idea to at least listen. OTOH We do live in a capitalistic society, and we all need a certain amount of stuff just to make life reasonably safe and comfortable.

 

The critics of Global Warming have never and will never stop being critics. Most if not all have an economic incentive for it. IE; James Mountain Inhofe is a paid shill for the oil companies that fund his political campaigns. The Koch brothers are oil Billionaires. The last thing they want is for you to use less oil.

SEE the ties between Big Tobacco, Big Oil and the Tea Party

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/study-confirms-tea-party-_b_2663125.html

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/25/new-video-links-between-big-tobacco-and-climate-denial-rhymes-with-smoky-joe/

 

I guess you'll just have to ask the Japanese about Fukishima and the Ukrainians about Chernobyl on how safe nuclear power is. Lets not trade one bad idea for another bad idea.

 

Repeat after me Weather is not Climate. A single weather event can not and does not mean a change in climate. It has been know to get 100 degrees F. in Anchorage; Alaska. Just as it has been known to snow where I live in southern California. To conflate the climate of southern California with that of Anchorage; Alaska is less than juvenile, at best.

[thesometimesaint]

There is no science whatsoever linking this drought to 'climate change'.   For example and from a leading media AGW supporter:

 

 

Notice the standard assumption of a link ("I'm sure there's a way") which matches what's been going on the false world of AGW; the fudging of data to match needed results. There is also plenty of science disputing the other actual climate change claims being made in this article.  Proof left to the student since the climate change claims made in this thread were so easily overturned..

 

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2010/2010-07-08-01.html

 

Incorrect. There is no science disputing Global Warming.

http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/main-video/how-to-talk-to-an-ostrich

NASA on Global Warming http://climate.nasa.gov/

NOAA on Global Warming http://www.noaa.gov/climate.html

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Biological Sciences
• American Meteorological Society
• American Society of Agronomy
• American Society of Plant Biologists
• American Statistical Association
• Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
• Botanical Society of America
• Crop Science Society of America
• Ecological Society of America
• Natural Science Collections
• Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations
• Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
• Society of Systematic Biologists
• Soil Science Society of America
• University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

Universities on Global Warming

http://www.desmogblog.com/media-journalist-contact-list-global-warming-climate-change-experts-scientists

[strappinglad]

TSS, as you live in California, can you direct me to a source that compares the amount of air pollution around LA now and in the 1970s? I drove through LA in 73 and thought I was going to die when traffic stalled for half an hour and I was beneath an underpass. I know major improvements in auto tech has reduced the pollutants significantly. Has the population increase etc. offset that reduction or are things much better?

[urroner]

TSS said:

 

The critics of Global Warming have never and will never stop being critics. Most if not all have an economic incentive for it.

 I say:

The critics of the critics of Global Warming have never and will never stop being critics.  Most, if not all, have an economic incentive for it.

 

 

I guess you'll just have to ask the Japanese about Fukishima and the Ukrainians about Chernobyl on how safe nuclear power is. Lets not trade one bad idea for another bad idea.

 

Recently, there was an car pile up where about 10 people were killed and about thirty were injured.  I guess you'll have to ask these people and their family about how safe automobiles are.  Horses weren't all that bad, but it took about an eternity to get somewhere, especially if there was an emergency.  Talk about trading one bad idea for another bad idea.

I haven't been following this thread very much.  Many global warming advocates tend to be pretend that the sun has very little to do with global warming, it's mostly the result of man.  These same ones also, in my experience, tend to poo-poo the record of extreme climate change which has occurred in the past.

 

They want us to spend trillion of dollars on project which will reverse global warming and they whip out their scientific models which predict the imminent threat of global ecological collapse if we don't immediate take drastic changes.  Funny thing is, these models sure don't take into account a lot of things that affect climate and don't predict things really well and they want us to spend lots money to make changes that might not do anything to change anything except spend lots of money.

 

 

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated. – Ottmar Edenhofer (co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III.)

[thesometimesaint]

TSS, as you live in California, can you direct me to a source that compares the amount of air pollution around LA now and in the 1970s? I drove through LA in 73 and thought I was going to die when traffic stalled for half an hour and I was beneath an underpass. I know major improvements in auto tech has reduced the pollutants significantly. Has the population increase etc. offset that reduction or are things much better?

 

Several types of pollution by the 1970's were actually getting better by numerous measurements(Particulates, and the components of Photochemical smog) in particular) . What is not disputed is that CO2 levels have continued to increase.