Global Warming Is Upon Us Bigtime

[Robert F. Smith]

Darren10, on 01 Feb 2014 - 01:19 AM, said:

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

The moderator addressed your accusation that I don't care about human life so I'll leave that issue alone. But now that I'm back to post here (for now) I'd like to address this on its own post.

 

Don't you realize how pathetic and dull your question is? It is of no substance and designed to only illicit fear and guilt upon the recipient in order to get them on baord of the man-made global warming alarmists. I'm leaving my children a great scientific legacy regarding global warming. I teach them it's natural, not by CO2 omissions, that water vapor has a far greater (vastly greater, there is no comparison) influence on temperature regulation than does CO2, that implamenting government's calls to curve global warming would devastate the economy and only worsen global warming (but even that will be minimal, environmental devestation will be far worse).

Your own words condemn you, as shown above..

 Although you claim that you are leaving "a great scientific legacy" for your children, and although you claim that it is God's judgment that will be visiting destruction on man, and not global warming, I see no evidence in your comments that you have even the slightest idea what science is or how one goes about understanding it.

 

You throw around ad hominems rather loosely and show disrespect and contempt for those who do not share your views.  Rather than discuss the science or attempt to engage in a real dialogue on  the issues.  Is that what the Gospel teaches you?  Is that what our probationary state here is all about?

[The Nehor]

What concerns me is that we have here a puerile "tis so, tis not" tirade from both sides, and almost no concern with the science.  Everyone is pointing fingers and claiming that the other side is making money by carrying on the debate.  It is all about motive, and not about actual guilt or innocence.  Have any of you ever heard the word "evidence"?

 

From what I have seen no one here is truly capable of evaluating the data. It is incredibly complicated, involves a lot of factors, and (perhaps worst of all) is very difficult to summarize easily. Add in a strong economic motive and you end up with chaos.

 

The few people who have made it their life's work to study the situation are drowned out in popular culture by crazy commentators and conspiracy nuts.

 

I admit I believe it is a problem because I trust those who have studied the problem. They appear unified. If any substantial number of them broke ranks and called the whole thing as a hoax there are people out there who would pay them a lot of money to do so but they don't. Instead those arguing the anti side are largely amateurs at best and quacks operating outside their field at worst.

 

I would love to learn enough to be able to say with certainty that I know which side is right but I am pretty sure climate change is real. It is really too late to stop it at this point so we need to mitigate it if we can without crippling ourselves and make preparations to deal with the effects. The problem is that the problem is complex enough that it is difficult to say what will happen when it starts hitting hard (another reason opponents yuck it up suggesting the scientists are clueless).

[Darren10]

So your legacy is parroting what others told you? Have you considered foster care for your children?

 

Funny man (though annoying at times). You honestly think Robert F. Smith is purorting original thinking here? As for me, I've offered nothing not backed up but substance whereas, as I pointed out, such cannot be said by someone on the man-made global warming side of the isle.

[Darren10]

Yes Utah contributes to Global Warming.

 

So does the water cycle. I still say that Utah is hardly *global* warming. Nothing spoken (or typed as it is) here has addressed how Utah contributes to global warming.

[Darren10]

That CO2 holds heat is was proven in 1896. Water Vapor is a trailing indicator. No it would not devastate our economy anymore than stopping burning whale oil did a century and half ago.  It is just your lack of imagination that prevents you seeing that relatively easy steps can greatly reduce our dependence on burning fossil fuels. Dollars to donuts the Computer you are using right now uses far less materials and electrical energy than the computers of the 1950's.

 

Of course it's shown that CO2 holds heat. But what is not factored is how the earth deals with CO2. Plants suck it up (thus why burning fossil fuels releases it). Oceans control carbons. And there is no experiment ever done, nor could it possibly be done currently, where CO2 presence makes the *globe* warmer. History als contradicts man-made global warming.

 

My "lack of imagination" is based on reality. Could you name one alternative fuel program mandated / funded by government which has made "man-made" global warming better and / or economically cheaper? Factor in all costs, even tax dollars.

 

Your computer example shows the advantaes of economic development via industrialization. From the 1950s until the present, by and large, people have been free to develope their ideas, without governent regulation. Except for the outstanding Pioneer Kuros plasma television (ahhhh, what a set that was), things have consistantly become better and more efficient. That's due to allowing people to imagine solutions to make things better and cheaper and to do so based upon reality.

[thesometimesaint]

 

TSS said:

Quote

What concerns me is that we have here a puerile "tis so, tis not" tirade from both sides, and almost no concern with the science.  Everyone is pointing fingers and claiming that the other side is making money by carrying on the debate.  It is all about motive, and not about actual guilt or innocence.  Have any of you ever heard the word "evidence"?

 

[The Nehor]

Funny man (though annoying at times). You honestly think Robert F. Smith is purorting original thinking here? As for me, I've offered nothing not backed up but substance whereas, as I pointed out, such cannot be said by someone on the man-made global warming side of the isle.

[Darren10]

 

Darren10, on 01 Feb 2014 - 01:19 AM, said:

Your own words condemn you, as shown above..

 Although you claim that you are leaving "a great scientific legacy" for your children, and although you claim that it is God's judgment that will be visiting destruction on man, and not global warming, I see no evidence in your comments that you have even the slightest idea what science is or how one goes about understanding it.

 

You throw around ad hominems rather loosely and show disrespect and contempt for those who do not share your views.  Rather than discuss the science or attempt to engage in a real dialogue on  the issues.  Is that what the Gospel teaches you?  Is that what our probationary state here is all about?

 

[Darren10]

I think you mean aisle 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am more worried about the economic tsunami headed our way.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A fourteen year drought in the American Southwest has Lake Mead dangerously low and the Colorado River drying up.  http://news.yahoo.com/video/western-u-drought-puts-big-003946346-cbs.html .

 

[thesometimesaint]

There are real limits of how much CO2 plants can take up.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production.html

 

Ocean do soak up CO2. They are turning acidic.

http://www.livescience.com/18786-ocean-acidification-extinction.html

 

It is us.

 

Higher fuel economy standards means the release of less CO2.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/climate.shtml

 

Change to hydrogen fuel and the air coming out of the tail pipe is cleaner than the air going in.

http://www.geek.com/mobile/bmws-exhaust-cleaner-than-surrounding-air-in-hydrogen-7-1371749/

 

I don't have a plasma TV. Mine is a LED one. While it has a bigger, better, brighter picture and sound, it uses less than half the electricity my old tube style TV did. Same reduction in electrical use with my computer monitor. Same with my other HE appliances. I'm not advocating giving up anything in our modern society other than our wasteful habits. 

 

We didn't go to the moon on private dollars, and neither did Cristoforo Colombo travel west on his own dime. Sometimes governments have a positive role to play in our advancement of our world.

 

I'm all for using our imaginations. Add in an economic incentive so much the better.

[thesometimesaint]

Why has lake Mead dangerously low Robert? Is it possible because LV has grown and used more of the water? Has LA used some of Lake Mead? Nope it is climate change. Robert quick, do something. The evidence!!! Sorry for my mocking tone. I really can't help it.

 

Sorry Robert I hold your in high respect for most of what you say as you are really quit intelligent. I just don't know who you can buy all this crap as being AWG and all the alarmism that is going on with it. To each their own I guess. I just am not buying any of this kool aide.

 

You are putting the cart before the horse. Lakes and rivers totally depend on water flowing into them. Not water flowing out of them.

 

Where have I suggested do anything alarming? Use less power to achieve the same goal. IE; Heat your water using the sun, while limiting the use of electricity or natural gas to backup status. Sounds like a win/win to me.

[Darren10]

To observe a Holocene environment, simply look around you! The Holocene is the name given to the last 11,700 years* of the Earth's history — the time since the end of the last major glacial epoch, or "ice age." Since then, there have been small-scale climate shifts — notably the "Little Ice Age" between about 1200 and 1700 A.D. — but in general, the Holocene has been a relatively warm period in between ice ages.

 

That means the earth's been warming for the past 11,000 years except for the 500 year period which the 'Little Ice Age' came into town.

 

CO2s anyone?

 

The Holocene Epoch

 

 

Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

 

Reid Bryson is one of the first pioneers in environmental science. Here's my favorite quote I know of from him. this is found in the question/answer forum of the link provided (bold mine):

 

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

 

 

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html

[Darren10]

Lakes and rivers totally depend on water flowing into them. Not water flowing out of them.

 

 

So what does irrigating a river do to the river?

 

 

 Use less power to achieve the same goal. IE; Heat your water using the sun, while limiting the use of electricity or natural gas to backup status. Sounds like a win/win to me.

 

Feel free to practice that, my friend.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are putting the cart before the horse. Lakes and rivers totally depend on water flowing into them. Not water flowing out of them.

 

Where have I suggested do anything alarming? Use less power to achieve the same goal. IE; Heat your water using the sun, while limiting the use of electricity or natural gas to backup status. Sounds like a win/win to me.

Um Saint you are aware that Las Vegas gets its water from Lake Mead? Did you know that? What you are saying is irrelevant. They released a time lapse video from the 70' to 2005 showing the growth of Les Vegas and the lake. As Vegas grew the lake shrunk. And you guys want to attribute that to AWG. Give me a break. The lake shrunk because they are using more of it for the locals in Vegas.

[Darren10]

And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

 

(Genesis 9:1)

 

And the Gods said: We will bless them. And the Gods said: We will cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and to have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 

(Abraham 4:28)

 

And they were exceedingly industrious, and they did buy and sell and traffic one with another, that they might get gain.

 

(Ether 10:22)

 

And they did work in all manner of ore, and they did make gold, and silver, and iron, and brass, and all manner of metals; and they did dig it out of the earth; wherefore, they did cast up mighty heaps of earth to get ore, of gold, and of silver, and of iron, and of copper. And they did work all manner of fine work.

 

(Ether 10:23)

 

How does shutting down industry help any of this?

[The Nehor]

 How does shutting down industry help any of this?

This is a strawman. No one wants to shut down industry. Well, almost no one. I suppose there are a few quacks who do.

Most want to mitigate the effects of climate change as we can and prepare for any shifts as best we can. Shutting down industry and reverting to pre-industrial society would result in mass starvation and most people know that.

Reasonable incentives to cut CO2 emissions, develop power sources with less negative externalities, and other changes may help to mitigate what is coming. To prepare we need to look at food production and how to ensure it can sustain the population even under a more adverse climate and with a possible loss of arable land. We need to look at what species food chains will be adversely affected and try as best we can to predict what the results will be. These things are going to cost money and will not produce immediate economic benefits but they need to be done or we can roll the dice and see what happens.

[ERayR]

 

TSS said:

Quote

What concerns me is that we have here a puerile "tis so, tis not" tirade from both sides, and almost no concern with the science.  Everyone is pointing fingers and claiming that the other side is making money by carrying on the debate.  It is all about motive, and not about actual guilt or innocence.  Have any of you ever heard the word "evidence"?

 

 

Have any of you ever heard the word "evidence"? As in lack of or better yet manufactured.

 

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55088?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=21394fa61a-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-21394fa61a-297694005

[ERayR]

Most want to mitigate the effects of climate change as we can and prepare for any shifts as best we can.

 

To do this somebody better learn how to control the normal cycles, both short and long term.

[thesometimesaint]

Um Saint you are aware that Las Vegas gets its water from Lake Mead? Did you know that? What you are saying is irrelevant. They released a time lapse video from the 70' to 2005 showing the growth of Les Vegas and the lake. As Vegas grew the lake shrunk. And you guys want to attribute that to AWG. Give me a break. The lake shrunk because they are using more of it for the locals in Vegas.

 

You are still putting the cart before the horse. Less rain means less water there is to flow into creating lakes and rivers for people to use. The size of "Lost Wages" is an independent variable, but of necessity a related one.

[thesometimesaint]

Have any of you ever heard the word "evidence"? As in lack of or better yet manufactured.

 

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/55088?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=21394fa61a-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-21394fa61a-297694005

 

The so called "Canadian Free Press" is not a trustworthy source of information.

http://www.climatechange.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=E18C8F2D-1

[The Nehor]

To do this somebody better learn how to control the normal cycles, both short and long term.

 

Why is the sole emphasis for everyone on whose fault it is?

 

Judging by the Climate Change debate there are people who would stand in the path of a tsunami stamping their feet insisting the whole thing is not their fault rather then get to work preparing.

[Robert F. Smith]

Once again, Robert, I only *offered a possibility* that God may be unleashing His wrath and causing the recent environmental oddities (not unknown, just odd). Frankly, it's not what I believe. I'm very much a deist when it comes to weather calamities unless it is spoken of explicitly by the prophets. I made no conclusion unlike yourself blaming man's release of the gas which comes out of his own nose almost every second. It is also you who opened this thread accusing folks like me of ignoring the man-made global warming issue and the all too obvious signs that we the human race are wreaking havoc upon our dear planet because, implying that we produce way too much CO2.  It is you, sir, who shows disrespect for others. I say this with your opening statement as I just mentioned, your purpose in installing fear and guilt upon me in order to get me on your creedal bandwagon, your accusation that I perhaps do not care that people are dying for not adhiring to what you think is blatant truth with man's science, and now for showing your own blindness to your own contempt and blaming me for what you practice. You're way above following these practices, Robert. I hold you to a much much higher esteem than this.

 

.....................................................

 

Ummmm, sir, this is your thread and your opening thread opened this dialogue up to accusations. You made no scientific citations in neither your opening statement nor in any other subsequent post I am aware of. You did not do so and now accuse me of ignoring science? That, sir, is pathetic. If you want to debate science, why did not not provide anything scientific beyond what your flesh feels in the cold and mentioning Utah's weather inversion? Even in the latter, you made no scientific inquiry or substantial support. Nor did you in any way ink that to global warming. Toxins and CO2s are two very different things. Although this may not be the correct forum to have a scientific debate unless it's connected to Mormonism, feel free to open it up to such a dialogue. It's your thread, not mine.

 

.....................................................

Here's my OP and your immediate response, Darren.  Perhaps you could explain why your false description of my OP is correct.  I don't see it.

 

 

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?

 

 

Darren10, on 04 Feb 2014 - 08:56 AM, said:

Oh, please. You cannot show any connection to global warming. If anything it's the sins of man wroughting the wrath of God. And I'm not talikng about being bad stewarts over our resources. Good grief.

[Danzo]

Non Sequitur.

 

It means you are not genuinely afraid of global warming.

 

 

if you do not support the largest non carbon power generator, you obviously are not that concerned about carbon power.

 

And you have no idea of the relative risks of the various forms of power generation.

 

You will excuse me if I think you are operating more out of fear than logic.