Pushing The "global Warming Hysteria" A Form Of Priestcraft?

[longview]

2 Nephi 26:

 

 22 And there are also secret combinations, even as in times of old, according to the combinations of the devil, for he is the founder of all these things; yea, the founder of murder, and works of darkness; yea, and he leadeth them by the neck with a flaxen cord, until he bindeth them with his strong cords forever.

 

 29 He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.

 

 30 Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish.

 

 

This is not a political post, even though many tend to focus on that aspect.  My approach is to address the moral concerns for:  [1] misuse of science;  [2] deception for the purpose gaining power for an "elite" class of bureaucrats.  Today I read a very interesting article by a blogger by the name of Adrian Vance.  He makes many cogent points about numerous bad science being put forth to cause panic among the people.  Here is the link:

 

http://adrianvance.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-un-ipcc-report.html

 

I welcome a non-political review of the science outlined in this article.

[The Nehor]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Oh wait.......you're serious?

 

Allow me to debunk your whole worldview real quick. The purpose of secret combinations is to get gain and glory, usually by telling people what they want to here. The "global warming conspiracy":

 

1. Is not telling people what they want to hear. To mitigate CO2 emissions would require vast cuts in standard of living and uncomfortable changes to lifestyle.

 

2. Is not making people money. There is a lot of profit to be preserved in avoiding cutbacks of CO2 emissions but saying the problem is real requires harming the economy through difficult changes.

 

3. Is not getting anyone any glory. Efforts to combat global warming are not politically popular. Oh, lip service is fine but every climate scientist will tell you what we are doing is not enough and no politician is willing to stick their neck out to make sweeping changes to face the problem. It is political suicide. You are inflicting pain on people and you will almost certainly not be in office or perhaps even alive when your changes mitigate the situation or when your effort fails and you are vindicated. Al Gore gained some prestige but no one actually does anything. There is no "elite" class of bureaucrats making a killing on this or rising to fame and power.

 

On the other hand climate change deniers:

 

1. Tell people what they want to hear. No change is required. This is natural and if anything is happening none of the blame belongs to us anyways. Go ahead and keep doing what you are doing.

 

2. Protects the industrial production and power owned by the wealthy and keeps their profits up. There is no need to renovate the economy with all the danger that holds for entrenched interests. Carry on.

 

3. Glory abounds. Non-climate scientists and even laymen can get money and prestige by championing junk science denying global warming. We have people on the radio rhapsodizing about the vast conspiracy which somehow includes almost every climate scientist alive selling books and getting industry-funded grants to share their junk science.

 

This is not a secret combination. At least not a big one. If you are looking for lying flattering words and people after gain and glory I think you are looking in the wrong direction.

[longview]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Oh wait.......you're serious?

 

Allow me to debunk your whole worldview real quick. The purpose of secret combinations is to get gain and glory, usually by telling people what they want to here. The "global warming conspiracy":

This is not a secret combination. At least not a big one. If you are looking for lying flattering words and people after gain and glory I think you are looking in the wrong direction.

 

It seems apparent you have not looked in the article.  There is too much hysteria here.  Can you try to take a deep breath and address some of the elements in the article?

[The Nehor]

It seems apparent you have not looked in the article.  There is too much hysteria here.  Can you try to take a deep breath and address some of the elements in the article?

 

I did look at it and had a good laugh. Let's take a look shall we?

 

The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is out and more alarming that any earlier release.  Of course we know why:  International socialism, must have something to hate and carbon dioxide, CO2 is the skunk of the atmosphere.

 

Apparently I am supposed to buy right out of the gate that socialists need to hate something. You would think they would hate other economic systems like capitalism or communism or feudalism but nope, they are obsessed with the weather for some reason. Not only that but they are organized on the international level. No doubt they meet in dark rooms and smoke cigars while they pull the puppet-strings of the world.

 

If the IPCC’s “Worst Case, Tipping Point! We’re all gonna die!” predictions came true it would be a period of plenty for all as it was 1000 years ago before we had liberals to blame man for everything bad.  Their case is not even supported the geologic history written and recorded forever in Antarctic ice.

 

You can tell this is a professional paper by the creative use of grammar. I am wondering why he considers 1000 AD a time of plenty. A vague reference to the ice saying global warming is not happening while conveniently failing to explain why. Hmmmm.....

 

Also most global warming predictions do not involve catastrophic world problems. A few do and they get press from hysteria because hysteria sells. Most climate scientists see it as a negative and that it will have repercussions but not that we are all going to die.

 

The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect; not the other way around.  This one study dashes the whole “global warming/climate change” argument.

 

A myth created by badly interpreting data.

 

The IPCC claims their report is based on more than 12,000 peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals which would have to include every one published.  Be that the case we have reported extensively on said studies and they are not in agreement with the IPCC.  A greater majority of the authors failed to endorse the hypothesis and rendered no opinion.  Naomi Oreskes and other such “meta-analysts” have falsely claimed these people endorsed the concept when they avoided making a comment on it.

 

This report was about those who tacitly support global warming and is accurate. Of course a lot of studies do not reference global warming. Silence does not mean disagreement.

 

We feel it is abundantly clear the UN IPCC Report on Climate Change is a political document devoid of scientific basis, support or impact.  The UN wants more American money\and International socialists want more power.  It is just that simple.

 

Get out your tinfoil hats. The UN is stealing our tax money and the evil cabal of socialists are coming to eat your babies.

 

IPCC panelist University of Sussex economist Richard Tol wrote in the report, "Rich people benefit from using all these fossil fuels, Poorer people lose out,” which is pure redistributionist socialism, but then Dr. Tol asked that his name be removed from the list of authors as he found the report “too alarmist and harping too much on risk.”   Even scoundrels have limits in the UN IPCC Report

 

It is amazing how this person can read the motives of everyone.

 

In summary:

 

Edited April 2, 2014 by The Nehor

[longview]

I did look at it and had a good laugh. Let's take a look shall we?

 

The fifth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is out and more alarming that any earlier release.  Of course we know why:  International socialism, must have something to hate and carbon dioxide, CO2 is the skunk of the atmosphere.

 

Apparently I am supposed to buy right out of the gate that socialists need to hate something. You would think they would hate other economic systems like capitalism or communism or feudalism but nope, they are obsessed with the weather for some reason. Not only that but they are organized on the international level. No doubt they meet in dark rooms and smoke cigars while they pull the puppet-strings of the world.

 

--How do you explain the EPA wanting to classify CO2 as a pollutant?  Since the "socialists" privately know global warming is bunk, they only need the common people to get worked up over CO2 emissions and getting them angry at businesses for supposedly producing too much carbon.  Their only motive is to mislead the people into demonizing CO2 and get them to agree to severe (but needless) restrictions on their quality of life but in the process "redistribute" the wealth from producing countries to 3rd world nation.  A form of taxation that is totally unwarranted.

 

 

If the IPCC’s “Worst Case, Tipping Point! We’re all gonna die!” predictions came true it would be a period of plenty for all as it was 1000 years ago before we had liberals to blame man for everything bad.  Their case is not even supported the geologic history written and recorded forever in Antarctic ice.

 

You can tell this is a professional paper by the creative use of grammar. I am wondering why he considers 1000 AD a time of plenty. A vague reference to the ice saying global warming is not happening while conveniently failing to explain why. Hmmmm.....

 

--it is common knowledge that it was so warm that Vikings were able to do a lot of farming on Greenland (get it?  It was called that because it was then warm enough, now Greenland is a frigid place).  Adrian Vance has explained in several posts in the past that global warming has preceded the increase in CO2 (not the other way around).  And also, the sun is the major determinant of world climate.

 

 

Also most global warming predictions do not involve catastrophic world problems. A few do and they get press from hysteria because hysteria sells. Most climate scientists see it as a negative and that it will have repercussions but not that we are all going to die.

 

--It is not just a "few", entire school systems, most universities (with vested interest in grants from government), high profile leaders such as Al Gore vigorously pushing for major shifts from very efficient carbon based energy to troublesome "alternate" power such as wind, solar, etc.  Children are being "terrorized" about the extinction (falsely, as it turns out) of polar bears, massive rise in sea levels by 40 feet, etc.

 

 

The Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 increases follow temperature increases by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect; not the other way around.  This one study dashes the whole “global warming/climate change” argument.

 

A myth created by badly interpreting data.

 

--I have seen multiple sources from other scientists that global warming occurred first, followed by increases in CO2 levels.

 

 

The IPCC claims their report is based on more than 12,000 peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals which would have to include every one published.  Be that the case we have reported extensively on said studies and they are not in agreement with the IPCC.  A greater majority of the authors failed to endorse the hypothesis and rendered no opinion.  Naomi Oreskes and other such “meta-analysts” have falsely claimed these people endorsed the concept when they avoided making a comment on it.

 

This report was about those who tacitly support global warming and is accurate. Of course a lot of studies do not reference global warming. Silence does not mean disagreement.

 

We feel it is abundantly clear the UN IPCC Report on Climate Change is a political document devoid of scientific basis, support or impact.  The UN wants more American money\and International socialists want more power.  It is just that simple.

 

Get out your tinfoil hats. The UN is stealing our tax money and the evil cabal of socialists are coming to eat your babies.

 

--The UN is not a very credible organization.  The world body voted to condemn Israel as an apartheid state which flies in the face of the great egalitarianism found in ethnicities having representation in all parts of Israel.  Yet they do not confront the nations that call for genocide against Israel.  The UN have voted notorious nations onto "human rights" panels.  So yes, the UN is a socialist organization in a multitude of ways. 

 

 

IPCC panelist University of Sussex economist Richard Tol wrote in the report, "Rich people benefit from using all these fossil fuels, Poorer people lose out,” which is pure redistributionist socialism, but then Dr. Tol asked that his name be removed from the list of authors as he found the report “too alarmist and harping too much on risk.”   Even scoundrels have limits in the UN IPCC Report

 

It is amazing how this person can read the motives of everyone.

 

--It should be obvious to everyone that all people benefit from the use of fossil fuel that are in fact highly concentrated forms of energy and very economical.  There is no sane reason for any kind of restrictions on the quality of life.  Except for some elements wanting to cut back the population of the world, impose their "visions" of a new world order . . . (yikes, get out the tin foil hats) . . .

[longview]

In comments section, Adrian made an interesting statement:
 

Adrian Vance10:33 AM, April 01, 2014
CO2 in the seas is really two stories. The greatest source of new CO2 in the atmosphere is the solution of limestone, CaCO3, in the fresh water coming from rain into all the streams. It is a major fraction, like 80% of the 160 gigatons of new CO2 every years. Man makes only six gigatons and America makes 20% while feeding half the world as our agriculture is twice to three times as efficient as any on the planet.

When the fresh water CO2 mixes with salt water a lot of CO2 comes out as it is less soluble in salt water. This is far-and-away the major source even though much CO2 from air also dissolves into the oceans. It is an equilibrium reaction situation that can be estimated, and the numbers are mind-boggling. They make this business about man a big joke to honest science guys.

The other joke is that the story the "missing heat" is in the abyssal zone, deep sea, is without a mechanism even postulated much less proved and causing a lot of smiles in the halls of oceanography..

This whole thing is a giant fraud and myth for money from you and me in higher taxes as many Ph.D. scientists think they are entitled to more from us because they are smart, but as I am from that world let me say that many of the guys with that degree were better as butt-kissing that the candidates that did not make it.

[Calm]

Why is this in social?

[longview]

Why is this in social?

My impression from previous threads is that topics of a very controversial (even contentious) nature should be placed in social (if I remember right).  What forum do you think it should be placed?

[Bikeemikey]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh wait.......you're serious?

Allow me to debunk your whole worldview real quick. The purpose of secret combinations is to get gain and glory, usually by telling people what they want to here. The "global warming conspiracy":

1. Is not telling people what they want to hear. To mitigate CO2 emissions would require vast cuts in standard of living and uncomfortable changes to lifestyle.

2. Is not making people money. There is a lot of profit to be preserved in avoiding cutbacks of CO2 emissions but saying the problem is real requires harming the economy through difficult changes.

3. Is not getting anyone any glory. Efforts to combat global warming are not politically popular. Oh, lip service is fine but every climate scientist will tell you what we are doing is not enough and no politician is willing to stick their neck out to make sweeping changes to face the problem. It is political suicide. You are inflicting pain on people and you will almost certainly not be in office or perhaps even alive when your changes mitigate the situation or when your effort fails and you are vindicated. Al Gore gained some prestige but no one actually does anything. There is no "elite" class of bureaucrats making a killing on this or rising to fame and power.

On the other hand climate change deniers:

1. Tell people what they want to hear. No change is required. This is natural and if anything is happening none of the blame belongs to us anyways. Go ahead and keep doing what you are doing.

2. Protects the industrial production and power owned by the wealthy and keeps their profits up. There is no need to renovate the economy with all the danger that holds for entrenched interests. Carry on.

3. Glory abounds. Non-climate scientists and even laymen can get money and prestige by championing junk science denying global warming. We have people on the radio rhapsodizing about the vast conspiracy which somehow includes almost every climate scientist alive selling books and getting industry-funded grants to share their junk science.

This is not a secret combination. At least not a big one. If you are looking for lying flattering words and people after gain and glory I think you are looking in the wrong direction.

First post and the entire idea of this thread is shown as ridiculous! Could not have said it better myself.

[The Nehor]

In comments section, Adrian made an interesting statement:

Translation: I am a failed climate scientist and this gives me a platform to call those who made it idiots.

Add in a bit of Dunning-Kruger and stir in blatant logical fallacies and we have Adrian Vance: failed climate scientist, hack writer, and all-around idiot. Oh, don't forget to add in a shadowy cabal of socialists who want to trash the economy under the idea that it will somehow make them popular for some reason.

I am not going to refute your last long post point by point. I could but it would be a waste of time. Maybe someone else has the time to waste. There are three ways to learn the truth about climate:

1. Become a climate scientist.

2. Learn a lot about climate science as an amateur so you understand what the experts are saying and can verify it or realize it is bunk.

3. Trust the experts (popular because it is the easiest).

Ways not to learn the truth:

1. Listen to any hack who shares your political and economic views and can misuse big words to impress you.

2. Find blogs that tell the "whole truth" and ignore that there is little to no nuance in the presentation and that the science is very dumbed down......why do you think that is?

3. Invent massive unidentified conspiracies that have somehow bought out entire scientific fields with illogical goals, impossible degrees of power, and who can be categorized as pure evil. These groups feed on the fears of the ignorant by giving them something to hate and at the same time a feeling of superiority as they are on the side of the angels and are one of the inner circle who actually know what is going on. It gives high drama to the lives of insipid small people and gives them a sense of heroism without actually having to do anything heroic.

Edited April 2, 2014 by The Nehor

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hey Nehor, the vast majority of people think that the global warming is a bunch of ****. So go ahead and worry your self to sleep at night for fear we are destroying our planet. Look at any national poll. No one is buying.

 

The best part of this load of a hoax is that all they have is climate models. They don't even have real data. They have nothing but a model to go off of, a model to project the future. And there are so many unknowns.  They have been wrong on so many levels. It really is a shame that some one as intelligent as Nehor would buy into it.

Edited April 2, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[sandude]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Oh wait.......you're serious?

 

This sadly is how climate change zealots are reacting to anyone who challenges their supposed "settled science".  Don't bother us, the thinking has already been done and if you don't agree with us then you're nothing but an ignoramus.  The Lord expects us to be good stewards of the earth and I think we all want a clean environment.  The Lord does not expect us to buy into junk science but rather search for truth wherever it can be found.

[The Nehor]

Hey Nehor, the vast majority of people think that the global warming is a bunch of ****. So go ahead and worry your self to sleep at night for fear we are destroying our planet. Look at any national poll. No one is buying.

 

The best part of this load of a hoax is that all they have is climate models. They don't even have real data. They have nothing but a model to go off of, a model to project the future. And there are so many unknowns.  They have been wrong on so many levels. It really is a shame that some one as intelligent as Nehor would buy into it.

I had no idea that truth was determined by consensus amongst those who have no idea what the hell they are talking about. Good, now I can sleep better at night. Polls are useful to determine what people believe. As an indicator of truth they are the worst form of testing. Most people are idiots. In fact stupidity is one of the signs of the Last Days.

Actually I am not afraid of global warming. I know there is no way we will scrape together the political and economic will to do anything about it. It will lead to some interesting times and probably a few catastrophes but I think humanity will pull through okay in the end assuming we do not do anything more stupid in the meantime.

Climate models are based on data. You use the data you have to create a model to try to determine what will happen when things change. Do you have the same skepticism about economic models or models of the solar system and insist they are all made up and have nothing to do with raw data?

[The Nehor]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Oh wait.......you're serious?

 

This sadly is how climate change zealots are reacting to anyone who challenges their supposed "settled science".  Don't bother us, the thinking has already been done and if you don't agree with us then you're nothing but an ignoramus.  The Lord expects us to be good stewards of the earth and I think we all want a clean environment.  The Lord does not expect us to buy into junk science but rather search for truth wherever it can be found.

That you see the article in the OP as a "challenge" entertains me to no end. You are known by the company you keep. Defend the ravings of an ignormamus and I will assume you are one.

[sandude]

That you see the article in the OP as a "challenge" entertains me to no end. You are known by the company you keep. Defend the ravings of an ignormamus and I will assume you are one.

 

I didn't even look at the article and I was not defending it.  I was simply commenting on you're lack of civility.

[Calm]

My impression from previous threads is that topics of a very controversial (even contentious) nature should be placed in social (if I remember right).  What forum do you think it should be placed?

No, it is actually the reverse. Social doesn't allow for debate.

[Bob Crockett]

I do think that blending a particular form of conservative political philosophy with Book of Mormon and New Testament teachings is a form of priestcraft of the worst sort.  The gospel is true but politics are not necessarily true.

[mormonnewb]

Hey Nehor, the vast majority of people think that the global warming is a bunch of ****. So go ahead and worry your self to sleep at night for fear we are destroying our planet. Look at any national poll. No one is buying.

"Hey, Mola, the vast majority of people think that the Book of Mormon is a bunch of ****. So go ahead and worry your self to sleep at night about temple covenants. Look at any national poll. No one is buying."

Perhaps, this is why we aren't taught to discern truth through public opinion polls.

Edited April 2, 2014 by mormonnewb

[thesometimesaint]

Long view:

 

I'm not going to address going to address all of your posts. I will address one.

 

1. CO2 is a pollutant to all animals. It always has been a pollutant. We exhale it to get rid of it out of our bodies. Too much CO2 and you die.

 

2. The burning of fuels produces CO2 whether in our bodies, or anything we burn.

 

3. CO2 traps heat. This was proven in the 1890's.

 

4. We are dumping excess CO2 into the air.

 

5. Repeat from number #1.

[mtomm]

To throw a Mormon Church perspective on this subject:

 

I work for the temporal side of the Church.  I'm not sure how our leaders feel about "global warming" or "climate change," pick your choice of PC words, but they do understand that being environmentally friendly makes economic sense.  Church specifications for such are being implemented pretty quickly.  Xeriscaping in new buildings and as older buildings are updated plus LED lighting are a couple of examples.  

Edited April 2, 2014 by mtomm

[The Nehor]

That you see the article in the OP as a "challenge" entertains me to no end. You are known by the company you keep. Defend the ravings of an ignormamus and I will assume you are one.

 

I didn't even look at the article and I was not defending it.  I was simply commenting on you're lack of civility.

Ohhhhhh??? I feel so bad. I was being uncivil? I'm a naughty boy aren't I? I should treat lies and garbage with all the seriousness and civility it deserves. Oh wait, I did. Treating junk pseudoscience (ie lies) without the contempt it deserves is why we have so many dangerously ignorant people.

If someone also claims reptilians are in control of their local PTA do I also have to treat them with civility?

Sometimes people need to be shamed out of bad behavior. Treating bad behavior with dignity encourages more of the same.

[longview]

Translation: I am a failed climate scientist and this gives me a platform to call those who made it idiots.

Add in a bit of Dunning-Kruger and stir in blatant logical fallacies and we have Adrian Vance: failed climate scientist, hack writer, and all-around idiot. Oh, don't forget to add in a shadowy cabal of socialists who want to trash the economy under the idea that it will somehow make them popular for some reason.

I am not going to refute your last long post point by point. I could but it would be a waste of time. Maybe someone else has the time to waste. There are three ways to learn the truth about climate:

 

Failed climate scientist?  Where did that come from?  It appears you are venting a great deal of heat and emotion without coming to grips with reason and documentation.  Adrian Vance is/was a very accomplished teacher of science, producer of audio/visuals, patent award holder, a great variety of professional interests, etc.

 

Hack writer?  I am a fan of his blog site.  I greatly appreciate his careful review of facts and measurements.  He does a good job of contrasting different viewpoints and provides wonderful commentary.  You should have googled his name before going off on a tirade.

 

Pointless?  I  guess you are a little tired today.  I appreciated your willingness to discuss with me the red-shifting of photons in a previous thread.

[longview]

Hey Nehor, the vast majority of people think that the global warming is a bunch of ****. So go ahead and worry your self to sleep at night for fear we are destroying our planet. Look at any national poll. No one is buying.

 

The best part of this load of a hoax is that all they have is climate models. They don't even have real data. They have nothing but a model to go off of, a model to project the future. And there are so many unknowns.  They have been wrong on so many levels. It really is a shame that some one as intelligent as Nehor would buy into it.

That is right.  It is downright scary that they refuse to allow outsiders to review the code for the climate model programming.  It probably is jury-rigged to produce the outcome they want to use scare people into the "new order."

[USU78]

Long view:

I'm not going to address going to address all of your posts. I will address one.

1. CO2 is a pollutant to all animals. It always has been a pollutant. We exhale it to get rid of it out of our bodies. Too much CO2 and you die.

2. The burning of fuels produces CO2 whether in our bodies, or anything we burn.

3. CO2 traps heat. This was proven in the 1890's.

4. We are dumping excess CO2 into the air.

5. Repeat from number #1.

the sky is falling! The sky is falling!

[longview]

I do think that blending a particular form of conservative political philosophy with Book of Mormon and New Testament teachings is a form of priestcraft of the worst sort.  The gospel is true but politics are not necessarily true.

As I stated in my opening post, I am not focusing on the politics but to discuss the evidence and motivation for the "misuse" of science.  Hence the concern for priestcraft.

 

There many places in the Book of Mormon that describe all kinds of agendas of "power seekers" such as "King Men" or Gadianton or various other deceivers.