Climate Change is false doctrine

[Calm]

Never mind, I really don't want to get involved in this conversation when I think about it.

Edited February 6, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Of course it is complex.  The atmosphere is chaotic.  The beauty of the experiment is to confine and isolate components of air and water "liquid/vapor" and sunlight so that we can make direct and unequivocal measurements.

This is an irrational statement.  The "pressure" is NOT the issue.  The quantity we are looking at is the temperature.  You would expect temperature to rise in BOTH bottles.  The question is:  how much Infrared energy is captured/retained by either bottles.  The components will retain the energy up to a point and the remainder will radiate out the bottles.  If the bottle were to bulge due to increased heat/pressure, then it should be noted.

We should understand that the atmosphere does not "confine" to a fixed location.  Real greenhouses DO confine gasses and allow for buildup of heat so that gardens can grow, even in the middle of winter.  It needs to be confined because breezes will whisk away the warmth and cause the garden to freeze.  So the bottles are ideal for retaining any heat that are building up.  Any unretained infrared light will pass through the transparent bottles.

Keep in mind that infrared energy striking a molecule causes it to vibrate more.   We see it as becoming hotter.  But there is a limit to how much infrared light a molecule can absorb.  The remainder simply radiates away.  It is known that a H2O molecule can retain many times the energy than a CO2 molecule.

You have a problem with reading comprehension or you simply skimmed through the article.  The reason the author waited overnight was to allow the CO2 ingredient to react completely with water and air in the bottle (the one labelled 2100 AD).  The experiment begins at sunrise.  The readings are to be done hourly throughout the day.  This what he said:

"Put the cap with thermometer on and let it sit overnight to react fully to create the Romm 910 ppm CO2 atmosphere of 2100 AD.  Put the two bottles in a window sill and record their temperatures each hour.  What do we see? According to Dr. Romm the 2100 AD bottle will get hot, going over 40 Celsius degrees, 104 Fahrenheit!  But what happens?  The 2100 AD bottle tracks precisely with the 2016 bottle air with less CO2 in it!  The CO2 was an insignificant component of the atmosphere at 390 PPM and it would be at 910 PPM.  It is just that simple.  As we have seen, "warmists" are prone to overplay everything from polar bear deaths to all the ice melting at the poles when there are more polar bears than ever in history, probably because they are getting fat on the Five Star garbage left by warmist scientists . . .The two temperatures rise as the sun elevates and fall slowly after noon until 3 PM, then fall quickly as solar radiation passes through more atmosphere."

Then the author tried the One Percent Test as follows:

"One percent is 10,000 parts per million, ppm, which shows the real effect of CO2 in the atmosphere and by having a "control" bottle tracking ordinary air over water we will see that it is a cooling component . . . If Dr. Romm were correct the air in the "1%" bottle would heat faster and more than the "0.04%" flask, perhaps going over 40º C by noon, but it declines!  This dashes all alarmist claims.  Without them they will get no grants, book contracts, TV appearances or tenure. When realized it will kill the gravy train of academia.  This is an undeniable fact!  Many of academia feel they are entitled to wealth and fame because they are "smart."

Truth is truth.   Why are you disparaging any kind of experiments?  We need to ask the questions and try to understand the fundamentals.  He concludes:

"Virtually everything written and published about "global warming" and/or "climate change" has been fraudulent and done by those seeking political power, government grants, high-paying government jobs or academic tenure as the colleges and universities are dependent on Federal money.  It is just another tale of corruption in America and you can prove it with a two soda bottles, a box of baking soda, a bottle of vinegar and one medicine dropper."

I am not disparaging any kind of experiments. I am disparaging this specific idiotic experiment.

I am sorry that I missed that he did the experiment through a WHOLE DAY. I am sure that is analogous to global climate change now.

And your last paragraph is solid proof that you are a conspiracy nut. There is a massive conspiracy of silence that thousands of scientists are in on across the entire world all keeping a solid front. The only people with a conscience fighting back against this vast conspiracy are crazies with blogs, rare quack scientists funded by those with a vested interest in climate change being false, and brave elementary school educated special people who do this bottle experiment and then triumphantly announce they have won and then rant some more about corruption EVERYWHERE!

[longview]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

This sums up the problem with the anti-global warming evidence and arguments your side gives. There are way more sources that debunk your stance than there are that support it. Just a quick perusal of this thread shows this.

I don't think skeptics of climate hysteria are outnumbered.  As I indicated earlier in the thread, zealots are a mixed bag of extremist environmentalists, proponents of massive government, globalists, professors and bureaucrats that are "invested" in government grants and a whole lot more.

Consider this:  a young college student starting out tend to be attracted to socialism, "social justice" and equal outcomes.  Others (with more maturity or better training by wise parents) will reject those simplistic (emotionally charged) notions and lean more to conservatism and sound principles (being self reliant).  Lefty types want to be able to change the world and are attracted to professions that empower them, such as government service (imposing change), news media (propaganda) and any organization that promote "collectivism" (community organizers).  Conservatives are NOT interested in telling other people how to live and are attracted to productive and enriching careers.

This puts conservatives in a precarious position:  Lefties have more control of positions of power but the mainstream public are not as aware of the abuses of power.  The activists and social engineers are entrenched in every level of government and most of major media.  Perhaps you are familiar with the terms:  "Deep State" or the "Swamp" ?

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

You are relying extensively on a "blogspot.com" source while the other side is throwing in actual academic, government, and scientific sources. But you don't accept that because of what I quoted above.

You do not need to belittle Adrian Vance just because he has found an economical place for posting his columns and facilitating commentary.  He is a very talented individual who has engaged in a great deal of science throughout his career.  I also have obtained much of my information from several very instructive sites.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

It is the logical problem at the heart of all conspiracy theories, which is this: the more evidence there is that the theory is false is translated to mean more evidence of a conspiracy.

That may be how you think but I am pretty sure most people would not necessarily agree with that correlation.  I just think the narrative of warming hysteria is very flimsy.

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This thinking has enabled you to justify tossing out all of the science done on the issue and relying instead on fringe thinkers.

There is nothing "fringe" about the numerous questions raised about this "house of cards" promoting the scam.  Why would you say I have tossed any science?  Why would you be absolutist saying all science?  I am a lover of science just as much as you.

3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

On the other hand, I guess Agent Mulder was right in the end

Asking questions should never be discouraged.   

[longview]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not disparaging any kind of experiments. I am disparaging this specific idiotic experiment.

Yet, you have not explained why the observations made in this experiment were not worth pondering over?  I have discussed many important fundamentals such as the amount of energy absorption by different elements, the differences between the two bottles, tracking temperatures over time, etc.  Don't you agree that isolating a few variables within the confined apparatus will enable us to get a better handle on understanding the complex chaotic atmosphere?

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am sorry that I missed that he did the experiment through a WHOLE DAY. I am sure that is analogous to global climate change now.

Nobody made that claim.  We are simply trying to answer basic questions.  If we find that the bottle containing the greater concentration of CO2 actually does NOT heat more than the bottle of regular air and a bit of water, then we MUST ask WHY.  Instead of you dismissing me and Adrian Vance as some sort of conspiracy nuts, you really should extend the courtesy of explaining WHY.  At least provide a couple of hypothesis?

[longview]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And your last paragraph is solid proof that you are a conspiracy nut. There is a massive conspiracy of silence that thousands of scientists are in on across the entire world all keeping a solid front. The only people with a conscience fighting back against this vast conspiracy are crazies with blogs, rare quack scientists funded by those with a vested interest in climate change being false, and brave elementary school educated special people who do this bottle experiment and then triumphantly announce they have won and then rant some more about corruption EVERYWHERE!

Solid proof?   The email fiasco at the University of East Anglia and the ridiculous "hockey stick" graph that Michael Mann tried to foist on the public were not so silent.  Dr. Hansen (of NASA) has demonstrated unethical behavior numerous times.  NOAA refuses to answer questions by a congressional subcommittee about its data collection and recording methods.

There are many professionals, scientists, professors that reject the alarmism.  Here is one:  Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton University Will Happer:

https://www.prageru.com/videos/can-climate-models-predict-climate-change

[MiserereNobis]

9 hours ago, longview said:

There are many professionals, scientists, professors that reject the alarmism.  Here is one:  Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton University Will Happer:

https://www.prageru.com/videos/can-climate-models-predict-climate-change

PragerU is a far right biased site. Again, you resort to using sources that any high school English teacher would teach you are too biased and untrustworthy to be included in a research paper. If you'd like, I could message you a website evaluation form that you could use to further decide what sources to include on this discussion. Blatantly political sites when discussing science are a definite no-no. Scientific sites when discussing science are the way to go.

Also, analyze the language that you and your sources use when discussing global warming and climate change. They are chock-full of bias. I'm wondering if you get all of your information from biased echo-chamber sources?

How about some peer-reviewed scientific sources? (oh yeah, that whole conspiracy thing again...)

For those wondering, here is an excerpt of the most popular videos on PragerU:

Quote

Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? Watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party.

Quote

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report used to be a big progressive. He even had a show with The Young Turks! But now he's not a progressive. He has left the left. Why? Dave Rubin shares his story

Quote

Washington is gigantic, corrupt, and unaccountable. Could a Convention of States fix that? Get informed, and see what an Article V Convention would look like. Jim DeMint, former senator from South Carolina, explains.

Quote

"The Progressive Income Tax" is one of those economic terms that gets bandied about, but few actually know what it means or how it works. This tale of three similar brothers with three different incomes (but one shared expense) helps explain the tax system under which we live. Adapted from an article by noted investor and economist, Kip Hagopian, and narrated by actress Carolyn Hennesy of "General Hospital" and "True Blood" fame, this animated story will change the way you think about how you pay your taxes.

Quote

Antonia Okafor, a young, single, black woman, recently discovered that's she's a racist, sexist, misogynist. How in the world did this happen? None other than Antonia Okafor explains.

This video is part of an exciting partnership between PragerU and Turning Point USA that will include videos with other young conservatives like Ben Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, and more!  Visit FreetoThink.org to learn more. 

 

[MiserereNobis]

12 hours ago, longview said:

Others (with more maturity or better training by wise parents) will reject those simplistic (emotionally charged) notions and lean more to conservatism and sound principles (being self reliant).

There's your bias flag for all to see. People who are on the left are immature and/or had bad training by foolish parents.

12 hours ago, longview said:

Perhaps you are familiar with the terms:  "Deep State" or the "Swamp" ?

More conspiracy theory.

12 hours ago, longview said:

You do not need to belittle Adrian Vance just because he has found an economical place for posting his columns and facilitating commentary. 

What you quoted from him would never make it into a peer-reviewed scientific journal. We are discussing science, after all, and the peer-reviewed journal is the gold standard. Of course, you reject that because of your attraction to conspiracy theories.

12 hours ago, longview said:

There is nothing "fringe" about the numerous questions raised about this "house of cards" promoting the scam. 

This statement itself is fringe. When the fast majority of scientists agree on something, the opposite is by definition fringe. Calling the vast majority of scientists' views a "house of cards" and a "scam" is fringe.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, longview said:

Solid proof?   The email fiasco at the University of East Anglia and the ridiculous "hockey stick" graph that Michael Mann tried to foist on the public were not so silent.  Dr. Hansen (of NASA) has demonstrated unethical behavior numerous times.  NOAA refuses to answer questions by a congressional subcommittee about its data collection and recording methods.

There are many professionals, scientists, professors that reject the alarmism.  Here is one:  Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton University Will Happer:

https://www.prageru.com/videos/can-climate-models-predict-climate-change

And here is an analysis of the methodology brave Galileoesque 3% of researchers fighting the evil conspiracy:

https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, longview said:

Yet, you have not explained why the observations made in this experiment were not worth pondering over?  I have discussed many important fundamentals such as the amount of energy absorption by different elements, the differences between the two bottles, tracking temperatures over time, etc.  Don't you agree that isolating a few variables within the confined apparatus will enable us to get a better handle on understanding the complex chaotic atmosphere?

Nobody made that claim.  We are simply trying to answer basic questions.  If we find that the bottle containing the greater concentration of CO2 actually does NOT heat more than the bottle of regular air and a bit of water, then we MUST ask WHY.  Instead of you dismissing me and Adrian Vance as some sort of conspiracy nuts, you really should extend the courtesy of explaining WHY.  At least provide a couple of hypothesis?

Hypothesis: The experiment is critically flawed and is not how climate change was discovered, is not analogous to the actual processes of climate change, the experiment is too short in duration to prove anything even if it could,  and the whole thing is patently ridiculous. I do not have to ask why it does not work. No one is saying that it should work in this shoddy context. It is a straw man experiment and based on the conclusions of the mentally unhinged guy who wrote it I suspect he would lie if it did give him results he did not like. After all his conclusions from the experiment is a bunch of paranoid conspiracy raving. Solid science there.......

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

What you quoted from him would never make it into a peer-reviewed scientific journal. We are discussing science, after all, and the peer-reviewed journal is the gold standard. Of course, you reject that because of your attraction to conspiracy theories.

 

You keep hammering about the importance of peer review.

It is commonly accepted by all that peer review is the worst system to use as a check against bad scholarship.

 

 

Except for all the other systems.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

PragerU is a far right biased site. Again, you resort to using sources that any high school English teacher would teach you are too biased and untrustworthy to be included in a research paper. If you'd like, I could message you a website evaluation form that you could use to further decide what sources to include on this discussion. Blatantly political sites when discussing science are a definite no-no. Scientific sites when discussing science are the way to go.

 

Message an evaluation form to me please...quite curious to see how it works...or makes me work.

[longview]

5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Hypothesis: The experiment is critically flawed and is not how climate change was discovered, is not analogous to the actual processes of climate change, the experiment is too short in duration to prove anything even if it could,  and the whole thing is patently ridiculous. I do not have to ask why it does not work. No one is saying that it should work in this shoddy context. It is a straw man experiment and based on the conclusions of the mentally unhinged guy who wrote it I suspect he would lie if it did give him results he did not like. After all his conclusions from the experiment is a bunch of paranoid conspiracy raving. Solid science there.......

How can you dismiss an experiment in which a bottle filled with 10,000 ppm of CO2 does not NOT warm more than the bottle of regular air?

Why would not a day long exposure to sunlight cause the bottles to warm up?  Why would you not expect to see differences between the control bottle and the test bottle?

Why would you insist that the experiment be done longer term?  For a month?   A year?  You wish to average out the observations?  To account for varying brightness and cloudy days?

Why are you afraid of seeing a straightforward demonstration involving a regular bottle providing control and the test bottle containing "dangerous" amount of CO2?

Why can't you take an honest look at the parameters of this simple experiment without demonizing the person who happens to be "politically incorrect"?

Don't you agree that isolating a few variables within the confined apparatus will enable us to get a better handle on understanding the complex chaotic atmosphere?

Edited February 6, 2018 by longview

[MiserereNobis]

48 minutes ago, longview said:

How can you dismiss an experiment in which a bottle filled with 10,000 ppm of CO2 does not NOT warm more than the bottle of regular air?

Why would not a day long exposure to sunlight cause the bottles to warm up?  Why would you not expect to see differences between the control bottle and the test bottle?

Why would you insist that the experiment be done longer term?  For a month?   A year?  You wish to average out the observations?  To account for varying brightness and cloudy days?

Why are you afraid of seeing a straightforward demonstration involving a regular bottle providing control and the test bottle containing "dangerous" amount of CO2?

Why can't you take an honest look at the parameters of this simple experiment without demonizing the person who happens to be "politically incorrect"?

Don't you agree that isolating a few variables within the confined apparatus will enable us to get a better handle on understanding the complex chaotic atmosphere?

So I poked around on the internet a little bit to see anything about your experiment. It turns out when people do the bottle or other similar experiment they actually get an increase of temperature in the bottle with CO2. However, after a point the temperature will decrease, maybe like in your fringe scientist's experiment.

Interestingly enough, I found this peer-reviewed *cough cough* article that addresses this exact phenomenon and explains the whole situation. Lucky for us, it is not behind a paywall, so we can all read and understand more.

A peer-review article just debunked your bloggers experiment. Lovely, eh?

Here's the abstract (bolded portion mine):

Quote

Climate change in a shoebox: Right result, wrong physics

Paul Wagoner

TERC, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140

Chunhua Liu

Department of Education, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155

R. G. Tobina
Department of Physics and Astronomy, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts 02155

Received 3 July 2009; accepted 27 January 2010

Classroom experiments that purport to demonstrate the role of carbon dioxide’s far-infrared absorption in global climate change are more subtle than is commonly appreciated. We show, using both experimental results and theoretical analysis, that one such experiment demonstrates an entirely different phenomenon: The greater density of carbon dioxide compared to air reduces heat transfer by suppressing convective mixing with the ambient air. Other related experiments are subject to similar concerns. Argon, which has a density close to that of carbon dioxide but no infrared absorption, provides a valuable experimental control for separating radiative from convective effects. A simple analytical model for estimating the magnitude of the radiative greenhouse effect is presented, and the effect is shown to be very small for most tabletop experiments. © 2010 American Association of Physics Teachers.

 

Edited February 6, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 2/5/2018 at 8:46 AM, kiwi57 said:

 I believe we need more and better science.

Would a better science convince more in the church? 

On 2/5/2018 at 1:15 PM, janderich said:

Must the Lord provide revelation through his prophets and in no other way? Can he not speak to many people and pour down knowledge from heavens? If he given knowledge through science then act on it accordingly.

He has given us the science, and yet most of us in the church don't believe CO2 increase is bad. " Beehive State residents were also significantly less likely to believe that global warming was caused mostly by human activities, at 43 percent "

If God can help us find our keys, why wouldn't he warn us about climate change? By the way, it is not clear what is the best way to combat climate climate.  Fusion would do it, but God hasn't inspired humans to make it work.  Why would our loving father leave us in the dark?

Are you a father janderich? If your sons are in a dangerous situation, wouldn't you try to help them? Or would you just let them figure it out themselves? It's true parents shouldn't do everything for their sons and daughters, but it doesn't mean parents shouldn't hep their children when they mostly need it. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 2/3/2018 at 9:10 AM, The Nehor said:

I am not entitled to receive revelation for other people.

That said, yes. I was told to support the cause of restraining pollution. I am pretty sure it is about climate change. If not, and we do clean up the air and find out that climate change is not a threat (which I do not believe) what will the reaction be?

Something like: "Oh crap, we wasted our time cleaning up the air to make the earth a more pleasant place to live."

Nehor,

Being a good environmentalist won't solve the problem. The reality is that we are still dependent on fossil fuels. God hasn't inspired the scientists to make fusion work

Reuters reports, "The world will remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal for the rest of this century".

Edited February 7, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[kiwi57]

4 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Nehor,

Being a good environmentalist won't solve the problem. The reality is that we are still dependent on fossil fuels. God hasn't inspired the scientists to make fusion work

Reuters reports, "The world will remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal for the rest of this century".

So does that mean we should throw up our hands and abandon any attempts to limit emissions?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 2/5/2018 at 1:26 AM, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Despite the fact that God does have power over the Earth. Despite the fact scriptures make this plain. Also, despite the fact that the Earth has the ability to heal itself, does not release us from the commandment given in scripture to be good "Stewards" of the Earth.

Like I told Nehor being a good environmentalist won't solve the problem. We would need something revolutionary, something like fusion for example. If there a big problem, God hasn't revealed the solution.

Edited February 7, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

22 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

So does that mean we should throw up our hands and abandon any attempts to limit emissions?

No, but according to the climate change doctrine we need something big, we need some drastic changes. Being good environmentalists won't do much if we are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

If there is a big problem, God hasn't revealed the solution. God hasn't even revealed there is a problem with CO2 increase. If there is a problem, then by the time we figure it out it is going to be too late. Climate change doctrine predicts at least a two degree warming by the end of the century.

Edited February 7, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 2/6/2018 at 12:16 AM, Teancum said:

This is a fine example of the dangers of faith held non evidence held beliefs. 

Why?

On 2/6/2018 at 12:16 AM, Teancum said:

This childish view will doom our world, our planet and our species.

How?

 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, longview said:

How can you dismiss an experiment in which a bottle filled with 10,000 ppm of CO2 does not NOT warm more than the bottle of regular air?

Easily, it does not have the different layers of atmosphere our real atmosphere has which trap the sun's heat. Also, out own atmosphere does not have a bottle surrounding it made of plastic or whatever so that also throws it off.

5 hours ago, longview said:

Why would not a day long exposure to sunlight cause the bottles to warm up?  Why would you not expect to see differences between the control bottle and the test bottle?

Does climate change suppose there is a noticeable difference in one day with increased CO2 in the atmosphere? Nope.

5 hours ago, longview said:

Why would you insist that the experiment be done longer term?  For a month?   A year?  You wish to average out the observations?  To account for varying brightness and cloudy days?

Because that is the time frame climate change occurs in. Decades. I am not saying that is the one problem and if they left it out for ten years we would see a difference analogous to climate change. That is just one problem with the stupid experiment.

5 hours ago, longview said:

Why are you afraid of seeing a straightforward demonstration involving a regular bottle providing control and the test bottle containing "dangerous" amount of CO2?

Afraid? What? I laughed out loud when I saw that parameters of that "test". I am pointing out that it is pointless. I am not afraid of pointless activity. I admit to annoyance that some people take the pointless activity seriously.

5 hours ago, longview said:

Why can't you take an honest look at the parameters of this simple experiment without demonizing the person who happens to be "politically incorrect"?

I did. I laughed. I am demonizing him because he is either ignorant or stupid or both. It is cute that you are making this about political correctness. Also, it is ironic that you are demonizing and dismissing virtually the entire federal government and the governments of EVERY developed nation and an entire branch of science worldwide without understanding it but you want to plead special consideration for the nutcase with a badly designed website.

5 hours ago, longview said:

Don't you agree that isolating a few variables within the confined apparatus will enable us to get a better handle on understanding the complex chaotic atmosphere?

I do and we have federal and private agencies continuing to collect data and model the atmosphere. Our models are not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but they are getting better as we go. Somehow the moron with two bottles is right and every nation is wrong? Uh-huh...........that is crazy talk for crazy people.

Edited February 7, 2018 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Would a better science convince more in the church? 

He has given us the science, and yet most of us in the church don't believe CO2 increase is bad. " Beehive State residents were also significantly less likely to believe that global warming was caused mostly by human activities, at 43 percent "

If God can help us find our keys, why wouldn't he warn us about climate change? By the way, it is not clear what is the best way to combat climate climate.  Fusion would do it, but God hasn't inspired humans to make it work.  Why would our loving father leave us in the dark?

Are you a father janderich? If your sons are in a dangerous situation, wouldn't you try to help them? Or would you just let them figure it out themselves? It's true parents shouldn't do everything for their sons and daughters, but it doesn't mean parents shouldn't hep their children when they mostly need it. 

Suppose tomorrow the prophet announced that climate change is an existential threat to humanity (I personally do not believe it is that bad but we will go worst case). What would happen?

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Nehor,

Being a good environmentalist won't solve the problem. The reality is that we are still dependent on fossil fuels. God hasn't inspired the scientists to make fusion work

Reuters reports, "The world will remain heavily dependent on fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal for the rest of this century".

Fusion is not the only option though we have curtailed funding for study of the possibilities. For it to work we need to fund more research into fundamental particle research. This means more and better colliders. 

Solar is slowly becoming more affordable but still needs a lot of work. Hydro power and wind power supply some power but both also have environmental effects and are probably not enough. The United States pathological fear of nuclear power needs to be addressed and new plants built. We also need a good disposal site for waste. We have known we need a good site since the 70s but still have not built one. We got the Yucca Mountain facility in Utah mostly built as an underground storage site but then a weird bipartisan effort shut it down during the Obama administration. Mormon politicians were shamefully involved.

But yes, we do have to continue to use oil and gas for some time until we can gear up new facilities. I am less convinced about coal. Coal is a dying industry and Trump cannot save it.

36 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

No, but according to the climate change doctrine we need something big, we need some drastic changes. Being good environmentalists won't do much if we are still heavily dependent on fossil fuels.

If there is a big problem, God hasn't revealed the solution. God hasn't even revealed there is a problem with CO2 increase. If there is a problem, then by the time we figure it out it is going to be too late. Climate change doctrine predicts at least a two degree warming by the end of the century.

Yes, we do. Which means we need the political will to start sponsoring and funding research into alternatives. This is hard to do when you have climate change deniers insisting there is no problem.

God does not make a habit of opening doors we are not willing to walk through in any case. Plus, these are the last days. Judgments will be poured out. There is a certain irony I appreciate in some of those judgments being directly self-inflicted.

[kiwi57]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Easily, it does not have the different layers of atmosphere our real atmosphere has which trap the sun's heat. Also, out own atmosphere does not have a bottle surrounding it made of plastic or whatever so that also throws it off.

The point that this experiment fails to notice is that the bottle itself is doing the function that CO2 does in the atmosphere - only it's doing it far more efficiently. Thus, the small difference in CO2 levels between the two bottles will only make a minuscule difference compared to the effect of the bottles themselves.

 

[kiwi57]

34 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Why?

How?

 

Well, to be fair, it won't. Scientism is an ideology that needs moral panics and scapegoats, so he's taking your view as if it represents that of all religious people - in outright defiance of the evidence of his eyes - and parlaying it into a worldwide policy position.

However, it is not a wise position to take. Climate change is a scientific question, not a doctrinal one. God doesn't reveal scientific facts about the natural world; instead, He blesses us with the ability to discover those facts for ourselves.

I'll go so far as to suggest that it is false doctrine to claim as doctrine a knowledge domain that is so completely non-doctrinal as this one.

Maybe the current scientific consensus is right, as I am inclined to believe. Alternatively, maybe it's completely up in the night - in which case, it will be scientific research that will show that to be the case. But it is simply wrong to claim it as a doctrinal issue, and it is wrong and deeply foolish to take a head-in-the-sand approach to it just because it wasn't mentioned last Conference.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Well, to be fair, it won't. Scientism is an ideology that needs moral panics and scapegoats, so he's taking your view as if it represents that of all religious people - in outright defiance of the evidence of his eyes - and parlaying it into a worldwide policy position.

In all honesty kiwis65 most of us are not concerned at all about climate change and overpopulation.  As an apostle our prophet President Nelson basically said  overpopulation is false doctrine.  "Now, let me ask you a question. Is the world truly overpopulated? ...  So the real question is, do we have faith in the word of the Lord? He said, “For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare” (D&C 104:17)."  http://www2.byui.edu/Presentations/Transcripts/Devotionals/2010_01_26_Nelson.htm.

I believe in the words of President Nelson, so I am not worried about a possible monster pandemic disease, God will take care of us.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Fusion is not the only option though we have curtailed funding for study of the possibilities. For it to work we need to fund more research into fundamental particle research. This means more and better colliders. 

.

Who is going to give billions of dollars necessary for the research and better colliders? We Mormon are more concerned about other things such as secular attacks on our religious freedom, so don't expect us to donate to projects like LPPFusion. There are such projects asking for money, but won't get a single dollar from me   https://lppfusion.com/funding/donate-to-help-the-research/

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Suppose tomorrow the prophet announced that climate change is an existential threat to humanity (I personally do not believe it is that bad but we will go worst case). What would happen?

We would join the fight to combat climate change. Projects like lppfusion would see an increase in funding. Our small state Utah wouldn't be number six in carbon dioxide pollution  https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865604170/Utah-ranks-No-6-in-the-country-on-carbon-dioxide-pollution.html "A new report ranking carbon dioxide emissions produced by power plants puts Utah's rate at No. 6 in the nation but also notes significant strides made by industry in reducing other pollutants." 

If the prophet announces man made climate change is bad (not necessarily the end of the world) it would be very significant. But honestly Nehor, God is more concerned about Bishops  being recorded than he is about climate change.  There is no need to worry about climate change because God hasn't revealed it to our prophets. An important mission of the church is our "spiritual and temporal well-being". We have things like the word of wisdom because God takes care of us, so I am going to place all my trust in the church and not worry about climate change. No warning,  No need to worry. 

Edited February 7, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite