LDS environmentalists want their institution to address the Great Salt Lake’s collapse

[pogi]

 

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

No. There was no scripture used against you. It was a reply to a question asked by another participant and referred to those who mock the Church. That’s not you. It was and still is part of my observation that no one has counted the cost of worldwide upheaval. That is my only point despite how you may perceive it as a personal attack. No one told you directly or indirectly that you are foolish. No one called you foolish.

I'm willing to move beyond this, but if the claim is that the exchange never happened then I am going to address that claim.  Here is the exchange I am referring to:

On 4/21/2023 at 8:56 PM, pogi said:

I don’t have all the answers, but I will use my voice and influence and vote where I can.  
The alternative is to do nothing, which is the worst of the above options.

This was your scriptural rebuttal to my post (not a reply to a question asked by another participant):

On 4/21/2023 at 10:47 PM, Bernard Gui said:

For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him,
Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish.

You then followed up with this:

On 4/22/2023 at 9:54 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Not sure how context changes the plain and obvious meaning of the parable: it is foolish to begin a massive project without knowing the end from the beginning.

Pretty clear that was directed at me as it was in direct response to my post about not having all the answers but still wanting to make an effort to influence change - or in your view, building a tower without first counting the costs, which you deem as "foolish". 

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I follow John Kerry’s statements closely because he appears to have a great deal of power. I find them elitist, condescending, hypocritical, confusing, and often wrong. Especially his insistence that nothing Americans can do will change anything. Don’t you find that disconcerting and wildly inconsistent? I do. Remember the admonition to question authority? You have never commented on it after repeated requests.

Let me guess, you follow John Kerry via Tucker Carlson or some other antagonist like him who is in open rebellion against the "climate religion".  

I have noticed that many associate and group all of those concerned and working towards climate solutions with politicians/political parties that they don't like, thereby dismissing the general concern and effort outright.  It seems misguided to me and politically motivated.  One can dislike a politicians approach and still agree with the general premise that is grounded in scientific consensus. 

While a little disconcerting that Americans alone can't control climate change (causing us to feel like it is our of our control), I don't find it "wildly inconsistent".   I think you are likely misquoting him though.   I highly doubt that he said that "nothing Americans can do will change anything."  I suspect his message was that Americans alone can't change the coarse of climate change - that it requires a group/global effort.  I am fairly confident that he believes that America plays a key role in global influence and that our own efforts at curbing emissions is important. 

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

changes that will have a huge global impact, more than anything we have ever done in the past…perhaps even worse than what many are predicting “if we do nothing.” 

I am unclear as to what "changes" you are talking about that will have a worse impact than doing nothing.   Please explain.  What do you think will happen if we do nothing?  Compare that against what you think will happen with the changes (and state what changes you are talking about).

Edited April 24, 2023 by pogi

[BlueDreams]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I appreciate the support by mentioning my name, about the fewer cars meaning clearer skies. And something I hadn't thought of, which was in front of my face here living in Davis county with our refineries, it plains stinks literally, and I'm sure the environment is paying a price for it, but had forgotten about the cancer causing pollutants you mentioned as well. So although we may be too late for the ozone layer we aren't too late on preventing cancer hopefully. 

Of course. Just a small correction, we actually have shifted the trajectory for the ozone layers and it's currently slowly repairing itself. It's a really good story for why international cooperation and industry regulations can work to solve environmental risks. 

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Temperature inversion?

Not at the time of the year for lockdowns. We had the least amount of vehicles on the roads around early spring (march-aprilish). In UT, air pollution comes in waves. It's worse in the colder months due to the temperature inversion, this will reduce if there's some form of a storm (rain or snow usually....though sometimes a good windy day can help). And SL valley is usually worse off than UT valley because there's more car pollution. There's also the summer problem of fire season smoking out the air. But even on good air days in UT valley (like today) in the distance I can still see the fine haze of air pollution against the backdrop of the mountains. The air during early covid was pristine. I'm a nature enthusiast and love looking at the mountains on clean air days and the detail that I could see during this was second to none. And more amazingly, it was consistently good. We may get a pristine day, but not a week let alone a month. SLC, where the pic was taken, would have seen an even more dramatic shift. You don't really see clean air days like the pic above. It's one of a number of reasons I won't live in that valley. Sometimes the air quality is so distinctly bad there I can literally see the line of polluted air that demarcates entering said valley from my own.  

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I do read up on them. That’s why I have questions.

I don't mean to knit-pick, but if you have questions on these, it makes me wonder a little what sources you're reading up. There are answers and a diversity of solutions being put in place or explored around each of these questions. But they're often ignored or dismissed in more skeptical sources. So I could imagine still having questions or being more skeptical if those were my main sources as opposed to the ones I've delved in that tend to come from the more realistic optimist camp of climate voices. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited April 24, 2023 by BlueDreams

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Of course. Just a small correction, we actually have shifted the trajectory for the ozone layers and it's currently slowly repairing itself. It's a really good story for why international cooperation and industry regulations can work to solve environmental risks. 

This. The ozone layer problem could have been disastrous but through a lot of international cooperation we reversed the problem and it appears to be slowly but steadily correcting itself.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This. The ozone layer problem could have been disastrous but through a lot of international cooperation we reversed the problem and it appears to be slowly but steadily correcting itself.

I was unaware, good to know and further reason we shouldn't just give up, or deny. My friend's husband laughs when I mention climate change, he mentions all the flooding and rain. Duh, that's climate change. 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I was unaware, good to know and further reason we shouldn't just give up, or deny. My friend's husband laughs when I mention climate change, he mentions all the flooding and rain. Duh, that's climate change. 

The media (and Al Gore) screwed up when they initially branded it as "global warming".  Now anytime it's colder or wetter than normal a lot of people see it as proof that global warming is a scam.

[Tacenda]

32 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The media (and Al Gore) screwed up when they initially branded it as "global warming".  Now anytime it's colder or wetter than normal a lot of people see it as proof that global warming is a scam.

You're so right!

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The media (and Al Gore) screwed up when they initially branded it as "global warming".  Now anytime it's colder or wetter than normal a lot of people see it as proof that global warming is a scam.

It wasn’t really their fault. When the effect was first being examined in the 70s it was “inadvertent climate modification”. Then in the 80s it switched to “climate change” as an umbrella term and “global warming” referring to the change in average surface temperature which is part of “climate change”. They were created together. Then in a widely reported congressional hearing the NASA scientist answering questions referred to “global warming” a lot. He used the term correctly but it caught on in the media and in the public mind. People who say that there was a rebranding to “climate change” don’t know the history of the terms. In the scientific literature both terms were used since the 80s. The popularized term just finally caught up with what the scientists always meant.

[Hamilton Porter]

Do it, institution!