Mormonism, the Anthropocene and the End of Civilization

[_Gadianton]

My point is, just to be clear, that scientists have created most things harmful to the planet...business and greed have taken advantage of it, and yet now the very source of this, science, are blaming religion.

No Mark, I don't think that's what's happening, although I'll admit there are probably enthusiastic liberals somewhere who have done this. I think to the extent religion is able to stop productive policies that could help lessen man's footprint on the environment then it could be blamed for that action; and I'm saying hypothetically here, to underscore the form of the argument, not necessarily to make the argument.

This morning -- and I apologize to Dr. W. for searching for the wrong key terms here -- I Googled "Global warming blog" and noted the first four anti-global warming writers that came up. It looks like I accidently deleted the text file I pasted to though, oops. But you can take it on faith in my objectivity that three of the four had clear ties to right-wing fueled Christianity and Intelligent Design. The one who didn't have clear ties to Christianity, who came up first on the list, was affiliated with a right-wing think tank and considers global warming part of conspiracy to implement a one-world government.

If the entire body of climate science that believes man has influenced the environment is a crafted ploy to the end of world domination, it's a rather elaborate one. On the other hand, if anti-AGW is a ploy by the religious right for self-promotion in the vein of Intelligent Design, then it's a pretty darn shallow plan. They've dropped the knife with the fingerprint ten feet away from the crime scene.

[_Markk]

My point is, just to be clear, that scientists have created most things harmful to the planet...business and greed have taken advantage of it, and yet now the very source of this, science, are blaming religion.

No Mark, I don't think that's what's happening, although I'll admit there are probably enthusiastic liberals somewhere who have done this. I think to the extent religion is able to stop productive policies that could help lessen man's footprint on the environment then it could be blamed for that action; and I'm saying hypothetically here, to underscore the form of the argument, not necessarily to make the argument.

This morning -- and I apologize to Dr. W. for searching for the wrong key terms here -- I Googled "Global warming blog" and noted the first four anti-global warming writers that came up. It looks like I accidently deleted the text file I pasted to though, oops. But you can take it on faith in my objectivity that three of the four had clear ties to right-wing fueled Christianity and Intelligent Design. The one who didn't have clear ties to Christianity, who came up first on the list, was affiliated with a right-wing think tank and considers global warming part of conspiracy to implement a one-world government.

If the entire body of climate science that believes man has influenced the environment is a crafted ploy to the end of world domination, it's a rather elaborate one. On the other hand, if anti-AGW is a ploy by the religious right for self-promotion in the vein of Intelligent Design, then it's a pretty darn shallow plan. They've dropped the knife with the fingerprint ten feet away from the crime scene.

Straw man... If you believe that big business and unions are not what is stifling any major proposed fixes to global warming/climate change , or what ever the current PC word is...then I suppose there in nothing I can say.

by the way...My google search is different than yours...government agency were the first 4 or 5 hits.

Personally I believe we are doing a pretty good well balanced job...the air is getting cleaner, the rivers getting cleaner, and far less omission's...all the while keeping people working.

I live in California and we are over the top, and many programs are a mustache to make money for government programs, but some are good programs...but as long as they do not hurt the economy I am okay with it. Religion has nothing to do with it. Conservative and liberal politics do keep the balance. Saying religion retards the fix, is like saying atheist ideology hurts the economy.

[_mikwut]

DrW,

Nowhere in any of my posts on this thread do you see the terms 'global warming' or 'anthropogenic global warming'. I have referred to and discussed only climate change.

Can you please be more precise in defining your words. In your initial post and title you use the word "Anthropocene" which is defined as "relating to or denoting the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment."

You used the phrase in your opening post, "the climate change resulting from fossil fuel use", that is "anthropogenic" by definition (or were you referring to something other than CO2 placed in the atmosphere from mainly the burning of fossil fuels?)

You quoted a Mormon Woman who says, "She said she believes it isn’t possible for human activity to influence the climate" You realize "anthropogenic global warming" is defined as warming originating in human activity - or exactly what is found in your original post.

My 'disaster facts', as you refer to them, are taken from government agency and government watch dog organization reports.

Right, but what do they have to do with "climate change" that doesn't include human activity as you say this thread is not about?

Climate change is so general a term as to make your thread meaningless if it can just refer to the changing of the seasons.

Now, if you wish to discuss anthropogenic global warming, I would be glad to do so, but that is not what this thread is about.

Please explain what it is about that doesn't include the locus of human activity that seems to have been an abundant portion of this thread. If warming or climate change hasn't to do with human activity why should politicians be so concerned of your alarmist forecasts, how can you even know anything is going to change if humans activity isn't a factor? What connects your severe weather to climate change, they just are climate changes if you remove human activity as causal. If we remove human activity from the equation how do you model future alarmist conditions that we must prepare for?

This thread is about the what can be done going forward to mitigate the effects of global climate change, and specifically as related to changing weather patterns and severe weather events.

Please define the term "global climate change". Most people in discussions such as this understand the term as meaning, "a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards and attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels." That's the basic definition google brings up, that is anthropogenic global warming. That is what I assumed you meant in connecting your severe weather episodes in the United States to. But your saying this thread is somehow not about that, but rather how to mitigate the global climate change and severe weather events. But what is there to mitigate and even predict if were not including humans burning of fossil fuels?

More specifically, it is about the failure of a large portion of conservatives and religionists in this country to acknowledge the problem and to help do something about it, or at least not continue block others from doing something about it.

But the quote you utilized in your opening post specifically referred to the Mormon Woman not believing that human activity can effect climate. That's exactly what I questioned you about, if human activity isn't causing the severe weather events (which my sources I quoted stated there is not evidence to conclude so) then what is causing them from your point of view? You would need to answer that question before expecting anyone to acknowledge a problem.

So specifically what is the problem? If you have removed human activity from the equation what are politicians suppose to base the decisions you desire on?

I also point out Gadianton has just posted before I posted this and is discussing AGW, how is it not the subject this thread?

mikwut

[_Gadianton]

Straw man...

Per your own line of criticism, "straw man" is not the right fallacy.

If you believe that big business and unions are not what is stifling any major proposed fixes to global warming/climate change , or what ever the current PC word is...then I suppose there in nothing I can say.

That's all very possible, in fact, I noted the number 1 hit had no ties to Christianity that were obvious, aside from shared talking points about "one world government" etc. I think the think tank went by the name of "Heartland" and there are significant contributions from big business. Note that I said, "I think to the extent religion is able to stop productive policies that..." In fact, I even took the pains to tell you I was not in fact making the claim myself, but that I was putting forth the correct structure of the criticism.

by the way...My google search is different than yours...government agency were the first 4 or 5 hits.

Mark, I wrote:

"I Googled "Global warming blog" and noted the first four anti-global warming writers that came up"

Granted, this phrasing wasn't ideal, but I think the context made it clear what I meant. Now, are you saying the first 4 or 5 AGW debunkers are government agencies? That would be odd.

[Guest]

DrW
Can you please be more precise in defining your words. In your initial post and title you use the word "Anthropocene" which is defined as "relating to or denoting the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment."

In response to your request for a definition of terms, I suggest the following:

Global Warming: Increase in the average tropospheric temperature of the Earth due to increased concentrations of green house gasses (GHGs) in the atmosphere.

Climate Change: Long term changes in the climate of the Earth, or regions of the Earth, including:
- Global Warming;
- Changes in precipitation patterns;
- Changes in sea level and ocean current patterns;
- Changes in humidity and wind patterns and,
- Changes in the frequency of severe weather events.

My 'disaster facts', as you refer to them, are taken from government agency and government watch dog organization reports.

Right, but what do they have to do with "climate change" that doesn't include human activity as you say this thread is not about?

According to the definitions provided, Climate Change includes both anthropogenic (e.g. fossil fuel use) and non-anthropogenic (e.g. volcanic) sources of GHG. I used the term Climate Change because I wanted to avoid the inevitable argument from climate change deniers that global warming is not anthropogenic. Looks as though I was a bit overoptimistic in that regard.

Climate change is so general a term as to make your thread meaningless if it can just refer to the changing of the seasons.

This comment reflects a poor understanding of the term Climate Change. If you don't like my definition above, by all means look it up for yourself. However, nowhere will you find a definition of climate change from a credible source that refers to a change in seasons.

Now, if you wish to discuss anthropogenic global warming, I would be glad to do so, -----

I would assume that, since you quoted the IPCC Fifth Assessment (quite selectively I might add), you would see as credible the information that they provided on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. If you will take a look at Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing, you will see the conclusions of the IPCC, stated right up front in the Executive Summary, in no uncertain terms, that recent global warming is due mainly to anthropogenic sources of GHGs.

Executive Summary

It is unequivocal that anthropogenic increases in the well-mixed
greenhouse gases (WMGHGs) have substantially enhanced
the greenhouse effect, and the resulting forcing continues to
increase.

As to a proven linkage between global warming and severe weather events, the IPCC claims that there is insufficient data. Fine, I have no problem with this interim conclusion. However, there are certainly well understood mechanisms that link increased energy in the atmosphere (heat) to increased storm intensity. And the excellent severe weather forecasting we depend on here uses models that require measures of ocean and atmospheric temperature to predict the severity of tropical storms. The correlation between ocean surface temperatures and storm severity is positive. (Hurricanes utilize the latent heat of vaporization as fuel.)

And this is another reason that I used the term Climate Change instead of Global Warming in my posts on this thread. Climate Change, by definition, includes severe weather events, regardless of whether the cause can be linked to human activity, or not.

You made some good points. I trust that I have adequately addressed them.

[_EAllusion]

The petition project demonstrates the debate is not over.

An extremely small fraction of people who have any type of degree in some way related to science and some pranksters replied to a request for signatures in a mostly unverifiable way on a politically charged topic agreed to a poorly worded position statement on global warming? And it was published by a fake institute to mimic the style of a NAS publication? Well, then, how could the debate be over?

Of course, this means that the debate isn't over on many other subjects too, right? That would have to include anything where you can find a few people who with a degree in something vaguely science related to be contrarian. These obviously would include evolutionary theory, whether vaccines cause autism, whether HIV causes AIDS, and any other pseudoscientific movementof any meaningful size. But it probably would also include even more since the bar is just that low.

I think the question is what do you think there has been a settled debate on? That water is wet?

[_Zadok]

I think the question is what do you think there has been a settled debate on? That water is wet?

I'm here to learn with others, or at least I hope I learn, and that we don't quickly resort to name calling.

As I understand it, the "settled" part of the debate is that the global climate is not static and is changing. Further, I believe, that scientists agree that the cause is a combination of natural events, and man-caused conditions.

What seems to be the debate is 1. How much of the observed change can we as humans impact, and more importantly, 2. how do we get humans to do it. Two very formidable tasks in my estimation.

Now... gently, without calling me a stupid crap, which may be true, but I dislike hearing it on the first post, tell me where I am right and wrong?

[_Brackite]

At a few minutes before midnight on Christmas Eve, my wife and I received a message, not from an angel with a flaming sword, but from mother nature herself. I was sweating to put the finishing touches on (strangely enough) an air quality permit when the air conditioning unit in our home kicked on. The outside temperature had climbed to 83 degrees - in the middle of one of longest winter nights of the year.

Salt Lake City has been very much above normal for the month of December so far. Salt Lake City's average high temperature for the first 23 days of this month of December has been 50 degrees.

California has been very much above normal for the year of 2014.
California for 2014 has at least a 99% chance of being the warmest year on record there.

Arizona for 2014 has about a 50% chance of being the warmest year on record here.

According to NOAA, 2014 has been the warmest year on record so far. There is at least a 70% chance that 2014 will go down as the warmest year on record according to them.
According to NASA, 2014 has been the 2nd warmest year on record so far. Only 2010 has been warmer than 2014 according to them. (December of 2010 wasn't that warm of a month according to them.) There is about a 50% chance according to NASA that 2014 will go down as the warmest year on record.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table ... s+dSST.txt

[_Zadok]

While all of what you said about Utah, Arizona, and California, seems to be a disturbing trend, don't forget that the North-East reported one of the coldest winters on record, and conditions combined to bring Buffalo one of the heaviest and earliest snow storms recorded.

So I'm not sure that one or two years, (some say caused by El Nino and La Nina) is a reliable trend. But I'm first to admit that I'm no weather and climate expert.

[_Brackite]

I guess after the second coming didn't happen and the Church went full-on into real estate, that Mormons have found their gospel in conservative pundits. It's almost sad, because whereas before, ok, having a large number of children in the modern world is becoming less sustainable, but Mormonism did teach industry, thriftiness, self-sufficiency, and having food storage. I'm not sure all that was coordinated in a logical way, but the basic message was consistent and in the right direction. But the gospel of conservative punditry coupled with the messages of multi-level business men and motivational speakers preaches "the good life". And the message of the adversary is that we can't or shouldn't have such a thing. God wants us to prosper and live a life of wealth, and he's prepared an earth aplenty with resources that the hard-working and god-fearing man can use to his betterment.

So now, it's have a bunch of kids, and send them out into the world with the prosperity gospel to die horrible deaths.

My Mormon Ancestors who lived in Utah had lots and lots and lots of children.