The Great and Abominable Church: Environmentalism

[_Fortigurn]

Oh, and by the way bc, pay no attention to Fortigurn, he's only here to stir the pot and spray the hornet's nest. He's an ignoramus but, what must be admitted, a very articulate and clever one.

It's unfortunate that you, as a Christian, sink so frequently to character attacks. Why couldn't you at least just answer the one question I put to you?

[_guy sajer]

Just commenting on the thread title. Seems to me that environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship just as communism/socialism is a counterfeit to the United Order.

On what basis do you draw this conclusion?

D&C 104:17 contradicts environmentalist notions about diminishing resources and over population as well as the methodology for exercising stewardship in the first place (agency). Therefore, it "seems to me that environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship".

No offense, but I prefer scientific consensus to guide my thinking on scientific issues as opposed to Joseph Smith.

I can't think of any sources more irrelevant to this debate than Joseph Smith or the D & C.

If you can demonstrate to me Joseph Smith's credentials in environmental and atmospheric science, then I'd be willing to listen. Until then, this is a non-starter argument.

[_bcspace]

D&C 104:17 contradicts environmentalist notions about diminishing resources and over population as well as the methodology for exercising stewardship in the first place (agency). Therefore, it "seems to me that environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship".

No offense,

None taken.

but I prefer scientific consensus to guide my thinking on scientific issues as opposed to Joseph Smith.

Being LDS, I have no problem with scientific consensus as science and true religion do not contradict. Of course I do have a problem with pseudo science being presented as science.

If you can demonstrate to me Joseph Smith's credentials in environmental and atmospheric science, then I'd be willing to listen. Until then, this is a non-starter argument.

I think you should go back and read what the question was before you take my referencing D&C 104:17 to be an argument against whatever it is you believe.

[_Fortigurn]

You still seem to think that I'm going to spend hours upon hours, or even days, gathering information to demonstrate to your satisfaction the crux of my argument.

I have never asked you to do that, and I have corrected you every time you raised this straw man. Here is what I have asked:

You still seem not to understand what I am asking you to do. I am not asking you to present what you believe is evidence against AGW. I am asking you to explain the process by which you have personally evaluated the available evidence, and dismiss certain claims whilst adhering to others.

No I'm sorry, that does not actually address what I wrote. I have asked you to explain why you believe the evidence supports those claims, by explaining the process by which you evaluate the evidence, and distinguish truth from error. To date, you have yet to answer.

Could you explain, for example, how you determine the truth between conflicting peer reviewed reports on global climatology?

To date, you have failed to address this very simple request.

I've already said I will tackle this issue point by point, counterpoint by counterpoint, but nobody seems willing to do it that way.

You must have missed this thread (though I see you're there now).

I have already laid out both the basic scientific basis for my rejection of AGW (lack of substantive evidence for it and the large uncertainties and ambiguities within the data admitted by the majority of climate scientists, including most of those who suspect human influence). I have also laid out a larger set of claims about the philosophical and political background of the AGW movement. You have failed to address any of these claims.

Yes you have laid out a lot of claims. I haven't even begun to address what you wrote, because as yet you have not demonstrated that you understand the issue, and you have not explained the process by which you have reached your conclusions. I'm still waiting. so.[/quote]

This has no become unserious to the extent of self parody on your part. What we really have here Fortigurn, is a leftist on the run who has nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. It might at this point be appropriate to just lay your philosophical or political cards on the table and cease the pseudo sophisticated head gaming.

I am very far from being a 'Leftist', and AGW is a scientific theory not an ideology. It is undoubtedly used as a weapon by people with certain ideologies (such as yourself), but it is not itself an ideology.

You have expressed a theological and ideological objection to a scientific theory. You have also claimed that you reject it on a scientific basis, but have failed to explain the process of reasoning by which you reached that conclusion, and have certainly failed to demonstrate it.

[_bcspace]

Just commenting on the thread title. Seems to me that environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship just as communism/socialism is a counterfeit to the United Order.

On what basis do you draw this conclusion?

D&C 104:17 contradicts environmentalist notions about diminishing resources and over population as well as the methodology for exercising stewardship in the first place (agency). Therefore, it "seems to me that environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship".

Ah, so you draw it on the basis of a theology.

Not suprising as my comparison was theological in the first place (see the bolded part). More lazy research on your part. You have trouble parsing even the most recent posts.

He was only clever enough to inspire me to coin the term "FLR" (Fortigurn's Lazy Research). Could've been a great Illusionist's spell back in my AD&D days.......

Unfortunately you haven't shown a single instance of me carrying out 'lazy research', while you've contributed to my sig on three separate occasions.

Never once have you shown lazy research on my part. However, your unwillingness to provide a single example contrary to my argument shows a special kind of lazy research I now refer to as FLR. You should be honored!

[_guy sajer]

D&C 104:17 contradicts environmentalist notions about diminishing resources and over population as well as the methodology for exercising stewardship in the first place (agency). Therefore, it "seems to me that environmentalism is a counterfeit to the doctrine of Stewardship".

No offense,

None taken.

but I prefer scientific consensus to guide my thinking on scientific issues as opposed to Joseph Smith.

Being LDS, I have no problem with scientific consensus as science and true religion do not contradict. Of course I do have a problem with pseudo science being presented as science.

If you can demonstrate to me Joseph Smith's credentials in environmental and atmospheric science, then I'd be willing to listen. Until then, this is a non-starter argument.

I think you should go back and read what the question was before you take my referencing D&C 104:17 to be an argument against whatever it is you believe.

You are correct, the context was different than what I assumed. Thanks for pointing that out. I suppose it goes without saying that I don't consider Joseph Smith or the D&C "authorities" on pert near any subject, but I understand that believers see it differently. I do not find Joseph Smith's views as expressed in the cited scripture to be terribly insightful, but to each their own.

We are in full agreement as to our disain for "pseudo science." No doubt there's a great deal of it out there from both sides of the political spectrum.

However, given the ongoing scientific debate on global warming, I'd be hard pressed to label it pseudo science, even if one adopts a skeptical view. There are too many credible scientists who back the conclusion of human-induced global warming to label it "pseudo-science." I am also willing to concede that other credible scientists may disagree. This appears to be, therefore, to be a legitimate debate with compelling arguments for either side. Doing the best job I can to wade through it all, lacking the scientific training to judge perfectly, I conclude that the "preponderance of evidence" appears to be on the side of those arguing for human-induced global warming.

I believe, therefore, it makes sense to make prudent and reasonable environmental policy to address the problem. I am not advocating the type of anti-capitalist draconian measure that Coggins seems to think all environmentalists favor, but my sense is that there are prudent, reasonable policy options available, so we can begin to attack the problem, if only at the margins initially.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

There are too many credible scientists who back the conclusion of human-induced global warming to label it "pseudo-science." I am also willing to concede that other credible scientists may disagree. This appears to be, therefore, to be a legitimate debate with compelling arguments for either side. Doing the best job I can to wade through it all, lacking the scientific training to judge perfectly, I conclude that the "preponderance of evidence" appears to be on the side of those arguing for human-induced global warming.

I believe, therefore, it makes sense to make prudent and reasonable environmental policy to address the problem. I am not advocating the type of anti-capitalist draconian measure that Coggins seems to think all environmentalists favor, but my sense is that there are prudent, reasonable policy options available, so we can begin to attack the problem, if only at the margins initially.

But, there is no "conclusion" regarding human influence at all. That's the pseudo science aspect of this issue. There is a great deal of speculation, wishful thinking, and ideologically driven jumping to conclusions, but no conclusions, as far as the empirical evidence is concerned. The dogmatic certainty you see in the media, in public pronouncements by scientists seeking more government grant money, and by the IPCC does not exist in the professional literature on climate and numerous, sometimes highly specialized related sciences. There is an utter, complete, and total disconnect between what you will read in the professional literature, which is dominated by uncertainty, tentativenesses, and findings not infrequently inconsistent with AGW, and the popular media, including popular science media (and even relatively prestigious periodicals like Nature whose editorial board went "green: (i.e., sold out their scientific integrity to a fashionable intellectual fad before all the evidence is in, or has even been collected) where what you have gotten for years is apocalyptic scaremongering, dogmatic certitude, and claims of "consensus" (a strange word to use for natural science in the first instance) in an attempt to stampede mass public opinion toward political ends.

I notice that you mention all the competant scientists who support the idea (as if the bare facts that a majority of scientists support something is indicative of hold upon the truth) whle ignoring the thousands of other competant scientists, many of them eminant, who wont have any of it.

Why are you so sure the one side is on the right track. Because they are a majority? If science attempted to move forward only on the majority opinon of scientists, reagardless of the weight of the evidence, where would science be today?

[_Mr. Coffee]

Blah blah blah, I give up.

Concession accepted, dips***.

[_Coggins7]

Coggins7 wrote:
Blah blah blah, I give up.

Concession accepted, dips***.

I didn't write any such thing. Now, take your profanity, vulgarity, intellectual vacuity, and other characterological defects to the Telestial Kingdom or Outer Darkness where your ilk belong.

[_guy sajer]

There are too many credible scientists who back the conclusion of human-induced global warming to label it "pseudo-science." I am also willing to concede that other credible scientists may disagree. This appears to be, therefore, to be a legitimate debate with compelling arguments for either side. Doing the best job I can to wade through it all, lacking the scientific training to judge perfectly, I conclude that the "preponderance of evidence" appears to be on the side of those arguing for human-induced global warming.

I believe, therefore, it makes sense to make prudent and reasonable environmental policy to address the problem. I am not advocating the type of anti-capitalist draconian measure that Coggins seems to think all environmentalists favor, but my sense is that there are prudent, reasonable policy options available, so we can begin to attack the problem, if only at the margins initially.

But, there is no "conclusion" regarding human influence at all. That's the pseudo science aspect of this issue. There is a great deal of speculation, wishful thinking, and ideologically driven jumping to conclusions, but no conclusions, as far as the empirical evidence is concerned. The dogmatic certainty you see in the media, in public pronouncements by scientists seeking more government grant money, and my the IPCC does not exist in the professional literature on climate and numerous, sometimes highly specialized realties sciences. There is an utter, complete, and total disconnect between what you will read in the professional literature, which is dominated by uncertainty, tentativenesses, and findings not infrequently inconsistent with AGW, and the popular media, including popular science media (and even relatively prestigious periodicals like Nature whose editorial board went "green: (i.e., sold out their scientific integrity to a fashionable intellectual fad before all the evidence is in, or has even been collected) where what you have gotten for years is apocalyptic scaremongering, dogmatic certitude, and claims of "consensus" (a strange word to use for natural science in the first instance) in an attempt to stampede mass public opinion toward political ends.

I notice that you mention all the competant scientists who support the idea (as if the bare facts that a majority of scientists support something is indicative of hold upon the truth) whle ignoring the thousands of other competant scientists, many of them eminant, who wont have any of it.

Why are you so sure the one side is on the right track. Because they are a majority? If science attempted to move forward only on the majority opinon of scientists, reagardless of the weight of the evidence, where would science be today?

Suffice it to say that I disagree with you.

As a general rule, I prefer to go with the consensus of scientific thinking, if it can be ascertained. It may not always be correct, but I believe it will tend to be correct on average, and science has a nice self-correcting trait to it, unlike "revealed truth." If global warming is a bogus as you say, I am confident this scientific truth will emerge, but I disagree with you regarding existing preponderance of evidence.

I see no further reason to debate this with you. You are revealed as an ideologue who cannot separate his political views from his assessment of scientific evidence. Reasoned discussion is, therefore, impossible. I think we all understand where you stand and why you stand there.

I was once like you Coggins, very much like you. So I understand your point of view better than you think. And I understand all too well how it is to infuse one's world view with right wing demogoguery. I do not believe you are capable of reasoned, rational thought on this issue. We want to discuss science, and you drag us into polemics on rightest vs. leftist politics. I am not interested in competing political world views, and I do not find them helpful in understanding this issue.

Sorry.