DiscussMormonism.com

Threads like this one confirm my conviction that religion will never disappear.

People just exchange one eschatological dogma for another.

beastie wrote:It's so depressing, and so damning of our species in general, that it's painful to even think about. In addition, the people who have caused us to reach this point won't be alive to take responsibility for the mess they've created. They'll get to die before that time, secure in their costly ignorance.

I suppose that it will be fitting, then, that the graves of a good number of them will end up underwater. ; )

Ludd wrote:Threads like this one confirm my conviction that religion will never disappear.

People just exchange one eschatological dogma for another.

This thread is only about eschatological dogma to folks who think in those terms and therefore can't help but see it as such. I don't happen to be among them.

As to religion, I agree that it is unlikely to disappear. However, I have lived and worked in secular countries that certainly give one hope that its destructive influence will moderate.

DrW,

I know whenever someone says anything of a skeptical nature towards "climate change" (whatever that is without a precise definition) they are labeled anti science, "deniers" etc. Given this political rhetoric lets just stick to actual science.

What sources are you relying on respecting your disaster facts and a connection to anthropogenic global warming?

In 2011, the Federal Government declared more than 90 major weather related disasters. In the decade prior to 2011, the average was 56 per year. In the decade of the 1960s, the average was 18 per year.

In the last two years, natural disasters, most of them weather related, have cost the US Treasury close to $188 billion, or an average of some 2 billion dollars per week.

Yet conservative politicians, in the main, refuse to appropriate funds or approve legislation that would allow us to take reasonable steps to prepare for, or head off, this kind of day late, dollar short, catch-up spending.

Hurricane Sandy cost New York at least $60 billion. Effective seawalls and other infrastructure projects to protect low lying coastal areas of New York City against flooding from storm surges, if carried out when first recommended by climate scientists, would have cost about 10% of that amount.

There is no mention of hurricanes (like Sandy) in the extreme weather events section of the IPCC report. (http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/) The report gives low confidence to tropical storm activity being connected to climate change, and doesn't mention events like tornadoes and thunderstorms at all. It gives low confidence to drought and flood attribution.

This is consistent with what was reported a couple years ago in the IPCC SREX report ( IPCC Special Report on Extremes)

From Chapter 4 of the SREX:

“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

Nature published an editorial last year dashing alarmist hopes of linking extreme weather events to global warming saying:

"Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming."

It is also non-controversial that the earth has not warmed in the last nearly two decades. So how are connecting the FEMA disasters you cite as attributable to anthropogenic global warming when the correlating temperatures with your data show no warming?

Here are further quotes from the IPCC:

“Overall, the most robust global changes in climate extremes are seen in measures of daily temperature, including to some extent, heat waves. Precipitation extremes also appear to be increasing, but there is large spatial variability”
“There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”
“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”

Anyone still looking for real debate on climate change has missed their chance. The verdict is in on this one, and has been for some time. The issue now is what to do about it.

The debate isn't "climate change" the debate is anthropogenic global warming or man made global warming. The petition project demonstrates the debate is not over. The many previous scientist believers that have become skeptics demonstrate the verdict is not in. What are you relying on?

my regards, mikwut

mikwut wrote:The debate isn't "climate change" the debate is anthropogenic global warming or man made global warming. The petition project demonstrates the debate is not over. The many previous scientist believers that have become skeptics demonstrate the verdict is not in. What are you relying on?

my regards, mikwut

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Chap wrote:

Markk wrote:... a large thunder cloud came over and burst and poured out rain...the professor started running around in circles screaming what do we do. what do we do...the 3 men calmly looked at him and said...lets get out of the rain?[/i]

Somehow I don't think you know many award winning scientists.

This silly little caricature tells us nothing much, except about your wish to believe in comforting stereotypes.

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.

So you tell me where I am wrong here?

DrW wrote:This thread is only about eschatological dogma to folks who think in those terms and therefore can't help but see it as such. I don't happen to be among them.

Ok, let's call it apocalyptic doom-mongering instead.

You seem to be saying that if only the religionists and the political conservatives would get out of the way, then climate change doom could be, or possibly could be, avoided. Ok, let's suppose for a moment that they were out of the way, what would you like to see happen that isn't happening otherwise?

And what about the rest of the world? Are they taking these actions that the supposedly religious/conservative USA is not? If not, why not?

Of course, trying to engage you in a logical discussion about any of this would be a silly exercise in futility. You're obviously a true-believer when it comes to your religious dogma of choice.

As for me, if the climate really is changing such that the earth will become warmer in the future, I'm all for it. I would love to be able to grow a date palm in my yard.

Dr.W,

As a physicist with your knowledge of the state of the art in science and technology, what is your assessment of the probability of achieving a breakthrough in the production of practical and affordable, controlled, thermonuclear power in the near future, and, if achieved, how could that affect or ameliorate anthropogenic climate change?

DrW wrote:One thing you may not have considered is the fact that we have a political party in this country that seldom sees a war they don't like. In order for your plan to work, the more non-interventionist policies of the current administration would need to become national policy over the longer haul. What are the chances of that happening?

I would say the chances are somewhere between slim and none. And I would add, that there are two political parties that have never seen a war they didn't want to play in. The current administration does seem to be a little less quick to jump in the sand box, but this is just one leader, not, I would submit, the feelings of the entire party. But I digress.

I'm not sure who emerges from the global conflict the winner (if you dare call it winning). Islam has a good chance since it seems to be more willing to embrace violence than the far-eastern religions, but China certainly has a numerical advantage.

When someone plays the nuclear card we all lose, and I would hope that everyone understands that, but under conventional strategies a global conflict can kill millions if not billions of people in a relatively short period of time.

Is this the Armageddon to which Christians look as the opening of the second coming, or is it just some smart philosophers recognizing that the nature of mankind is to wage war against others who they see as not like them?

I really don't know, and have no opinion. However, I see aggressive warring between peoples as a bigger threat to mankind than Global climate change. Climate change may start the war, or food shortages caused by climate change, but I believe it will quickly devolve into a war of ideologies.

Ludd wrote:
As for me, if the climate really is changing such that the earth will become warmer in the future, I'm all for it. I would love to be able to grow a date palm in my yard.

Wow. Where is that definitive quote page? I haven't heard this kind of ignorant reply to climate change since my college days in Utah. Is this response just a "Mormon thing?"