LDS Freedom Forum

2BFree wrote:So BDawg...you are an apparent advocate for AGW. Are you also an advocate and agree with the political and financial goals and desired actions that the other AGW activists are wanting to implement? Do you truly believe that we must tax the world based upon the "carbon footprint" of each person? Do you think doing so will really reduce the CO2 levels globally especially when some countries will be "exempt" from the taxes? Are you an advocate for the carbon trading schemes that have been set up to buy and sell carbon "credits"? Do you believe a global government is needed to control AGW and to reduce the population of the world by up to 90% which has been proposed by many AGW activists? Just wondering dude where you're coming from...

Hi 2B,

I'm actually pretty conservative, politically. My position, in a nutshell, is that most of the solutions to AGW that have been thrown out so far involve too much government control and increased tax revenue. And of course they do, because they are almost all coming from the left. Most of the conservatives are not proposing any solutions, but instead are glomming onto every pseudoscientific argument and fringe scientist they can find so they can have some excuse for sticking their heads in the sand and doing nothing. So naturally, nothing will get done until it really is too late to do anything but something really draconian. So you see, my position is that people like those who usually hang around in this forum are the ones who are, in the end, forcing us down the road to global Communism.

BDawg wrote: So you see, my position is that people like those who usually hang around in this forum are the ones who are, in the end, forcing us down the road to global Communism.

Yep, that is what we are all about here on the forum. Force and communism! :ymparty: :ymparty:

So naturally, nothing will get done until it really is too late to do anything but something really draconian.

I would be interested to know your position on the predicted effects of AGW and as you seem to indicate in your postings believe that these effects are going to be drastic and bad. Do you believe that if the world doesn't reduce the CO2 levels some how that the consequences will be as awful as Al Gore and other AGW proponents have said? As a conservative per your own admission and a true believer in AGW, what would you suggest we do to correct this progression to global annihilation from CO2 and increased global temperatures? What about all the other greenhouse gases like water vapor which is the largest greenhouse gas we have? Can you tell me why the scientists and AGW proponents have focused on CO2 when it is such a small percentage of all the other greenhouse gases that are much more prevalent in the atmosphere?

2BFree wrote:

So naturally, nothing will get done until it really is too late to do anything but something really draconian.

I would be interested to know your position on the predicted effects of AGW and as you seem to indicate in your postings believe that these effects are going to be drastic and bad. Do you believe that if the world doesn't reduce the CO2 levels some how that the consequences will be as awful as Al Gore and other AGW proponents have said? As a conservative per your own admission and a true believer in AGW, what would you suggest we do to correct this progression to global annihilation from CO2 and increased global temperatures? What about all the other greenhouse gases like water vapor which is the largest greenhouse gas we have? Can you tell me why the scientists and AGW proponents have focused on CO2 when it is such a small percentage of all the other greenhouse gases that are much more prevalent in the atmosphere?

Hi 2B,

Scientists can't predict what the exact effects will be--they can only give a distribution of probabilities. (I.e., "there's a 20% chance of this outcome, a 50% chance of this kind of outcome, a 2% chance of this other one, etc.) The most likely scenarios seem to be pretty darn bad, but naturally, Al Gore sometimes focused on the more extreme outcomes with lower probabilities. On the one hand, you can't ignore those, but I don't think it's right to only focus on them. On the other hand, you seem to want to exaggerate even what Gore said--"progression to global annihilation."

The best proposal I've seen so far for U.S. policy is a "carbon tax swap" proposed by Rep. Bob Ingliss. You institute a carbon tax that ramps up every year, but you don't let that increase government revenues. Instead, you simply use it to replace some of the income and payroll taxes. I'm sure there are details that would have to be worked out to make it fair, but on its face it looks like a decent way to incentivize switching to other energy sources without further bloating the government.

Thanks for asking about why scientists focus on CO2. Here's the deal. Climate scientists DO take all the greenhouse gases into account, including methane, CFCs, oxides of nitrogen, and so on. Leaving aside water vapor (which is a special case,) CO2 is the most abundant. Some of the others (like methane and CFCs) are more powerful in terms of how much radiation each molecule absorbs, but there isn't nearly as much of them up there. If you go look in the latest IPCC report, you will find a table with all the greenhouse gases, along with estimates of their warming potential given the current concentrations.

Water vapor is BY FAR the most abundant greenhouse gas, but it is limited with respect to its ability to cause "global warming" on its own. That's because, given a certain temperature, the air can only hold so much water vapor before it condenses into clouds and falls out as precipitation. So if we all ran our sprinklers all the time, lots of extra water vapor would go into the air, but it couldn't cause any long-term warming because it would soon come back out of the air.

But what if SOMETHING ELSE (like changes in solar radiation, extra greenhouse gases other than water, etc.) caused it to warm? At the new temperature, more water vapor could fit into the air without condensing, so this would cause even further warming. This is one of the "positive feedbacks" that are thought to enhance warming or cooling trends caused by the Sun, CO2, etc. (There are some negative feedbacks, too, but the positive ones are thought to be dominant.) You see, not only do climate scientists NOT ignore water vapor, it's actually an important reason they think pumping massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere will have such a large effect.

Please, just take a step back, now, and ask yourself some hard questions. Clearly this business about water vapor is a red herring. "Look at the shiny distraction!" Why would someone try to convince you that the climate scientists are stupid hacks based on something as obviously wrong as that? Since it's so obviously wrong to anyone who knows anything about climate models, and since it's such a common objection among "skeptics," why don't the more informed "skeptics" (like Anthony Watts, whom you seem to like) try to correct this misinformation? You only need elementary school science to understand it, after all.

If you are actually curious about how scientists would answer common objections like these, I recommend browsing around this site:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BDawg wrote: Hi 2B,

I'm actually pretty conservative, politically. My position, in a nutshell, is that most of the solutions to AGW that have been thrown out so far involve too much government control and increased tax revenue. And of course they do, because they are almost all coming from the left. Most of the conservatives are not proposing any solutions, but instead are glomming onto every pseudoscientific argument and fringe scientist they can find so they can have some excuse for sticking their heads in the sand and doing nothing.

Look at what has been done in the name of global warming and all the related environmentalism movements. By their fruits ye shall know them and these organizations have produced tyranny, waste, fraud, abuse, etc. You are buying into their propaganda. Yes, they may have a little truth in their message, but their results are despicable. I'll take the guy doing nothing any day.

BDawg wrote: So naturally, nothing will get done until it really is too late to do anything but something really draconian. So you see, my position is that people like those who usually hang around in this forum are the ones who are, in the end, forcing us down the road to global Communism.

What an strange attitude. Even as your global warming friends are blatantly implementing tyranny, you want to shift blame to those who are not supporting it?? Very flawed logic there. They've been at this far longer than global warming, that is simply the flavor/excuse of the month. In addition, you've already bought into the idea that we must do something about global warming and so your thinking is doubly flawed.

Lets remember that the Lord is in charge and what his purposes are. If a change is needed, he'll see it done so that his work can continue. In the meantime, lets not be tricked into supporting Satan's plan simply because its under the guise of a good cause. Satan has ever used noble ideals to mask his evil designs. Just skip the propaganda and look purely at the fruits of these organizations and you will be able to see clearly who is running them.

Rensai wrote:

BDawg wrote:So naturally, nothing will get done until it really is too late to do anything but something really draconian. So you see, my position is that people like those who usually hang around in this forum are the ones who are, in the end, forcing us down the road to global Communism.

What an strange attitude. Even as your global warming friends are blatantly implementing tyranny, you want to shift blame to those who are not supporting it?? Very flawed logic there. They've been at this far longer than global warming, that is simply the flavor/excuse of the month. In addition, you've already bought into the idea that we must do something about global warming and so your thinking is doubly flawed.

Lets remember that the Lord is in charge and what his purposes are. If a change is needed, he'll see it done so that his work can continue. In the meantime, lets not be tricked into supporting Satan's plan simply because its under the guise of a good cause. Satan has ever used noble ideals to mask his evil designs. Just skip the propaganda and look purely at the fruits of these organizations and you will be able to see clearly who is running them.

Let me give you another example. When communists try to support their agenda, they point to the suffering and exploitation of the poor. Does this mean that Communism is the best way to deal with the problem? Obviously not.

So does this mean we should deny there is any problem with the suffering and exploitation of the poor? We would have to be complete idiots to take that approach, and doing so would play into the Communists' hands, because then they look like the only ones who are trying to address a problem that is pretty obvious.

Of course, you could always say that "if change is needed, [the Lord will] see it done so that his work can continue." But then, the Lord has been telling us to help the poor and oppressed for thousands of years. Maybe he just wants us to do like he said.

BDawg wrote:

Rensai wrote:

BDawg wrote:So naturally, nothing will get done until it really is too late to do anything but something really draconian. So you see, my position is that people like those who usually hang around in this forum are the ones who are, in the end, forcing us down the road to global Communism.

What an strange attitude. Even as your global warming friends are blatantly implementing tyranny, you want to shift blame to those who are not supporting it?? Very flawed logic there. They've been at this far longer than global warming, that is simply the flavor/excuse of the month. In addition, you've already bought into the idea that we must do something about global warming and so your thinking is doubly flawed.

Lets remember that the Lord is in charge and what his purposes are. If a change is needed, he'll see it done so that his work can continue. In the meantime, lets not be tricked into supporting Satan's plan simply because its under the guise of a good cause. Satan has ever used noble ideals to mask his evil designs. Just skip the propaganda and look purely at the fruits of these organizations and you will be able to see clearly who is running them.

Let me give you another example. When communists try to support their agenda, they point to the suffering and exploitation of the poor. Does this mean that Communism is the best way to deal with the problem? Obviously not.

Right. That is exactly my point. Lets take it a little farther. Not only is communism not the best way to deal with that problem, but it in fact makes it much worse. Look back at communist Russia, or at China today; not only did communism not help the poor, but there are more poor than ever under those systems. They simply used that as an excuse to gain power. Global warming is being used the same way by the UN today. Even if there is some truth to it (which I am not convinced of), it is irrelevant because the proposed cure is far worse than the disease.

BDawg wrote: So does this mean we should deny there is any problem with the suffering and exploitation of the poor? We would have to be complete idiots to take that approach, and doing so would play into the Communists' hands, because then they look like the only ones who are trying to address a problem that is pretty obvious.

Of course, you could always say that "if change is needed, [the Lord will] see it done so that his work can continue." But then, the Lord has been telling us to help the poor and oppressed for thousands of years. Maybe he just wants us to do like he said.

Yes, actually I think we should deny there is a problem or at least that we have enough knowledge about it to take action right now. You compare global warming to the poor, but that is not a good comparison for this argument. We can all clearly see the poor, and see that they need help, and that we have been commanded to give it; whereas with global warming, only the UN and other organizations of dubious character are saying it is a problem. Have you heard president Monson talk about it? I sure haven't. Don't you think if it was really some big world threatening problem the prophet would address it? The Lord will not allow a small handful of his children (those alive today) to threaten his entire plan by destroying the planet. The earth belongs to him and he will ensure it is habitable, etc.

He has told us exactly the opposite of the global warming crowd in fact. They say we should have small families because we are using up all the earth's resources and there are too many of us for the planet to sustain, etc. Now lets look at what the Lord says.
http://lds.org/ensign/2005/04/strengthe ... h?lang=eng

After the Lord commanded Adam and Eve to “be fruitful, and multiply,” He commanded them to “replenish the earth, and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28). The Hebrew word translated as replenish means “to fill.” For many years we have heard warnings about overpopulation and the devastating effects it can cause. While some areas of the world are experiencing a negative impact from extreme population density, the world as a whole is actually moving in the opposite direction. Indeed, research indicates that by the year 2040 world population will peak and begin to decline. 5

Probably a more relevant issue than population density is how we use the resources God has given us to support the population now and in the future. “For the earth is full,” He said, “and there is enough and to spare. … If any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment” (D&C 104:17–18). “The enemy of human happiness as well as the cause of poverty and starvation is not the birth of children,” said Elder Henry B. Eyring of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. “It is the failure of people to do with the earth what God could teach them to do if only they would ask and then obey.” 6

We are commanded to:
1. Multiply and replenish(fill)
2. Subdue the earth
3. utilize the earth's resources of which there is more than enough for all

The global warming groups are diametrically opposed to all of these ideas. They want to drastically reduce the population of the earth and implement complete tyranny to "save the planet" from us dumb apes. Who's plan should we support then, the Lords or the UN's? You have to decide whether to put your faith in men or in God.