Life and lifestyle stuff


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Mores
1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Perhaps because there is a significant difference between religious convictions and social forecasts grounded on evidence speculation extrapolated by science media and political propaganda.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

People who claim the environment is within ten years of collapsing/five years of collapsing/three minutes of collapsing remind me of Harold Camping, that preacher who predicted the end of the world about eight times. Virtually all of us laugh at Harold Camping, but the elite don't laugh about environmentalists who preach the same gospel, but about a different topic. Environmentalism is religion for atheists. 

Indeed... And when we recognize we are in a "Boy who cried Wolf" situation and we are looking for more credible signs that we really have a wolf this time... We get rebuked because we are not instantly grabbing our Torch and Pitchfork to drive the wolf (who has not yet ever been there) off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Perhaps because there is a significant difference between religious convictions and forecasts grounded on evidence extrapolated by science.

 

I don't remember our conversations, but I'm reasonably sure I've asked you to read several books before. I doubt you have, because all of us don't like to read books that challenge our already held views, but I'll try again. 

Read "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg. It's a little dated, but it provides a wonderful counter to your views. After that, than we can discuss environmentalism. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, estradling75 said:

Indeed... And when we recognize we are in a "Boy who cried Wolf" situation and we are looking for more credible signs that we really have a wolf this time... We get rebuked because we are not instantly grabbing our Torch and Pitchfork to drive the wolf (who has not yet ever been there) off. 

Yup, couldn't agree more. Like I said in the previous post, for those who don't believe in God, they believe in global warming. (Which, for the record, I also believe is happening but won't really effect us for thousands of years.) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

Indeed... And when we recognize we are in a "Boy who cried Wolf" situation and we are looking for more credible signs that we really have a wolf this time... We get rebuked because we are not instantly grabbing our Torch and Pitchfork to drive the wolf (who has not yet ever been there) off. 

The problem in my mind is not just the political motivations for pushing the propaganda (the boy who cried wolf) but the public's ignorant willingness to simply jump on the bandwagon  (grab the pitchfork) every time another weather phenomenon is considered "climate change".  At least the townsfolk grew aware of the boy's dishonesty.  But the public simply refuses to see it.

It gets warmer -- it's global warming.  It gets colder -- it's climate change.  It is warming when it is predicted that it should get colder (or vice versa) -- it's weather, not climate.  Evidence in the short term refutes their position -- that's weather not climate.  Evidence in the long term refutes their position -- they deny it and claim that was made up, or they ignore it entirely.

Evidence is made up to support their position, they defend it anyway.  Evidence is accused of being falsified on our position, but found to be factual, the damage is done, and the lie is believed.  The other day I heard James Colbert making an argument that he intended to defend climate change alarmists that really supported the view of climate realists.  So, there's a great deal of hypocrisy going on too.

Yes, there have been increased hurricane activity in certain areas of world.  But these are not unprecedented either.  Such patterns have been seen before.  But they happen with such infrequency, people tend to think that it must be because of us.  Millions of species die all the time.  Only a nearsighted uninformed dabbler would believe they're all because of us.  Millions of species emerge all the time.  And no one is celebrating them. 

The onesidedness of the argument should tell people just who's being honest and who's lying.  But the left is used to hypocrisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

And to be fair, some right wingers (some, not all. Some) think any kind of environmental protections are "liberal conspiracies." That's nonsense too. I want clean water, clean air (like everyone does) and to protect some land from development. That doesn't make me a member of the Green party or someone who worships Al Gore. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mores said:

Millions of species die all the time.

Actually, they don't.

4 minutes ago, Mores said:

Millions of species emerge all the time.

Actually, they don't.

Each and every species that goes extinct is the Irretrievable loss of billions of years of evolution; the genetic wisdom of life. If that risks loss, I think the precautionary principle applies, that we should do what we can to preserve it, if not for their sakes, then for ours. 40% of cancer drugs have significant input of organically derived material, for example.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MormonGator said:

Yup, couldn't agree more. Like I said in the previous post, for those who don't believe in God, they believe in global warming. (Which, for the record, I also believe is happening but won't really effect us for thousands of years.) 

I am not an environmental scientist (I am a more of a computer scientist by profession which is not relevant to the environment but shows I am open to logic and reason).

So my environmental scientist creds are limited to School Science classes.   In school I was taught the earth has undergone multiple Ice Ages (I think it is 5 but I could be wrong on the numbers)  When Ice Ages happened the temperate dropped, the sea levels fell, and Ice covered large parts of the world... Then the world came out of the Ice Age. The temperature rose, the sea levels rose, and the ice shrank back.  Based on our current understanding we are  still climbing out of the last Ice Age, thus we should expect to see rising temperature, sea level and shrinking ice caps.

I was also taught that mass extinction events happened  (aka dinosaurs are the most commonly understood one but there are others) for various reasons...  And that lesser extinction events happened as the earth changed between Ice Ages.

Both these ideas have general agreement among the scientists and experts.  While they are still refining the details they are in agreement...  They are also in agreement this all happened before humanity was even here.  I have no problem with this view or understanding (I do reserve the right to modify my understanding has further truth is gained)

The problem is this all take place in geologic time (aka millions of years).  The earth had been reeling like a drunken sailor from one climate extreme to another unsparingly driving millions upon millions species to extinction in the process.  Humanity has been record keeping for a couple of thousands...   Humanity has a serve case of Presentism.

When we are wise stewards we plan for the use of the world not just for ourselves but for our kids and grand kids...  That means clean water, clean air etc.   That also means being careful of other humans who would seek only short term gains either in the abuse of the environment or abuse of our desire to protect the environment

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I am not an environmental scientist (I am a more of a computer scientist by profession which is not relevant to the environment but shows I am open to logic and reason)....When we are wise stewards we plan for the use of the world not just for ourselves but for our kids and grand kids... 

Thank you, friend, for your balanced view on that.

However, it seems to me that there is a moral difference between past mass extinction events whether caused by a meteor wiping out dinosaurs and such, or otherwise, and mass extinctions caused by a humanity that should know better.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Pretty sure you figured it out already.

Uh huh. But I want you to spell it out, ideally in words of three syllables or less, (so my poor 2ndRateMind might understand your point), so I can respond to it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Uh huh. But I want you to spell it out, ideally in words of three syllables or less, (so my poor 2ndRateMind might understand your point), so I can respond to it.

Best wishes, 2RM.

You are not as smart as you think you are.  

(All one syllable.  You are welcome.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Oh, OK. Another irrelevant ad hominem.

Best wishes, 2RM.

As relevant as saying we can be sure of the UN.  Which of course played to my posted image.  Which led to this conversation.  Which led to your irrelevant comment.

Edited by mirkwood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Mores said:

Evidence is made up to support their position, they defend it anyway.  Evidence is accused of being falsified on our position, but found to be factual, the damage is done, and the lie is believed. 

A few years ago I was arguing with an environmental cultist.  He kept hitting me with the now infamous hockey stick graph that claimed to show a sharp increase in mean global temperatures over the last century or so.  At the time, the source code for one of the atmospheric models used by a scientific agency in the U.K. had been leaked.  This happened to be the very same model where this hockey stick graph was often sourced from.

Being a software engineer, and interested in knowing what the unfiltered truth about this data was, I looked at the code.  What I found (and this got a lot of attention because I wasn't the only one) was:

(Layman's Terms) that the section of the code where it reads the data from whatever sources were fed into it ignored that data and replaced it with data that would produce the hockey stick.

(Developer terms) The function that took in the data stream as parameters had that variable commented out and instead replaced it with an array of decimal values that matched the ones used to create the graph.  It then returned this result.

So in short,  this hunk of atmospheric modeling software, which undoubtedly cost millions to build and maintain, and probably took years to develop, had at least one whole section of it completely rendered moot in order to force it to produce an output that supported the doctrine of the cult of environmentalism.

When I presented these findings in my debate with the cultist, he became enraged, accused me of lying, feigned outrage that I'd question the integrity of these scientists who are, apparently, the very paragons of human honesty and virtue, and the argument ended on that note.

"Hey unixknight, why are you such a skeptic?" Well, because if people on your side of the issue have to lie to make an argument, then your argument must be wrong.  Otherwise the truth would be on your side.

As for me doing my part to be a good steward of this world, I believe in keeping in mind how I live and what I do impacts the environment around me, and it influences my choices.   I recycle what I can recycle.  I don't use electricity I don't have to.  My car has an Ecoboost system in it which means the turbocharger allows me to run a much smaller engine for the class car I drive than I would normally need.  (It's a midsize sedan with a 1.5L engine, and it has plenty of power.)   My truck ain't the most eco friendly vehicle ever built but I only use it to run stuff to the landfill or bring stuff home from Home Depot.  I don't kill spiders, I don't dump out chemicals into my land or down the drain, and I don't waste energy.  It's what I can do.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott

Here's what our church leaders say:

https://www.lds.org/topics/environmental-stewardship-and-conservation?lang=eng

Excerpts:

This beautiful earth and all things on it are the creations of God (see Genesis 1:1; Moses 2:1; John 1:10; 2 Nephi 2:14). As beneficiaries of this divine creation, we should care for the earth, be wise stewards over it, and preserve it for future generations. The earth and all things on it are part of God’s plan for the redemption of His children and should be used responsibly to sustain the human family (see 1 Nephi 17:36; Moses 1:39; Abraham 3:24–25). However, all are stewards—not owners—over this earth and its bounty and will be accountable before God for what they do with His creations (see D&C 104:13–15). All humankind should gratefully use what God has given, avoid wasting life and resources, and use the bounty of the earth to care for the poor and the needy (see D&C 49:19–21).

--

God has made us accountable for the care and preservation of the earth and the wise use of its resources (see D&C 104:13–15). As stewards, we avoid complacency and excessive consumption, using only what is necessary (see D&C 49:19–21). We make our homes, neighborhoods, and cities beautiful. We preserve resources and protect for future generations the spiritual and temporal blessings of nature.

--

The Church strives to conserve and manage energy appropriately. It has implemented a green building initiative that incorporates sustainable design and construction practices. Water conservation efforts include the use of smart controllers, hydrometers, rain sensors, drip irrigation, and secondary or reclaimed water. In 2013, the Church headquarters campus recycled about 180 tons of cardboard, 65 tons of paper, 26 tons of plastic, and 2 tons of aluminum. Farm and ranch lands are protected from overgrazing to nutrient depletion. Natural, organic resources are used.

See also here:

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/articles-resources-environmental-stewardship-conservation

Edited by Scott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, unixknight said:

"Hey unixknight, why are you such a skeptic?" Well, because if people on your side of the issue have to lie to make an argument, then your argument must be wrong.  Otherwise the truth would be on your side.

 

Exactly....  We are being told to blindly trust the experts... Then we find signs that he experts are lying... Or we see evidence that they are simply wrong (4 feet of water by the year 2000).  Thus by all that is rational and reasonable we should be challenging the experts and their data (because of their history of lying) and their conclusions (because of their history of being wrong) Yet when we are do we are accused of being Anti-Science, Anti-Reason, and Anti-Logic.

Yet they never lay out the logical and rational, reason why we should now trust them after their history of errors and lies

Edited by estradling75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Scott said:

Here's what our church leaders say:

Thank you for that, @Scott, It's a fine ideal, and one I have no problem subscribing to. But, I am still interested in what it means, in practical terms, world-wide.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
10 minutes ago, unixknight said:

(Layman's Terms) that the section of the code where it reads the data from whatever sources were fed into it ignored that data and replaced it with data that would produce the hockey stick.

(Developer terms) The function that took in the data stream as parameters had that variable commented out and instead replaced it with an array of decimal values that matched the ones used to create the graph.  It then returned this result.

So in short,  this hunk of atmospheric modeling software, which undoubtedly cost millions to build and maintain, and probably took years to develop, had at least one whole section of it completely rendered moot in order to force it to produce an output that supported the doctrine of the cult of environmentalism.\

Thanks,

I actually read an alarmist apologist's website where he/she addressed that.  It was a Q&A defense.

Q: Hasn't the hockey stick model been debunked?

A: Yes, but that doesn't matter since we now have other evidence to support the very same model. So, it isn't the primary evidence anymore.  It is just one more piece of evidence reinforcing many others.

Think about that.  He agrees it has been debunked.  Then refuses to say it should be thrown out.  Instead, he groups it with "all the other evidence" supporting his position.  Doesn't that imply that he believes all the other evidence is on equal footing as the debunked evidence?  He isn't a very good apologist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mores said:

Think about that.  He agrees it has been debunked.  Then refuses to say it should be thrown out.  Instead, he groups it with "all the other evidence" supporting his position.  Doesn't that imply that he believes all the other evidence is on equal footing as the debunked evidence?  He isn't a very good apologist.

I've seen that same sort of thing in other areas as well.  Evidence that is known to have been fabricated, but is still used to spread the dogma.  I actually had a friendly debate on one such subject with a friend, who actually uses these materials in teaching his high school class.  When I asked him why he would use data that's known to have been fabricated, his very candid answer was "it's the best we've got."

Think about THAT.  The conclusion is already assumed to be true, and so they work backward and incorporate anything that corroborates it, even if it's shown to be unreliable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share