JW USA: A Witness responds to Lloyd Evans about JW and global climate change

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

And if funds for these purposes were to run out, it would also not follow that climate change disasters had diminished. 

Yes. It would. Every penny that we spend determines not only matters of climate change, but all of reality.  

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

4 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

Therefore, whose fault is it that the earth is eroding faster than it would naturally? That affects climate change and enhances the effect of natural disasters.

Billy ... climate change may contribute to accelerated erosion ..... but accelerated erosion DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO CLIMATE CHANGE.

"Everybody says" that because the CO2 levels are rising, the earth is getting warmer.

THEY ARE WRONG

The Earth is getting warmer because it is a natural cycle, due to orbital mechanics of our planet, and the variability of our Star, the Sun.

BECAUSE it is getting warmer, bacteria is flourishing  more than when it is cooler.

Bacteria exhale CO2, just as we do.  Then the trees use CO2, strip off the carbon to make wood, and exhale oxygen.

You are fixated on erosion.

There is an expression for this phenomena of perspective.

"When you are a hammer ... EVERYTHING looks like a nail."

 

[TrueTomHarley]

22 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

There is no pseudoscience with climate change and only people like EVANS would think so.

Here is all that anyone needs to know about Evans:

The most abusive of the major players is Lloyd, though perhaps that is because we have already crossed paths enough for me to consider him my nemesis. He is certainly not the most abusive of the minor players. One of the Redditt latter said: “F**k you! Call me:” and then supplied phone and email. “It is not as though you have given me fine incentive to do so,” I replied. Did he seriously expect a response? What is it with these characters? One thing that will be said of my remarks is that I do not run anyone into the ground, I do not call anyone a liar, nor do I call anyone I disagree with a “disgusting human being,” as Lloyd does with me in a heartbeat.

TTH: It is the common mark of a zealot to demand full agreement in every particular and denounce anything falling short of that as evidence of “a disgusting human being.” It is common practice for such a one to slash & burn, while offering nothing in replacement.

LE: Tom, you stood up for Rutherford over his vile antisemitism, so it's no surprise to see you standing up for written, documented policies that put children within reach of the most depraved of humanity. You are an utter disgrace. Thankfully, nobody's listening to you.

TTH: It’s a little too soon to tell who is listening. You will probably never know, nor will I. There are many people in the world. They form & change points of view as new things comes to their attention. Nobody turns on a dime.

LE: As obnoxious as Tom’s sniveling apologetics for antisemitism and the cover-up of abuse may be, laced as they are with dishonesty, cowardice & a total abandonment of logic &  humanity, it’s hard not to pity him. He’s a boy in a man’s body trying to feel important.

He raised the antisemitism charge several times, apparently thinking that it got under my skin. It refers to a letter Rutherford wrote in 1933 to an infant Nazi government in which he assured them that Witnesses were apolitical and not a threat. He did not avoid derogatory stereotypes of the day regarding Jews. This was long before anything of the Holocaust took shape, and a former director of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, Rabbi Michael Barenbaum, has declared it insignificant to the overall picture.

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/the-1933-letter-to-the-fuhrer.html

TTH: Aside from those minor points I am actually very likable. And [I finally indulged myself] the anti-semitism charge is drivel, you infantile idiot.

I noticed some tweets had vanished and I am unaccustomed to seeing this:

LE: Ste blocked you due to realizing what I’ve known all along: that you’re disingenuous & bereft of reason & humanity. I’m entertained by you, which is why I’m not blocking you. Ste thought he could persuade you and has better uses for his time and indulging your brain farts.

Hmm. Could that be? Nah:

TTH: I didn’t come after him. In no way was I a troll. I have never had to block anyone in my life, even if they were not entertaining. No, I think it is for my first reason. [that he had tagged some journalists and now he didn’t want them to see answers to charges he had made]

But Lloyd told me that Ste blocked me because I was odious and that he “has the right to manage his social media experience,” as though his Twitter feed was an artistic tapestry that would hang on his wall for posterity.

TTH: Demonization & abuse of the ideological enemy happens everywhere. It is played out in many areas, most notably today (but not limited to) national politics of right vs left. It is a good thing to follow these other concerns, both sides, for it enables one to see the overall picture.

LE: Again, I’m not demonizing you. I’m merely giving you a rare dose of reality. You’re little more than an anomaly lurking in the Twitter shadows terrified of going public lest your elders give you a spanking in the back room. It bothers me not whether you wit or carry on, because—follows a gif of a Spongebob character: “Nobody cares!”

TTH: I would say that writing two free books IS going public. The pen is mightier than the podcast, especially when the host of that podcast has an affinity for taunting gifs. I mean, how far is one going to get on such a podcast?

LE: As you know, the podcast invitation has long since been withdrawn now that I know how disingenuous and morally-bankrupt you are. And it’s cute that you think the public are remotely interested in your e-books, one of which lauds you as the self-proclaimed vanquisher of apostates. 

Just how stupid does he think his followers are? He worked tirelessly to get me on his podcast and was as nice as pie until it finally dawned upon him that I was not going to take the bait. That invitation would reappear in two seconds if he thought that I would take it now. He lives to tear to shreds those he opposes, and his followers know and relish it.

After an interval, when he thought my back was turned (but it wasn’t) he tweeted to a chum:

LE: I love your ability to see the best in people but Tom’s not really a nice guy IRL or elsewhere. If you’re a “nice” JW and you discover Rutherford’s antisemitism, you keep quiet and chalk it down to human imperfection. Tom, on the other hand, defends & minimizes it. Nasty

sigh…

TTH: You blockhead. It’s the same thing! “Human imperfection” WAS my defense! What! One should be crucified for human imperfection?

 

Don’t misunderstand. I didn’t knock the ball out of the park. I think it is pretty clearly demonstrated who the bigoted bully is, but that does not mean more will not side with him then with me, for the topic is nasty, the article is actually well-done, and the figures within are portrayed as ones who have suffered mightily in their unrelenting quest of whistleblowing. That sort of thing plays well today. Besides, he had already clearly shown his bullying tactics when he tweet-bombarded certain woman’s groups for 52 straight days with counsel that they should denounce WT for some council to women that he found appalling. He even kept hammering them after one of them said: ‘We’ll look into it.’ He even kept hammering after I appended my tweet to his: “It’s as though Lloyd says: G*d****t, ANSWER me when I’m talking to you!!” But he has tons of followers. There is considerable infighting in that community and I suspect his side puts up with his swaggering because he gets the job done.

No, I didn’t hit any grand slam home runs. On the other hand, I didn’t tell myself that I was going to. I simply appeared to present a contrasting take. Otherwise, the take is monolithic, and it is presented over and over and over again.

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's not fully analogous, but some TV Science channel once ran a special about how you could kill the Sun with a chunk of iron.

It would have to be a small star sized chunk of iron .... probably not something you could get at an automobile scrap yard.

Further, when a star collapses, it can go Nova, or Supernova, which is how we get elements heavier than iron.  This is the natural life cycles of Stars, and there is NOTHING we can to to speed it up, slow it down, or ANYTHING ... except watch.

I suspect in the New System, with perfect people, and 10,000 years of scientific advancement, this will STILL be true.

Same with "Climate Change", AKA "Global Warming.

There is nothing we can do except watch .....

and perhaps move to the mountains, or buy a boat.

[TrueTomHarley]

14 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I suspect in the New System, with perfect people, and 10,000 years of scientific advancement, this will STILL be true.

As you may know, the current organization purposes that many of its deeds will extend right into the new system.

I’ve been assigned to work on this problem. I just about have it figured out.

[JW Insider]

6 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

There is nothing we can do except watch ..... 

I agree, so far, with everything else in that last post except this claim that there is nothing we can do but watch. I think that, as Witnesses, we should have faith that these problems will be completely resolved by the end of the thousand year reign. I don't think it is the responsibility of Witnesses to be climate activists, but we should be aware of the science and do our best to understand it ourselves, or find trustworthy sources to inform us on the topic. I'm sure you feel this is what you have done.

It is difficult to be fully informed on our own, and this is true of most subjects. Fortunately, my son graduated with his degree in physics and he teaches physics and math. He also stays in contact with classmates (former roommates) who have already gone on to work in areas of physics that have a bearing on the topic.

I still need to do a lot more work on the claims about water vapor being the only greenhouse gas that has any significance. From what I have seen so far, this has been a common claim of those who deny the consensus of climate scientists. However . . .

Water vapor is a completely different kind of greenhouse gas that doesn't trap heat in the same way as methane and CO₂. Besides, even though it does trap heat to some extent, it also releases it, cools it, dissipates it, and because clouds are white, it even manages to reflect a lot of solar heat back out away from the earth. There may be a lot of water vapor, but within our current atmosphere, it has surprisingly little effect on the question of why we are seeing a rise global warming and the melting of polar ice. (Except to the extent that water vapor protects us from runaway effects of those greenhouse gases that are much more efficient at trapping heat.)

But I also see another point worth mentioning, I think. Climate science consensus deniers (yes, it's a prejudicial term, but you know what I mean) they have written as if this is something that climate scientists have ignored, as if it's something brand new to them that they have never factored in. I found that implication (or explicit claim in one case) to be totally without basis. So far I haven't seen any treatments of climate change by "consensus" climate scientists who have in any way ignored the actual "numbers" and effects of water vapor. But I will admit to needing a bit more of my own research on this topic.

[Anna]

8 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

  you stood up for Rutherford over his vile antisemitism,

Tom, people like Loyd Evans will take anything, and everything JW's have ever done, said, and written for the last 100+ years and insinuate either bad motives, sheer ignorance, or evilness.

The stunning thing is that nothing, absolutely nothing we have ever done, said, and written has ever been good in their eyes. I think Hitler would fair better. The thing is, LE is an obsessed activist, that's all he does with his life. (I am not sure he even works...) but you already know that. The sad thing there is absolutely no reasoning with him, I think you already know that too. As regards the Rutherford letter, I will have to dig up an apologist explanation for Rutherford's seeming sympathizing sentiments. It was written by a non JW, you may have seen it, I will dig it up and post a link to it here. 

[TrueTomHarley]

1 hour ago, Anna said:

I will have to dig up an apologist explanation for Rutherford's seeming sympathizing sentiments. It was written by a non JW, you may have seen it, 

No.

Lloyd certainly seems to me a nasty piece of work. Still, he represents kicking over the traces and partnering with authority, rather than submitting to it. Those things are all the rage today.

I never engage with him for the sake of engaging with him. There is always another purpose. And it doesn’t happen often. The important thing is to never retaliate. Then his nastiness stands out all the more clearly.

[Anna]

47 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

2 hours ago, Anna said:

I will have to dig up an apologist explanation for Rutherford's seeming sympathizing sentiments. It was written by a non JW, you may have seen it, 

No.

Here you go: http://www.jwhistory.net/english/yonan-journal1999.htm

It's a little off topic here...maybe when you have copied it I should make a new topic?

[TrueTomHarley]

9 hours ago, Anna said:

It's a little off topic here...maybe when you have copied it I should make a new topic?

Nah, not for my sake anyway. Scoundrels always disassociate remarks from the settings in which they were written so as to create a false impression. I’m willing to accept that in JR’s bluntness (for he certainly was that, wasn’t he?) he failed to steer around some negative stereotypes of the day.

It wasn’t his purpose to give PC lectures. It was his purpose to remove roadblocks to the spread of the Bible message.

[TrueTomHarley]

20 minutes ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

By all means TTH? Start a new thread about the misconception 

Some things are too trivial to spend time on. One blows past it instead, accept the common sense explanation that anyone with common sense would accept, and move on. You don’t have to sanitize everything.

Let the anal people try to spin gold out of what is at worst a Rutherford faux pas. All you really need do is demonstrate that they are anal. Such things don’t interest me.

I have come to feel that an anal person will never stop being an anal person. Don’t indulge them unless your purpose is for something greater.

[Anna]

On 3/30/2019 at 9:56 AM, TrueTomHarley said:

Scoundrels always disassociate remarks from the settings in which they were written so as to create a false impression.

Yes. And I don't know if you noticed, in that book extract, Gabriele Yonan states: " When the entire text of the Declaration of 25 June 1933 and the letter to Hitler are seen today in the context of the history of Jehovah's Witnesses during the period of National Socialism in Germany and the history of their religious resistance and their stand during the Holocaust, then the text does not present itself as an "antisemitic statement" or an attempt at "currying the favor" of Hitler. These accusations, stemming from present-day church circles, are deliberate manipulations and falsifications of history, seemingly motivated by guilt over the churches' own involvement or lack or involvement in the persecutions.

So active haters like Lloyd Evans are merely piggy backing on the Churches reasons for criticizing Rutherford's letter. They do not have their own original criticism. This is hilarious since LE is an atheist, but as you see, when it comes to being hateful about JW org, he has no qualms about being one with Christendom. But that is to be expected.