JW Insider

Whoops!

Also not fake. I printed all these myself, and accidentally printed so many I use them as tissues and throw them into paper bags to toss out. Point being that it's not impossible to create propaganda, especially when there's a measure of truth in it.

Gene Smalley was the much more likely writer of the "Nethinim" article. Also, note that Bro Morris was not even invited to Bethel until 10 years after that article was written.

I referred specifically to a period of time from mid 1976 to mid-1977 when I saw drunkenness and saw persons getting in trouble for drunkenness. During that time the reasons for weekly dismissals were announced by Knorr from "morning worship" which included Knorr's comments every weekday morning after the day's text and comments. He often went into great detail about the exact reasons that persons were dismissed, and it was almost always for theft or some kind of immorality. Persons were dismissed every week, but during that time there was never an announcement of someone being dismissed for drunkenness. It was after mid-1977 that announcements about the reasons for dismissals stopped, and this is why we could not assume to know the reasons for dismissals from that point on. In any case it's still true then, that I saw drunkenness and misuse of alcohol by younger members at Bethel, but never heard of a case where a person was dismissed for it. I cannot say it didn't happen. Yet I did know persons who got away with repeated drunkenness who were never dismissed. I have never seen a member of the Governing Body drunk. I never even suspected it. One of several persons who claimed that he had seen such a thing, had his own issues with alcohol in my opinion. The only member of the Governing Body I knew well was Bert Schroeder. (I saw and worked near Sydlik, Gangas and Swingle on a daily basis but never got to know them very well.) He hosted a Gilead party in his room after every graduation. Invariably, there were some very talented persons in the Gilead class musically, and a great Flamenco style Spanish guitarist at the very first "Gilead party" I attended in the Fall of 1976. Brother Schroeder served alcohol in his room, but I don't recall him drinking at all, not that it would have been a problem if he did. Everyone else also drank moderately. This was very early and memorable in my Bethel years, and it was the first Bethel "party" I attended. But among younger Bethelites, alcohol seemed to me to be a bigger problem than I had expected. In 1978, I went to Europe for about 6 weeks, part of it with the Schroeders, and part of it to work at the Athens branch, and part of it to attend various international conventions and visit and stay at 8 European branch offices - not in any official capacity of course, just as a free hotel room. Just before the trip, my brother had just sent me a 5-gallon bottle of Seagrams 7, which I had not opened and I asked my three roommates not to open while I was gone. It was empty when I came back. Several young brothers at Bethel had lamps that were made from these 5 gallon whiskey bottles, and I gave away the empty bottle to a brother who wanted to make a lamp out of it. Who knows? It might have been passed down to someone who is still there.

Nothing specific enough to be of interest to anyone looking for gossip. I think most people know that young Bethelites got in all sorts of trouble. For a few months under Knorr, there seemed to be someone sent home for 'conduct unbecoming a Bethelite' every week, sometimes two or three on the same day, and sometimes more than once in the same week. But this was when Knorr was handling the "morning worship" every day in 1976 and a bit of 1977. After Knorr was too sick, the daily text "morning worship" rotated and I never remember anyone else announcing dismissals, except maybe Milton Henschel when he wanted to make a point about the specific type of misconduct. Knorr was always very specific and it became counsel for the rest of the family, even if it took the form of a long rant that could even make you late for work. So what I meant was that I never remember Knorr berating anyone for drunkenness or dismissing anyone for it. The dismissals that came afterward were not announced to the whole family so I have no idea what most of them were for, unless there was a clear rumor to go with it. Back in those years almost everyone could still drink at age 19, and there were only a few 18 year olds on construction and painting crews mostly. It wasn't until 1984 that all states went to 21. But there was a time when it was easier to buy liquor in NJ (and they moved the age down from 19 to 18 in 1980). Some Bethelites would take trips from NY to NJ to stock up and then bring it back to share (or resell) to others. Drinking was much more common than I expected, but I am not trying to give the impression that there was rampant drunkenness. It's just that you could tell that some young brothers were away from their families for the first time, had a measure of independence and privacy at Bethel, and there were several obvious mistakes made. The parties in some rooms made worldly neighbors complain from a couple of the buildings nestled in between apartments that the Society did not own. I knew a Bethelite who got in trouble for this, but he was not sent home. The rumor about "higher-ups" is not directly related, but it was related to the "gifts" of prime cut steaks that were sent periodically from Watchtower Farms to Brooklyn. These were never served to the Bethel family, but I knew one of the cooks who was sworn to secrecy about who got them and how often. There are always perks in any organization for those at a certain level of responsibility, and this was not a "Governing Body" thing. It was more of a long time seniority thing, which will necessarily (sometimes) overlap. Since these steaks were served semi-privately as specially cooked meals, they could be served with alcohol, but some brothers were said to have already served themselves alcohol before coming down to get their meal. Certain brothers became known for this behavior, even to the point of using very foul language to the cooks and waiters. If you want to keep a secret the last thing you want to do is curse out a cook or a waiter. Anyway, the basic idea, which I could not say because I don't know, was that Knorr knew that some high-seniority people had been known to misbehave in this area, and it might have produced some leniency when younger ones had this trouble.

I just watched the video from the last post. Very creepy. Seems it should be illegal to post a video like this. GB TMZ. Easily misinterpreted, too.

I am still under my own self-imposed gag order with respect to joining in discussions of anything controversial that might affect anyone's view of Witness doctrine and Watchtower practices, past and present. Also, I have not listened to Lloyd Evans for more than 5 minutes, total. I heard he did a fair job on the Montana CSA trial, but I have only read the court documents. I know nothing of this liquor store picture/video, and am embarrassed to comment in a topic with this name. I go into a liquor store almost weekly myself because the owner lets me take about 30 strong cardboard boxes every Saturday night or Sunday morning. Once every month or so, I'll feel bad about taking advantage, so I buy a bottle of wine. I need the boxes because I'm in the middle of culling out literally thousands of books from my shelves and storage, and other things from my garage and basement, that I've been donating and tossing. Hundreds of these books were given to my wife when she was the school district's Director of Second Languages, ESL, and Curriculum. They lavished sets of books on her because she made decisions that would mean tens of thousands of dollars for these vendors. I have no direct knowledge of Knorr's gifts or offers from vendors, if any, but I've heard about similar rumors. Drinking stories were always rampant at Bethel. There were always stories of higher-ups getting drunk, but this was likely fueled by younger Bethelites who were looking for excuses for their own behavior. The cooks who worked an after-dinner late shift only available to "higher ups" had the most consistent stories, but I still saw signs of exaggeration. But I have seen young Bethelites get drunk, and it was shameful and embarrassing. (For some 19 and 20 year olds, Bethel would have been their first real experience with alcohol.) I have seen housekeepers gathering liquor bottles from rooms and the sum total would have surprised anyone. I was sometimes surprised that people were periodically sent home for stealing and immorality, but never (that I knew of) for excessive drinking. This does not mean that excessive drinking was ever condoned. I heard plenty of good scriptural counsel against excessive drinking from the Bethel "morning worship" following the discussion of the day's text.

Therefore, water vapor is not a very effective greenhouse gas after all. Methane and CO2, however, are proven greenhouse gases through experimentation, working predictive modeling, working historical modeling, and current experience.

Volcanoes produce very little methane. Perhaps you meant carbon dioxide. But this is junk science that makes the claim that Volcanoes produce more carbon dioxide than people. Evidence suggests that humans and human activities produce about 60 to 90 times more carbon dioxide than all the world's volcanoes: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-MMtHoaAsYYJ:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-volcanoes-or-humans/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-d [cached version since SA is currently offline from my location.] SA goes for 100 times: According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors. And of course, there is also the fact that the particulates in especially large volcanic eruptions can actually promote temporary global cooling: Furthermore, some scientists believe that spectacular volcanic eruptions, like that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, actually lead to short-term global cooling, not warming, as sulfur dioxide (SO2), ash and other particles in the air and stratosphere reflect some solar energy instead of letting it into Earth’s atmosphere. SO2, which converts to sulfuric acid aerosol when it hits the stratosphere, can linger there for as long as seven years and can exercise a cooling effect long after a volcanic eruption has taken place.

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.

I think it can be misleading to look at the ability of the atmosphere to absorb billions of tons of elements in the form of gases and particulates outside of the "normal" levels of Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, Nitrogen, Dihydrogen Monoxide 😉, Methane, Ozone, etc. But the theory of global warming is really about "tipping points." It's not "linear." The atmosphere can absorb tons of "pollutants, but only up to a certain point when new effects can be measured. It's also an attempt to explain why we have been able to measure the gasses trapped in ice for thousands of years based on deep core samples and see a very stable rise and fall in "greenhouse gases" up until the last few decades. These are evidently natural cycles. You can think of distortion, interference or spikes in an otherwise smooth sine wave on an oscilloscope. These "spikes" could be from oceanic or volcanic disruptions over the last thousands of years, and we can't really correlate these with global temperatures since there was no one there to measure prior to the last few decades. So the threshold line is theoretically arbitrary. Still, if we could hypothesize a "tipping point" threshold line, it's easy to see that spikes that occur below the threshold line would be meaningless. But to test the theory we would want to watch for possible additional effects over the line. But now we have a new spike that hasn't abated, and it's 10 times taller than the last spike on the chart below (not shown). Why a huge spike now? Is there more volcanic activity now? NO. Is there more methane and CO2 released now? YES. So this is where and why we would start looking for cause and effect. 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. Completely false, but it turns out that there are stars of certain sizes that would not survive an influx of iron. More accurately, stars fuse hydrogen to helium -- and the core of the star, through real alchemy, can "fuse" elements all the way up to iron, but no further. If it starts trying to fuse iron, it means its energy will quickly be lost and the star will quickly collapse. The point is that it might be surprising that a star (depending on mass/gravity) that has a certain level of iron in it could be fine, but just a tiny bit more and the whole star just collapses.

Americans in the United States are close enough to 50/50. But to be fair, you weren't speaking about Americans. I only responded to your claim about "the world." Measuring stats from Gallup-style surveys can be very misleading, too, especially on a topic that varies so much by demographic (education, age and political ideology). 17 year old HS students in rural areas will have a different outlook than 18 year old college students in cities. Lack of worry can be a positive measure among some and a negative outlook of total despair among others. It's to be expected, in my opinion too, but it does not necessarily follow that these additional resources are due to climate change. There might have been a decision to devote more resources due to several other factors. And if funds for these purposes were to run out, it would also not follow that climate change disasters had diminished.

Reminds me that we did pre-assembly work for the JW summer conventions in Springfield, Illinois almost every year from 1971 to 1976. It was on the racetrack and we started setting up 1.5 to 2 weeks before the actual assembly to prepare signs and wiring for our own sound system, special electrical and "sewer" lines from a cafeteria kitchen area carved out of the parking lot, etc. Got to stay overnight a few times as "security guards" during the days leading up to the assembly when they still had a few races scheduled. We got to attend a race for free and I saw both Bobby Unser and Al Unser in the same race, not from the stands or announcer's box, but from our own sound system booth, right up against the edge of the racetrack. I had not followed racing but this was just a couple years after Bobby Unser had set a 195 mph record at Indy. Another story. My brother and I both had guard duty at Bloomington, MN in pre-assembly work and we snuck into the Vikings locker and found a covered hot tub in the middle of the floor. We opened it and it was full of room-temperature, unopened bottles of champagne in lukewarm water. About 100 bottles or more. My brother said they had just lost the division championship game earlier that year that, otherwise, would have qualified them for the Super Bowl. No celebration, I guess.

To begin however I think it's useful to address some of what happened with Russia-gate: Here's a Tweet to begin with which I found on Jimmy Dore's Twitter feed: ( https://twitter.com/search?q=jimmy dore&src=typd&lang=en ) Ben Norton‏Verified account @BenjaminNorton Mar 24 The following deserve major credit for getting Russiagate right—as the corporate media spread non-stop WMD-style lies: @AaronJMate @MaxBlumenthal @RaniaKhalek @GGreenwald @MTaibbi @MarkAmesExiled @AjamuBaraka @YashaLevine @Jimmy_Dore @JordanChariton @FreedomRideBlog @KyleKulinski Of course, not all these people get all things right all the time, and some are merely iconoclasts who wish to counter anything that the NYT says or Trump says etc., depending on other facets of their ideology. Some have a very narrow focus and get more things wrong than they get right. However, I believe that all of these people were correct on the supposed Russia-Trump connection and hype and deserve credit for being able to see through the propaganda. Of course, I also hope to get some opportunity to present the connection between Trump-Russia propaganda Syria, Golan Heights, and then even on to China and Venezuela. The connections seem obvious to me now, but would have surprised me even 5 years ago (when I happened to take absolutely zero interest in such things). On the Venezuela connection, you can even use a couple of the names above like @RaniaKhalek, or even better Abby Martin, who probably has a Twitter account, too, but I didn't try to look it up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Martin

Fake news has been a part of US and international politics since, for example: the supposed Boston Massacre as prelude to the Revolutionary War the supposed killing of Thornton on "American" soil in 1846 as prelude to the US war with Mexico to take more of Texas. (Lincoln disputed it, famously saying: "Show me the spot.") the supposed invasion of Germany by Poland per Hitler as a prelude to the second world war 1939 the Lavon Affair in Egypt in 1954 where Israeli terrorists bombed allies in hopes that others would be blamed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair the supposedly unprovoked attack on the USS Maddox by Vietnamese torpedo boats in the Gulf of Tonkin as a prelude to US open involvement in the Vietnam War Reagan's negotiation for the delay of the release of American hostages by Iran so that Carter would not be credited for their release Supposed tons of active WMD's held by Saddam Hussein as a prelude to the invasion of Iraq etc., etc., etc. I realize that this could be discussed in the wider forum, not just under the Jehovah's Witnesses section of the forum. But I am also interested in whether a conversation on these topics might take a turn toward the way some beliefs can be skewed or strengthened by prophetic and eschatological interpretations. But my main point is that I believe there is an obvious connection and common theme among the "fake news" episodes we are seeing now, such as Russia-gate propaganda, WMD propaganda, and a trend that started to escalate fake news. I propose that this trend escalated not so much under Reagan (arms-for-hostages, Iran-Contra), but even more so under Bill Clinton and the Yugoslav/Serbian/Milosevic era when fake news began to actually work much more successfully with wider international coordination.

I'll keep this going . . . About a dozen GRAMMY-winning artists and producers. Attended a couple Grammy Awards with meetings throughout the "Grammy week" that precede the live Sunday broadcast, meeting various artists and songwriters, and attended one "afterparty." I never got up the nerve to "meet" the most famous artists, but did meet several of the most famous producers and record label owners. [Names removed on purpose.] I once worked at the headquarters of a religious organization/publisher where Michael Jackson and most of his entire family toured in 1976. Also never "met" any of them but did say hello when they passed near my desk. I did briefly meet a performing artist named George Benson (singer/guitarist) at the same headquarters in 1979. Similarly, in an IT job with an international financial services company that I kept from 1987 to 2015, I "met" technical leaders like Steve Jobs, Steve Chase, Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates, and other CEOs, etc., who sometimes gave the opening addresses at trade shows and seminars I attended at NYC's Jacob Javitz, San Francisco, Boston, San Diego and Las Vegas convention centers, etc. I heard Richard Branson speak in San Diego, but I never actually talked to any of these people for more than 5 seconds. Most of them, none at all.

Donald Trump. From 1983-1987. Worked for Arthur D Little, a consulting firm out of Cambridge/Boston, for a few years, and worked the "Trump" account for the Trump Organization, also through RSA (NYC Landlord's Association) representing Fred/Donald Trump, the Harry/Leona Helmsley, Samuel LeFrak, Peter Kalikow, etc. (Kalikow bought the NYPost from Murdoch). I met Fred and Donald Trump, and Kalikow, and at least a dozen NYC landlords who were much wealthier than the Trumps, but whose names are not so well known. I gave two data analysis presentations over those years with Trump in the boardroom. He asked legitimate questions and although already known for an ego in the media, on these occasions he did not come across the way he is now portrayed (and the way he portrays himself). The job developed from a college internship with the Bureau of Labor Statistics where I ran SQL and SPSSx queries on huge US Census Bureau datasets, and DHCR datasets. (NYC Department of Housing). Funniest thing during this period happened when I saw a RFP in the NYT for some data analysis project the city needed run on the DHCR database. RSA also owned data on every rental property in NYC. I made a proposal that I could do this for $20,000 which would pay for the access to the databases and the time on a mainframe (actually a mid-size Honeywell, not technically a mainframe). If done right this should have left a couple thousand for myself. On checking with the landlord's association for permission/access, I was told that the contract was already theirs and that it was for somewhere north of a million dollars. But I was hired to do the same work at $20 an hour which quickly turned into my first full-time job after college.

News outlets, even those who support global warming (climate change) science, have contributed to the belief that we should not trust 99 scientists out of 100 by so often giving nearly 50 percent of their coverage to the nay-sayer instead of only 1 percent. And some news outlets, appealing to older conservative audiences, like FoxNews, will focus only on the 1 percent, as if only 1 of the 99 is telling the truth and the other 99 must have a hidden agenda. And it's still mostly non-scientists who write the news and decide how to "position" "dramatize" or politicize these various reports. This is also the case of a Greenland glacier that had been rapidly thinning for 20 years but has spent the last 3 years slowing down and therefore actually getting thicker in parts. Some news outlets have pointed to the anomaly as if it might create doubt about the general pattern. Of course, the report about this glacier came from the same scientists that their audience is supposed to always mistrust. So the focus is on how this anomaly surprised "the scientists" as if they were dumbfounded about how they could have been so wrong. Since we are being taught to only trust news outlets instead of science outlets, how about this one from Forbes? https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2019/03/26/the-good-bad-and-ugly-of-greenlands-jakobshavn-glacier-slowing-and-gaining-mass/#153ea8922179 But even before reading this much better article in Forbes one should read carefully the claims made in the FoxNews version: The glacier — known as Jakobshavn, which sits on Greenland's west coast — is still contributing to sea level rise, but it's losing less ice than expected. . . . But this crisp change won't last forever. Once the NAO climate pattern flips back, the Jakobshavn will likely start melting faster and thinning again, the researchers said. "Jakobshavn is getting a temporary break from this climate pattern," Josh Willis, of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the principal investigator of OMG, said in the statement. "But in the long run, the oceans are warming. And seeing the oceans have such a huge impact on the glaciers is bad news for Greenland's ice sheet." The FoxNews article admits that the glacier lost 500 feet in height (think of a 50 story building) but gained back 100 feet largely through snow accumulation. Between 2003 and 2016, its thickness (from top to bottom) dwindled by 500 feet (152 meters). But in 2016, the waters flowing from Greenland's southern tip to its western side cooled by more than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit . . . In all, Jakobshavn grew about 100 feet (30 m) taller between 2016 and 2017, the researchers found. But, as mentioned, the glacier is still contributing to ocean level rise worldwide, as it's still losing more ice to the ocean than it is gaining from snow accumulation, the researchers said. The Forbes article is better in that it avoids the sensationalism of only focusing on the quotes of scientists who were surprised at the anomaly, and also quotes scientists who claimed to realize that this type of thing is expected. (There are always going to be 'exceptions that prove the rule.') The more important surprise is a more dangerous one, in that it shows just how sensitive glaciers are to water temperatures, and therefore this is worse news than expected. The Forbes article adds: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2019/03/26/the-good-bad-and-ugly-of-greenlands-jakobshavn-glacier-slowing-and-gaining-mass/#153ea8922179 Bad news is, if glaciers are this sensitive to the ocean, we’ll be revising sea level rise projections upwards [a]gain soon. He's right and that's ugly. The article points out that this glacier alone contributed 1 mm to this 90 mm rise since 1995. Also: It is important to remember that oceans are also not the only driver of Greenland's melt. A 2019 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science is a stark reminder that Greenland is melting four times faster than expected. The OMG tends to focus on ocean process, but other scientists studying Greenland's climate highlight other key factors too (atmospheric warming and more humid atmosphere, more liquid water clouds, darkening surface from earlier melt). While "the pause" is "relatively" good news and a good lesson on the role of regional variability within a dynamic climate system , it must not be overplayed or spun to some narrative that climate change is not happening or has reversed.

Wow.

Understood. Yes. I agree that there are natural cycles and variations to be accounted for, if possible. But the current situation is based on data that actually fits atmospheric modeling that is unrelated to those larger cycles that we can do nothing about. And yes, to an earlier point, it is quite possible that the modeling is off because modelers have been working backwards to make the data fit a belief (hypothesis). But this is a good part of how science modeling actually works. You look at "real world" data and try to correlate several of the variables that fit a hypothesis to test. But no one should put any faith in the models until they can be used to produce accurate predictions of the results for tests elsewhere, or tests with wide variations in those variables. But it turns out that the greenhouse gas models work for both Earth and Venus. And to some extent they can predict solutions for man-made experimentation in "closed systems" on a smaller scale. We might even be in a situation where, worldwide, we could end up spending billions (or even trillions) on solutions that actually do turn around a man-made problem. But then, between 0 and 1,000 years from now, certain of these "outside" cycles and variations that you speak about could theoretically also combine to reverse all these [once successful] efforts. It doesn't mean either theory of global warming is wrong. Outside, uncontrollable forces can (and definitely have) had an effect on global warming (and cooling), and man-made issues have also combined to produce global warming. We might coincidentally even be seeing a combination. And certain assumptions (sometimes dangerously misleading ones) may have to be made to be able to distinguish the probable effects of each type of effect to determine what sources of global warming we are currently looking at. My father drove us from California to NYC in 1968, and he took us to visit the worst portion of Lake Erie in 1968 and I saw it again in 1972, and we saw the "flammable" river in Pittsburgh. These were some examples of man-made problems that were getting worse, but reversed when action was taken soon enough. Whether that is relevant to this climate situation remains to be seen.

@James Thomas Rook Jr., Predictions can be goofy when only a small portion of the facts are known. Also, people who write about summaries of science papers are often just "senior environmental officials" like the one above, not the actual scientists themselves. Summaries of science papers that make the media are often known to highlight false claims that were not in the paper, or even "misunderstand" the paper for maximum effect for purposes of fear, ideology, politics, money -- or some combination. That said, we still don't know if this statement about reversing the global warming trend by the year 2000 was not a true statement. It is quite possible that something could and should have been done about it by then, and it is now too late (assuming no other radical interference, divine or otherwise, were to cause the reversal in the near future). Here's a link to the entire article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-the-art-of-climate-science-11552002661 Here's more of the article, where I have highlighted some portions that may have already come true in bold/red, and portions already beginning to come true in bold/orange, for some parts of the world: UNITED NATIONS (AP)—A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000. [comment: see Smithsonian article on Tuvalu https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/will-tuvalu-disappear-beneath-the-sea-180940704/ . Also see articles on the Maldives environmental issues with rising seas. I have also have a friend who is a surveyor who gets most of his new work remapping coastal waterways up and down the east coast, especially Florida.] Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP. [To this we should add clean water shortages. Millions of persons dying as refugees, exacerbated by a party in power, have taken advantage of droughts to effectively produce genocidal conditions for refugees.] He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control. As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday. [After significant polar icecap melting was noted, the rise in vulnerable areas has, at the worst, been only a matter of a few inches. And the ocean currents slosh the water around in ways that are very difficult to predict so that the specific areas most affected were unknown in 1989. Also, most of the rise is not yet due to polar ice melting, but thermal expansion of water due to warming. Although these few inches can mean unexpected masses of extra water that will cause a non-linear effect on coastal flooding. (A fact already well known from storms combined with regular tides, neap tides, etc.) In other words, even on the coast of Long Island an extra 3 inches of water is a billion dollar problem when combined with same strength of "Nor'easter" storm that would have caused almost no damage as barriers were already prepared for the base level plus storm/tide effects.] Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study. . . . [This might not be an exaggeration either, even if it appears to have been premature. Bangladesh in the Ganges delta has already seen a major increase in number of people displaced which really is in the millions. But unfortunately, the millions who were displaced are often just moving back to the same places.] Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. -------------------------end of excerpt from WSJ 1989---------------------- That last paragraph was just political posturing to stoke fears of Russia getting an economic/agricultural upper hand over the United States. It is true, that non-coastal flooding and fires which are much more common in the last two decades, have produced "dust bowl" conditions to smaller areas once populated or farmed. Some additional information on the rising sea levels on the East Coast including North Carolina's 5 inch rise over a 5 year period. https://e360.yale.edu/features/flooding-hot-spots-why-seas-are-rising-faster-on-the-u.s.-east-coast

TTH, I just told myself (and others) that I should stay away from all controversial topics that might reflect negatively on current Witness doctrine, at least for a few weeks. I don't think this topic counts, since I'm not even taking sides on whether JWs do more or less than their reasonable share. (I'm guessing, like you, that JWs do better than the average person in this regard, but I'm not trying to make any claims.) In fact, perhaps it's a good idea for me to just limit my comments to non-JW topics like climate change, politics, physics, computer science, and economics whenever I get the urge to kick my feet up on the desk and relax over here on the forum. I could care less what Lloyd Evans thinks about climate change, unless he is some kind of expert on the topic who might be ready to bring something new or important to the table. I haven't looked into that part of the discussion and probably won't try to. If he's just criticizing JWs, then it's probably a complete waste of time on such a topic. But I have no problem if JTR is drawn into a discussion on the topic, because I'm sure he knows more than I do about it. And that's the beauty of a forum where you can dialogue with persons who know more than you. For me, it's an ideal way to test and/or prove whether what I think stands up to counter-evidence. So if you don't mind, I'll start out with my take on what you just said: I thought for a second that you might be joking on this claim. The world most definitely does not split down the middle on climate change. It probably seems that way in the United States, of course, because we are here bombarded with propaganda that pretends that it's a political issue. And the United States has had a long history of promoting political issues that split the population down the middle. But even the majority of persons in this country more honestly answer "I don't know" when typical climate change questions are asked. Those who have been fooled into thinking it's a political issue are apt to believe they know something about it when they don't. It's a very small percentage of the population who actually know anything more than the political propaganda that only pretends to know. If we just count the people who have truly studied the scientific factors with respect to climate change, then we truly do get a split of about 98 percent who fall on side of human-influenced climate change. Only about 2 percent of scientists who have studied a wide range of climate related factors will deny that humans have had or can have any significant influence on climate. And only about 0 percent of such scientists believe that significant "global warming" does not exist. An old "divide and conquer" propaganda trick when trying to overcome the "impossible" is to find a couple of persons who will present themselves as experts and make a contrary claim to the scientifically tested claim. Then even if the skewing is 99 percent to 1 percent, the propagandist can still claim that "some experts hold an opposing opinion." Now you are just moments from using propaganda outlets, such as established news organizations to do the rest of the dirty work for you. News outlets love controversy and drama because news sells best when it is really entertainment instead of news. Also, news outlets can be made to look balanced by finding a representative of both sides of a controversy. So if the actual score is 99 to 1, propaganda outlets will make it look like 50/50. The 1 percent get just as much media attention as the 99 percent. When this happens often enough, someone will say: "the world is pretty much split down the middle on this topic." It works like a charm, and climate change is only one of many such topics manipulated by propagandists. Over the last few decades, there has been better understanding of the data and much improvement in the way the models reflect and predict reality. But this is not the reason that the term "global warming" sometimes takes a backseat to "climate change." The real reason is propaganda. Propagandists appeal to the stupidity of most of us by saying things like: "Ha! ha! These scientists still believe in global warming when it's freezing out today, and I have a snowball from an unexpected snowfall." Stupid people, who are usually the target, not the source of such propaganda will often fall for it. In fact, global warming just means that the average yearly temperature around the globe at literally 1,000s of different measuring points, measured daily, will all be averaged together to get a global average temperature for the entire year (or day, week, month, decade, etc). This global average is trending upward at a rate that is much faster and higher than most of the models predicted. But it does not necessarily follow that the average global yearly temperature will rise EACH year, or that there will not be unexpected cold waves and snowfalls. In fact, almost all global warming models all along have predicted that while global warming occurs it will follow that some areas will see colder and unexpected changes. This does not change the average global yearly temperature just because some areas still see a lot of cold, or even extra cold. For all the extra cold seen in some places there will be an excess of heat in other places making up for it. For example, there were many times in the last few years when the temperature on the North Pole was warmer than the temperature in New York, when measured at the exact same time. But it is also true that some of the cold winds that usually effected the North Pole had trended southward and brought colder temperatures to parts of Canada and the United States. Some new cold temperature records were recorded to the south, while the North Pole reached temperatures in the 70's Fahrenheit. Global warming is the same as climate change, and the data has come out just as models had predicted. Global warming has been a known fact for decades. It is not just 98 percent of climate specialists agree with, but 100 percent agree with it. The question has been whether man has caused a significant part of it, or can cause an improvement or change in the other direction. It is on this question where 98 percent of the scientists agree that man is influencing it, and 2 percent say no. There have been some bad practices in science in most areas, but usually this is about scientists who are lazy and don't want to go through the selfless tedium of collecting their own real data. There are bad actors like this in all fields and it's just as prevalent in areas of science, schools, universities, labs, and of course authors, students professors who want to make a quick name for themselves, etc. Data is faked. No doubt about it. Data is often copied and adjusted and randomized within expected ranges to make it look like real work was put into it. But a second person or group comes along and can poke holes in it. But the types of issues with data fraud that come up in climate science are much more common from the 2 percent trying to disprove global warming. These are paid for by the fossil fuel industry. Millions of dollars are poured into producing a propaganda network of studies that obfuscate data, cherry-pick datasets of anomalies to "prove" the opposite of what the full set of data indicated. Reports that don't go the way of the oil companies have been hidden, given false summaries, forged, and dishonestly edited. The money machine behind the oil industry makes sure that all investigation of their fraud is squashed, and that even the most minor mistakes of actual climate scientists are blown out of proportion. Most scientific innovation and energy innovation these days comes out of China. China is still not able or ready to wean themselves from dirty energy but their scientists realize the urgency. The US and Russia are too tied to their petroleum economies, and capitalist economies like these always fight change due to the effect of change on corporate profits. National interests become corporate interests. Corporate interests become the driver of politics and propaganda in places like the United States and Russia. Germany has done well in trying to wean off a petroleum economy. Other European nations see the advantages, but are at differing stages. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of oil, coal, and natural gas, and natural gas is relatively cheap. Even to manufacture and transport solar and wind renewables still takes a lot of electricity and oil. When you drive an electric car you still ultimately get that electricity from coal in this country. So I think the corporate and political propagandists of this world will drive change as slowly as possible, and if left to their own devices, would drive the planet to destruction.

Thanks. And thanks for the further points of consideration. I don't quite understand how you mean this. Rutherford said he dropped any and all considerations of modern Israel and the Jewish re-population of Palestine after 1930. They were no longer considered to have any part in the outworking of any further Bible prophecies. From Rutherford, the last major pro-Zionist writing on the topic was "Comfort for the Jews" and "Comfort for the People," both from 1925. If he was "on to something" do you mean he shouldn't have dropped it as if it were all a mistake?

Just to clarify. Rutherford didn't initially identify the British as the thing standing in the holy place where it ought not. Initially he made statements that showed a preference for British administration until Israel could stand on its own. He also curiously indicated that he thought the Jews would prefer an initial administration under the Mohommedan Turks, since Mohammadans (Muslims) were basically the cousins of the Jews and they could expect peace. But Rutherford took a trip to to Britain, Greece, Palestine and Egypt later in 1920 as planning was indicated in the August 15, 1920 Watchtower. After getting underway, in October, he even opened up a Branch of the Watch Tower Society in Ramallah, Palestine: PALESTINE BRANCH It seemed proper and necessary that a branch office of the Society be established within this territory . . . . Accordingly a branch office has been established at Ramallah, Palestine, which is within sight of the city of Jerusalem. It will be known as the Palestine Branch, the address being: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, Ramallah, Palestine. On visiting Egypt he began speaking of it as Satan's base of operations, which appears to be a prelude to dropping the significance of the Pyramids. But he also had trouble getting to Palestine due to the British control, and had to appeal to the American embassy: In early 1921 he reported on the trip to Palestine, 1921 Watchtower, p.9,10: ... This is where the tie between the "abomination" and the League of Nations became clearer to Rutherford, due to the influence of Britain over Palestine (and over the League). The two-horned beast had already been identified by Russell as Britain (p.12): So, I wanted to clarify that it was not the British soldiers representing Britain that directly identified Britain as the abomination, but it was because British soldiers were standing in Palestine under a mandate from the League, whose votes Britain controlled. (The League had been produced as an image of the first beast Britain, and came forth from it, per Rutherford.)

To which BTK responded: BTK, I'm just trying to reference a bit of historical context that preceded our current view of the "standing where it does not belong." Your Ellen G White, "Seventh Day Adventist" reference reminded me that we hadn't yet done that for the Watchtower's view. You will be happy to know, however, that I am not claiming to understand it, or "get it," or give what I don''t understand any credibility. It's just historical reference. The way I thought I understood it is this: Shortly after 1914, as the War raged on, Rutherford was very interested in who would end up with the winning hand in Palestine. Rutherford explained it himself in the Watchtower, 1917, p.133: The expectations were very much on the mind of Rutherford due especially to the Zionist beliefs about Jews returning to Palestine that he had inherited from Russell. Understanding the timing seemed critical, which of course had been expected for 1915, when the Gentile Times ended and, therefore, the Jewish Times would begin. The dispensation parallels were still the strongest source of determining that 1914 had been the end of the Gentile Times (not Daniel 4) and the idea was that Palestine was "harvested" from the beginning of Jesus' ministry up through the Jewish/Roman War of 66-70. The Jewish "harvest" was considered to have happened from 30 CE to 70 CE, for 40 years, just as the 40 years of the "Harvest of the World" was dated from 1874 to 1914. But Rutherford quickly changed it to 1878 to 1918, a 40 year period that was still being taught when I first attended the "Congregation Book Study." Yet, Rutherford now knew that the harvest had continued beyond 1914. Adjusting the complete subjugation to 73 would allow 1918 into the "parallels." The idea had even been floated that it was not until the Bar-Kochba rebellion of 135 CE, that Palestine had been "depopulated." That would put the end of the harvest in 1980, and this was an idea that Rutherford rejected because it ruined the "parallels." p.126: But Rutherford continued to use the supposed total age of the animals that Abraham sacrificed as one of the methods, which had been used to reach 1915, and added 10 years to this in order to match up the restoration of Israel in Palestine in 1925. See page 134 of the same 1917 Watchtower: By starting the count of the 3,960 years, 10 years later than had previously been done, Rutherford saw it as another potential evidence reaching to 1925: From the end of the War (Barfour, etc.) up until 1925, of course, the British controlled Palestine, and because its soldiers were still there, Britain became the "thing standing where it does not belong" in the holy place.