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

[Guest Indiana]

 

On Tuesday, we asked ex-JW activist Lloyd Evans about the Jehovah’s Witness view on climate change, since it’s an organization so centered around the idea of global catastrophe. Lloyd explained that because the planet was in Jehovah’s hands, Witnesses tended not to be concerned about environmental issues. We then received a rebuttal from Rob, a Witness who disagreed, and we’re very happy to publish his message to us, with his permission…

The main point I am rebutting is this quote from Lloyd: “Jehovah’s Witnesses mostly have a very laid back approach to environmental concerns. They point to issues like global warming and damage to the environment as evidence that humans are incapable of ruling themselves….”

Jehovah’s Witnesses, in fact, do have an active interest in environment, and encourage members to take action to reduce the negative affects we have on the environment. Consider one of our journals, the Awake! magazine, from 2007:

The Bible assures us that every trace of the damage caused by man will be undone when God ‘makes all things new.’ (Revelation 21:5) However, we should not conclude that since God will in time restore the earth, our actions now do not matter. They do!

That article further states that we are not indifferent to the earth’s plight:

Jehovah God made the earth to be a gardenlike home for mankind. He pronounced all of his work to be “very good” and assigned man “to cultivate [the earth] and to take care of it.” (Genesis 1:28, 31; 2:15) How does God feel about earth’s present condition? Clearly, he is deeply offended by man’s mismanagement, for Revelation 11:18 foretells that he will “bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” So we should not be indifferent to the earth’s plight.

Lastly, steps are given in this same article that we can or should take, to reduce the negative impact on our environment.

It is proper, though, for us to consider the environmental impact of our choices in such areas as household purchases, transportation, and recreation. For example, some choose to purchase products that have been produced or that operate in ways that minimize damage to the environment. Others strive to reduce their share in activities that create pollution or unduly consume natural resources.

This does not represent disinterest in climate change, or feigning interest in it. This is actively discussing ways to minimize our own environmental impact.

So yes, Jehovah’s Witnesses do in fact believe that God will undo climate change once and for all, but this does not mean we are indifferent or apathetic, as the article above shows.

Lastly, Jehovah’s Witnesses’ buildings received the highest possible rating of Four Green Globes for all seven of their buildings, for environmental efficiency.

Really, the best way to show concern for our planet is to reduce the impact we have. Jehovah’s Witnesses build so to have the least negative impact as they possibly can.

So whoever is suggesting that Jehovah’s Witnesses are apathetic to our environmental concerns is ignoring what’s in print, and how we construct our buildings, and the recognition we receive from authoritative environmental agencies.

https://tonyortega.org/2019/03/21/a-witness-responds-to-lloyd-evans-about-jw-and-global-climate-change/

[TrueTomHarley]

Who is this fellow Tony?

He does not approach this as I would...he too much let’s Lloyd define the premise...but his answer is thoughtful and I have also answered such plays from the playbook things in the past

[TrueTomHarley]

Oh. Tony does not seem to be the Witness. Rob is, who wrote the above 

Hard to figure the relationship. Maybe someone can tell me.

[Srecko Sostar]

Although Jehovah’s Witnesses did not participate in the conference, they too are interested in the environment. Hundreds of them were involved in a special campaign in Paris to share their Bible-based hope of living on a pollution-free planet....that Jehovah’s Witnesses twice received a rating of Four Green Globes from the Green Building Initiative for their commitment to environmentally sustainable building design and construction for two new buildings at the Witnesses’ United States branch facilities in Wallkill, New York. - https://www.jw.org/en/jehovahs-witnesses/activities/ministry/sharing-bible-based-hope-cop21/

In 2011, Daniel Asamoah, a Circuit Overseer of Jehovah's Witness, had this to say about the topic of global warming, as reported by Ghana Web: "The Earth is running a fever; man cuts trees indiscriminately, there is loss of fertile agricultural land, toxic waste introduced into the environment, global warming, deforestation, oil spillages. One day, very soon God's Kingdom will come and interrupt, solve these problems and give us lasting relief."  - https://www.newsmax.com/fastfeatures/christian-global-warming-religion-climate-change/2015/05/06/id/642823/

Jehovah’s Witnesses stand out as an outlier, advocating for environmental action... - https://ncse.com/blog/2015/05/evolution-environment-religion-0016359
 

In article: The Earth Has a “Fever”—Is There a Cure? - https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2008647  NOTHING is said that JW people actively contributing in effort to less pollution  of Earth. Just prayer for Kingdom.

Here we see how JW people generally stay on PREACHING about climate in connection to Their Hope. Building two buildings in US with donated money not shows global JW efforts and commitment to contribute in active programs made by scientist about this issue. 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

38 minutes ago, Srecko Sostar said:

NOTHING is said that JW people actively contributing in effort to less pollution  of Earth. Just prayer for Kingdom.

This is why I said that I would have handled it differently. Lloyd will go in this direction should he answer this fellow. There is a playbook from which they do not deviate much.

 I would have gone the way that I did go when a similar charge came up, around the time of the Gulf oil spill almost a decade ago:

.....Now, this verbal exchange was well before the gulf oil-spill, that mother of all environmental catastrophes.  “How to clean up the mess? And who's at blame!” declared Time Magazine's cover of June 21, 2010,  against a backdrop of oil-soaked pelicans. (I was mildly surprised that the questions were not posed in reverse order) Time listed a “dirty dozen” which included the prior President, of course, and his Secretary of State, but also the current President and some of his underlings. A handful of oilmen, needless to say, and one or two indulgent regulators. Even the ubiquitous American driver, since he fuels demand for oil in the first place. Got it? We're all to blame. There are no good guys in white hats, only bad guys in black, oily ones. 

And to think I was upbraided just a few weeks ago, along with all my people, for not picking up the roadside trash. “Enough Jehovah's Witness preaching, already!” scolded my interlocutor, “what good is that? Do something useful, instead,” said he, and then proceeded to wax poetic on how he and his entire family took part in a local park clean-up, picking up crud that other slobs had tossed here, there, and everywhere. Look, I'm not against cleanup days, but how silly to imagine that, by thus taking part, we're saving the planet, when, in one dastardly swoop, the entire gulf can be ruined by one big-industry blunder. In fact, reports have it that local picker-uppers are showing up on the coast only to be told to get lost – this is a job for pros!

No, I won't stand for it – to be told preaching is valueless and community cleanup days are the path to salvation. And don't mistake that statement as unconcern for the environment! When the kids were little and we hiked trails at Allegheny State Park, we'd take trash bags with us and make a treasure hunt out of it, collecting beer and pop cans along the way – some had been there for years. (there were even some of the ancient tin types, cans that had been opened, not with pop-tops, but with can openers such as I remember from when I was a kid – extra points awarded for such finds!) And heaven help you if you are the pig dumping fast food trash out the car window and Mrs. Sheepandgoats is driving behind you! Steam comes from her ears. She all but rams your bumper and slaps you in handcuffs, hauling you to the sheriff in citizens' arrest. 

One fellow is griping here about Jehovah's Witnesses: "They don’t even need to recycle if they don’t want to." What kind of an accusation is that? Are there groups that maintain their people MUST recycle, whether they want to or not? Where recycling is the law of the land/community, JW compliance is higher than most, I've no doubt, since they are well-known to be law-abiding. Where it is not the law of the land, likely JW compliance is still higher than most, out of respect for the planet. Look, when financially secure, trendy neighborhoods take up recycling as their special cause, I admit, they may outdo the average Witness. But we surely shine when compared to the population in general. I attended a wine festival over the weekend. Each vendor offered samples of wine, cheese, candy, sauce, whatever, in one-use plastic cups, or plates, or skewering toothpicks. Were they recycled? I doubt it. All trash was mixed together. In the medical field, everything is one-use only, disposable, in the interests of sanitation. Nothing is washed. Nothing is reused. Again, all trash is mixed together. I once worked part-time for a retail inventory firm, reputed to be the country's largest consumer of AAA batteries. Do you imagine those batteries were recycled? When I asked about it, they laughed at me. In the trash they'd go....each and every one of them. 

Look, I'm all for local clean-up-the-park days. Same with clean-up-the-roadside days. None of Jehovah's Witnesses will ever speak against such things, unless you count observations that such are, at best, a stop-gap measure, and that the lasting solution will come only when God carries out his promise to “bring to ruin those ruining the earth.” We tend to use our free time to highlight this latter solution, the one that, in the end, counts. My experience is that it's only the tiniest sliver of the population who take part in such cleanups, anyway – it's not as if JWs are thwarting the whole effort. And surely it must count for something that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't among those who caused the mess in the first place. 

“This [JW belief that God's Kingdom only can permanently solve earth's environmental woes] leads to the undeniable fact that Witnesses take almost no initiative towards making the world we live in a better place in any way:” someone tries to sell me that line. Hogwash! Not to oversimplify, but if the entire population were Witnesses, there would be no need for efforts to make the world we live in a better place. This, because of the traits which are instilled into each Witness. Law-abiding to the core, honest, working, not abusing government services, not contributing to the criminal element freely operating in most lands, promoting stable, monogamous families – all this by virtue of making Bible principles a way of life. Thus, merely propagating Witness beliefs is a step toward making the world a better place.

Meanwhile, I had to go to Canada (the Globe and Mail, June 19th) to discover that at least half of the leaked gulf oil is being recovered through various means, such as salvage ships that corral surface oil and burn it. It really is true that the U.S. media ignores even qualified good news, preferring to focus only the overwhelming devastation itself, along with who is to blame, and delighting in the President's declaration that he's looking for “asses to kick,” even while insinuating that his own “ass” might be among them, that the oil spill is his Katrina, and so forth. Sigh....that's what we're good at here: kicking asses.

 

[Srecko Sostar]

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

We're all to blame.

In various degrees of responsibility.

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

And surely it must count for something that Jehovah's Witnesses aren't among those who caused the mess in the first place. 

Normal statement, also this is true for many other non JW people.

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

“This [JW belief that God's Kingdom only can permanently solve earth's environmental woes] leads to the undeniable fact that Witnesses take almost no initiative towards making the world we live in a better place in any way:” someone tries to sell me that line. Hogwash!

WT publications openly teaching members to not be active in any social, ......etc. involvement for Changing this World (only when freedom of speech and religion is issue) 

10 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Not to oversimplify, but if the entire population were Witnesses, there would be no need for efforts to make the world we live in a better place.

Sorry, but in this sort of "conclusion" you advocate and call for, how all JW Society, even in this State/Condition of existence (in all aspects of regulations that exist inside WTJWORG Organization)  is the Only Group on Earth that is Imperfectly Perfect. Even (according to religious ideas based on WT publications) only worth to live on Earth. And  how there would be no need for efforts to make the world we live in a better place. This is pretentious and belong to arrogant statement - in my opinion :))).

[Anna]

22 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

NOTHING is said that JW people actively contributing in effort to less pollution  of Earth. Just prayer for Kingdom.

Actions speak louder than words. Personally I know that many JW's recycle, they prefer to purchase energy saving appliances, ride bikes instead of drive a car, conscientiously try to conserve water and be careful about littering and dumping contaminated things where they don't belong. Why would they do that if they didn't care? On top of that, as the article mentions, most of our new buildings are "green" .

https://www.jw.org/en/news/releases/by-region/united-states/gbi-awards-four-green-globes-sustainable-design/

http://www.constructionmanagermagazine.com/onsite/witness-model-construction-project/

It is our earth, given to us by Jehovah. Knowing that God will sort things out, is no excuse to treat the planet he gave us with disrespect. On the contrary. And as far as I know, that is every JW's attitude, including mine.

As for some kind of activism, well no, JWs don't take part in that because they know it is futile. And people who believe activism will help, then they are being naive, because the matter of money always comes first, and then concerns about the environment. Money will always win.

[Anna]

10 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This is pretentious and belong to arrogant statement - in my opinion :))).

But it's true . Also, there would be no war.

[TrueTomHarley]

11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

This is pretentious and belong to arrogant statement - in my opinion :))).

If it is pretentious and arrogant, it certainly is no less so than your position. You assume with your newfound air of enlightened wisdom that if Jehovah's Witnesses "got involved" as you think they should, they would all say: "You know, that Srecko is right! Let's roll up our sleeves, pitch in and help him save the planet!" In fact, they would simple divide roughly 50/50 on the issue and fight each other to a standstill.

Do you think that you have stepped into an arena where there is unity? You haven't. We have. Do you think you are in a place where what you want done will be done? You're not. We are. Don't come here lecturing people about pretentiousness and arrogance. Your people are the ones who cannot agree on how many genders there are.

The world splits down the middle on climate change. The very reason it is called 'climate change' rather than the old term 'global warming' is because is because proponents got frustrated with the data not coming in as they thought it would. There have been several instances of fraud on that account so as to present a picture that the data does not back up. Europe is real keen on the climate change. Also Australia and Canada. But everyone else is lukewarm at best and some are opposed, including the current administrations of both the US and Russia.

Just ask @James Thomas Rook Jr. about it. (But tell @JW Insiderto stay away) They fought like cats and dogs over it once on this forum. So do you think that if they abandoned the Witness position to hold hands with you they would suddenly do a Kumbaya? No! They would fight like cats and dogs just on a bigger forum.

 

 

 

[Srecko Sostar]

9 minutes ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Your people are the ones who cannot agree on how many genders there are.

sorry for my  haha to your post, but have to ask you, what "gender" issue have with this topic, and what my position on "gender" issue (if i have any position at all) have with this what i am thinking about JW and their passivity on climate movements in society?

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Just ask @James Thomas Rook Jr. about it. (But tell @JW Insiderto stay away)

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:

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The world splits down the middle on climate change.

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.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

The very reason it is called 'climate change' rather than the old term 'global warming' is because is because proponents got frustrated with the data not coming in as they thought it would.

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.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There have been several instances of fraud on that account so as to present a picture that the data does not back up.

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.

2 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

Europe is real keen on the climate change. Also Australia and Canada. But everyone else is lukewarm at best and some are opposed, including the current administrations of both the US and Russia.

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.

[TrueTomHarley]

I will go further to suggest to Srecko that if he succeeded in his goal of getting Witnesses off their Kingdom script, he would be hurting his own cause. 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

only about 0 percent of such scientists believe that significant "global warming" does not exist. 

 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

But even the majority of persons in this country more honestly answer "I don't know" when typical climate change questions are asked. 

So.  All scientists believe it.  Most other persons say "I don't know."

In other words, they're not buying it. Why? Can it be that it is not pushed enough? The average media outlet is 100% behind it and does not miss an opportunity to educate. Yet still they say "I don't know." 

I suggest that many of these who say "I don't know" actually would say "Hogwash" but for fear of taking a stand against scientists and risk being called stupid. Many say it anyhow.

Now, for the most part, I think that Jehovah's Witnesses do believe in climate change. Why? Because the organization has said it is spending several times the amount for disaster relief as it did a few years ago. Though Srecko is right that Witnesses are not activists, they will still, in their ministry, help out his cause by educating people about it. When the topic comes up, they will agree with global warming, and are likely to even bring it up themselves as the prime example of "man's ruining the earth."

But if Srecko's dream came true and they stopped being Witnesses, they would lose this "proof" of climate change.  They would divide into some camps that support and some that say "I don't know" and some that say "Hogwash." But wouldn't the example of non-Witness charities also pleading for more money take the place of the Witness organization saying is spends more on disaster relief? No, because they always plead for more money, irrespective of need, at least such is the popular perception. 

So Srecko hurts his cause by pulling Witnesses away.

5 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

sorry for my  haha to your post, but have to ask you, what "gender" issue have with this topic, and what my position on "gender" issue (if i have any position at all) have with this what i am thinking about JW and their passivity on climate movements in society?

You should be able to see this. In the world that I belong to, no one believes it. In the enlightened world you belong to, some do. Since it is being pushed mightily in the US by those most respected - media and educators - more and more in your world will come to believe it. Of course, I mean gender fluidity in general, and take the 57 genders as only the most extreme example, seen as ridiculous by most people. But it is seen ridiculous by ALL people trained by Bible principles, whereas the world you have chosen will warm to it more and more.

Transfer the principle to climate change, and it means that our people are united and your people are not. JWs are now a monolithic block. They will not remain so if you sever them from their God. Some will think that you are right and help you. Some will think that you are wrong and work against you. In short, our people can work on goals effectively because we are not fighting others of our people. That cannot be said of your people.

18 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WT publications openly teaching members to not be active in any social, ......etc. involvement for Changing this World (only when freedom of speech and religion is issue) 

You're just huffy that they are no part of the world and you read that separation as judgement of you. As pointed out above, their stand regarding your cause is a mildly supportive factor and best and a non-factor at worst.