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

[JW Insider]

@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

 

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

I am not arguing that there is not "Global Warming".

There IS!

This is a natural cycle that is determined by orbital mechanics of our Earth, and the various cycles that our VARIABLE STAR,  the Sun naturally goes through.

On this clear gas planet, Earth, with its predominate Nitrogen atmosphere of "one atmosphere" at sea level , It's all about geometry, and the fact that all radiated energy follows the inverse square law.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MANKIND CAN DO TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER.

Nothing mankind can do to cause, or accelerate global warming.

...and nothing we can do to slow or stop it.

That's the way Jehovah designed the system.

[TrueTomHarley]

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

When all is said and done ... you and Billy ARE my soul brothers, and I would defend you both with my life if necessary. 

Because you behaved and said good things and not bad things to me and have never shared pointers on how to construct a nuclear bomb on the theory that the public has the right to know, unlike some partipants here, I will even throw you a bone:

Someone on Twitter was grumbling about how they kept interrupting golf yesterday with the results of the Mueller investigation. “Golf is too important to be continually interrupted with this rubbish!” he said.

I replied: “You are looking at this all wrong. It was golf. It was a huge “FORE!’ to accusers of the POTUS.”

Some things are going your way, aren’t they?

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

I am not arguing that there is not "Global Warming".

There IS!

Understood.

4 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

This is a natural cycle that is determined by orbital mechanics of our Earth, and the various cycles that our VARIABLE STAR,  the Sun naturally goes through.

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.

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

In the big red "Revelation" book, circa 15 or so years ago, it mentioned as an aside that Sir Isaac Newton may have been one of the Anointed. This sparked me reading two very large biographies on his life, and what impressed me the most was the fact that he never published anything without rigorous proof.

What impressed me was that he wrote more about God than about math and science combined.

 

2 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING MANKIND CAN DO TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER.

I don't know why this would be so. Nor do I think this is among the things that you have proved with your FACTS. You may have proved other things, but not this one. This is opinion.

JWI produces different facts to go toe to toe with you. Is he wrong? He may well be, but please don't tell me he is uninformed.

14 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

You [TTH] are like a feather, blowing in the wind ... wishing that EVERYBODY was as uninformed, wrong, and wishy-washy as you are.

The reason that I only weigh in mildly is that I see that people I respect fall both ways on this. It is irrelevant to me since there is nothing I can do about it, and I live frugally enough that were climate change an indisputable fact, I would still be more part of the solution than part of the problem. It is not the core issue for Christians. God will fix it. To that extent, @Srecko Sostar's objection about JWs is right.

Where it is wrong is in his assumption that "involved" Jehovah's Witnesses would all come down on his side. They would not. They would divide, and the net effect would be no different that what is now. In fact, (here is another scenario that works against his argument--not entirely consistent with the first one I offered) since JWs are largely the "uneducated," they will not trust the harangue's of the "elite"on this matter, since they have learned from experience that such harangues are rarely in their own interests and usually benefits those elites that issue them.

[TrueTomHarley]

You also may have noticed, @James Thomas Rook Jr., that Scott Adams is not so monolithic on this issue as his work suggests. Or perhaps he is doing some reexamination. On Twitter, he has been playing Devil's advocate with his followers lately (some of whom have told him to knock it off), advancing many of the ideas that @JW Insider is advancing.

[Space Merchant]

On 3/24/2019 at 12:12 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Alex Jones the hunchback plumber, from Chatteroy, West Virginia?

No, not that Alex Jones, this Alex Jones

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

On ‎3‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 12:24 AM, BillyTheKid46 said:

I won’t offer scripture since it is meaningless according to TTH in this forum. I expect the same in return. Only “witness” is allowed to enter a barrage of Biblical citations without the condemnation of TTH. It offends him seeing it from others.

Oh, stuff it, Billy. I can outlast you on this. I am like a hurricane that gathers strength over warm water. I am every bit as crazy as you, only set on a more pleasant and peacemaking course. I write in a more appealing manner. There is only so far one can go in telling everyone else to EDUCATE themselves if they are not too UNINTELLIGENT so as to avoid revealing how APOSTATE they are. I have never detected an ounce of humility in any of your writing. Before you make like a theocratic POTUS set to drain the Internet swamp, you should repent and cultivate some.

Let's go back to what you proposed before in another persona: "You keep out of my way and I'll keep out of yours."

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

In order for anyone to debate global warming, they would at least need to know the basic. 

I suggest one start with the Jerry Reed song, When You’re Hot, You’re Hot:

Well me and Homer Jones and Big John Talley 
Had a big crap game goin' back in the alley 
And I kept rollin' them sevens , winnin' all them pots 
My luck was so good I could do no wrong 
I jest kept on rollin' and controllin' them bones 
And finally they jest threw up their hands and said 
"When you hot, you hot" 
I said "Yeah?" 

When you're hot, you're hot 
And when you're not, you're not 
Put all the money in and let's roll 'em again 
When you're hot, you're hot 
(La la la la la la la) (La la la la la) 
(La la la la la la la, when you're hot, you're hot) 

Well, now every time I rolled them dice I'd win 
And I was just gettin' ready to roll 'em again 
When I heard somethin' behind me 
I turned around and there was a big old cop 
He said "Hello, boys" and then he gave us a grin 'n' said 
"Look like I'm gonna hafta haul you all in 
And keep all that money for evidence" 
I said, "Well, son when you hot, you hot" 
He said "Yeah" 

When you're hot, you're hot 
And when you're not, you're not 
You can 'splain it all down at City Hall 
I say, yeah, when you're hot, you're hot 
You're hot 
(La la la la la la la) (La la la la la) 
(La la la la la la la, when you're hot, you're hot) 

Well, when he took us inta court I couldn't believe my eyes 
The judge was a fishin' buddy that I recognized 
I said "Hey, judge, old buddy, old pal" 
"I'll pay ya that hundred I owe ya if you'll get me outta this spot" 
So he gave my friends a little fine to pay 
He turned around and grinned at me and said 
"Ninety days, Jerry, when you hot, you hot" 
'n' I said "Thanks a lot" 

When you're hot, you're hot 
And when you're not, you're not 
He let my friends go free and throwed the book at me 
He said "Well, when you're hot, you're hot" 

I said "well I'll tell ya one thing judge, old buddy, old pal" 
"If you wasn't wearin' that black robe I'd take out in back of this courthouse 
"And I'd try a little bit of your honor on" 
"You understand that, you hillbilly?" 
"Who gonna collect my welfare?" 
(When you're hot, you're hot") 
"Pay for my Cadillac?" 
Whadda you mean 'contempt of court'?" 
(When you're hot, you're hot") 
"Judge"

Songwriters: J. Reed

When You're Hot, You're Hot lyrics © Hori Pro Entertainment Group

[James Thomas Rook Jr.]

 

 

 

The only way to learn the truth about whether "global warming" is real ... and whether it is a naturally occurring phenomena that mankind can do NOTHING about, or is caused by human interaction with the environment, which may or may not be able to be stopped or reversed, is to YOU PERSONALLY educate yourself with the math, physics, chemistry, meteorology, and ocean sciences, and orbital mechanics, etc.,  ..... to be able to tell the difference between hoax, fraud, fake science, and religious hysteria and hallucination that this issue has become.

And then sit down and draw sketches, accumulate data ... possibly completely wear out a scientific pocket calculator .... or two, and then correlate what you PERSONALLY know with astronomy, and other related sciences ... comparing the physics of other planets' atmospheric meteorology to see if conclusions by others make sense, or have any validity whatsoever.

If you are not willing to YOU PERSONALLY do this ... and take a decade, or 20 years, or the rest of your life ... then your opinions will be based on FAITH .... NOT SCIENCE.

FAITH in the opinions and conclusions of others .... the new global religion of "Man Caused Climate Change".

Faith in the opinions and conclusions of others, where you have not PERSONALLY proved it yourself, is not TRUTH.

Seek ONLY THE TRUTH.  

In science, and in religion, and in all things.

However, although you will fail to get the correct answers ...... intellectual integrity can also be accomplished by not caring, to the point you do not believe anybody, about anything.

... and is a LOT less work.

 

 

 

[TrueTomHarley]

5 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

If you are not willing to YOU PERSONALLY do this ... and take a decade, or 20 years, or the rest of your life ... then your opinions will be based on FAITH .... NOT SCIENCE.

Okay. Got it. Let me pencil that in the calendar.

[TrueTomHarley]

Well, that’s a new one. I know that AI is smart, but has it even adjusted to my being religious?

What must I do to be one of the chosen?

Wait. My bad. I misread it. It is me who has to choose, (despite being on this network forever) not be chosen. I was about to ask @Witness.

MSFT should be a penny stock.