Monday, March 19, 2007

Family Values vs. Global Warming

My wife and I finally viewed Al Gore's movie on global warming entitled, "An Inconvenient Truth." The presentation made some rather compelling arguments. Having a science background, I was suspicious at the claim that there was general scientific consensus on this issue and that there was now irrefutable evidence to link human carbon dioxide production to global warming. However, irrefutable claims don't sit well with me. So, I began to search for the other side of the argument.

The Evangelical Christians seemed, at first, to be the only opposition to this issue. The Christian Right claimed that the global warming issue was a distraction from the more important issue of degrading traditional family values. The LDS Church in its "The Family: A Proclamation to the Word" in 1995 supports the mainstream Evangelical Christian movement by clearly saying that the dissintigration of the family will result in personal and global catastrophy and not global warming from carbon dioxide production:

"We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."

I was initially concerned that this issue would turn out to be a new religion vs. science debate like creationism vs. evolution, or the Christian Right would be seen akin to the Catholic Church vs. Galileo and Capernicus. I was hoping to find a minority of scientists who would give an organized and logical rebuttal to this highly politicized issue.

Well, I found it. The BBC produced an excellent documentary entitled, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (Britian's Channel 4), (Google), (YouTube) that anyone interested in the issue of carbon dioxide and global warming must see. This documentary is a point-by-point rebuttal on all the issues used to support global warming by numerous well-known, expert scientists and climatologists. This documentary leaves no doubt that yes, we should take care of the enviroment; and yes, we should be more energy independent, but the link between carbon dioxide levels and global warming and the political and social movement behind it is unfounded.

The conclusion of the documentary is that there exists a cyclical warming and cooling pattern of the Earth that is caused by increased illumination from the Sun and that carbon dioxide levels lag behind temperature and are a result of temperature change rather than preceed it and cause it. CO2 isn't even a significant green house gas. Water vapor is. Remember, correlation does not equal causation.

[see also]


Anonymous said...

Have you read the IPCC report? I'd read that before coming to any conclusions on global warming. Check out I feel it is the most unbiased scientific report on the subject.

BRoz said...

Actually, several scientists listed as authors on the IPCC report were interviewed on the documentary. They said the report was a joke and their part of the report was purposely removed from the final version. These scientists then asked that their names be removed from the report but IPCC included their names on the report anyways.

Anonymous said...

I am currently studying Meteorology and film at the university of Hawaii, and have heard first hand by some of the scientists of the IPCC report and one of the main points that they make is that there will always be those who disbelieve the proven evidence.

Check out this source,

it debunks the short documentary you cite. If you would rather trust a news channel, which in effect edits the actual interviews to portray their view points, rather than a group of climatoglogists, then nothing will sway your opinion on the matter.

annegb said...

I am so glad to hear some common sense on global warming.

I'd believe in Gore's sincerity a heck of a lot more if he lived in the woods somewhere and burned candles and made his own soap.

BRoz said...

Good website on global warming science. However, I didn't read anything that countered the argument that increasing global temp cannot be caused by the lagging increases in CO2 levels.

Yes, the oceans and atmosphere are warming. Yes, the polar regions are experiencing more melting. Yes, this could cause climate problems. However, the ice-core data just do not support a link between CO2 and temp.

I didn't expect the BBC show to be impartial. I knew it was going to be biased just like Al Gore's movie.

BRoz said...

The websites rebuttal about the CO2 lag is that if you see all the data together in one big graph the lag looks really small and only appreciable if you look close. That is are rather sorry argument. A lag is a lag is a lag.

Anonymous said...

I researched the argument about the 800 year CO2 lag you put forward and found this,

I cannot personally give many answers other than sending you along to other sites.

I honestly think that once you move into one of the two camps on this issue, you will most likely stay in that camp no matter how much evidence one gives to thwart you.

I just hope that when someone makes a choice of whether to join a camp they will listen to research based solely on peer reviewed scientific journals and publications and not on any media driven arguments.

Anonymous said...

Have you read through the IPCC report on the physical science basis for AGW? It's the summary for policymakers. Can you find peer reviewed scientific evidence that proves against AGW?

Look through Robert Lindzen's writings he's just about the most credible AGW skeptic there is, yet he has many holes in his stories as well.

NoCoolName_Tom said...

When I look at the Proclamation, I must admit that, to me at least, nowhere does it say that the calamities foretold cannot be man-made in source. Indeed, the Proclamation basically says that "disintegration of family => calamities". And then it urges people to choose to support the family - implying to me that the disintegration is the result of human choices. Now, the same sinful attitudes and behaviors that lead to the disintegration of the family (things like selfishness, apathy, and greed - all of which underlie divorce and other anti-stable-familial acts) might also lead to attitudes and behaviors that lead to the disintegration of the natural ecosystems we live within. Thus, to me, I see a problem with statements like, "the disintegration of the family will result in personal and global catastrophe and not global warming from carbon dioxide production," because, to me at least, I see little difference between the two.

Just my two cents for it all. :-)

BRoz said...

A1: "First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases (~5000 years)."

R1: A lag is a lag no matter what you compare it to. The lag is clear evidence against a causal relationship between Co2 and temp.

A2: "Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."

R2: Correlation does not equal causation.

A3: "The idea that this lag somehow debunks the theory of anthropogenic global warming did not originate from the scientists who discovered the lag. It has come from right-wing pundits and skeptics."

R3: Truth is truth no matter the percieved quality of the source. If the argument is false then prove the argument false, do not attack the person making the argument (ad hominem).

A4: "Then, the warming triggers a mixing of the deep ocean, which releases CO2 (a process known as “outgassing”). There is a finite amount of CO2 in the deep ocean, so CO2 cannot be released into the atmosphere indefinitely. Also, it is believed that the 800-year period is also the mixing time for the deep ocean, further solidifying this theory. So, there is a limit to the amount of natural CO2 that can be released, making a never-ending cycle of temperature increase unlikely."

R4: This explains the mechanism of the lag of increasing Co2 behind increasing temp. It says nothing about what is causing the increased temperature. This point is actually a powerful evidence against a causal link between CO2 and global temp.

BRoz said...

The Peer-review process focuses on the quality of the METHODS and DATA sections primarily. Therefore, when studying peer-reviewed journals. Study the quality and validity of the methods and data. Then make your own conclusion. Take the DISCUSSION section with a grain of salt. If the data is quality data, scientists are given latituded about what they say in the discussion section.

Clark Goble said...

Peer review affects interpretation just as much as methods and data. Indeed bad interpretations often lead to journals rejecting papers.

Regarding the lag issue, I'd suggest this post instead of that one that someone linked to.

Clark Goble said...

This post as well as this Science article if you register.

BRoz said...

A1: "All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."

R1: "As far as we can tell," Are you kidding me? This explaination is what is affectionately known in science as "hand-waving."

A2: "CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming."

R2: People can make models that say just about anything. This one may have forgotten to include water vapor? Incidently, the models associating sun illuminocity and temperature correlate more exactly than Co2.

BRoz said...

Science Paper,

A1: "the size of this phase lag is probably connected to the duration of the preceding warm period, which controls the change in land ice coverage and the buildup of the terrestrial biosphere."

R1: This secondary article does nothing to reinforce the causal relationship between Co2 and temp. Also, this article is just a commentary on the ice-core data and exhibits some of that author latitude that I spoke of before which is apparent in the use of the phrases such as "difficult to reconcile," "probably connected," and "Another possibility to explain."

Remember to separate facts from opinion. This paper contains a lot of opinion which may or may not be correct.

Anonymous said...

The documentary you were so impressed by was the one where Carl Wunscha famous MIT oceanologist, says his comments were misused and the film was a fraud.

The filmmaker has a history of involvement in similar efforts.

Here are his comments. Given your replies to to legitimate scientific responses, I suspect you'll be unimpressed. You probably know more about his field than this man does . . .

jay alt

Anonymous said...

Do not trust anything published by the UN, including the IPCC Report.

1. Look up John Stossels investigation of the global warming alarmism on youtube or another video hosting site. The scientists he speeks to pretty much discredit the IPCC (a large majority of whom arent even scientists but representatives appointed by UN).
2. Read up on the goals of the major players in the Green Movement. Their publications basically advocate the worship Gaia, the earth (as opposed to God). They see humankind as a pest/disease on the planet that needs to be drastically reduced if not exterminated. Example: Sierra club first executive director, David Brower, said
'Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.'
...This is the same Sierra Club currently courting church leaders throughout Utah, including the Mormon Church, to help them push forward their agenda. Their ethic and means of moving the public are not consistent with church doctrine. They are decievers: 'It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.'
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

3. Investigate the connections between the Club of Rome, the UN and major environmental groups. I am not typically a conspiracy theorist, but what these groups have published and who belongs to them will blow your mind! Go to the website for quotes, documents, membership lists, etc (all the evidence is there!)- Very scary suff! Basically, members of these organizations are pretty much one and the same- Al Gore and Bill Clinton, for example, are heavily involved in all three. The ultimate goal of the Club of Rome is a New World Order/ One World Government and the means to do this is by using climate change alarmism to convince Americans to give up their individual liberties and national sov. for the good of the planet. The UN is the means- the vehicle and global policy maker whose policies, our national leadership is allow to suercede national policies.

'We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.'
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

"Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
- Club of Rome

This is the stuff that Mormon church leaders have warned us about! Our church presidents have warned us against the NWO and giving up our liberties and independence. They have told us time and again not to be fooled. This allience is a secret combination, wolves in sheeps clothing... From the mouths of our church leaders:

"Many well intentioned people are now convinced that we are living in a period of history which makes it both possible and necessary to abandon our national sovereighnty, to merge our nation miliarily, economically, and politically with other nations, and to form, at last, a world government which supposedly would put an end to war... Sovereignty for a nation is hard to come by and even more difficult to retain. It cannot be shared, for then sovereignty becomes something else, and, for want of a better word, when sovereignty is lessened the end-product is internationalism. Sovereignty is nether more nor less than self-government. American self-government is blueprinted in the Constitution.
(Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 695-696)

"We need not fear as to this nation from without. The Lord has said, ‘I will fortify this land against all other nations.’ The danger is not from without, but from within, as the Book of Mormon plainly points out from secret combinations of men giving their first allegiance to their secret combination.”
(President Charles W. Nibley, 1922 General Conference)

"Our leaders in Washington have been acting as though the American people elected them to office for the primary purpose of leading the entire planet toward international peae, prosperity, and one world government. At times, these men appear to be more concerned with something called world opinion or with their image as world leaders than they are with securing the best possible advantage for us."
(The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 682)

“I cannot help but think that there is a direct relationship between the present evil trends and the very marked tendency of the people of our country to pass on to the state the responsibility for their own moral and economic welfare. This trend to a welfare state in which people look to and worship government more than their God, is certain to sap the individual ambitions and moral fiber of our youth unless they are warned of the consequences. History is replete with
the downfall of nations who, instead of assuming their own responsibility…mistakenly attempted to shift their individual
responsibility to the government.”
(Letter from David O. McKay to the President of BYU, 1960)

“I say unto you with all the soberness I can, that we stand in danger of losing our liberties, and that once lost, only blood will bring them back; and once lost, we of this Church will, in order to keep the Church going forward, have more sacrifices to make and more persecutions to endure than we have yet known, heavy as our sacrifices and grievous as our persecutions of the past have been….If we do not vigorously fight for our liberties, we shall go clear through to the end of the road and become another Russia, or worse….[He added that if the Conspiracy ever completely takes over America, and destroys our freedom by instituting a police state], it will probably come in its full vigor and there will be a lot of vacant places among those who guide and direct, not only this government, but also this Church of ours….”
(President J. Rueben Clark)

Don't be fooled!

Anonymous said...

Another Useful Link:

(Scroll down to the bottom for some excellent articles on climate change)

A new video:
Global Warming or Global Governance? (DVD)

The Truth About Global Warming
What you don’t hear in the media!
The debate is still raging within the scientific community. Sovereignty International has put together interviews of climate scientists and biologists from numerous sources who explain, step by step, why Al Gore and the global warming alarmists are incorrect. In some cases, blatantly so. It also provides evidence that the global warming agenda is being funded with tens of billions of dollars as a mechanism to create global governance.

Hear from congressmen, experts and even well-known news broadcasters discuss how global governance puts global institutions that are not accountable to the American people in control of every aspect of our economy. The U.S. government is very close to making this a reality. Very close. Every American, every citizen of the world, needs to hear the other side of the global warming story.

John Stossel's Reports:

BRoz said...

Michael Mann runs who is the same fraud scientist caught fudging the data to make the CO2/Temp "hockey stick" graph featured in the IPCC reports. The following quote obtained from emails shows how this fudging was used to hide the Midevil Warm Period and the decline in temps the last 10 years.

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years. . . to hide the decline"

Anonymous said...

I think that we as members of the LDS Church need only to look at scripture, Revelation 16:8-9. We cannot ignor this problem because of who we vote for...

Anonymous said...

I have read the senate report and many others disputing global warming. I refute global warming totally. What is the logic....

1: Did we not have a new ice age claim in the 70's?
2: Was Greenland not a agricultural territory?
3: Did East Anglia (the core data provider for the IPCC) not admit to manipulating data to prove global warming?
4: Was the Mann hockey stick effect proven to be totally false as the program was incorrect?
5: Did the IPCC not state that they are 38% confident that 20014 was the hottest year on record?
6: Why do satellite records show the earth is not warming?
7: Why is there an increasing base of dissenters?
8: Why do many scientist state that the IPCC report excluded date from the scientific community?

You want me to worry about global warming BS when there is no transparency and honesty?

Anonymous said...

As a Mormon the one thing I understand very clearly is that satan seeks to remove agency and that battle in the pre-existent state has simply changed battlefields.

Any program or organization that seeks to remove individual liberty and agency MUST be rejected out of hand. Note the it is the very elect that shall be deceived but if you stick to core doctrine you cannot go wrong. Yes, there are bodies seeking to destroy our sovereignty and liberty and they include our federal government and both political parties.