There have been two recent threads on this topic:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1867821

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1864217,1864217#msg-1864217

Obviously, different people have widely varying opinions on the subject. So I have a solution to the problem: Everybody who believes that mankind is causing the earth to warm by putting too much carbon into the atmosphere etc. should pool their resources and buy an island in some cold region where they can live amongst themselves and be as cold as they wish. For instance, they could buy Greenland or Baffin Island or some remote Siberian Island, and just live there and wait for the island to warm enough to be agreeable to human life.

Now, since the major problem is the use of fossil fuels, then those should be banned on the island. Here's a partial list of items which are made from petroleum:

http://www.ranken-energy.com/products%20from%20petroleum.htm

So none of those items will be allowed on the island. Residents will have to use fuels that humans used before petroleum was developed: wood, whale oil, bear grease, beef tallow, etc. That will also make it necessary to ban people from uttering the words "Save the whales."

Since most modern, everyday products have parts made from petroleum, residents will have to live without them as well. That means no telephones, no computers, no electricity, no internet, etc. In other words, the residents of---shall we call it Doomsday Island?---will not be able to communicate with the outside world. This will benefit the rest of the humans living on the planet, because we will not have to listen to the residents of Doomsday Island constantly whining and annoying the rest of us about climate change (like religious people who go around yelling "The end is near!"). The Doomsdayers can enjoy life as did the resident of "The Village," safe from the unbelieving outsiders who will not listen to the warnings. Sounds like a win-win to me.

I also recommend reading this:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1867821,1868017#msg-1868017

Yes, all those things are made from petroleum. But neither their manufacturing nor their use generates greenhouse gases as a necessity (it requires electricity, but that can come from solar power). On the other hand burning anything will produce greenhouse gases. Burning wood is much more polluting than burning gasoline or natural gas.

Just some thoughts.

"Yes, all those things are made from petroleum. But neither their manufacturing nor their use generates greenhouse gases as a necessity (it requires electricity, but that can come from solar power)."

Sorry, but that's unworkable for at least two reasons: first, crude oil has to be refined in order to make any product from it. Refining requires heating it with natural gas or some other fuel, separating the various elements, and making them into products. You can't just pump crude oil out of the ground and heat it with a solar panel and make Bic pens out of it. It would require a large infrastructure of factories, all using various fuels.

Secondly, most of the global warming activists oppose drilling for oil, gas, and coal AT ALL, so using oil would be a non-starter for the inhabitants of Doomsday Island.

"On the other hand burning anything will produce greenhouse gases. Burning wood is much more polluting than burning gasoline or natural gas."

Well, that would only be a problem for the Doomsday Islanders. The rest of the humans on the planet wouldn't give a sh*t. The Doomsday Islanders could just freeze to death. Let's call the process "natural selection."

My thoughts are satire, of course. I find it ironic that millions of Americans are currently moving from cold-weather regions up north to moderate/subtropical area in the south. Obviously, most people want to be warmer rather than colder.

It doesn't matter if burning wood produces CO2 emissions since that CO2 came out of the atmosphere a mere 20-50 years ago, and the next wood you burn is sucking it back up while it grows.

Running out of wood to burn would be the bigger problem so you have to burn it only as fast as new wood grows.

Of all the things that burn fossil fuels are the only thing that supposedly have locked up carbon from a long long time ago, that we are burning at a faster rate than new fossil fuels are produced.

I personally think that the biggest problem in such an endeavor would be loneliness. Ed Begley would be Emperor for life!

science eludes this thread.

"science eludes this thread."

I prefer to deal more in logic and satire than with science.

Regardless of what "the scientific consensus" shows, humans aren't going to stop using fossils to any great extent in the near future. Doing so at this point would destroy economies around the world, and cause untold millions of deaths.

My position on the issue is that since there's a finite supply of fossil fuels---and global warming alarmists claim that fossil fuels are the problem---we should just continue to use them until they're used up. The humans living 200-300 years from now will have to come up with alternative energy sources, or human populations will reduce back to the numbers of 200-300 years ago. Since most global warming alarmists are also concerned about overpopulation, this would be a win-win. As time passes, the problem will solve itself.

I once saw a funny saying: "There was a time when mankind used only hydro, solar, and wind power. It was known as the Dark Ages."

There's one way anybody can "reduce his/hers/its carbon footprint" -- suicide! Definite.Decisive. Final. Foolproof! Kevorkian was ahead of his time.

BTW, I'm offering an IPO in an exciting Soyent Green venture, which we'll set up in an abandoned ethanol plant. Send your checks to "Caffiend, Boston." Like "Wire Paladin, San Francisco," that's all the address you need!

"There's one way anybody can "reduce his/hers/its carbon footprint" -- suicide! Definite.Decisive. Final. Foolproof! Kevorkian was ahead of his time."

Yep, suicide would assuage environmentalists' guilt over fossil fuel usage, reduce human population, and remove one more annoying, sanctimonious person from the planet. Win/win.

"BTW, I'm offering an IPO in an exciting Soyent Green venture, which we'll set up in an abandoned ethanol plant."

You're too late! Somebody's already beaten you to it:

https://www.soylent.com/

"Send your checks to "Caffiend, Boston." Like "Wire Paladin, San Francisco," that's all the address you need!"

Wow, a Paladin reference. That's old school. :-)

I can deal with no phones, computers, or electricity. But you're telling me we can't have shag rugs?

NOT happening.

"I can deal with no phones, computers, or electricity. But you're telling me we can't have shag rugs?"

Right, and even worse---no internet porn!

.....sitting there typing on a device that is made from fossil fuels? Shouldn't you be giving up all of those sinful habits, and go live in a cave off the grid somewhere?

You don't wanna be viewed as a hypocrite, do ya?

Come on, randy -- it was already pointed out to you that making "things" from petroleum isn't the same as burning it.

You can let that part go now, right? :)

and also creating plastics from petroleum products and so on.

It wouldn't make any sense nor would it be feasible to try and roll back the clock and live in a pre-industrial world like the middle ages before A.D. 1500.

We can't go back. We can only go forward.

I would have thought that, given their experience with TSCC, ex-mos would be more skeptical of self-proclaimed prophets of doom and their authoritarian commandments for salvation.

Oh, and put me down for a 1000 shares in that Soylent Green venture.

Seriously, let science prevail. The idea of the island fails to recognize that the majority of people DO accept global warming and that it must be dealt with or the consequences will be horrendous.

"Seriously, let science prevail. The idea of the island fails to recognize that the majority of people DO accept global warming and that it must be dealt with or the consequences will be horrendous."

Ah, so you're in favor of"tyranny of the majority," then? Everybody should be forced to go along with the majority, even if they don't believe in, or agree with the premise?

Global warming alarmists are like animal rights activists who aren't content to just be animal rights activists themselves; they want to force everybody ELSE to be animal rights activists as well.

You say that global warming "must be dealt with or the consequences will be horrendous." My position is that the earth is 4.5 billions years old; the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, through no fault of humans; modern humans have only existed about 200,000 years; thus, whatever happens, whether the earth warms two degrees over the next 500 years or whatever, is gonna happen. The earth has been slowly warming, coming out of the last Ice Age anyhow. The earth has ALWAYS been warming and cooling. Humans might not even be around another 200,000 years from now to worry about such things. A disease could wipe us out, or another meteor could hit. The future earth could be dominated by cockroaches and rats, for all we know. So why the hell worry about it?

Congratulations, a thread that is totally science-free and has gone straight to mockery. Daniel Peterson is liable to sue for trademark infringement.

"Congratulations, a thread that is totally science-free and has gone straight to mockery."

It's not mockery; it's satire. Didn't you see "Idiocracy"?

As the island would likely be flooded all too soon by the folks not on it continuing to ignorantly act like nimrods...not much of a solution, randy :)

No matter what you "believe" (or accept from evidence) with regard to "global warming," here are some lessons everyone can take from the debate:

-- we're all connected. A nuclear accident in Japan, or China burning tons of coal, affects the US and Europe.

-- polluting our planet is stupid.

-- "fossil fuels" are a limited, finite resource; we have to come up with more sustainable ways to power our planet.

Aren't you afraid that the island would reach a tipping point and flip over with all those people on board? If Hank Johnson says it could happen to Guam, it could happen to your Island too...

We aren't the most numerous or the biggest.

We aren't the strongest or the fastest.

We don't have claws or fangs or prehensile tails.

The one thing that we do have that puts us on top is our minds.

Humans are smart. We are self-aware. We can think and reason.

The only serious enemy of humans are humans.

I'm very, very worried that the fate our planet and my civilisation depends on the beliefs of religious fanatics and conspiracy theorists.

If we do nothing now our only hope to preserve something of what we have will be geo-engineering on a massive scale.

Perhaps when the danger becomes all to apparent the deniers will finally realise that something has to be done.

I only hope it won't be too little too late.

"Humans are smart. We are self-aware. We can think and reason.

"The only serious enemy of humans are humans."

To repeat: humans have only existed for about 200,000 years. Humans have only been civilized for about 6,000 years. The planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Considering those facts, the odds are that humans are not going to be around forever. If you accept evolutionary theory, then you surely agree that the earth and its inhabitants are constantly changing. Temperatures rise and fall, and species come and go. Most of the species that ever existed on earth went extinct for various reasons long before humans came about.

That being the case, I don't see why environmentalists are trying to force the earth to remain forever exactly like it is today.

"I'm very, very worried that the fate of our planet and my civilisation depends on the beliefs of religious fanatics and conspiracy theorists."

Why do you even care about the fate of "my civilization?" What makes humans so special, that we should care about a planet on which we have only existed for a tiny fraction of its life in? Humans are the only species that have ever even cared about, or had the brains to care about such things. After humans are gone, some other species will dominate. Maybe the cockroaches and rats will fight over what's left.

This:
http://www.italianrenaissance.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/michelangelo-creation-of-adam.jpg

and this:

http://www.tajmahal.org.uk/gifs/taj-mahal.jpeg

and this:

http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/thumbs/site_0668_0067-750-0-20151104115852.jp

and this:

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/Parthenon/Athena.jpg

and this:

http://mediumraw.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Tank-Man-1.jpg

and this:

http://landscapeonline.com/research/lsmp/2006/07/img/holy-cross/holy-9.jpg

and this:

http://luckdragon.falcorweb.net/serve/18/image/valley05.jpg

and this:
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/BAY2C3/native-woman-with-child-djombe-virunga-mountains-zaire-africa-BAY2C3.jpg

and if you can't understand any of these things I pity you...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2016 02:09PM by anybody.

There are an equal number of possible images that would convince an impartial judge that the earth was better off without humans.

While we have the power to reason, we cede it too easily, or all to frequently, misuse it.

I got as far as Adam stating that "...man was made in the image of ghawd..." when I realized that I needed to trim all my ear hair.

I'll get back to the video after the second coming.

We have different points of view; we can easily get along, since on a day to day basis we are very much the same. As long as "magic" isn't an issue, we're cool.

No matter where we go we aren't going to escape the global warming of this planet. Heck, the ice caps are melting for pete's sake! When they're gone, they're irreplaceable too.

Your idea sounds similar to the early Mormon pioneers, who tried to escape the civilized society by saving themselves to the western frontier. All they did was civilize that, and it isn't much different from the rest of the country today.

What happens in America doesn't stay in America. Same with Greenland, Iceland, Finland, etc.

It's a small planet, and made smaller by globalization. There's no escaping this mess we're in. Not even a commune in a cold northern climate.

We're either going to work together for a solution, or we'll keep degenerating just like always, and deferring to the capitalists who don't care diddly squat for the environment or this planet, other than raping its natural resources. That, and their stock portfolios.

+1.0x10^9

...the premise that humans have some sort of divine right to continue living and dominating this planet, and that conditions on the planet should remain exactly as they are today, to benefit mankind. My position is, humans have only existed for about 200,000 years, and we most likely not be around forever. Whatever species continue to live after humans are gone will not give a sh*t about the melting of the icecaps. They'll either survive and adapt to changing conditions, or they'll die out and be replaced by some other creatures, just as life on earth has been doing for tens of millions of years already.

There may be others, but there is one easily understood reason for AGW: carbon dioxide. CO2 'traps' the sun's heat. When we were under 100 ppm, things were fine. But now we're over 400 ppm and it's 'trapping' heat.

All the sci/fi freaks here know the easiest answer: reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth. And they know, in theory, how to do it!

An alternative is to take the 'too much' CO2 out of the atmosphere. Since to date that hasn't been seen as a 'sexy' story, no one has taken a shot at it.

But Al Gore can't make any easy money either way.

The problem with global warming is that everybody might start moving up here to Canada

And we're too nice to say no

But if it affects our ability to make hockey rinks, that would suck

Actually it's harder than hell frozen over to immigrate to Canada from America, unless you have a "critical shortage" occupation, or are related to someone who does, or marry a Canadian.

There's a point system for immigration. The older you get, the more points count against letting someone in who would otherwise meet criteria.

More Iranians on average immigrate to Canada annually than do Americans. Why it's easier for Iranians, than for us? Got me!

How much greenhouse gas comes building a TSCC temple?

Or General Conference?

There, back on track!

The lack of critical thinking skills on both sides of this argument always floor me.

On the one hand even if we are changing the climate there really is not a workable way for us to immediately end all carbon output without massively changing how we interact with the world. As stated by others we can't simply stop using petroleum products to heat our homes etc in any short timeframe. Simply shutting off the flow of oil will only bring on rapid deforestation, the deaths of 10's of millions from starvation and cold and on and on. Too many people seem to think we can or should implement some kind of radical change overnight and its just not going to happen.

On the other hand only an idiot would think we shouldn't be aggressive in limiting our reliance on fossil fuels as quickly as we reasonable can. It is a finite resource and it is very dirty. If you really think a billion cars running every day is no big deal (not to even mention all the industrial producers of such output) visit Salt lake or Logan in January. or Beijing if you really want to see what we can do to our atmosphere. We are killing ourselves even if we don't raise the temperature of the planet. And we have pathways forward... Solar, wind and water all help. We are making good advances in Nuke power generation to remediate many of its problems.

I get it. Change is never easy. I am a car guy. I love a big V-8 in everything and anything and the idea of driving a Prius just makes me ill. But if I have to chose between my kids and grandkids growing up being unable to play outside and having to deal with asthma and other serious respiratory issues or not having a gas engine in my car, well that decision is easy.

"On the other hand only an idiot would think we shouldn't be aggressive in limiting our reliance on fossil fuels as quickly as we reasonable can. It is a finite resource and it is very dirty."

Some of us first-world nations can limit fossil fuel usage, but other nations like China and India would just keep on using them. So that proposal is a non-starter. That's why my position is, to paraphrase Bill Withers, keep on using them until we use them up. After they're gone, humans will be forced to come up with other fuel sources, or the alternative will be that human populations will be greatly reduced. A lot of global warming alarmists are also concerned about overpopulation, so using up the fossil fuels will be a way to naturally reduce population. Win-win.

"But if I have to choose between my kids and grandkids growing up being unable to play outside and having to deal with asthma and other serious respiratory issues or not having a gas engine in my car, well that decision is easy."

After fossil fuels are depleted, whether it be 200 or 500 years from now, those problems will be gone too. I don't look at this issue from the perspective of caring for the future of my children or grandchildren, or any other short-term situations. I don't have some innate moral sense that the human race should continue to prosper and remain as the dominant species on the planet forever. To repeat: humans have only existed for about 200,000 years. We have only been civilized for about 6000 years. Humans may not even exist 6000, or even 600 years from now. We may go extinct for reasons completely unrelated to energy, fuel, pollution, or other related issues. After humans are gone, other species will live that won't even care about such things, nor have the brainpower to think about them. It'll be like the final scene in "The Truman Show": after the show went off the air, it took viewers about two seconds to change the channel. So, all of this worrying about the environment and climate change will eventually be moot.

You're certainly free to say "fuck the human race" if you want.
Just like others are free to NOT say that.

I'm in the latter group :)

What's wrong with, at least for the time being, reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the atmosphere? Is that just too simple? Does the prospect of NOT running around like a newly headless chicken not have any allure? Is there not enough money in it? Does it piss AGW people off that no one would have to suffer? Is there a fear that such an easy fix would only stir us to new heights of earth-rape?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2016 01:19PM by elderolddog.

https://www.amazon.com/Steel-Mist-Blazing-Sun/dp/0441785719

http://www.gradyhendrix.com/the-steel-the-mist-and-the-blazing-sun/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2016 01:53PM by anybody.

The book isn't available. The two reviews don't add to the synopsis, which is that this is a vision of survival in post nuclear war era from a 1970s us v. the CCCP.

Try Neon City (1991) -- that's a better example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neon_City



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2016 02:38PM by anybody.

Stopping sunlight AFTER it hits the atmosphere is easy, ask any volcano. My reference was to reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the atmosphere. Big difference!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_mirror_(geo engineering)

http://www.livescience.com/22202-space-mirrors-global-warming.html

I read an article in the late 80s about 'beliefs' held dear by people living in the 50s, 60s & 70s, beliefs thought to be of a permanent nature. Two that stuck in my mind were no man made object surviving the attempt to exceed the speed of sound and no drag racer being able to accelerate to more than 174.5 mph within a quarter mile.

There is no end to people declaring what can't be done. Thank ghawd there are so many who don't listen.

but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure :)



If we wait till the start of the next century it might take second world war type Manhattan Project level efforts of every nation on Earth to survive...and that won't be easy to do.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/2016 03:50PM by anybody.

What have you been reading about climate change? There may be a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is real and that we're contributing to it, but few are alarmists like you. I've read many journal articles on climate change, and I've never seen any projections as apocalyptic as what you're talking about, even in worst case scenarios.

Adapt or die: it's a cold, hard law of nature.

One aspect of adaptability is managing resources; as individuals, organizations, societies, and a species. Everyone, individually and collectively, makes decisions everyday based on some sort of cost-benefit analysis; and individual self-interests come together to create a self-correcting means of managing resources. It's economics; and a free market is more efficient than diktats or edicts.

Oil companies are not burying their heads in the oil sands, nor are they trying to ensure that fossil fuels will forever be the only form of energy available to humans. They are oil companies because, right now, fossil fuel is the most cost-effective source of energy. Don't think for a minute that they don't already have plans to adapt and to grow with emerging forms of energy once they become more cost-effective than fossil fuels.

As resources dry up and become more difficult to acquire, the price of those resources will go up. Oil companies are preparing for the day when the market will no longer be able to bear the cost of a dwindling resource. At some point, petroleum may no longer be the most cost-efficient source of energy, and the bean counters at those oil companies will be poised to declare "Today we are in the solar business!" ...or whatever...because that, or something else, will be the new cash cow for energy companies whose interests are to make a profit, adapt, and continue their existence.

Oil companies, as do individuals, want to survive; so they will adapt, or die. It's a cold, hard law of nature.