Anna

I agree, so far, with everything else in that last post except this claim that there is nothing we can do but watch. I think that, as Witnesses, we should have faith that these problems will be completely resolved by the end of the thousand year reign. I don't think it is the responsibility of Witnesses to be climate activists, but we should be aware of the science and do our best to understand it ourselves, or find trustworthy sources to inform us on the topic. I'm sure you feel this is what you have done.
It is difficult to be fully informed on our own, and this is true of most subjects. Fortunately, my son graduated with his degree in physics and he teaches physics and math. He also stays in contact with classmates (former roommates) who have already gone on to work in areas of physics that have a bearing on the topic.
I still need to do a lot more work on the claims about water vapor being the only greenhouse gas that has any significance. From what I have seen so far, this has been a common claim of those who deny the consensus of climate scientists. However . . .
Water vapor is a completely different kind of greenhouse gas that doesn't trap heat in the same way as methane and CO2. Besides, even though it does trap heat to some extent, it also releases it, cools it, dissipates it, and because clouds are white, it even manages to reflect a lot of solar heat back out away from the earth. There may be a lot of water vapor, but within our current atmosphere, it has surprisingly little effect on the question of why we are seeing a rise global warming and the melting of polar ice. (Except to the extent that water vapor protects us from runaway effects of those greenhouse gases that are much more efficient at trapping heat.)
But I also see another point worth mentioning, I think. Climate science consensus deniers (yes, it's a prejudicial term, but you know what I mean) they have written as if this is something that climate scientists have ignored, as if it's something brand new to them that they have never factored in. I found that implication (or explicit claim in one case) to be totally without basis. So far I haven't seen any treatments of climate change by "consensus" climate scientists who have in any way ignored the actual "numbers" and effects of water vapor. But I will admit to needing a bit more of my own research on this topic.

Sorry, JWI. I couldn't resist. I mean, someone has way too much time on their hands:
 

In my teens I skied downhill with Princess Caroline and her sister Stephanie of Monaco. I don't think it was a race though. They didn't even see me of course and they were much better skiers than me anyway. Later that week I got an autograph from Roger Moore. My cousin who is a few years younger than me went up to him and said "hello 007". I know that doesn't impress you at all though. Sorry, I wish it was Sean Connery.

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

I lived in Hollywood, California, up in the hills, on Pacific View Trail, for several years, and SAW several famous people, but had no interest in meeting them.
I did have a race with Paul Newman, on Pacific Coast Highway, me on a Honda 350 motorcycle and him driving a Limo, circa 1969. 
We pulled up at a stoplight in Malibu, grinned at each other. I revved up my motorcycle ... he revved up his Limo, and when the light turned green we both roared North.   
I got up to 45mph, and dropped back ... he disappeared into the distance..
But technically .... I did race against Paul Newman.
 

Chuck Schumer.
Not me. My wife. She ran into him at some community college function and came across him unexpectedly. She was there for other reasons and probably had no idea that he was visiting.
She asked him about high taxes in New York--so high that reports are of many people fleeing the state.
He told him that yes, many do leave, however they come back later when retired. Why? For the services, he told her.
He did not seem to realize that that made the situation worse. They leave when they can put into the pot. They return when they can take from it.
There is a certain pundit known to @James Thomas Rook Jr. (I've never met him, by the way, otherwise he would top my list) who maintains that the most dangerous place in the world to be is between Chuck Schumer and a TV camera.

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

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

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

@TrueTomHarley I still getting used to this theme.
I think I will actually ask the @admin to go back to the default. 

Take note, @The Librarian. Take a screenshot. Save it for posterity. Show it to your grandchildren.
JWI made a comment and he only used ONE WORD!
I’ve heard of turning over a new leaf before, but this takes it to a whole ‘nother level.
”There were too many...um...uh....notes,” the prince told Mozart.

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.

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.
 

Just another example of people bowing and scraping and acqiescing to my every whim. It gets so old.

Who told you this? But one thing doesn't seem believable, and that is actually replacing a jw.org flag. I cannot imagine there was a jw.org flag in the window. In fact why would the Chilean brothers have a flag, its usually just a plaque outside the KH. 

Who told you this? But one thing doesn't seem believable, and that is actually replacing a jw.org flag. I cannot imagine there was a jw.org flag in the window. In fact why would the Chilean brothers have a flag, its usually just a plaque outside the KH. 

Actually, the elder I mentioned previously has had a beard for many, many years, while an elder, well before 2015.

They do believe in the anointed. They believe every single person is anointed because they all believe they will go to heaven...

Who told you this? But one thing doesn't seem believable, and that is actually replacing a jw.org flag. I cannot imagine there was a jw.org flag in the window. In fact why would the Chilean brothers have a flag, its usually just a plaque outside the KH. 

Who told you this? But one thing doesn't seem believable, and that is actually replacing a jw.org flag. I cannot imagine there was a jw.org flag in the window. In fact why would the Chilean brothers have a flag, its usually just a plaque outside the KH. 

it's a difficult situation and you make some valid points. What I do know is that congregations are not "policed" from HQ but that each congregation has some relative autonomy, depending on local practices and customs of the country they are in. A typical example is that of beards. It is the elders as a body, who decide whether brothers with beards will be given privileges or not, not HQ. Also, one of the reasons the CO visits every 6 months is to make sure that the congregation is happy, and that the elders are not "lording it over the flock". There are congregations that are thriving and doing very well, and then others that are not. There are reasons behind that. And those reasons will be made known to the CO. (By either some elder, who does not agree with some decision, or publishers). Let's say for example that the elders decided it's ok to fly a flag, but most in the congregation are upset about it. So some publishers move away, or stop going, or stop answering, or stop field service etc....The CO will detect the spirit of the congregation and will see something is wrong.   The CO knows one important thing that all elders must do, and that is consider the congregation's spiritual interests first. As shepherds, they must treat the flock with care. So when the CO comes back in 6 months, and the congregation is the same or worse, then the CO knows things did not get resolved and some further action has to be taken.
 
That is one way of doing it. But the elders should know their flock well, and they should know how individuals feel. And I can tell you, if someone complains (about an important matter) then the elders WILL know about it. (Unless they are blind and deaf).
I already partially answered it above. It depends on what it is. But regardless of how it's done, it should always be done in the spiritual interest of the congregation. And if it is not, then the congregation will show signs of suffering and this will be seen by the CO and will be remedied. But I do agree with you, some things should be put before the whole congregation.

Actually that is not true. One of the brothers in my mum's congregation has a full beard and is an elder and WT conductor. Then there is another brother, a ministerial servant with a goatiee. He does the microphones. I would post a picture of them but can't because of privacy reasons. Also I have a number of friends in England who have short beards. Now it's coming to the USA as well. There are brothers in some congregations who have beards. So far no privileges, but they go out in field service. 10 years ago you would have not seen that here (USA).  I guess it's because of this Sept 2016 WT : 17 What about the propriety of brothers wearing a beard? The Mosaic Law required men to wear a beard. However, Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, nor are they obliged to observe it. (Lev. 19:27; 21:5; Gal. 3:24, 25) In some cultures, a neatly trimmed beard may be acceptable and respectable, and it may not detract at all from the Kingdom message. In fact, some appointed brothers have beards. Even so, some brothers might decide not to wear a beard. (1 Cor. 8:9, 13; 10:32) In other cultures or localities, beards are not the custom and are not considered acceptable for Christian ministers. In fact, having one may hinder a brother from bringing glory to God by his dress and grooming and his being irreprehensible.—Rom. 15:1-3; 1 Tim. 3:2, 7.    After that WT our CO at the time said that he is expecting some beards soon. And he was right.
Saluting the Flag was raised to a highly doctrinal matter. The flag itself is not the problem. Its just an emblem, or identifier of a country. Just like money is not the problem, it's the love of money.
True. But with some things it is not possible. Sometimes patience is the way to go.
Not the elders I know! But yes, there can be some that are not very good. But I have only met about 3 in my life time. Things always get sorted out in the end though. Yes, the whistlers are good sometimes.

If this fact, then the WT really needs to revisit the definition of conscience!

Actually that is not true. One of the brothers in my mum's congregation has a full beard and is an elder and WT conductor. Then there is another brother, a ministerial servant with a goatiee. He does the microphones. I would post a picture of them but can't because of privacy reasons. Also I have a number of friends in England who have short beards. Now it's coming to the USA as well. There are brothers in some congregations who have beards. So far no privileges, but they go out in field service. 10 years ago you would have not seen that here (USA).  I guess it's because of this Sept 2016 WT : 17 What about the propriety of brothers wearing a beard? The Mosaic Law required men to wear a beard. However, Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, nor are they obliged to observe it. (Lev. 19:27; 21:5; Gal. 3:24, 25) In some cultures, a neatly trimmed beard may be acceptable and respectable, and it may not detract at all from the Kingdom message. In fact, some appointed brothers have beards. Even so, some brothers might decide not to wear a beard. (1 Cor. 8:9, 13; 10:32) In other cultures or localities, beards are not the custom and are not considered acceptable for Christian ministers. In fact, having one may hinder a brother from bringing glory to God by his dress and grooming and his being irreprehensible.—Rom. 15:1-3; 1 Tim. 3:2, 7.    After that WT our CO at the time said that he is expecting some beards soon. And he was right.
Saluting the Flag was raised to a highly doctrinal matter. The flag itself is not the problem. Its just an emblem, or identifier of a country. Just like money is not the problem, it's the love of money.
True. But with some things it is not possible. Sometimes patience is the way to go.
Not the elders I know! But yes, there can be some that are not very good. But I have only met about 3 in my life time. Things always get sorted out in the end though. Yes, the whistlers are good sometimes.

Right. So they are effectively being told what to do, (in order to show the government it's a matter of conscience for the congregation) therefor where does the matter of conscience come into this? It's another one of those paradoxes! Actually it's more like a contradiction.