Climate Change is a Complex Subject, Not Just a Political Football

Yobarnacle,

It is interesting that Mitochondrial Eve and DNA Adam are believed to have lived 250 ty apart from each other. I think Eve came second, but some of the 'Science' is difficult.

Wayne

 

MAN MADE climate change is the only aspect that MAN can influence, hence it requires all thought and resources.

 

Of course not. But if someone wants to post an opposing view, I'd rather it be based on science, rather than on conspiracy theories and politics. We've already heard about how Al Gore and the liberals (or the Jews, or the Bulderbergers, or the Masons, or reptile shapeshifters, or whoever) invented man-made climate change for their own nefarious purposes. There's really no point in the discussion heading down that road again....

Nor am I impressed with anything from the Heartland Institute. It's composed of PR professionals and lobbyists - who moved on from shilling for tobacco companies to shilling for oil companies, after the tobacco money ran dry. They have no credibility whatsoever.

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever claimed Homo Sapiens evolved from Neanderthals. But they didn't become extinct until about 30,000 years ago, and the Mitochondrial Eve in that Wikepedia article lived between 140,000 and 200,000 years ago.

 

Hmmm, speaking of lobbyists...


" in 1974, 3 percent of retiring members of Congress became lobbyists. Now 50 percent of senators and 42 percent of congressmen do.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101632.html

 

East Antarctic glaciers could be much more vulnerable to climate change than previously thought | SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

 

Coccolithophores beat climate change predictions | EXAMINER

 

we are not the only one with heated arguments. Some goes to court to sue

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/08/19/mann-v-national-review-new-plaintiffs-briefs/

 

And I find this train of thought from The Objective Standard.
Also interesting. It is in a certain way linked to climate change, if it is the human fault or not.
This is just a excerpt. The whole link is below (I have top be precise otherwise imaginay number will get mad at me)

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/exploit-the-earth-or-die.asp

 

Not so fast Michael, EPA find an other culprit.
Honestly I find this one disturbing. When my tax dollar goes to an overzealous agency, and quite not telling the whole truth, it is not OK.
To make a point, it is not necessary to talk about Ammonia. Human being release the most amount of ammonia, and the climate never changed because of what we exhale as far as I know. Amonia is not anymore taken in consideration in many countries.
Someone remember the pine tar scandal? They wanted to ban it without studies, because of the bad smell. Fortunatly scientist succed to overturn the ban.
Since I pay for this agency, I don't have to be polite and complies with quoting my source.

Just a thought: the whole EPA agency employees crap and farts. What we will do about that? And contrary to the farms animals, they use paper by the ton to stay clean.
I love animals. Mostly chikens, porcs, cows, bull, and all these friendly farms creatures who never asked to be bother by Big Brother.

 

I have my doubts on the "Objective" part of their name.

In regards to the first post about the defamation lawsuit...

 

The point of the article had to do with feedlots, not necessarily climate change. http://www.epa.gov/region9/animalwaste/problem.html
I'm not sure we humans even exhale ammonia. **** and farts have to do with methane more than ammonia.
When all your farm creatures are piled together in a typical feedlot, large farm operation, ammonia becomes a very big problem.

That even ties directly into boats and boating, unless you only care about water to float your boat and don't care if there is anything alive in it.

All those friendly farm animals and large farm operations wouldn't even exist except for humans, and so the problems they cause are 100% man made. As far as those creatures never asking to be bothered by Big Brother, who is Big Brother but us? Besides, all those friendly critters don't have any say in the matter because

I don't understand how you can complain about the EPA (actually your complaint is about your money) trying to keep the earth clean, and taking the side of an organization that blatantly supports Exploit (ing) The Earth ™, and then apparently subscribe to this sort of stuff at the same time...

 

Sam sam you didn't read the article obviously.
Yes human exhale ammonia.
I complain about EPA (yes it is money). Just read this time.
As a human being I am complex, I support aperture and examine every possibilities, I like to see the origins. If you don't understand that I am sorry.
Complexity is my freedom, I don't need to be attached and obedient to a cause like a dog. You know dog......matism*

 

Sam sam you said:

You do it every day. You exploit the earth. Serious, you do it. Look around on your life of everyday.
I never said I approve nor disapprove. I find it interesting. Did I said I am taking the side of this organization? No I didn't. But they have a point. denying it will be very hypocritical.
Posting it is showing some other thoughts which I find pertinant in in this thread.
So when I post I embrace what I post? quite erroneous to think that.

 

I am interested in our changing climate.
Climate has ALWAYS been changing.
All the arguments that man and his technologies are responsible for the current changing climate is PURE speculation! (I'm being polite!)
Every "cure' proposed for "man made' climate change has been a socialist political agenda. More BS!

Now, I'll repeat, I am interested in the changes occurring, and if ya'll are tired of hearing it's a socialist conspiracy, I'm MORE tired of hearing "it's mankind's fault!
So by all means, let's learn about climate change. Forget the Man's fault rant which is purely political and nobody can defend any other definition than it's political!

So let's DO try to keep politics out of it.
BUT BOTH SIDES SHOULD TRY!

Sauce for the silly gooses is also sauce for us wise old ganders.
Live and let live.

 

Scientific theories based on empirical evidence are not 'pure speculation,' and labeling them as such simply because you don't like the conclusions they reach is hardly scientific.

Nor do political reactions to those theories make the theories themselves 'purely political.'