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

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by troy2000, Aug 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. El_Guero

    El_Guero Previous Member

    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
     
  2. michael pierzga
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 4,862
    Likes: 115, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1180
    Location: spain

    michael pierzga Senior Member

    MAN MADE climate change is the only aspect that MAN can influence, hence it requires all thought and resources.
     
  3. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    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.
     
  4. michael pierzga
    Joined: Dec 2008
    Posts: 4,862
    Likes: 115, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 1180
    Location: spain

    michael pierzga Senior Member

  5. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 424
    Likes: 49, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    East Antarctic glaciers could be much more vulnerable to climate change than previously thought | SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
     
  6. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 424
    Likes: 49, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Coccolithophores beat climate change predictions | EXAMINER
     
  7. dskira

    dskira Previous Member

  8. dskira

    dskira Previous Member

    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
     
  9. dskira

    dskira Previous Member

    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.
     
  10. SamSam
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 3,841
    Likes: 171, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 971
    Location: Coastal Georgia

    SamSam Senior Member


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

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

     
  11. SamSam
    Joined: Feb 2005
    Posts: 3,841
    Likes: 171, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 971
    Location: Coastal Georgia

    SamSam Senior Member

    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...
     
  12. dskira

    dskira Previous Member

    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*

     
  13. dskira

    dskira Previous Member

    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.
     
  14. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,665
    Likes: 79, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    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.
     

  15. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,743
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    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.'
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. El_Guero
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    998
  2. rasorinc
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    2,092
  3. gonzo
    Replies:
    675
    Views:
    39,393
  4. gonzo
    Replies:
    587
    Views:
    42,209
  5. Grant Nelson
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    3,065
  6. Pericles
    Replies:
    11,312
    Views:
    835,254
  7. Boston
    Replies:
    162
    Views:
    11,246
  8. Boston
    Replies:
    4,617
    Views:
    284,650
  9. hmattos
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,317
  10. brian eiland
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,191
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.