Poop vs Science

As I have pointed out on this site numerous times a good liberal, when confronted with facts or challenged on an issue, most always changes the subject and attacks the messenger. At a news conference last Thursday several Democratic members of Congress again helped to prove this point. Reps. Edward Markey (Mass.), Jay Inslee (Wash.) and Earl Blumenauer (Ore.) stated that those denying climate change is caused by humans is the same as those who say smoking doesn’t cause cancer. ‘Deniers’ were compared to the ‘swiftboaters and teabaggers’ who, the Congressmen said, spread false rumors. These three members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, including Markey who is chairman, said “the world is getting hotter, faster.”

This news conference is encouraging. It shows the desperation on the left that their ‘religious views’ are not being bought by a majority of the American people and the recent outing of the manipulated data as shown in the exposed emails is having an effect on the climate change movement.

Most scientists agree man has been on earth about 200,000 years-a relatively short time when compared to the age of the earth which is around 4,500,000,000 (4.5 billion) years. Also man has been producing greenhouse gases (CO2) in any significant amount for only about 150 years. My question to the Congressmen is this–During the other 4.48 billion years the earth has been here and man wasn’t around, yet still went through thousands of warming and cooling periods, what caused these periods ?

Recently some of the climate change advocates have said cows and other large animals contribute to global warming by their high amount of poop.
Let’s see, dinosaurs roamed the earth for about 250,000 years and were pooping everywhere. In fact given there sizes and range area there would have been considerable poop all over the place. And why did the dinosaurs die out and become extinct–oh yeah, that’s right it was the advancement of glaciers and the ice-age.

Go figure.


  1. Randy, Forget the dinosaurs…what about the vast heards of Bison that roamed the Great Plains less than 200 years ago? They reportedly numbered in the millions…that’s a whole lot of Buffalo chips.

  2. Randy in Richmond says:

    You’re right RMS. You triggered a memory that once buffalo were also plentiful here in Virginia.

  3. Hi Cindy,

    I say Poop for Power, not poop versus science. Let’s put the poop to work!

    Seriously though, i understand your consternation about the natural global temperature cycles and it is a valid point.
    Certainly part of the Warming trend could be due to a natural global cycle, As all climate scientists will point out. This includes the 99+% of climate scientists that agree that a tremendous amount of evidence shows that we are in a warming trend, and a great majority of those that believe the massive increase in human produced CO2 and other greenhouse gas producing endeavors are at very least, a significant part of the cause. The general population may be split (i think 60-40 in belief of global warming in last study I read), climate scientists do not have the same dichotomy, as you probably know, the overwhelming majority consider it fact.

    Your point about dinosaurs being around a long and producing alot poop is true, and I am sure they produced some Monumental dookies, but ruminants belch Alot more methane due to their intestinal constitution that makes them ruminants. Pound for pound, cows and cattle produce alot more greenhouse gases than a dinosaur or other animals would. I also know dinosaur were largely, well, large. I would stipulate that there exists a great deal (many orders of magnitude) higher poundage of cows and cattle on the earth now than the pounds of dinosaur that existed during the height of the Jurassic. Triassic, or Cretaceous periods. This being due to humans again, since we are working hard and harvesting thousands of acres of crops grown solely to feed these animals.Actually, 70% of agriculturally harvested land globally (almost 30% of ice free land on earth) in attributable to feeding of our livestock. For methane, something like 30-40% of global production is burped from cows on one end of the other, or digested from droppings. I think this is part of the equation on the ‘human cause’ side of global warming. Some of the dinos may have fed by force, but they weren’t force fed.
    What i am saying is that if you look at the economics of Poop (and methane) production potential of the dinos back then versus cattle and cows grown by humans now, there is no comparison whatsoever.

    I read the link, the important issue some miss on this point is that the Belching is really the main issue as it is a direct greenhouse gas, not the poodoo. Ruminants run a little anaerobic digestor, and belch the methane gas out continually. Methane has 25 times the global warming potential than CO2. This is why methane is burned away (to CO2) at sewage treatment plants and at old landfills like The Shire.
    Believe it or not, I bet there are people working right now on how to ‘harvest’ the belches!

    What was the global average concentration of CO2 150 years ago, or even during the last few global warming trends as compared to today? If i am not mistaken, about 50 years ago we were at around 350 ppm, and now we are pushing 390 ppm. Previous to the current trend, 300 ppm was the highest ever found in ice cores over the past few hundred thousand years, measured in ice cores. With regular cycles between 170-270 ppm.

    Unfortunately, It all adds up to humans impacting the earth on a global level.

  4. Cows n Cattle beat out bison in belching and poo competition just like the dinos. There were alot of Bison no doubt, and they were ruminants. But they had to live under calls and laws of the wild. Our cow n cattle herd have no such limitations or stresses.

  5. Mikeyd, it’s a privilege to have you here. Thanks for reading. I need to point out, though, the post’s author was Randy from Richmond, not me.

    You’ve left me a wonderful opening, though, in a piece I had considered doing. You see, vegetarians burp and fart more. As more people become vegetarian, they are having more an impact on our environment. The increase in vegetarian lifestyle corresponds to other data in a way to suggest vegetarians are in fact contributing to global warming.

    Tee hee.

    Honestly, it wouldn’t be an issue at all if a group of people weren’t trying to profit from the hoax. It’s this coup of funding that will bring us down long before any change in the climate.

    I do have to ask – do you propose less humans if humans are the problem?

  6. Good One!

    Sorry, i read under your blog, and thought is was attributable to you. I am guessing, even though you may not agree fully on every point, you agree with the main points.

    I am not vegan, but the idea is (for those that do it for global health rather than personal health) that by cutting the cow n cattle out of the equation, you are saving an awful lot of land that can switch from animal feed harvest to human feed harvest, which is much more efficient.

    I know, there are a few that are profiting from causing conflict and giving a segment of the population what the want and need, those that still call themselves climate scientists but don’t actually do any scholarly research and are paid solely on funding of oil companties and other groups that will pay dearly for the specific results they want. T

    To answer you directly, I do not propose that less humans is the solution. Human choices are part of the problem. I propose that all humans cherish the world that we have and treat it like their life depends on it. Relatively small lifestyle changes that decrease the negative impact we have are a good start.

    Two questions I have to ask – do you think atmospheric CO2 and methane level increases adversely effect the climate? In what manner?

  7. I think everything impacts the environment, and the climate could (said could!) be a part of that. There could also be factors in play that are not human caused.

    One good volcano and everything changes. Shouldn’t someone propose we don’t allow volcanoes to erupt anymore? They might impact the climate!

  8. Santa's Elf says:

    “and at old landfills like The Shire” – Don’t forget the seepage around basements of those brand spankin new homes a few feet away! Folks will understand the problem the first time junior lights a doobie out back and the yard disappears!

  9. Santa's Elf says:

    And speaking of seepage, did you notice the headline: “Elmbrook [School District] five-year deficit projected at $18 million”?

    Looks as though we’ll have to go to from thinking 4K to settling for 8K, and default on a few interest payments on our bonds.

    That’ll kill two birds with one stone. We won’t have to fight 4K every year, and we’ll be out of the bond issuing business for a long time.

    Moms, don’t have em if you don’t want to raise em cause the school district is no longer in that business!

  10. Randy in Richmond says:

    I will answer your two questions. No and no.

    CO2 concentration has risen and fallen in the past with no help from mankind. The present rise began in the 1700s, long before humans could have made a meaningful contribution. Alarmists have failed to ask, let alone answer, what the CO2 level would be today if we had never burned any fuels. They simply assume that it would be the “pre-industrial” value. Lack of science #1.

    Not a single climate model predicted the current cooling phase. If the science were settled, some model would have predicted it.
    Lack of science #2.

    We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions.

    CO2 is not pollution by any scientific definition. And the core samples you quote cover 0.006666 per cent of the earth’s life– less than the blink of an eye.

    From about A.D. 900 to 1300 the Earth’s temperatures were even warmer than they are today, which is one reason Greenland was named Greenland. Southern England in those years was a wine-growing region. Then from about 1300 to the mid-1800s there was a mini-ice age. Famines in Europe were far more frequent because of the colder weather. Since then the weather has gotten warmer.(cycles, cycles, cycles)

    We are told that global warming is putting polar bears on the road to extinction, even though the overall polar bear population today is higher than it’s been in decades. Glaciers? Despite Gore images of them all rapidly melting away, the truth is that many of them are expanding.

    And all those scientists you say agree with the Goreites of the world. Here is a sample of some 31,000 who don’t agree:

    And this signing took place before the emails were discovered that the numbers were cooked.

    Your statement that humans impact the earth on a global level is cleverly worded. Than you must mean that humans have caused the average earthly temperature drop in the past ten years.

  11. I think conservatives miss the point on the environment. Hear me out, please?

    Global warming is just one of the issues that an environmentalist is concerned with, and tends to get the most attention because it is the most controversial. But the effects of climate change are happening no matter the cause or conundrum.

    The point of cap and trade, or fuel efficiency standards is more about scaling back the monumental destruction we have on the planet–be it greenhouse gases, depleting natural resources, altering the landscape, exhausting soil, biodiversity, species extinction, pollution–what have you.

    I’m a liberal. And a pretty vocal one at that–but I don’t walk around talking about global warming because it is a distraction and it has become such a meme that it turns our attention away from real problems.

    Your Hummer is bad not just because of its emissions. But because of the road space it occupies, the dollars spent on it, the value it places on exuberance and gross consumerism. The Hummer represents that negligence.

    Ocean levels are rising, water and air and soil are terribly polluted, species are vanishing, our oceans are becoming devoid of fish, and pavement and buildings hamper the natural cycle of rainfall and replenishing soil.

    So, I get the line you’re taking on this. Poke fun at the tree-hugger. But it’s only one of the issues (and frankly, contributes to all the problems i’ve listed) in the repertoire of a true environmentalism.

    I’m just as angry that global warming has gone viral and mainstream–it has diluted and cheapened what it means to be a conservationist. McCain tried briefly to court naturalists by invoking Teddy Roosevelt.

    Maybe we disagree on “global warming”, but I think we can all agree we’re pretty damaging to the planet–and short of supporting manifest destiny–I don’t see any other logic to deny that.

  12. Poorly worded there.

    Yes the effects of climate change are happening, but humans aren’t the predominate cause of climate change (the issue formerly known as global warming.)

    As soon as China and India go along with cap and trade, I’ll say we should give it a try, too.

    I don’t have a Hummer.

    Blah blah blah. Nice words, no backup.

    I’m green. I’m conservative with resources BECAUSE IT’S REALLY GOOD FOR MY WALLET. What I don’t do is buy products marketed to guilt for being human. I don’t need carbon credits. I don’t need special green cars. I don’t need cap and trade.

    Get out and see the world. Humans are doing things to the planet all over it. That’s what humans do. You should see the trash in the streams of Morocco. Perhaps this is one area you can do your part to conserve – and it looks like you do – and leave off the lecture.

  13. Randy in Richmond says:

    The video linked below puts this discussion in perspective better than written words can express. The data is from NOAA and is taken from ice cores that go back thousands of years. The key to the video is to observe the time period in years at the bottom of the NOAA graphs. It puts the famous ‘hockey stick’ into a time reference that renders it insignificant.


  14. Bkfld Voter says:

    There are things an average person can do to help the environment and the wallet:
    avoid chemical lawn services,
    amend your soil for better water absorption,
    limit lawn sprinkling,
    plant and nurture a tree,
    plant a rain garden,
    consider gray-water filtering,
    learn about renewable resources like bamboo for wood floors,
    plan ahead and combine trips,
    take a bike,
    buy locally (farmer’s markets, etc),
    avoid buying gag-gifts and other junk,
    you’ve heard it all before:

  15. I like the “avoid buying gag gifts and other junk.” Our consumption is as much a problem in impacting the environment as our driving habits. I’ve had a lot of fun over the years “unconsuming.” I’ve found homes for a lot of my stuff, and I really take a look at the new stuff that comes in now.

    Funny how consumption is the problem, but I just listened to the President tell us consuming more will be good for us.

    Oh, America.

  16. Lorax,

    “Get out and see the world. Humans are doing things to the planet all over it. That’s what humans do.”

    so to hell with your ideas about making this world a better place. Join in and treat your environment like crap, your body like crap and, above all, live life for the benefit of your wallet at all costs.

  17. Yes, JS – I said that! And yes, get off the podium and get into life. Living for the benefit of your wallet will likely help the environment. Treating your body well is often good for the environment, too. But you’d better grow up and realize your goals aren’t necessarily shared by others.

    Bad day out there Mr. Strupp?

  18. Okay, Cindy. I see your point and I accept it. I’m not crusading for global warming. I’m working against those garbage dump in Morrocco. That’s the problem. And global warming is shading our view on those issues and problems.

    President Obama told us to go consume because we’ve situated ourselves at odds with the environment. We can only prosper when we drain, devour, and destroy the planet.

    I’m not a cap and trade supporter. But I think that the China/India argument is a little pretentious. If we unilaterally destroyed the earth, why can’t we unilaterally try to improve it?

  19. Only a jackass would claim America is trying to “unilaterally destroy the earth.” You’ve got a long way to go, kiddo.

  20. …says the mule.

    I must apologize because I often forget that the cardinal rule of the compassionate conservative is to never let America bear responsibility for it’s acts.

    Hey, everyone’s doing it, but we’re doing it particularly well. Leadership is about leading, not whining.

    Hee-haw, hee-haw.

  21. Hey, you get to believe what you want to believe. Don’t whine to me when you realize your life is miserable and small. That kind of thinking – that America is unilaterally trying to destroy the earth – is pervasive, Lorax, and it will always drag you down.

    Americans can individually choose to be responsible for the way they live in the world. I will never give into thinking my lifestyle should be legislated by someone with your kind of thinking, though.

  22. Santa's Elf says:

    What would Jesus say?

  23. Well heck, we could ask Jesus to hop onto the God hotline and find out for sure if Gorebal warming is a hoax. That would make it soooo easy!

  24. “Don’t whine to me when you realize your life is miserable and small.”

    Geez Cindy. Give the kid a break. I don’t think anyone commenting is looking to legislate your lifestyle.

    BTW it’s Josh. It’s rather informal around here and you’re making me feel old.

  25. Cap and trade? Ethanol mandates? I’m feeling it.


  26. Yeah, you’ve been extra mean lately, what’s up? Scott Berg got your tongue?

  27. You’ve just been extra silly in your attitudes and I don’t have to put up with it anymore. 😉

  28. “Funny how consumption is the problem, but I just listened to the President tell us consuming more will be good for us.”

    Consumption is bad for the environment but “good” for the economy. How to reconcile the two?

    IMNSHO, what we think is good for the economy slightly askew.

  29. Randy in Richmond says:

    This is off subject but today I helped an elderly lady complete the paper signing to move into a Section 8 elder care facility. They actually had a form to sign stating that you would read the forms. And they want to run our healthcare.