PDA

View Full Version : Stop Global Warming: Eat Your Dog


revefsreleets
12-22-2009, 12:02 PM
On a long enough timeline, they'll pretty much find a way to blame EVERYTHING for Climate Change.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood

PARIS (AFP) – Man's best friend could be one of the environment's worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.
But the revelation in the book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.
The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.
Combine the land required to generate its food and a "medium" sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) -- around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4x4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.
To confirm the results, the New Scientist magazine asked John Barrett at the Stockholm Environment Institute in York, Britain, to calculate eco-pawprints based on his own data. The results were essentially the same.
"Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat," Barrett said.
Other animals aren't much better for the environment, the Vales say.
Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.
But Reha Huttin, president of France's 30 Million Friends animal rights foundation says the human impact of eliminating pets would be equally devastating.
"Pets are anti-depressants, they help us cope with stress, they are good for the elderly," Huttin told AFP.
"Everyone should work out their own environmental impact. I should be allowed to say that I walk instead of using my car and that I don't eat meat, so why shouldn't I be allowed to have a little cat to alleviate my loneliness?"
Sylvie Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars -- says defiantly, "Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all.
"I think the love we have for our animals and what they contribute to our lives outweighs the environmental considerations.
"I don't want a life without animals," she told AFP.
And pets' environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say.
With a total 7.7 million cats in Britain, more than 188 million wild animals are hunted, killed and eaten by feline predators per year, or an average 25 birds, mammals and frogs per cat, according to figures in the New Scientist.
Likewise, dogs decrease biodiversity in areas they are walked, while their faeces cause high bacterial levels in rivers and streams, making the water unsafe to drink, starving waterways of oxygen and killing aquatic life.
And cat poo can be even more toxic than doggy doo -- owners who flush their litter down the toilet ultimately infect sea otters and other animals with toxoplasma gondii, which causes a killer brain disease.
But despite the apocalyptic visions of domesticated animals' environmental impact, solutions exist, including reducing pets' protein-rich meat intake.
"If ***** is scoffing 'Fancy Feast' -- or some other food made from choice cuts of meat -- then the relative impact is likely to be high," said Robert Vale.
"If, on the other hand, the cat is fed on fish heads and other leftovers from the fishmonger, the impact will be lower."
Other potential positive steps include avoiding walking your dog in wildlife-rich areas and keeping your cat indoors at night when it has a particular thirst for other, smaller animals' blood.
As with buying a car, humans are also encouraged to take the environmental impact of their future possession/companion into account.
But the best way of compensating for that paw or clawprint is to make sure your animal is dual purpose, the Vales urge. Get a hen, which offsets its impact by laying edible eggs, or a rabbit, prepared to make the ultimate environmental sacrifice by ending up on the dinner table.
"Rabbits are good, provided you eat them," said Robert Vale.

fansince'76
12-22-2009, 12:21 PM
It would be funny, but there are too many whack jobs, and worse, whack jobs with the power to influence public policy, who believe this crock. At this point, it's frightening.

Dino 6 Rings
12-22-2009, 12:48 PM
So does this mean I can go back to burning truck tires in my back yard to look at the pretty colors as long as I shoot my dogs first?

KeiselPower99
12-22-2009, 01:47 PM
Dont eat steak either. Damn the nutjobs and those giant hoax.

MACH1
12-22-2009, 01:51 PM
And don't breath to much. It's now considered hazardous for the environment.

Vincent
12-22-2009, 02:20 PM
I'd be curious to see the polar bear "footprint". If hampsters show up on "carbon footprint" radar, could it be that polar bears are responsible for the melting polar caps? :chuckle: And baby seals too? :sofunny:

steelreserve
12-22-2009, 03:14 PM
Wow, it's gotten so far out of hand now that people are saying DOGS are not energy-efficient enough?

I mean, seriously, these people have too much time on their hands.

SteelCityMom
12-22-2009, 03:22 PM
So I take it we should eat more Chinese food? :chuckle:

Vincent
12-22-2009, 04:23 PM
So I take it we should eat more Chinese food? :chuckle:

Now that's funny, that right there!

Pug Lo Mein. Mushu Shih-Tzu. Mmmmmm.

GoSlash27
12-22-2009, 04:39 PM
It's not mentioned in this article, but the single worst thing anybody can do as far as carbon footprints is to have a kid. Nothing you can ever do to reduce your own carbon footprint will ever be enough to compensate for that.
And that's my advice to these environmentalist whack-jobs: STOP BREEDING!! Oh, and feel free to ditch a few dozen of those cats, you weird granola-eating shut-ins! :chuckle:

Godfather
12-22-2009, 09:37 PM
It's not mentioned in this article, but the single worst thing anybody can do as far as carbon footprints is to have a kid. Nothing you can ever do to reduce your own carbon footprint will ever be enough to compensate for that.
And that's my advice to these environmentalist whack-jobs: STOP BREEDING!! Oh, and feel free to ditch a few dozen of those cats, you weird granola-eating shut-ins! :chuckle:

That's not good enough. Birth control has a significant environmental impact. Hormonal forms are disrupting the ecosystem and condoms have a high carbon footprint. So unless they're hypocrites they need to keep it in their pants.

KeiselPower99
12-22-2009, 09:46 PM
Guess we will all have to die to stop global warming.

43Hitman
12-23-2009, 03:54 PM
Here's an interesting new "peer-reviewed" study, done by 3 Climatologists, & published in the well-respected Journal of Geophysical Research just this past Summer.

Apparently this study found a fairly solid linkage between fluctuations in the Mean Global Temperature (MGT) and changes in the Pacific Ocean's "La Nina/El Nino" effects from ~7 months earlier. If I remember right, this also has something to do w/ the "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" (PDO), which has long been suspected of having a much greater impact on MGT changes than the majority of Computerized Climate Models have been programmed to credit it with.

(PDO : http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/)

According to this new study, the linkages between changes in the Pacific ocean's temperature & current fluctuations known as "La Nina/El Nino", and changes in MGT, are both substantial (~80%) & verifiable,... and match up very well w/ all temperature changes in MGT over at least the last 30+ years!


Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate!... "Nature, not man, responsible for recent global warming...Little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans."
-- Wednesday, July 22, 2009

"Surge in global temps since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean."

A new peer-reviewed climate study is presenting a head on challenge to man-made global warming claims. The study by three climate researchers appears in the July 23, 2009 edition of Journal of Geophysical Research.

Nature not man responsible for recent global warming

Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.

The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.

"The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely" says corresponding author de Freitas.

"We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2117/PeerReviewed-Study-Rocks-Climate-Debate-Nature-not-man-responsible-for-recent-global-warminglittle-or-none-of-late-20th-century-warming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans

xfl2001fan
12-23-2009, 06:33 PM
Now that's funny, that right there!

Pug Lo Mein. Mushu Shih-Tzu. Mmmmmm.

And as a side course... General Tso's Kitten

smokin3000gt
12-23-2009, 08:06 PM
I can not, and will not hold my farts in for anyone!

steelwalls
12-23-2009, 09:55 PM
Funny how the temperature is also rising on other planets as well. Guess all the people (and dogs) on Mars are effectining the enviornment there too, and has absolutly nothing to do with solar activity?.?.?. This is not at all the first time temps have risen globally, seems the more research you do on your own the more the feeling you get that noone really knows what the heck is going on.

TroysBadDawg
12-23-2009, 10:06 PM
But Al Gore is making millions off it.

fansince'76
12-23-2009, 11:37 PM
Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate!... "Nature, not man, responsible for recent global warming...Little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans."
-- Wednesday, July 22, 2009

"Surge in global temps since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean."

A new peer-reviewed climate study is presenting a head on challenge to man-made global warming claims. The study by three climate researchers appears in the July 23, 2009 edition of Journal of Geophysical Research.

Nature not man responsible for recent global warming

Three Australasian researchers have shown that natural forces are the dominant influence on climate, in a study just published in the highly-regarded Journal of Geophysical Research. According to this study little or none of the late 20th century global warming and cooling can be attributed to human activity.

The research, by Chris de Freitas, a climate scientist at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, John McLean (Melbourne) and Bob Carter (James Cook University), finds that the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a key indicator of global atmospheric temperatures seven months later. As an additional influence, intermittent volcanic activity injects cooling aerosols into the atmosphere and produces significant cooling.

"The surge in global temperatures since 1977 can be attributed to a 1976 climate shift in the Pacific Ocean that made warming El Niño conditions more likely than they were over the previous 30 years and cooling La Niña conditions less likely" says corresponding author de Freitas.

"We have shown that internal global climate-system variability accounts for at least 80% of the observed global climate variation over the past half-century. It may even be more if the period of influence of major volcanoes can be more clearly identified and the corresponding data excluded from the analysis.”

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2117/PeerReviewed-Study-Rocks-Climate-Debate-Nature-not-man-responsible-for-recent-global-warminglittle-or-none-of-late-20th-century-warming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans

Time until these 3 climatologists are simply dismissed as crackpots/heretics: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....

The science is settled, human activity is the one and only factor in global warming/climate change and nothing else matters, soccer moms are destroying the planet, :blah: :blah: :blah: