Global Warming Could Mean No More Pets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wafisherman

And if you believe in moral relativism, who cares how you treat the planet? There is not absolute right and wrong. So I can trash the place and not worry about it. Humans are just another species that will eventually be extinct anyway.

---

Lol thats an easy one, I care becuse the planet is a beautiful place ( yes, they still exist out there lol) and I intend to keep it that way. Thats like asking why I clean my snake's cage clean lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wafisherman

You mean like the religion of Environmentalism?

---

In a way--that is fanaticism without religion, but it can be just as harmful. Environmental fanatics, like all extremists, are rejected by the majority of society because the situation they want to create is unlivable for most. So, any message they MIGHT have that makes sense will be lost, and their ranting will take attention away from more moderate environmentalists who want to address specific problems in ways people can live with.

They forget that humans are part of the environment. Groups like ELF taint public opinion of those who have legitimate arguments for why environments and species should be preserved. This results in more loss of critical habitats.

Humans wind up having to learn the hard way that when environmentalism is ignored completely, people get sick and die, cures for diseases are lost, and inefficiency in systems runs rampant. The blame for that can be placed most firmly on fanatics who are unwilling to compromise, and are very loud. The rational arguments for why attention to preserving the environment will save money, improve human health, and make life better get lost in the noise.

I also don't believe in moral certitude--what's 'wrong' or 'evil' is what's bad for you, and what you don't like, and what's 'good' is what is good for you and pleases you. That pretty much covers it all. There may be things you like that are bad for you, but those type of things usually fall into more neutral categories, unless they kill you of course, and that pretty much ends the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

There is a new future coming for pet owners and it involves activism, responsibility, and social good ... we must take control of our own destiny.

---

Well said, Adam.

I found this link when doing some digging on this newest most ridiculous study.

http://www.drudge.com/news/128275/do...rint-than-suvs

I made a comment on that one, which might get deleted. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

As recent threads on this forum have demonstrated; whether Democrat or Republican, Global Warming Advocate or Skeptic, Liberal or Conservative ... pet owners are all very divided. The good news is that we all share something very unique. We share a special understanding of the way an animal can touch our lives and the lives of others.

As most already know, for the first time in history, our future is uncertain. The global counter culture against "human ownership" of animals for decades has slowly and consistently made great strides to advance their agenda. That movement is now poised to begin taking action on their 50 year strategy to eliminate the ownership of animals from pet pythons to dogs and cats, cattle to chickens, fish to spiders.

If we can choose to put aside our differences and be united against those who seek to take our pets, we will defeat them. There is a new future coming for pet owners and it involves activism, responsibility, and social good ... we must take control of our own destiny.

Blessings,

-adam

---

I think you make some pretty valid points here in this post.....However, I think you undermine your position a little bit when you attacked the scientific community in your original post.

Quote:

---

This is yet another example of the same perversion of science used to claim that global warming will allow pet pythons & boas to "invade" 1/3 of the United States. Enough is enough.

---

The Invasion Biology Paper was an example of a bad paper. However, just because that paper was bad doesnt mean that this new research is bad.

Quote:

---

It's important that discussions that attempt to link pets to politically heated topics like global warming are watched closely. It's even more important that pet owners are aware of the moves that are being made quietly within the scientific community that will inevitably provide special interest animal rights groups with the ammunition they need to advocate legislation that hurts pet owners.

---

"Moves that are made quietly in the scientific community?" Your cooking up some conspiracy theory plot here.

Come one ...it was published in a public book that based of scientific literature published in public journals and then reported on in a science news magazine (The New Scientist). That Doesn't sound very secret or quiet to me.


Furthermore, by making ad hominem cracks against scientists, academia, and the scientific community you alienate people within the scientific and academic communities that share some of your same values.

Just because the research brings news that one doesn't like doesn't mean that it isn't valid.

I found the article from new scientist rather informing. That doesn't mean I'm ready to give up my dog either or that I agree with the recommendations of the authors of Time to Eat Your Dog. However, someone who has 4 large dogs and drives a Honda Civic yet complains about an SUV driver with 2 kids might want to think twice before knocking them. http://www.newscientist.com/data/ima...1/27311601.jpg

As I said the books author does make some ridiculous and somewhat impractical suggestions. Like pets one can eat-probably wont work for most people. A good commentary on the Vale's book:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09326/1015093-109.stm

well since people have the largest carbon foot print we should limit all families to two childeren maximum to save the planet, drop the demand for pets, free up jobs to lower unemployment, reduce consumption of all forms, and other BS (it is hard to type sarcasm). people are the problem but no one will say it, it is all because of dogs and cow farts.

!!NEW WORLD ORDER!!
Support Alex Jones
YouTube - Infowars.com - New World Order (Movie Trailer)

YouTube - Alex Jones arrested for refusing to thumbscan

Hi,

Could we please ask you to keep to the topic at hand in your replies to this thread.

All purely political threads and statements rightly belong in the quarantine room and while there is doubtless a political aspect to the topic of this thread several posts made in it have no relevance whatsoever to pets or laws relating to pets.

We really would prefer not to have to move such an important issue off the public boards so please ask yourself if your point is general or specific to the topic of pet control before posting. :please:


dr del

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr del

Hi,

Could we please ask you to keep to the topic at hand in your replies to this thread.

All purely political threads and statements rightly belong in the quarantine room and while there is doubtless a political aspect to the topic of this thread several posts made in it have no relevance whatsoever to pets or laws relating to pets.

We really would prefer not to have to move such an important issue off the public boards so please ask yourself if your point is general or specific to the topic of pet control before posting. :please:


dr del

---

The point I was stating earlier on in this thread does relates to everything going on in this country and the world. Wake up people! The only way we can defeat this is by grouping together to get at the the root of the cause. Sure we can negotiate today and lose a wee bit of our rights but they'll never give up taking our rights away in little increments that we allow.

The sooner people realize how badly we're being canned the sooner we start taking back our freedoms.

Monica, you mentioned the Zeitgeist Movie and I will recommend also watching Esoteric Agenda, check it out on google!


Here's an interesting article!

How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ars-world.html

Well.. I can see the desire of some, to cut down on their impact on the Earth and its envionment. I really can. At its root, I do not believe that this urge, is insane, or unwarranted. I personally think that the Earth is overpopulated, and have therefore chosen not to have children..

BUT! To potentially outlaw our pets.. to even base potential laws on something as unproven and unsubstantial as global warming.. Pure Rubbish. More Government trying to control, tax, and depress us more. Complete garbage.

The earth is millions of years old, and the universe even older...

...to assume that humans need to do things to stave off any condition is total and utter ridiculousness.

In addition, millions of species have gone extinct, and millions more will go extinct.

This is how its been since before time, and how it will always be.

Any other position taken is gleaned from a limited perspective of the bigger picture.

Brandon

The sole purpose of attempting to slow global warming is to make things a bit more comfortable for ourselves. This is the same reason we work to preserve species--we do not know what value their unique genetic combinations might prove to have in the future, and it's VERY clear we don't understand ecosystems well enough to recognized keystone species. Loss of ecosystems will change the climate and devastate our food supply.

And, oh yeah--some of us LIKE ANIMALS. That is why we keep them, after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Loss of ecosystems will change the climate and devastate our food supply.

---

Our food supply has already been devastated by GMO's/pharmaceuticals and most of our water is fluoridated, in case you don't know sodium flouride is the main ingredient in rat poison.

Here's a great video clip from REXANO.

YouTube - We the Animals: Legalize the Constitution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adam_Wysocki

A car? Really? Then what .... children maybe? How "green" is a family of five compared to a single physicist living in his parents basement?

---

First of all, you're going to alienate a lot of people with this insinuation that physicists are closet geeks who hide in their mothers' basements. My undergraduate degree is in physics, and I resent this statement. It shows someone who prefers to use false generalizations to get his point across, which is no better than what that USGS paper or the HSUS is doing.

Please, stick to the sound logical arguments, such as the greenness of a family of five. There's no need to insult scientists in the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rabernet

Yes. And it's also been proven that other planets in our solar system are experiencing the same overall temp increases as we are, at the same rate. Those planets really need to clean up their act! :P

Or perhaps, it's just normal solar shifts causing the global warming?

---

I'd like to see the peer-reviewed papers where it says all other planets in our solar system are experiencing the same temperature increase. And yes, it must be all of them, or that logic does not hold. Besides, temperature increases for the other planets does not necessarily indicate that our temperature increases are from the same source. Some planets have magnetic fields, some don't; some planets emit more energy than they receive, some don't; some have atmospheres, some don't.

Normal solar shifts are not responsible for the warming. The sun does sometimes cause warming or cooling (i.e. the "little ice age" a few hundred years ago), but we know this isn't the case now. We may not understand the causes of the 11-year solar cycle, but its effects on the earth are pretty well-understood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wingedwolfpsion

Dissect what you hear CRITICALLY. Every bit of it. Because both sides are leaving out important information, and if you don't question it, you'll be led like a sheep, and you won't be able to make up your own mind from a knowledgeable position.

---

THIS. Sooo much this! Please, everyone, THINK about what you're reading or watching; don't just take it as fact. "You-Tube documentary"? Hello, oxymoron! Every media source has a bias, whether obvious or not. I get the feeling, from all the links posted in this thread, that the vast majority of you believe everything you read and/or see on the Internet...and that scares me. How are people supposed to take us seriously?

---

Face it: the Earth is warming. Global warming, in its scientific definition (not the media's), is happening. The vast majority of scientists believe this. Granted, that does not make it absolutely true, but check out the peer-reviewed papers concerning global warming (especially the plots). Also see what other scientists are saying about those supposed "made-up" or "removed" data. Don't just listen to what the media is spoon-feeding you. On the same token, you shouldn't take what scientists say as honest-to-God truth, either. However, if many scientists agree that the Earth is warming, then we need to take those scientists' views with a lot more than a grain of salt.

Now, as for the whole "ban pets because of their carbon footprint," several of you have it spot-on: bull crap. It's just an excuse. I'd like to see the carbon footprint of all U.S. pets versus the carbon footprint of all the coal power plants in the U.S....

You have scientist saying the earth is warming then you have other scientist are saying the earth is cooling but those scientist are not asked to speak up on behalf of the public. The government has the technology to manipulate the weather so that is something else to think about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eventide

There's no need to insult scientists in the process.

---

I see nothing in my statement that is insulting to all scientists. Since I can't possibly have knowledge of the living arrangements of all scientists, it is not reasonable to believe that I was speaking about the entire profession. In context, it's pretty obvious that I was referring to one specific scientist who I am guessing lives in his mothers basement ... although I certainly could be wrong as it's been known to happen from time to time.

For whatever it's worth, where I come from adults who live in their parents basements are generally considered "losers" (before any of you basement loving freeloaders start sending the nasty emails, I have been there myself so lay off ;) ) and it has nothing to do with their profession, IQ, pencil protector, or 72 dodge dart. My shot was directed at the "loser" that I quoted. Had his profession been "savior of young dying babies", if he made that quote I still would have made the dig about living in his mothers basement.

If pointing out the absurdity of making comparisons between household pets and sport utility vehicles in an attempt to dictate which is more "environmentally friendly" doesn't afford me the opportunity to take a admittedly smarmy but completely necessary jab at some tool who actually attempts to give validity to the comparison causes me to alienate some people ... well then, I'm OK with that. I just call them like I see them.

Blessings,

-adam

For the groups who want to get technical, humans, for that matter, are consumers who use resources and lay waste to the lands they occupy, therefore humans are bad for the earth.

So, you see how stupid and how far we can take this issue?

BrandonsBalls

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Serpents_Den

You have scientist saying the earth is warming then you have other scientist are saying the earth is cooling but those scientist are not asked to speak up on behalf of the public. The government has the technology to manipulate the weather so that is something else to think about.

---

Um....

Yeah. I don't even know how to respond to that....

Quote:

---

The government has the technology to manipulate the weather so that is something else to think about.

---

I'm the psychic, and that's too far out there for me, so you do the math. <lol>

The folks who break everything down to its 'carbon footprint' need a slap upside the head, and need to start taking other factors into consideration. I would like to ask them if they have done the figures on the costs of increased medical and mental health care among non-pet-owners, as pets have shown to reduce stress and speed recovery from illness or injury. All of these figures are too easily manipulated to give the result that's desired, simply by adding in or leaving out choice pieces of the total picture.