Global Warming Could Mean No More Pets

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.