Today on NOTALOTOFPEOPLEKNOWTHAT:
Fluffy and Fido are ruining the environment. According to a study out of UCLA.
YES! I predicted this months ago. When the push to remove meat from our diets was revived, I kept noting that dogs and cats are huge consumers of meat—especially cats. They have higher quality meat food than many humans. So when are the enviros and global warming advocates going to say “Your pet goes vegetarian or your pet goes. Keeping your meat-eating pet is evil and you’re a bad person for doing so”? The day arrived.
Okay, the article doesn’t quite say that. It does clearly imply this. Worse, those fluffy critters are given 25 to 30% of the blame for meat consumption. This makes Fido and Fluffy clear threats to the future of this planet. You pet owners are so very selfish and uncaring out there. Time to dump the pets and save the planet. (Yes, we know you think Fido is a member of the family. You can keep Fido until he dies, but NO MORE PETS if you care about the planet.)
It is possible you could have a hamster or guinea pig, something that does not eat meat. However, keep in mind that there have been suggestions that eating such things as mice and rats could provide meat without the environmental impact. Your pet could become some true believer’s next meal if things get dicey. Best to just get a pet rock. Those are much more environmentally friendly.
Lack of pets will give you all more time to sit and watch the latest Al Gore fiction and reflect on why saving the planet matters if life on the planet is so dreary and useless without pets, cars, planes and lights.
(See: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/dog-made-global-warming/ )
The Latest Threat to the Planet
“a) No it’s not and b) you can’t make projections from long term past data. If you want to simulate what the future will do you have to build a model.”
From the comment section of the Daily Mail
There’s many insults about how skeptics don’t understand climate science. Here we have guy that apparently thinks you contact a psychic and get a model for climate change. Why a psychic? Well, you can’t make projections from long-term past data (I thought long-term made prediction easier. That’s why weather forecasts are hit and miss but climate science is gospel and absolutely true) and you can’t use short-term data (try mentioning the leveling of temperatures over the last 20 years and there will be no doubt of this). So we can’t use long-term data and we can’t use short-term data which means we can’t use data at all. That only leaves a psychic. A model might be able to be created using no data, though every time a skeptic suggests it, they are shredded for the notion, but such a method is really questionable, certainly not verifiable and not science. We see here a global warming advocate arguing that there is no science in global warming and believing it helps his argument. It does if you’re on the skeptic side.
Another story has come up about polar bears facing extinction in 10 years. Again, the climate crew must be employing a psychic for these prediction. Real polar bear scientists and those living in the North all say polar bears are doing fine–increasing in number actually. However, it seems those computer models say polar bears are going to be wiped out if we don’t stop burning fossil fuels. Truly, I think we should start substituting “psychic” for “computer model” since the models bear no resemblance to reality in any way. Predictions have been consistently wrong for decades. Psychics can get by with a record like that, but science cannot. If the predictions fail over and over, the model is wrong. It is not reality that is wrong, as the global warming advocates would have you believe.
Did someone request a psychic?