Oh not the Goreacle again, the same stupid prick who just told us the Core Temperature of the earth is "Millions of degrees" 2 miles under our feet...

Okay Big AL I'll get rid of my dog and replace him with my own hypocritical Lear jet, what model did you say you Jet Set around in. BTW how much was your electric bill again last month $10,000...

Oh almost forgot how many questions have you ducked from reporters today, any more broken microphones for asking the wrong question...

I'll get rid of mine if he gets rid of Tipper.

#4 | Posted by wisgod
Damn funny ROFLMAO...

Just in case some may not have heard this before, MOOSE FARTS are 40 times worse as a green house gas than CO2 because they contain methane...

FF #4!

The nauga has been listed as an endangered species. Prized for it's hide (hyde) it is being slaughtered. Kill a cow, save the Nauga.

Oh not the Goreacle again...

You are, oddly enuff, correct fer a change albeit totally accidently.

The article doesn't mention Al at all.

Non-Lucid was just playing silly buggers with his headline again.

FTA: 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.

* facepalm *

Spud to Mr Vale:

Find Spud a rabbit or a hen that likes catching frisbees in it's mouth and returning to ya or STFU.

Be Well.

#8 | Posted by chickenrancher

Excellent point we should not only KILL COWS who FART and produce Methane gas but put and end to ALL Global warming practices. A simple ban on pull my finger jokes would help cool the planet before we all BURN UP and then DROWN...

STOP STOP KILL THE MIKE...

As DOC would say "From the artical"...

"while two hamsters equates to a plasma television"

I keep forgetting is it hamsters or gerbils that are used in San Francisco by the sexually confused men out there to test for colon Cancer

I would think a plasma T.V would be a little to big, better stick with the gerbils...

"I would think a plasma T.V would be a little to big, better stick with the gerbils..."

Keep yer disgusting fantasies to yerself, pervert.

Keep yer disgusting fantasies to yerself, pervert.

#12 | Posted by Dave at 2009-12-22 11:11 AM | Reply | Flag: Ironic considering you're stealing that canadian sicko's schtick

Here's the deal...

My dog gets me off my ass, gets me outside to walk and play with him. This in turn increases my health, which enables me to walk places I might otherwise need to drive, and will lessen my personal burden on the health care system later on.

He is also stress relief, which keeps me sane, and that sanity in turn keeps me out of the psych ward in the hospital, again lessening my burden on the health care system.

Both of these, physical and mental health, will reduce my reliance on drugs that have to be manufactured.

Also, his presence and the amount of effort I put in to caring for him have warded off any feelings of wanting to ever have kids, which would each have a carbon footprint many times greater than my dog (who is also fixed).

All of these together, reducing my need to drive to the hospital, enabling me to walk instead of drive, keeping me off manufactured medications, and keeping me from having kids GREATLY reduce my personal carbon footprint. He has more than made up for his little paw print.

So if any other short sighted environmentalists want to bitch about my pup, they can go fuck themselves.

Al Gore isn't mentioned once in this news story.

"Al Gore isn't mentioned once"

Facts?
Facts?
We don' need no steenkin' facts!
~The DR right

Al Gore isn't mentioned once in this news story.

#15 | Posted by rcade at 2009-12-22 12:16 PM |

Roger you sound disappointed, don't worry he is still the leader of this cult I mean Religion...

Wow....the first 7 posts were the usual DR Turds creating some real 'santorum'.

I call total bullshit on this bogus post. COMPLETELY false.

When you add up all the production carbon costs of making a SUV, it's got to be WAY more then the 'meat' in dog food, etc....

The greenies just keep getting sillier and sillier.

This is an easy one---those that believe in GW will now certainly step to the plate and sacrifice their fidos to save the rest of the world--wow, that would be a heroic act of personal giving instead of asking those who are unbelievers to give up their personal income to fight this scourge. Thanking all you global warmers in advance--you've just been elevated in our eyes as selfless human beings.

Let's see, SUVs, cows, dogs, ... what comes next?

Hint: there are over six billion of them and it rhymes with rumen.

Let's see, SUVs, cows, dogs, ... what comes next?

Hint: there are over six billion of them and it rhymes with rumen.

#22 | Posted by MontyPython

Now come on; you aren't suggesting that the global warmers would make the ultimate sacrifice (for the rest of us) along with their fidos?

6,200 miles a year

who drives only 6200 miles a year? Other than my 80 y/o mother....

Now come on; you aren't suggesting that the global warmers would make the ultimate sacrifice (for the rest of us) along with their fidos?

#23 | Posted by matsop

The messiahs health care will take care of this.

who drives only 6200 miles a year? Other than my 80 y/o mother....

#25 | Posted by northguy3

Let's see....12 inches x 7 days a week...

"Rabbits are good, provided you eat them," said Robert Vale.

I used to have a pet rabbit--her name was 'Bun Bun'.

She was litter box trained and greeted me at the door when I got home.

So now they want everyone to kill their dogs.

This will not stop until they say we have to kill humans to lower CO2.

Then the folks who believe this stuff can get in line and offer themselves up.

geez

My dog farts a lot. We kill a lot of birds together.

I'm not sure if hunting your our own meat is more eco-friendly than it is buying meat at a store. I'm betting the hunting is friendlier and holds a smaller 'carbon foot print.' On this basis, my dog is eco-friendly.

I'm betting the hunting is friendlier and holds a smaller 'carbon foot print.'

I'm sure you are right, but the eco-freaks will still bitch since hunting is 'cruel'.

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.

Really? Spread disease? Never owned a cat obviously. Pollute? Once again I just don't buy it for a dog or cat, are they talking about their toiletry? If not run through a waste treatment plant it's called natural fertilizer. I'll give you devestate wildlife but really most people consider rodents a pest not wildlife also that devestation saves you from the meat and cereal plants so big savings there. It's called a trade off like most life do you want the rodents or the meat packing plant?

but, pet food utilizes scrap meat. Nobody's raising cows for pet food. It's more a matter of using what otherwise would be a waste product.
and, WTF does Al Gore have to do with this? It's obviously Sarah Palin's fault. Her, Bush and Cheney.

heh heh heh...I said Her Bush....heh heh

Why does Obama insist on taking his on Air Force One?

This is bullshit, even as it highlights the absurdity of many environmental positions and policies.

Both emit CO2, but there is no way a 1/4 HP dog emits as much as a 200HP engine. This fact was left out of the discussion.

Furthermore, dogshit and pee are quickly absorbed by the environment, forming fertilizer compounds, even though they are initially toxic. This fact was left out of the discussion.

Do dogs emit carbon monoxide, various nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, chlorides, unburnt gasoline vapors, drip oil? NO This fact was left out of the discussion.

I still say SUVs are worse. Not so much the vehicles as their drivers, who tend to be 275-pound Neanderthals pooting vast quantities of methane produced by their Baconator addiction.

Give me moose farts any day over that. At least you don't have to share an elevator with a moose.

i'll make sure i feed my bull mastiff and mastiff bean's everyday, lol

Lets not forget, the planet has an atmosphere that continues to scrub its self clean every second of every day no matter how much is thrown at it. Man can't possibly pollute it fast enough to shift the climate either way. If a vast plague wiped us out or a meteor crash or what ever the planet would heal its self just as it has for eons. The only logical answer to this is we should all just lye down and die for the sake of "saving the planet" (please)

'Give me moose farts any day over that. At least you don't have to share an elevator with a moose.'

Hahaha MartyWhore...
You obviously haven't eaten moose. If you had, you'd know your farts the day after would easily clear an elevator. Not that I personally have ever actually been on an elevator, but still.

So,
Since I didn't rescue 100 dogs from the pound, I guess my carbon footprint is negative now....

SWEET! BONFIRE AT MY PLACE ON NEW YEARS EVE!!!

who drives only 6200 miles a year?

----

Me. I work from home.

who drives only 6200 miles a year?
----
Me. I work from home.

I don't use my car to commute either, but I drive about 20k miles/yr

I drive my car...17,000 miles in two and a half years - one trip to californistan included. Still not going to wok my pets!

Let's find the lib asshole who came up with this "carbon footprint" bullshit and shove that phony East Anglica "hockey stick" graph up his ass.

Well load up fido in the SUV and let's go somewhere! LMFAO.

Lonnie

I Just didn't rescue another 200 dogs! Woof!

My carbon footprint is so negative now I'm going to have to live longer...oh wait, it will just feel like it waiting in line at the gov't clinic now....

"East Anglica(sic) 'hockey stick' "

" This section allows you to select, from the databank, an image from the original record book containing the raw meteorological data for any given month between December 1794 and June 2000 but excluding April 1795 to June 1795 and June 1825 to December 1832. Data from July 2000 until November 2009 is available in digital format rather than as a scanned image. "

"East Anglica(sic) 'hockey stick' "

Article

Nature 392, 779-787 (23 April 1998) | doi:10.1038/33859; Received 9 May 1997; Accepted 27 February 1998

Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries

Michael E. Mann1, Raymond S. Bradley1 & Malcolm K. Hughes2

1. Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts , Amherst, Massachusetts 01003-5820, USA
2. Laboratory of Tree Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 , USA

And since fuckwitthom is probably too lazy and stupid to check on the Armagh Observatory data, I've plotted it along with the NASA data from 1880 with a 5 year running average.

Why does Obama insist on taking his on Air Force One?

#33 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-12-22 10:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Same reason Bush brought 'Barney' on AF1.

This is bullshit, even as it highlights the absurdity of many environmental positions and policies.
Both emit CO2, but there is no way a 1/4 HP dog emits as much as a 200HP engine. This fact was left out of the discussion.
Furthermore, dogshit and pee are quickly absorbed by the environment, forming fertilizer compounds, even though they are initially toxic. This fact was left out of the discussion.

Do dogs emit carbon monoxide, various nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, chlorides, unburnt gasoline vapors, drip oil? NO This fact was left out of the discussion.
#34 | Posted by nutcase at 2009-12-22 10:04 PM

I agree. The premise of this thread is skewed and the information wrong. Amazingly, none of the Righties mentioned anything even resembling debate, but would rather bobble their heads in unison.

no doubt written by a cat lover

no doubt written by a cat lover

or goldfish

have to trade your large carbon emitter for a smaller ecomony model.

Only a fool fudge packing lib would believe the stupid premise that Carbon is bad for the enviornment.

#46 | Posted by Zatoichi
Can you do the same thing on some scales that better represent the lifespan of the earth. How about 15K and 20 K years ago to present. How about 500K, 1 and 5 million years to present. Then we can see a little better. Your numbers are like taking the temp for about .0000001 seconds 2 times in a month then saying you figured out why there was a 40 degree swing in the numbers. Lets get a little more perspective.

In San Fran they are going to ban wood burning fires on Christmas eve/day. If they were to go after peoples pets, I think there would be a revolution, even in the San Fran area.

#46 .... nice lack of an X axis scale too

I can finally justify buying a SUV on the grounds that I do not own a dog.

This article came with the endorsement of all Chinese Restaurants.

Why do both sides take the high ground on this topic?

GW scientist have been less than honest and objective with the data that they are presenting. As for the anti-GW people, we all admit that there are natural cycles of climate change that have existed for thousands of years.

The only real question here is whether man's actions are causing enough of an impact to disrupt the natural cycles of the earth in a way that will destroy the balance. On this issue, the science is split with equally reputable groups on either side.

Why don't we just do a little more home work before we make drastic decisions?

#59 | Posted by flaglerkid

Why don't we just do a little more home work before we make drastic decisions?
--------------
I concur.

the stupid premise that Carbon is bad for the enviornment.
#53 | Posted by fwthom at 2009-12-23 09:57 AM

The only real question here is whether man's actions are causing enough of an impact to disrupt the natural cycles of the earth in a way that will destroy the balance.
#59 | Posted by flaglerkid at 2009-12-23 01:59 PM

Flag(s): Thinks the oceans aren't becoming acidified due to excess CO2 in the atmosphere

I don't pretend to know how good the science is behind the article. It is probably at least as good as any of the other "carbon footprint" BS out there. Carbon emissions is BS measurement for Global Warming fanboys. Global warming is BS.

What is really funny is so few are really talking about the science but just bobble heading on one side or the other. As a measure of this rather bogus number, I am going to bet they have descent research.

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.

The science measuring the carbon creation (footprint) is probably pretty good. But lets look at some of the comments made so far...

As someone pointed out 6,200 miles a year - in the US - of driving is something of a joke. I dare to guess your average Large SUV owner drives about 15-20k on average. Yes there are exceptions to every rule. Lucky you working at home and not going anywhere - you are the exception not the rule. My wife drives 1 mile each way to work yet somehow we end up putting 15k a year on her car.

Someone also said they didn't believe carbon footprint for creation of the SUV could possibly included. Carbon Foot Print is not the same as natural resource consumption. Efficient manufacturing has a pretty low foot print.

It isn't about emission of a dog vs an engine totally. Again Carbon Footprint isn't purely "emissions" it is the total emissions of Carbon to create/operate/maintain something. i.e. all emissions involved in creation of the food for your pet are also included. Don't forget your dog breathes 24x7. O2 in CO2 out.

And yes a human has a pretty big foot print even before you throw in big homes, vehicles and computers. So we should be at the top of the list.

As for the spouting that the North West Passage was just opened last year for the first time... Please Educate yourself. It was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 19031906. In 1957, three United States Coast Guard Cutters, Storis, Bramble and SPAR became the first ships to cross the Northwest Passage along a deep draft route.

I'll bet that damn meat eating polar bear is even worse than the dog and moose put together.

As for the spouting that the North West Passage was just opened last year for the first time... Please Educate yourself. It was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 19031906. In 1957, three United States Coast Guard Cutters, Storis, Bramble and SPAR became the first ships to cross the Northwest Passage along a deep draft route.

#62 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2009-12-23 03:16 PM | Reply | Flag: Dude, that was with ice breakers, which are no longer needed.

I wish I could flag the headline as being funny. Absurdly funny...

I guess Michael Vick was just being green.

This is exactly the kind of total nonsense I would expect from a herd of ignorant pubbies.

They have absolutely no clue how much energy is expended making a car or truck, much less refining and delivering the fuel they use to to the consumer.

#67 | Posted by RingMaster at 2009-12-23 08:14 PM | Reply | Flag: takes self too seriously

The fundamental metric is avoiding massive nuclear war.

That is if you give a shit about sentient organisms being on this planet.

This is exactly the kind of total nonsense I would expect from a herd of ignorant pubbies.

It wasn't 'pubbies'. The study was done by New Zealanders and verified by the Stockholm Environment Institute in Britian

They have absolutely no clue how much energy is expended making a car or truck, much less refining and delivering the fuel they use to to the consumer.

They say they do and provide the numbers and math. If you think it is wrong, please tell us where their errors lie instead of knee-jerkingly saying "Fucking know nothing pubbies". Plus, it helps to read the article before you comment, ringo. Your response will appear less ignorant

They say they do and provide the numbers and math.

No they didn't you ignorant hillbilly. it's a totally bogus comparison. Go milk something and leave me alone.

The ignorant pubbies I was talking about are the idiots that wrote this article and the pubbie who brought it here.

But don't feel left out goatee, you certainly qualify too.

No they didn't you ignorant hillbilly.

I guess we read different articles then. You saw no numbers, you saw 'pubbies'. I saw numbers and no americans involved.

Anyway, what's wrong with what they say? Be specific. "It's bogus" just doesn't cut it. LOL If you can't name specific problems with the article, we'll just write it off as another ringo knee jerk response. We are getting used to the fact that is what 90% of your posts are.

Sad. Northguy3 and frank2.5 really didn't need company, but I'm sure they'll be glad to have another like them in their clique! LOL

The ignorant pubbies I was talking about are the idiots that wrote this article

Just a quick question, ringo. How do you know that Isabelle Toussaint and Jurgen Hecker are Republicans? Hell, how do you even know they are Americans? The article is talking about research done in New Zealand and verified by a Swedish institute in Great Britain.

This ignorant hillbilly (as you call me) is just curious how you know their political party and that they are even American.

Thanks!

Anyway, what's wrong with what they say? Be specific. "It's bogus" just doesn't cut it. LOL If you can't name specific problems with the article, we'll just write it off as another ringo knee jerk response.

IPCC to Goatman, IPCC to Goatman. Come in Goatman.

IPCC to Goatman, IPCC to Goatman. Come in Goatman.

Goatman here. What do you have to do with a pet's carbon footprint, IPCC?

Adding to the carbon footprint for the sole purpose of pissing off Al Gore tempts me to get a dog.

I won't, because it would not be fair to the dog, but the temptation is there.

IPCC to Goatman, IPCC to Goatman. Come in Goatman.

Goatman here. What do you have to do with a pet's carbon footprint, IPCC?

Just wondering if you'd care to be specific and name some scientific problems with our research into climate.

If not, we can just write off your rejection of the IPCC's work as yet another ringo knee jerk response.

If not, we can just write off your rejection of the IPCC's work as yet another ringo knee jerk response.

Well, if you tell me what the IPCC says about pet's carbon footprints, I'll be glad to comment. I didn't see them mentioned in the article.

Goatee doesn't know that there are right wing nuts in New Zealand too. The are called the Nationalist Party there, but same smell as Republicans or conservatives here. He also doesn't know that they are a majority party in New Zealand. Their gratest fear is that they will have to face the facts on global warming one day too.

Goatee doesn't know that there are right wing nuts in New Zealand too.

Yes, I know that. But I thought 'pubbies' (the word you used) was short for Republicans.

That aside, how do you know the writers were right wing? What makes you think the institute that verified it is right wing? Clue: It's not. Google them and see where they get their funding.

You truly are a knee-jerk jerk, ringo.

That aside, how do you know the writers were right wing?

Because the average conservative doesn't have the brain power to think this one out to it's logical absurdity.

these are indeed sad times!!! Everyone worried about carbon footprints and other bullshit that means nothing, while the far left takes our country down the shitter....

sad, sad times!!!

Hey Zat one simple question. Why has the earth warmed in the past?

Because the average conservative doesn't have the brain power to think this one out to it's logical absurdity.

Posted by RingMaster

Full Of Crap Award. Look at the inauguration crowd of typical demorats.....ignorant savages.

Why do all the dumbest ones always have a patriotic acronym?

Why do all the dumbest ones always have a patriotic acronym?

answer...same reason the blacks chose names like Washington and Jefferson, but not Lincoln, the man who emancipated them. They didn't know any better back then.

"Why has the earth warmed in the past?"

It wasn't the industrial revolution.

well, I sure hope you guys on the "left" enjoy paying that new light bill after cap and tax is done. Thing is, you will be paying more but NOTHING will change??? You don't understand it yet? it's not about raising taxes to help the earth, its about raising taxes to line their pockets....

I have no problems with initiatives aimed at reducing the amount of pollution man makes, but to think your wonderful government actually gives a shit or wants to solve the problem is pretty stupid..

Thing is, you will be paying more but NOTHING will change...

That's what a lot of people said about the Endangered Species Act, the establishment of the EPA and the Clean Air Act.

Would you now say we never should have passed those acts too?

"Just wondering if you'd care to be specific and name some scientific problems with our research into climate."

Sure, the data is witheld from other scientist for verification? That is not how the scientific community works.

Another the "model" as its been called is based upon "fudge factors".

007 7. ;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
009 yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)
*5.+1904]
010 valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-
0.25,-0.3,0.,-
0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.
6,$
011 2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
012 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
. . .
055 ; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
057 yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrlo
c,x)
058 densall=densall+yearlyadj

More fraudlent code in the peer reviewed scientific model.....
Note these comments from the programming code specifically say that
although the CRU has temperature data going back to 440 and 1070, they
only use data after 1400 -- that's right after the Medieval Warm Period
(MWP) which undermines the CO2/man-made global warming (AGW).
; we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-440)/10 + 1 header line
...
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1980, which is
; (1980-1400)/10 + 1 lines
...
; we know the file starts at yr 1070, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-1070)/10 + 1 header line
...
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1991, which is
; (1990-1400)/10 + 1 lines (since 1991 is on line beginning 1990)

"That's what a lot of people said about the Endangered Species Act, the establishment of the EPA and the Clean Air Act. Would you now say we never should have passed those acts too?"

wow, can't argue with logic like that! Guess you won't mind paying that big electric bill. (or you are rich and don't give a shit how much the this will hurt the rest of us, especially in this shit economy). Do you have any family or friends that can't find a job right now??? Guessing you probably support the new health bill as well right?

and if you think the EPA is a finely tuned, well run machine your smoking crack... but hey its just tax money huh????

AndreaMackris makes some good points!!!

"In God we trust, all others must show their data!"

If global warming is so real and so devastating to mankind and we caused it all then why no peer reviews??? hmmmmmm wonder why that is?

I know, maybe it has something to do with "funding"?
hmmmm you think maybe???

what a joke...

Because the average conservative doesn't have the brain power to think this one out to it's logical absurdity.

IOW, not answer, ringo. Thank you for your concession and admission of being a knee-jerk jerk.

Is there anyone else here other than me who thinks that ringo and woke are the same person? Surely there can't be two people on this planet who willingly adopt that same posting style.