More Stupid from the Left: How your pet is contributing to global warming

[Fortybox]

The stupid is real. At least this story doesn't have "anonymous" sources.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/environment/article164990657.html

[Tenlaar]

Way to misrepresent what the article is actually about.


Put another way: Dogs and cats are responsible for 25 to 30 percent of the environmental impact of meat consumption in the United States.

Livestock emit methane, which is the source of about 10 percent of all greenhouse gases. Previous studies have found that Americans’ meat-heavy diet results in the release of 260 million tons of carbon dioxide – the leading greenhouse gas – through livestock production. Okin used similar estimates to calculate how much meat the nation’s 163 million cats and dogs eat and its carbon equivalent.

Okin said he isn’t suggesting Americans put their pets on a vegetarian diet, “which would be unhealthy.” However, Okin – who is allergic to dogs and cats but keeps two fish as pets – said he wants pet owners to consider the climate impacts of pet ownership, particularly as many Americans switch their dogs and cats to high-protein premium foods.

“This was not a study to make anybody feel guilty,” Okin said in an interview Wednesday. “I’m not saying people should go out and kill their animals or feed them something that isn’t appropriate....It was a study just to figure out how big these numbers are, and the numbers are surprisingly large.”

You are an intellectually dishonest person.

[Fortybox]

Way to misrepresent what the article is actually about.



You are an intellectually dishonest person.

For calling it stupid? You sure love to read between the lines!

[Steve]

For calling it stupid? You sure love to read between the lines!

How is it stupid, exactly? And how is it a democrat thing?

[Tenlaar]

For calling it stupid? You sure love to read between the lines!

For trying to make that article out to be some kind of "dumb libruls are dumb lolol" thing when that is not in any way what it is. You are so ridiculously partisan that you look at everything from the angle of trying to make "the left" look bad even when it has nothing to do with any political affiliation. Science is not leftist propaganda, though I'm happy to claim science as being on "my side" if that is the stance you want to take.

[Fortybox]

For trying to make that article out to be some kind of "dumb libruls are dumb lolol" thing when that is not in any way what it is. You are so ridiculously partisan that you look at everything from the angle of trying to make "the left" look bad even when it has nothing to do with any political affiliation.

Right, because the Sacramento Bee isn't left-leaning.

You're right. The next time I listen/read a story from CNN I'll remember to think that it is coming from an unbiased news source. Thanks Tenlaar!

[Jhynnifer]

You can make the argument that anything you do has a big carbon footprint, this is just newspaper clickbait.

[Tenlaar]

Right, because the Sacramento Bee isn't left-leaning.

I don't give a fuck about the Sacramento Bee, they are reporting on a study published in a scientific journal. I don't care if Karl Marx himself wrote an article about the study, that doesn't make the study politically motivated or part of "the left."

[Orthin]

I don't give a fuck about the Sacramento Bee, they are reporting on a study published in a scientific journal. I don't care if Karl Marx himself wrote an article about the study, that doesn't make the study politically motivated or part of "the left."

For as riled up as you are getting I feel like your Meme sends a very different message.

[Tenlaar]

You can make the argument that anything you do has a big carbon footprint, this is just newspaper clickbait.

You can only make that argument if you want to discount...you know...scientific study and review.

[Whirlin]

scientific study and review.
Sounds like left buzzwords to me. I'm gonna go sit in my right wing, flat earth, 3000 year old world that's cooling down that god put me on.

[Tenlaar]

Clearly. Gall darn librul science!

[Neveragain]

You can only make that argument if you want to discount...you know...scientific study and review.

I would actually support a carbon based economy if individuals could sell their carbon credits, I would make out very well.

[Tgo01]

You can only make that argument if you want to discount...you know...scientific study and review.

wut?

[Jhynnifer]

You can only make that argument if you want to discount...you know...scientific study and review.

You find me one thing, one thing that legitimately has a small carbon footprint. People use that term to make themselves feel better. Can we reduce ours by buying food from locally grown farmers instead of brands flown in from across the country? Sure, that'll reduce it. Do electric cars have smaller footprints? Sure do, but while definitely better than fuel-using cars, they're still not the tree-hugging, communing with Mother Gaia, my carbon footprint is like that of a dragonfly alight on a drop of morning dew people generally think they are.

[Neveragain]

He had it right all along, super green.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nhgfjrKi0o

[Tgo01]

Just breathing creates a carbon footprint.

Maybe the next Sacramento Bee article should be: Save the Earth! Stop breathing!

[Fortybox]

I don't give a fuck about the Sacramento Bee, they are reporting on a study published in a scientific journal. I don't care if Karl Marx himself wrote an article about the study, that doesn't make the study politically motivated or part of "the left."

Because if it is published in a scientific journal it must be right?

[Fortybox]

Just breathing creates a carbon footprint.

Maybe the next Sacramento Bee article should be: Save the Earth! Stop breathing!

As long as it is in a scientific journal! Because scientists are NEVER wrong!

Also, according to the logic by Time4fun, if an article is published many times then it's super duper important.

[Tenlaar]

Welcome to Science Denial 101, folks. Today's lesson: if you convince yourself that science can say whatever people want it to, you can also convince yourself that science doesn't say what you don't want it to.

[Tgo01]

Welcome to Science Denial 101, folks. Today's lesson: if you convince yourself that science can say whatever people want it to, you can also convince yourself that science doesn't say what you don't want it to.

I...what?

[Fortybox]

Welcome to Science Denial 101, folks. Today's lesson: if you convince yourself that science can say whatever people want it to, you can also convince yourself that science doesn't say what you don't want it to.

So deep.

[Ashliana]

As long as it is in a scientific journal! Because scientists are NEVER wrong!

"You can't trust scientists! SCI rhymes with LIE! 'Peer review'? What does that mean? The fact that the state of science has ever changed in response to new data somehow means science is invalid, and in fact, based on ideology! Breitbart taught me that!"
-Fortybox

[Jhynnifer]

Welcome to Science Denial 101, folks. Today's lesson: if you convince yourself that science can say whatever people want it to, you can also convince yourself that science doesn't say what you don't want it to.

No. Today's lesson: Stop gobbling up and regurgitating everything the media rams down your throat and do the research yourself. Base your opinions on facts instead of half-assed articles with clickbait, bullshit titles.

Goddamn, sometimes you people make me want to be a republican.

[time4fun]

No. Today's lesson: Stop gobbling up and regurgitating everything the media rams down your throat and do the research yourself. Base your opinions on facts instead of half-assed articles with clickbait, bullshit titles.


While I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying (and geniunely feel like you can't say it enough), in fairness this was an actual study in a peer-reviewed journal, written by a UCLA Professor, and full of actual facts.

I think the real crux here is the tendency for the human brain to disregard information that contradicts currently held beliefs (and to hone in on information that confirms it). So when someone's reaction is "OMG HOW FRIGGIN' STUPID IS THIS, IT SOUNDS RIDICULOUS" (referring to the OP, not you), what they're really saying is: "This new information threatens my view of this subject, and I need to dismiss it".

And if that's the reaction to new information, then we never really get anywhere.

[Neveragain]

Goddamn, sometimes you people make me want to be a republican.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsxhMAnglaE

[Jhynnifer]

While I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying (and geniunely feel like you can't say it enough), in fairness this was an actual study by a UCLA Professor full of actual facts.

I think the real crux here is the tendency for the human brain to disregard information that contradicts currently held beliefs (and to hone in on information that confirms it). So when someone's reaction is "OMG HOW FRIGGIN' STUPID IS THIS, IT SOUNDS RIDICULOUS" (referring to the OP, not you), what they're really saying is: "This new information threatens my view of this subject, and I need to dismiss it".

And if that's the reaction to new information, then we never really get anywhere.

My ire, my annoyance and irritation derives solely from how the information was presented. Because people will read that article, instead of reading the actual study and walk away with a less-than-accurate concept of what's going on because of the way it's presented. It's the basis for why I hate news in general.

[time4fun]

My ire, my annoyance and irritation derives solely from how the information was presented. Because people will read that article, instead of reading the actual study and walk away with a less-than-accurate concept of what's going on because of the way it's presented. It's the basis for why I hate news in general.

The obvious "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!" title of the article, you mean?

Yeah. I'm with you on that. My second biggest pet peeve right behind titles that intentionally mislead you about what the contents of the article are about (specifically in political news).

Though my own personal bias on this is- anything that gets people to think about climate change is fine by me.

Because it SERIOUSLY freaks me out that we're so close to irreversibly subjecting the world to droughts, floods, famine, and disease and apparenty aren't interested in doing anything about it. We may actually have already passed the point of really being able to prevent what's going to happen next.

Meanwhile we're too busy arguing over whether or not Planned Parenthood should have Federal funding.

[Tgo01]

Though my own personal bias on this is- anything that gets people to think about climate change is fine by me.

Because it SERIOUSLY freaks me out that we're so close to subjecting the world to droughts, floods, famine, and disease and apparenty aren't interested in doing anything about it.

Holy shit.

[Wrathbringer]

The obvious "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!" title of the article, you mean?

Yeah. I'm with you on that. My second biggest pet peeve right behind titles that intentionally mislead you about what the contents of the article are about (specifically in political news).

Though my own personal bias on this is- anything that gets people to think about climate change is fine by me.

Because it SERIOUSLY freaks me out that we're so close to irreversibly subjecting the world to droughts, floods, famine, and disease and apparenty aren't interested in doing anything about it. We may actually have already passed the point of really being able to prevent what's going to happen next.

Meanwhile we're too busy arguing over whether or not Planned Parenthood should have Federal funding.

Again, retarded.

[Wrathbringer]

Holy shit.

This is correct.

[Neveragain]

Because it SERIOUSLY freaks me out that we're so close to irreversibly subjecting the world to droughts, floods, famine, and disease and apparenty aren't interested in doing anything about it. We may actually have already passed the point of really being able to prevent what's going to happen next.

So the state you live in will stop watering the desert when?

[hello]

My only question about Trump in which noone can answer is: Why the fuck would you draw a redline to the person investigating you not to look into the financials/money? That's A.) The #1 thing any half-decent investigator would look into on a matter like this. B.)The absolute worst thing you could say to someone investigating you "um, don't look here or else Mr. Police Officer! No drugs in my trunk no need to look there!"

Question arises to Trump's intelligence regardless if he's guilty of anything.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/politics/mueller-investigation-russia-trump-one-year-financial-ties/index.html

[Parkbandit]

Because it SERIOUSLY freaks me out that we're so close to irreversibly subjecting the world to droughts, floods, famine, and disease and apparenty aren't interested in doing anything about it. We may actually have already passed the point of really being able to prevent what's going to happen next.

Actually, we're past that time, according to the leading expert on global warming: Albert Gore.


Meanwhile we're too busy arguing over whether or not Planned Parenthood should have Federal funding.

Or Russia... lolololol

[Tenlaar]

My ire, my annoyance and irritation derives solely from how the information was presented. Because people will read that article, instead of reading the actual study and walk away with a less-than-accurate concept of what's going on because of the way it's presented. It's the basis for why I hate news in general.

You didn't dismiss the title of the article, you completely dismissed the content of the study.

[Jhynnifer]

You didn't dismiss the title of the article, you completely dismissed the content of the study.

Actually no, I did not. He linked the article. Had he linked the study this conversation would have been vastly different. I said it was newspaper clickbait, not study clickbait. But thanks for playing!

[Tenlaar]

Actually no, I did not. He linked the article. Had he linked the study this conversation would have been vastly different. I said it was newspaper clickbait, not study clickbait. But thanks for playing!


You can make the argument that anything you do has a big carbon footprint, this is just newspaper clickbait.

How is that not offhandedly dismissing the content of the actual study? The newspaper isn't making any claims about the carbon footprint of the pet food industry, the study is.

[Fortybox]

Actually, we're past that time, according to the leading expert on global warming: Albert Gore.



Or Russia... lolololol

Oh, you mean the fraud that uses more electricity in one year than the average American family will in 21 years? That guy?

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Gore+facts+a+couple+of+al+gore+memes+he+tells_e9f9 44_5411078.jpg

[Jhynnifer]

How is that not offhandedly dismissing the content of the actual study? The newspaper isn't making any claims about the carbon footprint of the pet food industry, the study is.

Because I said it had nothing to do with the study and my comment was based solely on the article's title and content? The article is a clickbait article that, in my opinion, hurts the validity of the study. If you want to sit down and have a conversation about the contributing factors to a carbon footprint, then I'll be happy to have an intelligent conversation about it. That article's only redeeming quality is that it points you to a worthwhile study. The article itself is complete and utter shit, like 99% of the media out there.

[Fortybox]

Because I said it had nothing to do with the article and my comment was based solely on the article's title and content? The article is a clickbait article that, in my opinion, hurts the validity of the study. If you want to sit down and have a conversation about the contributing factors to a carbon footprint, then I'll be happy to have an intelligent conversation about it. That article's only redeeming quality is that it points you to a worthwhile study. The article itself is complete and utter shit, like 99% of the media out there.

And that is why I said it was stupid. And that is why I think the left is stupid.

Tenlaar loves to create straw man arguments and take the conversation wayyyyyyyyyy off course.

[Neveragain]

Oh, you mean the fraud that uses more electricity in one year than the average American family will in 21 years? That guy?

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Gore+facts+a+couple+of+al+gore+memes+he+tells_e9f9 44_5411078.jpg

Come on now, this only applies to the peasants. Manbearpig needs those things to spread the good word of the coming disaster.

[Methais]

If people truly wanted to help the environment they'd stop having fucking kids.

Anyone who isn't Amish that has kids that complains about the environment is a selfish hypocrite and needs to cheese grater themselves to death.

[Methais]

Sounds like left buzzwords to me. I'm gonna go sit in my right wing, flat earth, 3000 year old world that's cooling down that god put me on.

You seriously think flat earth is a right wing thing?

[Methais]

While I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying (and geniunely feel like you can't say it enough), in fairness this was an actual study in a peer-reviewed journal, written by a UCLA Professor, and full of actual facts.

I think the real crux here is the tendency for the human brain to disregard information that contradicts currently held beliefs (and to hone in on information that confirms it). So when someone's reaction is "OMG HOW FRIGGIN' STUPID IS THIS, IT SOUNDS RIDICULOUS" (referring to the OP, not you), what they're really saying is: "This new information threatens my view of this subject, and I need to dismiss it".

And if that's the reaction to new information, then we never really get anywhere.

There are still only 2 genders.

[Methais]

The obvious "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT ME!" title of the article, you mean?

Yeah. I'm with you on that. My second biggest pet peeve right behind titles that intentionally mislead you about what the contents of the article are about (specifically in political news).

Though my own personal bias on this is- anything that gets people to think about climate change is fine by me.

Because it SERIOUSLY freaks me out that we're so close to irreversibly subjecting the world to droughts, floods, famine, and disease and apparenty aren't interested in doing anything about it. We may actually have already passed the point of really being able to prevent what's going to happen next.

Meanwhile we're too busy arguing over whether or not Planned Parenthood should have Federal funding.

What's your opinion on Al Gore's lifestyle?

[Ashliana]

There are still only 2 genders.

Purple is clearly the best gender.

[Methais]

Purple is clearly the best gender.

WHAT ARE YOU SOME SORT OF MODERATE?????

[Ashliana]

WHAT ARE YOU SOME SORT OF MODERATE?????

Would you really believe me if I said yes? I posted the other day about how I can't stand the far left. Although, at least they usually mean well, for what little that's worth.

[Androidpk]

Purple is clearly the best gender.

It's the best team too.

[Wrathbringer]

There are still only 2 genders.

Hate speech. Ban pls.

[~Rocktar~]

While I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying (and geniunely feel like you can't say it enough), in fairness this was an actual study in a peer-reviewed journal, written by a UCLA Professor, and full of actual facts.

So called Peer Review isn't what it used to be. These days there are tons of pay to publish, so called peer reviewed journals and crap out there that the actual scientific community has multiple articles outlining the problem and possible ways to attack it. Also, if your peers agree with you then they can qualify and still have confirmation bias.


I think the real crux here is the tendency for the human brain to disregard information that contradicts currently held beliefs (and to hone in on information that confirms it). So when someone's reaction is "OMG HOW FRIGGIN' STUPID IS THIS, IT SOUNDS RIDICULOUS" (referring to the OP, not you), what they're really saying is: "This new information threatens my view of this subject, and I need to dismiss it".

And if that's the reaction to new information, then we never really get anywhere.

And this is pretty much why you discount most every fact against Obama, Democrats, Liberals, Socialism, and so many other topics that it makes my head swim. And then to really make it entertaining, you have the bellicose arrogance to call down from your self ensconced high pedestal of intellectual superiority and insult anyone that does not kowtow to your position, opinions or sources. Then when your infantile diatribes are dissected, dismantled and discredited bit by bit with clear and concise counter arguments, you work yourself into a froth worthy of a Grand Master Barista at Starbucks and spew forth with a load of bile and vitriol that would make any middle schooler proud. Then you sulk and snipe and continue to be mean in petty small ways.

I would feel sorry for you however you have done this so long, you obviously have made a conscious choice to act this way.

[Methais]

So called Peer Review isn't what it used to be. These days there are tons of pay to publish, so called peer reviewed journals and crap out there that the actual scientific community has multiple articles outlining the problem and possible ways to attack it. Also, if your peers agree with you then they can qualify and still have confirmation bias.



And this is pretty much why you discount most every fact against Obama, Democrats, Liberals, Socialism, and so many other topics that it makes my head swim. And then to really make it entertaining, you have the bellicose arrogance to call down from your self ensconced high pedestal of intellectual superiority and insult anyone that does not kowtow to your position, opinions or sources. Then when your infantile diatribes are dissected, dismantled and discredited bit by bit with clear and concise counter arguments, you work yourself into a froth worthy of a Grand Master Barista at Starbucks and spew forth with a load of bile and vitriol that would make any middle schooler proud. Then you sulk and snipe and continue to be mean in petty small ways.

I would feel sorry for you however you have done this so long, you obviously have made a conscious choice to act this way.

And even after all that there are still only 2 genders.