I'm pretty sure that you can't laugh out loud when you're dead.

 

Yeah, but the big difference is that dogs don't drive 60 in the "fast" lane.

Here's the question though: Are people buying lowered dogs with chrome feet that eat three times as much food as other dogs just so they can look hard for their baby mama?

 

The argument that dogs have a higher carbon footpirnt than SUV's is dumb for the simple fact that the greatest way to reduce carbon emissions would not be to rid ourselves of dogs, but to rid ourselves of people.

I do not, however buy the global warming hysteria. The temperature might be rising, but its gone up and down throughout the history of the planet and we don't really know what causes it. To blame carbon emissions and ignore other factors like solar activity is not complete science. And I am not sure that we have that much power to change the climate for the better. I do support lowering pollution because that just makes sense, but since the greenies hate nukes, well, what are you gonna do?

 

happy holidays!

 

Gotcha, well I have been reading the book you recommended. All I can say is my writing has alot of repairs instore.

 

I wonder if the ELF waves ordeal fits under the tin hat propaganda. Its true, the government keeps NO secrets and has never lied to the American people.

 

My two 70 pound Red nose pits = carbon footprint of SUV, Ok I didn't know that wow!

My 10 pound Chihuahua = carbon footprint of Prius.

 

[QUOTE=Tripleblackap1,Dec 23 2009, 01:40 PM] My 10 pound Chihuahua = carbon footprint of Prius.

 

There are plenty of owners that feed their dogs a very expensive (but healthy) diet of lean meats and specialty foods. A breeder friend of mine has Akitas and he feeds his dogs chicken breast. All year round. The entire kennel. He also gives them some high-dollar dog food as a supplement for vitamins and such, which also has a high carbon footprint to produce.

There are plenty of people that spend as much (or more) to feed their dogs than some people spend on themselves.

 

So if the basis of the argument is that dogs are essentially consumers or products that leave carbon whatevers in their wake, shouldn't the argument really be that we need less people?

Not only do I eat more food in a day than my dog does in a week, I can't recall the last time my dog sat in his car with the engine running while waiting in line at the Wendy's drive through, or the last time he used a gas powered generator to provide the electricity he needed to watch internet $$$$$$ in a power outage. These are regular activities for me.

Seriously though, the whole thing is fukkkking stupid. There is no concrete evidence that humans are causing the climate to change and there is substantial evidence that there are other factors that contribute to the changing climate, but the political atmosphere surrounding global warming makes bullshit theories like this one popular, while actual science and skepticism in general is seen as heresy.