Dog-Made Global Warming!
By Paul Homewood
h/t Dave Ward
You could not make it up!
LOS ANGELES, CA — When it comes to global warming, Fido and Fluffy are part of the problem, a new study by UCLA indicates.
Most cat or dog lovers would say they can’t imagine living in a world without pets, but as the threat of global warming increases, environmentally conscious pet lovers may need to make some tough choices, according to the study.
Pet ownership in the United States creates about 64 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, UCLA researchers found. That’s the equivalent of driving 13.6 million cars for a year. The problem lies with the meat-filled diets of kitties and pooches, according to the study by UCLA geography professor Gregory Okin.
Dogs and cats are responsible for 25 to 30 percent of the impacts of meat production in the United States, said Orkin. Compared to a plant-based diet, meat production “requires more energy, land and water and has greater environmental consequences in terms of erosion, pesticides and waste,” the study found.
https://patch.com/california/hollywood/fido-fluffy-are-hurting-environment-ucla-study-says
Who on earth funds these ridiculous studies?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
But no evidence that raising meat is bad for climate.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2674147
I’d guess that the ‘meat content’ of processed pet food is made up entirely of the waste meat left over from the human food chain. As such, meat consumed by pets will have zero impact on the amount of meat produced, only on the efficiency of the process.
Who’s funding these studies?
I wouldn’t be surprised if it has a connection to the “Religion of the perpetually offended!”
They don’t like Dogs!
Taxpayers usually get the bill for this rubbish.
You’re right of course… but so am i…
“Jizya”
I thought we were funding them via the carbon taxes, etc.
My question was going to be “who wastes other peoples’ money funding this load of complete garbage”? As if the world doesn’t have real problems that urgently need solving.
No, we must give up our pets and exist on a diet of grass and other leafy vegetables. Potatoes, maize, wheat, barley, oats are mono-culture crops and have to be banned. The only possible exception for meat is eating guinea pigs (which aren’t pigs nor from Guinea) but somehow the Weather Botherers may find resistence to their creed.
So it is green leafs and beans which will save the world from Climate Warming gases…hmm?
Potatoes, maize, wheat, barley and oats are grown to feed into anaerobic digesters to produce renewable energy. Therefore they are green and must be grown to save the planet.
There was a story on the radio about a farmer who had his land compulsorily purchased, sold his lambs to new householders with promise to buy back at profit at end of year. Within very short time this caught on nationally, the wool business destroyed the artificial fibres industry, dogs and cats were no longer wanted, petfood industry destroyed, as was the lawnmower business, fertiliser etc. Butchery upset as no-one would eat lamb any more…
Who funded this? Barak Obama is daft enough to be responsible.
Trust me, this is far from the most stupid funded “research.”
The AGW fanatical press will publish any rubbish related to Armageddon it seems. The BBC website has an apocalyptic warning that in 2010 the world might be 4.5 C warmer and hundreds of thousands will die from the heat. They cite a reply from South Korea that man would adapt, but that is their nearest to objectivity (of course no Brit would take a South Korean pronouncement seriously). The rest of the article is an attack on Trump for announcing the USA withdrawal. The meja continue to win the brainwashing battle.
Given that the “climate models” have not been able to predict anything sensibly within a decade, could anyone give them credence over a century? The BBC can.
Sadly I suspect we are funding this nonsense by merely looking at it whereby the originators get the advertising revenue. The whackier the garbage the greater the revenue.
How about an attack on baked beans? Surely an environmental issue?
Is this a wind up?
It’s here!!!! I’ve been waiting for this. Dogs and cats eat meat and meat is evil. I’ve been waiting for the enviros to tell people their pets either learn to eat kale or must to go. It HAD to happen and it’s here!!!
Now you yet no SUV, no airplane trips and no dogs or cats. One supposes reptiles will be okay for a while, but in the end they will compete with humans for eating mice and rabbits, so those will have to go to. But it’s not a major life change, according to every lying warmist out there.
Had to come from California, the yo-yo State. Nothing sensible come out of their Universities, God knows why Trump is still financing them.
Dogs DO NOT case El Ninos !!
El Ninos have been the only source of REAL warming (a tiny amount) in the whole of the last 40 or so of reasonable , un-manipulated temperature data.
No idea whether you are right about this; but no matter. I reckon that tectonic plates movement and associated volcanic activity has much to answer for where Climate is concerned.
Keep an eye out for the Katla volcano in Iceland. Overdue for eruption and there are signs of activity. The last time it erupted there were major famines across Europe and beyond.
Now that is something to have sleepless nights about. Certainly not pesky CO2 and puppy dogs.
And then there is the pacific ridge and ring of fire which could well be influencing El Nino. With the top end of the Atlantic ridge passing close to the North pole and the Antartic ridge beneath the two main ice shelves running from Erebus to Deception Island all beavering away.
We just have to get those scientific noses extracted from their computer models.
All of the main TV media are absolutely ‘guilty’… of miss selling / presenting one-sided climate reports from so-called scientists (who seem to have replaced the priests with this new religion to manipulate the masses) and ignoring any of the alternative commonsense facts / reports available.
To do so results in an immediate attack & ridicule from the funded climate establishment and probable subscription / readership loss / boycott from the swaths of brainwashed believers.
So why give yourself the grief !
(Which isn’t a problem the taxpayer funded BBC has to consider when pushing their climate politics)
A mainstream Breitbart type TV channel would be the way to go, or the supplying of alternative information via regular high profile TV advertising / documentary reporting.
Broad shoulders Individuals with deep pockets required to pay for this.
Wonder if Mr Trump reads your blog Paul ?
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
“Who on earth funds these ridiculous studies?”
Like all Leftist causes, media publications and government institutions – *other people’s money* I.e. You, the taxpayer fund these insane studies.
Simply preface your “study” with “global warming” or “climate change” and the govt grant is all yours. No questions asked.
What a joke. What a scandal. What a disgrace.
Got to disagree about the leftist bit: the sTory tellers have had years to put things right and they control the meja, certainly not the left: look at who owns the meja.
Otherwise I agree with your view!
Only when climatologists stop clutching at straws (and cats ‘n dogs) and start to seriously analyse what circumstances brought about the ice ages (esp the Little Ice Age for which at least some records are available) will the real drivers of climate become evident.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that termites across the world produce as much CO2 as industrial America!
It has to be held over from April 1st doesn’t it?
Amazing!
“…tough choices…”
Either the pooch or the UCLA scientist has to shuffle off this mortal coil. Oh, it is not a tough choice at all.
We have recently discovered that meso-pelagic fish probably sequester a couple of billion tons more carbon annually in the depths of the ocean than anyone knew. That compensates for the farts of this academic… and some.
Fortunately everyone in the UK is now getting one of those really small dogs, as dog owners are getting tired of having to collect and dispose of their dogs waste. So clearly the UK is miles ahead in having “greener” dogs.
Cats on the other hand are still fouling in the neighbours rosebed and eating every songbird in sight, so work yet to be done there….
Think I’ll get one of those little Honda dog robots. They only use a bit of electricity and offend no one….
AH! but is it electricity from ‘renewable’ sources?
Hanging over all the studies like this is the over-arching perception is that humans, are separate from nature, and are a nature destroying entity. Little do so many realize that humans are part of nature, and we have only a hazy understanding of what our actions today will play out for the future. Life and nature hold the keys to this knowledge.
Our feeble ideas of modeling future effect are bound to fail as this world is not closed system, and is not controlled in a totally understood and apparent way — nature holds all the surprises.
The best we can do is to learn from nature as we plan for worst times while living well in the better periods.
So yes studies like this a little more than a mental massage for the hard of thinking.
We fund them of course, through our taxes and the perpetual wisdom of our governments.
You can be sure that a rather unpleasant organisation called PETA will be right behind this. They believe that humans should not have any pets or farm animals, to the point where they would simply euthanise the lot. Their justifications for this stance include precisely this kind of climate nonsense. Some of their activists have already pulled some pretty nasty stunts, and they are behind all sorts of anti-pet legislation in those states dotty enough to fall for it. Some people I know have moved to different states precisely because of them and their attitudes.
Apparently it’s cheaper funding these otherwise un-employables to do nonsensical ‘research’ than paying them the dole.
In a strange transmogrification of forms accelerating dog and cat numbers are now the canary in the coal mine of banal climate research waste.
http://www.ucla.edu/research/
ONE BILLION DOLLARS. That’s the average amount UCLA has received towards research
projects each year since 2009-10.
With that sort of money coming in, the projects are endless.
It does sort of conflict with this:
VETMED 700 – Caring for Your Dog or Cat: A Pet Care Seminar
https://www.uclaextension.edu/search/publicCourseSearchDetails.do?method=load&courseId=156374&selectedProgramAreaId=73360369&selectedProgramStreamId=93878
And this: https://www.uclahealth.org/pac/paulas-petpal-place
I love how everything is “significant”. This to me is hinting at the hubris behind the science. Everybody likes to think their work is meaningful, yet is it clear that not everything is “significant”.
If we could save the world by banning cats and dogs I would be for it, but clearly cats and dogs are insignificant to the problem.
This is my “significant” contribution to the debate.
I thought the eco-nuts were pro-animals and anti-humans. Seems to be a disconnect here.
Apparently the “researchers” did not factor in the benefits of a pet to humans. The kitten in the picture looks like my Hudson, a 3 1/2 month-old male bulls-eye tabby kitten, Hudson is far more important to me than a sink-hole full of UCLA “researchers” or “environmentalists.” May he pump out CO2 for many years.