Posted by
Catmman on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 1:23:02 PM
This global warming/climate change nonsense has graduated from the ridiculous to the completely batpoop insane! Which crises should we tackle first: the rising tide of melting glaciers or the growing hoard or deadly, feral kitties?
Even if rising temperatures are not directly influencing cats' heat cycles, they can play a role in other ways. Some experts believe, for instance, that milder weather increases kitten survival rates.
In this article, the reporter manages to inform us all of the gloweringly obvious (cats have sex in the Spring), ties said cat sex to global warming, but also manages to distance the aforementioned conclusions about warming and more cats using the sentence above. All the while lamenting that warmer temps MAY let more kittens live. Got it? More kittens (or other animals) living due to (supposed) warming is a bad thing - while more (supposed) warming causing Polar Bear deaths is BAD. And one might notice there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claims of the article - it's all anecdotal.
I found this paragraph humorous:
Yet another explanation could be a "food chain effect," in which warm weather may help more rats and mice survive, providing feral and stray cats with more prey and allowing their numbers to thrive, said Gail Buchwald, vice president of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Adoption Center in New York.
Most of us with even a shred of reasoning and the most basic understanding of nature would call what was explained above BALANCE. Funny how nature works. If there are more mice/rats, then nature gives us more cats (their natural predators) to eliminate the additional vermin. Once the vermin are eliminated, the excess cats will take care of themselves (die off). It may seem cruel to a Leftard, but that's how nature works.
Perhaps this could even be a lesson of how adaptation in nature works? If cats can adapt to increasing temps to thrive, do they not deserve to survive? If Polar Bears cannot adapt, what good are they? Of course this is taking the argument to it's extreme, but it begs the question at it's most basic: is every basic foundational theory of biology (evolution, natural selection, adaptation, etc.) as sound as they appear,
or
is all life on Earth so fragile and unable to adapt as to be driven to extinction by the temp going up a few degrees. The advocates would submit it is the latter.
If it is, how on earth has life managed to survive until this point?
Ponderous man. Really ponderous...