Domestic dogs, cats, hamsters or budgerigars should be rebranded as “companion animals” while owners should be known as “human carers”, they insist.
Even terms such as wildlife are dismissed as insulting to the animals concerned – who should instead be known as “free-living”, the academics including an Oxford professor suggest.
Do these cretins realise that animals don’t have language skills, so cannot be “insulted”? One of our young toms is regularly referred to as a useless twot and not a good ’un at that. I’ve never noticed him taking umbrage at this grievous insult. Indeed, he remains as daft and overtly affectionate as ever. Not that I have ever claimed to own cats – they are far too free-spirited for that. One of ours moved out a few years back and another moved in. That’s the way they are. However, I doubt any of them will feel the slightest bit insulted if we did refer to ourselves as “owners”. Just so long as we get the food down on time, they don’t care either way.
In its first editorial, the journal – jointly published by Prof Linzey’s centre and the University of Illinois in the US – condemns the use of terms such as ”critters” and “beasts”.
Oh, good grief. Given that these people are supposed to be Christians – the editor of the journal is Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, surely they will be looking to re-edit the bible? The word “beasts” tends to crop up fairly regularly. Of course we can point out contradictions in such silliness all too easily – after all, you’d have to be a fruitcake to take such nonsense with any degree of gravitas.
But, still, silliness today becomes mainstream thought tomorrow.
Prof Linzey and his co-editor Professor Priscilla Cohn, of Penn State University in the US, also hope to see some of the more colourful terms in the English language stamped out.
Sigh… It is not up to them to stamp out anything. And I do hope we are not paying for this claptrap.
Remember the days when it would be quite normal to hear groups of mates and even just “pub aquaintances” refer to each other in terms that today, only the fighting drunk in the corner would be “insulted” at?
Does this modern atmosphere of people being “insulted”, “frightened”, “horrified”, etc mean that society of today is on the same retarded emotional level as the “fighting pub drunk”?
I’m going to be sticking with “greedy bugger”[1], “obsessed with popualating the world with lovebirds”[2] and “jealous nutter”[3] and for the ducks “the girls”[4], though they will be rebranded “dinner” when they stop laying eggs.
Nuts to this bland bollocks from an professor who has far too little to think about.
[1] The cock lovebird, who will eat everything and anything
[2] His mate who treats everything as a nest site
[3] Their offspring who considers that our shoulders are her sole preserve.
[4] Including the drake
FT – probably.
Well, “Professor Priscilla Cohn”.
Well, if she is “une conne”, we should not be surprised.
Do these cretins realise that animals don’t have language skills, so cannot be “insulted”?
No.
No they don’t.
I see they are from Penn State Uni, I may be mistaken but is that not the Uni that the Hockey Stick Lie to support CAGW eminated from?
Joh Leon @ 6
I see you are a tinfoil-hat wearer.
What “hocky stick lie”?
Sorry, but GW is real, and it is very likely (better than 90%) that humanity’s actions are at least partly responsible.
For some REAL science, try “Natures Calendar”.
A mass-observation project, with many thousands of observers (I’m one) taking very simple records. Because there are so many observations, the error-bars are very small. What we are doing is recording, every year, certain events in Spring and Autumn, and comparing these with past records.
You also have to remember the other aphorism: “Follow the money” – in this case the tens of $millions being spent by Exxon, and the Koch Foundations to deliberately undermine scientific work, for their own profits.
Greg @ 7
If true, then perhaps the breeding habits of the 6.9 billion people on Earth, of whom the white race represents only about 9% and declining, might be responsible for the AGM.
@Greg Tingey – Only 90% sure that AGW is due to humanity’s actions? I would have thought that you as a supporter of the GW cause would be sure 100% that humans are the cause. If you have any doubt whatsoever then you are a not a true supporter.
Would that be Andrew Linzey, co-editor of “Gays and the Future of Anglicanism” and Priscilla Cohn, author of “The Connection between the Oppression of Animals and the Discrimination against Women”?
Wow, some good reads there.
Greg Tingey, I am polite and try to see the various sides of a debate, however new research by scientists in many fields of science not in the pockets of government grants are showing by properly conducted empirical research what a hoax CAGW is and that the wild claims are just that, may I suggest you read some better imformed sites such as Wattsupwiththat and greeniewatch for proof of the deliberate falsification of the data. These new papers are upsetting the pro CAGW lobby ( they are hardly scientists as they believe in a concensus, which in properly researched science, does not exist ) to such an extent wealthy institutions are picking on retired scientists taking them to court to shut them up, unfortunately for them, these bullies are being stood up to and these so called libel actions are revealing more and more of the CAGV protaganists as the peddlers of malicious fantasy they really are.
As to 90% certain, that is not certainty, that requires 100% , 90% is just following simple political propaganda designed to panic the gullible and falling for the techno mumbo jumbo spouted by opportunists on the lifetime gravy train. So. no I don’t wear a tinfoil hat, I spend time researching as much about the subject as I consider neccessary to form an opinion and then wait to read something from the CAGW camp to persuade me otherwise, so far they have not made any positive impression on me, however Mr. Tingley, you believe what you like, as is your perogative.
@ 9 et seq.
I was a scientist, amongst other things before reaching retirement age, and I also have an M.Sc. in Engineering. So I tend to be properly cautious about statements, especially outside my own specialities.
I do, however, tend to trust properly researched, well-supported-by-the-data findings. Especially when bodies like the Royal Society say so – they usually know what they are doing.
I don’t like tha apparent racist tone of commenter #8 incidentally, nor the ignorant and crassly stupid remarks about “only 90%” and similar.
It merely shows just how ignorant of real science the commenters are.
I note that NO ONE AT ALL has picke up on my comment on a real “conspiracy” (actually massive and heavily-funded lobbying) by vast vested interests to attempt to rubbish the work of those attempting to understand what is really happening to climate. Because they (Exxon / Koch etc) can make much more profit at all our expenses if they can go on as before.
I seriously suggest that you DO go and look at “Natures Calendar” (that’s what Google is for) and try to make your own minds up, rather than be gulled by ultra-right-wing greedy bastards. Or ultra-“greens” for that matter, since, as someone with an aforementioned scientific training, I’m equally convinced that we really need nuclear power-generation, for instance.
It’s safer for a start.
Hint – measure deaths caused for each power-generation-type per Terawatt-hour of power produced. You get some very interesting results.
The Hockey Stick graph suffers from a couple of flaws. Firstly, the switch between proxy readings and actual readings. Then you have the combination of cherry picking of data and reading stations in urban heat sinks. It is not, therefore, a conspiracy to treat it with scepticism. Even if it is accurate, it has become so damaged by those things that it is no longer credible as evidence.
As for the science generally, climatology is a relatively new science studying a phenomenon with a plethora of variables. To say, as the greens once did, that the science is settled is incredibly naive. Nor do I take too seriously the claims of consensus. A century ago, the scientific consensus was settled on the Newtonian theory of the Universe. As Einstein demonstrated, one inconvenient fact blew that consensus out of the water.
As for the question about climate changing; of course it is. The only surprise for me is that people expect it to remain stable when throughout the Earth’s history it has not. Damn those Brontosuari and their 4x4s eh?
On an anecdotal basis, I have noticed the toads spawning earlier each year until a couple of years ago when they came in February. We lost the females as they drowned, having arrived too early and couldn’t cope with the males holding them down in the water for so long. What spawn was produced was killed by the late frosts. This year they turned up in mid March and the tadpoles are thriving.
Perhaps because there is no evidence of a conspiracy. Besides, with the activities of Mann et al and the guys at the University of East Anglia, all they have to do is sit back and laugh. It’s a lot cheaper.
Greg,
why only ‘follow the money’ on one side? How much did, for instance, the Copenhagen conference cost? Why only consider vested interests on one side? Do you believe that all those who work within the state and quasi-state institutions have no agenda, or no vested interest in maintaining the golden egg-laying goose which is manmade climate change?
I say Greg, you don’t like my racist tone, and I’m therefore ignorant of science!
The only science that is anti-racist, or does not recognise the intellectual differences between the races is Marxist ‘Post-Modern Science’ which is no science at all. And its supporters are the same disingenuous ‘scientists’ who support AGM as a means to propel wealth redistribution.
Another word for people like that is liars.
WHy oh why?
There is a wilful refusal to even LOOK at those acts that have been uncovered.
The enthusiastic belief that “there is a scientific conspiracy” – when there isn’t?
Seriously, the amount spent on climatolagy research is tiny compared to the amounts that “big oil” and people like the Kochs are spending, sucessfully, to gull people, like some of the posters here.
I agree with LR that the fitting of the two graphs together is a serious problem, which IS being addressed.
That, incidentally, is one of the reasons I put my number at 90%, and not 99%.
Do none of you keep gardens, and grow plants?
Haven’t you NOTICED that things appear (long-term) to be changing?
Again, I agree with LR, ther is always SOME change in climate, and it is an emerging subject, and some people are far too definite, far too soon.
But that does not mean that there is automatically nothing there at all, does it?
Gordo @ 15
We are all: Homo sapiens sapientes africanus
You are SERIOUSLY suggesting there are innate “racial” (that is genetic) differences in intelligence?
As opposed to predominant differences produced by cultural influences over many generations?
Which is a different thing entirely.
Look at the wildly different average educational achievements of culturally-different, but racially-identical groups in this country, for instance, and then justiufy your claim.
Greg:
I’m not remotely qualified to comment on the science of global warming and I don’t buy conspiracy theories on either side but generally I’m of your opinion that we should listen ( critically ) to the professionals on this. That said I’m not really convinced by what might be described as the “things appear to be happening earlier” school of thought. I do have a garden and certainly the growing season and wildlife activity is kicking off earlier now than 35 years ago when I first started gardening, however does it follow that this period of warming is primarily human induced ? What caused the shifts into and out of the ‘Little Ice Age’ ? Might this just be a short ( in climate terms ) period of warming which is co-incidental with and perhaps enhanced by, human activity ? The past two or three years of cold winters might herald a shift back to a longer term ‘normality’ for all we know.
Agree with you entirely about nuclear power and the non -existence of racial differences in intelligence BTW.
Greg,
“Seriously, the amount spent on climatolagy research is tiny compared to the amounts that “big oil” ”
Come off it, man. The money given over by the Kochs etc is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount spent on the climate change agenda. E.g. Copenhagen.
Science is the battleground. There are ideologically-based side-taking in both camps. Secondly, whatever the science is saying is happening, there is a separate question of what to do about it. Before enabling the various governments of the planet to micro-manage individuals’ energy us (costly and anti-freedom), while they burn money on, essentially, vanity projects, and cartelise the generation of energy even further, it is meet and right to see some proper evidence that such an approach would work. But instead the AGW agendistas have tried to scare the public into going along, and that isn’t working any more.
btw: On the separate issue of race, I agree with you.
Greg, I am not a scientist as such, however I am involved in engineering, I prepare motorcycles for 24 hour endurance racing and I have learned two things, if the preperation is not done 100% with the utmost care, precision and cleanliness, it WILL break sooner than later, therefore 90% is for also rans, because a 90% effort usually means a DNF, the other is the bullshit stops when the flag drops; over the years I have become very able at detecting bullshit and whilst I completely agree that the climate is constantly changing, 30 years to 4 million is not what I would consider a relevant time period to start shreiking about global catastrophy especially as it is known natural causes of CO2 production is about 93% of all CO2 released into the atmosphere to humans 7% ( if that ) as well as the research that shows CO2 is 100 times more effective at cooling than warming plus it is immpossible according to laws of physics for “back radiation” to occour and if you believe the Roual Society is infallible to political influence then you will be greatly dissapointed when you discover real truth. As for nuclear power I am an avid fan and look forward to the 4th Generation reactors coming on line as well as the big Fusion Project I.T.E.R. firing up in 2018.
I wonder …
There IS an fact a “conspiracy” involved with GW …
BUT it is nothing to do with the science, or the scientists.
I’m suprised no-one here has picked up on it.
Ther are THREE parties involved in the dabate, apart from commenters like ourseleves.
1: The climate scientists, trying to make sense of their data – and coming to the conclusion that AGW is probably very real
2: The anti-GW lobbyists, headed by “big oil” and ultra-right nasties like the Kochs, who are in it for money for them, and to hell with us, and the planet.
3: The politicians, who see an opportunity for MORE TAXES, under the cover of “GW”, whilst actually doing nothing constructive about it.
IF GW is real – and I’ve made clear that I think it is, then we need to do ceratin things. But those things are emphatically NOT what the “ultra-greens” (nasty little puritans) nor what the politicans are asking.
We need manufactured goods that LAST, and are not replaced every 3-5 years, and those goods need to be much more energy-efficient. We need really good, thermally-efficient public transport. We need to limit World population, which incidentally means much better healthcare, since healthy populations tend (always) to have much lower birth-rates. Which means morally/rhetorically/idologically nuking at least two major religions, that are fanatically anti-birth-control.
We need reliable, CLEAN power-sources, and we need “distributed” power – which the big power-generating companies/corporations won’t/don’t like at all….
Etc ….