From the “nothing escapes the clutches of global warming” department comes this farce:
Here’s the ah, er, beef:
“Climate change could affect meat quality in two ways,” Gregory, a professor in animal welfare physiology at the University of London’s Royal Veterinary College, explains. “First, there are direct effects on organ and muscle metabolism during heat exposure which can persist after slaughter.”
As a second climate change impact, Gregory believes “changes in livestock and poultry management practices in response to hazards that stem from climate change could indirectly lead to changes in meat quality.”
Ummm, gosh. What did America do during the 1930’s? Buy all their meat in Canada?
Read the entire article here
h/t to WUWT reader “Rational Debate”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It could be that if temperatures rise there may be a slight change in meat quality. Or less water could push up costs. Both are far less likely than the article suggests. What has happened is that world food prices have risen dramatically as a result of ethanol production. The preventative medicine looks to be far more harmful that the disease.
“Wucash says:
November 26, 2010 at 5:46 am”
I am British myself, so yes I do know how [/sarc on] effective your tax pounds are spent at the BBC (Top Gear is worth the fee, ok I don’t pay it any more, IMO) and The MET [/sarc off]. Unfortunately, as we all know, just as the ABC in Aus is the Govn’t public spin Dr, so too is the Beeb. The Beeb was great, once, but it knows where it’s money comes from, it won’t bite the hand that feeds it (And you all MSUT pay your fee, captive income source. Bit like carbon taxes).
The whole week here in Aus has been, almost, totally void of news items about climate change. We usually get at least 2 mentions per day in the SMH, on ABC and other newscasts. We’ve had ZERO coverage on Cancun, in complete contrast to coverage of Copenhagen last year. I think (I am hoping, but I won’t hold me breath) our “masters” are getting the message that we’ve been fooled long enough.
“john ratcliffe says:
November 26, 2010 at 5:50 am”
I used to like his fowl products.
They aren’t meant to be scientific articles. They are advertisements for cap & trade. Think about it. Where do they appear? Who “owns” them? You don’t think Big Climate is going to give up on their golden goose this easily, just because the carbon market collapsed, do you?
“Michael D Smith says:
November 26, 2010 at 9:59 pm
They aren’t meant to be scientific articles. They are advertisements for cap & trade.”
In this case, not even that: just the sordid quest for publication and/or grants. Propose work on “Mating Habits of Central Asian Ground Squirrels” and expect nothing but rejection letters. But propose “Effects of Global Climate Change on Mating Habits of Central Asian Ground Squirrels”- NOW you’ve got a hot topic and you’re in like Flynn.
“Pasty, dry turkey meat…”
No need to wait for global warming, just go over to my in-laws house for dinner!
Hope you all had a great day, I’ll need a few days to recover!
Firstly, I must apologise if I step on anyone’s toes with this response – I admit to skipping all the comments (need to catch up!).
However, what really strikes me about this post is that the author is a professor! Of what, I am unsure, but what does prevail is the unremitting bs that is being flung around these days under the auspices of academe. The money involved is absurd, and the political persuasion of some academics, let alone their qualifications must surely be in question.
Check with “Dr History” aka DrCharlieself.com
This guy knows more history than I thought there was.