Climate Morons on The Late Late Show

freshpopcorn

It will be interesting to see will we see a big drop in leaving cert holidays, college summer abroad, etc in the next few years!

Cordell

I think that banning open fireplaces and solid fuel (other than pellets) will have the biggest impact here, in both air quality and CO2 emissions.
Go Green, push that, that's a real change, let's see how far you get.

SafeSurfer

Cordell wrote: »

I think that banning open fireplaces and solid fuel (other than pellets) will have the biggest impact here, in both air quality and CO2 emissions.
Go Green, push that, that's a real change, let's see how far you get.

From my cold dead hands........

HorrorScope

Cordell wrote: »

I think that banning open fireplaces and solid fuel (other than pellets) will have the biggest impact here, in both air quality and CO2 emissions.
Go Green, push that, that's a real change, let's see how far you get.

About so far that they’d need a measuring tape to check if it actually moved at all.

wakka12

Mister Vain wrote: »

Well worth a watch. Interestingly, a lot of Irish, Finnish and Japanese scientists believe we are having absolutely zero impact on climate change.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EdvNDiVDKE

What a smart arse. It's well worth a watch if youre one of the climate change deniers on this thread and want your opinion to be confirmed as valid by some random guy on youtube, he doesnt really say anything much that hasnt been repeated ad nauseum on here already, just condensed into a video for you

HorrorScope

wakka12 wrote: »

What a smart arse. It's well worth a watch if youre one of the climate change deniers on this thread and want your opinion to be confirmed as valid by some random guy on youtube, he doesnt really say anything much that hasnt been repeated ad nauseum on here already, just condensed into a video for you

I love this term “deniers” - like you are your hysterical ilk know all there is to know above all question :rolleyes: It’s one of the reasons only the feeble minded and gullible pay any heed to you, the rest of us are laughing at the idiocy of this carry on.

Junkyard Tom

20Cent wrote: »

Yep an alt right grifter alright.

I don't think the guy believes half the shit she says he just knows that there are plenty of poorly-informed people out there who'll pay him to say it. Kinda like evangelical Preachers with true-believer congregations.

Blueshoe

Il be 60 in 2050. I'm stockpiling weapons and long life food for the Armageddon. I will shoot every last one of you I'd it comes to it. South Leinster is my area. Stay out

Also there is enough thorium in the ground to fuel the planet for 40,000 years. This is populist self mutilation for some. Business as usual for others.

gozunda

SafeSurfer wrote: »

From my cold dead hands........

I think that's the general plan. Whilst everyone else shivers in miserable Irish wet and cold Irish winters with no fuel and huge rates of punitive taxes - the screaming climate alarmists will most likley stay nice and toasty on the collective heat of moral superiority

Cordell

SafeSurfer wrote: »

From my cold dead hands........

But you'll get such a warm feeling if you do that...

topper75

Cordell wrote: »

I think that banning open fireplaces and solid fuel (other than pellets) will have the biggest impact here, in both air quality and CO2 emissions.
Go Green, push that, that's a real change, let's see how far you get.

Hardwoods like oak and ash are sustainable renewable fuel. If trees are replaced one for one, the CO2 of the woodsmoke is reabsorbed by the new tree from the atmosphere as it grows.

Bans are only meaningful if Gardaí are willing to turn up to calls about it. I'll leave it to yourselves to decide what kind of priority it wood (sic) be for them.

SaintLeibowitz

CalamariFritti wrote: »

It amazes me how so many people are actually proud of displaying their utter ignorance. But then maybe that is the hallmark of ignorance.

Dunning-kruger effect.

Cordell

topper75 wrote: »

Hardwoods like oak and ash are sustainable renewable fuel. If trees are replaced one for one, the CO2 of the woodsmoke is reabsorbed by the new tree from the atmosphere as it grows.

I was mainly talking about non-renewable fossil fuel like peat and briquettes.
But even wood, it's renewable only if it's renewed faster that it's burned. And even so, open fireplaces and stoves are extremely ineffective even when coupled with a back boiler.
Also, here in Limerick there is a whole hysteria about cement factory burning tyres in a low emission furnace, but not a word about the smell of coal briquettes that you can even taste in the cold damp evenings.

My point is people only want the changes that don't impact them directly.

20Cent

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I don't think the guy believes half the shit she says he just knows that there are plenty of poorly-informed people out there who'll pay him to say it. Kinda like evangelical Preachers with true-believer congregations.

There is a template they can tick and be guaranteed loads of views. Fake as hell and so obvious. Dunno why people fall for them.

threeball

topper75 wrote: »

Hardwoods like oak and ash are sustainable renewable fuel. If trees are replaced one for one, the CO2 of the woodsmoke is reabsorbed by the new tree from the atmosphere as it grows.

Bans are only meaningful if Gardaí are willing to turn up to calls about it. I'll leave it to yourselves to decide what kind of priority it wood (sic) be for them.

Thats not true. Burning trees releases decades of stored carbon in a matter of minutes. The replacement trees will take decades to absorb the CO2 released from burning the original trees. It also ends up destroying woodland habits that take decades to recover when replanted displacing flora and fauna. The only justifiable biomass is that of fallen trees and branches. Otherwise its not carbon neutral.

jackboy

threeball wrote: »

Thats not true. Burning trees releases decades of stored carbon in a matter of minutes. The replacement trees will take decades to absorb the CO2 released from burning the original trees. It also ends up destroying woodland habits that take decades to recover when replanted displacing flora and fauna. The only justifiable biomass is that of fallen trees and branches. Otherwise its not carbon neutral.

Timber is a very useful product which has many applications with new ones being developed all the time. Most non-fuel uses of timber involve the continued storage of the trapped carbon long term. As part of the timber industry there is a lot of lower quality material as waste which can be used as fuel. This is all pretty efficent and amounts to at least carbon neutrality if done well.

Dakota Dan

Duke of Url wrote: »

36? I’m actually surprised you’re an adult. I thought you were a teen based on your posting style.

Going by your comment I’d put you around 12.

Tony EH

wakka12 wrote: »

What a smart arse. It's well worth a watch if youre one of the climate change deniers on this thread and want your opinion to be confirmed as valid by some random guy on youtube, he doesnt really say anything much that hasnt been repeated ad nauseum on here already, just condensed into a video for you

Dave Cullen has made a little YouTube career out of puff piece videos that prop up the nouveau right internet hardshaws. It's just repetition of guff from elsewhere and he wants to get paid for it. Gobshites (usually American) oblige by throwing him a few shekels via Patreon.

If you're bent a particular way, he'll validate your opinion. But there's nothing to be learned from him.

threeball

jackboy wrote: »

Timber is a very useful product which has many applications with new ones being developed all the time. Most non-fuel uses of timber involve the continued storage of the trapped carbon long term. As part of the timber industry there is a lot of lower quality material as waste which can be used as fuel. This is all pretty efficent and amounts to at least carbon neutrality if done well.

But thats generally not how biomass is conducted. They generally go in, fell an area of mature forest and take it away for chipping. So now you've down a tree that was capturing carbon, spent a ton of fuel cutting, transporting, chipping and transporting again and thats before you burn it. Biomass is in no way carbon neutral. Pure fairytale stuff.

jackboy

threeball wrote: »

But thats generally not how biomass is conducted. They generally go in, fell an area of mature forest and take it away for chipping. So now you've down a tree that was capturing carbon, spent a ton of fuel cutting, transporting, chipping and transporting again and thats before you burn it. Biomass is in no way carbon neutral. Pure fairytale stuff.

The future for biomass is not mature trees. Short rotation time plants will be used. So the carbon will be recaptured quickly.

sheesh

threeball wrote: »

But thats generally not how biomass is conducted. They generally go in, fell an area of mature forest and take it away for chipping. So now you've down a tree that was capturing carbon, spent a ton of fuel cutting, transporting, chipping and transporting again and thats before you burn it. Biomass is in no way carbon neutral. Pure fairytale stuff.

Well if you are talking commercial forests you are probably talking a managed
plantation they are not felling mature oaks and turning them into woodchip. there need to be other Trees in the pipline which are growing taking in CO2
the usual turnaround for this kind of plantation is a couple of years

Seeing as we cannot burn oil coal or peat because they are obviously worse what do we do for heat ?

topper75

How is rate of carbon re-absorption important in the longer term? I trust, for all of us who are not 2030 schoolyard alarmists, that this issue is a longer term one?

It is volume. Burn a tree, grow a tree. 1:1 if my primary maths were any good. :-)
You can go for biomass yes. Hardwoods just better. Better eco for our part of the world anyway.

Cordell

Yes, it's volume, or mass rather. If we burn them faster that they grow, and that is in mass not numbers, then we're not carbon neutral.

SafeSurfer

threeball wrote: »

Thats not true. Burning trees releases decades of stored carbon in a matter of minutes. The replacement trees will take decades to absorb the CO2 released from burning the original trees. It also ends up destroying woodland habits that take decades to recover when replanted displacing flora and fauna. The only justifiable biomass is that of fallen trees and branches. Otherwise its not carbon neutral.

“Justifiable biomass”? Justifiable to who? If I need to keep my family warm that’s all the justification I need.

josip

wakka12 wrote: »

Oh my god, thats ridiculous. We make 0.6% difference, everyone has to pull their weight.It all counts. At what point is the cut off where the size of the country matters? Ten million? Its significant, we also cause proprtionally far more damage to the environment because of our highly consumerist society and high quality of life, so damage and population size are not linear equivalent, 5 million people in Indonesia or Africa use a fraction of the resources 5 million irish people use. We cause far more damage than the average '0.6%' of the world population would do, if 7 billion people lived the lifestyle of an average irish person the planet would literally not be able to sustain it

Wasting your time with logic Wakka.

It's fingers in the ears, la-la land.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

HorrorScope wrote: »

I love this term “deniers” - like you are your hysterical ilk know all there is to know above all question :rolleyes: It’s one of the reasons only the feeble minded and gullible pay any heed to you, the rest of us are laughing at the idiocy of this carry on.

If you claim that you're right, and almost all scientists are wrong, there's definitely an element of denial.

topper75

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

If you claim that you're right, and almost all scientists are wrong, there's definitely an element of denial.

Would you go to the Vatican and deny the doctrine of the virgin Mary in the face of hundreds of theological experts?
If so you are merely in denial about it.

True science doesn't have any truck with belief. Nor politics, perhaps more importantly.

joe40

topper75 wrote: »

Would you go to the Vatican and deny the doctrine of the virgin Mary in the face of hundreds of theological experts?
If so you are merely in denial about it.

True science doesn't have any truck with belief. Nor politics, perhaps more importantly.

True science doesn't have any truck with disregarding overwhelming evidence to suit your own narrow agenda.

When the vast majority of climate scientists acknowledge that we are facing a major problem with climate, that is good enough for me.

threeball

topper75 wrote: »

How is rate of carbon re-absorption important in the longer term? I trust, for all of us who are not 2030 schoolyard alarmists, that this issue is a longer term one?

It is volume. Burn a tree, grow a tree. 1:1 if my primary maths were any good. :-)
You can go for biomass yes. Hardwoods just better. Better eco for our part of the world anyway.

So you take a tree thats absorbing huge amounts of carbon now as its mature and replace it with a sapling which will be mature somewhere after 2060, but at that stage it won't matter as the damage has been done. There is no future in biomass where trees are concerned. Its a money grab.

SafeSurfer

threeball wrote: »

So you take a tree thats absorbing huge amounts of carbon now as its mature and replace it with a sapling which will be mature somewhere after 2060, but at that stage it won't matter as the damage has been done. There is no future in biomass where trees are concerned. Its a money grab.

Same as electric cars then.