nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Jimmy Garlic

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet. Accompanied by her film maker father who lives vicariously through her, a filthy rich aristocrat from Monaco and some German bloke the trip will no doubt vastly increase the wattage of her halo before she lectures us all about impending climate Armageddon in New York. Hopefully snaps from the trip will make it into Hello! Magazine.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

SafeSurfer

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Only a matter of time before they dust off and recommision Eddie Hobbs.

I think Hobbs, from what I have heard of him recently, is a climate catastrophe sceptic. Therefore there is little chance of him being given much airtime on RTE.

[Deleted User]

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Only a matter of time before they dust off and recommision Eddie Hobbs.

reported this post for triggering content

Jimmy Garlic

SafeSurfer wrote: »

RTE laying the climate alarmism in extra thick again this evening. Failed politician George Lee seems to have a new interest. I wonder how long before he abandons this too.

Only a matter of time before they dust off and recommision Eddie Hobbs.

SafeSurfer

Tell me how wrote: »

He stepped out of politics of his own free will, think he'd have to have lost his seat to be considered as a failed politician.
I'm not a fan because of how he went in to politics and stepped out again but if you are trying to undermine the story on the climate issue implying that it is compromised because of George Lee it really is a laughable position.

What'll it take? Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones to finally tell you to start believing?

I think it’s absolutely appropriate that a bandwagon jumper such as George Lee should hitch his wagon to the Climate Catastrophe industry. He abandoned the people he represented because he wasn’t automatically cast in the spotlight as the white knight riding in to save the country. It seems now he intends to cast himself as the white knight riding to enlighten us and thus save the planet. He will tire of this also.

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm sure once Fox News starts to report on it, a lot of the outliers will start to come around. Probably be too late at that point though.

I doubt it, the americans won’t be arsed listening to alarmism and giving up their SUV’s and prime rib anytime soon.

Tell me how

Micky 32 wrote: »

Tucker Carlson?? The guy who thinks Aliens are visiting us? Lmao,

Aliens are about as believable as some of the arguments here countering climate change being offered here.

I'm sure once Fox News starts to report on it, a lot of the outliers will start to come around. Probably be too late at that point though.

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

What'll it take? Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones to finally tell you to start believing?

Tucker Carlson?? The guy who thinks Aliens are visiting us? Lmao,

Tell me how

SafeSurfer wrote: »

RTE laying the climate alarmism in extra thick again this evening. Failed politician George Lee seems to have a new interest. I wonder how long before he abandons this too.

He stepped out of politics of his own free will, think he'd have to have lost his seat to be considered as a failed politician.
I'm not a fan because of how he went in to politics and stepped out again but if you are trying to undermine the story on the climate issue implying that it is compromised because of George Lee it really is a laughable position.

What'll it take? Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones to finally tell you to start believing?

Micky 32

SafeSurfer wrote: »

RTE laying the climate alarmism in extra thick again this evening. Failed politician George Lee seems to have a new interest. I wonder how long before he abandons this too.

Probably someone in the government telling RTE and George to do some more brainwashing.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

That quote you cite is taken from the British Veterinary Association - which has been debunked as misrepresenting the research.....

TLDR ...

"Debunked" by your good self?

If you check you will see I linked the research briefing for you if you remember. And evidently there's nothing in your comment - neither expertise nor relevant qualifications to debunk any of it. Again that's a complete failure to understand what the reseach or findings details or the context. And yes btw It's an area in which I am qualified. So you can quit with the bs. I'll stick with the science thanks

Ps the only reason for the singular paraphrasing was for some reason you failed to comprehend the alternative use of the word 'absorb' or the context of the sentence but hey thats where we're at. I'm going to leave you arguing with yourself - and just because you dont like the science or it doesnt suit a GND agenda means bugger all.

SafeSurfer

RTE laying the climate alarmism in extra thick again this evening. Failed politician George Lee seems to have a new interest. I wonder how long before he abandons this too.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Simply explaining that the word I used ie 'absorb' can be used in a number of different contexts. And used in the first instance along with a quote taken directly from the oxford review document. And paraphrased in my subsequently comment. Something you clearly didnt understand.

But If you are once again trying to argue over semantics - you may take your own advice and "Stop making shit up and wasting peoples time with it".

Btw that quote above* in my original comment is taken directly from the linked article. The scientific findings support it. Strangely though you never provide any links in any of your comments. But try to disparage anyone who does. But there we are.

And btw that's scientific findings from new research which has been undertaken by IPCC scientists based in oxford.

And it's clear you dont understand the linked Oxford research document either. But hey keep making it up if that's where you're at!

That quote you cite is taken from the British Veterinary Association - which has been debunked as misrepresenting the research.

Cite from these two links, the article and paper directly related to the research - no 'paraphrasing' where you insert you own words:
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/climate-metrics-for-ruminant-livestock/
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/Climate-metrics-for-ruminant-livestock.pdf

That's the research. That research does not support what you cite from the BVA article.

You are fully aware that the actual research does not support what the BVA says, as well - you prove this, by going to fairly transparent efforts to refer to the BVA article while pretending it is the original research, and by trying to pass off a quote of your own words as the research - only to later climb-down and admit that you 'paraphrased' it (i.e. were making shit up).

You are literally in denial of the research - denial as in, stating that the claims from the research are not true, which by the way is a valid connotation of Denial that you will find in the dictionary, if you want to go look it up - and your tactic follows the same pattern of science denialists in general, of trying to obstruct discussion by denying bloody obvious stuff, so people waste large amounts of text debating utterly stupid trivialities.

You know full well that you're doing that as well - all posters reading can see it.

randd1

tonycascarino wrote: »

Personally I have absolutely no interest in being lectured by a spoiled 16 year old about environmental issues or any issue in fact. She has zero qualifications, zero life experience and yet there are idiots out there making her out to be a messiah. She is about as useful as throwing a jam sandwich to a drowning rabbit.

I don't care about what this post is about, because that sentence right there is 'funniest quote of the year' material.

Take a bow, take a swooping bow, you deserve it.

Thelonious Monk

weldoninhio wrote: »

https://www.gocar.ie/

Yes I believe it works out quite expensive though, someone told me normal rent-a-cars are cheaper.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

"provide(s) a means to absorb additional emissions in that they also provide (at) present an opportunity for agriculture to compensate for delays in reducing CO2 emissions etc"You are quoting yourself, and trying to pass it off as quoting the original research. The word 'absorb' is not used in anything you link.Stop making shit up and wasting peoples time with it.Here is the quote from your original post introducing this issue:

*

New science, by a global team of IPCC researchers based at Oxford University, shows categorically that methane from Britain's ruminants is not causing global warming – instead ruminants provide a viable pathway to
net zero emissions from UK agriculture by 2030.

Simply explaining that the word I used ie 'absorb' can be used in a number of different contexts. And used in the first instance along with a quote taken directly from the oxford review document. And paraphrased in my subsequently comment. Something you clearly didnt understand.

But If you are once again trying to argue over semantics - you may take your own advice and "Stop making shit up and wasting peoples time with it".

Btw that quote above* in my original comment is taken directly from the linked article. The scientific findings support it. Strangely though you never provide any links in any of your comments. But try to disparage anyone who does. But there we are.

And btw that's scientific findings from new research which has been undertaken by IPCC scientists based in oxford.

And it's clear you dont understand the linked Oxford research document either. But hey keep making it up if that's where you're at!

weldoninhio

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yes sooner or later some kind of app will come out for this, I suppose Uber is one in a way, but maybe one that's less focused on making money. This could be used rurally too, sure aren't they always moaning about not being allowed drink drive to the pub.

https://www.gocar.ie/

KyussB

"provide(s) a means to absorb additional emissions in that they also provide (at) present an opportunity for agriculture to compensate for delays in reducing CO2 emissions etc"
You are quoting yourself, and trying to pass it off as quoting the original research. The word 'absorb' is not used in anything you link.

Stop making shit up and wasting peoples time with it.

Here is the quote from your original post introducing this issue:

New science, by a global team of IPCC researchers based at Oxford University, shows categorically that methane from Britain's ruminants is not causing global warming – instead ruminants provide a viable pathway to net zero emissions from UK agriculture by 2030.

That has been completely debunked - several times over, now. There is no world in which agricultural methane is a path to net zero emissions.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

They are not a means of absorbing emissions - it is the reduction of methane emissions which can help compensate for our slow response to CO2 - that is what they say.

Ah didnt read what was written? Ok lets try that again.

Methane as part of an existing cycle ...

provide(s) a means to absorb additional emissions in that they also provide "present an opportunity for agriculture to compensate for delays in reducing CO2 emissions" etc

Absorb used as a transitive verb - as in help reduce / compensate etc .

KyussB

They are not a means of absorbing emissions - it is the reduction of methane emissions which can help compensate for our slow response to CO2 - that is what they say.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

You deliberately stopped at the first bullet point, to misrepresent the research - the same as the BVA did - and you're engaging in selective interpretation of what it says:

Past increases in methane emissions caused warming when they occurred, but constant methane emissions cause little[ additional warming. In contrast, every tonne of CO2 emitted causes approximately the same amount of warming whenever it occurs.

Gradually declining methane emissions of 10% over 30 years, equivalent to halving over about 200 years (e.g. through efficiency savings), cause no additional warming

Faster reductions in methane emissions lead to cooling, presenting an opportunity for agriculture to compensate for delays in reducing CO2 emissions, although net emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide still ultimately need to be reduced to zero to stabilize global temperatures.

Increasing methane emissions cause very substantial warming, equivalent to very large emissions of CO2, but only while those increases are occurring.

TLDR - no, you can't keep belching out an increasing rate of methane, without that significantly contributing to global warming - that directly contradicts the actual science linked, which the BVA deliberately reinterpreted as stating the opposite.

Indeed TDLR! Lol.

I presume you followed the link provided? Good. The following paragraphs were indicated thus (...) as per standard notation and linked funnily enough. They also support the research and also make additional findings. The fact that you do not understand the research is clear. And no you can't pull bits out of those individual paragraphs to try and come up with your own viewpoint.

To reiterate and keep it simple (as I understand you do not have any experience or knowledge in this field) - the new findings clearly show that extensively reared livestock systems such as we have in the UK and in Ireland are not 'belching out an increasing rate of methane' (sic) rather they are part of an existing cycle and also provide a means to absorb additional emissions in that they also provide present an opportunity for agriculture to compensate for delays in reducing CO2 emissions etc. It is also strongly noted that increases in emissions cause warming only whilst those emissions are increasing. The key finding being that reseach shows that "Past increases in methane emissions caused warming when they occurred". In the case of cattle for example this is when cattle were first farmed and because of that "constant methane emissions cause little additional warming".

Quite incredible that you believe fully qualified professionals take second place to your personal opinion and evidently flawed interpretation. But hey doesn't really matter - I'll stick with the science thanks.

KyussB

You deliberately stopped at the first bullet point, to misrepresent the research - the same as the BVA did - and you're engaging in selective interpretation of what it says:

Past increases in methane emissions caused warming when they occurred, but constant methane emissions cause little additional warming. In contrast, every tonne of CO2 emitted causes approximately the same amount of warming whenever it occurs.
Gradually declining methane emissions of 10% over 30 years, equivalent to halving over about 200 years (e.g. through efficiency savings), cause no additional warming.
Faster reductions in methane emissions lead to cooling, presenting an opportunity for agriculture to compensate for delays in reducing CO2 emissions, although net emissions of CO2 and nitrous oxide still ultimately need to be reduced to zero to stabilize global temperatures.
Increasing methane emissions cause very substantial warming, equivalent to very large emissions of CO2, but only while those increases are occurring.

TLDR - no, you can't keep belching out an increasing rate of methane, without that significantly contributing to global warming - that directly contradicts the actual science linked, which the BVA deliberately reinterpreted as stating the opposite.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

That's not what the IPCC researchers say - that's what the British Veterinary Assocation say (the guys with a financial interest in playing down methane emissions...) - and they are erroneously citing the climate scientists as taking the same position, when they don't (the scientists take the some position, as what I cited).Read your sources properly.If you're such a 'skeptic', then why the fuck aren't you remotely skeptical of sources having a financial interest in the conclusons they draw?

Lol , yes the reported findings of the research undertaken by the IPCC scientists in Oxford support that methane emissions from livestock are not contributing to climate change when all of data is included. The findings are provided in the links included. And as detailed the science is robust. Your personal and unqualified take on the article is in error btw. I'm unsure how a personal (and If you dont mind I would say biased) opinion is somehow more relevant than professionals? The BVA are simply reporting the findings of the research. Sorry if that doesn't suit the agenda - but there we go.

This from the Oxford review document linked in that article

Summary

The conventional Global Warming Potential (GWP) can be misleading when applied to methane emissions, particularly when these are being reduced. A revised usage of GWP, denoted GWP*, which uses the same metric values interpreted in a new way, provides a more accurate indication
of the impact of short-lived pollutants on global temperature.
Of particular importance for ruminant livestock farming are the following observations:

• Past increases in methane emissions caused warming when they occurred, but constant
methane emissions cause little additional warming...

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/Climate-metrics-for-ruminant-livestock.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwja1d26op_mAhVHXhUIHbLlCw4QFjAKegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw0G0Eso8QVPNcIyq_lLKH2Y

Maybe you could explain why your comments constantly attack any sources you don't agree with - but universaly fail to give any sources whatsoever for the non stop promotion of the usual GND verbage. Odd no?

Anyway here again is the report on the most recent reseach on this issue.

New science, by a global team of IPCC researchers based at Oxford University, shows categorically that methane from Britain's ruminants is not causing global warming – instead ruminants provide a viable pathway to net zero emissions from UK agriculture by 2030.

tonycascarino

Personally I have absolutely no interest in being lectured by a spoiled 16 year old about environmental issues or any issue in fact. She has zero qualifications, zero life experience and yet there are idiots out there making her out to be a messiah. She is about as useful as throwing a jam sandwich to a drowning rabbit.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Ah fek off with that type of rubbish (which funnily enough appears to be the position on any point you disagree with!). Yes I know the science of methane and its role in the atmosphere. It's an area in which I am qualified. But yeah we can all copy and paste. Thus is new reseach and the findings are robust. Just to reiterate the research was conducted by IPCC researchers based in Oxford as already detailed. If you dont like their findings then perhaps you should point that out to the same IPCC scientists who you believe "have "a financial interest in coming to a particular conclusion". :rolleyes:

Clearly didn't either read the findings as were reported and linked by the BVA or given the benefit of the doubt perhaps didnt understand them. But no matter.

Jesus but there's ****e in this thread

That's not what the IPCC researchers say - that's what the British Veterinary Assocation say (the guys with a financial interest in playing down methane emissions...) - and they are erroneously citing the climate scientists as taking the same position, when they don't (the scientists take the some position, as what I cited).

Read your sources properly.

If you're such a 'skeptic', then why the fuck aren't you remotely skeptical of sources having a financial interest in the conclusons they draw?

SaintLeibowitz

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

Yawn. This as already been done to that. Your man has featured on BBC, Time magazine, Forbes etc...

Funny thing... He's quite the fan of Greta.

gozunda

KyussB wrote: »

Both CO2 and Methane have a limited lifespan in the atmosphere - Methane is about 9-10 years, CO2 is about 100 years.Methane is in the atmosphere 10x less an amount of time as CO2 - but is between 30-84x as bad as CO2, in terms of being a greenhouse gas - meaning that over both their respective lifetimes, methane is way more potent than CO2.This is why you don't pick your research, from a source that has a financial interest in coming to a particular conclusion - i.e. a source that receives funding from agricultural bodies, who have a financial interest in downplaying the contribution of methane, as a greenhouse gas.

Ah fek off with that type of rubbish (which funnily enough appears to be the position on any point you disagree with!). Yes I know the science of methane and its role in the atmosphere. It's an area in which I am qualified. But yeah we can all copy and paste. Thus is new reseach and the findings are robust. Just to reiterate the research was conducted by IPCC researchers based in Oxford as already detailed. If you dont like their findings then perhaps you should point that out to the same IPCC scientists who you believe "have "a financial interest in coming to a particular conclusion". :rolleyes:

Clearly didn't either read the findings as were reported and linked by the BVA or given the benefit of the doubt perhaps didnt understand them. But no matter.

Jesus but there's ****e in this thread

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Well we were talking about carbon. I reckon though you haven't heard the good news then no?

https://www.bva.co.uk/news-and-blog/blog-article/ruminant-agriculture-can-help-us-deliver-net-zero-emissions/?fbclid=IwAR3diwroAtnVtYrYCLNSoA0OwwqLKcOdpp3HQbI3GbRn3NBP599bC6JvBbY

Both CO2 and Methane have a limited lifespan in the atmosphere - Methane is about 9-10 years, CO2 is about 100 years.

Methane is in the atmosphere 10x less an amount of time as CO2 - but is between 30-84x as bad as CO2, in terms of being a greenhouse gas - meaning that over both their respective lifetimes, methane is way more potent than CO2.

This is why you don't pick your research, from a source that has a financial interest in coming to a particular conclusion - i.e. a source that receives funding from agricultural bodies, who have a financial interest in downplaying the contribution of methane, as a greenhouse gas.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

No we've endlessly gone over that GND stuff tbh. Overpopulation is one of the major drivers of climate change. It needs to be at least discussed by the powers that be. At the moment it's the elephant in the room - taking a very large smelly dump and the that ****e is going just going to get bigger and bigger for at least another century. The estimate is that the human population will almost double around the year 2100. That's going to make our present problems look like peanuts.

A GND which pushes us towards a closed-cycle carbon economy solves the population problem.

The GND has been gone over a good bit - but the objections to it boil down solely to ideological objections - and even those objections don't fit, because the GND can easily be undertaken to promote capitalistic goals - in fact, it's the very best chance Capitalism has, of overcoming the threat climate change poses to its very existence.

So - to put it particularly bluntly/crudely - we're not going to stop people fucking and producing babies, that is the least realistic idea of all - we as a species are capable of being very resourceful/intelligent, and we are more than capable of arresting our contributiion to climate change, while maintaining our rate of social/economic/technological/etc. progress - but only if we make that our priority, which presently, we are not making our priority.

KyussB

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah I know that. Try explaining that to people who keep going on about cattle :rolleyes:

But hey maybe taxing people for breathing might keep the global population down. Wha ya think?

Methane from cattle indirectly takes carbon emissions through what they eat, and then amplifies those emissions - methane is between 30-84 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2, depending on the time period you look at.

Fr_Dougal