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

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: »

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

"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.

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/

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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: »

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

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

reported this post for triggering content

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.

Professor Moriarty

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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.

Good. Hobbs is a tool. Well done RTE for promoting climate change awareness. Just following in Greta's wake, but kudos nonetheless.

Micky 32

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Good. Hobbs is a tool. Well done RTE for promoting climate change awareness. Just following in Greta's wake, but kudos nonetheless.

Aye, i guess when you run out of news and need a gap to fill climate change topics will fill the bottom end of the news pile

SafeSurfer

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Good. Hobbs is a tool. Well done RTE for promoting climate change awareness. Just following in Greta's wake, but kudos nonetheless.

You are giving “kudos” to a report about fires in Australia, attributed to “climate change” when arson has been identified as the cause. A report which shows stranded, hungry polar bears as a result of “climate change” when polar bear numbers are increasing and a dry Victoria Falls as a result of “climate change” when records show similarly low flows at the falls before climate change was even a theory. Kudos to RTE indeed. A bankrupt organization looking for the next big thing.

Micky 32

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are giving “kudos” to a report about fires in Australia, attributed to “climate change” when arson has been identified as the cause. A report which shows stranded, hungry polar bears as a result of “climate change” when polar bear numbers are increasing and a dry Victoria Falls as a result of “climate change” when records show similarly low flows at the falls before climate change was even a theory. Kudos to RTE indeed. A bankrupt organization looking for the next big thing.

I find it hilarious when the climate change brigade blame forrest fires on climate change.

SafeSurfer

Micky 32 wrote: »

I find it hilarious when the climate change brigade blame forrest fires on climate change.

That’s the beauty of climate change. You can blame everything on it. It’s hot, climate change. It’s cold, climate change. It’s wet, climate change. It’s dry, climate change. Floods?, climate change. Drought?, climate change. There hasn’t been a political gift like this before.

[Deleted User]

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Good. Hobbs is a tool. Well done RTE for promoting climate change awareness. Just following in Greta's wake, but kudos nonetheless.

ya remember when greta discovered climate change out in her yacht that time.

some wind up merchant you are

behave!

Professor Moriarty

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You are giving “kudos” to a report about fires in Australia, attributed to “climate change” when arson has been identified as the cause. A report which shows stranded, hungry polar bears as a result of “climate change” when polar bear numbers are increasing and a dry Victoria Falls as a result of “climate change” when records show similarly low flows at the falls before climate change was even a theory. Kudos to RTE indeed. A bankrupt organization looking for the next big thing.

Don't be silly. There is no science to ease your fear. Open your eyes and ears and face the truth.

Micky 32

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Don't be silly. There is no science to ease your fear. Open your eyes and ears and face the truth.

But you probably dismiss the fact the sun has increased it’s energy output significantly in the last 100 years. He doesn’t seem to be the one with “fear “ here.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

ya remember when greta discovered climate change out in her yacht that time.

some wind up merchant you are

behave!

Nope. Greta didn't discover climate change, she simply promoted awareness of climate change. Climate change exists. But the scientists don't know what they're talking about and Greta is a whatever.

Jimmy Garlic

SafeSurfer wrote: »

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.

Burn the Witch!

Professor Moriarty

Micky 32 wrote: »

But you probably dismiss the fact the sun has increased it’s energy output significantly in the last 100 years. He doesn’t seem to be the one with “fear “ here.

So?