Secretive Irish Climate Science Denier Group Steps Up 'Bizarre' Parliamentary Lobbying 22:27 Sep 27 0 comments EU Commission proposes new strict EU-wide rules on single-use plastics 12:29 May 29 0 comments Protecting WIldlife in Ireland from Hedge Cutting and Gorse Burning 23:37 Feb 23 0 comments WRECK THE « CLIMATE CHANCE » SUMMIT! At Nantes, France, from 26 to 28 September 2016 20:04 Jul 17 0 comments Why the corporate capture of COP21 means we must Kick Big Polluters Out of climate policy 22:47 Dec 03 3 comments more >>Blog Feeds
Anti-EmpireNorth Korea Increases Aid to Russia, Mos... Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:29 | Marko Marjanovi? Trump Assembles a War Cabinet Sat Nov 16, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi? Slavgrinder Ramps Up Into Overdrive Tue Nov 12, 2024 10:29 | Marko Marjanovi? ?Existential? Culling to Continue on Com... Mon Nov 11, 2024 10:28 | Marko Marjanovi? US to Deploy Military Contractors to Ukr... Sun Nov 10, 2024 02:37 | Field Empty
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland
Lockdown Skeptics
The Daily Sceptic Christmas Appeal Mon Dec 23, 2024 07:00 | Toby Young
News Round-Up Mon Dec 23, 2024 01:12 | Richard Eldred
Staff at ?100 Million Alan Turing Institute Attack ?Chaotic? Management Amid Diversity Row Sun Dec 22, 2024 19:00 | Richard Eldred
?Our Irish Leaders Have Contributed to Hatred Against Jews? Sun Dec 22, 2024 17:00 | Richard Eldred
?Grocery Tax? to Hike Britons? Shopping Bills by ?56 in Labour Net Zero ?Inflation Boost? Sun Dec 22, 2024 15:00 | Richard Eldred
Voltaire NetworkVoltaire, international editionVoltaire, International Newsletter N?113 Fri Dec 20, 2024 10:42 | en Pentagon could create a second Kurdish state Fri Dec 20, 2024 10:31 | en How Washington and Ankara Changed the Regime in Damascus , by Thierry Meyssan Tue Dec 17, 2024 06:58 | en Statement by President Bashar al-Assad on the Circumstances Leading to his Depar... Mon Dec 16, 2024 13:26 | en Voltaire, International Newsletter N?112 Fri Dec 13, 2024 15:34 | en |
European Commission document highly critical of Ireland’s response to climate change – time for government to act
national |
environment |
press release
Saturday March 07, 2015 21:40 by ep - Environment Pillar
Press Release The Environmental Pillar is calling on the government to strengthen the Climate Bill in light of sharp criticism for lack of action. It also highlights how much Ireland is off track when it comes to reducing emissions. |
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (10 of 10)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10This statement made in the article above
Is incredibly dishonest, even by the very very low standards of honesty set by the enviro Hysterics
Methane is quite short lived in the environment (approx 12 yrs) and breaks down fairly rapidly, compared to CO2
It's current contribution to any warming is frankly hardly even worth considering
Methane is measured in parts per BILLION, which is several orders of magnitude LESS than CO2, which is measured in parts per MILLION
Whoever made that statement is just plain old lying
Why do the enviro hysteric ALWAYS resort to lying ?
Methane is unstable and breaks down quickly in the atmosphere, and even if it doubled would have essentially no impact on the greenhouse effect. In the tropics, the effect would be an increase in downwelling longwave radiation of about 0.04%.
People ranting about methane and how "dangerous" it is need to get a grip - no one with any knowledge of the subject would make such claims
Anyone could check for themselves how long Methane stays in the atmosphere by simply googling "how long does methane remain in the atmosphere?" - the very first 2 articles I got were
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/16/gree...n-air - which says
"Methane, by contrast, is mostly removed from the atmosphere by chemical reaction, persisting for about 12 years.
and this alarmist blog - http://www.theraceison.co.uk/blog/index.php/2012/01/19/...e-air -
which also gives a figure of 12 years for methane (CH4)
Don't blame cow dung emissions. Blame political farters. They generate more methane.
It's the other end that creates the methane, apparently. While Methane does not persist as long as CO2, this does not diminish it's impact, as it is being emitted on a constant basis and at increasing levels. 12 years is not an insignificant length of time.
To be honest, the time for debate is long past. We are living like we need 10 planets; that cannot go on.
End of.
Change or die!
methane is up to 100 times as potent as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
It is anything but insignificant.
Are the people saying methane is insignificant working for McDonalds or something?
each cow on the planet can fart from 9 to 25 litres of methane per day. Thats a lot of methane.
some have suggested that 23-25% of greenhouse gases globally are a result of people eating meat and if we
all went vegan it would significantly slow global warming / climate change
people have also postulated that runaway methane emissions from clathrates may
be one way humanity may meet it's end.
https://www.indymedia.ie/article/103364
So methane is indeed significant. In fact it opens up a means by which ordinary people can
circumvent government paralysis and corruption by the oil industry to take real action on reducing
anthropomorphic climate change. i.e. go vegan!
But the sad truth is we are all far too selfish to do even that. We have absorbed the "every rat for himself" pathological philosophy of capitalist consumption into our very bones. We like the taste of meat, so fuck animal cruelty and fuck the planet
Complete irrational commentary above
That statement is complete nonsense. The fact the MH4 is very unstable and breaks down so quickly in the environment absolutley 100% DOES diminish the impacts which you have complately irrationally claimed it will have.
the original false claim was that
Well, in the actual enviroment, here in the real world, it simply doesn't cause 24 time the amt of warming as CO2 - because it doesn't exist in the air in large enough quantities to cause anything like the effect you are claiming.
Since the difference in magnitutde between current, and likely future, CO2 (carbon Dioxide) and CH4 (methane) emmisions have already been explained to you, (parts per million vs parts per billion), had you actually understood the simply and accurate explanation given earlier it would be obvious exactly why MH4 emmissions cannot have the sort of effect in the environment which you are claiming it has, compared to CO2
clearly you either have not understood the straightforward plain simple explanation already given, OR you do not want to know/are not interested in the truth.
There simply is not enough CH4 being emmitted to cause 24 times as much warming as CO2 - and one wold have to increase the amount of CH4 being emmitted by several orders of magnitude (in simple terms : increase it by a F**K load) for it to have the sort of effect on climate that you and the other eco-alarmist are claiming it has.
Your claims are simply wrong. - (and about that there really is no debate to be had.)
Wether through ignorance or dishonesty you keep insisting on perpetrating this completely false claim regarding CH4 in the environment.
Clearly Truth is not a major part of your agenda.
In climate terms 12 years is compeltely insignificant.
That you would attempt to claim otherwise just demonstrates your lack of either knowledge or candour on this subject
Fine - clearly you do not need to comment any further then, since by deliberately spreading false statements you clearly have nothing of value to add to any debate on the subject.
Simply ranting and making shrill demands for "no further debate", on a subject about which you are clearly (deliberately?) spreading false statements, suggests to me that perhaps the Science method is not something for which you have any naural affinity.
==============
Fred displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what is being said here when he claims "Methane is significant" - no one has claimed it is not "significant" - the claimis that the magnitde of the emmisions makes CH4 not significant in the environment - only if the emmissions increased by a massive amount might it have the sort of significance being currently attributed to it by the Eco-alarmists
Actually those people made a claim that a "Methane TIME BOMB (!!!)" (run fer yer lives!!) was about to go off
That was several years back and guess what?
The people that made those hysterical claims were completely wrong
they will never admit it, but they were definitely wrong.
We know this because a Scientific expedition went to the Arctic to examine the artifacts in question, and found that, despite all the hysteria and hand-wavery, about" Methane Timebombs (!!!)" there was absolutely nothing unusual happening in that area.
Nothing at all - all the hysterics witten about it in that comment thread were just useless hysterics - as usual
I've spent the last 27 years reading the science and following the "debate". I don't have the time to waste "debating" the minutiae of atmospheric chemistry with you.
If you don't accept the science, then that's your entitlement. You can disguise it in terms of my science versus your science, and again, be my guest; knock yourself out.
We live unsustainably-my senses tell me this; I know it to be true. I see concrete where there used to be forest.
I wish you well. I am going to tend to my trees and do some small bit of good.
See ya.
but it's kind of sad that after 27 years you still don't seem to understand the basics. For a Guy that claims to understand it all and to have studied it for 27 years, that's kinda shocking tbh
I'd call that a major fail on your part
So don't
Cos there ain't no one forcing you to reply here - yo're doing that all by yourslef - which is strange behaviouur for someone that claims they have no interest in replying
But nonehteless despite all your claims to understand the science you are completely ignoring the basic maths involved.
The fact is that the methane in the atmosphere does not have 24 times the effect of CO2, as claimed by both you and the OP, simply whather you like it or not, or whether you finally fess up and admit it or not, the methne in the atmosphere is a minute fraction of the CO2 - so It's current contribution to any warming is frankly hardly even worth considering, and it would have to increase a thousand fold in order for it to have any of the effects you are currently erroneously attributing to it.
So you go tend your trees,by all means, cos that certainly will have a more beneficial effect for everyone compared to your deliberate dissemination of untrue claims about current effect of CH4 compared to CO2
That statement is nonsense because the contribution of Animal farming to the Atmospheric methane levels is frankly so tiny as to be not worth considering - go vegan all you like, but if you are pretending that it will somehow help reduce Atmospheric methane levels which will in turn somehow magically "Save the Palnet(!!!)" then you're just fooling yourself and everyone else.
Basically you are talking about reducing a very minute fraction of a very minute fraction. - You'll end up in a never ending loop of complete ineffectuality at this rate, Fred
In fact you posting that comment probably added a lot more to Global Co2 levels than say the avg person not converting to veganism
The combined contribution of greenhouse gases other than CO-2 is around about 30% and these gases are methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N20) and the various hydrofluorocarbon gases. These estimates take account of the strength of the effect and the relative amounts of the particular gas.
I think the commentator above has got too excited over the sentence above:
An interesting point in the report is the fact that although there are carbon taxes, methane and nitrous oxide emissions are not included. Methane contributes at least 24 times more to climate warming than carbon dioxide
... and has misunderstood what is meant. It refers to the fact that it is 24 times more absorbing of infra-red radiation per molecule than CO-2.
What is interesting about the report is that the government has decided to do basically nothing about lowering its emissions especially when it sees other countries like Canada, the US, Australia and many others give the two fingers to any idea of significant reductions.
who said it was just methane that was involved in livestock production. They also produce a shitload of CO2 (literally) and other greenhouse gases. There is a lot of greenhouse gases that come from the huge amounts of manure produced by 1.5 billion+ cattle. Then there's the cutting down of vast tracts of rainforest for millions of cattle for the likes of McDonalds, the growing of all that GMO soya for their feed etc etc. And so far we haven't even mentioned all the factory farms fiull of millions of pigs, chickens, etc. meat eating is very inefficient use of resources lots more land is used to produce 1kg of animal protein than 1kg of vegetable protein. Lots more water too. And it's unhealthy. Look at the looming obesity epidemics in most western countries I'm not alone in thinking eating meat is not good as regards greenhouse gases
and that it is definitely significant:
source:
http://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warmi...e-CO2