|
|
Post by socold on Jul 13, 2010 20:09:14 GMT
By your own standards in comparison to AGW you are. You claim 80% reduction in energy use. If such a statement was made about AGW you would be demanding proof. You present no proof that energy use cannot be increased while reducing fossil fuel usage. |
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jul 13, 2010 20:18:04 GMT
By your own standards in comparison to AGW you are. You claim 80% reduction in energy use. If such a statement was made about AGW you would be demanding proof. You present no proof that energy use cannot be increased while reducing fossil fuel usage. Look at the numbers. The proposed non fossil energy solutions put the lives of everyone in my country at risk. Unless it never gets cold again. The 80% reduction would be law here now if it wasn't for the failure of COP15. Dangerous AGW remains a pipe dream. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 13, 2010 20:47:52 GMT
What numbers? There are none. You haven't proved that a reduction in fossil fuel emissions would require a drop in energy use. Therefore what is your economic alarmism based on?
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jul 13, 2010 23:24:18 GMT
 This is GHG equivalent emissions in Ireland in 2007. The only big change since then is that 400,000 people lost their jobs which resulted in a 1% drop in GHG emissions. The EPA was disappointed. By the small drop in emissions, not the increased unemployment. Emissions in 1990 were 56Mt CO2. 20% of that would be 11.2Mt. That's about 16% of current emissions. Electricity production accounts for less than 15% of the total, and building so many windmills that you could see several from any single point in the country would generate between 90% and ~0% of that electricity. Dairy cows can't yet run emission-less on wind or solar power. What possible Global Warming catastrophe could be worse than what an 80% from 1990 levels reduction in GHG emissions would do to civilisation? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 14, 2010 0:27:42 GMT
That isn't proof that emissions cannot be reduced without reducing energy use. That's just like me pointing at a warm day and claiming that's proof of AGW. If you are going to demand very high levels of proof for AGW, then you need to apply it equally to your theory that we cannot reduce emissions significantly without a reduction in energy use.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jul 14, 2010 0:39:41 GMT
84% GHG reduction in my country would require a cull of half the farm animals followed by the death of everyone in the country. You're delusional if you think 80% reduction from 1990 levels is achievable without imposing martial law. No one in their right mind would go along with it. And the people pushing this nonsense sure as shit aren't going to live the lifestyles of medieval serfs. It's stupid.  WRONG. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 14, 2010 0:49:07 GMT
"86% GHG reduction in my country would require a cull of half the farm animals followed by the death of everyone in the country."
More alarmism without any empirical scientific evidence to support it. I am just going by the skeptic playbook here. Next I pour doubt on your claim by pointing out that replacing a coal power plant with a nuclear power plant increases energy use while reducing co2 emissions.
So the idea that reducing greenhouse gas emissions means cutting energy use is now in serious serious doubt.
Why do you believe such alarmism?
|
|
|
|
Post by hairball on Jul 14, 2010 0:53:52 GMT
Sorry, typo, it was 84%. My country is nuclear free.
26% of Ireland's GHG output is from agriculture. 26 is more than 20.
If you are having trouble understanding this I can record a sound file stating it on a 8 hour loop so you can listen to it while you sleep.
|
|
