cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Ibis, you spend months predicting global warming but now your crystal balls are broken.

And of course Papal reverts to his norm. The Lisbon no voters are stupid but they will realise the bleeding obvious by next time. I have not seen many describe either Cowen or Kenny as clever but you describe BOTH as clever in one sentence.

You are surely one of a kind

Do you dispute the existence of global warming as an observable phenomenon, or merely dispute its cause? The former is undeniable, the latter open to debate, though I'm now personally convinced that the rate of change, rather than change itself, points to a probable human industrial significant influence, regardless of whether natural cycles are contributing too...

Youngdan is opposed to taxation, and fears a carbon tax will be imposed. All other thoughts flow from this. Objective reality does not get a look in beyond the fiscal aspect.

Similarly with peak oil. Oil prices currently down -> can't be peak oil. QED, case closed, another victory for common sense over science. Einstein would be unsurprised.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

toxic avenger wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Ibis, you spend months predicting global warming but now your crystal balls are broken.

And of course Papal reverts to his norm. The Lisbon no voters are stupid but they will realise the bleeding obvious by next time. I have not seen many describe either Cowen or Kenny as clever but you describe BOTH as clever in one sentence.

You are surely one of a kind

Do you dispute the existence of global warming as an observable phenomenon, or merely dispute its cause? The former is undeniable, the latter open to debate, though I'm now personally convinced that the rate of change, rather than change itself, points to a probable human industrial significant influence, regardless of whether natural cycles are contributing too...

Youngdan is opposed to taxation, and fears a carbon tax will be imposed. All other thoughts flow from this. Objective reality does not get a look in beyond the fiscal aspect.

Similarly with peak oil. Oil prices currently down -> can't be peak oil. QED, case closed, another victory for common sense over science. Einstein would be unsurprised.

Well, oil prices/consumption down, we may not notice or care it is peak oil for some time.

Nobody disputes that the climate changes as we have had 7 or 8 iceages already. Everyone agrees that we are in a ten year cooling trend. The others expect this is a blip and the upswing will resume at any moment.

I am happy enough to wait till this 10 year trend reverses as it may continue cooling.

I discount CO2 produced by humans as a factor. It surely did not cause the 8 prior melts and it did not cause Venus to boil either. The term Greenhouse Effect was coined to describe what happened to Venus but they ignore the climate change on other planets as it dosn't suit them.

I can not even use the jibe What Planet are you on because if they were on any of them they would know that the warming was not from my cadillac.

Now see how Ibis is like the guy in the video clip just looking for an argument. I already say that the oil fields were drying out. The Europeans are going to get peak oil for sure.

You are now clutching at straws Ibis.

youngdan wrote:

Nobody disputes that the climate changes as we have had 7 or 8 iceages already. Everyone agrees that we are in a ten year cooling trend. The others expect this is a blip and the upswing will resume at any moment.

I am happy enough to wait till this 10 year trend reverses as it may continue cooling.

I discount CO2 produced by humans as a factor. It surely did not cause the 8 prior melts and it did not cause Venus to boil either. The term Greenhouse Effect was coined to describe what happened to Venus but they ignore the climate change on other planets as it dosn't suit them.

I can not even use the jibe What Planet are you on because if they were on any of them they would know that the warming was not from my cadillac.

Do you concede the possibility that man-made emissions are a significant contributory factor to the relatively large rate of warming over the past century (cooling periods notwithstanding), or have you dismissed the possibility entirely?

youngdan wrote:

was not from my cadillac.

Cadillac? Should Youngdan now be called Oldmandan.

Actually I drive a Ford 15 seater van with a 5.4 litre engine or maybe 5.1, anyway a nice big V8. My wife drives a Dodge with a small 3.4 litre V6.

I do not worry about man made gases in the least. Just check out the volumes of gases thrown out each year by volcanos, trillions of tons. These gases are ignored as well as it does not suit to mention them.

Anyone who is worried about CO2 has two choices. either stop breathing the stuff out or plant a bit of vegitation to breath it in as nature intended.

This big increase over the last hundred years turns out to be 0.6 degrees f. The earth has been 30 degrees warmer and 30 degrees colder and these tin foil hat people are in a panic.

Seriously what percentage of people in Ireland are swallowing this

I beleive cattle produce the highest amounts of greenhouse gas (methane) in the world.
Apparently they belch it up (and fart it out, too).

The question I would ask is this;

Are cattle considered natural producers of gas or are they considered man-made, i.e they would'nt be there if we did'nt eat and milk them.?

I suggested that all cats have their necks wrung and dogs could be hanged. But still posters here refuse to act. I thought it was a crisis

Johnny Keogh wrote:

I beleive cattle produce the highest amounts of greenhouse gas (methane) in the world.
Apparently they belch it up (and fart it out, too).

The question I would ask is this;

Are cattle considered natural producers of gas or are they considered man-made, i.e they would'nt be there if we did'nt eat and milk them.?

Man-made, for the reason you give.

ibis wrote:

Johnny Keogh wrote:

I beleive cattle produce the highest amounts of greenhouse gas (methane) in the world.
Apparently they belch it up (and fart it out, too).

The question I would ask is this;

Are cattle considered natural producers of gas or are they considered man-made, i.e they would'nt be there if we did'nt eat and milk them.?

Man-made, for the reason you give.

If this is so, is there a case for a cut in the production of cattle worldwide like with oil, and a switch to substitutes like soya?

Peak oil is not a myth. The price of oil is declining because the consumption of oil is declining at a faster rate than the supply. just to air some recently printed Guardian stats, during the summer the UK reported that British road usage had declined 20% since July 2007, while in China, a friend's GOVERNMENT tourist guide told her 67000 factories had closed this year. That was in September.

The price of oil points only to the mismatch between supply and demand. Too much supply, low price, demand very close to or exceeding supply, high price. Demand for oil is pushed by consumers and those speculating on oil futures. Supply is determined by geology and investment, in that order. Demand has fallen off a cliff, supply has been on a slowly declining plateau since 2005. Do not expect this status quo to last all that long, although the longer we can keep supply to a significant level above demand, the longer we have to fix western energy security and our economies.

For anyone with the Almighty in their lives, might I recommend prayer?? Barack Obama's green collar jobs and solar panels in the Nevada desert (or the collapse of GM/Chrysler) may push US oil demand down a lot, thus keeping supply above demand even if both decline.

Youngdan: there is a US senate report on the economic effects of peak oil and US transportation policy that was posted on p.ie about a year ago. Not a mention of global warming (after all, I suspect the Bush administration wrote it). Even they say we have serious energy issues

Global warming is not the real issue here. They're just worried about panic if they told us all about the likely consequences of a sharp oil supply disruption

1) Anglo Irish Bank will be wound up as an independent entity
2) Civil Service will accept 10% pay cuts on average
3) FG will overtake FF in local election seats
4) Lisbon II will be defeated
5) Mary Lou will hold her Euro seat
6) Kathy Sinnott will hold her Euro seat
7) Greens will walk
FG Lab SF government
9) Sam Maguire will return to his rightful home in the capital
10) House prices will drop to 30% below peak (end '06) prices

Only one of these predictions is wishful thinking from where I'm sitting.

Who here has read The Long Emergency, it deals well with the issue of Peak Oil.

Ireland has serious energy issues. But the problem is that fool from Clara and the muppets that follow him.

I wager if you stuck your noggin out the window at this very moment your nose would be blown off with the wind and your ears would fall off with the cold.

There ya go both problems solved.

coc wrote:

1) Anglo Irish Bank will be wound up as an independent entity
2) Civil Service will accept 10% pay cuts on average
3) FG will overtake FF in local election seats
4) Lisbon II will be defeated
5) Mary Lou will hold her Euro seat
6) Kathy Sinnott will hold her Euro seat
7) Greens will walk
FG Lab SF government
9) Sam Maguire will return to his rightful home in the capital
10) House prices will drop to 30% below peak (end '06) prices

Only one of these predictions is wishful thinking from where I'm sitting.

I would regard 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10 as quite possible. 4 is possible but unlikely. 5 is possible but more unlikely. 6 I would think is unrealistic.

Kathy won her seat through her campaigning for children. She alienated at least half that support when she joined an extreme Eurosceptic group in the European Parliament and up to one third of the remainder, though they support the group she joined, think of her as a complete nutter out of her depth. (She was also badly damaged when caught by a film crew exploring abuse of expenses queuing at 9am to claim expenses for that day and then hopping on a plane to Ireland afterwards. I have some sympathy for her - expenses in those jobs are badly organised. Instead of being available for an eight hour work period they are limited to set hours. She had done the day's work that night because of the nightmare she would have faced doing it that day and then trying to get the flight home. But the perception formed was that she was 'on the take' which, as she was elected as the 'ordinary woman on the street' and not a politician will be particularly damaging to her more than anyone else caught. That 'catch' by I think it was a German film crew, and the fact that she responded to the film crew catching her not by a rational explanation but by an agressive 'fuck off'-type response, will have hurt her appeal badly!)

Sinn Féin and Libertas if they run candidates will split the Eurosceptic vote and as happens when the vote is split, not all of it transfers back to the lead candidate. Of the non-main party candidates she is by far the weakest, principally because her appeal to get her elected ran contrary to the stance she then took, and many even of the people who campaigned to get her elected five years ago cut their ties with her when she began associating with UKIP and sharing the group's leadership with the UKIP leader. Personally I like Kathy as a person, but even No campaigners give her little chance of winning a seat, with some seeing can they get her to withdraw and be replaced by a stronger candidate.

9 I think is unlikely in 2009.

youngdan wrote:

Who here has read The Long Emergency, it deals well with the issue of Peak Oil.

Ireland has serious energy issues. But the problem is that fool from Clara and the muppets that follow him.

I wager if you stuck your noggin out the window at this very moment your nose would be blown off with the wind and your ears would fall off with the cold.

There ya go both problems solved.

I see. Your comment shows that you know as little about wind power as peak oil and global warming.

Johnny Keogh wrote:

ibis wrote:

Johnny Keogh wrote:

I beleive cattle produce the highest amounts of greenhouse gas (methane) in the world.
Apparently they belch it up (and fart it out, too).

The question I would ask is this;

Are cattle considered natural producers of gas or are they considered man-made, i.e they would'nt be there if we did'nt eat and milk them.?

Man-made, for the reason you give.

If this is so, is there a case for a cut in the production of cattle worldwide like with oil, and a switch to substitutes like soya?

There is. Pity the poor politician that suggests it, though. Even the Greens won't touch that one with someone else's bargepole.

I think the general F*** the Government mood will see Sinnott over the line. Her vote is far broader than the No campaign and while I doubt she would have held the seat had the vote been last year, an anti FF sentiment will see her through.

As for No people looking for a more credible candidate, that's just crazy talk - who is more credible than a sitting MEP? Despite her extreme social views she will attract transfers from everyone, if only on name recognition.

Papal Knight wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Who here has read The Long Emergency, it deals well with the issue of Peak Oil.

Ireland has serious energy issues. But the problem is that fool from Clara and the muppets that follow him.

I wager if you stuck your noggin out the window at this very moment your nose would be blown off with the wind and your ears would fall off with the cold.

There ya go both problems solved.

I see. Your comment shows that you know as little about wind power as peak oil and global warming.

Get your own windmill and with all the hot air out of you will solve all 3 problems on your own

youngdan wrote:

I wager if you stuck your noggin out the window at this very moment your nose would be blown off with the wind and your ears would fall off with the cold.

There ya go both problems solved.

Keep your windows closed? Makes sense!

Excellent. These are your opinions on what will happen based on your knowledge of the facts as they are now. Same as each poster

Okay, I predict Russia will attack China, Israel will elect Golda Meir, Southern Sudan will conquer Khartoum etc.

No, I think predictions based on facts are probably better. Waht am I supposed to base them other than 'facts as they are now'? Facts as they will be? In which case they're not facts but speculations.

I am agreeing with you. Your predictions are great on topics you have both an interest and knowledge of.

Ibis elsewhere posted a video clip about a lad from Monty Python who was always looking for an argument. He at least admits to argueing over everything but could he have been referring to you as well.

I don't want argument for argument's sake. (I mistook your above comment for sarcasm, sorry). I leave the economy well alone as I'm sure you've noted. As I've said before if the alternative to argument is leaving some ludicrous remark unchallenged then I'm happy to be called argumentative.

So there, I've admitted to being argumentative (not a fault as I see it, depending on the circumstances), and I've admitted to being wrong.