http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaki ... king22.htm


This new climate plan has interesting implications for Ireland, namely that we have to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020 and increase renewable energy from 2% to 16% by 2020 compared with emissions in 2005.

Surprised to see that the Cabinet Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security is chaired by Taoiseach Bertie Ahern. They stated that the new plan will cause very serious economic and social issues for Ireland due to "Ireland's infrastructural deficit, its projected population growth and the relatively large size of the agricultural sector must be considered before a plan could be agreed".

The general environmentalist response is that it does not go far enough. Personally I feel that with Irelands wind and sea potential for microgeneration outcomes with some political will, we can and should attain far higher than the 16%. With regards to the CO2 reduction, that is a different matter, but I suppose we are at least down from 2005 levels based on the 2006 emission rates, but have my doubts about the political will here, but hopefully the greens will do all in their power to push things through and not compromise


Liked the comment from EU Enterprise Commissioner Guenter Verheugen, standard-bearer of the interests of heavy industry, "I am all for setting an example for the rest of the world. But I am against committing economic suicide."

The following article from the IT reckons it will cost us a billion a year!!!!

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaki ... king22.htm

Youre dam right. A billion here a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about a lot of money.

I appeal to people to study the science carefully. Its going to be a fight for our economic survival.

Moving from 0.032% to 0.038% CO2 in the atmosphere could not possibly cause significant temperature changes in the planet.

Our e mail is going to be government property, the global economy is deliberately being driven into the ground by the Fed, and we're going to Tax a country like Ireland costing us a Billion a year for economic expansion.

Unreal.

__________________
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But Conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;but one must take it simply because it is right. -MLK

A giant scam, if ever there was one then this is it. The EU needs YOUR money to save YOU from the Boogeyman under the bed: Climate Change. What a fvcking joke, next they will be demanding money to save you from the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

__________________
"The Council of Ministers will have far more power over the budgets of the member states than the federal government in the United States has over the budget of Texas"
Jean-Claude Trichet.

100% agree. This is the biggest hoax since communism and every bit as pernicious.

__________________
“Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth."
Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism.

Real conservatives recognise that neocons aren't.

It's comforting to see that the wacky loonies are now the ones who don't believe in the importance of global warming/climate change.

I suppose to believe in that we'd also have to be gullible enough to believe that say these are really from Mars?

.

__________________
“Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth."
Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism.

Real conservatives recognise that neocons aren't.

“Kyoto represents the first component of an authentic global governance”
French President Jacques Chirac
at the Hague in November of 2000.

Meteorologist Robert Cohen, a member of the American Meteorological Society who also has a Masters in physical oceanography, called the UN IPCC process "scientific socialism" on March 5, 2007 and declared that the "idea of a consensus in the meteorological community is false."

"Research has also shown that slight changes in energy from the sun can significantly affect the earth, particularly in terms of clouds, which are a weak link in the global warming models. The level and amount of cloud can determine whether temperatures will warm as the cloud layer limits heat dissipation to space or whether temperatures will cool as the sun's incoming energy is reflected back to space before reaching the Earth's surface," he wrote.

"I do not agree with all of the IPCC conclusions and know through peer discussions that the idea of a consensus in the meteorological community is false," Cohen said. He added: "Is it worth destroying our economy and lifestyle based on an unproven theory which does not correlate with historical observations?" (LINK) "Much of the ‘proof' of agw (anthropogenic global warming) is based on models that can not recreate the historical record. There is a wealth of observations that disprove these models, but that is ignored in the media," he wrote on August 13, 2007.


Get the message!

Fianna Failers it's up to you to defend your country because the opposition is lost. The Greens while well meaning are blinded by the ideology that man is destroying the planet therfore CO2 is destroying the planet.

We cannot afford a Billion a year end of effing story.

__________________
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But Conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;but one must take it simply because it is right. -MLK

I guess the "wacky loonies" need to be burnt... ahem composted at the stake for daring to question the infallible Orthodoxy of the international church of man made climate change/global warming (a faith based religion).
In other words, don't bother to argue the case, or examine the facts, or convince people by logic and common-sense. Just lie repeatedly, and everyone will believe you.
And calling it a lie is not an exaggeration!. The fact is that the climate change debate is by no means concluded or conclusive. While it would be foolish to dispute that the weather has changed and is changing, many of the claims by early campaigners have been shown to be mistaken or based on crap "science".
Observations of weather, animals, wild plants and crops show that things are actually improving in many areas, measurements of ice decay and ice growth show that growth currently outstrips decay, sea-level measurements show that in some places levels are rising slowly, in others they aren't, the hole in the ozone layer is getting smaller, and overall temperatures haven't risen for the last eight years!. So while the weather has certainly changed, whether this is a good thing or a bad thing is not proven, and to claim that it is proven, and to try and shape government policy on that basis, is a lie of MAJOR proportions.

__________________
"The Council of Ministers will have far more power over the budgets of the member states than the federal government in the United States has over the budget of Texas"
Jean-Claude Trichet.

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling:

"To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process."

Research physicist Dr. John W. Brosnahan develops remote-sensing instruments for atmospheric science for such clients as NOAA and NASA and has published numerous peer-reviewed research, as well as developed imaging Doppler interferometry for sensing winds, waves, and structure in the atmosphere.

"Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling -- all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by the cyclical variations in solar output," Brosnahan wrote to EPW on December 10, 2007.

"I have not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of the current global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case," Brosnahan explained. "Even though these computer climate models do not properly handle a number of important factors, including the role of precipitation as a temperature regulator, they are being (mis-)used to force a political agenda"

German scientist Ernst-Georg Beck, a biologist, authored a February 2007 paper entitled 180 Years of Atmospheric C02 Analysis by Chemical Methods that found levels of atmospheric CO2 levels were not measured correctly possibly due to the fact that they measurements did not fit with hypothesis of man-made global warming. The abstract to the paper published in Energy and Environment reads in part, "

"More than 90,000 accurate chemical analyses of CO2 in air since 1812 are summarized. The historic chemical data reveal that changes in CO2 track changes in temperature, and therefore climate in contrast to the simple, monotonically increasing CO2 trend depicted in the post-1990 literature on climate-change. Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm." The paper concluded:

"Most authors and sources have summarized the historical CO2 determinations by chemical methods incorrectly and promulgated the unjustifiable view that historical methods of analysis were unreliable and produced poor quality results."

__________________
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Expediency asks the question - is it politic?
Vanity asks the question - is it popular? But Conscience asks the question - is it right?
And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular;but one must take it simply because it is right. -MLK

Cows belch methane. We have a lot of cows. For this to work, our cattle herd would have to be cut by more than 200,000. Bang go most of our farmers, the rural economy based on them, and a fair share of our exports.

However every week the Chinese open a new coal-burning power station that is the equivalent of about 50,000 cows.

The time has come for enlightened self-interest, which means dropping some large bombs on China.