"Green" policies are destroying this country

Do you agree we need gas/other fossil fuels while we transition to 100% renewables, however long that may be?

Well I agree with that.

The next part of the question is are you happy to depend on the supply of gas coming into Ireland via the Moffat pipelines post 2025, considering the potential for a shortage of gas for the UK?

Tbf the guy is a career politician not a scientist. I see he is making accusations of others not telling the truth.

Hmmm it's not like the UN haven't previously been found to be overegging the spoon about climate related issues. I believe it was a US scientist who discovered that findings contained in the UN's report "Livestock’s Long Shadow,” published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) were incorrect.

UN admits flaw in report onmeat and climate change

The UN has admitted a report linking livestock to global warming exaggerated the impact of eating meat on climate change

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/7509978/UN-admits-flaw-in-report-on-meat-and-climate-change.htm

Or the UN's recent efforts to play Patsy with Russia over the Invasion of Ukraine and then denying it despite evidence to the contrary

Or even when the UN's WHO played along with the Chinese when they insisted Covid wasn't airborne despite evidence existing to the contrary

I'll pass thanks.

Edit. And no that’s not climate change denial before you try that one again

https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf

This graph is from the IPCC report released on Monday. It shows the capacity to use renewables to reduce our emissions by 2030. Blue represents cost savings over the current energy source (note, this was drafted 2 years ago so there would be a lot more Blue now that energy prices have skyrocketed)

The report is also probably out of date in terms of how much capacity can be added by 2030 as the technology really is moving very fast so a few years makes a big difference.

The message is, we have a suite of options to migrate away from fossil fuels. Some are cheap, others are expensive. We probably need some amount of all of them.

Hydrogen is not represented here because it's not a source of energy, it's a storage medium. The round trip efficiency of Hydrogen is about 40%, so we should be aiming to build as much wind and solar as we possibly can, and using Hydrogen and Batteries as the way to transport energy efficiently around the world from where it is abundant, to where it is needed. (these can be the same places depending on the weather and seasons, so global trade and the ability to stockpile some amounts of hydrogen will likely be a big part of future grids

We need to be as ambitious as we possibly can, and creative, and imaginative. Humanity has all of these qualities. The main thing we really need is for the governments of the world to get out of the way, to stop subsidising fossil fuels, to invest in the transition through financing and regulations and concerted committments to leave most of the Oil Gas and Coal in the ground

It does require non existent nuclear. We can't build nuclear facilities fast enough and they cost way more than renewables. And storage is not 'non existent'

Almost all of the oil in the world comes ashore from large tankers transporting oil to be refined. Oil is a storage medium of energy. So are batteries, and so are gasses like Hydrogen and Hydrogen derivatives like Ammonia

Your entire argument is 'We don't have the infrastructure for renewables therefore we should build more gas infrastructure to see us through until we can get nuclear up and running. Instead of building the gas infrastructure, build the renewable and storage infrastructure instead. It's not rocket science

BTW, there are more than 2 paths, we need Nuclear And renewables. We need both, it's not a choice between them

Akrasia thinks we can

The secretary general is a politician, but there are plenty of scientists 

You didn't quote IPCC scientists. You quoted a politician who is claiming that others are not telling the truth. And as detailed the UN have had their own issues there.

And yes there is a the challenge of climate change, but no I do not subscribe to the imminent end of civilisation stuff that is pushed by some on the back of the good work already done. That kind of thing is not helpful imho.

We do not yet have technology at scale to "pull C02 out of the air" afaik

As has been discussed here with regard to the use of natural gas, it's not an argument for extending the use of fossil fuels per se, rather its the need for alternative lower carbon sources of energy for the period of transition to renewable energy generation. Look I get it that you don't necessarily agree with that and that's your opinion which is fair enough.

All 3 of the AR6 reports have been absolutely clear that we are facing existential crises. You can believe that I am alarmist saying this, but it is in the reports, not just the press releases, but the full reports that cover the science in great detail.

Edit. On the wording "existential crisis". Afaik no IPCC report I've ever read uses that terminology. Its a phrase apparently beloved of Extinction rebellion and others like gretta thunberg. Whilst I know what it's getting at- Its also an overused malapropism.

The correct meaning of "existentialism" relates to feelings and questions to do with the meaning and purpose of life and an 'existential crisis' is something that is recognised as being a personal condition relating to same

Hard to listen to gueitteries the homophobic

His track record is not great now is it? anyway had a watch

Basicalky a load of hyperbole to scare the bejaysus out of people by a politician..

Nothing there to tell us how they are going to stop India, china burning coal ?

Multi quoting is usually a reply to posts that have something in common.

I have pointed out to this particular poster that of late when he/she has replied to my post often another post has been included that has nothing to do with the point supposedly being replied too. I have mention this to this particular poster a few times recently, as well as to why I suspected they were doing it, but it has been ignored.

If you don`t believe me, then check it for yourself. There have been a number of such posts in the last few days so not difficult to find.

If I was you, I would question my own beliefs instead of digging up excuses to hand wave away the findings of seminal reports that have an impeccable reputation for integrity, and involve tens of thousands of hours of expert analysis from the most qualified experts in their fields

Yes. But to provide energy, it first has to exist. You cannot build new nuclear power fast enough while also building it safe enough