Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New resources
Latest activity
Trending Threads
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
FarmTV
Farm Compare
Search
Tokens/Searches
Calendar
Upcoming Events
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New Resources
New posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Twitter advert
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Swarfmonkey" data-source="post: 7357837" data-attributes="member: 144242"><p>Yeah, that rings a bell. At the time it came out the idiot Moonboot jumped on the figure for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses and lied through his teeth saying that it was solely down to agriculture. </p><p></p><p>As to the IPCC itself, what's the old saying? Oh yeah: "lies, damned lies, and statistics". </p><p></p><p>Take the "Summary for Policy Makers" from the most recent work for example. It confidently states in one section that <em>"If emissions associated with pre- and post-production activities in the global food system are included, the emissions are estimated to be 21-37% of total net anthropogenic GHG emissions"</em>. It then goes on to <u>completely</u> contradict that statement. Even in a worst-case scenario (combining agriculture, <em>all of it</em>, and "Non-AFOLU other sectors pre to post production" - which would cover emissions associated with storage/transport/processing/gas for cooking etc etc) I can't get it to add up to more than 26%, which is obviously nowhere near 37%. Whereas under a best-case scenario it comes in at 12.8%.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Swarfmonkey, post: 7357837, member: 144242"] Yeah, that rings a bell. At the time it came out the idiot Moonboot jumped on the figure for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses and lied through his teeth saying that it was solely down to agriculture. As to the IPCC itself, what's the old saying? Oh yeah: "lies, damned lies, and statistics". Take the "Summary for Policy Makers" from the most recent work for example. It confidently states in one section that [I]"If emissions associated with pre- and post-production activities in the global food system are included, the emissions are estimated to be 21-37% of total net anthropogenic GHG emissions"[/I]. It then goes on to [U]completely[/U] contradict that statement. Even in a worst-case scenario (combining agriculture, [I]all of it[/I], and "Non-AFOLU other sectors pre to post production" - which would cover emissions associated with storage/transport/processing/gas for cooking etc etc) I can't get it to add up to more than 26%, which is obviously nowhere near 37%. Whereas under a best-case scenario it comes in at 12.8%. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Farm Business
Agricultural Matters
Twitter advert
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top