nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Jimmy Garlic

Climate saint Greta Trunburg is settling sail for UN climate talks in New York to demand that governments socially engineer and tax the little people into oblivion to save the planet. Accompanied by her film maker father who lives vicariously through her, a filthy rich aristocrat from Monaco and some German bloke the trip will no doubt vastly increase the wattage of her halo before she lectures us all about impending climate Armageddon in New York. Hopefully snaps from the trip will make it into Hello! Magazine.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

MonkieSocks

Tell me how wrote: »

The US Geological Society disagrees with you.

agree....plus

For example, in 1991, the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere,

This caused global temperatures to drop by about 1 degree F (0.5 degrees C) from 1991 to 1993, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs113-97/

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

What in the f*ck is the point of this nonsense statement?

C02 gasses from volcano’s are spewed up a lot higher and quicker into the upper atmosphere than car emissions do due to the high mountains and forces. Low lying c02 like from cars have a better chance of getting absorbed due to the sea, plants etc before they reach the upper atmosphere, whereas volcano c02 takes longer to fall back down to get absorbed so comparing ton for ton produced isn’t accurate overall.

Micky 32

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Micky you should go and speak at the UN yourself begorrah

Maybe you should venture outside Dublin to see what it’s like, it’s not as scary as you think, you’ll be fine.

Mach Two

When the ice caps melt and the oceans rise she will be able to sail forever. There will be so much ocean to sail on. Win win situation for everyone.

Thelonious Monk

Micky you should go and speak at the UN yourself begorrah

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

What in the f*ck is the point of this nonsense statement?

Not much more nonsense from some of your posts.

Micky 32

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its actually predominantly SO2- pretty nasty...…..

The c02 is actually quite significant. When earth was covered by 3 mile thickness of ice it was the c02 from volcanos that managed to melt it.

Tell me how

Micky 32 wrote: »

Volcano’s spew the carbon dioxide higher into the atmosphere than cars do so volcano c02 absorbs less than C02 from cars.

What in the f*ck is the point of this nonsense statement?

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

80 mackerel is nothing!

Jesus these fellas would weigh yr ****in porridge portion if they could

Which fellas?

[Deleted User]

80 mackerel is nothing!

Jesus these fellas would weigh yr ****in porridge portion if they could

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

The US Geological Society disagrees with you.

Volcano’s spew the carbon dioxide higher into the atmosphere than cars do so volcano c02 absorbs less than C02 from cars.

The_Conductor

Micky 32 wrote: »

That recent volcano eruption will contribute to a significant amount of c02 emissions into the higher atmosphere, thought that was worth mentioning ;-)

Its actually predominantly SO2- pretty nasty...…..

Tell me how

Micky 32 wrote: »

I wouldn’t expect you to get my last post anyway but i’ll educate you a little. Volcanos are one of the main contributors of c02.

The US Geological Society disagrees with you.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Micky 32

Tell me how wrote: »

Don't know if you are of a religious persuasion, but if so, you might consider this in the context of the environmental discussion. Last 5 words are key.

I wouldn’t expect you to get my last post anyway but i’ll educate you a little. Volcanos are one of the main contributors of c02.

But like all the other so called climate warriors they always try to steer away from the actual point, to suit their own agenda.

Tell me how

Micky 32 wrote: »

That recent volcano eruption will contribute to a significant amount of c02 emissions into the higher atmosphere, thought that was worth mentioning ;-)

Don't know if you are of a religious persuasion, but if so, you might consider this in the context of the environmental discussion. Last 5 words are key.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference.

Micky 32

That recent volcano eruption will contribute to a significant amount of c02 emissions into the higher atmosphere, thought that was worth mentioning ;-)

Thelonious Monk

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Water pollution is very significant and is an indictment. However it has nothing to do with climate catastrophe and the war on carbon.

It has a lot to do with saving the planet as mentioned in the subject of this thread

SafeSurfer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/just-20-of-ireland-s-rivers-are-pristine-down-from-500-in-1980s-1.4110018

20 pristine rivers left, down from 500 in the 80s. Agriculture the biggest polluter followed by treatment plants and septic tanks. How bad is it going to be in another 50 years? But nothing to see here folks, Ireland is insignificant.

Water pollution is very significant and is an indictment. However it has nothing to do with climate catastrophe and the war on carbon.

Micky 32

easypazz wrote: »

Why will it improve?

You can have all the rules and regulations you want but it won't stop illegal practices polluting the rivers on an ongoing basis.

Of course it will improve it will only go so far until the relevent authorities step in for sure.

Thelonious Monk

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/just-three-or-four-in-100-wild-salmon-return-to-irish-waters-1.3875588

This too. Do we even have a commercial wild salmon industry these days?

Wibbs

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'm from the Midlands and some of the local rivers have been overfished , I won't point the blame at anyone.

Oh sure it can be a problem, salmon poaching being an obvious one, though one that has always been with us to some degree or other. However poachers aren't hoovering insects out of the air, so why did they deline? The parlous decline of western seatrout fishing since the 80's wasn't down to poaching, or its impact was tiny(though commercial fish farms seem to be major culprits in that particular case).

easypazz

Micky 32 wrote: »

It should actually improve in the next 50 years. This was caused in the past before rules and regulations were put in place in the last few years. So you are right nothing to see here folks.

Why will it improve?

You can have all the rules and regulations you want but it won't stop illegal practices polluting the rivers on an ongoing basis.

Plumbthedepths

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I'll go back and ask my 12 year old self or my dead uncle. This was normal back then. Recreational fishing in Dublin bay were never the problem anyway, look what bottom trawling for scallops and mega trawlers are doing, and besides all those mackerel we caught were all eaten.

My father fished both river and sea, his attitude only catch and take what you can eat.

Thelonious Monk

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Most likely its down to over fishing as your post suggests. Why take 80 mackerel at a time?

I'll go back and ask my 12 year old self or my dead uncle. This was normal back then. Recreational fishing in Dublin bay were never the problem anyway, look what bottom trawling for scallops and mega trawlers are doing, and besides all those mackerel we caught were all eaten.

Plumbthedepths

Wibbs wrote: »

Certainly not overfishing on the rivers and lakes front. 1) I'm personally not nearly that adept at actually catching trout. 2) Fishing as a pastime has fallen off a cliff in popularity compared to when I was a kid(from what I understand same goes for sea fishing?). Whatever about the sea where commercial fishing can take a toll, as far as fishing pressure goes there should be more fish in the rivers and lakes.

I'm from the Midlands and some of the local rivers have been overfished , I won't point the blame at anyone.

Wibbs

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Most likely its down to over fishing as your post suggests. Why take 80 mackerel at a time?

Certainly not overfishing on the rivers and lakes front. 1) I'm personally not nearly that adept at actually catching trout.

2) Fishing as a pastime has fallen off a cliff in popularity compared to when I was a kid(from what I understand same goes for sea fishing?). Whatever about the sea where commercial fishing can take a toll, as far as fishing pressure goes there should be more fish in the rivers and lakes.

Plumbthedepths

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I can't speak for freshwater but I used to do a lot of fishing in the Irish sea as a kid in the 90s and we'd pull in 80 mackerel at a time easily. Last 2 times we went out, in the season for mack, didn't get a bite! Locals have told me it's nothing like it used to be.

Most likely its down to over fishing as your post suggests. Why take 80 mackerel at a time?

jackboy

Wibbs wrote: »

What puzzles me though is the source of the pollution. The farmers get it in the neck, but in the same lifetime I've seen more and more regulations and more and more farmers being aware of the impacts. I certainly saw worse practices when I was younger. More tree denuded riverbanks, more cleaning out of tanks with river water and the like, never mind less regulation around chemical spraying and usage, never mind the massive government backed drainage schemes of the 50's and 60's which turned natural stream habitats into straight drainage ditches. And still the ecologies of most rural rivers were better. With some rivers I could see more encroachment of housing on flood plains particularly during the "boom" which would have an impact alright. But something more is up from what I can see. Maybe some of the more recent if more regulated chemicals like insecticides are in play more than would be seen in the lab? I can't see local climate change being in play anyway. Ireland has become wetter and warmer to a larger degree. This should actually improve rivers and lakes and their ecologies, at least in the shorter term.

The proliferation of slatted houses has been a disaster for the environment. The use of these needs to be reversed. This would mean only using breeds of cattle in Ireland that can thrive outside in the irish winter. Of course, that would reduce the efficiency of farms and put many out of business. No easy answers.

Thelonious Monk

I can't speak for freshwater but I used to do a lot of fishing in the Irish sea as a kid in the 90s and we'd pull in 80 mackerel at a time easily. Last 2 times we went out, in the season for mack, didn't get a bite! Locals have told me it's nothing like it used to be.

Wibbs

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/just-20-of-ireland-s-rivers-are-pristine-down-from-500-in-1980s-1.4110018

20 pristine rivers left, down from 500 in the 80s. Agriculture the biggest polluter followed by treatment plants and septic tanks. How bad is it going to be in another 50 years? But nothing to see here folks, Ireland is insignificant.

As a fisherman of rivers and lakes over my lifetime I have seen this with my own eyes. The rivers I fished as a child are for the most part shadows of what they were. The exceptions funny enough are in urban areas, where some ecological diversity has come back because of efforts both concerned neighbourhood and local authority level to clean them up. In the rural areas while the rivers look clean, sometimes cleaner than they were, the die off, particularly in insect life in some cases is quite sobering(as a flyfishing type it's more obvious to me). But even if you never fished a river it's easy enough to see the drop off in insect life. Twenty or thirty years ago if you drove any distance in the Irish countryside the front of your car and windscreen would be a warzone mausoleum to countless dead insects. Any older farts around here will surely remember this very well - my dad used to give me one punt(big spender he was

) to clean the front of the family car after such a jaunt. Today this is a much lesser thing.

What puzzles me though is the source of the pollution. The farmers get it in the neck, but in the same lifetime I've seen more and more regulations and more and more farmers being aware of the impacts. I certainly saw worse practices when I was younger. More tree denuded riverbanks, more cleaning out of tanks with river water and the like, never mind less regulation around chemical spraying and usage, never mind the massive government backed drainage schemes of the 50's and 60's which turned natural stream habitats into straight drainage ditches. And still the ecologies of most rural rivers were better. With some rivers I could see more encroachment of housing on flood plains particularly during the "boom" which would have an impact alright. But something more is up from what I can see. Maybe some of the more recent if more regulated chemicals like insecticides are in play more than would be seen in the lab? I can't see local climate change being in play anyway. Ireland has become wetter and warmer to a larger degree. This should actually improve rivers and lakes and their ecologies, at least in the shorter term.