"Green" policies are destroying this country

Nor does lying, like you did just now about Eamon wanting everyone to move to cities.

High fuel costs end in inflation and job losses,Either oil drops by itself or the government will be forced to cut the tax,

Credit crunch and shaky banks usually follow,

The evidence I provided that Ryan is looking to urbanise the country is sound. Deny he's against ruralisation at your peril.

You still haven't shown me the IPCC data that allows them to say we have "Unequivocal" evidence that humans are to blame for climate change.

You also mentioned above that some of the "best minds" are behind climate change science. Care to credit any of these "best minds"?

He is absolutely looking to force people into cities. A war on combustion engines, looking for idiotic "ultra light rail" systems in favor rural infrastructure is forcing people into cities.

I have provided ample evidence now to back up my claims. You (much like a climate "scientist") have given me nothing to support yours. But I do admit that's the state of affairs of arguing with alarmists and those who idolise 16 year old school skippers.

Ok so you are admitting defeat by refusing to provide any evidence relating to the data the IPCC presented linking humans to climate change. Such faith you have in weak/non-existent evidence.

Can you point me to the post where I claim Ryan said he is going to "force people to move to the cities". If you accuse people of lying, you need to get your own records straight.

Great, you are admitting that I did not quote Eamon Ryan as saying he is to "force people to move to the cities", even though you said I did.

And you have failed to present the resounding evidence linking humans to climate change. Even a screenshot of your own Yahoo search no? This isn't going too well for you is it?

The "greatest scientific concensus" and you neglect to credit any of the "great minds" behind it.

Looks like none of these "great minds" got the memo on how the scientific method works and just leap-frogged to the conclusion stage. But I guess it got them the funding so who cares about credibility... 😂

Ever heard of "peer review"? "Great minds" get you nowhere without this I'm afraid.

Conspiracy theorist? I'm not the one who thinks a "no-name looper in the back-arse of Ireland" can change the climate with a '92 Massey Ferguson. 😆

Governments can only tax fuel as much as they do because the productivity gains though using it are more efficient than alternative means. A simple example to illustrate the point is the growth of Massey Ferguson tractors post WWII, once farmers immediately saw the labour, time and financial savings to be made over using horses, they switched quickly. There is a limit to how much the government can tax and once a person can no longer be sufficiently productive in the modern state we either switch to a combination of government welfare programs and/or drawing down savings. What happens if you when you have consumed all the seed for next years crop? Maybe you can borrow from your neighbours but they expect a return on investment and you are less productive . . . there is a trade-off.

The parties that make up the government (and not just the Green party) want to move everyone to consuming energy via a secondary source: electricity. They want to restrict or eliminate our ability to consume primary energy sources specifically coal, oil, gas, wood and turf. All the BEVs on the road in Ireland today use secondary energy generated by various combinations of coal, gas, wind, water and nuclear (UK inter-connector).

The debate that is being avoided is what are the trade-offs or gains (labour, time and financial savings) in efficiency by pursuing current net-zero energy policy?

The premise that net zero policy is going to change the weather cannot be rationally quantified in any meaningful or reliable way. The climate alarmists draw their own conclusions that are unsupported by real world empirical measurements, alarmists are closer to the religious vision of the 4 horsemen of the Apocalypse from the book of Revelation. They neglect that warming cycles in past millennia have been periods of economic prosperity and science measurements show a greener world, it is not a one way trade. The rational optimists i.e. sceptics argue is is better to adapt to changing conditions as needed since future conditions are not known, why waste resources today that impede your ability to cope in the future.

If you want to argue that covering the countryside and coastlines with wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity will change the weather, this argument does not hold for several reasons. All that happens in this scenario is switching from drilling for fuel (oil and gas) to mining (iron, rare earth minerals, lithium, cobalt etc. etc), you still need coal to make steel. You can develop an argument that hydro-carbon based fuel sources are scarce and should be used wisely and that having a diverse source provides better energy security, you also have to explain the trade-offs in such choices.

This was 'thanked' by two other posters. You're a bunch of absolute muppets. The IPCC produce Massive reports every 6 years, they're up to their 6th one now. These are thousands of pages long and represent an assessment of all of the scientific evidence relating to climate change causes and impacts.

Any 'skeptic' who pretends that there hasn't been any evidence provided that humans have been causing climate change is an utter clown

I do not know what this village you supposedly were raised in taught you, but it certainly wasn`t the economic realities of village life. Villages and towns do not sustain country life. The never have. The are not, nor have never been self contained economic units as they produce nothing. They are service based entities that rely on the rural communities within their catchment area to sustain them.

Not overly surprised that you believe the opposite to be true. It`s par for the course on woolly-headed cart before the horse green ideology