"Green" policies are destroying this country

charlie14 · 09-12-2021 06:59PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118296283#Comment_118296283

Catch yourself on. Nowadays villages and small towns produce nothing that would sustain their own communities. Without the spend of those living rurally in their catchment areas their pubs, newsagents, hardware stores, cafes, garages, petrol stations etc. would not survive and anyone owning or employed in such would have to move out of the area to make a living. If, as you say, you are from a village (other than that being the so called village of Howth), then you know that as well as I do.

Yurt2 · 09-12-2021 07:06PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118297283#Comment_118297283

Harebrained. How is living away from a community supporting a community?

Rural villages are starved of footfall and day to day economic activity because car dependant one-off dwellers settled miles from villages, hop in their cars and take their euros to retail and service providers in larger urban areas.

This isn't even a point of contention. It's why we're witnessing rural decline. Rural Ireland killing rural Ireland (if we take one-offers to be the be all and end all of rural Ireland) and with the whinge that it's the Green party's fault (or civil servants / vegans/ insert boogeyman).

There's no talking to some people. It's the chape site, and that's the long and the short of it really.

Akrasia · 09-12-2021 08:16PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118297111#Comment_118297111

Just because marketing professionals bastardize scientific progress to trick the public into buying their chappy products doesn't mean climate science is falsified

Follow your own logic. The biggest companies in the world were the Oil companies. If the science followed the money then we'd never have even heard of Global warming

Climate change is not driven by industry, the scientists studying it are not funded by industry to any large extent unlike pretty much all of the scientists who loudly deny climate change

Markus Antonius · 09-12-2021 09:09PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118297222#Comment_118297222

You still haven't given me the name of a single scientist.

(btw, its definitely not a marketing role. I know for sure you've never worked in science, funding dictates everything you do and you would know this if you did)

Markus Antonius · 09-12-2021 09:13PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118297685#Comment_118297685

The very origin of the anthropogenic climate change farce can be traced back to the Margaret Thatcher era where she was trying to turn everyone against the striking coal miners and sweeten the population to the idea of nuclear power. You are a sucker!

Yurt2 · 09-12-2021 09:20PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118297923#Comment_118297923

What do you want the name of a scientist for? Throw a dart at a climate scientist in a journal, find a phone number for him/her and try to peddle your nonsense and see how far you get. You're deep in the well of conspiracy but don't want to admit it (at least not publically).

I'm not the one trying to pawn myself off as a scientist in a desperate attempt to glean credibility. Whatever flunkie role you have at your company, your not sitting at the scientists table in the canteen.

In fact as you pass them with your tray of sausages and beans in the morning they likely whisper: "there goes kooky old Markus the climate denier, I heard he thinks dinosaurs weren't real as well".

Pa ElGrande · 09-12-2021 09:28PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118296375#Comment_118296375

Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong.

Richard Tol

Back in 1931 German scientists who did not like Einstein set about discrediting his special relativity theory by publishing a booklet called Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (One Hundred Authors Against Einstein). Consensus is completely meaningless as a means of establishing proof and Einstein is said to have replied.

It would not have required one hundred authors to prove me wrong; one would have been enough.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-lU9gR68Yk

Once again consensus is a hallmark of politics and religion, it is not science. Research in a scientific community that admits to complete consensus and group-think on all matters in consideration is unlikely to provide objective scientific inquiry or provide critical peer review to fellow researchers. Do the particular science community you highlight pride themselves on their 97% consensus? really?, such consensus is likely to degrade and not enhance objective scientific inquiry or critical and effective peer review.

John Cook has long ago been exposed and lets look at the author behind the 99% paper you linked, he too has a history of climate activism and must be considered as suspect and this statement of his bears the true objective behind this.

We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change.

Mark Lynas

Akrasia and others are falling for sleight of hand. Most of us, who are not scientists, are dependent on what we read about climate change. As a result, most of us have no real way to respond to the question: Is global warming real?

The media publicity behind the consensus papers gives us a ready answer: 99.9% of scientists say that it is occurring.

That's the objective, as in most instances, that will end the discussion. However, look more closely at the answer and you discover that it is an answer to a question that was not asked, it is a "substitute" answer. There is a mismatch between question and answer.

Here is a clearer example.

Lets say someone was murdered and the following question and answer takes place:

Q. Did Kyle kill Joe?

A. The jury said he did.

You can see clearly there that the original question was not answered. We are nowhere closer to answering the question about Kyle’s culpability than before the question was posed. The response was an answer to a question not asked: What was the jury’s verdict?

I hope now you understand how this rhetorical trick is used, the 99.9% consensus is not the answer to the question Is global warming real?

Akrasia · 09-12-2021 09:31PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118297945#Comment_118297945

Absolute Nonsense

Which YouTube video did you see this in?

Yurt2 · 09-12-2021 09:48PM

Interesting one would introduce the analogy of a trial into the debate. It's the job of a barrister of defendant in a murder trial to introduce doubt into the minds of the jury by whatever means necessary, and using any tactic that he/she can get past the presiding judge.

Extrapolating this analogy, is the doubt reasonable and who is pushing it?

In this thread we have known cranks with boils on their arse about the Green party and bicycle lanes going around in circles and pushing the discredited views of extremely marginal scientists. On the other side is the global scientific academy and decades of research reaching the same conclusion.

We put up with the common law precept of reasonable doubt because an individual's life is on the line. In the case of climate science, the health of the climate, economy and fate of certain nations hangs in the balance, and in any case the doubt is in no way reasonable at this juncture. It's pushed by cranks, malcontents, grifters and extremists.

So in summary, they deserve the mockery they're getting at this stage.

charlie14 · 09-12-2021 10:10PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118297326#Comment_118297326

If you were even half way honest you would admit what is patently obvious. You have no interest in or care for people who live rurally. Your only interest is in increasing the population of villages by whatever means possible and you could not care less how that is achieved.

Not only will it have no discernible economic advantages for villages, there is a strong possibility that it would do the complete opposite as well as massive economic costs for the state in the provision of housing. Something on its own especially harebrained where we are miles off providing the houses presently required, never mind those projected to be required in the future without this nonsense further adding to the problem. And that is not to even touch on the subject of the additional community care costs to the state.

Why not go the full hog and move everyone, rural dwellers, villagers,and those living in small and medium sized town into these utopian cities we seem to have in this country ? I have to admit though, having travelled this country extensively I have yet to see any of them, and leave the countryside to wolves and a handful of large intensive farms. A system of food production that has shown how safe it is and how beneficial that production has been to the environment.

Yurt2 · 09-12-2021 10:12PM

No discernable economic advantages for rural villages to have people living in them? Extra community costs? Do you realise the old age isolation time bomb waiting to explode in one-off Ireland? Did you type all that with a straight face?

Another crank. Goodnight.

While we're speaking of density, the head-the-ball density in this thread is off the charts.

Pa ElGrande · 09-12-2021 10:17PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118297945#Comment_118297945

Mrs. Thatcher was one early politicians to adopt AGW, here is a speech from 1989 when she was still in power.

Mr President, the evidence is there. The damage is being done. What do we, the International Community, do about it?

In some areas, the action required is primarily for individual nations or groups of nations to take.

I am thinking for example of action to deal with pollution of rivers—and many of us now see the fish back in rivers from which they had disappeared.

I am thinking of action to improve agricultural methods—good husbandry which ploughs back nourishment into the soil rather than the cut-and-burn which has damaged and degraded so much land in some parts of the world.

And I am thinking of the use of nuclear power which—despite the attitude of so-called greens—is the most environmentally safe form of energy.

But the problem of global climate change is one that affects us all and action will only be effective if it is taken at the international level.

It is no good squabbling over who is responsible or who should pay. Whole areas of our planet could be subject to drought and starvation if the pattern of rains and monsoons were to change as a result of the destruction of forests and the accumulation of greenhouse gases.

We have to look forward not backward and we shall only succeed in dealing with the problems through a vast international, co-operative effort.

source

By 2002, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views.

HOT AIR AND GLOBAL WARMING

The doomsters' favourite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else. Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvellous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism.

source: Statecraft (p. 449)

She voiced precisely the fundamental doubts about the warming scare that have since become familiar to us. Pouring scorn on the alarmists, she questioned the main scientific assumptions used to drive the scare, from the conviction that the chief force shaping world climate is CO2, rather than natural factors such as solar activity, to exaggerated claims about rising sea levels. She mocked Al Gore and the futility of "costly and economically damaging" schemes to reduce CO2 emissions. She cited the 2.5C rise in temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period as having had almost entirely beneficial effects. She pointed out that the dangers of a world getting colder are far worse than those of a CO2-enriched world growing warmer. She recognised how distortions of the science had been used to mask an anti-capitalist, Left-wing political agenda which posed a serious threat to the progress and prosperity of mankind.

The lessons drawn from past predictions of global disaster should be learned when it comes to considering the issue of climate

• We should be suspicious of plans for global regulation that all too clearly fit in with other preconceived agendas

• We should demand of politicians that they apply the same criteria of common-sense and a sense of proportion to their pronouncements on the environment as to anything else.

• We must never forget that although prosperity brings problems it also permits solutions — and less prosperity, fewer solutions

• All decisions must be made On the basis of the best science whose conclusions have been properly evaluated.

source: Statecraft (p457-458)

In other words, Mrs. Thatcher was converted to the view of those who, on both scientific and political grounds, are profoundly sceptical of the climate change ideology. Unfortunately, what she set in motion earlier continues to this day. The fact that she became one of the first and most prominent of "climate sceptics" has been almost entirely buried from view.

Akrasia · 09-12-2021 11:01PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298253#Comment_118298253

All of this is very interesting. Quick question though, on what year did she quash those miners strikes??

Pa ElGrande · 09-12-2021 11:55PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298462#Comment_118298462

The part Markus is missing is the time line, the final nail in the coffin for the miners was the 1992/93 coal crisis.

This UK government ad is from 1993 skip to 3 minutes 30 seconds in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hc150eEuFqc

Akrasia · 10-12-2021 01:02AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298726#Comment_118298726

The conspiracy theory Forum is over there ===>

I have absolutely no interest in your absolutely ridiculous fan fiction origin story for the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change

Markus Antonius · 10-12-2021 01:34AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298963#Comment_118298963

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298228#Comment_118298228

Stumped

Pa ElGrande · 10-12-2021 09:27AM

Lets get back on track. Here is a good summary from Arthur Cox on the legislation. IMHO These numbers are not reachable by 2030, they will massage the numbers, pursuing an aggressive strategy guarantees a Sinn Fein government. The political calculation is keeping the cheap debt flowing from Europe to make up the structural deficit while avoiding crushing the economy. In general political parties have no objection to carbon tax, this is just another revenue source that allows them to play the income redistribution shell game and if you don;t believe me take a sceptical look at this: The Use of Carbon Tax Funds 2022. I notice rural TDs are not campaigning for its abolition they want it redistributed to their constituents all of which were rejected. The Green party in Dail Eireann is very much an urban party, the legislation they pass does not impact their voters directly, it does impact the rural population hardest.

Ireland and the EU 2030 Climate Target Plan

We noted in our July 2020 briefing the extraordinary level of policy ambition in Ireland’s new Programme for Government and the 2019 Climate Action Plan. In short, targets in the Programme for Government include an average 7% annual reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over the years 2021-2030, which equates to a reduction of 51% over the decade. There is a target of meeting 70% of electricity demand by renewables by 2030. (It is also worth noting that Ireland recently published its national climate and energy plan in accordance with the EU Governance Regulation and, in September 2020, the European Commission published its assessment of NECPs.)

Now down to the local politics.

Carbon tax is solution to energy price hikes - Ryan

15 Oct 2021

He told the Dáil the carbon tax was "progressive" in that it ensures that people on lower incomes benefit the most.

Of the €9.5 billion projected to be raised by the carbon tax over the next nine years, the minister said: "€3bn will go to social protection; €5bn will go to the retrofitting; and €1.5bn to farmers."

Mr Ryan said the carbon tax was "the only protection" when it came to reducing Ireland's dependence on fossil fuels as it would lead to an improvement in the efficiency of those homes via retrofitting.

Eamon Ryan Must Come Clean on Ciaran Cuffe’s Attempt to Sabotage Irish Farmers

‘Disgraceful act’ – IFA president condemns Cuffe

27 Nov 2021

Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA) president, Tim Cullinan has said that a letter sent by MEP Ciarán Cuffe to banking CEOs was a “disgraceful act by a Dublin-based MEP, seeking to sabotage farmers and rural Ireland”.

Last week, it emerged that Green Party MEP, Cuffe, had issued a letter to banking CEOs stating his concern about large loans being approved for young farmers to increase their herd.

It is understood that the letter raised concerns about banks’ lending programmes, as well as a reference to their continued investment in a carbon-intensive sector.

I'd say the other coalition partners have been getting feedback from the constituencies, so damage control time. Green party: letters?, what letters? we know nothing . . .

Mr Varadkar told his parliamentary party it was “wrong to single out this sector” and that Fine Gael wants to encourage more people into farming. He said some farmers may require borrowing to do so, or upgrade, modernise their farms to make them more sustainable and his party will always support the farming sector.

A Green Party statement said: “Ciarán Cuffe wrote to the banks on this matter in his capacity as an MEP. The party was not aware of the letters.”

It added: “The Green Party believes that every sector of society has to face up to the climate challenge. “Financing from banks can play a key role in supporting innovation and the transition to more sustainable practices in farming and it is young farmers who can lead the way on this into the future.

source

€100 to be knocked off first electricity bills of next year

10 Dec 2021

Over the past year the cost of electricity has shot up by 21pc, with gas prices going up by 26pc, according the CSO.

It also found home-heating oil costs are up by more than 70pc in the past year while rental cost rises of 8pc are a new record high. Bonkers.ie has warned annual household energy bills could rise by as much as €1,300 amid a series of price hikes.

<snip>

The electricity credit scheme is being developed by Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe, Public Expenditure Minister Michael McGrath and Climate Action Minister Eamon Ryan.

The funding for the unprecedented initiative will come out of Mr Ryan’s departmental budget and the Green Party leader is preparing a memo to bring to Cabinet on Tuesday.

Akrasia · 10-12-2021 10:14AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118299034#Comment_118299034

Yeah, you got me

Maggie Thatcher invented climate change to quash miners strikes that ended 5 years before she first started talking publicly about climate change

And this is proven by some ad released in 1993, 4 years after her famous UN speech that I couldn't even be bothered watching because the entire premise is absolutely ridiculous from beginning to end

John_Rambo · 10-12-2021 10:29AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118296883#Comment_118296883

Right. These excuses sound a tad lazy to be honest, much better quality meat to be got in butchers, and my local bakery & greengrocer does everything you need. Whilst the supermarket is a necessity, you should always support local. Better for you, better for your community, better for your farmer.

Akrasia · 10-12-2021 10:56AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118299362#Comment_118299362

What is your point. Are you opposed to carbon taxes, if so, why?

It seems to me like you're objecting to any kind of carbon tax because it is going to be re-distributed, is this a socialist scare that you think climate change is a trojan horse to allow some kind of socialist takeover?

Yurt2 · 10-12-2021 01:25PM

The truth about Thatcher's environment speech was that it was a text put under her nose by the British Ambassador to the UN who was writing on and warning about climate change since the 70s. Politicians will frequently read anything they're handed by mandarins, and they often do less thinking than you'd think.

True concern about climate change was not part of her convictions as evidenced by later utterances. I doubt she gave the speech a second thought and probably thought it was something nice to say in front of world leaders, as outside the Anglophone world she was regarded as a malign actor on the world stage.

charlie14 · 10-12-2021 02:38PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118298228#Comment_118298228

It is truly incredulous that someone who claims to have been raised in a Irish rural village is so ill informed they would post this.

Under the proposed green plan there is no discernible advantage to be gained by moving people from one area in a locality to another area in the same locality. It`s not going to magically increase numbers. If anything it is more likely to decrease the overall population and subsequently less money being spent in the local village.

It`s the same thinking as believing moving deck-chairs on the Titanic would have made a discernible difference. What it would achieve is adding even greater numbers to housing lists and a further burden on the tax payer. Housing lists that are already so large that it will take at least a decade to come even close to clearing without adding countless more too. It`s simply just more magic tree money thinking from greens.

I am not the one who does not recognise the old age time bomb. Especially in rural communities. You with your backing for this policy on one-off housing are the one that is burying your head in the sand attempting to ignore the realities. The majority of these so called "free" one-off sites come, as they always have, with the understanding that those who build on such sites will be there to look after those who gave them in their older years. Coercing these people to move away to villages or out of the locality altogether is not going to help. All it will do is create isolation for those elderly, and care again at the taxpayers expense, having to be provided by the state.

Do

RandomViewer · 10-12-2021 03:28PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118299527#Comment_118299527

Not everyone has your budget,

Yurt2 · 10-12-2021 06:08PM

@charlie14 You are dangerously deluded about the conditions of the rural elderly and the problems hurtling down the tracks for the one-off dwelling elderly. The isolation, the lack of transport, lack of access to GP (there is a minimum population threshold in a village sustain a GP, as there is a post office, shops etc), higher nursing home admission rates as it's impossible to live independently for many and there's no community to support them and access services because the one-off cowboys have killed off the village. The costs to the state from this are going to be off the scale.

Much like the other yahoos in the thread. You're arguing for the right to build wherever you want first, foremost and last - then doubling back floundering to justify it economically and socially - attempting and failing to turn reality on its head.

You lot aren't just telling porkies, you're unbelievably selfish about what you're doing to your communities.

cnocbui · 10-12-2021 07:34PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302187#Comment_118302187

You are the one telling porkies. Name the year you were last a permenent resident of a village? You, who don't live in a village, are telling those of us who frequent theirs daily that they are telling porkies. I hope you have a miners lamp and the batteries are fresh.

I know you won't ever listen, but one off households can have as much interaction with their village as anyone living in it. The school trip for me was 5 minutes. I know for a fact that other parents who live in the village would take longer than that due to traffic. When It's been too snowed in to drive, I used to walk my daughter to school.

You are completely out of touch and ignorant on this issue. It's like me trying to tell you what's in your pantry and where.

Yurt2 · 10-12-2021 07:47PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302510#Comment_118302510

🤣

So it takes parents living in a village longer to drive within a village to school than you who live outside the village to get there? What's your nearest village, downtown Tokyo?

Cnoc you talk so much pony is actually comical.

cnocbui · 10-12-2021 08:00PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302566#Comment_118302566

Once again you are proudly wearing your ignorance on your sleeve. How about you answer that question I put to you?

The village has a geographic feature which is a traffic obstacle, and which causes the problem I mentioned. My daily trips avoided said obstacle and the traffic congestion caused by it as I live on the same side of it as the school.

The family run bakery went out of business due to health inspectors not liking something about their setup, after them having to move the ovens and such to their own property when they were forced out of the original location. The costs associated with having to try and make them happy made the business non viable.

Yurt2 · 10-12-2021 08:04PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302619#Comment_118302619

So they failed a health inspection. Long live health inspectors. Government regulation my rear end, everyone in the land has to ahere to food safety standards and long may that continue to be the case.

The only village obstacle I could think of is a troll in the village square, who could that be I wonder?

cnocbui · 10-12-2021 08:17PM

And still you won't answer a simple qustion.

Their bread was fantastic. Nothing whatsoever wrong with it or the way it was made, quite the opposite, it highlighted what's wrong with the stuff made in dot the 'i', cross the 'T', compliant mega commerical bakeries. It would sell out well before lunch time from the supermarket they delivered to. One minute you are bemoaning small village businesses not getting enough foot traffic from evil one-off dwellers who never set foot in them and in the next breath you are extolling their extinction, with a loud good riddance.

You slimy flip flopping around to try and take the negative of everything I say, makes me wonder are you a politician. Rhetorical question: no need to answer, but do please answer the simple one on when were you last residident in an Irish village?

Yurt2 · 10-12-2021 08:27PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118302677#Comment_118302677

What does it matter? It's been a while since I left the shire, but I'm more than familiar with its workings (I'm not a transplant from the bush in Australia for instance) and most of my family live there still.

You don't own rural Ireland cnoc (whatever you take it to be). You never have, and never will. You're just one voice and an increasingly marginal one at that.

If a food service provider fails a health and safety inspection, they've failed it. Rules aren't there for a jolly - it's to protect consumers. An urban food service company that tried to pull a stunt of moving production to their house in Blackrock / Castleknock / Ballybough would have got the same result. Don't know what you mean by they were "forced" from their original premises, we'll have to accept that mystery, among many others you post on here.

"Green" policies are destroying this country

Comments