Gormley does it again.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Tack, I don't think Grizzly and I were in disagreement on the merits of the GP in Ireland - neither of us think much of them. The disagreement was on whether climate change was real or an invention of the GP's imagination.

Not quite...
More like wther global warming can be proven or disproven as ever so many scientists say it is happening and X number say it is bunkum,and between them they use up the rain forest in paper to argue their points,and wether the GP's worldwide are using this as a vechicle to push their agendas thru in their idea of a new Green global utopia.
After all being Green is now a multi billion dollar industry as well,so it is vital that there is no dissent on wether the factual tenent of global warming is not disproven or even questioned.

Tackleberrywho

Once my tax stays at €288 I could not give a sh*te
The Sun is diminishing, the moon is cracking and there is as much evidence of global cooling than warm.

Heading towards another Ice-age!

Grizzly 45

And we wont be around to worry about it either.Like in another 6 million years or so??

Sparks

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

there is as much evidence of global cooling than warm.

Wrong.
http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-evidence/

Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators. By far the most straightforward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places -- in England, for example -- that have records going back several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.

These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses:

NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis
CRU direct surface temperature analysis
Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse empirical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:

Satellite Data
Radiosondes
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Proxy Reconstructions
Permafrost melt
There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

The original link there has links for all those data sources if you want to go digging through it.

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

And we wont be around to worry about it either.Like in another 6 million years or so??

Nope. More like 50 years. So we'd get the start of it and our kids get the full whack of it.

ghostmantra

can only go back around 150 years
whats that in the grand scheme of things about .00001 of a Milli second in the earth's time line

Sparks

Little; but those are only the direct measurements. There are indirect measurements going back quite a long way further back.
http://www.grist.org/article/one-hundred-years-is-not-enough/

The reliable instrumental record only goes back 150 years in the CRU analysis, 125 in the NASA analysis. This is a simple fact that we are stuck with. 2005 was the warmest year recorded in that period according to NASA, a very close second according to CRU. Because of this limit, it is not enough to say today that these are the warmest years since 150 years ago, rather one should say 'at least':

1998 and 2005 are the warmest two years in at least the last 150.



But there is another direct measurement record available that can tell us things about temperature over the last 500 years, and that is borehole measurements. This involves drilling a deep hole and measuring the temperature of the earth at various depths. It gives us information about century-scale temperature trends, as warmer or cooler pulses from long term surface changes propagate down through the crust.

Using this method we can see that temperatures have not been consistently this high as far back as this method allows us to look. This way of inferring surface temperatures does smooth out yearly fluctuations and even short term trends, so we can not know anything directly about individual years. But given the observable range of inter-annual variations recorded over the last century, it is quite reasonable to rule out single years or even decades being far enough above the baseline to rival today.

Using this record, we can reasonably conclude that it is warmer now than any time in at least the last 500 years.



It is possible to make reconstructions of temperature much further back, using what are called proxy data. These include things like tree rings, ocean sediment, coral growth, layers in stalagmites, and others. The reconstructions available are all slightly different and provide sometimes more and sometimes less global versus regional coverage over the last one or two thousand years. Note: this covers what is often referred to as the Medieval Warm Period. As noted, all these reconstructions are different, but ...

... they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
Thus, we can reasonably say it is warmer now than any other time in at least the last 1,000 years.



The only other candidate for a higher temperature period -- going back through the entire Holocene (~10,000bp to now) -- is called the Holocene Climatic Optimum some 6,000 years ago. It is not known exactly what the temperatures were then; the farther back in time we try to look, the greater the uncertainties. Even so, the Holocene Climatic Optimum has long been cautiously thought to be almost as warm or even warmer than now.

That conclusion is starting to look less likely, as it has been determined that the anomalous warmth of that time was actually confined to the northern hemisphere and occurred only in the summer months.

Robert Rohde's website, Global Warming Art, has a nice graph of many reconstructions of Holocene temperature, regional and global, all super-imposed with an average of all of them combined, shown below. This represents the best estimate available of global temperatures in the Holocene.

Thus, we can reasonably believe it is warmer now than at any other time in at least the last 10,000 years.



Before the current interglacial, the planet was in the grip of a much colder glacial period with ice sheets well down into the continental U.S. This period ended just some 11,000 years ago. The record of glacial-interglacial cycles can be read in Antarctic ice core analysis, and it shows these cycles over many 100Kyr periods. The IPCC offers a good version of this graph.

If our reading of the Holocene is correct, it is warmer now than at any other time in over the last 100,000 years.



And that is a bit more than 100 years. It is, in fact, the entire history of our species.

That link has various graphs and links for further references.

chem

Sparks wrote: »

Little; but those are only the direct measurements. There are indirect measurements going back quite a long way further back.
http://www.grist.org/article/one-hundred-years-is-not-enough/

That link has various graphs and links for further references.

etc etc....Sparks but no harm, your a Mod. This has notting to do with earth warming up. Is it not a shooting forum?

A prof of mine, when I was at uni told us all. Science has to be funded. If you want to find out the truth of a published paper, find out who funded it. Im not saying I believe in it or not. I keep an open mind. Science learns something everyday. We dont have the full picture. We as scientist try to work out the bigger picture from, the small knowlage we know. From working in the science game, I see the pressure (Not direct) to make things fit. For good or bad :mad: Some people give in:mad:. Human nature (both ways). Keep that in mind, always;) Lab+funding=more funding (depending on results) such is life as you know yourself.

Sparks

chem wrote: »

etc etc....Sparks but no harm, your a Mod. This has notting to do with earth warming up. Is it not a shooting forum?

I seem to recall asking that in post 4...
But to be direct, it peeves me to see the GP peeing not only on us as a community, but via their poor reputation, on stuff like this that we know is true and will affect us in years to come.
But if the other mods think it's too off-topic, they'll delete it - I don't have my mod hat on for this particular topic.

A prof of mine, when I was at uni told us all. Science has to be funded. If you want to find out the truth of a published paper, find out who funded it. Im not saying I believe in it or not. I keep an open mind. Science learns something everyday. We dont have the full picture. We as scientist try to work out the bigger picture from, the small knowlage we know. From working in the science game, I see the pressure (Not direct) to make things fit. For good or bad :mad: Some people give in:mad:. Human nature (both ways). Keep that in mind, always;) Lab+funding=more funding (depending on results) such is life as you know yourself.

Yup. Which is why when one lab alone publishes something, it's not taken as gospel, even the largest and most reputable labs have had problems with this kind of thing; as a verification, other labs have to replicate their findings independently, those are then discussed and thrashed over in the academic journals, often for years while the public wonders why scientists can't just tell them the answers, until finally a consensus is reached, and even then it's rarely 100% of the people, because if you're a dissenting voice you can write a book and make some money.

Thing is, we're at the tail end of that process here. The consensus is in, and it's about as universal as it gets:
http://www.grist.org/article/there-is-no-consensus/

Sure there are plenty of unsolved problems and active debates in climate science. But if you look at the research papers coming out these days, the debates are about things like why model predictions of outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere in tropical latitudes differ from satellite readings, or how the size of ice crystals in cirrus clouds affect the amount of incoming shortwave reflected back into space, or precisely how much stratospheric cooling can be attributed to ozone depletion rather than an enhanced greenhouse effect.

No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century.

This is where there is a consensus.

Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:

the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels;
if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
While theories and viewpoints in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents constitute a very small minority. If we require unanimity before being confident, well, we can't be sure the earth isn't hollow either.

This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1), the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world.

The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
... in either one or both of these documents: PDF, PDF.

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?

(again, more source material links available off that link).

Tackleberrywho

So Can a poll be introduced to see who uses a Commercial vehicle as a method of getting to their permissions??

Grizzly 45

Nope. More like 50 years. So we'd get the start of it and our kids get the full whack of it.

WHAT!!!In 50 years the moon is gone and the sun goes super nova!!!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:.Bugger global warming then!We had better start figuring out interstellar space travel very quickly!!!Ah well.I'll be 94 then so it wont worry me too much then.:)

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

WHAT!!!In 50 years the moon is gone and the sun goes super nova!

No, in 50 years we'll be starting to notice larger scale sea rises and other large, unavoidable climate change effects (assuming we don't fix the problem before then, meaning now).
Of course, we'll have been seeing increasingly unpleasant weather pattern changes before then, but what's half a country under water here or a country in a dustbowl there between skeptics?

4gun

Global warming is a hot topic

Any way how do the explain that the temperature in both Britian and Ireland was much warmer that it is not around the end of the first millenium for a period of about 100 years, of is this just a myth
What about the Iceman in the Alps, it is believed that when he began his journey to his death that particular passages were opened
even in Ireland where stone ditches wre uncovered underneath cut away bogs
in the long run climate changes these might be only short trem fluctuations they might not
I think the whole thing is about saving oil and a future energy crisis..

Grizzly 45

So we are going to fix this problem how exactly??Considering that the planet produces more crud than we do naturally every year??This is going to be sorted out by banning a few hunderd 4litre plus cars and farting cows ,and using mercury filled lightbulbs,and gas fired patio heaters and taxing the Irish people to death with green taxes???
Not to mind the West comitting ecnomic suicide in trying to compete against countries that have huge pouplations with a market demand,and not caring overly about their enviroment or others either??While the West becomes totally unecnomic to produce anything because of draconian enviromental laws.

I'll BET you in 20 years if Boards.ie is still functioning and we are all still alive,and we are communicating via holographic virtual reality rather than keyboards.Or we are sitting around a campfire in our Road Warrior leather gear,and with our firearms[at least liscensing wont be a big topic anymore...We will proably have Gormless and that nasty little mans skulls as drinking cups:D:D]Global warming will not have occured to the apcolyptic predictions we hear today.Either I will need scuba gear to be typing this where I am sitting or I wont in 20 years.One of us will be right and the other wrong.Simple as.

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

Any way how do the explain that the temperature in both Britian and Ireland was much warmer that it is not around the end of the first millenium for a period of about 100 years, of is this just a myth

The Medieval Warm Period wasn't so much a myth as an idea that just turned out to be wrong: http://www.grist.org/article/the-medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm-as-today/

What about the Iceman in the Alps, it is believed that when he began his journey to his death that particular passages were opened

See above

even in Ireland where stone ditches wre uncovered underneath cut away bogs

Generally, that's an example of how climate change destroys places we used to live. The Ceide Fields (which is what you're thinking of, I think) are a fairly famous example of a climate change basicly wiping out thriving communities.

in the long run climate changes these might be only short trem fluctuations they might not

Er, no. Not with changes on this scale.

Grizzly 45

4gun wrote: »

Global warming is a hot topic

I think the whole thing is about saving oil and a future energy crisis..

Throw in a Multi billion dollar industry of the Green movement, in all its shapes.Now, you might be getting towards the right direction.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

So we are going to fix this problem how exactly??Considering that the planet produces more crud than we do naturally every year?

Er, not true Grizzly.
http://www.grist.org/article/natural-emissions-dwarf-human-emissions/

It's true that natural fluxes in the carbon cycle are much larger than anthropogenic emissions. But for roughly the last 10,000 years, until the industrial revolution, every gigatonne of carbon going into the atmosphere was balanced by one coming out.

What humans have done is alter one side of this cycle. We put approximately 6 gigatonnes of carbon into the air but, unlike nature, we are not taking any out.

Thankfully, nature is compensating in part for our emissions, because only about half the CO2 we emit stays in the air. Nevertheless, since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest over 150 years ago, the atmospheric concentration that was relatively stable for the previous several thousand years has now risen by over 35%.

So whatever the total amounts going in and out "naturally," humans have clearly upset the balance and significantly altered an important part of the climate system.

This is going to be sorted out by banning a few hunderd 4litre plus cars and farting cows ,and using mercury filled lightbulbs,and gas fired patio heaters and taxing the Irish people to death with green taxes?

Burping cows. Thanks to the academics in UCC for researching that.

But basicly, no, not by any one measure and not by anything the Irish GP is going to do. But by having higher fuel efficiency in cars you can reduce the amount of CO2 dumped as well as ease demand for oil (if all US cars got 40mpg, they could cease importing all oil from Saudi Arabia, for example). Healthier diets would mean less burping cows (seriously, I love me some steak, but I don't eat it every single day of the week, which is what they're talking about when they say eat more fish and chicken. Hell, if we all ate a more traditional diet of game and fish and so forth, we'd be reducing our carbon footprint enormously - so it's Green to hunt). And if we reduced the energy we consume by using more modern, more efficient appliances, then that reduces how much we need to generate (not to mention reduces our bills every month). There are also carbon fixing things that can be done - growing more plants, basicly.

Don't go looking at the Green Party just because it's an ecological problem Grizzly. Feck's sake, hunters have been handling ecological problems for years before the Irish GP got elected. If the Irish GP doesn't get lumped in with the NARGC because they both deal with green issues, then why the hell would you lump the Irish GP in with the scientific community in the same way?

While the West becomes totally unecnomic to produce anything because of draconian enviromental laws.

They said that about Detroit and Ford when folks asked for higher quality cars in the 60s. Ford said it was uneconomic to try. Japan went off and did it, and ate Ford's lunch as a result. The thing is, just because it's a crisis doesn't mean there's no money to be made - in fact, just the opposite.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Throw in a Multi billion dollar industry of the Green movement, in all its shapes.Now, you might be getting towards the right direction.

I seriously doubt it.
(a) Multi-billion? Chicken feed. Ireland can come up with multiple billions Grizzly, we just dumped thirty of them into NAMA...
(b) Green movement -vs- Big Oil and Big Chemicals. I know which of those is more likely to win in any knife-fight, and it won't be led by Al Gore.

4gun

What I omitted was the rate at which the temperature is rising is what has most scientists alarmed...but temperature and even carbon levels can change..
and as for funding research... how many billions have been pumped into "green energy" most of which already existed 30 years ago, H2o fuel cells
electric cars, more efficient engines I remember reading about these things thirty years ago..
further taxation isn't going to help when there are no alternatives to the use of fossil fuels at the present time ...
it is just a tax and will reinforce the idea that people think that this whole global warming is just another way for governments to generate revenue
why not just phase them out over time..

Sparks

4gun wrote: »

What I omitted was the rate at which the temperature is rising is what has most scientists alarmed...but temperature and even carbon levels can change..

Yeah, but it's like driving down the M50. You can wander a bit inside your lane safely enough, but drift out of it and you suddenly learn that small changes can put you over the threshold into pretty major consequences; and that early corrections are better corrections

and as for funding research... how many billions have been pumped into "green energy" most of which already existed 30 years ago, H2o fuel cells
electric cars, more efficient engines I remember reading about these things thirty years ago..

Reading about, yes. Seeing working production models, no. Lots of stuff lauded 30 years ago turned out to be unworkable outside the R&D lab.

it is just a tax and will reinforce the idea that people think that this whole global warming is just another way for governments to generate revenue

Exactly. Climate change is a real problem; but the Greens in Ireland are as likely to come up with a good solution to it as I am to win the lotto twice in one week.

4gun

Sparks wrote: »

Reading about, yes. Seeing working production models, no. Lots of stuff lauded 30 years ago turned out to be unworkable outside the R&D lab.
Exactly. Climate change is a real problem; but the Greens in Ireland are as likely to come up with a good solution to it as I am to win the lotto twice in one week.

30 years ago there was no political will, people spoke about the damages to the envoirnment even before that it just PC to be on the band wagon now...
and our green party will turn alot of people away from genuine green issues
If they are soo worried about carbon levels in the athmosphere why not pump money into reforestation projects and not commercial plantations like Caoilte..ther be no monetary gain in it,..how many tons of carbon does a mature acre of broadleaf forestry absorb in a year

Sparks

Relating to the OP, Gormley was on Radio One this morning with Kenny, vehemently denying that any change has been made to legislation or policy; and recounting an anecdote of meeting a constituent who told him that if he'd met Gormley while carrying his gun, he'd have shot Gormley.

Which, if true, was a rather Gormless thing to have said, IMHO.

Tackleberrywho

Can anybody who is due to renew Tax in the next few weeks on a commercial Post were they asked to make a declaration on this thread?

Anybody that hunts deer requires a commercial as a necessity if they are serious about it.

not saying that many a deer was not brought back from the mountains in the back of a Micra but hopefully them days will be gone for good.

As is no Quadbikes in the mountains, now he is trying to sneak in no 4x4's!!

That is my Primary concern!

Maybe I should buy a Prius:p

Tackleberrywho

Gormley: Commercial vehicle fear 'nonsensical'
Thursday, 26 August 2010 11:20
Minister John Gormley has said it is 'nonsensical' to suggest that parents bringing their children to school in commercial vehicles will be stopped by gardaí

Minister Gormley was responding to reports that owners of commercial vehicles will have to sign a declaration stating that they will not use their vehicle for domestic or recreational purposes.

Minister Gormley said the rules have not changed, and gardaí will use their discretion.

Grizzly 45

Sparks wrote: »

Er, not true Grizzly.
http://www.grist.org/article/natural-emissions-dwarf-human-emissions/

. But by having higher fuel efficiency in cars you can reduce the amount of CO2 dumped as well as ease demand for oil (if all US cars got 40mpg, they could cease importing all oil from Saudi Arabia, for example).

If only it were true...Not the bit about fuel ecnomy....I still get 25 mpg out of a US 4 litre,which is about average for any big motor,not to mind it just gets broken in at around the 100k mark.But the fact that the US importing oil from Saudai,it has more serious geo political consequences for that entire area if we stopped importing,and the Arabs were heading back to camels.

Healthier diets would mean less burping cows (seriously, I love me some steak, but I don't eat it every single day of the week, which is what they're talking about when they say eat more fish and chicken

Trouble is with chickens, their slurry produces more methane than cattle,so you lose out or maybe not if you can contain it for methane gas conversion.However that again requires money and willpower to do so.

. Hell, if we all ate a more traditional diet of game and fish and so forth, we'd be reducing our carbon footprint enormously - so it's Green to hunt). And if we reduced the energy we consume by using more modern, more efficient appliances, then that reduces how much we need to generate (not to mention reduces our bills every month). There are also carbon fixing things that can be done - growing more plants, basicly.

Don't go looking at the Green Party just because it's an ecological problem Grizzly. Feck's sake, hunters have been handling ecological problems for years before the Irish GP got elected. If the Irish GP doesn't get lumped in with the NARGC because they both deal with green issues, then why the hell would you lump the Irish GP in with the scientific community in the same way?

Because they keep using this as a vechicle to promote their social engineering plans.Wether global warming exists or not is totally irrevelant to this in its entireity.It is a means to an end for the GP worldwide.

The Earth is heating up,cooling down therefore we Must do this,that and the other say the GP to save the planet.We must use biodiesel for example,grand says everyone in Germany no bother we can do this.And they do,No say the Greens now people are using their diesel cars too much on wasteful trips to and from work,where despite a very efficent public transport infa structure you still need a car betimes to get things done.So they tax their own solution out the door,bio diesel is now more expensive than dino diesel in Germany,and everyone went back to dino diesel. Just an example of an attempt of social engineering by a GP.Our side the stag hunting ban.There are plenty of viable green ideas out there that could work,and I am all for them too.EG the idea of dual fuel cars,run on alcohol and petrol,as this could be a major employment generator in Ireland for both the farming and mechanical /auto industry.Yet when Gormless gets involved in it ,it becomes a farsce! Same thing as the nuke power discussion in Ireland,or this absolutely ludicrious idea of electric cars here.That they are pushing us to buy by hook or crook.

They said that about Detroit and Ford when folks asked for higher quality cars in the 60s. Ford said it was uneconomic to try. Japan went off and did it, and ate Ford's lunch as a result. The thing is, just because it's a crisis doesn't mean there's no money to be made - in fact, just the opposite.

True enough,but how long did it take Japan to produce a car that was now on par and eventually superior to a European /US product?? By and large 40 years.Not to mind a oil crisis of the 1970s helped immensely,and Japan was becoming an industrial heavyweight by its very cheapness.Somthing the US with labour laws ,etc was finding hard to do.
Nothing wrong with making moneyat all crisis or no.

Grizzly 45

[

QUOTE=Sparks;67670841]I seriously doubt it.
(a) Multi-billion? Chicken feed. Ireland can come up with multiple billions Grizzly, we just dumped thirty of them into NAMA...

Talking worldwide Sparks,not just here.

(

b) Green movement -vs- Big Oil and Big Chemicals. I know which of those is more likely to win in any knife-fight, and it won't be led by Al Gore.

Al "robot" Gore makes Enda Kenny look like a bubbling chatty gregarious personality in comparision. .However dont underestimate what the green movement can come up with either.Youth and disposeabe income!
Dont look at this short term,look medium to long term.Which was always an old communist trick,and it is intresting to see how many former dyed in the wool Reds have become suddenly Green worldwide.

bunny shooter

Tackleberrywho wrote: »

Can anybody who is due to renew Tax in the next few weeks on a commercial Post were they asked to make a declaration on this thread?...........

I'm taxing my van tomorrow. Will see how that goes

johngalway

bunny shooter wrote: »

I'm taxing my van tomorrow. Will see how that goes

There was something on the IFJ about it today, just caught the headline now, haven't bought the paper yet, think it was "business as usual for 4x4", may apply to vans as well. Storm in a teacup over nothing, they should have left well enough alone.

bunny shooter

Sparks wrote: »

Relating to the OP, Gormley was on Radio One this morning with Kenny, vehemently denying that any change has been made to legislation or policy; and recounting an anecdote of meeting a constituent who told him that if he'd met Gormley while carrying his gun, he'd have shot Gormley.

Which, if true, was a rather Gormless thing to have said, IMHO.

Well if old Gormless is that concerned he knows where the local Garda station is unless he's making it up of course to get a dig into a certain group who caused him more than a few problems on the legislation front recently. I don't agree with a statement like that and if someone did say it they SHOULD loose their firearm/s :mad:

bunny shooter

johngalway wrote: »

......Storm in a teacup over nothing, they should have left well enough alone.

Or someone in the media doing a bit more FF spin-doctoring at the expense of the Greens :eek:

Grizzly 45

Or somone running an idea up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it.