"Green" policies are destroying this country

Who built it then? Elves?

Viridian count as big business in my book.

With 75 million euros in funding from the EU. And they then sold it for a profit to a Mutual who operate it at cost on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland

...cause its clearly fcuking obvious, if we continue our use off fossil fuels, your kids, grand kids, nieces and nephews are fcuked, thats why! its clearly obvious that fossil fuel interests rule the roost here, and this once again has been proven during our recent energy crisis, with most fossil fuel producers showing record profits, whos getting fcuked here, all of us of course! so its time to start reducing their abilities to control markets, and taxation is one such method...

...so the logic is, lets completely fcuk up the future of your loved ones, just so these bias's are maintained, and ultimately only a few, primary fossil fuel asset owners can have their cake.....really!

Didn't all energy providers show massive profits?

What I can't understand is how people think that once renewable energy companies are top dog, that they won't start riding the general public in the same way as fossil fuel business do via restricting supply and all the rest? Ya'd imagine that the renewable companies are doing all the work out of the goodness of their heart. Once there's a tipping point (can't believe I brought that phrase up), Joe and Jane Public will be able to straighten up as fossil fuels withdraw only to turn around and bend over for the renewable crowd

Used to enjoy watching this lad on nature programs but he's gone full retard lately. Listen to this clip and you can see the level of derangement and self righteousness on display in all it's glory.

"It's okay to break the law because Climate..." And this is from a mainstream conservationist. Expect to see more of this type of messaging.

I don't have kids. While I'm not 100% bought into the green dystopia, my wife and I didn't see the point in contributing further to global overcrowding. We do our but where we can. We just help other less fortunate kids instead.

Anyway, if this is your best retort after having your previous post dissected and disproven, then I despair. Not a valid argument in any of your rants apart from "won't someone think of the children".

Same here. Probably watching the same program. It seems you cannot watch any recent nature/weather/climate program without getting 'the message' shoved in yr face.

The other thing i have noticed: the huge 'understanding' of anything Extinction Rebellion does while at the same time warning others about 'far right conspiracy theorists' in regards to protests against the state. The same binary thinking we see on so many levels..

Oh give over.

I haven't taken the shilling of a single Green body, I do everything DIY. It's pointless entertaining things that at least at the moment are impossible.

I've always said this you don't get to pick and choose laws you obey (bit like the just stop oil protesters blocking public highways , should be dragged off and arrested) Chris packham should have all his TV contracts cancelled over this.

I challenge you to produce scientific evidence for that among the official IPCC reports. I don't mean in the summaries which the media then spin into predictions of climate disaster. I mean in the actual science itself. There is nothing in there that says your kids and grandkids are fk'd.

It's quite amazing how those oil producers voluntarily reduced their prices in 2014-16 from over $100/barrel to under $50. You have to admit it was generous of them, seeing as how they control the markets and all that.

Or could it be something else? Such as increasing demand and under-investment in supply? It would take you all of one minute of Googling to find out. Oil demand has continued its inexorable climb for decade after decade. Around the turn of the millennium when I first took an interest it was 70m bbl/day. Peak Oilers were predicting that we would top out out 85 mbbl/day in 2005 and never exceed that. We hit 100 mbbl/day in 2018. After a dip caused by the pandemic some were predicting we had hit peak demand and would never reach pre-pandemic levels again. We did that at the end of 2022. This year demand is up 2.2 mbbl/day, to over 102 mbbl/day. That's why I laugh when people post on this thread that "fossil fuels are dead". It's even funnier when they claim oil producers are price-gouging. It shows a total lack of understanding about how prices are set.

Every year, existing fields decline by 6 mbbl/day. That's how much new oil we need to develop every year just to stand still, at a cost of about half a trillion dollars per year in new investment. Since investment is harder to come by in OECD countries due to Green policies, we are now more easily held over a barrel by state producers like the Saudis and Russians. They have been holding oil off the market, ostensibly because of the anticipation of weakening demand. But the consequent run-up in prices doesn't hurt them. Right now there is over a million barrels per day of shortfall between supply and demand. Prices are heading for $100/bbl for the first time since 2014.

So you reckon we can get oil prices down by taxation? Who are you going to tax? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? If you tax western oil producers you are just going to reduce investment and store up even higher prices for the future. And that's going to be quite a problem when it turns out that looney Green policies don't reduce our demand for the stuff whatsoever. The reason why oil demand is so inelastic in the face of supply shortfalls -- and therefore why prices run up so quickly -- is that we cannot sever our dependence. People will pay whatever it costs to keep their cars and their heating running. Green policies are leading us to a double disaster -- failing to wean us off fossils by betting on unworkable unaffordable technologies, and hiking the prices of fossils through unfriendly policies.

They do that in the summary which is what is presented and reported on. Ya know all those late night discussions between people and politicians and whoever about including words or not including words in summaries. The actual IPCC reports themselves aren't as biased to one side or the other

Yer last line was spot on. I recall on this very thread it being discussed about lines being taken out of paragraphs in the reports and stitched together in the SPM to make things look worse than they are

I wonder did the move to CO2 car taxation increase these pollutants?

Anyway, to help the people of Dublin in their cars should consider culling some cows. That's bound to help

are cows normally allowed live into old age and die in their sleep or something, do they not get culled anyway?

regardless, the air quality can often be far worse in places like donegal and wexford than in dublin, so if you think killing your cows will help your rural brethren maybe give it a go!

Obviously I am not looking for those literal words in any part of AR6, including the SPM. I am suggesting that such an implication (let's call it an "existential crisis" rather than using the f-word) is not carried anywhere in the IPCC summary of the science.

I'm not that interested in the political vagaries. Even the SPM is not what makes it into the news headlines. Those are driven by people like Chief Doom Monger Gutteres who blathers on about "global boiling", "millions of people in imminent danger", and "code red for humanity". None of those appear in any part of AR6 including the SPM. The man is an irresponsible fool.

There are some curious differences in tone between the output of Working Group 1 who summarise the science, and Working Group 2 who write on impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. But that is by the by. Table 12.12 from Chapter 12 of the report is the best single page summary of WG1's output (and yes, there is vastly more detail to be had especially on more regional focuses, and I've read plenty of it but can't assume anyone else here will).

I see no sign of an existential crisis in there and -- I can't stress this enough -- Chapter 12 widely employs the implausible RCP8.5 or SSP5-8.5 scenarios. What you read there is almost certainly worse than the worst case. (Yes, it ignores "tipping points". The IPCC has a statement on why they consider crossing tipping point thresholds to be unlikely in the 21st century. You can check that with them rather than me).

The consequences are worse for any rise, at any level. 1.5C was always a political target and nothing to do with the science. It was emphasised by small island nations and adopted for a time, even though most scientists expressed the view that it was unrealistic. It got shoehorned into models that employed increasing amounts of negative emissions technologies (NETs) in order to come up with the "right" answer:

(Van Beek et al. (2022) "Navigating the political: An analysis of political calibration of integrated assessment modelling in light of the 1.5 °C goal", Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 133, July 2022, Pages 193-202.)

Even the IPCC's 2018 "Special Report on 1.5°C" says that we would exceed that target if all emissions stopped immediately, though temperatures could come back under the limit after a period of overshoot with appropriate deployment of NETs.

So the idea we are heading to hell in a handbasket after exceeding 1.5°C is just more unsubstantiated palaver. In fact, the 2°C limit is equally arbitrary. It came out of a 1995 statement by the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) which plucked the limits of "tolerable temperature" as between the low temperatures of the last glacial maximum and the high temperatures of the last inter-glacial. They got these from an obscure 1987 book by Etling and Hantel entitled Klimatologie, Teil 1. The difference between the pre-industrial global average and the last interglacial high was 2°C. That's where that came from.

This has been very longwinded. The bottom line is that there are no forecasts of an existential crisis is any IPCC report.