"Green" policies are destroying this country

They don't repeat the study to verify the results, but they make sure the methodology is sound and the papers conclusions are consistent with the data. A million times better than the nonsense that gets posted on blogs and in YouTube channels

Not all peer review is equal (obviously) , there are loads of inferior journals and paper mills. When I post links to studies, I try to only link to the more reputable journals who have the most to lose by allowing sub standard research to get out under their banner (sometimes I link to where those papers free to read and not pay walled, but the papers are still published in good journals)

Its a 21st century land grab. Multi national companies buying land to off set their carbon credits.

Exactly, sand and gravel deposits that are easily washed away.

Consistent with what data though? The peer reviewers don't have access to models or experiments or any actual hard data. They look for obvious errors in any calculations used but, and this is the important bit so pay attention, do not in any way stand over the veracity of any claims within the paper.

Post what you like. What you don't say is just as informative as what you do say

The peer reviewers should have access to the data collected and submitted as part of the study, and should have access to all of the referenced studies through their institution

Or, we can just not use 'peer review' at all. It has been so much devalued as to make it a stamp for idiots. I go even further: to use 'peer review' to promote a paper/study is a red flag. I am not saying one should not go back and forth with editors and/or people in the field to flesh out inconsistencies/errors, just dont mention it. A paper is as good as the data and the inferences. If they lack cohesion it will show. I get the feeling that peer review is there to protect the publishers from embarrassment and to let the author(s)off the hook. So why use it?

They should, but they don't. Your post is not correct.

No data is provided, apart from what is included within the manuscript. Furthermore, my company provides zero access to referenced studies. As I am not a career academic, I have to buy the papers if I want to read them.

TBH as a reviewer is typically a volunteer, they probably won't have the time to replicate the analysis anyway.

Think of peer reviewers as a Moderator on here. I can say that "climate change is great because it makes the world a bit more exciting to live in and gives me the opportunity to make money" in one statement and because none of that is factually incorrect and it abides by the requirements for publication, it is allowed through. In another statement, I can say that "climate change is terrible because it causes uncertainty in the world and mitigating it is expensive". This is also factually correct and for the same reasons is allowed to be published.

Similar to the Journal publishers, boards.ie makes money from my posting (content and advertising) whilst relying on the Moderator's voluntary contribution. Thankfully, they don't (yet) charge us for every post we make in the way authors pay for their manuscripts.

The big questions are "How much of your content would you be willing to pay for in order to post here?" and "Who would pay to read it?"

So the answer to a problem that doesn't exist is to introduce stricter limits until a problem exists? What makes us so sure that the WHO limits are appropriate?

There is much more variety in species of animals and plants in Ireland today than there have been in the past. We have more variety and nutrition in our diet today, than many of our ancestors did, in fact we grow taller. I have 200 different plants cultivated in my garden, most of which are non-native species. All of the vegetables I grow have been bred for yield and even flavour, several of these plants are F1 hybrids. Where do you think all the tomato seed comes from to grow the supermarket tomatoes. Even when in comes to animals, there are several breeds of sheep, goats and cattle that displaced the original imports. Not only that, the latest census shows they are humans here from all over the world, a fairly diverse genetic admixture. or do humans not count as biodiversity. The magpie only arrived in Ireland during the 11th century, the brown rat arrived in the 1700s, the rabbit and Sycamore trees came in with the Normans, not to mention the various plants bought in via the monastic orders e.g. Montbretia that you see growing across the south west of Ireland is non native.

The point about 12,000 years is there is no such thing as a static environment, how the land is used has changed substantially over time, the species that thrived in previous ecological niche have had to adapt all through that time, meaning some fare less well or worse for them, go extinct and other species do really well in the new environment. All of this is a balancing act.

Of 191 bird and mammal species recorded as having gone extinct since 1500, 95% were on islands, where humans and human-introduced predators and diseases wrought the destruction. Source: Historical bird and terrestrial mammal extinction rates and causes (Craig Loehle).

The alarmists are extrapolating from the island extinction rates with wild guesses or just plain fear mongering. The attribution to climate change is just more computer model game gone wild and has no basis in fact. There is no evidence to support these extinction scenarios. The cute furry animal that alarmists promoted as the mascot for climate change, the Polar bear, has even been dropped from climate propaganda, because their numbers are growing, since the hunting ban in place since the early 1970s, as an unfortunate schoolboy from Eton found out they are still around.

The use of hydrocarbons has meant there is more forest cover today in Western Europe than the 19th century when more people depended on subsistence farming and wood for heat and construction material, the whales that were nearly hunted to extinction for their oil have recovered, somewhat ironically, offshore wind turbines are negatively affecting a species of whale, in the United States.

The Greens false ideologies, anti-development agendas and suffocating regulations are not necessarily going to have the effect on wildlife that they imagine it will, Ireland is not a wildlife theme park.

EV's is a fad which is losing its momentum anyway. Talking about clean air while conveniently quiet about pollution caused by mining lithium and power generating to keep these toys on the road.

Demand for EVs is souring as the "number of unsold electric vehicles at dealers in the second quarter tripled compared to the past year, signaling a weakened demand for the segment.

Holy jaysus. What the EPA have shown is that the air quality is good in Ireland. It can be better and there's work ongoing to achieve that. But you aren't happy because of some rules we don't follow yet will say it's not as good when using the existing methodology.

How many of the alleged 300000 deaths in the EU are a direct response to air quality? Like, the air is killing them and it's the only thing. How premature is premature? How are they determining this is the cause?

How does Ireland currently fare in terms of air quality vs. the rest of the EU? Use a metric that's common across the board - WHO I assume. A cursory google would show that coastal areas and indeed islands fare much better than central Europe. We'll still be damn near the top even when we change over to WHO.

An interesting one is that we currently exceed the WHO recommendation for NO2, despite it being primarily riven by fossil fuels - https://whoairquality.shinyapps.io/AirQualityStandards/

I'll ignore you so.