"Green" policies are destroying this country

In fairness to moderation they do seem to be very short on people wishing to moderate. That said, not long ago on another thread I was threatend with a ban if I posted figures showing the economic advantages of nuclear over wind energy.

Previously there was no such problem for posters picking out the most expensive nuclear options they could find and comparing them to wind, but when new figures for finished and operational nuclear plants plus quotes for others became know, along with the price for offshore wind capital costs going through the roof, suddenly comparisons were verboten.

Oh the sheer sweet irony of this. It's actually months back and you have repeated the same mistake literally dozens of times. You're the guy that doesn't think the government plans to phase natural gas out of the energy mix. You're the only poster for whom I keep an actual (well, virtual) post-it note on my computer to trot out each time you recycle the same mistake.

So here you are for the god-knows-how-many-th time:

We'd a poster here, now gone, who loved to link dump. And was all over the retrofit schemes and how great it was and blah blah blah

These houses were upgraded at no cost to the resident, and now the resident can't afford the bills.

It's also a bit weird that the budget for this work is being cut by 35%. Even more astonishing, in a "climate emergency" that the budget last year was only capable of 54 homes and maybe 35 this year. Anyone else think this scheme is bollox?

I stand by what the quoted part of my outlier post and IMO extreme views by the 'experts' on both sides are creating a sense of apathy by the non expert majority.

There's rhetoric to be found in abundance on both sides of the climate change discussion. Even on here a few pages back we had some chap blathering on about if Ireland doesn't stop burning fossil fuels then flooding will become more severe in the country in the years ahead. Hyperbole or what? Would I throw down my tools and slavishly follow such an expert opinion?

Do I believe the IPCC conclusions and recommendations? I'm not a climate scientist or expert in the field but I've listened to enough debate on both sides to believe that there's plenty room for ambiguity around its findings. Ireland should of course set a path to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and increase its use of renewables over time. No argument there. The issue I have is the constant rhetoric that if we don't do it all today, irrespective of cost and what the rest of the world is doing, the world is fcuked. Quite possibly we're all fcuked anyway, who know, but certainly we could wipe out this country in the morning and never emit a gram of CO2 ever again and it wouldn't have a jot of influence on global climate change.

There's no need to dictate to the assembly just make the funding package balanced. If 600m is going to a road, then 1.2bn needs to go to pt. That'd be enough money to really improve Dublin/Belfast rail.

That's what I'm pointing out, there's a need for consistency here. Ultimately that €600m should be spent on upgrading Dublin-Belfast trains to modern standards, which will reduce car journeys. The A5 isn't really all that important especially when we're planning for a reduction in car usage. Building the A5 is counter productive, as is the Galway bypass if the goal is reduced car journeys

Scientific reports and their conclusions simply reflect buyers opinion - those who ordered and paid for it. That apply for everything not just "climate science".

Whole climate science is based on who pays for studies. That seems to be argument you like to use when you try to discredit studies which refute your arguments - saying "look, big oil paid for that" or *"look, Falun Gong propaganda sheet!!!".

Climate science and mainly CO2 part of it is junk science and thankfully people starting to come out and refuse this ideology.

*edited to add "green thinking" example

You exactly proved my point.

60% of EU green energy comes from burning biomass? Bizarre claim. Solar PV alone supplies more energy than biofuels. Hydro provides twice as much as bio and wind 3 times as much. So less than a quarter of your claim. Include nuclear - a carbon free source - and your down to single digits.

Much of the content we read in media comes from billionaire backed eNGOs such as Covering Climate Now (CCNow) (RTE is a partner) and another called Climate Brief. CCNow are supported by a Washington DC based fund for constitutional government. Carbon Brief are funded by super bundling organiser the European climate foundation (ECF), who get their funds primarily from US backed billionaire foundations such as Bloomberg and the Rockefellers. Reuters trains Irish journalists under the Oxford Climate Journalist network, that is also underwritten by ECF. The Torygraph has been sold to the UAE, they source much or their climate and "energy" stories from Carbon Brief. Associated press receives funds to cover climate from the likes of KR foundation. The crowd behind attributing weather events to climate change are World Weather Attribution underwritten by the Grantham foundation. If you look up the financial statements (usually a 2 year lag, financial statements at the back of the documents) for Irish based eNGOs you will sometimes see grants from the ECF, and the EU, funding also comes from the taxpayer via the Irish Environmental Network and don't forget An Taisce. An Taisce have close working relationship with Friends of the Irish Environment, a private limited company that likes to open court cases. There is the local franchise of the multinational Friends of the Earth, whose members include failed Green party candidate Cara Augustenborg who sits on the Climate Change Advisory Council quango. eNGOs are a multinational industry, and you can chart the movements and relationships of their members in this country via linkedin.

All the future projections you see about the weather in X years time are generated using computer models with no demonstrated skill in successful prediction. Every few months Irish media will run fear stories about rising sea levels based on computer generated maps from an NGO called Climate Central,who use a modelling scenario known as RCP 8.5, that has no basis in reality.

PS, According to a climate scientist, Dr. James Anderson the world should have ended last year and another scientist Dr David Viner, back in 2000 claimed kids would not know what snow is. The world of climate astrology is littered with failed predictions going back decades.