I think I am tired of being "Green".

Cervelo said:
So your answer is to do nothing, carry on and keep calm, sure it will all work out for the better in the end??.
Click to expand...
I never said that. What I did say is irregardless of doing something, anything done in Ireland won't make any difference if the large emission-producing countries do not change their behaviour.

Why is this concept so difficult for you to comprehend?
 
Cervelo said:
Agree, except for the fact we are far more knowledgeable about our effect on the planets ecosystem now then in past
But we should ignore these new scientific facts because you don't agree with them
Click to expand...
It is indeed true that we know more than ever before about the planet and its ecosystem. But it is also true that the message propagated by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming activists is if anything more alarmist and less nuanced than when Al Gore first proclaimed that "the science is settled" back in 1992.

In fact the more one delves into the intricacies of climate science, the more it becomes apparent how much of the catastrophism is based on the same sort of computer modelling that told us only three years ago that Covid 19 would remain a long term threat to life as we then knew it.

No matter how strong and instinctively seductive a theory initially appears, it is always important to properly apply our critical faculties when appraising it, particularly if it demands a massive redirection of public policy.
 
T McGibney said:
Are we? David Bellamy was one of the most famous environmentalists around and lost his career because he expressed scepticism about the so-called consensus that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
Click to expand...
Yes we are and yes Bellamy my be right about the natural cycle of how the climate changes but even he was 100% in agreement with the scientists the we humans are destroying the ecosystem that we rely on to survive
T McGibney said:
No, we should always be sceptical of people who tell us the world is in danger of ending.
Whether we instinctively agree with them or not.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, but you can't argue against science when the science is telling us we need to change our ways
 
tallpaul said:
I never said that. What I did say is irregardless of doing something, anything done in Ireland won't make any difference if the large emission-producing countries do not change their behaviour.

Why is this concept so difficult for you to comprehend?
Click to expand...
I totally get the concept and I'm not disagreeing with you I have even gone as far in this thread to say that I don't agree with the majority of the proposals or ideas that our governments are implementing
All I have said or suggested is that we could/should try to consume less as a way of tackling this problem
Your answer to that is why bother it's all a waste of time if everybody else is not doing the same
And that is a concept I do fail to comprehend!!
 
Last edited:
Cervelo said:
All I have said or suggested is that we could/should try to consume less as a way of tackling this problem
Click to expand...
The evidence backing that as a strategy is contradictory.

For example
 
Last edited:
My main problem is that the Green Zealots absolutely love a tax and a levy. Only a few posts back, one was suggesting a levy on McDonalds' packaging. On another forum, a zealot was suggesting that there be an increased tax on ICE cars to 'encourage' the switch to EV. Pointless.

Why should I, as an Irish citizen and taxpayer, be forced to pay a green tax on this and a green levy on that when it doesn't matter? I would be more than happy to pay such taxes and levies when the rest of the world gets its house in order.
 
You are still conveniently ignoring the local benefits to green action that do matter. Again, it is not just about climate change.

Also, while talking about new taxes you fail to mention the grants that are available for EVs, solar panels and home improvements etc. That doesn't fit your narrative though that green initiatives are all about taxes.
 
T McGibney said:
The evidence backing that as a strategy is contradictory.

For example
Click to expand...
I think maybe you should read the whole article rather than just cherry picking the first line

From the same article
Despite the short-term warming effects, Gettelman emphasized that the long-term impact of the pandemic may be to slightly slow climate change because of reduced emissions of carbon dioxide, which lingers in the atmosphere for decades and has a more gradual influence on climate

Gettelman said the study will help scientists better understand the influence of various types of aerosols in different atmospheric conditions, helping to inform efforts to minimize climate change. Although the research illustrates how aerosols counter the warming influence of greenhouse gases, he emphasized that emitting more of them into the lower atmosphere is not a viable strategy for slowing climate change.
 
Indeed, all of which are gradually being eroded and reduced over time such as solar and EV until they will no longer exist. They are currently of benefit to those who can already afford to get an EV or massively reinsulate their house etc.

The taxes and levies will always remain though...
 
Last edited:
Cervelo said:
I think maybe you should read the whole article rather than just cherry picking the first line
Click to expand...
I did.
Speculation.

Not evidence.
 
My God we are doomed.

As you have rightly pointed out, on many many occasions to do with queries ofccomplex tax matters, a person should seek professional advice, rather than relying on amateur 'inputs'.

So please, do us a favour and leave the trials and tribulations of climatic science to the experts, world meteorologists, professors, researchers who have spelled out the correlations in simple terms, perhaps the penny, no pun intended in this case hasn't quite dropped.
 
Last edited:
Have you considered how much resources an Irish citizen consumes compared to rest of world. I mean per head of population OBVIOUSLY?.

Do you think an Indian, Chinese or Indonesian person should not aspire to same living standards as you...Do you think they use less or more energy per annum.
What luxury should a Chinese or Indian give up to show you leaadership?
Should they give up aspirations of clean water and sanitation, or travel by donkey for perpetuity?

And what are you offering in return ?
As a presumed resident of an insignificant former colony who says you have more rights than others??, your not the United States

Aside from that, do you like handing over your money to Sheik X and Mullah Y, so that you dance to their tune.

Self reliance anybody, anybody, nope no signal, no chance, ignorance is bliss, I'm a paddy ergo everyone likes me and Im special.
 
Last edited:
No.

There is a massive difference between on the one hand being aware of the limitations of ones knowledge on the technical aspects of complex topics such for example health, the law or tax, and on the other, leaving one's common sense at the door and deliberately failing to inform oneself as best as one can in general terms as to how those complex topics actually work.

In relation to tax, I think it's indisputable that people in general are much better informed in general terms as to how taxes and tax systems work than compared to our parents' generation and that both they and society in general are well served by that.

The same applies to health, where we generally are living healthier lives with much better outcomes in terms of overall health, recovery from illness and management of conditions than our parents generation did.

Remember, when our parents were at the same stage in life as we are now, they were collectively perplexed by why for example so many people were dying of heart attacks in early middle age, why various calamities such as workplace fatalities and house fires were endemic, and why tax dodging seemed to pay off better than honesty.

Yet a generation later, while these problems have not gone away, they are less pressing than they were, and a large part of that is down to ordinary people being better informed.

So after all that, if I or anyone else were now to suggest that ordinary citizens should stop trying to improve our collective awareness of health tax or other crucial issues, and leave all that to the expert professionals who will understand everything much better than ordinary citizens ever can, i don't think our arguments would hold much water.

Yet you're effectively saying that in relation to climate science and public policy surrounding it.

I'm not buying that and not should anyone else.

And, no we are not doomed either. In general we are living lives of which our parents and grandparents could only have dreamed, and even on a global scale, big advances have been made in recent decades in the alleviation of formerly seemingly intractable problems such as absolute poverty and the management of disease, food shortages and poor life expectancy.
 
Last edited:
One less glass of organic wine and there may have been some semblance of coherence…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register