Cold called re free solar panels.

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

It's disappointing that you wont' ot can't back up what you say.

If there are 'many' instances of people 'clarifying' that it isn't only the poor which pay the fit in response to someone saying it is, then surely it should be extremely easy to find just one instance, shouldn't it?

I'm interested as to what prompted you to post ajust a couple of posts back that 'it isn't only the poor who pay'? Surely you must have been prompted by someone saying it was only the poor mustn't you? If so, can't you simply link to who said that (I repeat, in years here I've never seen anyone say it)? If it wasn't a response, then what motivated you to post it?

If you find a post from me saying 'the pope is catholic', you can bet a post just before state the pope wasn't. Not many randomly post a fact for no reason, they are usually prompted.

The several posts I've seen over the years stating the obvious 'oit's not only the poor who pay' have always been made in response to a post saying there is a transfer from the poor to rich which, I hope, you can see doesn't say that only the poor pay. Even Monbiot stated £8bn will be transfered fro the poor to the rich, but again, that doesn't imply only the poor pay, otherwise the total fit cost would be £8bn, and it's certainly going to be more than that over the 25 year fit life.

You stated something as fact Eric. You are one of the more reasonable posters imv. Either back up your fact or withdraw it please. Otherwise, I, and others i expect, will just assume you create straw men to justify your position.

Oh dear Graham, what a mess!

In a single post you:

deny the statement being made,
deny ever seeing the statement,
post the statement you claim never to have seen,
then claim that George's statement is wrong.

Unfortunately, that's a little ill-informed. GM stated that £8.6bn would be transferred from the poor to the middle classes. At the time he wrote the article the estimated cost of the scheme was £8.6bn.

Unless you have a different way of doing maths to me, he is clearly stating that the entire cost of the scheme would come from the poor. That statement alone, is so seriously wrong and designed to cause undue upset, that I see little value any more in his comments, even without analysing the rest of the article for many more massive errors, also of enormous magnitude.

Mart.

Cardew

Martyn1981 wrote: »

It was George Monbiot who admitted that it was not funded solely by the poor when he made his retraction:

"

Or his revised position is true?


Mart.

You have accused GM of saying that all the FIT was funded solely by the poor - but have not provided any link ; and your sole defence is based on those grounds.

Read his articles, he has destroyed any justification for FITs with absolute logic, and all you can do is see if you can find some semantic point, which you try and argue revises his stance - in fact you call it a 'retraction some months later'

That really is pathetic!

Everyone, but everyone, appreciates that all electricity consumers contribute to the subsidy enjoyed by those houseowners(and Rent a Roof venture capitalists) who collect FIT.

You really have lost the plot and make absolutely no sense. I suspect even those on your side on this issue are cringing at your latest nonsense.

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

You have accused GM of saying that all the FIT was funded solely by the poor - but have not provided any link ; and your sole defence is based on those grounds.

Have I entered into the Twilight Zone or something?

You have just been re-posting GM's statement where he claims that all the FIT is paid by the poor.

He claims that the movement of money from the poor to the middle classes will be equal to the entire budget as at the date of the article.

Why do I need to post a link, when you do so on such a regular basis, and have been doing so again lately?

Cardew wrote: »

Everyone, but everyone, appreciates that all electricity consumers contribute to the subsidy enjoyed by those houseowners(and Rent a Roof venture capitalists) who collect FIT.

Everyone, but everyone, appreciates that all electricity consumers contribute to the subsidy enjoyed by those houseowners(and Rent a Roof venture capitalists) who collect FIT.

For once you are correct, and even Graham thinks that claims that the poor are to pay the whole cost is ridiculous. So why do you keep re-posting GM's comments wrongly stating this, nearly 3 years after he himself retracted the statement?

I've often described yours and Graham's posts as odd, but today it's become insane. You post the argument, then deny the argument (?) then deny it was said, whilst posting it again. All the time Graham is demanding to see where it has ever been said, in posts that interact with yours repeating it over and over. I think Team GC need to have a meeting to get their stories straight.

So once again:-

Do you believe that the whole cost falls on the poor?

If not, then why do you keep bringing it up, and constantly referring to GM's article, when even he no longer stands by it?

Extra question - what on earth is the point of this, why do you need to keep rehashing this drivel? Is it the fact that everything is going well (perhaps too well) for PV that upsets you so much?

Mart.

EricMears

grahamc2003 wrote: »

I'm interested as to what prompted you to post ajust a couple of posts back that 'it isn't only the poor who pay'?

If you had looked at the snippet of the posting that my remark quoted you'd probably have noticed that I was responding to a remark along the lines of "it can't be fair to make those who can't afford something pay for others to have it". I took that to mean that the poster might think that that the poor were having to pay for the exercise whereas of course these 'poor' we seem to keep mentioning pay only a small contribution to the FIT scheme.

But it wasn't " a couple of posts ago" ! More like 30 posts ago. But I suppose anyone not awfully strong on mathematical reasoning might well accept "28" and "a couple" as being very close ?

grahamc2003

Cardew wrote: »

You have accused GM of saying that all the FIT was funded solely by the poor - but have not provided any link ; and your sole defence is based on those grounds.

Read his articles, he has destroyed any justification for FITs with absolute logic, and all you can do is see if you can find some semantic point, which you try and argue revises his stance - in fact you call it a 'retraction some months later'

That really is pathetic!

Everyone, but everyone, appreciates that all electricity consumers contribute to the subsidy enjoyed by those houseowners(and Rent a Roof venture capitalists) who collect FIT.

You really have lost the plot and make absolutely no sense. I suspect even those on your side on this issue are cringing at your latest nonsense.

Apparently, according to Eric (who I am awaiting a reply from), there have been 'many' instances of people saying it's only the poor who pay the fits. Hopefully he'll supply a link to one of them.

Monbiot is certainly one who has never said that only the poor pay. I think he's misguided and ignorant of much of what he talks about, but, streuth, no one thinks he could seriously think a fit system could be devised where only poor pay. He specifically gave a figure of £8bn as the wealth transfer from poor to rich via the fit, and that figure was at the time the estimated fit cost to 2030 (great value eh?), and not the total fit cost, which will obviously be far greater. Not only did he not say the fit cost fell on the poor alone, it is inconceivable that he could have ever thought that. It's only very disturbed and illogical people who could try to pin that on him.

Hopefully, if anyone anywhere can point to anything where anyone has said it's only the poor who pay the fit they'll post a link. Otherwise, I'll simply assume it's a (very weak indeed) straw man argument.

Martyn1981

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Monbiot is certainly one who has never said that only the poor pay. I think he's misguided and ignorant of much of what he talks about, but, streuth, no one thinks he could seriously think a fit system could be devised where only poor pay. He specifically gave a figure of £8bn as the wealth transfer from poor to rich via the fit, and that figure was at the time the estimated fit cost to 2030 (great value eh?), and not the total fit cost, which will obviously be far greater. Not only did he not say the fit cost fell on the poor alone, it is inconceivable that he could have ever thought that. It's only very disturbed and illogical people who could try to pin that on him.

Wow, the whole Team GC anti FITs/PV campaign is in full weasel / back peddle mode. Even by their usual standards, this weekend has been particularly comical.

So, quick re-cap:

i. George Monbiot stated "The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes."

ii. At the time the anticipated budget was £8.6bn.

iii. GM himself (under repeated pressure from 'Monbiotwatch') retracted that argument in March 2010.

Perhaps Team GC can also run through the rest of GM's anti PV rant. Perhaps they can prove that wind does generate at only 4.5p/kWh, and Germany turned it's back on PV in 2010?

Apparently Team GC weren't listening when I explained the golden rule to them last time - 'when you are in a hole, stop digging!' :rotfl: :rotfl:

Mart.

EricMears

grahamc2003 wrote: »

Apparently, according to Eric (who I am awaiting a reply from), there have been 'many' instances of people saying it's only the poor who pay the fits. Hopefully he'll supply a link to one of them.

I didn't say anything of the sort !

Responding to a post saying something along the lines of "there have been several instances of people citing confusion" , I agreed - adding in brackets that there may even have been "many" such instances (i.e. more than "a few").

If the poster who mentioned the instances of confusion being cited would like to list as many of them as possible I'd be happy to examine each one and report back with which point was being discussed. I certainly won't be wading through the hundreds of pages of rants relevant (or maybe not) to the point.

Cardew

Absolutely pathetic response from Martyn yet again.

The 'poor' very clearly do pay toward the FIT subsidy for the middle class and Rent a Roof venture capitalists.

Nobody has said or implied that only the poor contribute. Not Monboit or anyone on this thread.

To try and attribute that statement to GM by your semantic juggling and twisted logic is quite typical of your contributions to this part on MSE. You are simply incapable of understanding any logical argument.

You would do well to heed this statement:

Not only did he not say the fit cost fell on the poor alone, it is inconceivable that he could have ever thought that. It's only very disturbed and illogical people who could try to pin that on him.

For instance you cannot appreciate that GM was having an anti FIT 'rant' not an anti PV rant!


So let me say once again! The poor contribute to the FIT subsidy, not only the poor. Can you understand that fact? - I mean really understand!

Martyn1981

Cardew wrote: »

Nobody has said or implied that only the poor contribute. Not Monboit or anyone on this thread.

To try and attribute that statement to GM by your semantic juggling and twisted logic is quite typical of your contributions to this part on MSE. You are simply incapable of understanding any logical argument.

"So, quick re-cap:

i. George Monbiot stated "The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes."

ii. At the time the anticipated budget was £8.6bn.

iii. GM himself (under repeated pressure from 'Monbiotwatch') retracted that argument in March 2010.

Perhaps Team GC can also run through the rest of GM's anti PV rant. Perhaps they can prove that wind does generate at only 4.5p/kWh, and Germany turned it's back on PV in 2010?

Apparently Team GC weren't listening when I explained the golden rule to them last time - 'when you are in a hole, stop digging!' "

Still digging I see, say hello to my Uncle Bruce and my Aunty Shelia when you finally finish. :rotfl:

I appreciate that GM's article is the cornerstone of your whole anti PV/FITs campaign, but open your eyes, and recognise it for the horrific error filled rant that it is. :eek:

Mart.

grahamc2003

Cardew wrote: »

So let me say once again! The poor contribute to the FIT subsidy, not only the poor. Can you understand that fact? - I mean really understand!

Having a nice time Cardew?

There's a 'filter user' button or similar once your understandable frustration reaches its limit! If people have no sense of logic, I'm, afraid it's totally pointless trying to use logic as a debating point!

I'm afraid that to several on this board,

'The poor pay the fit'

is exactly the same as

'Only the poor pay the fit'

You won't change their mind I'm afraid.

Every post 'clarifying' that it's not only the poor pay' - even the latest clarification by Eric - is a misplaced response to someone having understandable concern that the poor have to pay for the fit, which they interpret as 'solely the poor'. Even with the proof, Eric can only muster a condescending and weak attempt at a personal attack rather than doing the honorable thing and admitting he interpreted something incorrectly.

Oh well, welcome to the new illogical world where the uneducated say and do as they feel and never accept responsibility.