Read our cookies policy.
JKenH wrote: »
If I start a new thread can we agree that if I stay off your thread you will stay off mine?
If we see something we don’t like on the other’s thread we will copy the post to our own threads and argue with ourselves on there.
I don’t believe that is any great hardship
EricMears wrote: »
If you're going to criticise posts, at least have the courtesy to read them first ! Do you not recall me saying this :-
Also, sometimes you post items of green or ethical news here that I do find interesting - putting you on ignore would me I'd miss them !
1961Nick wrote: »
All this nonsense about what I believe in exists entirely inside your head. You need to re-examine that ... or get someone else to do it for you.;)
In this post alone you've accused me of;
That's just in one short post ... and you wonder why the thread is deteriorating.
UK is the 'go-to destination' around the world for expertise on designing, building, and further developing wind, wave, and tidal energy projects, RenewableUK claims
The UK's wind, wave, and tidal energy sector exports are worth £525m to the economy each year, with British-based companies now exporting their products and services to 37 countries across six continents, according to a new RenewableUK report released today.
The trade body said 47 UK onshore wind, offshore wind, wave and tidal energy companies have signed a total of 465 contracts in the past year, covering hundreds of projects around the world in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, and North and South America.
Martyn1981 wrote: »
I won't go through everything you've said, but just try to give some examples:
Baiting - You make a lot of posts stating 'how I am' in your opinion, which is clearly baiting, you seem to want to play me, not the ball.
Science denial - You stated that the UK was only responsible for 1% of cumulative CO2 emissions when it's actually 5% (though you later 'hid' the other 80% in the oceans). You claimed that experts disagreed over AGW figures. You've tried repeatedly to promote the 'CO2 is good for crops' science denial, and when I presented an article/report you said it was just one report/crop, when I gave you loads, you said you found them vague and unconvincing - so you know better than science.
The next three are similar/crossovers:
Disinformation, Spin, Lying - You've made false claims about what I believe, or even where I live (height above seawater) in order to falsely claim I don't care.
You have been challenged by a number of posters over your use of 'so what you are saying' in order to present something that I have not said.
You have monstrously exaggerated the cost of mitigation, going so far as to state that we would be spending 100% of GDP for the next 30yrs.
You have questioned the UK's responsibility to take mitigation action, somehow believing that we don't have as much responsibility to act as everyone else as we are 'only' responsible for 1% of current annual emissions, yet with 1% of the World population, and our being responsible for 5% of cumulative CO2 emissions, your argument seems morally bankrupt.
You do jump into any disagreement I have, such as with Leviathan, apparently just to spin 'an argument' argument.
Denial - Repeat of 2(?) perhaps an example of spin.
I could go on, but I appreciate there is little point. But I think it is important that you 'pretend'(?) to take great offence at my pointing out when you are spinning, FUDing, denying etc., which I find odd, since it's entirely your decision to spin, FUD, deny etc., so are you not aware you are doing it, or are you doing it simply to bait so as to start yet more arguments, so you can point to me being involved in more arguments.
Remember, I can't point out you are doing these things, if you don't do them, so don't shoot the messenger.
1961Nick wrote: »
How could I be aware I'm doing it if it's purely a symptom of your paranoia? That's your problem to solve not mine.
JKenH wrote: »
I would also add that I am always amused by those who take the time and trouble to tell a contributor they have placed them on ignore.
Martyn1981 wrote: »
Sorry Nick I'm not sure what your point is.
You posted challenging the statement I had made, so I have given you a selection of examples showing you doing them all.
Again, I notice that you get extremely defensive/angry when I say you 'denied' or 'spun' etc., but don't shoot the messenger, it's your decision to post those statements, arguments, claims etc on a green and ethical board/thread, so you can't really complain when I point them out.
I (and another poster) did the same recently when Ken posted information from a science denial site to support his position, but in fairness to him, he didn't then deny the fact.
PS - Accusing me of paranoia after I have provided thorough examples/evidence is itself, perhaps, another example of baiting and your insistence to continue a circular argument long after the facts prove you wrong.
Actually I think it is essential to discuss nuclear since otherwise it just becomes 'renewables bashing'.
Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support