Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

JKenH

Donald, is that really you calling out to me? I am overcome, I must take some time out to dry my tears. Please continue with your wonderful work. 😂

JKenH

Great_Ache wrote: »

my real name is JAcheH not donald but thanks for your kind words and i hope you are not unmanned by your emotions. us great people should stick together and prevent people on here from quietly enjoying their renewable hobby. people like you and me and the great man himself GA should barge into every thread and cause arguments wherever we go. its for the good of the boards to have us do this

JKenH, GA and I are not a crank

Thank you for unmasking yourself. That will be a huge relief to Mart as everyone on here was thinking it was him having a laugh. Still I am disappointed that you’re not The Donald.

Love your tech by the way. Where can I get some of that?

Edit: I knew of course it wasn’t Mart as although he acknowledges having a sense of humour he has made it clear he doesn’t joke about AGW ....and nor should anyone else of course.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Yes, we had that argument a few months back.

Cheers, I wasn't sure you'd come around, I suspected you were still in denial.

Sadly the damage they've caused by their manipulations and delaying tactics will cost us (or at least my Niece and Nephew) greatly.

JKenH wrote: »

I don’t know which particular posts ou are referring to. Please enlighten me.

It was this one, and I did mention it at the time. Nothing 'naughty' just odd!

JKenH wrote: »

Apology accepted. No one would have the time to challenge all your posts so I let a few go.:)

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Edit: I knew of course it wasn’t Mart as although he acknowledges having a sense of humour he has made it clear he doesn’t joke about AGW ....and nor should anyone else of course.

No they shouldn't, but apparently venting faux moral outrage at those that have placed on ignore a serial anti-RE pro coal, nuclear and fracking poster for saying things you yourself (claim) don't agree with, is OK.

Just looking for clarification on the 'morals' I'm supposed to look up to.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Cheers, I wasn't sure you'd come around, I suspected you were still in denial.

Sadly the damage they've caused by their manipulations and delaying tactics will cost us (or at least my Niece and Nephew) greatly.




It was this one, and I did mention it at the time. Nothing 'naughty' just odd!

Thanks for clarifying that. I still can’t see what it is I misquoted.

As far as the comment about Oil company research is concerned, I still don’t know what difference one company’s research would have made to the rate of response from the rest of the world in the 80s and 90s as there were other researchers on the case by then.

Martyn1981

Yet another small step in the right direction. But if you don't get past the headline, just note that it's a small(ish) coastal tanker ...... baby steps.

Japanese Consortium To Build World’s First Electric Tanker

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

No they shouldn't, but apparently venting faux moral outrage at those that have placed on ignore a serial anti-RE pro coal, nuclear and fracking poster for saying things you yourself (claim) don't agree with, is OK.

Just looking for clarification on the 'morals' I'm supposed to look up to.

What have I said about ‘morals’- your quotation marks?

pile-o-stone

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Yet another small step in the right direction. But if you don't get past the headline, just note that it's a small(ish) coastal tanker ...... baby steps.

Japanese Consortium To Build World’s First Electric Tanker

It was interesting to read about Bunker Oil in the article, it shows that a switch to electricity will not only reduce carbon emissions but also eliminate a whole host of other dangerous pollutants too.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Thanks for clarifying that. I still can’t see what it is I misquoted.

As far as the comment about Oil company research is concerned, I still don’t know what difference one company’s research would have made to the rate of response from the rest of the world in the 80s and 90s as there were other researchers on the case by then.

You can't see a difference? That's weird, maybe it's just me, but it seems to have lost most of the capitals. I've never seen that happen before.


The rate of response would, I believe have been vastly different. In fact I'd go as far as to suggest Big Oil's campaign is the main reason for the delay in acting.

Originally there was little to no opposition to the claims of AGW nor the need to act, but then Big Oil began a vast campaign against AGW, claiming the science was faulty, or that the scientists were in on it, and still to today their campaign of pretending that scientists are split on the issue of AGW is still believed by a significant proportion of the US.

I would suggest that Big Oil (plus of course other FF and mining interests) have held up/delayed action on AGW for decades.

So, in short, the difference is vast, truly vast.

JKenH wrote: »

What have I said about ‘morals’- your quotation marks?

I believe your position is one of objection to my (and others) placing GA on ignore (because over the years I've found his claims to be preposterous and a clear 'assault' on RE) on the grounds that I should show more respect to his opinions.

That appears to be a moral argument, and you have spent a lot of time challenging my views and comments.

However, you have not challenged GA's comments, even though when boxed in, you have admitted you don't agree with them. I have also not seen you challenge any comments he has made about me, but that could be because he hasn't said anything, is that correct?

Given that you seem to be applying two different rules to your 'moral' judgement, and Nick has had to make false claims about me not believing people are entitled to an opinion, and Hexane is openly mocking GA on a daily basis, and spreading false claims about me, I stand by my post to P-o-S that this issue will shortly blow over as you don't appear to have a leg to stand on.

Once again. I support RE, I will pushback against anti-RE postings, you may not like this, but please don't waste my time with your faux moral outrage, since it seems clear that i might as well stop the stopwatch as you have no intention of challenging GA.


Just a little cross-referencing question. Do you think Big Oil, let's just say Exxon for now, concluding that AGW was real and serious, but publicly arguing the exact opposite (money before the environment) was moral, immoral, amoral, other? I ask this because your comments seem to be attempting to excuse them, which I find odd both from a green and ethical perspective.

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

It was interesting to read about Bunker Oil in the article, it shows that a switch to electricity will not only reduce carbon emissions but also eliminate a whole host of other dangerous pollutants too.

Feel free to laugh at me, but whilst I knew bunker oil was 'bad', it was only this year that I found out it was basically all the leftovers from the oil refining process.

A truly awful product.