Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

Mart, perhaps if you post your quote and my quote side by side I will be able to see what is concerning you but at the moment I can’t see what it is I have misquoted.

Thanks

Ken

pile-o-stone

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

You'll have to laugh at me because I thought the ships ran on the same diesel that my car does

Rest assured that we will be looking to replace said diesel car as soon as we can afford an electric one.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

Ok, I see now what you are saying but by quoting the word ‘morals’ I assumed you were suggesting I had used that specific term.

I think my comments relate more to etiquette or courtesy than morals.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

If it was investigated at the time in more depth the most likely outcome would have been a conclusion that global warming is a minor event that need not be worried about

Also why do you think anyone would have acted then when they barely want to act now?
Keep in mind that oil was less than $15 a barrel for most of the three decades from 1943-1973
If your finding it hard to convince people to switch now when oil is $60 why do you think it would have been easy to convince them fifty years ago when oil was $15 (in today's money)?

Also the west has had fifty years of economic development so you are rich enough to have these fringe hobbies. Back then people were a lot poorer so would have been more inclined to use the cheaper options because it was the difference between eating or not

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.

You've no real evidence for this it's just pure conjecture

Plus the only option back then was nuclear which you detest so it's a good thing it didn't happen

GreatApe

pile-o-stone wrote: »

You'll have to laugh at me because I thought the ships ran on the same diesel that my car does

Rest assured that we will be looking to replace said diesel car as soon as we can afford an electric one.

But in the meantime you are willing to destroy the planet and drown baby polar bears with your actions and inactions?

There is no excuse comrade, get rid of the car and buy a bicycle

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

Other. Exxon pump oil to make profit. The officers of the company are charged with that task. They became aware that that might have implications which they kept to themselves for commercial reasons. It was new (not settled) science and up to that stage the world was more worried about global cooling than warming. When the rest of the world first had that information what did they do with it. Tell the oil majors to stop pumping oil? No, because it would have crippled the world economy.

You are trying to apply 21st century morals to mid 20th century situations. Look at all the other things going on in the period between WW2 and 1980 that we now are disgusted by - open racial discrimination, discrimination against women in the workplace with lower pay scales (yes it was the norm when I started working), homosexuality was a crime, there was smoking in the workplace with all the health issues that brought with it. It was a different world. American companies would have been run by guys who had fought in one or more of WW2, the Korean War or Vietnam war and being an environmentalist was akin to being a hippy or a draft dodger. It was a completely different environment. 50 years on some people are seeking to score political points and burnish their green credentials by seeking to judge them by today’s standards.

You are aware that emissions from your car and your GCH are adding to global warming but you continue to use them thus contributing in your own little way to AGW. It is possible to find alternative methods of heating your house and getting about that don’t carbon footprint but you would no doubt say it is too expensive - it would cripple your finances and your standard of living. So is that immoral, moral, amoral or hypocritical?

I apologise for making an argument I have already made but if you keep revisiting old topics to make a point then inevitably I will respond in a similar way.

GreatApe

Well said

Plus the simple fact is that even today in 2019 global fossil fuel useage is increasing, oil coal and gas all going up it's clear the world's governments don't actually believe this FF stuff is really a net negative for them or even if it is the benefits of using !!!!!! outweigh the harms.

So to assume if shell or whoever it was didn't hold back a report or two things would have been vastly different is wishful thinking at best

Who knows maybe Marty will give up his car and start walking but I'm not holding by breath

JKenH

This article appeared today in the Telegraph but was first published in 2015. Prophetic?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/08/13/electricity-network-uncharted-territory-blackouts-loom/

Hexane

Great_Ache wrote: »

whats great is that there is no moderation on this board to stop us from taking over all hail the fossil boys!

I wouldn't count on that buddy, this has gone nearly as far as most of us can torrelate

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

Well said

Wait, you just replied to one of your OWN posts by saying "Well said"? The mask slips?

If you're going to have parody accounts to confuse us all, you need to keep track of which account is which. Try using a piece of paper.

Quick, delete both posts before anyone notices!