Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

Hexane wrote: »

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!

I'm all in favour of this troll getting his trolling and his main account banned, it's one of your pals which one I don't know or care

Hexane

GreatApe wrote: »

I'm all in favour of this troll getting his trolling and his main account banned, it's one of your pals which one I don't know or care

The parody account is already gone, so who do you notice missing?

JKenH

I thought it had gone a bit quiet. Sad really. Maybe it will only be a short term suspension.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

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

No probs, I posted:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Apologies, I should have clarified that better.

My assumption was based on the reasonable conclusion that you must agree with everything GA says. That's based on your multiple disagreements with most of my opinions (even if fact based and supported with references).

From there I concluded, that if you were willing to spend so much time challenging anything and everything I say in support of RE on a green and ethical board/thread, then it's safe to assume that you'd be near livid about the claims made by GA, of which I've only seen a tiny few from the odd quote.

Can I assume therefore that you don't agree with what GA is posting, but are too busy 'dealing with me' (for which I sincerely apologies), or perhaps all of GA's comments now are fully supportive of RE, and never mention me in an unflattering tone? Perhaps he has placed me on ignore too, since we have diametrically opposing views on RE, nuclear and FF's?

Hope that helps to clarify things, and feel free to devote more of your time to him, instead of me, I really won't mind.


Now, let's see what joys the world of RE has to tempt me with today.

Your quote was:

Originally Posted by martyn1981 View Post
apologies, i should have clarified that better.

My assumption was based on the reasonable conclusion that you must agree with everything ga says. That's based on your multiple disagreements with most of my opinions (even if fact based and supported with references).

From there i concluded, that if you were willing to spend so much time challenging anything and everything i say in support of re on a green and ethical board/thread, then it's safe to assume that you'd be near livid about the claims made by ga, of which i've only seen a tiny few from the odd quote.

Can i assume therefore that you don't agree with what ga is posting, but are too busy 'dealing with me' (for which i sincerely apologies), or perhaps all of ga's comments now are fully supportive of re, and never mention me in an unflattering tone? Perhaps he has placed me on ignore too, since we have diametrically opposing views on re, nuclear and ff's?

Hope that helps to clarify things, and feel free to devote more of your time to him, instead of me, i really won't mind.


now, let's see what joys the world of re has to tempt me with today. :d

Never seen that happen before.

Martyn1981

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.

On that point, and I haven't read up specifically, just caught bits round the edges, but changing to 'cleaner diesel' seems to be the big move, but has it's own problems for the older ships.

I also didn't know that heating oil in the UK is basically red diesel, am I the last to learn that?

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

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.

That's fairer, and yes I can agree on your requesting that, however, since my position (and I believe that of the others who have put him on ignore over the years) is based on the outrageous and often entirely false claims being made, then perhaps you could stop requiring I (and others) change our tack, and also challenge his claims, since we all seem in agreement that many of them are entirely untrue.

I used to challenge them, as did Z, silverwhistle, P-o-S etc, but despite 'defeating' them with facts, they simply get repeated again, and again, and again.

His self destructive nature (posting ever more inaccurate claims) will only attract greater derision and be ignored by ever more posters/readers, hence why I don't personally feel a need to challenge them - I'm not 'protecting' anyone in his case.

Martyn1981

Hexane wrote: »

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!

Is that confirmation from you that the account is not mine?

I failed to log on before the other thread(s) were deleted, so I don't know if you did actually apology for your claim made against me.

But I would still appreciate a formal retraction, please.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

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.

I'm sorry but that is appalling.

The world was accepting the science of AGW in the 80's, but the actions of the large energy companies to lie, and it is a lie when then their own science was in full agreement with that stating that the impact on the planet for all of us would be severe.

The delay in acting can, I believe, be directly linked to the mis-information campaigning by these companies, done, as you state to protect their profits.

We pretty much lost 30yrs where FF emissions grew, when without the mis-information / lies, more action would have been possible, and we could have reduced the emissions that were made during that time, and today have a far more advanced RE industry.

I am honestly shocked that you are 'excusing' the actions of these companies, that's not green, it's not ethical.

And your time lines are entirely false, we are not talking 1950-1980, we are talking 1980 onwards.

They did not stop decades ago, they haven't even stopped today, and the Koch brothers, and Koch Industries are infamous for their campaiging, lobbying and funding of astro-turfing (fake grass routes) campaigns.

Are you honestly trying to defend the false anti-AGW campaigning?

[Edit - The profits over harm argument could be equally applied to VW and dieselgate, which allowed far greater harmful emissions, and most likely helped to delay the development of lower emissions vehicles on the basis that VW was already supplying them. M.]


And again, please don't use the FF apologist argument that if anyone still uses FF's then their opinion/argument loses value. Like most on here, I want national and international changes that allow all of us to move from FF's as quickly as possible. This argument, that you already used, is pretty disgusting and tries to dodge, spin, avoid the real issues, and I believe reveals more about you, than me.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

No probs, I posted:



Your quote was:




Never seen that happen before.

Right, I see what you mean. As far as I am aware I didn’t do anything different to remove the capitals. Odd that.

EricMears

Hexane wrote: »

The parody account is already gone, so who do you notice missing?

So who was it ? Afraid I can't see any of the likely suspects having gone.