Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

GreatApe

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I actually saw the post that Hexane was referring to. You quoted your own post and commented underneath "Well Said". You then subsequently deleted the quote part of the post to hide this.

Once more

This is due to the fact if you use a smartphone and put it onto 'desktop mode' the quote button is only a few millimetres from the multiquote button (on mobile browser the quote button doesn't work at all at least not on Android using Chrome). This results in frequently hitting the multiquote button which when you go to quote someone then brings up a number of quotes so you have to delete the ones you don't want to quote

When I originally saw the post I thought nothing of it, I've often seen people quote their own posts to highlight a point or to add further information to a point they made. When Hexane pointed it out and remarked about you forgetting which username you were using, I though "oh yeah, that's a possibility too". It was only when you went back and modified the post that I realised he had hit the nail on the head. You really should have left it, you just confirmed your guilt by changing it.

Don't give up the day job

It's really not a big deal, I just think it's a bit tragic to be doing this sort of thing. I understand from reading Mart's posts that you have a history with him. I don't understand though why you are trying to disrupt this board, it's not Martyn's board and he isn't the sole user.

Marty boy is a sore loser

It is also not a large board seen by a large number of people, it will not form government policy. Whatever is posted here is irrelevant in the wider world. We post stuff to each other because we are, as you say 'hobbyists', it's interesting to us but not anyone else.

Correct but I've never accused anyone of trying to influence or direct policy I just think some of the cheerleaders are wrong on some topics and post accordingly

You may therefore claim you are trying to prevent green propaganda, but how is that possible when there are only around 18 regular users on here, most of whom are posting the 'propaganda'? Who are you setting right, who are you 'keeping honest'? Who sees your posts except people who are closed minded to nuclear, most which seem to have you on ignore anyway?

I post for me not for anyone else

Like most of you I have a mild interest in the subject but it's not a lifestyle for me

Being a scientist and an engineer who has worked in energy efficiency in heavy industry it's a topic I follow.

And being human debating and arguing is mildly fun and addictive

And this isn't my main part of the forum I post in
Probably some 10% is here the other 90% in a subsection of this forum debating eocnomocs and house prices.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

I
As you say [the world was accepting the science of AGW in the 80's/I] so Exxon withholding its data cannot be said to have been a significant factor in delaying Climate Change science.

Sorry your spin won't work with me. Exxon, and all the other energy companies were behind the anti-AGW campaign that delayed action for about 30yrs, to say the end of the naughties.

Your defence of that immoral action, given that they seem to have been aware that the science they were trashing, was actually correct, is indefensible.

That you would support, defend, excuse the actions of the industries that encouraged more FF emissions, at a time when the science was suggesting the opposite, on a green and ethical thread on a green and ethical board is reprehensible.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Why not - because the truth offends? You make me out to be simply an FF apologist yet in practice I am probably greener than you. I do not spend my days protesting about evil oil companies then continue to use their products. If you weren’t so vocal about telling everyone else how to solve the AGW problem I wouldn’t keep pointing this out to you.

Have a read of this scientific article if you have half an hour to spare. It not only deals with individual hypocrisy but also that of governments.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2018.00049/full

There is a telling comment in it.

behavior always trumps values as an index of what people really think, feel and want.

You are apologising for the FF industry, I've only accepted what you have said yourself.

No idea why you think green'ness is a competition, is that the reason you've taken to challenging my efforts, and attempted to spin something that I've never said. If being more green than I is important to you, then please accept my congratulations, but your individual actions, whilst important, are trumped by national policies, of which we need more.

Your placing the blame on the consumer, when governments and industries (industries you are now openly defending for carrying out anti-AGW campaigns) is atrocious.

Martyn1981

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I thought red diesel was the stuff that farmers used in their tractors because it was subsidised. Shows how little i know.

Need an expert, but I believe red diesel is simply diesel with a dye added, so when sold at lower tax rates for heating or agricultural use, it can be identified when put in 'normal' vehicles instead.

I seem to recall that red diesel can be 'washed' and then sold on illegally.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Sorry your spin won't work with me. Exxon, and all the other energy companies were behind the anti-AGW campaign that delayed action for about 30yrs, to say the end of the naughties.

Your defence of that immoral action, given that they seem to have been aware that the science they were trashing, was actually correct, is indefensible.

That you would support, defend, excuse the actions of the industries that encouraged more FF emissions, at a time when the science was suggesting the opposite, on a green and ethical thread on a green and ethical board is reprehensible.

Mart, where does it say on forum rules you can only post in support of another submission? Forums are where matters are debated.

As long as you keep chanting out the same left wing anti FF propaganda I will remind you that you are supporting FF by buying their products. If you want to make a difference vote with your feet. How can you be so passionate about the evils of FF when you actively support it, knowing (apparently) better than others the damage it is doing to the environment? The whole world now knows about AGW and yet continues to buy FF products. Why do you think it would be so different if Exxon had declared what they knew at the time?

pile-o-stone

GreatApe wrote: »

Don't give up the day job

I won't. I also won't try to appeal to your better side anymore as its pointless. You want to argue because it's 'fun', fair enough. I can think of far more fun things to do with my time than argue on forums, but whatever floats your boat.

Good luck with your life. As I said I think you may need to look at it a bit closely if it consists of trolling boards for fun, but hey ho. I'll be popping you back on ignore now as I have no interest in arguing (or nuclear or fossil fuels, etc.), Cheers for your time.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Why do you think it would be so different if Exxon had declared what they knew at the time?

Simple, and obvious shirley?

The large energy companies put $bn's and $bn's into campaigns claiming that AGW science was wrong.

Had they not done that, or even had the moral honesty to release their own reports (confirming AGW) then we would not have lost 30yrs arguing over the existence of AGW, but instead been acting on it.

Had we been acting sooner, then we could have reached peak annual CO2 emissions, perhaps in the 90's, and now be reducing them massively and heading for zero carbon.

Instead CO2 emissions have risen ever higher, adding ever more to the 'pot', and we now face far harsher climate impacts, higher maximum impacts, and a longer time to 'fix' the problem.

We are now potentially on course for irreversible climate change.

All of this would have been far different had their been one side all accepting the science and truth, rather than two sides, one of which having vast funds to spend on what was simply a campaign of lies.

You can't defend this, you can't excuse this. So try to apologise for the FF industry whilst instead spinning the blame onto myself or other consumers is deplorable.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

Mart, where does it say on forum rules you can only post in support of another submission? Forums are where matters are debated.

If you believe AGW is debatable then I'll set you the same task as I have before - defend your position.

Provide evidence that AGW is not true and real, and that the FF industries were not lying whilst funding the anti-AGW side? Oh, and don't spin/pretend that we are talking about the 1950's, this is recent history. Exxon may even have acted illegally in their actions (you defend) as it will have impacted shareholders - a crack that litigation hopes to open in the same way Big Tobacco lies were finally broken.

I simply can't think of anything worse that could be posted on here than defending the anti-AGW campaigning of the FF industries.

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

If you believe AGW is debatable then I'll set you the same task as I have before - defend your position.

Provide evidence that AGW is not true and real, and that the FF industries were not lying whilst funding the anti-AGW side? Oh, and don't spin/pretend that we are talking about the 1950's, this is recent history. Exxon may even have acted illegally in their actions (you defend) as it will have impacted shareholders - a crack that litigation hopes to open in the same way Big Tobacco lies were finally broken.

I simply can't think of anything worse that could be posted on here than defending the anti-AGW campaigning of the FF industries.

You're a ziolot a hypocritical one at that!

Using fossil fuels is not a existential crisis yet you try to paint it as such while continuing to use fossil fuels because to not do so will impact your quality of life and your wallet

Fossil fuels have a very slow very mild potentially net negative impact on the climate
And also a very small almost negligible impact on human health many magnitudes less than obesity or smoking or alcohol or drugs or red meat which more or less 90% of the population partake in

If you want better health increase NHS spending as reducing coal gas and oil burn will do almost nothing as per the £6 billion NHS saving from reducing coal towards zero which we are still waiting for it to appear ......

pile-o-stone

This is good to see, especially for those of us who are hoping to purchase an electric car in the next few years.


DfT doubles on-street EV charging funding pot

https://www.current-news.co.uk/news/dft-doubles-on-street-ev-charging-funding-pot

"The government has doubled funding for the installation of on-street EV charging points.

This morning transport secretary Grant Shapps announced that the on-street residential chargepoint scheme will see its funding pot doubled by an additional £2.5 million, finance which will support more than 1,000 more on-street chargepoints.

The fund was established in 2017 in a bid to support EV adoption by facilitating the install of publicly accessible EV charging infrastructure for drivers without off-street parking, an issue particularly pertinent for users in metropolitan areas."