Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

JKenH

I accidentally posted here without the quote it referred to. Please see next post.

JKenH

ed110220 wrote: »

It's worth noting that methane emissions from hydroelectric dams vary greatly from dam to dam and depend among other things on the size of the area flooded, whether vegetation was removed prior to flooding and whether there is a strong seasonal cycle in water levels. Generally only the worst dams in the tropics have GHG emissions in any way comparable with an equivalent fossil fuel plant, typically where a large area is flooded for a small amount of electricity generation and where a strong seasonal cycle in water levels allows abundant plant growth when water levels drop and then the water level rises and floods the vegetation, causing it to die, decay under water and release methane.

There are other good reasons why many hydroelectric schemes aren't green such as flooding and destroying important habitats, blocking fish migration etc, but again I wouldn't say all are on balance bad. On balance I'd say garden ponds are highly beneficial to the environment.

We don’t always see eye to eye but good we can agree on the benefits of ponds. In terms of being green my focus has historically been on preserving our environment with tree planting and habitat preservation. One of the real tragedies of the last 50 years and continuing at an alarming rate is deforestation which in itself is a huge contributor to GHG. Not much we can practically do in the UK to offset that but keeping our own landscape green is a priority.

1961Nick

pile-o-stone wrote: »

How about troll?

https://whowhatwhy.org/2016/01/27/disinformation-part-1-how-trolls-control-an-internet-forum/


Turning a News Group into a Gossip Corner
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a “resource burn.”

By implementing continuous irrelevant postings that distract and disrupt the forum readers, they are effectively prevented from being productive. If the intensity of gradual dilution is great enough, the readers will stop researching and simply slip into a “gossip mode.”

In this state, they can be more easily misdirected away from facts. The less informed they are, the easier it is to control the entire group in the direction you desire.

Forum Sliding
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum, it can be quickly removed from public view by “forum sliding.” This maneuver brings unrelated postings to the top of the forum, and the critical posting “slides” down the front page — out of public view.

You're ruining this forum, plain and simple. You might have a beef with individuals on here but that doesn't justify ruining it for the rest of us. You said in a post made by your other username that you have an obsessive nature. That is actually a good thing to have if you channel it correctly - obsess about learning a musical instrument, solving world hunger, whatever. Just do something more constructive with your time.

That pretty much sums up what Mart is trying to do.

The Wind farms degrade rapidly thread is the perfect example of the topic being lost in the clutter.

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

How about troll?

https://whowhatwhy.org/2016/01/27/disinformation-part-1-how-trolls-control-an-internet-forum/


Turning a News Group into a Gossip Corner
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a “resource burn.”

By implementing continuous irrelevant postings that distract and disrupt the forum readers, they are effectively prevented from being productive. If the intensity of gradual dilution is great enough, the readers will stop researching and simply slip into a “gossip mode.”

In this state, they can be more easily misdirected away from facts. The less informed they are, the easier it is to control the entire group in the direction you desire.

Forum Sliding
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum, it can be quickly removed from public view by “forum sliding.” This maneuver brings unrelated postings to the top of the forum, and the critical posting “slides” down the front page — out of public view.

You're ruining this forum, plain and simple. You might have a beef with individuals on here but that doesn't justify ruining it for the rest of us. You said in a post made by your other username that you have an obsessive nature. That is actually a good thing to have if you channel it correctly - obsess about learning a musical instrument, solving world hunger, whatever. Just do something more constructive with your time.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. Just have a read through the Wind Farms Degrade Rapidly thread to see who is actually doing the trolling.

Solarchaser

I think unless you are blind, it is as you say pretty clear who is doing the trolling on that thread.

And unless you are blind.... it ain't Martyn.

What you can see is an exasperated man, feeling he has to respond to the trolling because of the potential of people who will read the discussion and apportion equal respect to all posters, rather than realise some are there purely to obfuscate and misdirect.

JKenH

Solarchaser wrote: »

I think unless you are blind, it is as you say pretty clear who is doing the trolling on that thread.

And unless you are blind.... it ain't Martyn.

What you can see is an exasperated man, feeling he has to respond to the trolling because of the potential of people who will read the discussion and apportion equal respect to all posters, rather than realise some are there purely to obfuscate and misdirect.

Perhaps you would be so kind and be more specific about who is doing the trolling in the wind farm degradation thread if it so obvious and quote the offending element of the post.

The exasperated Mart, who incidentally has GA on ignore, instead of addressing the question raised in the original post “This report is a few years old have things gotten better?” wades in rubbishing the organisation that published the report as anti RE and concluding ”what a waste of time”. This was then followed up by another post about some other organisation (that has not even been mentioned but is also apparently anti RE) as some form of validation of the criticism.

That to me sounds more like trolling than anything anyone else has posted on this thread.

Why is he exasperated? What actually in the original post made him go off so explosively? He has said numerous times he has GA on ignore. If he hadn’t responded the thread would most probably have stopped there. The advice given everywhere is if you believe someone is trolling then IGNORE them.

Solarchaser

Sure, the thread by ga was bs, if he was actually interested he would have researched the peer review of that paper, but since he isn't actually interested and purely wants to push the RE = waste of money agenda, then he prefers to drop the bs bomb.

Martyn then replies with facts, and links those facts proving its bs, I dont think anyone could seriously argue that he was wrong to do so.

You then respond with this:-

Actually, GA pointed out the content of a report written by a Professor of Economics at Edinburgh University which suggested that degradation of wind farms could be a significant factor and enquired why this isn’t mentioned in discussions more often. He then asked “ This report is a few years old have things gotten better?” That to me sounds very much like the basis for a discussion and indeed it did provoke a discussion./QUOTE]

Which might seem to some like a reasonable post, except when you combine it with your last week or so of postings, the obfuscation of the 40 years ago, vs the last 40 years inclusive...... and the fact that by your time of posting that comment, the Edinburgh report was clearly rubbished, your post could only been seen as trolling.

Solarchaser

Please ignore the fact that I clearly missed a quote bracket, and as i cant edit. You are stuck with it:spam:

JKenH

Solarchaser wrote: »

Sure, the thread by ga was bs, if he was actually interested he would have researched the peer review of that paper, but since he isn't actually interested and purely wants to push the RE = waste of money agenda, then he prefers to drop the bs bomb.

Martyn then replies with facts, and links those facts proving its bs, I dont think anyone could seriously argue that he was wrong to do so.

You then respond with this:-

Actually, GA pointed out the content of a report written by a Professor of Economics at Edinburgh University which suggested that degradation of wind farms could be a significant factor and enquired why this isn’t mentioned in discussions more often. He then asked “ This report is a few years old have things gotten better?” That to me sounds very much like the basis for a discussion and indeed it did provoke a discussion./QUOTE]

Which might seem to some like a reasonable post, except when you combine it with your last week or so of postings, the obfuscation of the 40 years ago, vs the last 40 years inclusive...... and the fact that by your time of posting that comment, the Edinburgh report was clearly rubbished, your post could only been seen as trolling.

What you actually quoted there was a not a response to Mart but to a post from Z, specifically addressing his point “Well, although having not read all posts in detail we seem to not have a discussion but a statement ...” .That is the basis on which you call me a troll?

You have conveniently ignored Mart’s first two posts which was the basis of my suggestion he was trolling. Had he gone straight into the technical dismissal of GA’s submission I can assure you we would not be having this discussion.

As I have said we need to respond on the basis of what is said in posts, not what we perceive the poster to be saying. You, yourself admit that my post might seem like a reasonable one but then conclude it must be trolling because of what I have said in other posts.

People on here are far too eager to put people in boxes. I have explained so many times on here how pro RE I am in word and in practice and as you appear to be so familiar with my other posts you will be well aware of that by now.

I have proposed how we might move on from where we are now but sadly as long as that mindset persists that seems unlikely.

1961Nick

Solarchaser wrote: »

Martyn then replies with facts, and links those facts proving its bs, I dont think anyone could seriously argue that he was wrong to do so.

Absolutely not & I think everyone welcomed Mart's 3rd post on the subject & particularly Z's contribution in post #10.

Unfortunately, everything from post #11 is totally unproductive when we could have been discussing WT load factors over time. Instead of that we end up arguing over GA.....Again!!