Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

zeupater

Hexane wrote: »

So you think Great Ache was someone who used to post several years ago and came back? Must have very little to do...

The name Cadevv sounds slightly familiar, are there posts of theirs still around in easily discovered threads in this forum?

Hi

Regarding "used to post" ... far more likely that the description would involve the term 'still posts' ...

Yes, there are plenty of posts which many regular & long term members on these boards would likely consider as being little more than basic repositories for memetics & illusory truth! ... as for the request, I'm pretty sure that the construction of the sentence conveys what a number of regular forum members would expect it to convey, including content, style, delivery & timing ... as for finding the posts, either that's already known or opens a set of related questions as to why a recent member would be interested or even vaguely familiar with a profile which tends to stay clear of mayhem created by other profiles, either through lack of interest, or primary profile self preservation ... :whistle::shhh:


Hello, welcome back to the groundhog board .... :wave:
Z

Hexane

zeupater wrote: »

... as for finding the posts, either that's already known or opens a set of related questions as to why a recent member would be interested or even vaguely familiar with a profile which tends to stay clear of mayhem created by other profiles, either through lack of interest, or primary profile self preservation ...

Not quite sure where you're going with that. Are you asking me why I queried whereabouts that character's posts were?

Anyway, I had to go to the trouble of digging it out myself. I find them under the "Solar ... In the news" thread as started by yourself but now seemingly fallen into disuse. Huge number of posts, similar thanks/posts ratio to Great Ape, but the style and thinking looks different. That aside, from the couple of posts I looked at, they were strongly opposed to the FiT.

Why would I recognise a username whose posts were only visible on a formerly busy thread that was posted to just over two weeks ago? Why would I not, especially since I spent over seven thousand pounds on solar PV about nine months ago and wasn't exactly looking to jump in with both feet without doing some reading first... especially in a thread entitled "Solar ... In the news" ... :rotfl:

JKenH

ed110220 wrote: »

And now for some Green and Ethical news...

UK Economy-Wide Coalition Urges Government To Support Onshore Wind

An economy-wide coalition of UK companies and organizations has called on the country’s new Energy Minister, Kwasi Kwarteng, to support the development of new onshore wind farms in an effort to extricate the technology from its current persona non grata status so as to further boost the country’s efforts to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

An extract from the CleanTechnica article:

“In a letter sent to the new Energy Minister, who was appointed to the role in late-July by incoming Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a coalition of onshore wind developers, trade bodies, investors, and supply chain companies have urged Kwarteng to reinvigorate new onshore wind development and remove barriers to entry.”

So no vested interests here then?

silverwhistle

JKenH wrote: »

Not an argument I’ve been making but hey-ho, what’s that matter, I’m one of them. Guilty by association.

You could tell Mart that as well.

I didn't say you were, nor was I even thinking of you when I wrote that, but hey, if you're feeling guilty, wear the cap. It really was a general point about the issue, where such arguments are often used as an argument for the UK not to do more.

silverwhistle

1961Nick wrote: »

What I do support the right of GA to post something that's already in the public domain & also the right of anyone else to openly challenge it. Isn't that what forums do?

No. I've been online for 25 years, and it has never been the case that utter rubbish, intended to be disruptive, should be given the same weight as more informed posts or posters.



The fact that you support GA (both of them??) is interesting. If you can't see that the last two threads he started have an agenda, just by reading the thread titles, then I might not impugn your motivations, but I'd certainly call your judgement into question.

JKenH

silverwhistle wrote: »

No. I've been online for 25 years, and it has never been the case that utter rubbish, intended to be disruptive, should be given the same weight as more informed posts or posters.

Nick was supporting the right of GA to post something and said nothing about the weight that should be given to it. In fact he had supported Mart’s dismissal of the content of the article.

The right to post or have an opinion isn’t restricted to the informed. A bit like voting where we have a right of universal franchise where however ill informed one might be you have the right to vote.

You might not have heard the expression I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, misattributed to Voltaire. Not something that sits well with those who know better.

In this particular case GA has explained that he hadn’t seen the article about wind farm degradation before and put it up expecting someone would add some value and discussion. That’s what you do on forums.

Suddenly half a dozen posters feel the need to jump on the same “motive/agenda” bandwagon. I might ask the question asked of me - “who is playing you mate?”

Hexane

JKenH wrote: »

liberal elite

let's not go places like that, the off-topic meter was far enough off the scale as it is

JKenH

Hexane wrote: »

let's not go places like that, the off-topic meter was far enough off the scale as it is

Whoops - my bad. Better remove that then.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Say GA had posted a link to a report stating that WTs would now last 100 years instead of the anticipated 50* years, would Mart have spent a frantic 45 minutes searching for peer reviews to disprove it? I think not.

(*figure for illustration only.)

What I do support the right of GA to post something that's already in the public domain & also the right of anyone else to openly challenge it. Isn't that what forums do?

Hiya Nick, you are still being played.

I know you appreciate my third post, but please don't think I spent a 'frantic 45 minutes' on this issue. In fact all I did was un-ignore GA having seen the thread title (and now aware of Ken's campaign on here).

I then clicked on the link, and up popped the title page and "REF".

I then posted my first response, in which I believe I 'nailed it' 100%. There was no need for me to go further, GA had supplied absolute proof:

1 - GA had posted it.
2 - It was from the REF
3 - It was from 2012 and we've never heard anything like that.

Conclusion, absolute garbage, posted to knock RE, by the same guy posting multiple nuclear threads on the G&E board, when the energy board would be more suitable.

I then got distracted looking for other organisations with deliberately misleading names ...... just for fun.

Then I realised that you and Ken would jump on the thread to defend GA, so to 'kill' your arguments dead, and save time having to do it retrospectively I then turned to the Google machine and added a 'response to' to the report title.

No 45 mins, no frantic, just fun learning.

And BTW, if people post false positives about RE I call them out too, as they open the door to folk like Ken/GA/Cardevv etc to paint all RE black.


GA and his threads are not for educational purposes, they are simply designed to create division and diversion, and you appear to have swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker.

Martyn1981

So, back to RE, and BEV's I suggest:

Study Shows Burning Fossil Fuels Is Killing Us — Are You OK With That?

Emphysema was measured from CT scans that identify holes in the small air sacs of the participants’ lungs, and lung function tests which measure the speed and amount of air breathed in and out. The researchers found that if the ambient ozone level increases by 3 parts per billion where you live compared to another location over 10 years, that could lead to an increase in emphysema equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day for 29 years.

"Go outside and play kids ....... hang on, you've forgotten your pack of cigs."

Not a joke, I find it truly heartbreaking!


Whether you love or hate RE and BEV's, and perhaps (falsely) think changing our ways will bankrupt us, remember that a side effect of tackling CO2, is tackling air pollution too.

So a win win, especially for 'the poor' who suffer disproportionately higher.