Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

NigeWick

JKenH wrote: »

Tree planting is something that we should all take seriously

Needn't just be planting trees as there are other things that can be done.

I saw something about beavers being introduced on a river in Devon and it showed how what could have been flood waters were slowed up and directed on to wetland areas that would keep moist for some time.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

This is a news thread, about green and ethical energy. FF's actions are currently big news.

But you maintain that !!!!!! aren’t green and ethical so why do you keep posting about them on this thread.

silverwhistle

JKenH wrote: »

Mart’s posts that relate to the demonisation of Big Oil;

As opposed to your whitewashing of Big Oil? It's a silly game that both sides can play. Your value judgements constantly come out in your language as well as the contents of your posts. Your rather snide reference to Ms. Osrekes, and denying her academic status and plenty of others if I could be bothered to recall.


It's not only Martyn who finds you rather tiresome, as you will have seen from some of the other comments on here.


Your last post before mine illustrates all this quite well.

1961Nick

silverwhistle wrote: »

It's not only Martyn who finds you rather tiresome, as you will have seen from some of the other comments on here.


Your last post before mine illustrates all this quite well.

You'll probably find there are just as many that don't subscribe to Mart's AGW fundamentalism. Many of them will never post anything for fear of the inevitable "pushback", "challenge" & general hostility.

JKenH

silverwhistle wrote: »

As opposed to your whitewashing of Big Oil? It's a silly game that both sides can play. Your value judgements constantly come out in your language as well as the contents of your posts. Your rather snide reference to Ms. Osrekes, and denying her academic status and plenty of others if I could be bothered to recall.


It's not only Martyn who finds you rather tiresome, as you will have seen from some of the other comments on here.


Your last post before mine illustrates all this quite well.

I also seem to recall you expressing your value judgements on occasions. You have made it very clear you don’t share my values or my politics.

You are a tad hypocritical pulling me up for referring to Naomi Oreskes as Ms when it seems quite fashionable among the more left wing contributors on this forum like yourself to refer to the President of the United States solely by his surname.

”.......and plenty of others if I could be bothered to recall”. Really, or have you just made that up for effect?

As for my preceding post, it doesn’t surprise me that it upset you. Only Mart is allowed to say what should and shouldn’t be discussed on here.

zeupater

JKenH wrote: »

I also seem to recall you expressing your value judgements on occasions. You have made it very clear you don’t share my values or my politics.

You are a tad hypocritical pulling me up for referring to Naomi Oreskes as Ms when it seems quite fashionable among the more left wing contributors on this forum like yourself to refer to the President of the United States solely by his surname.

”.......and plenty of others if I could be bothered to recall”. Really, or have you just made that up for effect?

As for my preceding post, it doesn’t surprise me that it upset you. Only Mart is allowed to say what should and shouldn’t be discussed on here.

Hi

Values & politics? .... I really find it utterly disingenuous when morality (values) & leaning (politics) are interlinked and employed in an attempt to take ownership of the 'high ground' on an issue.

Political standpoints are rarely as black & white as those with an interest in political activism would like to portray .... for any point of interest there are far more shades of grey than simply considering black & white ...

In reality, the political left don't 'own' the positions they maintain claim over, just as those with a right leaning association in no way 'own' what they believe they do ... it's all an illusion used by both houses to maintain control over their flocks of long-time indoctrinated followers & shepherd them in the desired direction ... that's all !!!

Take for example the long running exchanges on this & other threads, the interrelationship between climate, FF & RE - are there real & present issues? - what is the risk? - are there realistic solutions? - who 'owns' the morality? - who 'owns' the direction? ... and to be absolutely sure, the overarching consideration in any such argument 'cui bono?' --- don't forget to sit back and take a real world view of what underpins the argument as the political DNA of both left & right wings are heavily interwoven into !!!!!! & RE, it's just that recognising the grey shades & complexity of reality doesn't tend to fit the simplistic narrative of black & white that those with a political leaning need to convey in order to maintain whatever binary illusion they have a need to push .... morality in this case is simply a layer of wrapping used to establish right from wrong, black from white, this from that, us from them ...

.... Was Mrs Thatcher an unrecognised left wing eco-warrior? ... well, considering the evidence you could easily make a case for that in a debating chamber ... undoubtedly the idea of sitting back & thinking about the proposition for a while would horrify the majority of those with a political identity & associated bias as it challenges their self-perceived right of 'ownership' and the justification of 'morality' ....

If anyone thinks that the morality of climatic & environmental conservatism (small c!) is owned by either the left or right of politics then they've simply been far too lazy, readily & willingly absorbing simplistic narrative rather than employing their own 'grey matter' to weigh up reality to see where the balance lies!

All spin aside, the issue often boils down to 'politics & values' being a thinly veiled cover for 'self interest' ...


HTH
Z

JKenH

Unusual I know but I do agree with you. Very few issues are black and white and ‘facts’ and values change with time. RE from being more expensive than FF is now becoming cheaper and in another 30 years time those of us still around will take our grandchildren around museums and they will laugh at the immature technology of the twentieth century. Our grandparents just would not have been able to believe the technological progress we have already made. At the same time social and political values have changed.

The younger generation now are appalled at how we messed up the planet and we must understand their concern and at the same time explain what we were trying to achieve and in fact did achieve by burning !!!!!!. It was the right thing to do then but is not now. The past is another country as they say.

We are where we are now and need to move forward with a new cleaner world, not spend our time blaming people for the past. It is not just CO2, we need to look after the whole environment.

What do we achieve by playing the blame game beyond scoring political points apart from maybe selling newspapers and books? The more we blame FF companies, the more they will push back; the more we call people deniers the more they will push back. The more you tell someone they are wrong or stupid or lacking morality the more resistant they become to your arguments. The more you try and put people in boxes the more likely they are to exhibit that symptomatic behaviour - that is human nature.

It is best to get on with the positive stuff and leave the negative stuff, the politics, the moralising, the preaching and the personal taunts behind.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

Have you never considered putting those with whom you disagree on ignore ? It takes two to tango or indeed to have a flame war.

Yes, but then I'd have to decide to let false information and AGW denial go unchallenged on this thread, and I'm sorry, but morally I just can't do that.

Also you might note that when I don't challenge, others tend to anyway, they still carry on, and like GA and Cardevv (in the past), they don't stop just because I don't respond.

If you take a close look, you'll see that all the arguments revolve around the posting of false information, and the faux argument that opinions that differ with the facts should be tolerated.

Unfortunately, this matter is far, far too serious to accept lies, FUD and science denial as 'alternative facts/opinions'.

We are in late 2019, the arguments being used against reality are 30+yrs old, and as dead as a Dodo, shirley it's time to stop posting/defending science denial.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

So do we all have to bend the knee to Mart's utilitarianism?

Just because you believe you have the moral high ground, that doesn't excuse your rude, insulting & offensive behaviour. You really are quite messed up & urgently need a a chill pill before you do yourself some damage. What's more, it's getting worse.

Here is a perfect example of the rude and obusive posts that the three Amigos like to make. They attack me, whilst pretending there is some 'God given right' to post science denial on a Green & Ethical thread/board. The game they play is so silly, and I'd suggest fundamentally rude as they should be playing it on a suitable board/site where their views can be appreciated.

This thread/board is probably the furthest from one where such 'alternative facts' should be posted.

Martyn1981

Can I suggest, as a way to clean up this thread, that those that don't believe in AGW, or have 'a beef' with RE, storage, BEV's etc, or feel some need to defend Big Oil / the FF industry, start their own thread where such discussions can take place.

It might seem unfair, but I truly see little point in discussing the reality (or not) of these issues, in the same way I don't wish to discuss the negatives (or not) of cigarettes.

RE is a good thing, it will expand, it will naturally squeeze FF's, and it will inevitably benefit from the negative fallout against the FF industry / FF's as we move forward, denying this, or having to pushback on denial is simply a waste of time now, so respect for this thread would benefit everybody.

Thank you.