The advantages of using fossil fuels

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Ken, are you really trying to sell that tosh?

GA is trolling a green and ethical thread, as simple as that.

You, who are happy to pick and snipe at the smallest thing that I post, never challenge the outright lies and denialist nonsense that GA posts.

You are simply an enabler for the troll who should take his views and comments to an appropriate board, or site.


Edit - Oh, and to be clear, I'm not 'labelling everything as a trolling thread', just GA's trolling threads.

What you need to note is that everything was pretty peaceful on here, yes we had GA move over from energy threads with a new account as he was being ignored, but .... we just ignored him.

Then you arrived with your 'games' and (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) Nick fell for it.

If you believe what GA is saying, and the denial arguments Nick has tried, and that the FF industry didn't act to undermine AGW science, then I truly feel sorry for you, but, again, is this an appropriate board for you to promote your views be they direct, or via a spokesperson such as GA?

I'd suggest that as the science is solid and complete, it doesn't matter what you believe, you should just let myself (and others who may be as daft as I) to go on believing in the 'religion' of AGW, in peace, and enjoy the wonderful world of RE, storage and BEV's. Thanks.

And once again, rather than wasting your time attacking everything I post, if you don't enjoy the articles, links, views etc, then pop me on ignore.

Mart, you were defending an abusive post. I don’t care who it was aimed at. You ‘thanked’ it and then defended it.

I only tend to ‘snipe’ at your posts when you are being hypocritical or pushing stuff based on your ‘religion’ rather than useful information or your technical take on a subject. In particular I object to your rants about the FF industry which you conveniently forget has given you and still does provide you with a warm comfortable home from which you can promote your view of how the world should be.

I don’t need or want to put you on ignore; you do post some interesting stuff sometimes (as does GA) and I am sure you are aware that I ‘thank’ you when I like a post. If it’s a good point I will acknowledge it; the author doesn’t have to be on my team. Just as you say you will push back against anyone supporting !!!!!! then I will post when I find someone being abusive or intolerant.

I think you have lost the right to pass judgement on what can and can’t be posted with all the political anti -Trump, anti FF and conspiracy garbage you drag on here.

You can have your AGW religion but don’t insist we all have to recite your liturgy. One can live a Christian life without going to church.

Anyway, you have GA on ignore so why get upset about what he is saying when you can’t see his posts? As I’ve said before what you say and what you do are quite different.

I’m not the problem and neither is GA. I think you were at it ages ago with Cardew as there is still some background radiation left over from that spat and I have seen you are doing just the same on the Electric Cars board with some unfortunate individual who had the temerity to put forward some alternative view. I seem to recall him making a comment that you should play the ball not the man which I am sure will resonate with others who have encountered you.

If you could only accept that other people might see the world a little differently you could be a much happier guy and so could I.

GreatApe

mmmmikey wrote: »

These two sentences sum up my point perfectly.

It is almost universally accepted in the respected scientifc community that global warming is one of the biggest threats facing the world at the moment and urgent action is required. International bodies like the UN publish more and more evidence to this effect, summarising the extensive scientfic research that has been done. Whole communities stand to be lost as sea levels rise and engulf islands. Global leaders meet to discuss ways of mitigating the issues and risks. This is not a recent fad - the evidence and action have built up over a few decades. Most countries have started to put measures in place to combat this, but the scientfic research points to this being too little too late.

But your stated view is that this is really no big deal, and you post that view on a forum set up for discussion on Green & Ethical MoneySaving and say that you think you're not being controversial.

It seems to me that there are 2 possibilities - either you have completely lost your grasp of reality and genuinely believe what you say to be true, or you are trolling - i.e. making these posts with the deliberate intention of winding everyone up. I suspect that there is a bit of both.

Why would whole communities be lost what does that even mean?
Sea levels will increase very very slowly
What do you imagine that one day someone on am island wakes up and is under water?

By the way what do you think of costal erosion it's a thing it's always been a thing but we don't try to stop it completely we accept it even though some communities and homes and infrastructure is lost to costal erosion

Urgent action is not required and this isn't an actual problem
Most the problems are imagined or taken out of context
Rice will be less nutritious...ok so what?

Plus climate change is a problem is a nonsensical statement
Who or what is it a problem for?
Life itself?
No not at all life survives even instant massive climate change like an asteroid strike

In fact the earth has been though many huge changes and were they good or bad?
The question is silly, with regards to humans they were fantastic we wouldn't be here if those event didn't happen. For the dinosaurs not so good


There really isn't good or bad in nature there just is
With regards to humans we are not pathetic little powerless creatures
We will adapt this planet and many more to come to bend it to our will as we see it fit

You want wind mills fine they will come as technology advances exponentially we will have everything

There will be trillions of humans on earth and elsewhere
We will be the protectorate of earth and life
Nature and chance is the danger not humans or fossil fuels

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Hiya. Just for some scale/reference, as it can be hard to contemplate costs, I once saw a comment from an apparently very well informed individual who provides lots of AGW info. He said:

I did some checking and found out this referred to the Alaskan village of Shishmaref, and further reading found an example of nearly $1m per head for a Louisiana community:

Alaskan village threatened by rising sea levels votes for costly relocation


To put it simply, we already face enormous future costs, but every day we delay action, or defend the status quo, or try to minimise expenditure, the future cost gets far worse. It's like arguing against the cost of a fire extinguisher, when the money could go towards the re-build, or arguing against the cost of repairing a life raft, when the cost/energy could go towards buying another boat ........ later on!

That's why I rail against delaying tactics like 'clean coal', 'fuel cell cars', and 'let's not spend it now, let's spend it later'.

The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, the second best time is today.

Thanks for the evidence that the figures are nonsense BS

The cost to move people isn't $1 million per head ($4m per family)
The average net worth of a whole country isn't even close to that

The UK is £150,000 per head in wealth (that's everything from homes to hospitals to roads to gold to stocks to land to art to cars to everything)
So if the UK was destroyed totally destroyed that gives us an upper limit on what the cost would be

But even that is a gross over estimates because a lot of our wealth is business wealth is IP is gold is cars is all stuff that can't be destroy by minor global warming. Also to rebuild stuff is often a fraction of its assigned value. My house might cost £1m but have a rebuild cost of £200,000

So there is a good estimate for you max £150,000 more realistic is probably half that figure


However climate change is so slow that it won't destroy infrastructure
Most things have finite lives
Plenty of homes are knocked down and rebuilt anew
So if sea levels rise it will be so slow that the decaying infrastructure instead of being replaced where it stands is replaced elsewhere

Plus we will just get massively more productive at building things it's not a challenge and will become much cheaper as finally construction productivity improves massively with near AI

Already the world is building 20 UK worth of infrastructure per decade

Plus the world has already warmed what one centigrade?
Yet humans have never had it so good


So once again it's a scare story
Global warming is a net negligible change, perhaps for the negative perhaps for the positive

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Deny till you die.

Still, at least we no longer have to pretend what you are up to - science denial.

You don't have to deny things to say it's trivial

Like you cite rice will maybe become less nutritious

You can say ok let's pretend that is true...do humans live at the edge of nutritional problems today so that a decrease in rice nutrition will be a problem. No

So you can accept rice will get less nutritious but also accept humans don't generally suffer nutrition deficiency in developed countries (or even in middle countries)

You can also say going vegan will probably be a bigger health negatively impact than rice maybe or maybe not becoming less nutritious

This general rule applies to a lot of your scare stories
Taken in isolation they seem a negative, rice less nutritious...not good
Does the nutritional value of rice going down marginally have a big impact...no not really
Are there effective ways to fix individuals who suffer from nutrition problems....yes
In which case does your rice story matter...not really

JKenH

mmmmikey wrote: »

Apologies to anyone who found the language offensive.

Good man. I hope the apology extends to GA.

mmmmikey wrote: »

Ken - I wonder if deep down you really have formed the view that global warming is no big deal, or whether what started as a defence of Great Ape's right to state that view has somehow morphed into a series of posts that make it appear like you support his/her position.

To be clear - do you support his/her position on global warming (in spite of the overwhelimg evidence that refutes it) or his right to express that position?

It doesn’t matter what I believe. Why is that important? To declare for one side or the other will colour how some people to view all my posts. Just take each one on its merits please. Despite what Mart says if you look back you will see I have ‘thanked’ more posts from Mart than I have from GA. How does that sit with your perception of my stance?

A couple of days ago you made a comment in a post ‘But please don't make the mistake of thinking that your views about the environment apply to all of us.‘ What do you perceive my views on the environment to be? I suspect they are somewhat negative. Have a look at post #2763 on the Green, ethical energy issues thread where I tried to correct some misconceptions that someone chooses to perpetuate.

mmmmikey

Thanks Ken - I am sure we have the basis for future debate, and no doubt agreement on various points too. I regret letting my frustration get the better of me.

As far as GA is concerned, I still can't fathom out whether he/she is trolling or just completely out of touch with the scientfic research on these issues. My reaction to his/her posts here is just the same reaction that I would have if he/she was arguing that smoking might make you a bit poorly but is no big deal. If someone said that to me, I wouldn't bother dissecting their arguments, I would just think they were sadly misinformed or deliberately winding me up.

As far as your own views are concerned, I was just interested to know where you stand on these issues as the impression I had formed was that you were aligning yourself with GA's stance which I think is the impression that others here have formed (rightly or wrongly). I was starting to doubt myself in this, which is why I asked - basic courtesy demands that I understand your point before disagreeing with you

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Deny till you die.

Still, at least we no longer have to pretend what you are up to - science denial.

Better than posting articles about the effect of CO2 on “flowers in California” - I’ll add irrelevant to “vague”.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

You can have your AGW religion but don’t insist we all have to recite your liturgy. One can live a Christian life without going to church.

And there I think is the real reason why you follow me around, sniping, and being abusive and trying to cause division and diversion.

AGW is a scientific fact, if you don't agree, then fine, but please don't spread your denialist nonsense on here. let us enjoy ourselves.

I see from your post that you have spent time following me around, or researching old posts. As I suspected some time ago, this all seems highly personal to you. Perhaps we have crossed swords before under another account you may have had. But your little campaign has failed. And your post makes it clear that you don't like me posting anything that criticises Trump or the FF industries, and you declare it all conspiracy theory. That may be your World, but it's not mine, so pop me on ignore and let it go please.

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

It doesn’t matter what I believe. Why is that important? To declare for one side or the other will colour how some people to view all my posts. Just take each one on its merits please. Despite what Mart says if you look back you will see I have ‘thanked’ more posts from Mart than I have from GA. How does that sit with your perception of my stance?

It matters because you began all this hostility and division based on the pretence that we (the many who have popped GA on ignore) should show hi respect and listen to what he says.

Since then you've made more and more morally quetionable arguments, and even denied (multiple times) that the FF industry has run a campaign against AGW.

Your ability to snipe at any comment made supporting AGW, whilst failing to respond to the vast number of falsehoods spread by GA makes you look like someone who only wants to 'spoil' others enjoyment on here/

AGW is real, you have to give up on your faith based denial, and accept that, or if not, then respect the rights of others to enjoy this board.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Better than posting articles about the effect of CO2 on “flowers in California” - I’ll add irrelevant to “vague”.

Thank you Nick, your clarification in several posts on here that you are happy to deny the science has cleared things up immensely. I was baffled as to why since June you posted 3, 4 or 5 different AGW denial myths, such as this crop one, but the picture has now formed nicely.

Like Ken (and GA) if you don't believe, then that's your prerogative, but you don't need to spread denial, division and diversion on here.