The advantages of using fossil fuels

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

The problem is Mart that your mind is completely closed & if anyone dares to disagree with anything you have posted, you take it as a personal affront, and then you start trotting out the "denier" word.

Clearly you want a forum where you can publish your daily pro-renewable news - everybody then has to agree that this is wonderful news - give you lots of thanks - and then praise you for being such an inspiration.

One question, "Will preaching to the converted take your agenda any further forward?". It could be argued that the presence of more open minded individuals actually gives you the opportunity to further your cause through debate.

Are you using ridicule, belittling and general hostility to suppress debate & keep those with a more timid disposition off 'your' forum?

You put a lot of work into this forum Mart, but it might be time to reexamine your methods & demeanor.

As an example... Some time ago I posted that the cost of BEVs was double that of an ICE vehicle (This was actually true when I tried to make the numbers work for a Model S a couple of years ago). I was wrong, things have changed a lot in the intervening 2 years, but your response was typically aggressive, hostile & inflammatory. Alternatively you could have said, "Hey Nick, have a look at this link as you may find that the latest BEVs are actually cheaper than their ICE counterparts". I would have then thanked you for making me aware of the latest BEV data. That's the way forums should work - debate & the sharing of knowledge.

Fortunately, I still did the research on the TM3 but that's despite you, not really thanks to you.

GreatApe

Marty can you stop with this
No one needs you to save them
No one needs you to make up their minds for them

Everyone else is just trying to talk about stuff
You're spending half your time talking about the posters not the topics
And you're spending the other time on a holy crusade where you are high priest abitor of truth juice wholesomeness and all things green. Stop it no one needs nor wants that despite your handful of devotees.

Even to this post there is no need to replay just take it on board and stop
Literally every tread descends into the same type
With superhero Marty coming to save the day from the deniers and giving the land gospels
It's getting boring and repetitive

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

The problem is Mart that your mind is completely closed & if anyone dares to disagree with anything you have posted, you take it as a personal affront, and then you start trotting out the "denier" word.

Clearly you want a forum where you can publish your daily pro-renewable news - everybody then has to agree that this is wonderful news - give you lots of thanks - and then praise you for being such an inspiration.

One question, "Will preaching to the converted take your agenda any further forward?". It could be argued that the presence of more open minded individuals actually gives you the opportunity to further your cause through debate.

Are you using ridicule, belittling and general hostility to suppress debate & keep those with a more timid disposition off 'your' forum?

You put a lot of work into this forum Mart, but it might be time to reexamine your methods & demeanor.

As an example... Some time ago I posted that the cost of BEVs was double that of an ICE vehicle (This was actually true when I tried to make the numbers work for a Model S a couple of years ago). I was wrong, things have changed a lot in the intervening 2 years, but your response was typically aggressive, hostile & inflammatory. Alternatively you could have said, "Hey Nick, have a look at this link as you may find that the latest BEVs are actually cheaper than their ICE counterparts". I would have then thanked you for making me aware of the latest BEV data. That's the way forums should work - debate & the sharing of knowledge.

Fortunately, I still did the research on the TM3 but that's despite you, not really thanks to you.

When you make false claims that fly in the face of science, I will call you out. When you deny the science I will point it out. Yes you don't like it, but why should you get away with false and misleading claims.

Similarly, when you made that claim that a high mileage driver in a BEV would incur twice the costs, I and others called you out, provided reports and articles to show that a BEV has lower TCO, and when you were asked to support your claim, you refused and just said that it was your own numbers/claim.

Please don't try to complain about my replies to you, as you seem to go out of your way to be rude, divisive and stir.

If you don't agree with AGW and RE, then that's up to you, but you don't have to spoil the threads on here.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

When you make false claims that fly in the face of science, I will call you out. When you deny the science I will point it out. Yes you don't like it, but why should you get away with false and misleading claims.

Similarly, when you made that claim that a high mileage driver in a BEV would incur twice the costs, I and others called you out, provided reports and articles to show that a BEV has lower TCO, and when you were asked to support your claim, you refused and just said that it was your own numbers/claim.

Please don't try to complain about my replies to you, as you seem to go out of your way to be rude, divisive and stir.


If you don't agree with AGW and RE, then that's up to you, but you don't have to spoil the threads on here.

This reply sums up exactly the points I raised.

You are incapable of debating & choose to preach instead ... and God help anyone who dares to disagree with you.

How many threads have been ruined by the Marty wrecking ball ... I've lost count!

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

This reply sums up exactly the points I raised.

You are incapable of debating & choose to preach instead ... and God help anyone who dares to disagree with you.

How many threads have been ruined by the Marty wrecking ball ... I've lost count!

Nick, we are the same I would suggest.

You and I are passionate about the subject. You (and you won't like this, so apology in advance) desperately want to spread false information, such as the many AGW denial arguments you attempted. And I'm passionate about responding with the truth backed up with facts, science and citations.

I get you don't like me doing this, but AGW is an incredibly serious issue, and any attempts to undermine that should be robustly countered.

I can't shoot down your false claims, without you first posting them, so why get upset at me, I'm just the messenger, you could avoid all of this by simply doing some research.

For instance 10s at the Google machine would have given you no end of info on CO2 and crops, saving us both time in a pointless argument.


You are wrong about me and debates, I just want to learn and share info. But I can't debate false information, instead I try to share the facts with you, but that only seems to make you angry.

Again, you won't like this, but the scientific opinion on AGW is sound and sorted. If you read up on that and accept science based facts, not old faith based denials, then we could have great debates and get on fine.

All the best.

DaveBullock_

Jesus, fossil fuels. Takes me back to my school days....

still not a clue whats going on

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

As an example... Some time ago I posted that the cost of BEVs was double that of an ICE vehicle

Putting aside any past issues, you might be interested in this article from today. It is the US, but I assume all info is useful.

Whatever the situation was 2yrs ago, I think we can both agree it's getting better every day, which can only be good news.

Tesla Model 3 vs. Mercedes C-Class & Audi A4 — 5 Year Cost of Ownership Comparisons

Based on assumptions I used this time around, which I’ll discuss on the bottom of the article, the Model 3 shows a tremendously lower 5 year cost of ownership than the Mercedes-Benz C-Class or Audi A4. Actually, the Model 3’s 5 year cost of ownership in these comparisons is approximately 60% that of the popular Mercedes and Audi models, a major cost advantage.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nick, we are the same I would suggest.

You and I are passionate about the subject. You (and you won't like this, so apology in advance) desperately want to spread false information, such as the many AGW denial arguments you attempted. And I'm passionate about responding with the truth backed up with facts, science and citations.

I get you don't like me doing this, but AGW is an incredibly serious issue, and any attempts to undermine that should be robustly countered.

I can't shoot down your false claims, without you first posting them, so why get upset at me, I'm just the messenger, you could avoid all of this by simply doing some research.

For instance 10s at the Google machine would have given you no end of info on CO2 and crops, saving us both time in a pointless argument.


You are wrong about me and debates, I just want to learn and share info. But I can't debate false information, instead I try to share the facts with you, but that only seems to make you angry.

Again, you won't like this, but the scientific opinion on AGW is sound and sorted. If you read up on that and accept science based facts, not old faith based denials, then we could have great debates and get on fine.

All the best.

I accept your apology & I'll tender mine in advance.....

Actually Mart, the only areas that we disagree on is what we can do about AGW ... and particularly what we will do about it. The second area is very subjective & your conclusion will depend on whether you are an optimist, pessimist or just a realist.

I don't think you can face the prospect that GW targets could be missed by a huge margin and therefore won't entertain early measures for dealing with the likely consequences.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Putting aside any past issues, you might be interested in this article from today. It is the US, but I assume all info is useful.

Whatever the situation was 2yrs ago, I think we can both agree it's getting better every day, which can only be good news.

Tesla Model 3 vs. Mercedes C-Class & Audi A4 — 5 Year Cost of Ownership Comparisons

For those of us that are fortunate enough to be able to afford one of the latest BEVs, the news is very good indeed. I'm frankly astounded at how much the tables have turned on ICE vehicles in the past 30 months.

In the UK the financial benefits are even better for BEV Company cars with the virtual elimination of BIK. This really is a game changer imo, and will launch used vehicles onto the market in 2, 3 & 4 years time. It'll be interesting to see the SMMT figures for the second quarter 2020.

In fact, the news is all so positive that I've followed your lead & bought some Tesla shares.:cool:

ABrass

Anyone who doubts that global warming is real and caused by humans and is posting on this forum must really struggle to explain why they aren't a troll. How on earth this thread in particular counts as anything other than naked trolling is beyond me. But it does add to the list of names that aren't worth listening to.