The Great Big Green Discussion Thread

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

I would refer you back to post #78.

where you said:

"Fossil fuels have been the bedrock of our industrial development but now we need to move on."

So I then asked:

"Why do we need to move on"

so....?

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Oh, I know why I (and many others) think we should move away from fossil fuels, but Ken doesn't believe in GW so I don't understand why he says we should move away from them (as he says they have such a positive effect on our lives).

It's an honest question because if someone thought that FF were just polluting the environment then this could be fixed with better efficiencies, filters,etc. for MUCH less money than replacing FF infrastructure by installing wind turbines and the like, surely?

Please see my post #3477 on the Green, ethical energy issues thread where you will see what I have to say about AGW. Or you could just believe everything Mart says I say.

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

Please see my post #3477 on the Green, ethical energy issues thread where you will see what I have to say about AGW. Or you could just believe everything Mart says I say.

I checked your post and you just posted an article that stated:

"Climate change now irreversible due to warming oceans". You had no 'say' about anything - unless the article encompasses your beliefs entirely?

So if I interpret this correctly, while you may believe in GW, you're saying that it's too late to do anything? So that brings me back to the original question:

Why do you believe that we should move away from fossil fuel use ?

(ps. Honestly Ken, this is really not a difficult question to answer. It's your own beliefs so there is no right or wrong answer. There's no need to keep referring to other threads, other posts, to newspaper articles or to whatever Mart may have said. Just type it...

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

where you said:

"Fossil fuels have been the bedrock of our industrial development but now we need to move on."

So I then asked:

"Why do we need to move on"

so....?

The answer was in the quote from Mart in post #78 which I will repeat here.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

So, what's the reality? FF's have raised our technology and standard of living levels massively, and brought numerous benefits to most.

But, we then realised that the cost of FF's was far higher than we'd thought. Anyone's fault, no, FF's fault, no.

And putting aside the simply unforgiveable actions of the vested interest industries in lying about the issue, simply for monetary gain, nobody is actually at fault for there being a problem.

The fault lies simply with inaction, or too little action going forward.

The greatest gift that FF's have given us, is a high enough technological level to no longer need FF's. We don't need to hate them, we don't need to kill them off, but we can thank them for their service and allow them to enjoy a peaceful retirement.

You see I do agree with Mart when he posts sensible stuff like this. Sometimes however he goes into rant mode and starts posting all manner of stories that have no bearing on money saving like his conspiracy theories and his anti FF legal updates. He says above that ‘we don’t need to hate them ((!!!!!!)’ but then takes delight in reporting them being put to the sword in the courts. Those posts aren’t helpful to the harmony of the board (any more than my post today was about XR) and are designed purely to get a reaction or as you might say trolling.

It is possible to have a robust debate without it getting personal and I thought you starting this separate thread for this type of debate was an excellent idea. If I have seen a post on another thread which I felt needed challenging I have copied it to this one so we can have a pointless debate. (Most of us on this thread don’t take ourselves too seriously.)

Since you started with the accusations of trolling yesterday this one has now become acrimonious and I didn’t think your intervention and comments were particularly well judged set against your initiative to start this thread.

Hopefully we can now all move on and get on with a good debate.

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

You see I do agree with Mart when he posts sensible stuff like this. Sometimes however he goes into rant mode

I'm not sure why you've brought Mart into this, I wasn't asking about his opinion of why we should move away from fossil fuels. Nor was I asking your opinion on Mart.

I simply asked why you thought we should move away from using fossil fuel, given your earlier statements about its positive impact on our lifestyles?

JKenH wrote: »

Hopefully we can now all move on and get on with a good debate.

I'm trying to have a discussion, but you don't seem to want to engage?

I ask again and I'll try and really word my question so there is no misunderstanding. Why do you (Ken not Mart or anyone else) feel that we should move away from fossil fuels?

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I checked your post and you just posted an article that stated:

"Climate change now irreversible due to warming oceans". You had no 'say' about anything - unless the article encompasses your beliefs entirely?

So if I interpret this correctly, while you may believe in GW, you're saying that it's too late to do anything? So that brings me back to the original question:

Why do you believe that we should move away from fossil fuel use ?

(ps. Honestly Ken, this is really not a difficult question to answer. It's your own beliefs so there is no right or wrong answer. There's no need to keep referring to other threads, other posts, to newspaper articles or to whatever Mart may have said. Just type it...

No, you have looked at #3467. It was #3477 which I have copied below for you.

JKenH wrote: »

Hi, I have a thought about that but please bear with me first with another related observation.

I think the term far right is used far too widely just as far left is. They are used pejoratively as part of the present trend in all arenas to polarise debate. They conjure up images of Nazls and Communists, when I am sure none of us on here fall into either category. There are those at the extremes of the FF industry who can reasonably be labelled as right wing as they seek to sustain their business model and equally there are those on the left who support AGW for ideological reasons. However, there are some AGW sceptics (now relabelled as deniers) who would not traditionally regard themselves as right wing. And there are of course plenty on the right who do believe in AGW. I suspect a lot of people want to be able to talk about AGW without being labelled right or left and all the implied bias that entails.

Now to my main point. It is sad that the AGW debate has become polarised along political lines and one wonders why that has happened when (I am looking at the UK specifically) all the mainstream parties are promoting green policies.

Perhaps it goes back to a comment I made a few days ago that people who have right wing views tend to be optimists and those on the left pessimists. This perhaps is why those on the right are less worried about AGW and those on the left worry more about it. The optimists believe that maybe it isn’t quite as bad as the AGW scientists make out and anyway science and technology can sort the problem while the the pessimists fear the worst and can’t believe in some technology they can’t yet see. The view of the optimists may arguably now be the correct one (i.e. it will all work out fine in the end) as look at the pace at which we have progressed in the last 20 years with solar panel, wind turbine technology, electric vehicles etc and there is every likelihood that this will accelerate with even newer technologies ( as GA espouses) - BUT - this development would not have started and gained momentum had it not been driven by the fear of the pessimists.

Hopefully now that RE technology has momentum it will be carried forwards by economics without the need for deeply divided politics.

How one sees the future will depend on one’s outlook and being optimistic that with the technological progress we are making we will get through this doesn’t make one a denier - just an optimist. Just bear in mind that to an optimist the hand wringing of a pessimist seems just as illogical.

Having written all that I can see how it can only make sense to an optimist so I am not expecting many people to agree with me but I thought it was worth a shout. 😀

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

I'm not sure why you've brought Mart into this, I wasn't asking about his opinion of why we should move away from fossil fuels. Nor was I asking your opinion on Mart.

I simply asked why you thought we should move away from using fossil fuel, given your earlier statements about its positive impact on our lifestyles?



I'm trying to have a discussion, but you don't seem to want to engage?

I ask again and I'll try and really word my question so there is no misunderstanding. Why do you (Ken not Mart or anyone else) feel that we should move away from fossil fuels?

I quoted Mart because I agreed with what he said. If I had said what Mart had said you would just have disagreed with me just as you want to make an argument about !!!!!! being further developed in third world countries.

If you want a debate with me and expect me to spend ages replying then I suggest you find a better way of opening that debate than accusing me of trolling. In view of the respect you accorded me at the start of this ‘debate’ I think I have replied sufficiently.

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

No, you have looked at #3467. It was #3477 which I have copied below for you.

Which bit of all that answers the question:

"Ken, why do you think we should move away from using Fossil Fuels?"

Honestly it shouldn't be this difficult Ken. If I were asked the same question I'd type:

"Because I believe the scientists who say that use of fossil fuel is contributing to global warming, and so to slow down GW we should reduce or stop using !!!!!!".

There, it's literally one sentence.

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Which bit of all that answers the question:

"Ken, why do you think we should move away from using Fossil Fuels?"

Honestly it shouldn't be this difficult Ken. If I were asked the same question I'd type:

"Because I believe the scientists who say that use of fossil fuel is contributing to global warming, and so to slow down GW we should reduce or stop using !!!!!!".

There, it's literally one sentence.

Because I believe the scientists who say that use of fossil fuel is contributing to global warming, and so to slow down GW we should reduce or eventually stop using !!!!!! (once there are other reliable sources of power.) There how is that?

Now if you believe the same please explain your view below:

pile-o-stone wrote: »

If they have brought us such wealth and prosperity, then why do we need to move on? Why can they not be the bedrock of developing countries too?

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

Because I believe the scientists who say that use of fossil fuel is contributing to global warming, and so to slow down GW we should reduce or eventually stop using !!!!!! (once there are other reliable sources of power.) There how is that?

Now if you believe this then please explain your view below:

JKenH wrote: »

So man tamed fire to keep himself safe. That led to burning wood, then coal, then oil and look where we have ended up. Safe, warm well fed and with a standard of living the working man could never have imagined 100 years ago. Just at what precise point did we start stealing our children’s future and why didn’t we stop? Because we preferred it to what went before.

Of course the young don’t realise this. They don’t see the benefits that have accrued and given them their cosy homes and their parents the 4x4s to transport them to school.

If you believe the first part of your statement about FF contributing to global warming then doesn't it answer your question on why young people want to move away from using fossil fuels? It's the same answer you just gave! You also want to move away from fossil fuel use!

JKenH wrote: »

At which particular point in history does miss Thunberg think we should have halted progress and given up fossil fuels?

We can't speak for ms Thunberg, but can for ourselves... At what point in history do you think we should halt progress and give up fossil fuels?