The Great Big Green Discussion Thread

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Perhaps you can quote me saying AGW is a religion?

Post #32 on this thread

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.

Solarchaser

You do realise why religion was 'religion' right?

I mean, you are not daft, so you do realise.... so why have you quoted it as if it was represented as something else.

I was on the fence, but I have to admit it's looking more and more like you have a bit of an obsession with Martyn.

pile-o-stone

Solarchaser wrote: »

You do realise why religion was 'religion' right?

I mean, you are not daft, so you do realise.... so why have you quoted it as if it was represented as something else.

I was on the fence, but I have to admit it's looking more and more like you have a bit of an obsession with Martyn.

In our discussion yesterday. I had to stop and remind him that "I was asking for your opinion about GW, not your opinion about Mart". I've said before that he's obsessed (I posted a count of the number of times he said the word 'Mart' in his posts, it was like 70 times) - probably a lot more now. He really needs to take a step back from the board and have a serious chat with himself. It's not healthy.

Martyn1981

Solarchaser wrote: »

You do realise why religion was 'religion' right?

I mean, you are not daft, so you do realise.... so why have you quoted it as if it was represented as something else.

I was on the fence, but I have to admit it's looking more and more like you have a bit of an obsession with Martyn.

Thank you Solarchaser, I was going to respond with some ROFL's but let's face it, what's the point, it's all about spin.


Regarding 'the fence', obviously I've stated that Ken is running a personal campaign against me, I never had any doubts about this, but before I could say it out loud I needed him to come out and say it, and he did, eventually publish his 'manifesto' on the Green energy board and how he'd like me to post less (or not at all).

Quick history lesson - I waited patiently as his manifesto was delayed repeatedly as he kept losing momentum, first it was Silverwhistle calling him out, then it was P-o-S and Ed, and then it was you (stating I wasn't a troll), after that I think he just got bored and blurted it out.

Now, I'm not stupid, and I know how all this looks and sounds, and that the good people on here will always try to give the benefit of the doubt, however, Ken finally came clean yesterday and posted the real reason why he's been doing this:

JKenH wrote: »

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.

He doesn't like my opinions, and ironically launched his campaign off the back of 'us having to respect GA's opinions.'

Most posts reflect facts, news, articles. When it's my opinion, I say it's my opinion.

When I post about the legal action regarding FF's, I believe it's 100% appropriate to the thread as anything that undermines the false narratives that they have, and are still, promoting means more power to the RE argument, and a faster deployment of RE.

If pointing out that the FF industry is losing their denial campaign is not appropriate to a green and ethical energy in the news thread, then I'm not able to understand why. That it would upset Ken, I understand entirely, but that's not an argument for me to stop posting the facts, it's an argument for him to pop me on ignore.

Sorry again for all the disruption, but thanks again to P-o-S for the ability to keep this nonsense off the news thread, and limit the disruption from those that, and this won't go down well I know, but those that aren't really that interested in the first place.

1961Nick

pile-o-stone wrote: »

In our discussion yesterday. I had to stop and remind him that "I was asking for your opinion about GW, not your opinion about Mart". I've said before that he's obsessed (I posted a count of the number of times he said the 'Mart' in his posts, it was like 60 times) - probably a lot more now. He really needs to take a step back from the board and have a serious chat with himself. It's not healthy.

That's a bit rich coming from someone who set up this thread so the 'Followers of Mart' (you can add that one to my 'Mart' count) weren't subjected to the opinions of the more pragmatic members - & then promptly followed us here!:rotfl:

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

That's a bit rich coming from someone who set up this thread so the 'Followers of Mart' (you can add that one to my 'Mart' count) weren't subjected to the opinions of the more pragmatic members - & then promptly followed us here!:rotfl:

For goodness sake Nick, why do you and Ken have to be so rude and abusive all the time.

The G&E energy thread is simply a chance to spread good news about RE rollout, and (in my opinion) FF rollbacks, and news on progress with the acceptance of AGW and the climate crisis, as that will drive action (such as RE) faster.

I get that you don't like me pushing back on the denial arguments you and Ken have posted (denial of the FF companies campaigning against AGW, denial of the amount of emissions the UK has been responsible for, denial of the seriousness of dieselgate, denial that rising CO2 is actually bad for World food production/quality etc), but why mitch and boan at me for pushing back, the obvious solution (and also the polite/respectful one) would be not to post mis-information and anti-science nonsense in the first place.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Thank you Solarchaser, I was going to respond with some ROFL's but let's face it, what's the point, it's all about spin.


Regarding 'the fence', obviously I've stated that Ken is running a personal campaign against me, I never had any doubts about this, but before I could say it out loud I needed him to come out and say it, and he did, eventually publish his 'manifesto' on the Green energy board and how he'd like me to post less (or not at all).

Quick history lesson - I waited patiently as his manifesto was delayed repeatedly as he kept losing momentum, first it was Silverwhistle calling him out, then it was P-o-S and Ed, and then it was you (stating I wasn't a troll), after that I think he just got bored and blurted it out.

Now, I'm not stupid, and I know how all this looks and sounds, and that the good people on here will always try to give the benefit of the doubt, however, Ken finally came clean yesterday and posted the real reason why he's been doing this:



He doesn't like my opinions, and ironically launched his campaign off the back of 'us having to respect GA's opinions.'

Most posts reflect facts, news, articles. When it's my opinion, I say it's my opinion.

When I post about the legal action regarding FF's, I believe it's 100% appropriate to the thread as anything that undermines the false narratives that they have, and are still, promoting means more power to the RE argument, and a faster deployment of RE.

If pointing out that the FF industry is losing their denial campaign is not appropriate to a green and ethical energy in the news thread, then I'm not able to understand why. That it would upset Ken, I understand entirely, but that's not an argument for me to stop posting the facts, it's an argument for him to pop me on ignore.

Sorry again for all the disruption, but thanks again to P-o-S for the ability to keep this nonsense off the news thread, and limit the disruption from those that, and this won't go down well I know, but those that aren't really that interested in the first place.

Mart, Mart, Mart, please remember this is a money saving forum. Take your campaigning elsewhere. Your technical posts are good but you are just obsessed with ‘pushing back’ against anybody you perceive to be disagreeing with your view of the world. Nothing to do with money saving - green, ethical or otherwise.

As for me and Nick being rude I think, coming from your team, that is pot calling kettle black.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

For goodness sake Nick, why do you and Ken have to be so rude and abusive all the time.

The G&E energy thread is simply a chance to spread good news about RE rollout, and (in my opinion) FF rollbacks, and news on progress with the acceptance of AGW and the climate crisis, as that will drive action (such as RE) faster.

I get that you don't like me pushing back on the denial arguments you and Ken have posted (denial of the FF companies campaigning against AGW, denial of the amount of emissions the UK has been responsible for, denial of the seriousness of dieselgate, denial that rising CO2 is actually bad for World food production/quality etc), but why mitch and boan at me for pushing back, the obvious solution (and also the polite/respectful one) would be not to post mis-information and anti-science nonsense in the first place.

The problem is that your definition of "denial argument" is someone who isn't 100% onboard with your opinion.

Why can't you appreciate that there are members of this forum that want to discuss & debate the issues - not just listen to the gospel of Mart.

Anyway, the sun has just come out so maybe everyone will be a bit more mellow today?:rotfl:

joefizz

I have nothing to add to this thread (dont want to get involved ;-) - ironic as Im now posting)
And as much as I hate posting links and prefer people to DYOR this thread reminds me of this talk. Its nearly 2 hours long but IIRC the first 40 mins or so cover most of it.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iene_nipRXM

pile-o-stone

1961Nick wrote: »

That's a bit rich coming from someone who set up this thread so the 'Followers of Mart' (you can add that one to my 'Mart' count) weren't subjected to the opinions of the more pragmatic members - & then promptly followed us here!:rotfl:

Its a place for everyone to waste their time with circular arguments that go nowhere and create nothing other than animosity. The 'Curricular argument' thread is a broad church and excludes nobody!!

It hasn't prevented all the arguments everywhere else though, which is it's raison d'être. I see that arguments are even taking place on the electric car thread.

John Connor: "We're not going to make it. Humans, I mean".
The Terminator: "It's in your nature to destroy yourselves."