The Great Big Green Discussion Thread

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

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

Nope - all the examples I gave are actual denial arguments. You've tried to downplay the UK emissions, you've repeatedly challenged all of the scientific findings regarding the net loss from more CO2 on crops, you claimed outright that dieselgate was not a major issue, and falsely claimed that the cheating was minor and that the whole industry already knew. [Edit - forgot a biggie, your claim that 'experts disagreed on the numbers' probably the single greatest denial argument put out there, and entirely false/misleading.]

You've repeatedly argued a word salad about how we should do less, so that we don't spend all our money now and not have enough for later - no idea how any of that is possible. Ken took a shot at an alternative suggesting spending on mitigation (that's what we are doing), and rolling out PV and ASHPs, so RE deployment and space heating policies to reduce FF consumption ..... what we are already doing. It seems your arguments are for arguments sake, and have no substance.

So, you are more than willing to post arguments that fly in the face of science and the facts, that's denial, but when challenged on it, you then 'deny' your denials. How apt!

If you want to post denials, and personally I think it's inappropriate, rude and pointless on this board, then so be it, but at least own what you are saying, don't try to play both sides.

GA aside (who at least is honest enough to stand by his position), I'd guess that you have posted more denial arguments on this board, since the Spring, than everyone else put together in the last 5yrs.

We have a problem, we have solutions, the longer we take to act the greater the environmental and financial cost. You may not like what I post, but it's the truth, it's the science, it's the facts, and it's the direction we (and pretty much every country on the planet) are going in.

Constantly attacking me, or insulting anyone that agree with me does no-one any good, and simply damages the threads that were all friendly before you two decided to stir things up.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nope - all the examples I gave are actual denial arguments. You've tried to downplay the UK emissions, you've repeatedly challenged all of the scientific findings regarding the net loss from more CO2 on crops, you claimed outright that dieselgate was not a major issue, and falsely claimed that the cheating was minor and that the whole industry already knew. [Edit - forgot a biggie, your claim that 'experts disagreed on the numbers' probably the single greatest denial argument put out there, and entirely false/misleading.]

You've repeatedly argued a word salad about how we should do less, so that we don't spend all our money now and not have enough for later - no idea how any of that is possible. Ken took a shot at an alternative suggesting spending on mitigation (that's what we are doing), and rolling out PV and ASHPs, so RE deployment and space heating policies to reduce FF consumption ..... what we are already doing. It seems your arguments are for arguments sake, and have no substance.

So, you are more than willing to post arguments that fly in the face of science and the facts, that's denial, but when challenged on it, you then 'deny' your denials. How apt!

If you want to post denials, and personally I think it's inappropriate, rude and pointless on this board, then so be it, but at least own what you are saying, don't try to play both sides.

GA aside (who at least is honest enough to stand by his position), I'd guess that you have posted more denial arguments on this board, since the Spring, than everyone else put together in the last 5yrs.

We have a problem, we have solutions, the longer we take to act the greater the environmental and financial cost. You may not like what I post, but it's the truth, it's the science, it's the facts, and it's the direction we (and pretty much every country on the planet) are going in.

Constantly attacking me, or insulting anyone that agree with me does no-one any good, and simply damages the threads that were all friendly before you two decided to stir things up.

Are you actually capable of debating a point without having a major strop? You'll make yourself ill if you carry on like this.

JKenH

1961Nick wrote: »

Are you actually capable of debating a point without having a major strop? You'll make yourself ill if you carry on like this.

Just ignore him Nick, it must have been time for his afternoon nap. My grandson is just the same.

JKenH

joefizz wrote: »

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

Thanks for posting that, Joe. That certainly does assist in understanding why there is so much discord on this forum. I would suggest anyone who hasn’t watched it already, makes the time to do so. The actual lecture is 1 hour, the rest, I believe, just taking questions from the floor which I found very difficult to hear so didn’t watch it past 1h10 mins. If anyone feels there is anything of substance after that please flag it up.

Martyn1981

1961Nick wrote: »

Are you actually capable of debating a point without having a major strop? You'll make yourself ill if you carry on like this.

I'm perfectly happy Nick, just pointing out that you can post denial arguments if you want, and own them, or you can respect the G&E board and not post them, but what you can't do is post a whole load and then throw your toys out the pram when called out.

AGW is real, it's bad, we are all responsible, and we all need to act.

Excuses, denials and spinny squirrel posts are nothing more than a waste of time.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I

AGW is real, it's bad, we are all responsible, and we all need to act.

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.

Are you contradicting yourself here now saying AGW is bad and we are all responsible for it or are you saying it doesn’t matter why we are here we just need to move forward and sort it.

Both Nick and I are onboard with the roll out of RE. Where we seem to differ is you have wanted to argue about Dieselgate, FF conspiracies etc which are not relevant to where we go from here.

Why is it so important to you that you prove us wrong on rates of CO2 emissions, CO2 as plant food etc, rather than having a brief exchange then agreeing to disagree? It really doesn’t matter whether we are deniers or not as long as we all agree that replacing !!!!!! with RE is the way forward.

The financial resources to tackle the problem and indeed policies are at the moment constrained by political considerations and that ever will be the case. Different people have different views about where to focus spending. Nick and I both expect that the UK will do its bit to go carbon neutral but are not convinced the rest of the world will. In that case we need to be ready with what I have referred to as mitigation measures.

When you challenged me on this I suggested, as an example, targeting the roll out of solar pv and ASHPs into old people’s homes and hospitals to cope with potential heatwaves and assist with focussed winter heating. (I have seen the immense benefit at low running cost of these units in my own home). We are already getting heatwaves so there is an immediate benefit to this and I believe it is a measure that would be well received and understood by the public when other measures might not. You insist we are already doing this - we are not. You just find it difficult to accept that someone you have labelled a denier makes a sensible suggestion.

As I have said numerous times you make a lot of sense with what you say on RE rollout and we really are not at odds on that. There may be detail such as how much wind is possible without storage etc but these are discussions of practicalities not principle.

Where I fundamentally disagree with you is your use of a money saving forum for pushing your more extreme political views and that is really why we fall out. In a civilised world though it should be possible to fall out on one subject and have an amicable discussion on something else.

You have though labelled me and Nick as deniers and while I find it hard to believe that you disagree with everything we post I realise just how difficult it is for you to engage constructively with someone you have labelled as the enemy.

I do by use of the thanks button acknowledge what I consider useful or constructive posts from you but that is never reciprocated and I wonder if that actually annoys you. I have noticed on the ‘talking ‘bout my generation’ thread that while the custom is for everyone to thank each other for the posts you thank everyone other than me or Nick.

I think you have more of a problem with us than we do with you.

1961Nick

Martyn1981 wrote: »

I'm perfectly happy Nick, just pointing out that you can post denial arguments if you want, and own them, or you can respect the G&E board and not post them, but what you can't do is post a whole load and then throw your toys out the pram when called out.

AGW is real, it's bad, we are all responsible, and we all need to act.

Excuses, denials and spinny squirrel posts are nothing more than a waste of time.

The overwhelming emotion coming from your posts isn't one of 'happiness' Mart, it's much closer to one of paranoia.

Hexane

JKenH wrote: »

your use of a money saving forum for pushing your more extreme political views

I agree with the rest of your post, Ken, but was puzzled by this line. I don't think repeatedly posting news items from the Guardian constitutes "extreme political views", just as repeatedly posting news items from the Telegraph would not constitute "extreme political views". Nor is repeatedly mentioning the dishonesty of fossil fuel companies (suppliers, producers, or car producers) an extreme political view (though I agree with your suggestion that it may not be very constructive in this forum).

On the other hand, posting clear untruths about a child, as some have done on this thread, would seem rather extreme, or at least rather pathetic.

pile-o-stone

Hexane wrote: »

On the other hand, posting clear untruths about a child, as some have done on this thread, would seem rather extreme, or at least rather pathetic.

Agreed. What's even more pathetic is that these grown men are attacking children because they disagree not with the fact we have global warming, but only on the date when we should fix it by.

1961Nick

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Agreed. What's even more pathetic is that these grown men are attacking children because they disagree not with the fact we have global warming, but only on the date when we should fix it by.

Care to quote a post to back up that assertion?