The Great Big Green Discussion Thread

Hexane

1961Nick wrote: »

I think you'll find GT has 2 parents - one of each sex.

This is a child that's been indoctrinated & coached to deliver her parent's message - shameful.

Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence.

Which is it?

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

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

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?

Martyn1981

mmmmikey wrote: »

The tone of this therad is progressively deteriorating.



This would probably be a good time for everybody to play some whale music, light a jostick and have a cup of herbal tea whilst doing some yoga in a darkened room.


Or perhaps discuss a lighter, less controversial subject - like Brexit.....



(Said to you all in my capacity as holier than though, have used offensive language in the past but now converted sinner......)

Whilst I appreciate your motives, these issues, and diet denial have now been 'contaminating' this board since the end of Spring. At some point, polite tolerance becomes appeasement.

Just the last few posts attack a young lady for campaigning for change and trying to spin her (and other youth) action as some kind of detrimental treatment by the older generation.

Then we have the same upside down gibberish about believing in science being a religion, whereas repetitive science denial, and idiotic comments attempting to knock RE and AGW is 'sensible'. Look at Ken's last statement (I'll lock it in before he can change it):

JKenH wrote: »

It is a green and ethical money saving board, not a board for discussion of AGW, legal action against FF companies or propagation of your religious views.

This is an excellent example of what his problem appears to be - he simply detests posts that challenge anti-AGW arguments, posts that point out what the FF companies have done, and are still doing to delay action, and shows that he believes the issue, probably the most scientifically researched and solid issue in history is no more than a religion.


Again, I appreciate and respect your efforts, and motives, but, the anti-science arguments, and offensive comments being promoted by three posters is distasteful, and we should push back, especially on a green and ethical board. Remaining silent, or polite appeasement, just let's the youth down even more now.

EricMears

Hexane wrote: »

Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence.

Which is it?

Since this thread is dedicated to Endless, Pointless & Circular Arguments, I suppose branching off on a tangent about the placement of apostrophes is quite a good idea. In any other thread it would come across as pointless & petty.

JKenH

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Whilst I appreciate your motives, these issues, and diet denial have now been 'contaminating' this board since the end of Spring. At some point, polite tolerance becomes appeasement.

Then we have the same upside down gibberish about believing in science being a religion, whereas repetitive science denial, and idiotic comments attempting to knock RE and AGW is 'sensible'. Look at Ken's last statement (I'll lock it in before he can change it):



This is an excellent example of what his problem appears to be - he simply detests posts that challenge anti-AGW arguments, posts that point out what the FF companies have done, and are still doing to delay action, and shows that he believes the issue, probably the most scientifically researched and solid issue in history is no more than a religion.

A couple of weeks ago, Mart, you were saying AGW was your religion.

Martyn1981 wrote: »

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.

I am not knocking RE - I support it as most people on here will recognise. What I am criticising is your contamination of a green and ethical money saving board with your moral superiority and endless posts about AGW, the evils of fossil fuels and conspiracy theories. What have these to do with money saving?

I would imagine most people come to MSE forums with money saving in mind, not saving the world. Some are keen to save money in a green and ethical manner and enjoy the technical discussion. But I wonder if anyone is vaguely interested in the endless stream of posts, articles and ‘funny’ left wing videos emanating from the cosy FF heated home of our armchair eco warrior. I am not the one contaminating the board; you are, Mart.

JKenH

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?

Now I know you are just looking for a rumble.

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

Now I know you are just looking for a rumble.

No, I'm trying to understand your position. Why do you think we need to move away from fossil fuels?

mmmmikey

pile-o-stone wrote: »

No, I'm trying to understand your position. Why do you think we need to move away from fossil fuels?

If you Google "global warming" you'll find there is lots of information online about this.

pile-o-stone

mmmmikey wrote: »

If you Google "global warming" you'll find there is lots of information online about this.

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?

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

No, I'm trying to understand your position. Why do you think we need to move away from fossil fuels?

I would refer you back to post #78.