The Great Big Green Discussion Thread

joefizz · 16 October 2019 at 11:46AM

Can I not get involved again? ;-)

Id thoroughly recommend the freakonomics series of books to anyone interested in the lies, damn lies and statistics train of thought.

People quote posts and internet stuff as 'evidence' (regardless of your position) so heres an experiment.
Take some time and do some internet searches on things you are an expert in (day job, hobby for years - if not 'expert' then something you have a lot of experience in).
Sit down and calculate how many of them are factually correct in your experience. Work out how many are comment on comment, how many are complete bs and how many may be true but you have no experience of that.
Then sit and think is your experience of your findings of your area unique or can it be applied across the board.

Repeat with government/think tank white papers/proposals/initiatives in your area and again see how much is right on the button, wishful thinking, complete bs, influenced by vested interests. Then think about if your area is unique or is it a rough guide to across the board.

Then think about using posts or comment on comment as evidence.

For example, we all know PHEVs are good for the environment, right? Well studies have shown in fleet over 3 years that the average MPG is only slightly better with PHEVs than without. Conclusion? most of them were bought for tax breaks and never plugged in. Real anecdotal evidence? Go and test drive an ex fleet 3 year old PHEV and see if the cable is still in the plastic wrapping in the boot, and if its not, if the pins have any wear/corrosion on them. After the third test drive you think they might have a point...

We all know that BEV heavy subsidies are good for the environment, right? Then look at the Norway study which shows they were mainly bought by affluent families as 2nd cars where none existed before and primarily replaced public transport and cycling journeys. Evidence? Well not much difference in amount of fuel bought from petrol stations in heavily EV populated areas (you would expect it to go down if replacing ICE cars), decrease in public transport journeys taken (measured), increased difficulty in finding parking spaces at the likes of unis/colleges/supermarkets and decrease in bike sales/increase in availability of bike parking. Power requirement from the grid increased. Overall negative effect.

Why did I use those two examples in an unrelated thread? Human nature is the biggest influence. All the best wishes and news in the world means nothing, just let some humans at it (just look at the RHI scandal over here for proof, ruined it for the rest of us). In all of this, we and our behaviours are the biggest problems.

JKenH · 16 October 2019 at 12:42PM

Hexane wrote: »

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.

Fair point. The Guardian articles aren’t the issue although The Guardian does pride itself on its AGW campaigning. Clean Technica on the other hand has an open editorial policy and while it is a good source of RE stories it is also a vehicle for conspiracy theorists, anti FF campaigners and other anti Big Oil/Big Auto activists to air their views. The more one reads any polarised political material the more one becomes absorbed into the cause without realising it and blind to other perspectives.

I think if one is going to post non mainstream press material on one side of the argument then one might reasonably expect to see opposing arguments posted from sites that some, because of their polarised view, would regard as climate deniers.

The issue is is this forum a place for debate about AGW or for money saving RE discussion?

P-o-s started the new thread for more wacky and left field arguments about, among other issues, AGW and asked us to take our arguments there leaving the Green, ethical energy issues in the news thread (let’s use the common parlance RE thread) for genuine news about RE developments or say UK energy policy. I was happy to respect that but others weren’t. The first breach I challenged but some people believe what they have to say is too important to be sidelined to another thread.

I am not attempting to set precise boundaries but if the news thread is going to be of value to someone keen to keep up with RE developments do we want it full of articles, along with the ensuing debate, about something that happened decades ago just because one contributor has a bee in his bonnet about that?

AGW is an emotive issue and I think that video from Joe highlighted the conflicts it can cause and the polarisation of views on both sides. I think we would all be happy to see RE rolled out (even Eric whose views I very much respect) and to discuss the technology and its implementation on here with everyone allowed to contribute without fear or favour. Instead debate degenerates into a name calling exercise. Is it necessary to polarise debate, labelling people as deniers because they don’t agree with your particular view of the world? Apparently yes, because some people believe it discredits those so labelled and makes their contributions worthless in the eyes of others. (At times it can seem like the Spanish Inquisition if your faith is doubted with questions fired at you like a machine gun.) Is that going to encourage people to contribute?

Why can’t we keep that kind of acrimony off the RE thread like other threads which bob along quite harmoniously. Perhaps it is because there are so many posts on there that are not technical but political (in the widest sense of the word) views and opinions, posted with a view to reinforcing a contributors personal view of the world. It has been suggested that Nick and I have brought about this discord. Possibly so, but only because we have had the temerity to point out that there are alternative views. The problem is that the more entrenched one becomes in one's own views the harder it is to accept that any sane person could possibly hold an alternative view and they must be corrected. It is not an option to agree to disagree - they are wrong, or if they are right they are spinning. One has only to look at the past few days to see how many times the term ‘spin’ has been used by one contributor

I accept whatever criticism you wish to place at my door about bringing GT into this (I was in fact responding to posts from others) but I wasn’t aware I had posted untruths. If I have I will apologise for them. My motivation in posting about GT and XR was simply to highlight that there are alternative views of the world out there and demonstrate that, if we are so minded to continually indulge ourselves, we could very soon clog the RE thread up with all sorts of rubbish not helpful to the RE discussions.

pile-o-stone · 16 October 2019 at 1:30PM

1961Nick wrote: »

Care to quote a post to back up that assertion?

Please see the discussion earlier in the thread. I guess there are other grown men who don't believe in Global Warming at all and so are verbally attacking children for having a belief contrary to theirs. I suppose other grown men have their own reasons for wanting to shout down children.

There is a help-line available for grown men who need to shout at children because they hold different viewpoint from them:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/greta-thunberg-helpline-approved-by-climate-change-activist-herself-a4247781.html

pile-o-stone · 16 October 2019 at 1:35PM

JKenH wrote: »

The issue is is this forum a place for debate about AGW or for money saving RE discussion?

P-o-s started the new thread for more wacky and left field arguments about, among other issues, AGW and asked us to take our arguments there leaving the Green, ethical energy issues in the news thread (let’s use the common parlance RE thread) for genuine news about RE developments or say UK energy policy. I was happy to respect that but others weren’t. The first breach I challenged but some people believe what they have to say is too important to be sidelined to another thread.

I've changed the title of the thread and content of the first post. Most of the boards have a discussion/social thread, so it's fair enough for us to follow suit.

JKenH wrote: »

I am not attempting to set precise boundaries but if the news thread is going to be of value to someone keen to keep up with RE developments do we want it full of articles, along with the ensuing debate?

Perhaps if there is a point on one of the Green Energy News threads that people want to discuss, that might take the thread off-topic, they could post a link to here and continue the discussion/debate/argument?

mmmmikey · 16 October 2019 at 2:27PM

JKenH wrote: »

The issue is is this forum a place for debate about AGW or for money saving RE discussion?

I think one of the nuances here is that "money saving RE" means different things to different people, although as long as we are all prepared to respect each others views that doesn't need to be an issue here.

Some, whilst generally recognising that AGW does exist, are more focused on whether investing money in green technologies (whether on a domestic or commercial scale) can "turn a profit". For example, quite apart from any enviornmental benefit, can you save money on your energy bills by installing solar panels? For this group, the environmental benefit is sometimes secondary and as such discussion of the environmental issues per se is somewhat outside the scope of the moneysavingexpert boards.

Others of us see AGW as an immediate and existential threat and start from the position that it's going to cost money to sort this out. Our idea of money saving is that we want to make sure that any money we spend delivers the biggest enviornmental benefit and/or we spend as little as money as possible in fixing what we perceive to be the problem. For this group, the environmental issues are central and core to the discussion - how can we decide whether any money we spend on green initiatives is worthwhile without validating the environmental benefits of that through discussion of issues associated with AGW?

So from my perspective, it seems perfectly reasonable to see this forum as a place for discussing both AGW and money saving.

Why try and and prevent that discussion? If it doesn't interest someone because they think the issues are overstated, why feel compelled to stop others from having that discussion? Why not just choose not to participate?

JKenH · 17 October 2019 at 2:38PM

Part 1 of a lengthy article in today’s Daily Telegraph summarising the state of climate science.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2019/10/15/climate-change-fake-news-global-threat-science/

[Text removed by Forum Team]

JKenH · 17 October 2019 at 3:05PM

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

Don't worry too much though, the last thing we want to see is GA spending half of the next week running yet another face saving exercise in an attempt to own & rewrite history ... maybe the narrative would run from 'nothing like this exists' to 'I'll have to invent a solution', eventually culminating in 'I never said that, look, they've been around for a decade so you're wrong, wrong ... wrong' ...

Anyway, don't you just love the recent realignment of expertise on the forum ... it seems that there's a real move away from experience, technicalities & logic to simple repetition and volume of unsupported opinion ...

... Vocally own the present through volume & frequency, rewrite the past through repetition & deflection, control the future through smoke & mirrors ... pretty standard approach really, just that so many don't seem to recognise the pattern!

HTH
Z

I have moved this here as this is the place for sniping. Obviously someone didn’t get the message that we are supposed to be nice to each other on the ‘RE’ thread.

pile-o-stone · 17 October 2019 at 6:39PM

Ken, you are violating the copyright of the Telegraph by posting their article in full, especially as they have a paywall. You are allowed to provide a short paragraph and a link to the article so people go there to read it in full. I'd suggest you edit your posts as it could cause trouble for MSE.

You may also potentially be denying payment to the author (it might be the case that their pay is whole or partly connected with how many read the article on the Telegraph website.

JKenH · 17 October 2019 at 8:06PM

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Ken, you are violating the copyright of the Telegraph by posting their article in full, especially as they have a paywall. You are allowed to provide a short paragraph and a link to the article so people go there to read it in full. I'd suggest you edit your posts as it could cause trouble for MSE.

You may also potentially be denying payment to the author (it might be the case that their pay is whole or partly connected with how many read the article on the Telegraph website.

You are probably right. I just posted the whole article in case anyone felt I was being selective in what I quoted and someone had previously moaned that the Telegraph had a paywall and couldn’t access a link I posted. I’ll have a look at it. Thanks.

JKenH · 17 October 2019 at 8:08PM

JKenH wrote: »

You are probably right. I just posted the whole article in case anyone felt I was being selective in what I quoted and someone had previously moaned that the Telegraph had a paywall and couldn’t access a link I posted. I’ll have a look at it. Thanks.

It has already been removed by the forum team but there are some older posts I ought to have a look at.

The Great Big Green Discussion Thread

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free