Renewable Revolution

Quote from: Ashvin on July 08, 2012, 10:45:26 pm

Let's face it, RE, you don't give two **** about agelbert or how much effort he put into his comment, or his message, or anyone else here.

If I didn't care about Agelbert getting his message out, WHY did I publish WBIII and edit it for him so it had decent paragraph breaks AND dig up all the graphics for it also?  I don't even AGREE with half of what he writes! If its all about me, how come Surly and Peter and Ross are in on this? How come I am happy to welcome WHD to the Team?  Sure I write more than anybody else but at least up there on the Blog I am always publishing other viewpoints.  You guys are the ones with the blinders on running the Ego Trip.

You guys got one spin and one spin only over there.  Drink the TAE Kool-Aid or take a Hike. Far as the metaphorical Orkin Man goes, that is YOU Guys on TAE. You'll send non-believers to the Guillotine over there and Ban and Censor them at the drop of a hat.  Here on DD, we Forgive and Forget.

RE

Ashvin,
You are dead wrong about RE. His style is different from mine but he, and I, both can spot bullshit, mendacity and verbal dancing a mile away. You are also out of line in attempting an explanation of Nicole's position on this or that. You have danced around the FACT that neither Nicole or Ilargi have gone into a detailed response to my subsequent posts. You're a good debater, Ashvin. when someone goes for generalities, you claim they should be more specific. When someone goes for the specifics, you claim they are "swamping". You have quite a bit of skill in dancing around core issues. When you no longer can dance around a core issue like fossil fuel worship, you reach for some justification to counter that assertion as well. And really, Ashvin, this scripture verse quoting you are using on RE is known as "bible wars". I feel it is improper to attempt to use scripture to score debating points or put down another person. I think Karpatok's assessment of Nicole's ivory tower arrogance and your uncalled for intersession is spot on as well.

I admit I see red every time I see the name George Monbiot. He is a shill of the nuclear homo sapiens poison pill of the worst sort because he has a voice and some pro-environment credentials so yeah, I didn't read the comments before posting. I had read his piece on another web site. GET THIS, Ashvin, this tool always follows a pattern. He gets press for some "pro-environment" position and subsequent  articles will then come up with the BULLSHIT of the "new" and "wonderous" and "safe" Thorium reactors or some other nuclear high tech poisoned boondoggle.  TAE made a grievous error in giving this tool a soap box. As to ANYTHING Nicole feels about his or that, she can come over here and post it. She does not require your mediation.

Getting back to bible verses, here's one of my favorites from good old Paul in Galatians:
GOD IS NOT MOCKED, WHATSOEVER YOU SOW, THAT YOU SHALL REAP. That's not the exact quote, but I think you get the picture.   This, of course, applies to ALL OF US! 

If you REALLY believe your pals at TAE are rational individuals not married to a bankrupt world view and I am the one being irrational here, try this experiment:

Give them this info and ask them, for the sake of truth and accuracy at TAE, to become members of the Union of Concerned Scientists. If they agree to spend a paltry $35 a month (minimum contribution) to get the real story on climate and energy reality and corporate skullduggery, then your pals are being rational and I have overreacted. If not, you and your pals are the ones being irrational, judgemental and closed minded.

Here's the info:


The Union of Concerned Scientists has a new report:
Some highlights of the report:
"The 28 companies we investigated spent more than $300 million lobbying Congress in the run up to possible climate legislation;

Koch Industries alone has spent more than $55 million since 1997 to misrepresent climate science or oppose safeguards to rein in global warming emissions; and

The oil company ConocoPhillips has backed the campaigns of anti-climate candidates for Congress by a ratio of more than 15 to 1 over candidates who have supported science-based climate policies."

"There isn't any real science to say we are altering the climate path of the earth"
Senator Roy Blunt (R-MO)

http://www.ucsusa.org/

"The Monsanto Company, the leading agricultural biotechnology company, spends millions each year on advertising aimed at convincing policy-makers and the public that their so-called “better seeds” are feeding a growing population, protecting natural resources, and promoting biodiversity. But the reality of Monsanto’s products is somewhat less idyllic. In a post on the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) blog, The Equation, Senior Analyst Karen Perry Stillerman unveils a new series of UCS ads showing that Monsanto is not improving agriculture, but rather undermining progress toward greater sustainability.

UCS just completed a trilogy of reports assessing the biotechnology industry’s claims about the potential of genetic engineering to increase crop yields, reduce nitrogen fertilizer pollution, and make crops drought-tolerant and water-efficient. The reports found that genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. corn and soybean yields, that it has yet to produce any commercial crop engineered for nitrogen efficiency, and that Monsanto’s recently-introduced DroughtGard corn won’t help farmers withstand extreme droughts or reduce water use.
If you’d like to interview Stillerman or hear more about the ad campaign, call Sarah Goldberg at 215-370-2110."


http://www.ucsusa.org/

Please consider becoming a member of The Union of Concerned Scientists. They are thorough, not given to hyperbole or exaggeration and back up everything they say with hard science.


Golden Oxen and JoeP,
I agree that discretion is the better part of valor when dealing with "city hall" at TAE.  But given their inabillity to respond rationally to my "conspiracy theory" that the fossil fuel and nuclear industry is not only poisoning the planet for profit and destroying democracy as well, they have co-opted the EROI methodology to give happpy numbers for fossil and nuclear fuels and sad numbers for renewables, my only recourse is to continue educating people here with my research so more people are aware of how thoroughly gamed the energy "playing field" is. As Karpatok said, they are a small site. TAE is out of line, not just because of ideological purity, territoriality or "circle the wagons" type defense of indefensible issues like justifying EROI computations free of enviornmental degradation "externalities", but simply because, with the George Monbiot article they are showing extremely poor judgement. I was  attracted to that sight because of the "nuclear village" article detailing the abuse of poor japanese by the nuclear industry there. The lengthy articles and thorough attention to detail were a joy to me in this short attention span hell we live in these days. As I told Ashvin some time ago, I HATE twitter. I told Ashvin I enjoyed the lengthy and thorough thought  provoking comments  as another reason to like TAE. And now I'm a "swamper"!!? You've seen my posts. I enjoy detail and have been consistent in trying to explain my positions.

So, the only good thing I can say about TAE right now is: "________________" (This space intentionally left blank).

When you can't say something good, it's better to not say anything at all.  As of this moment, I am beginning a LONG vacation from TAE.

My guide in these posts will continue to be the truth, not the defense of my ego.

Finally, I wish to repeat my gratitude to RE principally but several others here (Surly's thoughtful response to my comment on Freud was one of the reasons I kept coming back here initially)  like you that ponder these posts as they relate to our world and our future; not from some turf protecting infantile position.

Thank you, Doomstead Diners for being GREAT human beings. :