[Gllug] [OT] Technobabble

[Jim Bailey]

On Nov 21, 06:12, David Damerell wrote:
> On Monday, 21 Nov 2005, Jim Bailey wrote:
> >On Nov 21, 11:50, David Damerell wrote:
> >>Perhaps it is unclear to you that this is someone _talking_ but it is
> >>their _actions_ that affect the environment. And their actions are to
> >>increase emissions and energy consumption year-on-year.
> >My original post was to show that eco-design in building could be used
> >to greatly reduce energy consumption and thus make the possibility of
> >purely renewable energy policy much more likely over the longer term.
> 
> And if you hadn't chosen to make some obviously absurd assertions
> about China, you might have just had Nix pointing out where you're
> talking rubbish.

You keep claiming I am being absurd, talking nonsense and rubbish, yet
all I did was supply some information to the list and expressed an
opinion that such things were good.

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/001666.html
> 
> >>That's just the usual nonsense. An obvious counterexample is that
> >>coming up with clean industrial processes in the Victorian era would
> >>have been enormously expensive and would not have provided any benefit
> >>to an individual firm surrounded by a thousand dirty industrial
> >>processes.
> >The replacement of Newcomen's engine by Watt's produced fuel savings of
> >around 75%,
> 
> Very good, tell me something I already know! Now, would designing and
> installing chimney scrubbers with the technology of the era have made
> any sense? No.

No but they didn't make any sense at that time and context, and they
don't make a lot of sense now.

Chimney scrubbers and other technologies such as carbon sequestration
systems for power stations aren't the answer, they and the thinking
behind them are the problem.  By the same logic nuclear power falls into
the same category it maybe have the benefit of not producing green house
gasses but the production of radioactive waste products makes it poor
choice in other ways.
> 
> >>A "bivalent debate" is one where when you talk nonsense someone points
> >>it out, right?
> >
Support the claim of nonsense David, or shut up, sit back and take a
long look at the thread and what I have written including the links.  If
you can intelligently dissect my comments and offer effective constructive
criticism I will be happy to continue this thread with you, if not I
have better things to do with my time than feed the shrill delusions of
your personality disorder.
> 
> I'm not the one claiming China is taking effective action.

If you can find anywhere in my comments the view that China is taking
effective action I will be happy to apologise.  
> 
> >>No, orders of magnitude more somewhat cleaner cars is *not* one of the
> >>things necessary to save the environment. It is one of the things that
> >>will ensure the destruction of same. What is needed is _fewer_ motor
> >>cars (and cleaner ones wouldn't hurt, either).
> >Fewer cars would be a _nice_ option but the vast majority of people
> >don't want to give up their car and unless forced to do so by a police
> >state won't give up their cars.
> 
> Thank you, Captain Obvious! Perhaps you'd care to tell me that the sea
> is wet next?
> 
> Obvious but not relevant, passing over the observation that China's
> _got_ a police state; it's still the case that orders of magnitude
> more (you *do* know what an order of magnitude is, yes? and that to
> use the expression of motor cars in China is literally true, yes?)
> somewhat cleaner cars won't do us a blind bit of good, and what we
> _do_ need is fewer of the things, whether we like it or not; one of
> the many reasons why your vision of a painless transition to a
> fluffy-bunny future is completely false.

Where do I claim a vision of a painless transition to a fluffy-bunny
future?

Get some help David, this is, even within the same email becoming
repetitive and tedious.  You are assigning completely erroneous
positions to me that have no basis within my comments then hysterically
demanding that I defend them.

-- 
Peace Jim :-)

keys:  http://freesolutions.net/jim/pubkey.asc

 What you truly learn best will appear to you later as your own discovery.
 --Moshe Feldenkrais

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug