"Spot the tactics"

[martin]

Having spent a while around internet discussion forums, you get to notice certain tactics being used -
This being the weekend, and a rather wet and miserable one, it may be the time to play "spot the tactics" - particularly those used to try to suggest nuclear power is not only desirable, but safe and "cuddly" too......
I keep spotting the following:-
1) "Muddy the Waters",- the thread is about the dangers of nukes - the protagonist then veers the topic off to the dangers of falling off stepladders, or the dangers of spontaneous combustion when using hair lacquer
2) "Blind 'em with science" - produce reams and reams of figures, doubtless churned out by apologist websites, which are then produced and quoted ad nauseam - knowing full well that the normal reaction amongst readers is to "glaze over".......(precisely the desired reaction)
3) The blatant "diversionary tactic" - a post is spotted that contains a link to some pretty damning footage about a very dodgy nuclear plant - suddenly, two old posts in the same section are inexplicably answered (in a desultory manner) by the apologist, knowing full well that it'll shove the post three places down the page, and thus render it far less likely to be read..............
4) The full-frontal "you're talking sh*te" usually used against someone who hasn't cut and pasted pages of borrowed figures - intended to totally destroy the recipient poster's willingness to live, let alone rejoin the discussion...........
Anybody notice any other dirty tricks being used ?- I'm sure I've probably missed some

[NickW]

Hahahahahahahaha

All I have ever done is responded to threads by and largely started by you and concerning nuclear power. OK I introduced the subject on a thread started by Ken about UK power supply in general. He didnt wanted to include nuclear in that discussion - fair enough I didnt persue it.

As your memory seems to be fading a bit

YOU started the thread about French Nuclear power
You started the 'Coast' thread that was about Dounraey
Ivan started the Renewables future thread in response to YOUR French nulcear power thread.


I have been crystal clear:

• Show me the tangible health effects of nuclear power / incidents worldwide
  
  Put it in perspective with other forms of industrial activity
  
  Renewables are great - but how scalable are they - what are the constraints - lets quanitfy that (in a real world sense).
  
  Biofuels / biomass - what are opportunity costs of persuing this route.

• Show me how you CUT consumption by 80% from present consumption levels

In contrast anything I come out with is greeted with your usual resopnse of pish posh,  , toxic, mutants bla bla bla , cut consumption by 80%, hair lacquer, talking shite , hiroshima, nagasaki, Marie Currie

[martin]

5) be highly manipulative - insist that everyone else has to "play it your way"
and 6) (or it may be a variant of "4") - just try to rubbish your "opponent" by trying to belittle them/their argument when you are left with no leg to stand on.............
People have every right to emote about such an emotive subject, and I'm heartily sick of people's better feelings being belittled, just because they refuse to "play it your way"

[NickW]

I havent belittled anything - I have challenged the viability - particular on scale in respect of some of the proposals. I have backed up my challenges with hard figures - ie the actual land area of the Uk, the fact that most land already has a use - hence my reference to opportunity costs for any development.

Whether or not nuclear is viable is irrelevant - there is only x amount of available biomass for energy production. there is only x amount of capital to invest in solar etc etc.

You are telling me I have to cut consumption by 80% (my view is that 30-50% is about tops - and in effect ive already done it) - so show me HOW


Of course we can carry on living in your dream world

[martin]

God he's got cloth ears too! - NO, not playing your game.........
It has been shown that if we are all willing to make fairly hefty changes in our lifestyle that we can have a renewables only future - as you well know, nuclear can only supply a miniscule amount of our needs over the next hundred or so years - it will arrive too late, be too expensive, and FAR too dangerous to ever be contemplated - but in one extremely sad way, you are right - we will doubtless be lumbered with the damn things by stupid politicians who've listened to the paid apologists, and swallowed it, hook, line and sinker........as I've heard remarked about our current PM, he's like porridge - thick, and from Scotland!

[NickW]

As other posters have already resorted to pictorial / emotive posts to get their point across I thought what the hell.

It seems to me that a proportion of greenies here rest on their laurels whilst smugly filling their SUV with 20 litres of 'fryers pride' from cash and carry

Well 20 litres of veg oil provides a child with the equivalent of about 100 days calorific needs.

The demand for biofuels is pushing the cost of basic food staples through the roof.

Think about that whilst you cruising down to the big green big bosh event this weekend
in your SUV / indirect diesel chugger

[NickW]

God he's got cloth ears too! - NO, not playing your game.........
It has been shown that if we are all willing to make fairly hefty changes in our lifestyle that we can have a renewables only future - as you well know, nuclear can only supply a miniscule amount of our needs over the next hundred or so years - it will arrive too late, be too expensive, and FAR too dangerous to ever be contemplated - but in one extremely sad way, you are right - we will doubtless be lumbered with the damn things by stupid politicians who've listened to the paid apologists, and swallowed it, hook, line and sinker........as I've heard remarked about our current PM, he's like porridge - thick, and from Scotland!

Tin Foil hat alert! Tin foil hat alert!

[Ivan]

Nick,

It may well be that you, I and Martin have done all we can (OK, I'm the first to admit, I can do more, but it's still a work-in-progress). However, for 99% of the population they have done nothing whatsoever. How many incandescent light bulbs are there still in use? 0%, 10%, 20% or 90%? It will definitely be at the high end, despite the fact that this is the easiest, cheapest way that an ordinary person can make a quick-payback saving in both energy and monetary terms. I know it's only a small thing, but I'm trying to illustrate that the average person does very little, very slowly.

Was it Bill or Odbob that posted their gas-usage graph over the last few years, demonstrating a large percentage reduction on par with the sort of reduction that Martin is talking about? Demonstrating that it can be done. Whether it will be done is quite another issue.


Ivan

[NickW]

Nick,

It may well be that you, I and Martin have done all we can (OK, I'm the first to admit, I can do more, but it's still a work-in-progress). However, for 99% of the population they have done nothing whatsoever. How many incandescent light bulbs are there still in use? 0%, 10%, 20% or 90%? It will definitely be at the high end, despite the fact that this is the easiest, cheapest way that an ordinary person can make a quick-payback saving in both energy and monetary terms. I know it's only a small thing, but I'm trying to illustrate that the average person does very little, very slowly.

Was it Bill or Odbob that posted their gas-usage graph over the last few years, demonstrating a large percentage reduction on par with the sort of reduction that Martin is talking about? Demonstrating that it can be done. Whether it will be done is quite another issue.


Ivan

Im not desputing it cant be done - Im asking for someone to demonstrate without involving major privation. Consumption obviously includes whatever contribution your energy budget gets from renewables.

Whilst I would love to continue the banter / joust with Martin I have to go as I have a train to catch to London

Have a good weekend

Regards

Nick

[martin]

unfortunately government and the pro-nukers don't WANT there to be any real savings made - the tactic is "full tilt into the buffers", because that way involves no thought whatsoever, it won't lose the ruling party any votes, and who the hell cares, because it'll happen after the next election..........

[martin]

7) Make lame excuse, and bog off.........

[NickW]

7) Make lame excuse, and bog off.........

Oo er missus - hand bags at dawn

[Eleanor]

Roll up! Roll up! Get your tickets here!

Superman Vs The Hulk 

[dhaslam]

Unfortunately the hulk can only keep it up for five minutes.

[Woodenstop]

There's only one way to find out!

FIGHT!