Thommo wrote:

BlackBart wrote:That still doesn't mean the actual lekky KIR receives is generated by Scottish Power - It might even be French Nuclear lekky!

You can always tell when that happens. All the electrons wear jaunty berets and your plugs start humming La Marseillaise.

And the faint whiff of ozone is replaced by a faint whiff of garlic.

I'll attempt a "trivial google search" on the matter tomoz and call them back too perhaps before ditching the switch to SP. I'm pretty crap at google searches actually I reckon, as has been pointed out to me before on this forum. One man's trivial is another man's...well...you get the point.

BlackBart wrote:Sounds like the call centre guy got their knickers in a knot then.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ergy-firms

Oh blimey that seals the deal.

Call centre operative fail I guess...how could they not know this?!?!?!?!?! Wow.

ETA: and why isn't it in their welcome pack?!?!?!

Muchos gratitude to the one like Black Bart for clearing this up. Super cereal.

OK ...

What did I say in post #69? Post #70 is incorrect btw. This is such a bs lol I guess I just should get over myself tho. OK ..

The important issue tuco is that Scottish Power will be getting my money, not some other dirty company. They can use that money and profit to maintain/run existing as well as build further offshore wind - in fact that salesman, who I earlier called a "scumbag" (in my confusion - sorry bruv) said that SP invest £7,000,000 a day in offshore wind, and given events I'm now fully and happily inclined to believe that!

I think a reason for me losing my rag and being...er..knicker knotting on the phone with that operative is my...er...militancy regarding AGW stuff. It's "my thing" as somebody remarked the other day. An occupational hazard, in a way methinks. I kinda feel like I should phone them back tomoz and apologise

Soon they will be .. freed .. by bots so hurry up ;)

In this case, a bot would doubtless have been far superior

For some, yes. Hows the Metatron bike workshop business going? I semi-seriously considered buying myself a bike this very day.

Ductless heat pumps, on the other hand, are a distant dream, however.

Spearthrower wrote:

juju7 wrote:
You are right I do not understand your argument. I thought you were saying that fewer people would mean a lower ecological footprint.

What you should focus on is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."

Because you're doing the opposite, and consequently criticizing a strawman.

Rubbish. You won't even clearly state what you're trying to argue.

Are you saying that fewer people would mean a lower ecological footprint, or not?

juju7 wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

juju7 wrote:
You are right I do not understand your argument. I thought you were saying that fewer people would mean a lower ecological footprint.

What you should focus on is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.[1] In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies, or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. According to Simon Blackburn[2] "it constrains the interpreter to maximize the truth or rationality in the subject's sayings."

Because you're doing the opposite, and consequently criticizing a strawman.

Rubbish. You won't even clearly state what you're trying to argue.

Are you saying that fewer people would mean a lower ecological footprint, or not?

Rubbish, yourself. Spearthrower clearly stated that if the population were 2 billion instead of 7 billion, current levels of consumption would not be unsustainable. You weren't paying attention, though, or else you have some other axe to grind, such as the non sequiur that was pointed out to you, namely, that "not everyone contributes equally", which hasn't been questioned.

That was the point at which you tried to enter or re-enter the conversation, and it's that kind of game-playing that is being considered a violation of the principle of charity. Along about now, I'm getting the creepy feeling this is not the first time you have failed to understand an argument. It's on you if this is purposeful, which is why you might be jabbering "Rubbish", instead of picking yourself up and trying to understand the argument. There's a good lad.

There will not be 2B people, stop dreaming ;) The rational and humanistic way forward is to become carbon neutral and to commit to a circular economy and essentially to become less of assholes to the environment. Asking people to lower their consumption is much more realistic than asking them not having kids. Period. There is no point to talk about 2B people. Let's talk about 20B people.

tuco wrote:There will not be 2B people, stop dreaming The rational and humanistic way forward is to become carbon neutral and to commit to a circular economy and essentially to become less of assholes to the environment. Asking people to lower their consumption is much more realistic than asking them not having kids. Period. There is no point to talk about 2B people. Let's talk about 20B people.

Yes, that's the rational way, isn't it, tuco? Stop dreaming that most people are rational, or (for that matter) humanistic, Most people don't live in a bucolic little village a half-hour by train from a cultural center, with nearly as much free time on their hands as we have for all this signalling about how rational and committed we are.

lol there will not be 2B people. Period. Babble all you want.

tuco wrote:lol there will not be 2B people. Period. Babble all you want.

tuco wrote:Let's talk babble about 20B people.

There. Fixed it for ya. Let's babble about 7 billion people, lots and lots of whom have the same over-inflated sense of their own significance that you have, and just find outlets in conspicuous consumption instead of in virtue signalling.

20 billion people? Only insofar as misery loves company. Remember, they don't all live in bucolic little exurban villages in the developed world.