Talk:Amory Lovins: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Quack editors: housekeeping per WP:MULTI .... add pointer to the original thread and venue
→‎Quack editors: Removed WP:STALK editors clearly ideological bent to find themselves within everything I write.
Line 39: Line 39:


==Quack editors==
==Quack editors==
::<small><small>ORIGINAL DISPUTE... This is BL's response to the original BRD discussion that started [[Talk:100% renewable energy#amory lovins|here]].[[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] ([[User talk:NewsAndEventsGuy|talk]]) 13:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)</small></small>
There seems to be a major cancer across wikipedia with editors drinking the kool-aid and describing Amory as a physicist. Yet even here in the article it spells out rather cloakingly of course, but nonetheless, between the lines you see that "he is a college drop-out", that simply publishes advocacy pamphlets for hire, pamphlets which no actual physicist takes seriously.
There seems to be a major cancer across wikipedia with editors drinking the kool-aid and describing Amory as a physicist. Yet even here in the article it spells out rather cloakingly of course, but nonetheless, between the lines you see that "he is a college drop-out", that simply publishes advocacy pamphlets for hire, pamphlets which no actual physicist takes seriously.


Line 52: Line 51:
I mean "soft energy"...wtf does that even mean? Other than the common guru-phenomenon of inventing a False-dichotomy? Is it that you'd have to be Soft-in-the-head to believe such a thing exists. What next? ''Fluffy-energy''? Cuddle-some-energy?
I mean "soft energy"...wtf does that even mean? Other than the common guru-phenomenon of inventing a False-dichotomy? Is it that you'd have to be Soft-in-the-head to believe such a thing exists. What next? ''Fluffy-energy''? Cuddle-some-energy?
[[User:Boundarylayer|Boundarylayer]] ([[User talk:Boundarylayer|talk]]) 19:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
[[User:Boundarylayer|Boundarylayer]] ([[User talk:Boundarylayer|talk]]) 19:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

:Other editors have been bringing this clear case of self-promoting up for close to a decade on the talk page, with the article then somehow, who would have thought, repeatedly finding its ways back to describing Lovins as essentially as his fanclub does.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amory_Lovins/Archive_1]

:Yet anyone who does a basic search will find, Lovins' entire education history and cultivation of their 'environmental cred' is, to put it mildly, really, really not what they self-promote.

:[https://atomicinsights.com/blast-from-the-past-from-a-clean-coal-advocate-amory-lovins/ ''One of the great ironies in today’s America is that a '''two time college drop out''' and Friends of the Earth campaigner who '''strongly advocated for increasing coal use''' is often held up as a hero of the environmental movement while also making a lot of money as a consultant for the natural gas industry'',]

:...and another.

:[https://atomicinsights.com/lovins-and-his-nuclear-blindness-great-series-on-nei-nuclear-notes/ ''What it does not say is that Lovins dropped out of Harvard twice and attended just two years there. He somehow got into Oxford in 1967 and remained there long enough to be granted an MA, which is apparently not a Master of Arts, but roughly '''the equivalent of a certificate of enrollment'''. Forgive me for being an elitist, but no one should call themselves a scientist or a physicist without a piece of sheepskin to back them up''.]

:An [https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201507/plutonium2.cfm | Actual physicist] Alexander DeVolpi, in an identical fashion went thru the same realization, in an exchange he had with him in a magazine, Amory is not a physicist. As much as anyone else who drops out of college is a physicist. Is this the new-age way? Especially if they then start essentially down the same path as the likewise infamous ''Dr.'' Mercola. Making prognostications about human health and in Lovins case, pontificating about energy systems that likewise are affecting government policy/human health?

:I also hope I don't need to make it obvious that the listing of honorary degrees is genuinely not some more disturbingly transparent hand-waving, as in what world does the receiving of college campus-popularity-contest-prizes, make anyone anything else, but popular in what is the deeply ideological-crazed domain of, the college campus? What metric of expertise does that convey, other than the ability to con impressionable youth?

:If you're still on the fence over the recognition of this person and their 'institute' as [[WP:FRINGE]]. Then perhaps this secondary source ''People, Politics and the Struggle'' by Berman, O'Connor might do it. [http://energyadvocate.com/bookxrpt.htm | Citing the wisdom of Amory Lovins, Berman and O’Connor tell us that using energy is morally wrong. Amory Lovins’s wisdom]: “For over 90 percent of energy uses, electricity is an indefensible luxury]

:Ok?...Lovins wants us back in the caves, with just enough electricity to read his wikipedia article then, we take it? Yet in this article, no mention to any of these bizarre beliefs are made, nothing about how he isn't an accredited physicist, noting about how he openly advocated and advertised for increased coal usage, none of it is ever mentioned. You're told he is a physicist, a professional of high-standing, who influences the world. Wait, but isn't that just like how fans of Dr. [[Mercola]], would describe him, then?

:[[User:Boundarylayer|Boundarylayer]] ([[User talk:Boundarylayer|talk]]) 03:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:11, 23 January 2019

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amory Lovins. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quack editors

There seems to be a major cancer across wikipedia with editors drinking the kool-aid and describing Amory as a physicist. Yet even here in the article it spells out rather cloakingly of course, but nonetheless, between the lines you see that "he is a college drop-out", that simply publishes advocacy pamphlets for hire, pamphlets which no actual physicist takes seriously.

I'm too busy right now to deal with this disturbing dogma-guru-man and their influence but at the least, you need to start describing Lovin's as something based in fact, such as an energy advocate. Or something like that. As even the moniker "analyst" would be too much, as for example, someone who advocates for lobotomies as a cure-all are nowadays not called a medicine analyst, now are they? When no one in the scientific literature continues with that "cure-all", now do they?

So what is Lovin's but akin to the other hugely popular homeopathy selling "Dr." mercola? [Who isn't a doctor either, who would have thought?]

By the way, this isn't me calling him this, it is actually but reputable secondary sources which describe him as a "college drop-out" etc.

Checking the archive here on this talk page, shows that this "he's a physicist" issue is not new. Yet, what do you know 9 years later and it's still an issue. With fans of theirs pushing fake "dr"/"physicist" labels.

I mean "soft energy"...wtf does that even mean? Other than the common guru-phenomenon of inventing a False-dichotomy? Is it that you'd have to be Soft-in-the-head to believe such a thing exists. What next? Fluffy-energy? Cuddle-some-energy? Boundarylayer (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors have been bringing this clear case of self-promoting up for close to a decade on the talk page, with the article then somehow, who would have thought, repeatedly finding its ways back to describing Lovins as essentially as his fanclub does.

[1]

Yet anyone who does a basic search will find, Lovins' entire education history and cultivation of their 'environmental cred' is, to put it mildly, really, really not what they self-promote.
One of the great ironies in today’s America is that a two time college drop out and Friends of the Earth campaigner who strongly advocated for increasing coal use is often held up as a hero of the environmental movement while also making a lot of money as a consultant for the natural gas industry,
...and another.
What it does not say is that Lovins dropped out of Harvard twice and attended just two years there. He somehow got into Oxford in 1967 and remained there long enough to be granted an MA, which is apparently not a Master of Arts, but roughly the equivalent of a certificate of enrollment. Forgive me for being an elitist, but no one should call themselves a scientist or a physicist without a piece of sheepskin to back them up.
An | Actual physicist Alexander DeVolpi, in an identical fashion went thru the same realization, in an exchange he had with him in a magazine, Amory is not a physicist. As much as anyone else who drops out of college is a physicist. Is this the new-age way? Especially if they then start essentially down the same path as the likewise infamous Dr. Mercola. Making prognostications about human health and in Lovins case, pontificating about energy systems that likewise are affecting government policy/human health?
I also hope I don't need to make it obvious that the listing of honorary degrees is genuinely not some more disturbingly transparent hand-waving, as in what world does the receiving of college campus-popularity-contest-prizes, make anyone anything else, but popular in what is the deeply ideological-crazed domain of, the college campus? What metric of expertise does that convey, other than the ability to con impressionable youth?
If you're still on the fence over the recognition of this person and their 'institute' as WP:FRINGE. Then perhaps this secondary source People, Politics and the Struggle by Berman, O'Connor might do it. | Citing the wisdom of Amory Lovins, Berman and O’Connor tell us that using energy is morally wrong. Amory Lovins’s wisdom: “For over 90 percent of energy uses, electricity is an indefensible luxury]
Ok?...Lovins wants us back in the caves, with just enough electricity to read his wikipedia article then, we take it? Yet in this article, no mention to any of these bizarre beliefs are made, nothing about how he isn't an accredited physicist, noting about how he openly advocated and advertised for increased coal usage, none of it is ever mentioned. You're told he is a physicist, a professional of high-standing, who influences the world. Wait, but isn't that just like how fans of Dr. Mercola, would describe him, then?
Boundarylayer (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amory_Lovins&oldid=879743127"