Any of You Left Wing Morons Have An Electric Car?

[Wrestleknownothing]

2 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

Yes, and that is why it is funny.  It is all narrative and rhetoric...once people actually think through the whole story of electric cars and how they are built and ultimately disposed of they aren't any better for the environment, maybe worse.  Believe me...I think we need to think about the environmental and do things to have less impact on it, but holy crap have people taken it to the extreme (using 100's of years of data to try and predict the weather of the earth that is billions of years old, not to mention all the extreme weather events that happened when there were zero humans on earth).  I'd be the first to buy a vehicle that had the least amount of impact on the environment, and it was PRACTICAL.  But EV's aren't better than gas vehicles for that reason...and EV's are 10% worse from a practicality standpoint.

The mistake would be to use billions of years of data. The industrial revolution marked a sharp divide in our historical interaction with the environment. Population growth has had a more gradual, but similar impact.

[Husker_Du]

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

Can't say anything about weather, but climate change is real.  

follow these two accounts. might change your mind (particularly climate change as a result of fossil fuels)

 

 

 

 

[uncle bernard]

8 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

follow these two accounts. might change your mind (particularly climate change as a result of fossil fuels)

 

 

 

 

Quick google search shows this dude has been paid by the fossil fuel industry his whole career lmao. He's also a shill for tobacco companies. 

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

"Milloy's career has been spent denying the results of science that government agencies rely on for protecting the public. His close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism, as Milloy has consistently disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and the health risks of second-hand smoke."

[jross]

Should one disregard someone's information solely because they are compensated and may have biases?

[Offthemat]

[uncle bernard]

9 minutes ago, jross said:

Should one disregard someone's information solely because they are compensated and may have biases?

When it contradicts the general consensus of the scientific community, yes.

[uncle bernard]

1 minute ago, Offthemat said:

you can't be this simple

[Offthemat]

8 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

When it contradicts the general consensus of the scientific community, yes.

The ‘scientific community’ that’s paid with government grants to ‘find’ climate change?

[uncle bernard]

19 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The ‘scientific community’ that’s paid with government grants to ‘find’ climate change?

yeah those greedy scientists all simultaneously selling out for *thousands* in grant money.

those oil companies with trillions on the line? those are just brave truth tellers with all our best interests in mind.

[ionel]

1 hour ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

The mistake would be to use billions of years of data. The industrial revolution marked a sharp divide in our historical interaction with the environment. Population growth has had a more gradual, but similar impact.

Doubt we have billions of years of data but yeah if talking about climate change or global warming better be using more than a couple hundred years.  

Also do we know the equivalent dinosaur to human fart impact ratio, you got a graph? 

[ionel]

9 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

yeah those greedy scientists all simultaneously selling out for *thousands* in grant money.

 

Me thinks you have been around scientists much or Fed govt funding process.  

Edited October 27, 2023 by ionel

[Husker_Du]

2 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

Quick google search shows this dude has been paid by the fossil fuel industry his whole career lmao. He's also a shill for tobacco companies. 

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

"Milloy's career has been spent denying the results of science that government agencies rely on for protecting the public. His close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism, as Milloy has consistently disputed the scientific consensus on climate change and the health risks of second-hand smoke."

read the effin scientific papers he posts.

or go look up the hundreds of vids of leading climatologists that all call this stuff for what it is - a hoax.

[ionel]

1 hour ago, ionel said:

Me thinks you have been around scientists much or Fed govt funding process.  

have not been around

Bob only gave me 15 min. 

[Husker_Du]

with forced/cheap labor

rape the earth of rare minerals

the runoff of which contaminates groundwater and local environment

to pay more money 

to charge it electrically

with power that comes from fossil fueled plants

to stop fossil climate change

which there i no data to support.

 

lunacy. 

[Offthemat]

4 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

with forced/cheap labor

rape the earth of rare minerals

the runoff of which contaminates groundwater and local environment

to pay more money 

to charge it electrically

with power that comes from fossil fueled plants

to stop fossil climate change

which there i no data to support.

 

lunacy. 

In a nutshell. 

[uncle bernard]

30 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

read the effin scientific papers he posts.

or go look up the hundreds of vids of leading climatologists that all call this stuff for what it is - a hoax.

you realize that 99% of the scientific papers on this subject disagree with those findings right? why don’t you value those the same way?

[Husker_Du]

not 'in a nutshell'. that's precisely what is happening. 

so rich white people can feel good about themselves since they were raised on Al Gore saying the Earth would be destroyed by 2000.

[Husker_Du]

1 minute ago, uncle bernard said:

you realize that 99% of the scientific papers on this subject disagree with those findings right? why don’t you value those the same way?

you're going to believe what you want. wear your mask and buy a tesla. get triple vaxxed. define 'woman'. fight for genocide. feel good about yourself. 

[uncle bernard]

8 minutes ago, Husker_Du said:

you're going to believe what you want. wear your mask and buy a tesla. get triple vaxxed. define 'woman'. fight for genocide. feel good about yourself. 

every accusation is projection

[Husker_Du]

i mean, you're telling us you believe in the climate hoax and you've spent hours defending a terror state so i'm just doing the math. 

[mspart]

Hey Willie - I guess no one on here is a moron.   No one has admitted to owning an EV that I remember.  

mspart

[uncle bernard]

2 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

i mean, you're telling us you believe in the climate hoax and you've spent hours defending a terror state so i'm just doing the math. 

teasing this out, what is the purpose of this hoax? who is doing it and what are they trying to accomplish?

[jross]

Profit

[Husker_Du]

2 hours ago, uncle bernard said:

teasing this out, what is the purpose of this hoax? who is doing it and what are they trying to accomplish?

it didn't start off as a hoax.

look up the ozone layer and where the scientists got it right and got it wrong. 

the aftermath is just a co-opted attempt to change the industry and/or foot stomping morons that aren't up to date on the science. 

[VakAttack]

8 hours ago, jross said:

Should one disregard someone's information solely because they are compensated and may have biases?

 

33 minutes ago, jross said:

Profit

Hmmmm..... dangerously close to contradictory ideas here. 

 

Also, the idea that the scientific community profit motive in any way compares with fossil fuel industry's profit motive is laughable.