Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Now where did I agree to that? I simply let your mpg number go unchallenged,
|
You quoted Backpacker33 who made the claim of mid 30's
Quote from backpacker:
There was just a thread on here showing what kind of mpg you need to get to be just as efficient as a fully electric car due to the amount of emissions produced by power plants in the area and in some places it was as low as the mid 30s.
To which you replied:
"True, IF you always charge your car from the grid, and if you regard the particular generation mix in your area as something set in stone."
That would seem to be saying based on current averages of 30-40% coal you are agreeing to mid 30mpg equivalent.
Then you set the bar at even 100% coal give Prius like efficiency which is better then mid 30s.
Then we get a chart from somebody else that goes 100 times further along with the 99.5% of scientists agree crap. Really 99.5%? I don't think you could get 99.5% of them to agree that we actually sent a man to the moon. If 99.5% agree then why did the leaders of the research find it so necessary to fudge the data and outright lie and cover up other data? How did they survey 100% of scientists and what exactly did they agree to?
Again don't get me wrong I don't agree with the other side either, I just hate science being fudged, dramatized in some areas and obfuscated in others depending on your end goals. In science there should be no end goal yet now each side has their own "scientists" . That is what I'm trying to say, if this was a big eskimo corporate board arguing why burning baby harp seals was the best I would be questioning their "science" also.