View Single Post
Old 10-02-2019, 01:42 PM   #7233 (permalink)
NeilBlanchard
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,908

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,475
Thanked 2,952 Times in 1,845 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
Some people might fall for the oil narrative... but how prevalent is it? Probably the only people that would cite oil research to back their claims are people with minds already made up about whether we should do anything about reducing oil consumption and CO2 emissions.

People likewise can adopt unobjective narratives on the extreme opposite side of the debate; that CO2 is the #1 problem affecting nearly all aspects of well-being and poses an existential threat. The science community doesn't have a consensus that global warming poses a likely existential threat to humanity.

So you have absurd positions on both ends of a spectrum; those that say humans have no impact on the global environment, and those that attribute every day that is colder or hotter than they'd like to climate change.

BTW-I've never even read an Oil research paper, or know what those claims are, not even 2nd hand from a news outlet, as I have avoided news for about 10 years now... I just found out a plan is in place for humans to visit the moon again in 2024 when I watched a 1 year old Youtube speech by Michio Kaku. I must be doing a good job avoiding the news to have missed that.
Follow the (BIG) money.

Oil companies knew about what their products are doing - at least as far back as the late 1970's. Then they suppressed it - exactly like they did for leaded gas, a bit later on; and exactly like tobacco companies did.

If you can't understand this, then you are being willfully ignorant.
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/