[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Arthur-A

I barely know who this guy is, I just stumbled upon his this video initially I thought that it's another egghead spewing typical bs like "OMG praise my climate change/absolutely stop eating meat/wash no more that once a week/stop driving a car" - that kind of bullshit. And I was quite surprised that there's someone who actually stood up for real people and the struggles they have. And the points he made are very reasonable and I'm pretty sure resonate with a lot of people.

Sacrificing a decent quality of life for some pseudo "good" cause is ridiculous. And again, those who spew that bullshit they ain't gonna sacrifice shit. They want to continue using all the benefits of civilization while some obedient fools would flush their wellbeing down the toilet. Well, that's what those sick scumbags dream about.

Well, it isn't pseudo. He isn't a climate scientist. He isn't an economist. He is a psychologist. He has zero expertise in the area. He is making claims that he doesn't back up in any way. He says we have to sacrifice our standard of living to move to green technologies, but he does nothing to say that this is happening or that it will happen. He is making a correlation to recent events without demonstrating causation. Irregardless, he is often quoted talking about the hardships of past generations and the sacrifices they made to build our standard of living today, yet now he is whining that this generation needs to make sacrifices for the future of the country and world. This doesn't make sense. He is special pleading.

Originally Posted by Arthur-A

Lol, how does coal rolling have anything to do with it? By the way, it doesn't seem like you're eager to get rid of your dirty ICE cars and be more "environmentally conscious", aren't you?

See my last post, but it is worth noting that diesel modifications are an issue:

Tampering can cause a vehicle to emit hundreds to thousands of times more pollution than it otherwise would. Recent EPA investigations indicate that controls on over 500,000 diesel pickup trucks, or about 13% of those registered that were originally certified with emissions controls, have been fully removed or deleted through tampering. The excess NOx emissions from these vehicles is the equivalent of adding 9 million trucks to our roads.

A "full delete" of the emission controls on a modern heavy-duty diesel pickup truck can cause it to emit as much harmful pollution as 300 trucks with fully functioning emissions controls!

https://cleanairnortheast.epa.gov/tampering.html

My wife and I both live within 4 miles of work. I drive around 3k miles a year on a car with a full sized cat and a 4 cylinder. My wife's Audi gets 26mpg, which is 30% better than the median truck, and she drives around 5k miles a year. We will be buying EVs once we move out of our apartment into a house, at least for her, and definitely for me if we had a decent commute where it makes sense.

https://gizmodriver.com/average-and-...pickup-trucks/

Originally Posted by Arthur-A

PS: About "muh science dude". Scientists absolutely cannot be bought, like it never ever had happened. All those scientists writing articles stating that smoking is good for you in the 40s-50s is just some fantasy, yeah.

I think you should get your facts straight instead of suggesting conspiracy theories. The efforts of the tobacco industry to dissuade the public from accepting the scientific consensus that smoking caused lung disease almost exactly parallels the efforts made by climate deniers and the supporting industries of those deniers to dissuade the public from accepting the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming/climate change. Your example doesn't support your belief that 97% of climate scientists are bought and paid for by "green" corporate interests, especially when scientists have been warning about human emissions affecting climate since 1896, but it does support the fact that one side has used the 3% of climate scientists who are unconvinced or unsure to create "conflict" about the consensus, even using the strategy of taking the few vocal climate deniers, or worse, doctors and scientists in unrelated fields to propagate a false narrative that there is disagreement.

Read the history...sounds familiar? This is literally a playbook for climate deniers and backers of the oil industrial complex.

In this way, the tobacco industry managed to sustain the widespread perception of an active and highly contested scientific controversy into the 1960s despite overwhelming evidence and scientific consensus that smoking caused serious disease.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/