With Our Already High Fuel Prices This Is Really Going To Hit The Pocketbook
- Thread starter Old406Kid
- Start date
- Status
Aren’t you right in there? The funny thing about dogma is that we all have some inherently, but there are always those who claim to be free of it.
I cited Reuters, who used a model developed by Argonne, which was sponsored by US Department of Energy. The research that G_smolt cited uses the same GREET model, and was supported by Ford Motor Co. through a Ford-University of Michigan Alliance Project Award. Will you attempt to discredit them as well? https://www.reuters.com/business/au...tent&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
Study: Greater greenhouse gas reductions for pickup truck electrification than for other light-duty vehicles
Major automotive manufacturers are ramping up production of electric trucks as a key strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of their vehicles. Light-duty vehicles, including sedans, SUVs and pickup trucks, are currently responsible for 58% of U.S. transportation sector greenhouse gas emiss
news.umich.edu
I don’t think I’ve tried to discredit any source, but I am always skeptical of most sources based on their inevitable bias. Using a biased source to highlight a disagreement with another biased source is hypocritical. There are always multiple sides to all arguments. It would be nice to hear FACTS from all sides without individuals trashing facts that are inconvenient to their particular point of view.I cited Reuters, who used a model developed by Argonne, which was sponsored by US Department of Energy. The research that G_smolt cited uses the same GREET model, and was supported by Ford Motor Co. through a Ford-University of Michigan Alliance Project Award. Will you attempt to discredit them as well? https://www.reuters.com/business/au...tent&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
Study: Greater greenhouse gas reductions for pickup truck electrification than for other light-duty vehicles
Major automotive manufacturers are ramping up production of electric trucks as a key strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of their vehicles. Light-duty vehicles, including sedans, SUVs and pickup trucks, are currently responsible for 58% of U.S. transportation sector greenhouse gas emissnews.umich.edu
Last edited:
A
Anonymous member 148
Guest
Flymph
Life of the Party
Newsmax is out of touch with reality and has a very obvious bias. AllSides, according to, CommonSensemedia, is a right wing outfit. CommonSensemedia claims to be a Christian organization with no bias that I can find.
Is Wikipedia Biased?
Updated 1/4/2023 and 8/16/22. Originally published 3/16/21. Is Wikipedia biaswww.allsides.com
Wikipedia co-founder says site is now ‘propaganda’ for left-leaning ‘establishment’
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”nypost.com
Lets stick to facts here: The Newsmax article cited five studies related to Wikipedia bias. Are you saying those five studies didn’t happen or are presenting obvious false data? Just because you find fault with Newsmax’s political leanings, do you automatically discredit anything they post or do the studies cited get any standing on their own?
Okay then, do you dispute the conclusions of those two studies which paint a different, more nuanced (and I'd argue more realistic) picture than what you posted from the Manhattan Institute?
"Our research clearly shows substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions that can be achieved from transitioning to electrified powertrains across all vehicle classes,” said study senior author Greg Keoleian, a professor at the U-M School for Environment and Sustainability and director of the Center for Sustainable Systems."
Reuters is widely acknowledged as a CENTERed news organization. University of Michigan and Ford presumably would be incentivized to get as close to an accurate and precise answer to this question as possible. Reuters' study, and the U-M/Ford research both draw vastly different conclusions than what you presented from Manhattan Institute, whose affiliations, history and mission have already been discussed. It seems clear to me that for my money, the conclusions drawn by Reuters, University of Michigan and Ford are the more trustworthy of what's been presented. But that's just me.
Ahh yes, the Manhattan cocktail. The best part about that drink is when your friend orders a Cosmo, and you order a Manhattan, one of you looks like the lesser of two assholes.
Since all the sources cited appear to be biased, I don't know whom or what to believe. Mike, are you as skeptical of the sources that you cite as you are of the sources cited by others who disagree with yours?
It seems to me that one logical alternative is to continue mining and burning fossil fuels and polluting the air and increasing the rate of climate change. The natural and logical outcome would appear to be that we'll consume all the fossil fuel that is economical to extract and thereby price ourselves out of using it and forcing ourselves to use another alternative. Or, the air will become so damn polluted, and the climate will shift such that we all suffocate and or create a planet unsuited to growing enough crops to sustain humanity. Either of those ways the problem is ultimately solved, but the process may be extremely unpleasant.
to the bone...
Flymph
Life of the Party
I am saying NewMax has a strong history of distorting the facts to suit its political subscribers. I dare say, you would hold little credibility in studies presented by Greenpeace.
If you care to dig deeper into Wikipedia you will find liberal groups that feel Wikipedia is right wing biased. This based on Wikipedia's former depiction of Obama and Hilary. I look at wikipedia as a tool that swings both ways given the data they are presented.
A
Anonymous member 148
Guest
What about CNN, MSNBC..
Flymph
Life of the Party
I don't listen to CNN but believe they are left bias. MSNBC is definitely left biased. Both, like Fox, bow to their corporate masters. Try LINK and Free Speech TV which survive on "people" donations. NPR to a certain extent but have some corporate affiliations as well.
Dustin Chromers
Legend
Where do I start and how much time you got?
The current inflation rate is impacting many if not all of us. Many retirees are living on a fixed income; similar to living paycheck to paycheck. It sucks!
Millennials need to understand that this is not unique to their generation. Many of us older types have been through it before. In 1982 inflation was almost 15% (almost twice as high as current rate). Mortgages had a rate of 18%+. Gasoline prices went up 35% in the early 1980's. The price of gas in 1982, adjusted for inflation, is almost $4.25. Close to today's price. The entire decade of the 1980's was higher inflation. Yet we survived - sorta.
It is a shame that many people feel that they will never be able to retire. But the longest bull market in history from 2008 through the pandemic was a time to help build the nest egg. To not take advantage of that was a missed opportunity. But opportunities still exist. Right now Series I Savings Bonds are paying 9.62% (for the next 6 months). They have a base rate and the total rate is tied to inflation. I would of been leaping for joy if I could of gotten 9%+ on my investments. With the markets down 20%+ a return of that high and be so low risk, an opportunity not to be missed IMHO. Put a little bit in each month and start building that nest egg...
Now back to irregular but much anticipated (unfortunately) news fights...
Millennials need to understand that this is not unique to their generation. Many of us older types have been through it before. In 1982 inflation was almost 15% (almost twice as high as current rate). Mortgages had a rate of 18%+. Gasoline prices went up 35% in the early 1980's. The price of gas in 1982, adjusted for inflation, is almost $4.25. Close to today's price. The entire decade of the 1980's was higher inflation. Yet we survived - sorta.
It is a shame that many people feel that they will never be able to retire. But the longest bull market in history from 2008 through the pandemic was a time to help build the nest egg. To not take advantage of that was a missed opportunity. But opportunities still exist. Right now Series I Savings Bonds are paying 9.62% (for the next 6 months). They have a base rate and the total rate is tied to inflation. I would of been leaping for joy if I could of gotten 9%+ on my investments. With the markets down 20%+ a return of that high and be so low risk, an opportunity not to be missed IMHO. Put a little bit in each month and start building that nest egg...
Now back to irregular but much anticipated (unfortunately) news fights...
My skepticism stems from 20+ years as an enterprise-level strategy consultant helping businesses, non-profits and government entities develop and execute strategies for (what they deemed important) their strategic success. One of the truisms of strategic (vice tactical) thinking is this quote: “ The best way to predict the future is to invent it." Alan Kay The corollary to that is another strategic truism: “Bad Predictions are common”: Although there are dozens of lists of historically bad predictions about the future on the net, this one is pretty comprehensive:
http://crazy-frankenstein.com/top-80-bad-predictions-about-the-future.html
So how does this influence the way I think? I am not only skeptical of the doomsday predictions by climate warriors all of whom have a vested interest in the here and now $$$, but am seriously skeptical of all the tactical solutions they adhere to. Worthwhile and successful tactics stem from having a clearly defined comprehensive future that everyone agrees on. In the case of dealing with climate change (a process that has gone on for eons), the future should be laid out in cultural, economic, biological, political and environment terms in a manner that everyone can clearly understand what future we are trying to achieve. That really hasn’t been done and every time someone points out an adverse consequence of some climate tactic, they are ridiculed as climate change deniers. Right now we seem to be fine with destroying economies, living in a culture where “do as I say, not as I do” by elites is OK and authoritarian economic and social policies/corruption are seemly the norm.
I reserve my right to be skeptical after 74.5 years on this planet.
Of course they do, one should expect nothing less. My knowledge of Wikipedia may surprise you!
User:Mike Cline - Wikipedia
Does trust really matter though?
Isn't it accuracy that matters when we're considering who's right and who's wrong - and not an authors ability to present themselves as 'trustworthy'?
- Status