Get some help man. I really wish people like this guy didn't own a Tesla. He's everything that non-Tesla owners hate. He has no self-awareness of his impact on others and he's hurting the environmental movement.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Bought a P3D- for many reasons - environmental consideration wasn't one of them
- Thread starter Dolemite
- Start date
- Status
Get some help man. I really wish people like this guy didn't own a Tesla. He's everything that non-Tesla owners hate. He has no self-awareness of his impact on others and he's hurting the environmental movement.
Just a reminder. This general forum post got moved to an environmental forum.
A forum where most posters probably have science backgrounds and are 100% behind AGW.
It is a relatively like minded group that just got invaded by others. So lighten up a bit.
Personally not a vegan but eat very little red meat. On balance, poultry and fish are an order of magnitude less than beef so lets just start with that. Sort of like driving an EV with solar charging. It would be hard for me to walk or cycle to multiple work locations none of which are right next door to my son's school.
I really doubt any post on an ENVIRONMENTAL forum is "hurting the environmental movement".
There are lots of ways of trying to educate people. Guess what - not all are agreeable. Wait until the protests grow. People are much more energized than a few years ago.
The average American is pretty clueless on the power of oil and the oligarchy behind it. The vested interests and the disinformation passed around and taken as fact does show a deficit of the education system.
Just look at the EV hate over the last 5 years. Even liberal rags like the New York Times.
BTW - newspapers are not likely responsible for deforestation. Using paper isn't really a big issue with replanting and recycling. Now eating beef - and using palm oil - now we are talking deforestation.
And taste preferences start at a young age. Teaching your child that hot dogs and hamburgers are good food is an insult to a growing palate.
(MD here - nutrition is my game) Gotta go make some greek yogurt with flaxseed for my 9yo.
A forum where most posters probably have science backgrounds and are 100% behind AGW.
It is a relatively like minded group that just got invaded by others. So lighten up a bit.
Personally not a vegan but eat very little red meat. On balance, poultry and fish are an order of magnitude less than beef so lets just start with that. Sort of like driving an EV with solar charging. It would be hard for me to walk or cycle to multiple work locations none of which are right next door to my son's school.
I really doubt any post on an ENVIRONMENTAL forum is "hurting the environmental movement".
There are lots of ways of trying to educate people. Guess what - not all are agreeable. Wait until the protests grow. People are much more energized than a few years ago.
The average American is pretty clueless on the power of oil and the oligarchy behind it. The vested interests and the disinformation passed around and taken as fact does show a deficit of the education system.
Just look at the EV hate over the last 5 years. Even liberal rags like the New York Times.
BTW - newspapers are not likely responsible for deforestation. Using paper isn't really a big issue with replanting and recycling. Now eating beef - and using palm oil - now we are talking deforestation.
And taste preferences start at a young age. Teaching your child that hot dogs and hamburgers are good food is an insult to a growing palate.
(MD here - nutrition is my game) Gotta go make some greek yogurt with flaxseed for my 9yo.
Last edited:
I don't think people (certainly not the OP) are disputing the science of AGW in this thread. However, I think that certain parties are so focused on being "right" that they insist on taking the thread that way.
I think the OP is saying is that the genius of Tesla is making a better product that just happens to also be "greener" than what is already out there. And that by doing so, it has opened up EVs to a whole new audience of people that may have not considered one for solely "environmental reasons" because many of these folks are motivated more by performance than cutting emissions or "virtue signaling" to their peers. In other words, Tesla has attracted a lot of buyers that the Prius Prime, Leaf, or Kona would not be able to attract because those cars are basically Toyota Corollas that can run on batteries while the Tesla will smoke an M3 or Hemi Challenger if you want it to but also be extremely efficient and comfortable just cruising.
It is also a commentary on effective communication and cooperation. As anyone who is married or in a long-term relationship will tell you... being right and being an asshole about it does not typically make your partner want to agree with your position or help you achieve whatever goal you have in mind. The phrase "do you want to be right or do you want to be happy" is not saying that you have to be wrong to be happy it is saying that at a certain point most discussions stop being about whatever the discussion was about and starts being about asserting ones "correctness" or "superiority" often to the determent of cooperating on an actual solution to the problem.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
Just a reminder. This general forum post got moved to an environmental forum.
A forum where most posters probably have science backgrounds and are 100% behind AGW.
It is a relatively like minded group that just got invaded by others. So lighten up a bit.
Personally not a vegan but eat very little red meat. On balance, poultry and fish are an order of magnitude less than beef so lets just start with that. Sort of like driving an EV with solar charging. It would be hard for me to walk or cycle to multiple work locations none of which are right next door to my son's school.
I really doubt any post on an ENVIRONMENTAL forum is "hurting the environmental movement".
There are lots of ways of trying to educate people. Guess what - not all are agreeable. Wait until the protests grow. People are much more energized than a few years ago.
The average American is pretty clueless on the power of oil and the oligarchy behind it. The vested interests and the disinformation passed around and taken as fact does show a deficit of the education system.
Just look at the EV hate over the last 5 years. Even liberal rags like the New York Times.
BTW - newspapers are not likely responsible for deforestation. Using paper isn't really a big issue with replanting and recycling. Now eating beef - and using palm oil - now we are talking deforestation.
And taste preferences start at a young age. Teaching your child that hot dogs and hamburgers are good food is an insult to a growing palate.
I'm in the camp that: yes....climate change is a thing. I bought a fun and exciting car. It happens to have the side benefit of helping out.
Giving away my age here, but I feel like the little girl in the Shake N Bake commercial.... "It's Shake N Bake, and IIIIIIIIIII helped." knowing that the little girl didn't do a whole heck of a lot in the grand scheme of things, but the important outcome was achieved: dinner was served.
Me switching to a Tesla, and now my wife reserving the CT, and multiple friends of mine now seeing EVs as enjoyable, viable options (I did get one to buy a P3D w/my referral code) means I did actually help. I'm not gonna wear a sandwich board and ring bells, telling people to bring out their dead.........but I know my social circle well enough to know that presenting Teslas as "enthusiast machines" is a more effective tactic.
Huge potential win: my father retires from his job in July of 2020. He's a muscle car-era gearhead. he was making jokes about what kind of car he should get to work on in his spare time. I reminded him he'd be on a fixed income, and he should think practical. Without missing a beat, he said "Tesla?"
If I can convert my soon to be 63 year old retired father.....I will count that as a victory. And we'll both be in cars we enjoy.
Of course everyone on here cares about the environment. It blew up because of a pompous attitude. You know that guy is the same in real life as he is in here. That was my point. Go win souls for the cause of the environment and be happy that we're driving Teslas, because right now he's not winning anyone to his way of thinking.
That's the problem with being seriously ignorant--when you post how little you really know for all to read, then you end up looking really stupid . . . .
We don't know how much ignorance and stupidity our planet will tolerate, but we'd better hope it's a LOT.
This is from 2006, or 13+ years ago for those that are "math challenged" here:
Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns
Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation . . .
So.....a few of us had comments moved out of here due to snippiness but this Pilot character gets away with spewing his personal attacks and garbage?
This forum is absurd. Silence the critics who don't agree with the "consensus."
This forum is absurd. Silence the critics who don't agree with the "consensus."
Please, wjax, don't be so unintelligent as to post this fossil-fuel misinformation here.
"Stupid" is not a good look, despite having a Grand Buffoon living in government housing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave . . . . So PLEASE stop spreading mis-information, especially when our only planet's future depends on people not being idiots and morons.
Thanks.
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm
1970s ice age predictions were predominantly media based. The majority of peer reviewed research at the time predicted warming due to increasing CO2.
[truncated]
I'm sorry, but I'm confused.
What does someone spouting off about a make-believe subject have to do with the greatest threat to our one and only planet?
Or do you too just "not believe" chemistry, physics, and science in general?
(How about gravity--is that one okay?)
Yeah, that's how all my science classes were taught in grade school, high school, and college: the "left-wingers" and "right-wingers" got sorted and then they each received completely different classes because, of course, chemistry, physics and other laws of science are different depending upon your political bent . . . .
Wow, just wow.
Never in human history have so many been so easily fooled by so few with so very little.
What surprises me the most is how many of the gullible and ignorant can be found on THESE forums; I'd expect a subset of the population that would be smarter than a box of rocks, but such is life.
Well worth watching: the details on how the fossil fuel industry plays the far-too-many idiots among us:
Climate of Doubt
And:
www.merchantsofdoubtmovie.com
Look, I get it: No one wants to look in the mirror and admit they've been fooled. GET OVER IT--the stakes are too high. If you want penance for thinking like an idiot for decades, then get involved in educating the vast numbers that have no friggin' clue as to the incoming devastation if we don't get our act together.
Thanks.
Confusing.
Is the bus service in Austin using all EV buses? If not, then I posit you are quite incorrect/wrong.
GET OFF THE BUS!
Far better to drive a Tesla powered by solar panels than to board a diesel-swilling bus that dumps massive amounts of GHG's and the like. (And ditto for a "natural gas" bus as well, with perhaps a hair less GHG's dumped, but far more in the production of said "natural gas" as methane is about 40 times more potent than CO2 when it comes to GHG damage.)
It’s a Vast, Invisible Climate Menace. We Made It Visible.
Suggest you encourage the Austin Transit Authority to dump their fossil fuel equipment for EV's, and have them all charged via solar panels and a Tesla Mega Battery.
Back on topic.
Toolman, could you please post all of your sciential links advising that, actually, we CAN dump unlimited amounts of GHG's with nary a worry?
It's just our only friggin' planet's future we're talking about here so it's pretty important.
We'll be waiting.
Thanks!
Is it a "personal attack" to simply describe those that believe in make-believe?
Is it a "personal attack" to provide sciential links documenting the fallacy of idiotic thinking?
I guess if you're not too bright, every time someone points out the logical fallacies of your thinking everything must seem like a "personal attack."
Recommend you drop any and ALL thinking that's not supported by science and facts; our planet needs educated and informed people if it is to survive.
Thanks.
ModelNforNerd
Active Member
Yes, I understand.
Being called out for having "facts" in your brain that are unsupported by reality is distressing.
Far better than blaming the messenger would be to simply adopt thinking that IS supported by reality, no?
Our planet is counting on people getting smart, and fast.
We are seriously running out of time so please, do this yesterday.
Thx.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weat...long-dreaded-climate-feedback/?outputType=amp
And:
A warming Arctic could cost the world trillions of dollars
And:
climate.nasa.gov
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
You seem to have a firm understanding of these things. Can you explain to the forum why a few people thought there was going to be cooling in the 70s, why they were wrong, why we think there will be warming going forward and why you think the 'Alarmists' are wrong? Simple questions... can you answer them?
- Status
Similar threads
