shade
Well-known member
In my experience, it's easier to switch off an engine than to switch off people, so yes, blaming diesel emissions makes sense.
EPA Diesel Engine “Delete Tuning” Crackdown...Is It Here Now?
- Thread starter AbleGuy
- Start date
- Status
NevadaLover
Forking Icehole
Of course it's easier to blame the diesel, "scientists" say so.... funny thing about "scientists" in the 70's and early 80's all we heard was "impending ice age" due to humans, then they discovered a variable that they missed and now it's "global warming" due to humans, what are they going to discover in 5 to 10 years that changes their narrative?
"Scientists" don't have all the correct input to reach the correct answer so they are continuing to change their opinions, so why should we believe their interpretation now as some here keep trying force everybody to accept? Sheep, that's why...
"Scientists" don't have all the correct input to reach the correct answer so they are continuing to change their opinions, so why should we believe their interpretation now as some here keep trying force everybody to accept? Sheep, that's why...
shade
Well-known member
You don't understand how science works.
NevadaLover
Forking Icehole
No, you don't understand how science works, simple as that! You follow popular concensus of "scientists" as though it is gospel of the sheep!
Problem is, without knowing all the variables "scientists" cannot form a proven hypothesis, hence the change from "ice age" to "global warming" in one generation!
Yes there have been horrible changes to the earth in the past 200 years, yes the climate is "changing", just like it has continuously thru the millenia but blaming it on diesel and coal almost exclusively is ignorant and brain damaged, there is way more to this planet and its environment than "scientists" can prove so far yet they continually and assininely scream and cry that mankind and it's power generation is the sole cause of "global warming", pull your head out and stop drinking the koolaid lil feller, "scientists" don't have all the criteria to make these claims corrrectly and THAT'S why the continuing change in the narrative!
shade
Well-known member
You appear to be confusing elements of human behaviour with science.
This is a good article about the scientific method. You may want to read it.
Scientific method - Wikipedia
I don't appreciate your tone and accusations. If that's the best you can do to control yourself, please stop posting.
NevadaLover
Forking Icehole
Oh, so now you don't appreciate someone calling you out for ignorance? That's funny because all you do is try to appear to be the absolute authority on everything portal and call people out all the time, typical pot-kettle behavior!You appear to be confusing elements of human behaviour with science.
This is a good article about the scientific method. You may want to read it.
Scientific method - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I don't appreciate your tone and accusations. If that's the best you can do to control yourself, please stop posting.
And as far as telling someone else to quit posting, physician heal thyself.
Diesel emissions controls have improved drastically in just the last 10 years. Many of the places which have contemplated “bans” on diesels had next nothing in the way of emissions regulations until just very recently.
If you’re expecting Diesel engines to be replaced in the next 10 years, don’t hold your breath. Outside of very limited and specific applications, EV’s are no where near ready to take on the roles that diesels currently fulfill. Onroad transport, power generation, industrial machinery, 4x4, agricultural vics, plenty of areas where diesel will still be relevant for many years to come.
People who think that the Tesla big rigs are just going to magically take over in the next few years have their heads in the sand...that technology has severe limitations.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
shade
Well-known member
If someone wants to hold one of my posts up as an example of my ignorance, I welcome the opportunity to learn something new.
I know I'm not the absolute authority on anything, and I'm not aware that I "call people out all the time" about anything. If you find my posts troubling, please quote them in the relevant threads, and we'll get on with it there.
I think my request about your posting was specific and reasonable.
shade
Well-known member
Sounds right to me.
NevadaLover
Forking Icehole
A quick look at your own post history should show you exactly what I'm talking about, IF you are able to read them without bias, doubtful but try anyway!
And how about this doozy:
Do you truly believe that "science" is beyond the reach of "human behaviour"? You can't be that blind, can you....
shade
Well-known member
If you're unable to supply anything to support your position, that's not my problem. Insulting me doesn't change anything.
I never said that science is beyond the reach of human behaviour. Not once. Do you find it difficult to understand what I'm writing? I try to be clear, but you come up with interpretations that don't match my statements at all.
When I said that you don't understand how science works, and that you appeared to be confusing it with elements of human behaviour, I provided a link to an article on the scientific method for a reason. Your posts indicate that you believe science should always deliver answers that aren't subject to change. The scientific method is based on the premise that research can lead to the refinement or even total rejection of a theory, and the history of science is filled with examples of that occurring. That's why I said that you don't understand how science works.
Science can be misused, which is why the scientific method includes elements of skepticism and repeatability. In short, if you disagree with something that was derived through the scientific method, the clear answer is to return to the scientific method in an effort to determine the truth of the matter. Delving into the possible motivations of the scientists involved is where human behaviour comes into play, and that's not part of the scientific method. Again, the way to refute a scientific finding is by following the scientific method, not by casting aspersions on the scientists involved. In short, prove them wrong instead of trying to cast doubt on their research because of their beliefs. Or yours.
If that's all just too much for you, that's your problem, too.
MOguy
Explorer
I bet there will be much fewer diesel vehicles over the years to come.
ttengineer
Adventurer
Sure there will.
But only as battery technology improves for EVs. Batteries are the current limiting factor right now, well cell phone networking too if you consider self driving as hand in hand with EVs, and if you think diesel is bad you should look up what a lithium mine does to the environment.
The batteries are also not very recyclable currently. Where a diesel truck can be recycled pretty easily.
As far as global warming is concerned, human influence is all but indistinguishable from nature in the long run. We are a fraction of a fraction of a second on the life of the planet. What scientists are currently saying is that we are causing somewhere around a 1 deg rise in average temperatures. What they aren’t saying is that the planet as a whole goes through heating and cooling cycles. The earth has been through many ice ages at this point, and we are currently ending one. This is why you can find ocean fossils in places like FL, and GA that were mostly under water prior to the last ice age.
It’s not all doom and gloom. Life adapts, matter is neither created nor destroyed, and the strong survive. It’s the natural order of things.
Now, are we speeding up the process? Perhaps, but I doubt it’s anything significant.
Should we try to limit our emissions? Sure.
Is me deleting my truck going to make a difference one way or the other? No.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But only as battery technology improves for EVs. Batteries are the current limiting factor right now, well cell phone networking too if you consider self driving as hand in hand with EVs, and if you think diesel is bad you should look up what a lithium mine does to the environment.
The batteries are also not very recyclable currently. Where a diesel truck can be recycled pretty easily.
As far as global warming is concerned, human influence is all but indistinguishable from nature in the long run. We are a fraction of a fraction of a second on the life of the planet. What scientists are currently saying is that we are causing somewhere around a 1 deg rise in average temperatures. What they aren’t saying is that the planet as a whole goes through heating and cooling cycles. The earth has been through many ice ages at this point, and we are currently ending one. This is why you can find ocean fossils in places like FL, and GA that were mostly under water prior to the last ice age.
It’s not all doom and gloom. Life adapts, matter is neither created nor destroyed, and the strong survive. It’s the natural order of things.
Now, are we speeding up the process? Perhaps, but I doubt it’s anything significant.
Should we try to limit our emissions? Sure.
Is me deleting my truck going to make a difference one way or the other? No.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MOguy
Explorer
- Status