6 ms·
The site is dedicated to fighting fossil fuels as if there were pure evil. Does not seems like a place for balanced views.
by alfor 4y ago
The site is dedicated to fighting fossil fuels as if there were pure evil.
Does not seems like a place for balanced views.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- giraffe_lady 4y agoThey may not be "pure evil" but they are clearly extremely bad. What does a balanced view of that look like for you?
- alfor 4y agoIn this article I understand the concern about NOx, good ventilation, a detector might be a good idea. A quick look at the site show how much it is targeting at fighting all fossil fuels. But fossil fuels are the backbone of our civilisation. Yes we need to transition, and it’s happening, but if you were to cut them off completely I think that more that half of the world population would die in the next 12 months. So let’s be careful with that transition, we can easily kill more people by raising the cost of fuel than saving future people from hypothetical climate catastrophes or from NOx. Whatever what the activists and government does, the pricing alone is driving out all fossil fuels. Solar, wind and batteries are already cheaper than the other alternatives. It’s just a question of a few years.
- lazide 4y agoWith a decent hood, they are not clearly bad.
- ethanbond 4y agoThe obvious outcome of the "both sides"-ism of late: We need to give equal airtime to the Inhaling Ignited Hydrocarbons Is Okay Actually group. Sources don't matter, depth of analysis doesn't matter, expert consensus doesn't matter, basic risk mitigation principles don't matter, what matters is that wherever a view is shared, all other views must be shared at equal volume and with equal credence.
- alfor 4y agoJust basic common sense would do. Everything is dangerous and has some risks, but usually weights the risks against other things, we see what are the ways to mitigate them, etc. If you say that gas stove is bad for indoor air quality, how does it compare to making toasts or having carpet and a bit more dust or living close to roads with lots of circulation. When it become a religious fervor, when there is only one side of the coin, that’s where there I see a problem.
- GauntletWizard 4y agoThe obvious outcome of "Misinformation and hate speech" policing of late. Proponents of things that are synonymous with civilization cannot have any airtime at all.
- mysteryalias 4y ago[flagged]
- kragen 4y agomost of usenet was unmoderated for decades, and was consequently the best source of information on a huge variety of topics, though it certainly was full of trolls the nazi revival seems to have come out of newer heavily censored platforms like twitter and youtube
- 1270018080 4y agoRight, the only defense of inhaling hydrocarbons is some kind of trad culture war thing. Like because something bad is happening it has to continue happening because it's a part of my "civilization".
- lukev 4y agoGas stoves (like everything else) have pros and cons. CO2 emissions are certainly a major con, which is why my next stove will be an induction. I got a gas ten years ago because induction cooktops were not widely available and the cook quality of gas is far higher than non-induction electric, and I cook a lot and really need quality tools. Facts matter, and it doesn't do anyone any good to paint something as "extremely bad" without balancing all relevant facts. Acknowledging that gas stoves are often (but not always) bad for indoor air quality is part of that.
- ajross 4y agoWe did a kitchen reno 11 years ago and hopped on the induction bandwagon then. There were a pretty good number of options at the high end (i.e. 30" standalone, not an integrated/oven unit). Induction is hot (heh) right now, but it's been a realistic option for a good while now.
- bodangly 4y agoI really can’t understand this perspective. Perhaps cheap gas is better than cheap electric cooktops. But my Miele which is radiant, not even induction, heats up VERY fast and provides a very predictable amount of heat via the digital interface. I cook a lot, and thought I’d miss gas when buying my new house, but just about the only change I needed was to get a flat bottomed wok. Electric can definitely be more than adequate on the high end, imo.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- serverholic 4y agoPlease, please enlighten us with your take on what a balanced view means here.
- virtual_void 4y agoHe cites his sources (which seem reasonable), is making measurements and has written up objective results it seems. Perhaps there are other articles less objective on that site but it doesn’t seem like this article should be dismissed out of hand.
- alfor 4y agoWe always use heuristics to assess if a source is credible. Otherwise we have to do our own research, collect our own data. There is no other way around if there is no trust. It’s very easy for some information to be true, but also excluding all the bits that don’t fit the author bias. I think a source that is that biasied should be called out.
- mperham 4y ago[flagged]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- zdragnar 4y agoWell, one could argue that cold continues to kill more people each year than heat does. It's not exactly a winning argument in favor of climate change, but just because a person is holding the correct view on one thing does not mean that they will be correct on others. Natural gas cooktops contribute a meaningless amount of CO2 in the grand scheme of things. When everyone is suffering the effects of global warming, they're going to feel silly for all the sacrifices they made along the way while the major sources of greenhouse gasses weren't addressed.
- mysteryalias 4y agoYou do know climate change is making some cold places even colder and increasing the severity of winter storms. Your comment only further strengthens the climate change argument.
- rdiddly 4y agoI didn't read it as political balance, though it's possible they meant it that way. But before I saw your comment I read it as a balance with the other side being "fossil fuels are pretty damn convenient." Like for cooking & heating. No use trying to ignore that, I mean it's not like people burn them to punish themselves. It's a trade-off. And since you said "Portland" my confidence drops from 92% (nationwide average) to 86%, i.e. still pretty confident, that you own a car, so I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.
- alfor 4y agoWay more people die of cold each year it’s not even funny. Huge wildfires are caused by preventing regular small fires until there is way to much material and the condition are perfect: heat, wind, dry. Then you get a massive fire that can’t be stopped. Effectively the law of nature don’t care about what we think. At the moment we are caught in a new religion of climate change. But more and more people are waking up. Just the way you respond piling up argument show how it’s a religious battle for who is holly. Stop using coal as soon as possible, transition to solar, EVs, good idea. The rest is not as high priority.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- hristov 4y agoBalance does not imply truth. Sometimes truthful views are imbalanced because the truth is imbalanced.
- pessimizer 4y agoYou're never going to be convinced of anything if you'll only accept arguments from people who do not believe them.
- dang 4y ago(We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34316898 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34316898)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- alfor 4y agoThis thread got remove from the main discussion. Fell like Twitter before the cleanup here.