4 ms·
That does not look like the most journalistically rigorous site the mentioned article is from "Energy Talking Points", I suspect it's a shill for the "energy" (
by NegativeLatency 3y ago
That does not look like the most journalistically rigorous site the mentioned article is from "Energy Talking Points", I suspect it's a shill for the "energy" (read fossil fuel) industry, based on a random selection of their other article titles:
- How today's global anti-fossil-fuel agenda is crippling American small businesses
- An open letter to Elizabeth Warren on natural gas prices
- Talking Points on the dangerous falsehood that "Climate change is a public health issue"
I'm open to examining the science, but I don't appreciate equating the views of an industry insider or someone with an axe to grind with what a much more broad consensus of scientists have to say about climate change.
Especially when there's a _very_ clear financial incentive for the "energy" industry to continue business as usual. Qui bono?
- it 3y agoYou can ask "qui bono?" about people who believe the Climate Change narrative as well. For example, here's $5 billion allocated to this sort of thing: https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/climate-pollution-reduction-grants#:~:text=The%20Climate%20Pollution%20Reduction%20Grants,and%20other%20harmful%20air%20pollution https://www.epa.gov/inflation-reduction-act/climate-pollutio....
- it 3y agoAnother cowardly downvote by someone without an argument.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoThose grants appear to be for implementation, not research or white papers.