3 ms·
The WSJ Opinion pages are pure climate denial propaganda. Even the WSJ's actual journalists think so.
by ZeroGravitas 3y ago
The WSJ Opinion pages are pure climate denial propaganda. Even the WSJ's actual journalists think so.
- thsksbd 3y agoThey maybe denying climate change but, as a matter of fact, did the admin add an arbitrary multiplier to the numbers? The article gives very specific details about the fraud
- thsksbd 3y agoAre teslas and other EVs rated at 430 mpg equivalent? Because Ive worked at the DOE, as a scientist, researching green, sustainable, fuels. I know my thermo and my grid. I guarantee you that that number is BS
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoWhy don't you explain exactly what you think this article is insinuating, so we can compare that with the reality and demonstrate how you've been misled? You said: > The article gives very specific details about the fraud So it shouldn't be hard.
- thsksbd 3y agoIt isn't. They literally gave you the document and the string to search. I'm not your BA, do your own homework.
- ZeroGravitas 3y agoThat's fine I can continue believing that despite your claimed credentials, you got totally suckered by a WSJ editorial (!) into thinking that EVs had their mpge figures boosted 6x by "fraud". Just try not to be such an easy mark in future.
- BGreer 3y agoAfter reading these comments I read (and partly skimmed) the proposed rule. The article has the facts largely correct, though it’s important to understand exactly what the 6.67 is used for. Not for the MPGe on the label for instance. But for calculating CAFE averages for a manufacturer. Somebody not already familiar with CAFE rules may have had difficulty grasping the implications from the article.