Climate Change? Nahhh ...

We were shrouded in this same smoke a couple of weeks ago. And it was really bad here in 2020 when we had a very bad wildfire season.

 

Seems to me like people cherry-picking "facts," and putting qualifiers around them. ... to "fact check" each other.

When a fact check doesn't factually just state something that anyone can see is empirically factual. ... but instead it references, a "report" that states something with "high confidence," and "the government's cost-benefit analysis" of it's "policy plan," and someone's "analysis," and what someone at a university of technology "has argued," my antenna automatically wonders if I am getting facts (that I can verify). ... at least in the clear-cut way that piece is trying to advance something that is maybe just a little bit ambiguous.

Atkinson did the same exact thing. ... but notice that instead of a lot of word salad to massage their "fact check". ... when they talk about what he wrote, they go right for absolute characterizations like, "repeatedly debunked talking points" and "thoroughly debunked."

 

There is a difference. There is a great deal of what Donald Trump has said that is flat-out false. He lies, so you are often addressing something that is binary: Either it's true or it is false (which it is, very often, when he says it).

The environmental impact of electric vehicles is not a binary thing. The cars themselves are not without environmental impact at all, and depending on the specific car, how it is charged, how it is manufactured, how the electricity powering it was produced, etc., the impact varies. What then happens, is people who want to advocate for or against electric vehicles cherry pick things to try to put the imprimatur of "science" on what they are advocating for.