Is all the "fuel saving" tech really worth it in the long run?

[carymccarr]

I'm just pointing out that there are people out there that have run fleets of vehicles that have had results that differ sometimes greatly from the norm.

Yep. That’s called a tail heavy distribution OR they are doing something different than the rest of the data set.

In which case they are an outlier and SHOULDNT be included in the larger data set.

 

[TobyU]

I forgot to mention I do have some dislikes for certain cognitive biases.
All the time on forums people will slam a product or a brand because they have had one bad experience with it and they will say all of us products are junk as if it were fact
They will also speak highly of a product and tell people they should buy a certain other brand because they personally have had good experience with that brand.
They based these opinions that they promote as fact on their own few personal experiences or based on two or three posts they have read better other people's opinions.
This hardly makes it a fact that Brand X is junk.
That is cognitive bias and it is not accurate.

 

[762mm]

So … since the earths climate has not remained static for the past 6 billion years … there is no way humans could have any impact on it? Does that apply to the ozone layer also?

Not everyone is an extremist unrelenting angry propagandist with no ability to consider any opinion that differs from their own. But that may be difficult for you to understand.

Nope, not difficult at all to understand. I just can't entertain brainwashed drones who claim that humans are responsible for 95% of climate change, whereas the actual numbers are quite the opposite. Our part in all this is minimal at best!

The whole "97% of all scientists agree" bullsh*t is based on fake stats as well and already debunked. The "man-made climate change" scare was first introduced decades ago by the US Navy following atmospheric nuclear testing, where they were afraid that these atmospheric nuclear tests would screw up the climate and needed a scapegoat to avoid blame, so they blamed your V8 truck and your consumerism for it. This very "research" is still quoted to this day as climate change gospel, by the way.

We live in a lie and this is what many people have an issue with. There is no impeding doom, and even if there was, there's sweet-f-all anyone can do about it realistically. The only thing to do is to prepare and adapt... for which you will need as much money and physical assets (shelter, food, water filtration, etc) as you can get.

Getting carbon taxed to death to "save the climate" or being forced to buy sh*tty electric or hybrid cars at 4x the cost is not the solution!


Here's a little trick : How can you tell if something is legit? When no one is trying to make money off of it. Today's "climate change" religion is ran by cash grabbers (governments, corporations and major world banks) and they've got an army of trained seals parroting their gospel, while those same trained seals are being robbed blind of their retirement savings.

Hallelujah, my climate-conscious brother!

 

[TobyU]

Yep. That’s called a tail heavy distribution OR they are doing something different than the rest of the data set.

In which case they are an outlier and SHOULDNT be included in the larger data set.

Yes, I feel they are definitely doing something differently than the rest of the data set.
The problem is that the published numbers that some people take as fact or super accurate predictors do include these in the entire dataset.
No real way to get around that.
This is why I say it's smart to use past experiences, if you have a lot of them, along with published whole set numbers to make decisions and not to Discount either.

 

[carymccarr]

That is cognitive bias and it is not accurate.

In your estimation it IS accurate for that person because they are relying on their own experiences yadda yadda.

But at least you’re seeing how biases manifest themselves in OTHER people.

Good first step to recognizing your own.

 

[762mm]

Here's something completely appropriate, lol....

 

[TobyU]

In your estimation it IS accurate for that person because they are relying on their own experiences yadda yadda.

But at least you’re seeing how biases manifest themselves in OTHER people.

Good first step to recognizing your own.

No, I saw this from the very beginning. Maybe we just had a miscommunication that you thought I was implying that everyone has accuracy here. The majority of the population doesn't have a clue!
I'm just saying that for some people their experience is more accurate than published facts. Now the Earth being round, that's not disputable.
Just because everywhere a person has ever been looks flat to them, they are just stupid.

 

[carymccarr]

I'm just saying that for some people their experience is more accurate than published facts.

Incorrect.

 

[Plati]

No, I saw this from the very beginning. Maybe we just had a miscommunication that you thought I was implying that everyone has accuracy here. The majority of the population doesn't have a clue!
I'm just saying that for some people their experience is more accurate than published facts. Now the Earth being round, that's not disputable.
Just because everywhere a person has ever been looks flat to them, they are just stupid.

Interestingly … the earth really isn't round.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-is-not-round/

 

[Plati]

Nope, not difficult at all to understand. I just can't entertain brainwashed drones who claim that humans are responsible for 95% of climate change, whereas the actual numbers are quite the opposite. Our part in all this is minimal at best!

The whole "97% of all scientists agree" bullsh*t is based on fake stats as well and already debunked. The "man-made climate change" scare was first introduced decades ago by the US Navy following atmospheric nuclear testing, where they were afraid that these atmospheric nuclear tests would screw up the climate and needed a scapegoat to avoid blame, so they blamed your V8 truck and your consumerism for it. This very "research" is still quoted to this day as climate change gospel, by the way.

We live in a lie and this is what many people have an issue with. There is no impeding doom, and even if there was, there's sweet-f-all anyone can do about it realistically. The only thing to do is to prepare and adapt... for which you will need as much money and physical assets (shelter, food, water filtration, etc) as you can get.

Getting carbon taxed to death to "save the climate" or being forced to buy sh*tty electric or hybrid cars at 4x the cost is not the solution!


Here's a little trick : How can you tell if something is legit? When no one is trying to make money off of it. Today's "climate change" religion is ran by cash grabbers (governments, corporations and major world banks) and they've got an army of trained seals parroting their gospel, while those same trained seals are being robbed blind of their retirement savings.

Hallelujah, my climate-conscious brother!

Actually that's not a way to see if something is legit.
Another faulty analysis. I wont try to help you understand why.

Also … you now agree that Climate Change is real.
This is weird.