• Sonori@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    My point is that your staring comment on which the majority of your argument rests, “Natural gas is a think tank tested way to brand methane.” is clearly false. I figured this was an honest mistake, as its something someone who is not well informed on the topic might think, but it’s something which a lot of people do know, and so I politely added more information you or others could use for a jumping off point if you didn’t know that syngas even existed.

    Calling something by the name it has always been known by is not “intentionally misleading”, but basic communication.

    There are enough enough true criticisms of useing natural gas for power and heat, such as the parent’s post that gas leaks are more damaging to the environment than the coal it replaced, without making wild claims about the name itself being a hundred year old PR spin.

    When most climate activists are dismissed as having no idea what their taking about, making claims like yours that people know wrong because they live down the hill from the old synthetic gasworks is how you convince people that the parent claims are just as poorly researched and easily dismissed as some wild comment.

    It is kind of important to be accurate is your criticism least it be used to diminish far more well researched and damming criticism.