I mean, clean burning is an perfectly accurate description of natural gas flames, that’s why it’s so terrible for lighting but good for heating, there’s extremely little soot and ash that need to be cleaned out of a flue of off the walls above a lamp.
I don’t doubt that gas companies really like or have indeed have helped feed the common misconception that “clean burning” has anything at all to do with climate effects, but that wasn’t my point, which was that natural gas is the common name for the mix, and it has been since long before companies had to form think tanks to pretend to care about climate impacts.
Cool so your point was to give a history lesson on the origins of the original naming convention behind the mining and burning of methane, and disparage my point that it still being called natural gas in intentionally misleading, while also not actually disagreeing with it or bringing any sort of evidence to the contrary?
So you just wanted to…look pompous? Gaslight? Distract from the fact that burning methane is just as bad if not worse than drilling for and burning crude oil based fossil fuels for the environment? Point out that it’s all fine because it was originally used for lighting?
Okay then. Thanks for your contribution to society I guess. Go tell the bees in your safe space how you did your good deed for the day by defending the fossil fuel industry!
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.
You said something incorrect, were pretty gently corrected, and then rather than simply move on and learn, you decided to crawl all the way up your own ass into a deeply entrenched position. You are not the one being useful or coming off worth listening to here.
I mean, clean burning is an perfectly accurate description of natural gas flames, that’s why it’s so terrible for lighting but good for heating, there’s extremely little soot and ash that need to be cleaned out of a flue of off the walls above a lamp.
I don’t doubt that gas companies really like or have indeed have helped feed the common misconception that “clean burning” has anything at all to do with climate effects, but that wasn’t my point, which was that natural gas is the common name for the mix, and it has been since long before companies had to form think tanks to pretend to care about climate impacts.
Cool so your point was to give a history lesson on the origins of the original naming convention behind the mining and burning of methane, and disparage my point that it still being called natural gas in intentionally misleading, while also not actually disagreeing with it or bringing any sort of evidence to the contrary?
So you just wanted to…look pompous? Gaslight? Distract from the fact that burning methane is just as bad if not worse than drilling for and burning crude oil based fossil fuels for the environment? Point out that it’s all fine because it was originally used for lighting?
Okay then. Thanks for your contribution to society I guess. Go tell the bees in your safe space how you did your good deed for the day by defending the fossil fuel industry!
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.
You said something incorrect, were pretty gently corrected, and then rather than simply move on and learn, you decided to crawl all the way up your own ass into a deeply entrenched position. You are not the one being useful or coming off worth listening to here.
Upvotes say otherwise, sunshine. Keep fighting the good astroturfing fight tho!