About the time I was a teenager I realized that this sort of study just finds whatever the scientists were paid to find. That's why there are contradictory findings all the time. There's definitely big bucks in EV land.
Just because a group of researchers is paid to find or discover something, that doesn't make it untrue. Also, while there are exceptions, most research studies don't start out with researchers designing a study that will only lead to one specific result or findings. It's not, Apple wants us to design a study that proves their products make people happier, instead, it would be something like, tech companies want us to study the effect of tech usage on mental health and report the results. A findings from a rigged study are virtually useless to the companies that commission them. There are exceptions, for instance, groups can cherry pick findings from multiple studies to support their biased position, but that doesn't appear to be the case with the study we're discussing.
Contrary findings can exist for a number of reasons, flawed sampling methods with a small group of individuals, poorly designed test procedures and methods, biased researchers, flawed tools of analysis, etc. The list goes on an on. When dealing with contradicting findings, one should look at which findings are the most frequent, or were performed with the most sound methods. In the case of studying ev environmental impact compared to gas powered vehicles, most studies conclude evs are much better for the environment, especially over a long period of ownership 10-15 years or more.
I agree with your first point. But the article is useless to me unless I have all the data. I'm not going to believe something I read on the internet unless I can check it.
you gotta be kidding! You don't get funded if your study doesn't lead to the intended conclusion. It's RIFE in the so-called scientific community. It's so bad the abstract and executive summary will state the approved narrative despite being 100% refuted by the data in the actual paper - typically buried in an appendix and presented in such a way to make it non-trivial to see the utter fraud.
The study was linked in the article. Maybe you overlooked it when you read it… so here it is. I think once you read it you’ll be able to ease your concern about its credibility. It’s a good one.
With all due respect sir, I have a little experience with the advertising/communications field. Looking at studies and research efforts that many brands conduct, they rarely are created to support a predetermined conclusion. If a brand thinks it's brand is great, and knows other people think it's brand is great, then they aren't going to spend thousands of dollars to conduct a study that demonstrates a lot of interviewee's think they're brand is great and leave it at that. That doesn't tell the brand anything useful. Rather, a brand will often give you a pitch along the lines of, we're getting ready to launch a new clothing line. Find out what attributes our dedicated fans like about our products, and what they don't like. Compare these findings to more casual brand consumers and consumers who purchase from our direct and indirect competitors to see how we can appeal to our current buyers, while also stealing buyers from our rivals.
Regarding your comments on how evs just move the pollution around, no-one debates this. But what most people are saying is even if the power generated to recharge evs is derived from coal fired powerplants, evs are still generally more environmentally friendly that ICE vehicles. In other words, while they aren't perfect, they're better than the alternative of just doing nothing. Then there's the fact that renewable energy is becoming more popular, giving the evs an expanding environmental advantage. As you stated, we can't switch to purely renewable energy overnight, but the transition is going to happen within the coming decades for sure. I'm not purely opposed to coal power plants, they can be a means of reliable power generation, but they can be improved. I'm not an expert in this field, but I believe the term is sequestion, where carbon emissions produced by coal plants rather than being released into the atmosphere, are mostly captured and stored in underground tanks. From my understanding, this is a safe, and cost-effective way to drastically reduce carbon emissions, and retrofitting existing plants would be much quicker than constructing entirely new ones. Hopefully this tech is applied to most or all coal plants in the future.
so the advertising space is far more honest and interested in truth than the sciences. Good for you. Might want to give an ethics and integrity class to those fancy-ass medical and environmental "science" groups.
Any chance of getting back to Farley and our V8 Mustangs?
Indeed. The thread was created to celebrate Ford sticking with ICE for their Icons for a while longer!Any chance of getting back to Farley and our V8 Mustangs?
Yeah, we need to focus more in the topic at hand, this happens was too often in these threads lol.
Ummm stop right there George Jetson…
