FAIL- Electric Car Sales Plunge To 4 Year Lows

[WinterBorn]

50% decrease in range in cold weather

The original cold weather issues have been addressed. Yes, there is a drop off. Not that it takes more electricity to run the car, but that the batteries do not give up all their energy. And the daily driving of more than 100 miles is not common for most people. Especially in severe cold.

 

[WinterBorn]

They have not fallen, I posted the info. In America, records are still being set monthly.

Oh rly? I guess Detroit News is lying its head off too right?

Electric vehicles lose buzz

CNN reports Tesla having sold more Model S cars in the first quarter than they did in the same period last year. I have already linked that article.

 

[Muhammed]

Yet Obama continues to squeeze the coal miners

-Geaux'
======================================

But low oil prices are supposed to be unequivocally good? On the day when Ford lays off 700 Michigan plant workers in small cars and hybrids manufacturing, The Detroit News reports that, according to Edmunds.com, sales of electric cars and hybrids are at the lowest level since 2011. What is even more worrisome, motorists who leased those first-generation cars, and have decided not to buy them, are turning them in, leaving dealer lots full of low mileage cars at huge discounts to new ones. As Edmunds concludes, while "the government's going to keep pushing it, there is time to pause right now."

Low oil prices have not been unequivocally good for these workers... (as Detroit Free Press reports)

Ford said today that it is planning to cut a shift at its Michigan Assembly Plant where it makes the Ford Focus compact car and C-Max crossover because of declining sales of small cars, hybrids and electric vehicles.

The automaker told workers and notified the state of Michigan that it will lay off 700 workers, starting June 22. The decision affects 675 hourly workers and 25 salaried employees who make the Focus, Focus ST, Focus Electric, C-Max hybrid and C-Max Energi plug-in hybrid at the Wayne plant.

The first 200 workers will be laid off in June, another 200 at the end of July and the remainder at the end of September.

Electric Car Sales Plunge To 4 Year Lows Zero Hedge

They can either make better electric cars, or I will.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I can see how they intimidate conservatives beholden to big oil

That line explains the entire problem. The politicization by the left of the oil industry.
This whole thing is a left wing political scam.

 

[WinterBorn]

I can see how they intimidate conservatives beholden to big oil

That line explains the entire problem. The politicization by the left of the oil industry.
This whole thing is a left wing political scam.

The oil industry has more than its share of issues. The BP debacle in the gulf is just one.

I doubt an entire segment of the auto industry is a left-wing political scam. If people don't want to drive EVs, they won't buy them. I see quite a few around Atlanta.

 

[WinterBorn]

Want an unbiased review? How about Consumer Reports? Why are they unbiased? They do all their testing in-house. They accept no advertising. They pay for the products they test. And as a not for profit organization, they have no shareholders.

And what did they say about the Tesla Model S? They called it the best car they ever tested.

"There, we said it. The Tesla Model S outscores every other car in our test Ratings."
Video The Tesla Model S is our top-scoring car

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, thank you, I understand with how science works. I'm not going to have a discussion on that other than to note that while science deals in facts, understanding the consensus when one isn't a subject matter expert is an important heuristic. Let me be more clear then: I'm attempting to make a falsifiable version of your claim that we're near the bitter end. So if you really believe this, can you make a testable prediction based on this for what will happen in the next few years?

Clearly you DON'T Understand how science is supposed to work, or you are simply intellectually dishonest, when you continually trot out a meaningless statement like "consensus".

Further the meme that if you're not a climatologist you simply can't understand what they are talking about is ridiculous. 2+2=4. It will ALWAYS equal 4. Only in the twisted computer models of climatologists can it be made to equal 5.

As far as making a prediction. They already have. And it has already failed. They stated many times ad-nauseum that if CO2 were to increase then the global temperature would likewise increase "inexorably" was their favorite term.

We have now got a 18 year period where the CO2 levels have gone far beyond what Hansen predicted and no measurable global warming. The current lie that 2014 is the "warmest ever recorded" is simply not born out by fact. They claim they can measure a .01 degree C increase in temperature but the error bars in the study are .1 C.

Do YOU understand what that means?

Westwall, I don't believe that global warming is man made, but do you seriously disagree with the fact that the earth's climate is increasing in temperature?

At this moment. Yes, I do. At this moment in time it appears the Earth is static, temperature wise. When one looks at non-tampered with local data, they almost ALL show a cooling trend. It is only when they get handed over to the bean counters that a cooling trend suddenly morphs into a regional warming trend.

This occurred in New Zealand where NIWA was forced to get rid of the "adjustments" they had been making to the historical record, and is now happening in Australia where the same shenanigans was occurring.

The one common denominator we have with climatologists, is their extreme propensity to go back and alter (that means falsify) the historical temperature data sets so they can claim warming is occurring now.

I dunno, Westy; the temps are static? That's why Greenland Glaciers are falling into the ocean? That's why the Gulf Stream is now very warm and slow moving, because of all the fresh water from the melting ice?

Greenland's glaciers are not falling into the ocean. They are advancing and calving. Calving icebergs is normal operating procedure. The meme that the Gulf Stream is getting slower due to the influx of fresh water is not borne out by fact. Here is a link you might find helpful.


Climate mythology:
The Gulf Stream, European climate and Abrupt Change
The Gulf Stream Myth

Greenland Ice Sheet Today Surface Melt Data presented by NSIDC


Figure 2. The top graph shows the daily extent of melt during 2014 on the Greenland Ice Sheet surface as a percentage. The 1981 to 2010 average is shown by a blue dashed line. The gray area around this average line shows the two standard deviation range of the data. The bottom graph compares melt area for June to August each year, to the average for 1981 to 2010 for these same months. Data are from the MEaSUREs Greenland Surface Melt Daily 25km EASE-Grid 2.0 data set. About the data

Looks like some pretty serious melting to me.

Greenland s Ice Loss Now Comes from Surface
SAN FRANCISCO — Greenland's disappearing ice shifted gears in the past decade, switching from shrinking glaciers to surface melting, researchers reported here last week at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting.

Instead of losing ice where massive glaciers meet the sea, Greenland now sends meltwater rushing into the ocean via a vastnetwork of lakes and rivers, according to several studies. The results do not mean that glaciershave stopped their speedy flow, only that surface melting now exerts a more powerful influence on ice loss, researchers said.

"We no longer see giant icebergs calving" from glaciers, releasing ice into the sea, said Lora Koenig, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center, who led one of the new studies. "The majority of water is coming from surface melt." [Photos: Under the Greenland Ice Sheet]

 

[Old Rocks]

No, CO2 is not a pollutant. Your arguments are sophomoric at best. CO2 will kill you if you replace all O2 with it. We have ample evidence of what life was like when CO2 levels were much higher than the present day and conditions on this planet were much better due to increased plant growth. That's a fact.

The problem isn't whether plant growth will go up. The problem is that temperature will go up. See the water analogy again. Just because something can be a good thing, and can be good in some aspect

The reason why the morons at the EPA want to classify CO2 as a pollutant is so they can regulate it. In other words they wish to regulate the very air that you breath. Just think about that for a minute. YOU emit CO2.

They already do regulate the air I breath in terms of the ozone levels and the sulfur dioxide levels. So?

It may help to just taboo the word "pollutant" and focus on "can more CO2 have results we'd rather not have?"

With developed fuel cell technology you no longer need an ICE so no, they will not still be hybrids.

Not my point: My point is that a fuel cell car is essentially a battery powered car with a (possibly better) battery. But as I said, the underlying chemistry makes fuel cell cars unlikely.

Temperature has both gone up and down when CO2 levels were both high and low. CO2 has NO effect on global temperature as anyone who can read a graph can see. Further, whenever the temperature HAS been higher than the present day the Earth has done better. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Ah yes, life did so well during the warm spell at the Permian-Triassic boundry.

Yes, it's an instant PhD to the person who gives a credible answer to what caused it. Funnily enough not a single reference was made to global warming till a few short years ago. Asteroid strike, (likely), global cooling due to extreme volcanism (very likely) and a couple of other proximal causes (that amazingly enough also result in global cooling) are THE most likely causes. The only people pushing global warming are you morons. All evidence that we do have (and it is not much) says cooling was the cause. There is no actual empirical evidence to support your nonsense. None at all.

Total and complete bullshit you are peddling there, Walleyes.

Climate warming in the latest Permian and the Permian Triassic mass extinction

Climate warming in the latest Permian and the Permian–Triassic mass extinction

1. Michael M. Joachimski1,
2. Xulong Lai2,3,
3. Shuzhong Shen4,
4. Haishui Jiang2,
5. Genming Luo2,
6. Bo Chen1,
7. Jun Chen4 and
8. Yadong Sun2

+Author Affiliations

1. 1GeoZentrum Nordbayern, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schlossgarten 5, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
2. 2Faculty of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
3. 3State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
4. 4State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, 39 East Beijing Road, Nanjing 210008, China

Abstract
High-resolution oxygen isotope records document the timing and magnitude of global warming across the Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) boundary. Oxygen isotope ratios measured on phosphate-bound oxygen in conodont apatite from the Meishan and Shangsi sections (South China) decrease by 2‰ in the latest Permian, translating into low-latitude surface water warming of 8 °C. The oxygen isotope shift coincides with the negative shift in carbon isotope ratios of carbonates, suggesting that the addition of isotopically light carbon to the ocean-atmosphere system by Siberian Traps volcanism and related processes resulted in higher greenhouse gas levels and global warming. The major temperature rise started immediately before the main extinction phase, with maximum and harmful temperatures documented in the latest Permian (Meishan: bed 27). The coincidence of climate warming and the main pulse of extinction suggest that global warming was one of the causes of the collapse of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, very warm climate conditions in the Early Triassic may have played a major role in the delayed recovery in the aftermath of the Permian-Triassic crisis.

 

[Old Rocks]

Causes and consequences of extreme Permo-Triassic warming to globally equable climate and relation to the Permo-Triassic extinction and recovery

• 
  
  
  • David L. Kidder, ,
  • Thomas R. Worsley

Abstract

Permian waning of the low-latitude Alleghenian/Variscan/Hercynian orogenesis led to a long collisional orogeny gap that cut down the availability of chemically weatherable fresh silicate rock resulting in a high-CO2 atmosphere and global warming. The correspondingly reduced delivery of nutrients to the biosphere caused further increases in CO2 and warming. Melting of polar ice curtailed sinking of O2- and nutrient-rich cold brines while pole-to-equator thermal gradients weakened. Wind shear and associated wind-driven upwelling lessened, further diminishing productivity and carbon burial. As the Earth warmed, dry climates expanded to mid-latitudes, causing latitudinal expansion of the Ferrel circulation cell at the expense of the polar cell. Increased coastal evaporation generated O2- and nutrient-deficient warm saline bottom water (WSBW) and delivered it to a weakly circulating deep ocean. Warm, deep currents delivered ever more heat to high latitudes until polar sinking of cold water was replaced by upwelling WSBW. With the loss of polar sinking, the ocean was rapidly filled with WSBW that became increasingly anoxic and finally euxinic by the end of the Permian. Rapid incursion of WSBW could have produced ∼20 m of thermal expansion of the oceans, generating the well-documented marine transgression that flooded embayments in dry, hot Pangaean mid-latitudes. The flooding further increased WSBW production and anoxia, and brought that anoxic water onto the shelves. Release of CO2 from the Siberian traps and methane from clathrates below the warming ocean bottom sharply enhanced the already strong greenhouse. Increasingly frequent and powerful cyclonic storms mined upwelling high-latitude heat and released it to the atmosphere. That heat, trapped by overlying clouds of its own making, suggests complete breakdown of the dry polar cell. Resulting rapid and intense polar warming caused or contributed to extinction of the remaining latest Permian coal forests that could not migrate any farther poleward because of light limitations. Loss of water stored by the forests led to aquifer drainage, adding another ∼5 m to the transgression. Non-peat-forming vegetation survived at the newly moist poles. Climate feedback from the coal-forest extinction further intensified warmth, contributing to delayed biotic recovery that generally did not begin until mid-Triassic, but appears to have resumed first at high latitudes late in the Early Triassic. Current quantitative models fail to generate high-latitude warmth and so do not produce the chain of events we outline in this paper. Future quantitative modeling addressing factors such as polar cloudiness, increased poleward heat transport by deep water and its upwelling by cyclonic storms, and sustainable mid-latitude sinking of warm brines to promote anoxia, warming, and thermal expansion of deep water may more closely simulate conditions indicated by geological and paleontological data.
Causes and consequences of extreme Permo-Triassic warming to globally equable climate and relation to the Permo-Triassic extinction and recovery

And many more articles like this concerning the very rapid warming at the P-T boundry.

 

[Old Rocks]

One of the most interesting comparison of the standard hopped up ICE and the Tesla P85D is the two drags where, in the first one, the Tesla beat the Hellcat soundly because the driver smoked the tires. In the second, the Hellcat won as he was more careful to not break the tires loose like that.

But how many people that buy cars like the Hellcat have the ability to not smoke the tires? But, because of the electronic traction controls on the Tesla, you are going to get about the same times every trip on the quarter mile. And you are doing that in complete comfort of a heavy luxury sedan.

 

[westwall]

No, CO2 is not a pollutant. Your arguments are sophomoric at best. CO2 will kill you if you replace all O2 with it. We have ample evidence of what life was like when CO2 levels were much higher than the present day and conditions on this planet were much better due to increased plant growth. That's a fact.

The problem isn't whether plant growth will go up. The problem is that temperature will go up. See the water analogy again. Just because something can be a good thing, and can be good in some aspect

The reason why the morons at the EPA want to classify CO2 as a pollutant is so they can regulate it. In other words they wish to regulate the very air that you breath. Just think about that for a minute. YOU emit CO2.

They already do regulate the air I breath in terms of the ozone levels and the sulfur dioxide levels. So?

It may help to just taboo the word "pollutant" and focus on "can more CO2 have results we'd rather not have?"

With developed fuel cell technology you no longer need an ICE so no, they will not still be hybrids.

Not my point: My point is that a fuel cell car is essentially a battery powered car with a (possibly better) battery. But as I said, the underlying chemistry makes fuel cell cars unlikely.

Temperature has both gone up and down when CO2 levels were both high and low. CO2 has NO effect on global temperature as anyone who can read a graph can see. Further, whenever the temperature HAS been higher than the present day the Earth has done better. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Ah yes, life did so well during the warm spell at the Permian-Triassic boundry.

Yes, it's an instant PhD to the person who gives a credible answer to what caused it. Funnily enough not a single reference was made to global warming till a few short years ago. Asteroid strike, (likely), global cooling due to extreme volcanism (very likely) and a couple of other proximal causes (that amazingly enough also result in global cooling) are THE most likely causes. The only people pushing global warming are you morons. All evidence that we do have (and it is not much) says cooling was the cause. There is no actual empirical evidence to support your nonsense. None at all.

Total and complete bullshit you are peddling there, Walleyes.

Climate warming in the latest Permian and the Permian Triassic mass extinction

Climate warming in the latest Permian and the Permian–Triassic mass extinction

1. Michael M. Joachimski1,
2. Xulong Lai2,3,
3. Shuzhong Shen4,
4. Haishui Jiang2,
5. Genming Luo2,
6. Bo Chen1,
7. Jun Chen4 and
8. Yadong Sun2

+Author Affiliations

1. 1GeoZentrum Nordbayern, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schlossgarten 5, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
2. 2Faculty of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
3. 3State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
4. 4State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, 39 East Beijing Road, Nanjing 210008, China

Abstract
High-resolution oxygen isotope records document the timing and magnitude of global warming across the Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) boundary. Oxygen isotope ratios measured on phosphate-bound oxygen in conodont apatite from the Meishan and Shangsi sections (South China) decrease by 2‰ in the latest Permian, translating into low-latitude surface water warming of 8 °C. The oxygen isotope shift coincides with the negative shift in carbon isotope ratios of carbonates, suggesting that the addition of isotopically light carbon to the ocean-atmosphere system by Siberian Traps volcanism and related processes resulted in higher greenhouse gas levels and global warming. The major temperature rise started immediately before the main extinction phase, with maximum and harmful temperatures documented in the latest Permian (Meishan: bed 27). The coincidence of climate warming and the main pulse of extinction suggest that global warming was one of the causes of the collapse of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, very warm climate conditions in the Early Triassic may have played a major role in the delayed recovery in the aftermath of the Permian-Triassic crisis.

Yes, that is cute. Funny how whenever there is a volcanic eruption the effect is COOLING. Not warming. The Siberian Traps erupted almost continuously for over one million years. Logically, and based on well documented observations, the result of that would be lack of sunlight reaching the ground, which then results in mass die off of plant life, which then leads to mass die off of the critters that eat the plants, then the critters that ate those critters die off etc. But no. These silly people want us to believe that first the globe cooled, and there was seemingly no harmful effect from that, but later, the planet warmed up real bad and that's what killed everything off. The lack of critical thinking involved in that horse shit is a wonder to behold.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Want an unbiased review? How about Consumer Reports? Why are they unbiased? They do all their testing in-house. They accept no advertising. They pay for the products they test. And as a not for profit organization, they have no shareholders.

And what did they say about the Tesla Model S? They called it the best car they ever tested.

"There, we said it. The Tesla Model S outscores every other car in our test Ratings."
Video The Tesla Model S is our top-scoring car

You think consumer reports is unbiased?

ROTFLMAO

 

[WinterBorn]

Want an unbiased review? How about Consumer Reports? Why are they unbiased? They do all their testing in-house. They accept no advertising. They pay for the products they test. And as a not for profit organization, they have no shareholders.

And what did they say about the Tesla Model S? They called it the best car they ever tested.

"There, we said it. The Tesla Model S outscores every other car in our test Ratings."
Video The Tesla Model S is our top-scoring car

You think consumer reports is unbiased?

ROTFLMAO

They are as close as you will find, yes.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

"You think consumer reports is unbiased?
ROTFLMAO"

^^^^^^ Usual retort by anyone disagreeing with global warming. No facts -- just ridicule and poo flinging.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Plain economics is going to win this one for renewables!

 

[Old Rocks]

The problem isn't whether plant growth will go up. The problem is that temperature will go up. See the water analogy again. Just because something can be a good thing, and can be good in some aspect

They already do regulate the air I breath in terms of the ozone levels and the sulfur dioxide levels. So?

It may help to just taboo the word "pollutant" and focus on "can more CO2 have results we'd rather not have?"

Not my point: My point is that a fuel cell car is essentially a battery powered car with a (possibly better) battery. But as I said, the underlying chemistry makes fuel cell cars unlikely.

Temperature has both gone up and down when CO2 levels were both high and low. CO2 has NO effect on global temperature as anyone who can read a graph can see. Further, whenever the temperature HAS been higher than the present day the Earth has done better. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

Ah yes, life did so well during the warm spell at the Permian-Triassic boundry.

Yes, it's an instant PhD to the person who gives a credible answer to what caused it. Funnily enough not a single reference was made to global warming till a few short years ago. Asteroid strike, (likely), global cooling due to extreme volcanism (very likely) and a couple of other proximal causes (that amazingly enough also result in global cooling) are THE most likely causes. The only people pushing global warming are you morons. All evidence that we do have (and it is not much) says cooling was the cause. There is no actual empirical evidence to support your nonsense. None at all.

Total and complete bullshit you are peddling there, Walleyes.

Climate warming in the latest Permian and the Permian Triassic mass extinction

Climate warming in the latest Permian and the Permian–Triassic mass extinction

1. Michael M. Joachimski1,
2. Xulong Lai2,3,
3. Shuzhong Shen4,
4. Haishui Jiang2,
5. Genming Luo2,
6. Bo Chen1,
7. Jun Chen4 and
8. Yadong Sun2

+Author Affiliations

1. 1GeoZentrum Nordbayern, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schlossgarten 5, 91054 Erlangen, Germany
2. 2Faculty of Earth Sciences, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
3. 3State Key Laboratory of Biogeology and Environmental Geology, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan, Hubei 430074, China
4. 4State Key Laboratory of Palaeobiology and Stratigraphy, Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, 39 East Beijing Road, Nanjing 210008, China

Abstract
High-resolution oxygen isotope records document the timing and magnitude of global warming across the Permian-Triassic (P-Tr) boundary. Oxygen isotope ratios measured on phosphate-bound oxygen in conodont apatite from the Meishan and Shangsi sections (South China) decrease by 2‰ in the latest Permian, translating into low-latitude surface water warming of 8 °C. The oxygen isotope shift coincides with the negative shift in carbon isotope ratios of carbonates, suggesting that the addition of isotopically light carbon to the ocean-atmosphere system by Siberian Traps volcanism and related processes resulted in higher greenhouse gas levels and global warming. The major temperature rise started immediately before the main extinction phase, with maximum and harmful temperatures documented in the latest Permian (Meishan: bed 27). The coincidence of climate warming and the main pulse of extinction suggest that global warming was one of the causes of the collapse of the marine and terrestrial ecosystems. In addition, very warm climate conditions in the Early Triassic may have played a major role in the delayed recovery in the aftermath of the Permian-Triassic crisis.

Yes, that is cute. Funny how whenever there is a volcanic eruption the effect is COOLING. Not warming. The Siberian Traps erupted almost continuously for over one million years. Logically, and based on well documented observations, the result of that would be lack of sunlight reaching the ground, which then results in mass die off of plant life, which then leads to mass die off of the critters that eat the plants, then the critters that ate those critters die off etc. But no. These silly people want us to believe that first the globe cooled, and there was seemingly no harmful effect from that, but later, the planet warmed up real bad and that's what killed everything off. The lack of critical thinking involved in that horse shit is a wonder to behold.

OK, Phd geologist, publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal that outlines how the cooling kills more than the warming. Especially in the oceans.

 

[Old Rocks]

Plain economics is going to win this one for renewables!

That is an accurate prediction. Couple a home battery storage system with solar panels, small wind mills where applicable, and EV's, and you have the home owner independent of the big fuel companies and even the utilities. You don't want to net meter, utility company? Then get your lines off of my property.

 

[airplanemechanic]

"You think consumer reports is unbiased?
ROTFLMAO"

^^^^^^ Usual retort by anyone disagreeing with global warming. No facts -- just ridicule and poo flinging.

Oh rly? I wonder what you call this?

Problems with Consumer Reports auto ratings analyzing the analysts

I've noticed a number of occasions where data they have presented simply CANNOT be correct. Example 1 - a few years ago I looked at their reliability chart for the [car and car with another engine]. They claim that exterior fit and finish was [good rating] on the [one engine] and [terrible rating] for the [other engine] . This translates to a 4 and a 1 on a 1 to 5 scale. Since these vehicles were produced by the same workers, tools, raw materials, etc it is not possible for this to happen! I could buy a difference of one but not three between the two. A short statistical analysis lesson would be appropriate here. You can expect a variation of one when working with something like this. If you see the deviation that you do here you simply have not sampled the data properly! This is basic statistics. If this difference came in something that was not common to the two, like the engine, cooling system, transmission, etc. I would be able to accept the variation as correct. However, there is no way that this deviation from one to the next can occur with common items to the two.

An actual peer reviewed study on the bias of Consumer Reports car reviews:

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1226&context=asc_papers

Page 27:

With these comments in mind, we conclude that Consumer Reports verbal accounts are strongly biased in favor of its own recommendations.

Unlike liberals, I don't need to make stuff up. Anything I say can be proven with facts.

Yea, mud flinging. The problem is, my mud has lead in it.

 

[WinterBorn]

"You think consumer reports is unbiased?
ROTFLMAO"

^^^^^^ Usual retort by anyone disagreeing with global warming. No facts -- just ridicule and poo flinging.

Oh rly? I wonder what you call this?

Problems with Consumer Reports auto ratings analyzing the analysts

I've noticed a number of occasions where data they have presented simply CANNOT be correct. Example 1 - a few years ago I looked at their reliability chart for the [car and car with another engine]. They claim that exterior fit and finish was [good rating] on the [one engine] and [terrible rating] for the [other engine] . This translates to a 4 and a 1 on a 1 to 5 scale. Since these vehicles were produced by the same workers, tools, raw materials, etc it is not possible for this to happen! I could buy a difference of one but not three between the two. A short statistical analysis lesson would be appropriate here. You can expect a variation of one when working with something like this. If you see the deviation that you do here you simply have not sampled the data properly! This is basic statistics. If this difference came in something that was not common to the two, like the engine, cooling system, transmission, etc. I would be able to accept the variation as correct. However, there is no way that this deviation from one to the next can occur with common items to the two.

An actual peer reviewed study on the bias of Consumer Reports car reviews:

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1226&context=asc_papers

Page 27:

With these comments in mind, we conclude that Consumer Reports verbal accounts are strongly biased in favor of its own recommendations.

Unlike liberals, I don't need to make stuff up. Anything I say can be proven with facts.

Yea, mud flinging. The problem is, my mud has lead in it.

Lead? Hardly.

One of your links discussed the small sample size from responses to questionaires. The Consumer Report article on the Tesla had nothing to do with questionaires and everything to do with actual, hand-on tests by Consumer Reports.

You want facts? I can offer some.

Apparently you think Consumer Reports is a liberal magazine with all sorts of baises.

How about Motor Trend? Are they a liberal magazine too? Because they gave the Tesla Model S the Motor Trend Car of the Year for 2013. "The 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year is one of the quickest American four-doors ever built. It drives like a sports car, eager and agile and instantly responsive. But it's also as smoothly effortless as a Rolls-Royce, can carry almost as much stuff as a Chevy Equinox, and is more efficient than a Toyota Prius. Oh, and it'll sashay up to the valet at a luxury hotel like a supermodel working a Paris catwalk. By any measure, the Tesla Model S is a truly remarkable automobile, perhaps the most accomplished all-new luxury car since the original Lexus LS 400. That's why it's our 2013 Car of the Year."

Read more: 2013 Motor Trend Car of the Year Tesla Model S - Motor Trend



Or maybe Automobile Magazine is the liberal one? Because they gave Tesla their Car of the Year Award for 2013. Maybe it is just magazines in general that hold such bias?
2013 Automobile of the Year Tesla Model S - Automobile Magazine

I suppose the liberals are also showing their bais by having the Tesla Model S recognized as one of the safest cars ever tested by the NHTSA?
Tesla Model S Achieves Best Safety Rating of Any Car Ever Tested Tesla Motors

Yahoo Autos selected the Tesla Model S as its Car of the Year as well.
Tesla Model S Starts Racking Up Vehicle of the Year Awards PluginCars.com

Here is a link to a graphic of the 28 awards won by the Tesla Model S in 2012, 2013, and 2014.
Infographic Depicts Tesla Model S Award-Winning History - TESLARATI.com

But yeah, you keep telling us its all about a liberal bias. lmao

 

[WinterBorn]

"You think consumer reports is unbiased?
ROTFLMAO"

^^^^^^ Usual retort by anyone disagreeing with global warming. No facts -- just ridicule and poo flinging.

Oh rly? I wonder what you call this?

Problems with Consumer Reports auto ratings analyzing the analysts

I've noticed a number of occasions where data they have presented simply CANNOT be correct. Example 1 - a few years ago I looked at their reliability chart for the [car and car with another engine]. They claim that exterior fit and finish was [good rating] on the [one engine] and [terrible rating] for the [other engine] . This translates to a 4 and a 1 on a 1 to 5 scale. Since these vehicles were produced by the same workers, tools, raw materials, etc it is not possible for this to happen! I could buy a difference of one but not three between the two. A short statistical analysis lesson would be appropriate here. You can expect a variation of one when working with something like this. If you see the deviation that you do here you simply have not sampled the data properly! This is basic statistics. If this difference came in something that was not common to the two, like the engine, cooling system, transmission, etc. I would be able to accept the variation as correct. However, there is no way that this deviation from one to the next can occur with common items to the two.

An actual peer reviewed study on the bias of Consumer Reports car reviews:

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1226&context=asc_papers

Page 27:

With these comments in mind, we conclude that Consumer Reports verbal accounts are strongly biased in favor of its own recommendations.

Unlike liberals, I don't need to make stuff up. Anything I say can be proven with facts.

Yea, mud flinging. The problem is, my mud has lead in it.

Did you actually READ the research paper about the bias? It was published in August of 1982! Couldn't find anything OLDER?

And the sum total of the research was using articles on car that were published between Jan 1981 and Aug of 1982. In other words, articles posted over a 20 month period over 30 years ago.

Yeah, nothing like timely, relevant research.