bsd
Member
Tesla competition developments
Julian,
People don't realize that FCVs just transfer emissions to a different part of the cycle. I certainly didn't realize the extent until I read your analyses. We have a double-whammy here in Canada that most hydrogen is produced in Quebec and then shipped across the country. But...
... I completely agree with CalDreamin. You're including a set of strawman arguments or appeals to conspiracy that are unnecessary. These rhetorical sleights of hand are a turn off for some (like me) but also provides ammunition to those seeking to spread FUD to encourage others to dismiss your views.
When I reviewed papers for academic conferences and journals, text like your ridiculous Japanese revenge tirade would have led to the immediate rejection of your paper. It marks you as a loony and calls into question everything else you say.
No they don't. Some consumers do, but for many (most) it's secondary to the costs.
If you replace "want" with "need" then I'd agree.
If you want your text to make a difference, you remove any barriers so that opponents can raise uncertainty or doubt as to its credibility.
The best academic papers, the ones referenced for years, clearly separate their data from analysis, and then separately draw conclusions. It means your data can live on, even when new data is found that repudiates your analysis and conclusions. It means people can disagree with your conclusions but still use your data and analysis. It mean you can point naysayers to to your data and ask for them to provide better numbers with sources.
You had two theses: that there is a conflict of interest, and that FCVs are not the clean-emissions solution portrayed. The conflict of interest is only pertinent to California; it's not something I'd want to forward to the Minister of Industry or the Minister of the Environment. The FCV analysis is pertinent much more broadly.
Edited: removed a line that was harsher than I meant, and moved a but
Julian,
People don't realize that FCVs just transfer emissions to a different part of the cycle. I certainly didn't realize the extent until I read your analyses. We have a double-whammy here in Canada that most hydrogen is produced in Quebec and then shipped across the country. But...
CalDramin
You are overthinking it.
... I completely agree with CalDreamin. You're including a set of strawman arguments or appeals to conspiracy that are unnecessary. These rhetorical sleights of hand are a turn off for some (like me) but also provides ammunition to those seeking to spread FUD to encourage others to dismiss your views.
When I reviewed papers for academic conferences and journals, text like your ridiculous Japanese revenge tirade would have led to the immediate rejection of your paper. It marks you as a loony and calls into question everything else you say.
Consumers demand green sustainable transport that delivers a solution to climate change.
No they don't. Some consumers do, but for many (most) it's secondary to the costs.
If you replace "want" with "need" then I'd agree.
How do you imagine that should be sugar coated so that objections should be taken more seriously?
If you want your text to make a difference, you remove any barriers so that opponents can raise uncertainty or doubt as to its credibility.
The best academic papers, the ones referenced for years, clearly separate their data from analysis, and then separately draw conclusions. It means your data can live on, even when new data is found that repudiates your analysis and conclusions. It means people can disagree with your conclusions but still use your data and analysis. It mean you can point naysayers to to your data and ask for them to provide better numbers with sources.
You had two theses: that there is a conflict of interest, and that FCVs are not the clean-emissions solution portrayed. The conflict of interest is only pertinent to California; it's not something I'd want to forward to the Minister of Industry or the Minister of the Environment. The FCV analysis is pertinent much more broadly.
Edited: removed a line that was harsher than I meant, and moved a but
Last edited: