Re: [Paddlewise] Winter in a time of Climate Change

On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 9:18 AM, Mike Euritt <sixteenfeet_at_sbcglobal.net>wrote:

>
> 1. We never asked anyone to duplicate the
> study. It stands on its own. We are more
> than happy to provide data points to
> assist another research organization perform its
> own study. No such requests
> have been received by us.


I just read their original "study", entitled "Dust to Dust". In their debunk
they mention that they don't find people who say things like "I don't know
where to start" very credible. So I have to start this by saying, "I don't
know where to start". So I'll just pick a place. This might take a few
posts.

While they may have been happy to provide "data points" there are at least
two good reasons why no one asked for them. The first reason is because
their data points were useless without their methodology. You cannot repeat
an experiment without knowing what the experiment was and CNWMR refuses to
release their methodology on the grounds that they are a "for profit"
company and it's proprietary. So it's like providing a series of numbers:
Kia Optima, 25, 12, 19500; Kia Sorento, 32,14,25200, etc. Why would we
bother to ask for those? And, anyway, if all those "data points" aren't in
those pages of spreadsheets I'll eat my hat.

The second reason no one asked was because the "study" was flawed in the
most basic way. You've no doubt heard people talk about computers by saying
"GIGO". This means "garbage in, garbage out and it refers to the fact that
computers - and spreadsheets in particular - are susceptable to false
assumptions and that those false assumptions turn any real data into
garbage. This "study" is crammed to the brim with assumptions which would be
virtually impossible to prove. It's taking statistical analysis to the most
absurd level possible.

>
> So no one
> who has debunked his article has done the research he has done to write the
> article, at least they've not asked for his data points. So, how can the
> debunks be valid since they don't know what he used to come to his
> conclusions.


This is the problem with trying to explain science to people who have grown
up listening to scientists use jargon on television. Everyone thinks they
understand them. Virtually no one who isn't a scientist or engineer really
does. If you've ever tried to turn up the "pressure" on your hose to water
more of your lawn then you fall into that group.

I consistently find the use of the word "discredited" is left
> speak for covering the ears and screaming loudly "I don't want to hear what
> you are saying."


Funny, but that's what we think *you* are saying. Just goes to show ya.

The GIGO in the Prius/Hummer "study" is their original assumptions about the
life span of the many vehicles they included. This number forms the basis of
every "data point" they are so willing to share. Of course, it's right there
in the study so why bother to ask?

Now, you'd think that any "study" labeled "Dust to Dust" would start with
the mining of the ore and end with the vehicle turning into... well... dust.
You'd be wrong in this case. They assigned every vehicle a lifespan in
miles. The problem with this is that if that assumption is wrong; if the
total miles of "useful life" of the vehicles they've assigned to them is
wrong, then their entire study is wrong because every single piece of
information they present in their "study" is based on the assumption of how
many miles a vehicle will last during its lifetime. How do we know that
these assumptions are correct? Well, cuz they tell us they are but the won't
tell us why they know. So how can we disprove them?

This is not the only assumption they make. No, indeed. They also have a
"data point" for how much money an owner will spend on maintenance over the
"lifetime" of every vehicle. And more assumptions for how much fuel it will
consume, how many tires it will go through, and.... well you get the idea.
It just so happens that I have had 5 vehicles over the past decade that were
listed in the "study". For each and every one of them the "data points" were
wrong. They had the "lifetime" wrong, the "maintenance" amount wrong, the
fuel mileage not just wrong but not even close - and I'm not talking EPA
fuel mileages here... I'm talking about the fuel consumption they claim to
have that surpasses that of the EPA. And, once again,  they won't tell us
why they know these are correct.

Here are some specifics:

They claim the Hummer H1 has an "average estimated lifetime" of 379,000
miles; the Hummer H2 has 197,000 and the Toyota Prius has only got 109,000
miles of life.

Also according to them my Kia Optima is about to die because I have 148,000
miles on a car that will live only 161,000. Both of the Isuzu Troopers we've
owned died tragically well before their estimated useful life of 209,000
miles. Go through the "study" and find cars you know about and see how they
compare..

They also claim that Prius cars come equipped with tires that only go 25% as
far as tires on other vehicles and then assume that the owner will only buy
the same crappy tires over and over again. This, not surprisingly, skews the
maintenance costs of a Prius up to $22,000 over the life (109,000 miles) of
the vehicle. My Kia Optima has cost me only about $1,000 and it's almost to
the end of its estimated (by them) life. But they claim it should cost me
$9,900. Where does this figure come from? They won't tell us. It's
proprietary.

The Hummer H2 will only cost $16,000 in maintenance but remember that this
number is for the "life" of the vehicle which is 379,000 miles. That's only
$1.99 a mile. Pretty cheap on a per mile basis. But the Prius, on the other
hand, will cost $22,000 for only 109,000 miles... that's a whopping $4.95
per mile just in maintenance costs.

I'm thinking that those numbers might be a little off.

I could go on, but what's the point? If you've read the "study" (and I'm
guessing you haven't because almost no one could get through what must have
been 400 pages of spreadsheets) you'll understand. If you've only read media
reports about the study then you'll believe whatever they've told you.

In essence, and speaking as an engineer, this "study" is worthless. It's
GIGO taken to an exponential level. If you believe this... then I have a
bridge in New York I'll sell to you, cheap.


Craig Jungers
Moses Lake, WA
***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************