Young drivers, electric trucks and pot among institute's research priorities

No, im pointing out the ambiguity of your statement, people beliving only the first is true are assuming you mean the second as written and arguing with you about that.

You may mean the second without the last word but youre defending it as if the last word is there.

You know what youre doing

 

Trucking associations represent companies, not truck drivers which is why they always claim driver retention is not about money

 

When I said studies tend to deliver facts, what I meant was studies tend to deliver facts. Theres no ambiguity there. When someone thinks studies "seem to skew the results", it just might be because that person has been trained to oppose facts.

 

"Zero emission trucks" that's a good one. Tell that to the coal power plant or the nuclear waste in a nuclear power plant.

 

Looking at a study's findings and being distrustful of the same is not completely unreasonable.

Consider exxon funding a study of environmental harm to deep water drilling, or on the other end of the spectrum a windmill farm funding a study of the benefits of electrical vehicles.

Its not as cut and dried as you are making it seem

Both may have valid points, but they both CERTAINLY have agendas

 

This is exactly your problem, the exxon studies were not "fake studies" they were motivated. They were flawed and easy to pick apart but so are your preferred "studies"

Simple data is less ambiguous, "studies" carry with them less weight in their conclusions ESPECIALLY when they comport with the motivations of the agenda of those studying them/funding them.

 

Nope, the ExxonMobil "studies" were specifically intended to ignore and contradict known facts, not find facts. Therefore they were not studies. ExxonMobil knew the truth, intentionally hid that truth, and paid for "studies" which "found" the exact opposite of that truth. Thats not how studies are done. Them calling their disinformation efforts "studies" doesn't make them studies.

It seems to me that using this logic, studies finding health care benefits aren't believable unless they're done by murderers.

Although you do seem to be making an admission that the most believable climate studies of all are the ones ExxonMobil hid.

 

You are reading into what im saying too far and im not having it,

Specifically in one case you are right, studies that vested interests hide after not liking the results DO tend to be more beleivable.

Replicability of a study in full by independent entities is also extremely important.

I am not the enemy you are making me out to be, stop it