• Funderpants @lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The paper I linked doesn’t look into all possible aspects because it’s a peer reviewed scientific work, which unlike blog posts tend to have narrow scopes and aren’t written to debunk every aspect of random peoples thoughts on the topic.

    The long and short of this is that people need to be much, much more discerning in which information to trust and which to disregard. The author of your article had a Ph.D. , they could seek to publish their research in serious journals, but they’d need to actually do the hard work of finding reliable, evidence based , peer reviewed sources to do that. Instead we get a blog post the links out to other blog posts that link to yet more blogs, occasional draft papers, and decidedly non scientific works.

    If I were to trust this author writing in this medium, why not trust anti-science fossil fuel interests who use the same mediums and communication strategies?

    Are you familiar with the concept “the medium is the message”?
    For me, it’s a big no thanks, especially on important issues like the adoption of BEVs.

    • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      I fully understand the need to filter out information as being to much of a burden to actually verify/dispute. And I don’t think any less of you for sticking to the safest material in terms of trust, i.e. peer reviewed papers in acclaimed publications.

      But at the same time we can’t really wait around for consensus and full understanding of every matter before making informed decisions either. Now, once again, I’m pro BEVs, I just don’t see them as the solution to climate change because even with 100% BEVs our planet can’t sustain personal transportation as it works right now. I haven’t written anything here with the intent to discredit BEVs, I’m just trying to steer focus to what I consider more important issues to craft policy and solutions around. Like personal transportation, wasteful consumption and more.

      If you’re asking why I trust this author more than others it’s because they seem to argue in good faith, the cited sources aren’t horrible. The opinions aren’t hyperbolic or presented without any nuance. It doesn’t ring any of my warning bells that causes me to outright dismiss.

      And as closing I have no issues with your dismissal of the source and I don’t even think we’re in disagreement.