Ok, I'll try a third time, but this is like the Mueller report. It clearly shows collusion and obstruction but many people refuse to see it. The same for climate change and the same for this very simple argument.
and EVs saw only 2.9% of global passenger vehicle sales in 2018.
"Only" 2.9%. The author misleads the reader to think that 2.9% is a small number because in absolute terms it is indeed a small number in terms of percent. The main point the author is trying to make is that the EV market is not growing fast and he uses this number to frame the narrative.
Yeah but .... the author is not attempting to mislead the reader into "thinking" 2.9% is small number he is in fact telling the factual truth there. The number is 2.9%. And 2.9% is a small number.
What you are doing is falsely misleading the readers here, that because the author is telling the truth, that according to your
"thinking and assumptions about another person" you are PRESUMING his INTENTIONS are specifically to mislead his readers
by putting in the correct number of 2.9% Fact is, Archimid has no idea what the author's intentions are
(Archimid does not know and cannot know what is going on inside that person's mind) - but anyone can see what
he did DO was to include the correct data point of 2.9% ... because anyone can go check that number and find out that it is indeed accurate and correct.
It's not the Author's responsibility if the number 2.9% is actually 2.9% - the author has no control over that, he simply the "messenger here".
That 2.9% is a "small number" because LOGICALLY 2.9% is a small number. It is what it is! It is NOT a small number because the Author is trying to mislead anyone - to say so is irrational, illogical, factually untrue and unproven.
Furthermore, the author does include the historical growth rates in the article using credible sources, as well as
showing the ongoing Growth rates for EVs now and into the future out to 2030. Already mentioned a few facts they included above but seems archimid is not interested in those either.
Therefore, to form the opinion
the sentiment behind the whole piece, misrepresentation of the issue to prove a point.
is self-evidently irrational, illogical, factually untrue and unproven.
The article is not misleading or misrepresenting the facts!
Archimid is making misleading comments and misrepresenting the facts. It is misleading to do this because of what I pointed out before by way of an analogy with Emotionally charged irrational Deniers against Climate Science:
It is Mystical Thinking. It is not rational. 100% Emotion. Zero evidence and logic involved. This is not how people need to be evaluating articles that are overflowing with accurate facts that are supported by multiple lines of accessible evidence.
IMHO the people who (for whatever reason)
are being misleading or misrepresenting the facts their Posts should be ignored / taken with a massive dose of salt on this forum and not listened to until they can show that they are not pushing unfounded lies about others, misrepresenting what "articles" etc actually do say in toto, and who tend toward drawing hyperbolic conclusions / opinions based solely on their engaging in mystical thinking while ignoring all the evidence to the contrary.
And so we are back to Caveat Emptor! Go read the article for yourself and don't allow yourself to be misled by the mystical thinkers on the ASIF, is my solid advice.
<snipped the rest of the silliness, false claims and the Hyperbole>
GoTo:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2406.msg199980.html#msg199980(for the article URL and/or to discuss)
