GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[-trance + 114]

3 minutes ago, Boat said:

Several years ago steel was headed towards electric.

Need a source of carbon.

Edited August 1, 2021 by -trance

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, specinho said:

does it come from the rise of bitcoins and tesla shares?

or does it mean, a year ago, 1 B of gross income means selling 16 667 cars at the price of 60k; Q2, ten folds, 10.21 B, we sold 170 167 cars??

 

 

 

If you click on the link you will get a detailed report of their Q2 financials. Note the $23 million dollar impairment on bitcoin. Tesla stock price is irrelevant to an earnings report.

https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/ZBOUYO_TSLA_Q2_2021_Update_DJCVNJ.pdf?xseo=&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D"q2_2021.pdf"

Edited August 1, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

Coal sales and production is zooming upwards, everyone is jumping on the coal wagon.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Coal/Coal-Demand-Is-Spiking-In-2021.html

"Amid all the talk of global warming, climate change-induced catastrophes, decarbonization and green finance, the global trade in “dirty” coal is enjoying an ironic renaissance. Bulk ships are busy transporting coal to Asia — and to eco-conscious Europe — boosting freight income for some of the very shipowners who publicly tout their environmental bona fides to investors.

“Turns out the news of the demise of coal has been greatly exaggerated,” said Stifel analyst Ben Nolan in a new client note. “Despite an unseemly carbon footprint, coal demand is actually accelerating this year.”

Coal is transported aboard larger bulkers known as Capesizes (ships with a capacity of around 180,000 deadweight tons or DWT), as well as on sub-Cape vessels such as Panamaxes (65,000-90,000 DWT) and Supramaxes (45,000-60,000 DWT). According to Clarksons Platou Securities, Capesize spot rates averaged $32,800 per day on Monday, with Panamaxes at $31,800 and Supramaxes at $31,600. It’s rare in dry bulk shipping for all three segments to simultaneously top $30,000, as they have for the past five weeks.

“Strong activity in the coal markets as well as robust minor bulk volumes remain the driving force of elevated rates across the different asset classes,” said Clarksons.

The Financial Times recently pointed out that coal commodity pricing is outpacing both real estate and financial stock returns this year. The price of high-grade Australian thermal coal (used for power generation) had risen to $151 per ton as of Friday, more than triple its price last September, according to Argus. The price of semi-soft Australian coking coal (or metallurgical coal, used for steel production) was $127 per ton, up almost 80% year to date."

Edited August 1, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

Looks like the market realities are tough for Tesla.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Tesla-Lowers-Prices-In-China-While-Raising-Them-In-The-US.html

"After posting its most recent earnings "beat", Tesla is taking on two starkly different strategies for its U.S. and its China business. 

In the United States, the automaker is raising prices in an attempt to boost profit margins, while in China it is keeping prices steady in what is likely an attempt to drum up more demand, Reuters reported. 

So far, Tesla has raised the price of its Model 3 and Model Y "about a dozen times" in the U.S. this year, the report notes. At the same time, the company also introduced an affordable version of its Model Y in China.

Tesla isn't just facing increased scrutiny in China from its citizens and the government, but is also running face-first into a wall of Chinese EV competitors. 

Toni Sacconaghi of Bernstein has questioned demand in China as a result of the introduction of the lower priced Model Y. He has said that the model "may make sustained margin improvement difficult". Chinese owners were "were less enthusiastic and had lower repurchase intentions than owners in the United States and Europe," a Bernstein survey recently showed."

Edited August 2, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

On 7/28/2021 at 8:29 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Your new science is really taking off.

There are some phrases that should stop you in your tracks. The warning of a future that holds "untold suffering" is one of them. That is exactly what scientists from around the world are cautioning will happen if we don't take the threat of climate change seriously. In a paper published Wednesday in the journal BioScience, more than 14,000 scientists from 153 countries signed their name to research that warns of an incoming climate emergency.

The paper, led by researchers from Oregon State University, uses 31 different planetary variables that tell us how Earth is holding up in the face of humanity's insistence on draining natural resources and pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The list of checks includes surface temperature levels, rainforest health, and glacial ice levels, along with directly human-controlled factors like the health of the global economy and the availability of fossil fuel subsidies.

https://www.mic.com/p/14000-scientists-warn-of-untold-suffering-if-we-fail-to-act-on-climate-change-82642062

 

Looks like your cited research clashes with the actual observations, as we showed here. This is from your cited "research" paper,

"there has been an unprecedented surge in climate-related disasters since 2019, including .......an extraordinary Atlantic hurricane season,.."

Now, here is what really happened, it looks like your scientists are a little slow in keeping up with the data.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-enough-with-the-net-zero-doublethink

"...climate impacts are often vastly exaggerated, leaving us panicked. The UN Climate Panel estimates that if we do nothing, climate damages in 2100 will be equivalent to 2.6 per cent of global GDP. That is a problem but not the end of the world.

Because climate news only reports the worst outcomes most people think the damage will be much greater. Remember how we were repeatedly told 2020’s Atlantic hurricane season was the worst ever? The reporting ignored that almost everywhere else, hurricane intensity was feeble, making 2020 one of the globally weakest in satellite history. And even within the Atlantic, 2020 ranked thirteenth."

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

3 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Looks like your cited research clashes with the actual observations, as we showed here. This is from your cited "research" paper,

"there has been an unprecedented surge in climate-related disasters since 2019, including .......an extraordinary Atlantic hurricane season,.."

Now, here is what really happened, it looks like your scientists are a little slow in keeping up with the data.

https://financialpost.com/opinion/bjorn-lomborg-enough-with-the-net-zero-doublethink

"...climate impacts are often vastly exaggerated, leaving us panicked. The UN Climate Panel estimates that if we do nothing, climate damages in 2100 will be equivalent to 2.6 per cent of global GDP. That is a problem but not the end of the world.

Because climate news only reports the worst outcomes most people think the damage will be much greater. Remember how we were repeatedly told 2020’s Atlantic hurricane season was the worst ever? The reporting ignored that almost everywhere else, hurricane intensity was feeble, making 2020 one of the globally weakest in satellite history. And even within the Atlantic, 2020 ranked thirteenth.""

 

 

 

Your opinion piece from the finacial post is wrong. Imagine that. The real data comes from NOAA:

The extremely active 2020 Atlantic hurricane season is drawing to a close with a record-breaking 30 named storms and 11 landfalling storms in the continental United States. While the official hurricane season concludes on November 30, tropical storms may continue to develop past that day.

NOAA’s seasonal hurricane outlooks accurately predicted a high likelihood of an above-normal season with a strong possibility of it being extremely active. In total, the 2020 season produced 30 named storms (top winds of 39 mph or greater), of which 14 became hurricanes (top winds of 74 mph or greater), including seven major hurricanes (top winds of 111 mph or greater). This is the most storms on record, surpassing the 28 from 2005, and the second-highest number of hurricanes on record.

https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/record-breaking-atlantic-hurricane-season-draws-to-end

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Your opinion piece from the finacial post is wrong. Imagine that. The real data comes from NOAA:

The extremely active 2020 Atlantic hurricane season is drawing to a close with a record-breaking 30 named storms and 11 landfalling storms in the continental United States. While the official hurricane season concludes on November 30, tropical storms may continue to develop past that day.

NOAA’s seasonal hurricane outlooks accurately predicted a high likelihood of an above-normal season with a strong possibility of it being extremely active. In total, the 2020 season produced 30 named storms (top winds of 39 mph or greater), of which 14 became hurricanes (top winds of 74 mph or greater), including seven major hurricanes (top winds of 111 mph or greater). This is the most storms on record, surpassing the 28 from 2005, and the second-highest number of hurricanes on record.

https://www.noaa.gov/media-release/record-breaking-atlantic-hurricane-season-draws-to-end

Net result, 13th for the Atlantic, not out of normal bounds. There were 12 other Atlantic years with greater activity. 

On a global basis, 2020 was one of the weakest in measured history.

Breathless climate reporting told us of an extraordinary 2020 hurricane season Yes. It was extraordinary. Extraordinarily weak. Globally 2020 was one of the weakest in past 40 years Accumulated Cyclone Energy was 76% of average (1980-2010) Update of https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL047711"

Edited August 2, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Net result, 13th for the Atlantic, not out of normal bounds. There were 12 other Atlantic years with greater activity. 

On a global basis, 2020 was one of the weakest in measured history.

Breathless climate reporting told us of an extraordinary 2020 hurricane season Yes. It was extraordinary. Extraordinarily weak. Globally 2020 was one of the weakest in past 40 years Accumulated Cyclone Energy was 76% of average (1980-2010) Update of https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL047711"

 Ok I found the source of your 13th number since you never provided a citation. The critical part that you leave out is that 2020 was 13th out of 170 years!!!! HaHa, so that puts it well in the top 10%. Tell me more of your advanced statistics that says this is not out of normal bounds?  I can't wait to see how you move the goal posts this time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy

 

"The North Atlantic played an unusually large role in the global tropical cyclone activity in 2020. The North Atlantic had 30 named storms, which broke the previous record of 28 in 2005. Of those 30 storms, 13 were hurricanes, six of which were major hurricanes. Both of these totals are the second highest on record behind 2005. The ACE was 75% above normal. "

  https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/202013

What really needs to be emphasized is that activity and energy are two different things. 

As to the rest of the world did somebody predict otherwise than it being calm? All the reporting your blurb refers to was about the Atlantic. I thought you were all about the predictions being wrong? Further what does a report from 2011 have to do with anything? You guys really do like using ancient data. Did your kindergarten college teach you that?

However the reality is that the rest of the world was weak and it has been a disaster. Have you noticed any smoke around where you live? The cyclones and storms from the Pacific are the primary source of precipitation in the American west that is on fire due to extreme heat and drought.

What you guys can't figure out is that what we need is moderate seasons, not too high and not too low. Climate change is about increasing extremes in both directions.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Climate change is about increasing extremes in both directions.

You heard it here first. It won't matter when the earth enters a cooling phase for a period of decades, since CO2 only has a minor role to play anyway, these climate doom porn donkeys will be crying bloody murder regardless. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

Just now, QuarterCenturyVet said:

You heard it here first. It won't matter when the earth enters a cooling phase for a period of decades, since CO2 only has a minor role to play anyway, these climate doom porn donkeys will be crying bloody murder regardless. 

It is known as equilibrium. Something well above your intellectual level.

‘Less than 1% probability’ that Earth’s energy imbalance increase occurred naturally, say Princeton and GFDL scientists

Sunlight in, reflected and emitted energy out. That’s the fundamental energy balance sheet for our planet. If Earth’s clouds, oceans, ice caps and land surfaces send as much energy back up to space as the sun shines down on us, then our planet maintains equilibrium. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2021/07/28/less-1-probability-earths-energy-imbalance-increase-occurred-naturally-say

[QuarterCenturyVet + 312]

12 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It is known as equilibrium. Something well above your intellectual level.

‘Less than 1% probability’ that Earth’s energy imbalance increase occurred naturally, say Princeton and GFDL scientists

Sunlight in, reflected and emitted energy out. That’s the fundamental energy balance sheet for our planet. If Earth’s clouds, oceans, ice caps and land surfaces send as much energy back up to space as the sun shines down on us, then our planet maintains equilibrium. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2021/07/28/less-1-probability-earths-energy-imbalance-increase-occurred-naturally-say

Sure. 

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/es/news/article/earths-interior-captures-more-carbon-than-previously-thought-study-finds

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

11 minutes ago, QuarterCenturyVet said:

Sure. 

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/es/news/article/earths-interior-captures-more-carbon-than-previously-thought-study-finds

With your enlightened intellect just how fast do you think subducting plates move???? That process takes millions of years. Then the carbon is erupted from the volcanoes in the associated volcanic island arc  Doorknob.

"Compared to the amount of knowledge about carbon storage on the Earth’s surface, there is less known about carbon stores inside the planet, where carbon cycles take millions of years. "

Edited August 2, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

18 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

 Ok I found the source of your 13th number since you never provided a citation. The critical part that you leave out is that 2020 was 13th out of 170 years!!!! HaHa, so that puts it well in the top 10%. Tell me more of your advanced statistics that says this is not out of normal bounds?  I can't wait to see how you move the goal posts this time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_cyclone_energy

 

"The North Atlantic played an unusually large role in the global tropical cyclone activity in 2020. The North Atlantic had 30 named storms, which broke the previous record of 28 in 2005. Of those 30 storms, 13 were hurricanes, six of which were major hurricanes. Both of these totals are the second highest on record behind 2005. The ACE was 75% above normal. "

  https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/202013

What really needs to be emphasized is that activity and energy are two different things. 

As to the rest of the world did somebody predict otherwise than it being calm? All the reporting your blurb refers to was about the Atlantic. I thought you were all about the predictions being wrong? Further what does a report from 2011 have to do with anything? You guys really do like using ancient data. Did your kindergarten college teach you that?

However the reality is that the rest of the world was weak and it has been a disaster. Have you noticed any smoke around where you live? The cyclones and storms from the Pacific are the primary source of precipitation in the American west that is on fire due to extreme heat and drought.

What you guys can't figure out is that what we need is moderate seasons, not too high and not too low. Climate change is about increasing extremes in both directions.

Jay, you are bobbing and weaving all over the place...try to address the issues head on for once.

2020 did not, contrary to your people's claims, break any records, there were 12 other seasons with greater hurricane activity. 

And global activity was a very weak year in 2020, not a strong year at all. 

So what is all the hot air about? Why all the screaming and yelling...again about NOTHING.

What your citation shows is a massive collection of discredited and biased reports, most of those items are UNRELATED, just an inchoate mishmash of unrelated and misleading political pleading.

Your guys did not point out the global calm in 2020, they IGNORED the calm, and tried to create a sense of panic based on nothing.

Get real for once.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

Tesla seems to be at the bottom of this list, wow,

https://hypebeast.com/2020/6/tesla-j-d-power-least-reliable-car-us-2020-survey-news

"American analytics company J.D. Power has just released its 2020 Initial Quality Report for the auto industry, and Tesla (NASDAQGS:TSLA +3.27%) has been rated the least reliable new cars in the U.S.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

Oil is king in the American economy.

"Despite the impact the pandemic had on U.S. oil production, the U.S. remained the world’s top oil producer** at 11.3 million BPD. Russia and Saudi Arabia retained their positions at #2 and #3. However, Saudi Arabia and other OPEC countries engaged in production cuts in 2020 in response to the pandemic.

 

Note that these production numbers are for crude oil and lease condensate. The U.S. also leads all countries in the production of natural gas liquids (NGLs), which partially end up in the oil products supply chain. So, if NGLs are included, the U.S. has an even larger lead over Russia and Saudi Arabia.

The Review reports that global proved oil reserves declined by 0.1% to 1.72 trillion barrels. Venezuela continues to claim the most reserves with 304 billion barrels, but this is primarily extra heavy crude in the Orinoco Belt. In order to qualify as proved reserves, oil needs to be technically and economically recoverable at prevailing oil prices. That may not be the case with this heavy oil. In that case, Saudi Arabia’s 298 billion barrels would lead all countries."

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-US-Retains-Its-Crown-As-Worlds-Top-Oil-Producer.html

Edited August 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[turbguy + 1,391]

29 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Tesla seems to be at the bottom of this list, wow,

https://hypebeast.com/2020/6/tesla-j-d-power-least-reliable-car-us-2020-survey-news

"American analytics company J.D. Power has just released its 2020 Initial Quality Report for the auto industry, and Tesla (NASDAQGS:TSLA +3.27%) has been rated the least reliable new cars in the U.S.

 

 

I have to wonder why there is any difference between a Chevy and a GMC.

After all, Chevy isn't "professional grade".

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

17 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It is known as equilibrium. Something well above your intellectual level.

‘Less than 1% probability’ that Earth’s energy imbalance increase occurred naturally, say Princeton and GFDL scientists

Sunlight in, reflected and emitted energy out. That’s the fundamental energy balance sheet for our planet. If Earth’s clouds, oceans, ice caps and land surfaces send as much energy back up to space as the sun shines down on us, then our planet maintains equilibrium. https://www.princeton.edu/news/2021/07/28/less-1-probability-earths-energy-imbalance-increase-occurred-naturally-say

Now here is a nice example of pseudo-science political promotion, some spokesman with a science degree proclaiming "less than 1%", as if he had sat down and worked out an equation with measured inputs which give out "less than 1%" as the result of the calculations.

Well, it ain't exactly so, folks. Nowhere does it give us the equation and the calculations which produce this figure of "less than 1%". No, sorry, people this magic number of "less than 1%". We just have to take someone's unsupported assurance that the appropriate calculations have been done somewhere and the number "less than 1%" was the result of the complicated calculations. 

Actually, this use of "less than 1%" appears to be nothing more than a rhetorical device, a loose figure of speech, expressed in a pseudo-mathematical way to convince the average Joe that a real scientist did some work on the number. But, no, there is no reference or citation to show how that 1% magic figure was calculated. 

We just have to have faith in the system, and please do not study dissenting views by other scientists.

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

17 hours ago, turbguy said:

I have to wonder why there is any difference between a Chevy and a GMC.

After all, Chevy isn't "professional grade".

Well, the point here is the abysmal and unsettling showing of Tesla. I hope that Jay doesn't lose too much sleep over this.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Well, the point here is the lousy and unsettling showing of Tesla. I hope that Jay doesn't lose too much sleep over this.

Why would I lose sleep? Your 2020 report has been out for over a year and yet the demand for Tesla EVs is off the charts. They are sold out for the rest of the year. People so desperately want electric vehicles that they don't care about JD Powers. 

This is now Tesla’s fourth consecutive year as CR’s owner satisfaction king.

Consumer Reports (CR) releases its owner satisfaction data every year and for the last three years, Tesla has been the leader. Well, we can now make that four consecutive years, because the EV manufacturer has done it again, easily beating its competitors - it was followed by Lincoln, Ram and Chrysler.

This is certainly telling of just how much those who have bought a Tesla love their car. CR does point out that even though Tesla and Lincoln top the tables, both manufacturers actually place near the bottom when it comes to reliability ratings.

Tesla scored 5/5 in the Driving category, 4/5 for Comfort, 4/5 for In-Car Electronics, 3/5 for Cabin Storage and 1/5 for Value. It is worth noting, though, that all premium automakers got a 1/5 for Value, so this doesn’t just apply to Tesla - it even applies to Lexus whose impressive reliability record has gained it an increasing number of fans who value dependability.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Now here is a nice example of pseudo-science political promotion, some spokesman with a science degree proclaiming "less than 1%", as if he had sat down and worked out an equation with measured inputs which give out "less than 1%" as the result of the calculations.

Well, it ain't exactly so, folks. Nowhere does it give us the equation and the calculations which produce this figure of "less than 1%". No, sorry, people this magic number of "less than 1%". We just have to take someone's unsupported assurance that the appropriate calculations have been done somewhere and the number "less than 1%" was the result of the complicated calculations. 

Actually, this use of "less than 1%" appears to be nothing more than a rhetorical device, a loose figure of speech, expressed in a pseudo-mathematical way to convince the average Joe that a real scientist did some work on the number. But, no, there is no reference or citation to show how that 1% magic figure was calculated. 

We just have to have faith in the system, and please do not study dissenting views by other scientists.

 

They did work out an equation and there are calculations. But you have to use that fancy kindergarten degree of yours and figure out how to click on the link in the article to read the actual paper.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

16 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Why would I lose sleep? Your 2020 report has been out for over a year and yet the demand for Tesla EVs is off the charts. They are sold out for the rest of the year. People so desperately want electric vehicles that they don't care about JD Powers. 

This is now Tesla’s fourth consecutive year as CR’s owner satisfaction king.

Consumer Reports (CR) releases its owner satisfaction data every year and for the last three years, Tesla has been the leader. Well, we can now make that four consecutive years, because the EV manufacturer has done it again, easily beating its competitors - it was followed by Lincoln, Ram and Chrysler.

This is certainly telling of just how much those who have bought a Tesla love their car. CR does point out that even though Tesla and Lincoln top the tables, both manufacturers actually place near the bottom when it comes to reliability ratings.

Tesla scored 5/5 in the Driving category, 4/5 for Comfort, 4/5 for In-Car Electronics, 3/5 for Cabin Storage and 1/5 for Value. It is worth noting, though, that all premium automakers got a 1/5 for Value, so this doesn’t just apply to Tesla - it even applies to Lexus whose impressive reliability record has gained it an increasing number of fans who value dependability.

 

 

 

 

Those "drivers" are EV drivers, not just any old drivers...so that perspective means that this should be seen as an EV rating, not an overall market rating for satisfaction. 

And yes, Consumer Reports did well to point out the low reliability results for Tesla. Really poor result, and will not win a convert from my area of assessment.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

16 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

They did work out an equation and there are calculations. But you have to use that fancy kindergarten degree of yours and figure out how to click on the link in the article to read the actual paper.

The actual paper would probably be another disappointment, given the structural flaws in the models these guys have been using. In other words, by excluding solar variables from the model and then saying, "Well, look at that, solar variables are not important", no one is going to be fooled any longer by that type of salesmanship.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

Congress is getting ready to study and vote on the new carbon bill, and it looks like a good bill for the oil and natural gas sectors.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Will-Bidens-Infrastructure-Plan-Threaten-The-US-Oil-Industry.html

"The long-awaited bipartisan infrastructure bill worth more than $1 trillion was opened for debate on the Senate floor yesterday.  -     Unless the bill’s provisions get tightened, the scope of potential demand destruction for the oil industry remains narrow – the $10 billion allotted for electric vehicle infrastructure might be perceived as eschewing broad-scale ambition.-     In fact, oil refiners might benefit from the record investment pouring into rebuilding the US’ highways and transportation infrastructure, which should increase residue demand in the mid-term. -     Natural gas producers might be tempted to cash in on the bill’s natural gas fueling infrastructure and plentiful hydrogen-related dimensions. -     In addition, the bill calls for $12.5 billion in funding for carbon capture programs, including some $2 billion for carbon dioxide pipelines across the country. "

Edited August 3, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, Ecocharger said:

Those "drivers" are EV drivers, not just any old drivers...so that perspective means that this should be seen as an EV rating, not an overall market rating for satisfaction. 

And yes, Consumer Reports did well to point out the low reliability results for Tesla. Really poor result, and will not win a convert from my area of assessment.

No, the survey covered all cars of all types. Tesla sales are growing fast, those people are all converts from ICE.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

4 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

No, the survey covered all cars of all types. Tesla sales are growing fast, those people are all converts from ICE.

No, the Tesla drivers were EV drivers, so this should be seen as an EV rating, not an overall rating.

The reliability ratings, which show Tesla as the worst, was an overall rating.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Ecocharger