Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

silverwhistle

JKenH said:

I just don’t understand why there is such a negative reaction to any article highlighting the shortcomings in the charging network and how it needs to improve. Maybe everyone on here is just smug because they have a home charger and rarely need to use the public charging network so have no real idea of the actual problems out there, particularly on English motorways. 

What you and others seem to be suggesting is we dismiss the problems of EV charging (calling it FUD) because it might put some people off making the switch. Surely it is better to get the problems out in the open so our politicians get something done about it.

But I don't see what you claim to see. The enthusiasts are the ones impacted by the deficiencies you rightly point out and they too complain on the various forums. I've never seen any claims, ever, whether on specialist forums or in the general media that the charging network is extensive enough or maintained well enough. We do need our politicians to do something about it, but the current lot seem only good for platitudes, not constructive action.

The objections to articles such as the one you quoted are that they are inaccurate and misleading. Highlight the issues, by all means, but quoting ones where the writer appears either slightly dim or with an agenda is not the way to do it.

EDIT: "Don’t let my comments put you off an EV - I love mine but go in with your eyes open."

Absolutely! :-:smile:

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

Thinking out loud, I suppose going bust and building nothing, would make a company carbon neutral!

So, Toyota has announced that 2m of its vehicles sold each year will be BEV's or HFC's by 2030. I'll suggest that the number will be much, much higher, or much much lower (zero).

Toyota's Path to Carbon Neutrality

-- Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) will make up 15% of U.S. sales by 2030
-- Electrified vehicles including BEVs will make up 70% of U.S. sales by 2030
-- Global sales of approximately 8M electrified vehicles by 2030 of which 2M will be BEVs and FCEVs.

At Toyota, we believe giving consumers choices with a portfolio of alternative powertrains can help bridge to an all-electric mobility future. The company's approach seeks steady and substantial carbon reductions every year until the recharging infrastructure and costs of BEVs make them an attractive, affordable choice for all consumers everywhere.

Or perhaps a bridge to a small minority 'all-electric mobility future' in 2030.
But on the plus side, about 4yrs ago Toyota suggested they would be building 5.5m electrified vehicles pa by 2030, so maybe, just maybe, someone is slowly explaining to Mr Toyoda how 'it will be'.

I was interested by this comment as you consider the possibility that Toyota might no longer exist in 2030.

I think there is a greater chance that Tesla will not be making cars in 2040 than Toyota. For all we know Tesla could become another Blackberry. We don’t know what the future holds. 

Japanese companies do, though, have a far better track record of surviving than those from Silicon Valley so my money would be on Toyota. 

JKenH

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

I just don’t understand why there is such a negative reaction to any article highlighting the shortcomings in the charging network and how it needs to improve. Maybe everyone on here is just smug because they have a home charger and rarely need to use the public charging network so have no real idea of the actual problems out there, particularly on English motorways. 

What you and others seem to be suggesting is we dismiss the problems of EV charging (calling it FUD) because it might put some people off making the switch. Surely it is better to get the problems out in the open so our politicians get something done about it.

But I don't see what you claim to see. The enthusiasts are the ones impacted by the deficiencies you rightly point out and they too complain on the various forums. I've never seen any claims, ever, whether on specialist forums or in the general media that the charging network is extensive enough or maintained well enough. We do need our politicians to do something about it, but the current lot seem only good for platitudes, not constructive action.

The objections to articles such as the one you quoted are that they are inaccurate and misleading. Highlight the issues, by all means, but quoting ones where the writer appears either slightly dim or with an agenda is not the way to do it.

EDIT: "Don’t let my comments put you off an EV - I love mine but go in with your eyes open."

Absolutely! :-:smile:

I was comfortable posting the article because it reflected my own experience (other than the Tesla range comment which surprised me but looking at it logically - cold weather, some motorway driving, charging from cold, not visiting the extremes of the battery - I can see how 140 miles might be realistic). 

I would invite you to drive up to Lincolnshire and see for yourself the problems with the Ecotricity network on the M1.

Martyn1981

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

Thinking out loud, I suppose going bust and building nothing, would make a company carbon neutral!

So, Toyota has announced that 2m of its vehicles sold each year will be BEV's or HFC's by 2030. I'll suggest that the number will be much, much higher, or much much lower (zero).

Toyota's Path to Carbon Neutrality

-- Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) will make up 15% of U.S. sales by 2030
-- Electrified vehicles including BEVs will make up 70% of U.S. sales by 2030
-- Global sales of approximately 8M electrified vehicles by 2030 of which 2M will be BEVs and FCEVs.

At Toyota, we believe giving consumers choices with a portfolio of alternative powertrains can help bridge to an all-electric mobility future. The company's approach seeks steady and substantial carbon reductions every year until the recharging infrastructure and costs of BEVs make them an attractive, affordable choice for all consumers everywhere.

Or perhaps a bridge to a small minority 'all-electric mobility future' in 2030.
But on the plus side, about 4yrs ago Toyota suggested they would be building 5.5m electrified vehicles pa by 2030, so maybe, just maybe, someone is slowly explaining to Mr Toyoda how 'it will be'.

I was interested by this comment as you consider the possibility that Toyota might no longer exist in 2030.

I think there is a greater chance that Tesla will not be making cars in 2040 than Toyota. For all we know Tesla could become another Blackberry. We don’t know what the future holds. 

Japanese companies do, though, have a far better track record of surviving than those from Silicon Valley so my money would be on Toyota. 

I don't think you understand. If Toyota was to stick with that plan, and move steadily towards producing 2m BEV's out of 8-10m vehicles in 2030, then they will go bust.

Hence, what I wrote - "I'll suggest that the number will be much, much higher, or much much lower (zero)."

If you think that only around 20% of Toyota's cars will be BEVs/HFC's in 2030, then fair enough, go for it, and by all means put your money on them, if you think they'll be able to sell 8m vehicles with an ICE. But I'm more than happy to promise you today, that they will be producing far, far more BEV's in % terms than that ...... or it'll be 'bye bye'.

Martyn1981

JKenH said:

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

I just don’t understand why there is such a negative reaction to any article highlighting the shortcomings in the charging network and how it needs to improve. Maybe everyone on here is just smug because they have a home charger and rarely need to use the public charging network so have no real idea of the actual problems out there, particularly on English motorways. 

What you and others seem to be suggesting is we dismiss the problems of EV charging (calling it FUD) because it might put some people off making the switch. Surely it is better to get the problems out in the open so our politicians get something done about it.

But I don't see what you claim to see. The enthusiasts are the ones impacted by the deficiencies you rightly point out and they too complain on the various forums. I've never seen any claims, ever, whether on specialist forums or in the general media that the charging network is extensive enough or maintained well enough. We do need our politicians to do something about it, but the current lot seem only good for platitudes, not constructive action.

The objections to articles such as the one you quoted are that they are inaccurate and misleading. Highlight the issues, by all means, but quoting ones where the writer appears either slightly dim or with an agenda is not the way to do it.

EDIT: "Don’t let my comments put you off an EV - I love mine but go in with your eyes open."

Absolutely! :-:smile:

I was comfortable posting the article because it reflected my own experience (other than the Tesla range comment which surprised me but looking at it logically - cold weather, some motorway driving, charging from cold, not visiting the extremes of the battery - I can see how 140 miles might be realistic). 

I would invite you to drive up to Lincolnshire and see for yourself the problems with the Ecotricity network on the M1.

But he said 140 miles per fill, so you think it sounds realistic, if we ignore his own specific claim?
He said how he'd struggle to find a charger in Inverness, ironically picking a city which has a supercharger station in it, rather than between cities. But that didn't bother you?
He said that petrol/diesel vehicles are quieter than a BEV, so you must have agreed with that too?
He said a home charge costs £11, which would mean brimming it from empty, and paying around 18p/kWh, and contradicting your early suggestion that a fill isn't a fill. Sound reasonable?

So what's the truth, the article is a steaming pile of anti-BEV FUD, but presumably, having trawled the interweb for something to stir things up and disrupt yet another G&E thread, you saw the 140 mile claim, and thought, yippee! And if anyone pushes back that's fine, it features a Tesla, so I'll just call them fanbois.

Funny how desperate you are to promote/support this article, under the pretence of informing people, but did the exact opposite a few months back when I posted this honest and correct article:

Fossil fuel cars make 'hundreds of times' more waste than electric cars

And you ranted and raved, and complained, even posted - 

As an example was I the only one who could see something patently incorrect with the claim in the article “A calculation of the resources used to make cars relative to their weight shows it is at least 300 times greater for oil-fuelled cars”?  Did nobody give it a second thought or do people accept that because it is a pro EV comment it is immune to criticism? 

Did nobody give it a second thought? -  actually I did, and I suspect many others did too, and could see that it was about the lifetime consumption of the vehicles. I suspect your two weeks of thread disruption where simply down to you having not given it a second thought.
So, any chance you can stop trying to spread misinformation, or promote it under the pretence of 'informing people', and let everyone enjoy the thread(s), after all, everything was lovely and peaceful for 2 weeks, why can't it always be like that.

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

Thinking out loud, I suppose going bust and building nothing, would make a company carbon neutral!

So, Toyota has announced that 2m of its vehicles sold each year will be BEV's or HFC's by 2030. I'll suggest that the number will be much, much higher, or much much lower (zero).

Toyota's Path to Carbon Neutrality

-- Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) will make up 15% of U.S. sales by 2030
-- Electrified vehicles including BEVs will make up 70% of U.S. sales by 2030
-- Global sales of approximately 8M electrified vehicles by 2030 of which 2M will be BEVs and FCEVs.

At Toyota, we believe giving consumers choices with a portfolio of alternative powertrains can help bridge to an all-electric mobility future. The company's approach seeks steady and substantial carbon reductions every year until the recharging infrastructure and costs of BEVs make them an attractive, affordable choice for all consumers everywhere.

Or perhaps a bridge to a small minority 'all-electric mobility future' in 2030.
But on the plus side, about 4yrs ago Toyota suggested they would be building 5.5m electrified vehicles pa by 2030, so maybe, just maybe, someone is slowly explaining to Mr Toyoda how 'it will be'.

I was interested by this comment as you consider the possibility that Toyota might no longer exist in 2030.

I think there is a greater chance that Tesla will not be making cars in 2040 than Toyota. For all we know Tesla could become another Blackberry. We don’t know what the future holds. 

Japanese companies do, though, have a far better track record of surviving than those from Silicon Valley so my money would be on Toyota. 

I don't think you understand. If Toyota was to stick with that plan, and move steadily towards producing 2m BEV's out of 8-10m vehicles in 2030, then they will go bust.

Hence, what I wrote - "I'll suggest that the number will be much, much higher, or much much lower (zero)."

If you think that only around 20% of Toyota's cars will be BEVs/HFC's in 2030, then fair enough, go for it, and by all means put your money on them, if you think they'll be able to sell 8m vehicles with an ICE. But I'm more than happy to promise you today, that they will be producing far, far more BEV's in % terms than that ...... or it'll be 'bye bye'.

I didn’t predict how many EVs/AFVs Toyota would be selling in 2030 but never rule anything out. A lot can happen in 9 years; just look where we were 9 years ago. Who in 2012 would have predicted Tesla would be topping sales figures in 2021 or that Porsche’s best selling model would be electric? 

Government policies currently drive the roll out of EV/AFVs around the world and you never can tell just what they will be in the future. Look how policy has swung backwards and forwards in the US but even the current legislature has limited the ban on ICEVs to government vehicles. Governments make the right noises but how many countries outside Europe have actually announced a ban on sales of new ICE vehicles by 2030? 

What if we simply can’t make enough batteries to meet world demand? What if popular demand and commercial/political pressure causes governments to backtrack on the ban and allow synthetic carbon neutral green fuels made from “too cheap to meter” solar energy? 

About all we can predict with any certainty is the situation with the motor industry in 2030 will be nothing like we currently expect it to be. 

Grumpy_chap

JKenH said:

carbon neutral green fuels “too cheap to meter” energy? 

That was the promise of nuclear power.
We're still waiting.
I suppose solar energy is, indirectly, from nuclear

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

I just don’t understand why there is such a negative reaction to any article highlighting the shortcomings in the charging network and how it needs to improve. Maybe everyone on here is just smug because they have a home charger and rarely need to use the public charging network so have no real idea of the actual problems out there, particularly on English motorways. 

What you and others seem to be suggesting is we dismiss the problems of EV charging (calling it FUD) because it might put some people off making the switch. Surely it is better to get the problems out in the open so our politicians get something done about it.

But I don't see what you claim to see. The enthusiasts are the ones impacted by the deficiencies you rightly point out and they too complain on the various forums. I've never seen any claims, ever, whether on specialist forums or in the general media that the charging network is extensive enough or maintained well enough. We do need our politicians to do something about it, but the current lot seem only good for platitudes, not constructive action.

The objections to articles such as the one you quoted are that they are inaccurate and misleading. Highlight the issues, by all means, but quoting ones where the writer appears either slightly dim or with an agenda is not the way to do it.

EDIT: "Don’t let my comments put you off an EV - I love mine but go in with your eyes open."

Absolutely! :-:smile:

I was comfortable posting the article because it reflected my own experience (other than the Tesla range comment which surprised me but looking at it logically - cold weather, some motorway driving, charging from cold, not visiting the extremes of the battery - I can see how 140 miles might be realistic). 

I would invite you to drive up to Lincolnshire and see for yourself the problems with the Ecotricity network on the M1.

But he said 140 miles per fill, so you think it sounds realistic, if we ignore his own specific claim?
He said how he'd struggle to find a charger in Inverness, ironically picking a city which has a supercharger station in it, rather than between cities. But that didn't bother you?
He said that petrol/diesel vehicles are quieter than a BEV, so you must have agreed with that too?
He said a home charge costs £11, which would mean brimming it from empty, and paying around 18p/kWh, and contradicting your early suggestion that a fill isn't a fill. Sound reasonable?

So what's the truth, the article is a steaming pile of anti-BEV FUD, but presumably, having trawled the interweb for something to stir things up and disrupt yet another G&E thread, you saw the 140 mile claim, and thought, yippee! And if anyone pushes back that's fine, it features a Tesla, so I'll just call them fanbois.

Funny how desperate you are to promote/support this article, under the pretence of informing people, but did the exact opposite a few months back when I posted this honest and correct article:

Fossil fuel cars make 'hundreds of times' more waste than electric cars

And you ranted and raved, and complained, even posted - 

As an example was I the only one who could see something patently incorrect with the claim in the article “A calculation of the resources used to make cars relative to their weight shows it is at least 300 times greater for oil-fuelled cars”?  Did nobody give it a second thought or do people accept that because it is a pro EV comment it is immune to criticism? 

Did nobody give it a second thought? -  actually I did, and I suspect many others did too, and could see that it was about the lifetime consumption of the vehicles. I suspect your two weeks of thread disruption where simply down to you having not given it a second thought.
So, any chance you can stop trying to spread misinformation, or promote it under the pretence of 'informing people', and let everyone enjoy the thread(s), after all, everything was lovely and peaceful for 2 weeks, why can't it always be like that.

Calm down, Mart. I don’t have any issues with Teslas as should be obvious from some of my recent posts. I said in an earlier post I was surprised at the 140 miles. @solarchaser mentioned the possibility he was referring to a 20-80% charge. You should know yourself that the kWh from the wall is different to the kWh that ends up in the battery and as I mentioned in an earlier post I thought that Teslas heat up the battery to the correct temperature to charge so that must use some juice. 

I do think you need to stop calling every article that raises the thorny issue of charging FUD. It could be quite genuine reporting of an owner’s experience, just not yours. Owning a Tesla you don’t face the issues us common mortals have to put up with and I doubt that you use Ecotricity chargers, the main source of my frustration, all that frequently. There are genuine problems with charging and constantly referring to reports of them as FUD makes you sound like an EV fanboy/conspiracy theorist. Sometimes you need to accept that there are other experiences and points of view beyond your own and forums are where they are aired. If someone disagrees with you, you make out they are out to disrupt the forum when in fact it’s just another point of view. Living in an echo chamber isn’t healthy. 

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

I just don’t understand why there is such a negative reaction to any article highlighting the shortcomings in the charging network and how it needs to improve. Maybe everyone on here is just smug because they have a home charger and rarely need to use the public charging network so have no real idea of the actual problems out there, particularly on English motorways. 

What you and others seem to be suggesting is we dismiss the problems of EV charging (calling it FUD) because it might put some people off making the switch. Surely it is better to get the problems out in the open so our politicians get something done about it.

But I don't see what you claim to see. The enthusiasts are the ones impacted by the deficiencies you rightly point out and they too complain on the various forums. I've never seen any claims, ever, whether on specialist forums or in the general media that the charging network is extensive enough or maintained well enough. We do need our politicians to do something about it, but the current lot seem only good for platitudes, not constructive action.

The objections to articles such as the one you quoted are that they are inaccurate and misleading. Highlight the issues, by all means, but quoting ones where the writer appears either slightly dim or with an agenda is not the way to do it.

EDIT: "Don’t let my comments put you off an EV - I love mine but go in with your eyes open."

Absolutely! :-:smile:

I was comfortable posting the article because it reflected my own experience (other than the Tesla range comment which surprised me but looking at it logically - cold weather, some motorway driving, charging from cold, not visiting the extremes of the battery - I can see how 140 miles might be realistic). 

I would invite you to drive up to Lincolnshire and see for yourself the problems with the Ecotricity network on the M1.

But he said 140 miles per fill, so you think it sounds realistic, if we ignore his own specific claim?
He said how he'd struggle to find a charger in Inverness, ironically picking a city which has a supercharger station in it, rather than between cities. But that didn't bother you?
He said that petrol/diesel vehicles are quieter than a BEV, so you must have agreed with that too?
He said a home charge costs £11, which would mean brimming it from empty, and paying around 18p/kWh, and contradicting your early suggestion that a fill isn't a fill. Sound reasonable?

So what's the truth, the article is a steaming pile of anti-BEV FUD, but presumably, having trawled the interweb for something to stir things up and disrupt yet another G&E thread, you saw the 140 mile claim, and thought, yippee! And if anyone pushes back that's fine, it features a Tesla, so I'll just call them fanbois.

Funny how desperate you are to promote/support this article, under the pretence of informing people, but did the exact opposite a few months back when I posted this honest and correct article:

Fossil fuel cars make 'hundreds of times' more waste than electric cars

And you ranted and raved, and complained, even posted - 

As an example was I the only one who could see something patently incorrect with the claim in the article “A calculation of the resources used to make cars relative to their weight shows it is at least 300 times greater for oil-fuelled cars”?  Did nobody give it a second thought or do people accept that because it is a pro EV comment it is immune to criticism? 

Did nobody give it a second thought? -  actually I did, and I suspect many others did too, and could see that it was about the lifetime consumption of the vehicles. I suspect your two weeks of thread disruption where simply down to you having not given it a second thought.
So, any chance you can stop trying to spread misinformation, or promote it under the pretence of 'informing people', and let everyone enjoy the thread(s), after all, everything was lovely and peaceful for 2 weeks, why can't it always be like that.

I should point out that the link you have provided is not to the original article I criticised but the revised version which corrected the glaring error I had pointed out. So yes as amended it does make sense but the original claim did not. If my comments on the said article  (which you posted above) constituted ranting and raving then how would you describe your most recent post?  

Solarchaser

JKenH said:

Martyn1981 said:

JKenH said:

silverwhistle said:

JKenH said:

I just don’t understand why there is such a negative reaction to any article highlighting the shortcomings in the charging network and how it needs to improve. Maybe everyone on here is just smug because they have a home charger and rarely need to use the public charging network so have no real idea of the actual problems out there, particularly on English motorways. 

What you and others seem to be suggesting is we dismiss the problems of EV charging (calling it FUD) because it might put some people off making the switch. Surely it is better to get the problems out in the open so our politicians get something done about it.

But I don't see what you claim to see. The enthusiasts are the ones impacted by the deficiencies you rightly point out and they too complain on the various forums. I've never seen any claims, ever, whether on specialist forums or in the general media that the charging network is extensive enough or maintained well enough. We do need our politicians to do something about it, but the current lot seem only good for platitudes, not constructive action.

The objections to articles such as the one you quoted are that they are inaccurate and misleading. Highlight the issues, by all means, but quoting ones where the writer appears either slightly dim or with an agenda is not the way to do it.

EDIT: "Don’t let my comments put you off an EV - I love mine but go in with your eyes open."

Absolutely! :-:smile:

I was comfortable posting the article because it reflected my own experience (other than the Tesla range comment which surprised me but looking at it logically - cold weather, some motorway driving, charging from cold, not visiting the extremes of the battery - I can see how 140 miles might be realistic). 

I would invite you to drive up to Lincolnshire and see for yourself the problems with the Ecotricity network on the M1.

But he said 140 miles per fill, so you think it sounds realistic, if we ignore his own specific claim?
He said how he'd struggle to find a charger in Inverness, ironically picking a city which has a supercharger station in it, rather than between cities. But that didn't bother you?
He said that petrol/diesel vehicles are quieter than a BEV, so you must have agreed with that too?
He said a home charge costs £11, which would mean brimming it from empty, and paying around 18p/kWh, and contradicting your early suggestion that a fill isn't a fill. Sound reasonable?

So what's the truth, the article is a steaming pile of anti-BEV FUD, but presumably, having trawled the interweb for something to stir things up and disrupt yet another G&E thread, you saw the 140 mile claim, and thought, yippee! And if anyone pushes back that's fine, it features a Tesla, so I'll just call them fanbois.

Funny how desperate you are to promote/support this article, under the pretence of informing people, but did the exact opposite a few months back when I posted this honest and correct article:

Fossil fuel cars make 'hundreds of times' more waste than electric cars

And you ranted and raved, and complained, even posted - 

As an example was I the only one who could see something patently incorrect with the claim in the article “A calculation of the resources used to make cars relative to their weight shows it is at least 300 times greater for oil-fuelled cars”?  Did nobody give it a second thought or do people accept that because it is a pro EV comment it is immune to criticism? 

Did nobody give it a second thought? -  actually I did, and I suspect many others did too, and could see that it was about the lifetime consumption of the vehicles. I suspect your two weeks of thread disruption where simply down to you having not given it a second thought.
So, any chance you can stop trying to spread misinformation, or promote it under the pretence of 'informing people', and let everyone enjoy the thread(s), after all, everything was lovely and peaceful for 2 weeks, why can't it always be like that.

Calm down, Mart. I don’t have any issues with Teslas as should be obvious from some of my recent posts. I said in an earlier post I was surprised at the 140 miles. @solarchaser mentioned the possibility he was referring to a 20-80% charge. You should know yourself that the kWh from the wall is different to the kWh that ends up in the battery and as I mentioned in an earlier post I thought that Teslas heat up the battery to the correct temperature to charge so that must use some juice. 

I do think you need to stop calling every article that raises the thorny issue of charging FUD. It could be quite genuine reporting of an owner’s experience, just not yours. Owning a Tesla you don’t face the issues us common mortals have to put up with and I doubt that you use Ecotricity chargers, the main source of my frustration, all that frequently. There are genuine problems with charging and constantly referring to reports of them as FUD makes you sound like an EV fanboy/conspiracy theorist. Sometimes you need to accept that there are other experiences and points of view beyond your own and forums are where they are aired. If someone disagrees with you, you make out they are out to disrupt the forum when in fact it’s just another point of view. Living in an echo chamber isn’t healthy. 

Since you tagged me on this I kinda feel obliged to respond. 

I've never at any point said all your posts are FUD, and I appreciate you didn't say that either, just being clear.

However the article you posted with the Glasgow based user is demonstrably false, from the lack of chargers the exaggerated phone time,  the reportedly very poor range (yeah I posed a theory, but nothing in the article said that) the claim of cost I find most egregious because its demonstrably false that the chargeplace Scotland chargers are pay for charge, both in Glasgow, and in Inverness they are still free.

And for back up, charge your car agrees.

So to be totally clear I don't claim you deliberately post FUD, but in this case, you definitely did.
Now you have a valid defence and reason to step away from it, as let's face it, it talks about a different country, how are you to know its false, so stepping away from it is a totally legitimate stance..... but you haven't.

You could align with the reported issues and mirror against your own, which you have, understandably,  but that still requires the correction of stating the article is full of falsehoods in terms of the area its reported in.

Buy you haven't done this, if anything you have doubled down on it, even after the evidence to counter its ridiculous stance has been presented, and that, I think is an issue, because it makes it look like you are posting for reaction rather than balance, I say this as you state that balance is the reason for your posts. 

I'd ask that you consider the points made proving THAT particular article to be at the very least disingenuous.