I feel I must start by saying that I am not a fan of the
Toyota Prius. It is, in my eyes, a half baked attempt to solve a far greater
problem. I have issue with it being advertised as an ‘environmentally friendly’
vehicle. Sure it is better than some, but it is not in any way, shape or form
environmentally friendly. The prius is in essence a high MPg vehicle for those
that want to save fuel and, until recently, it wasn’t even very good at that,
with other small engine petrol cars beating it in real world fuel economy. The
Prius then, is a car for those wishing to dodge the congestion charge, or beat
rising fuel tax, or help reduce inner city air pollution. But don’t let my pessimism
distract from the main point of this post - I may not like the Prius but I
dislike bad science even more. In 2007 CNW Market Research published a report
titled Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost ofNew Vehicles From Concept to Disposal in which they compared the Toyota
Prius to the Hummer H3 and concluded with joyful abandon that the latter is a ‘more
energy efficient’ vehicle. If CNW’s goal was to mislead then they did a
sterling job! However, my main issue with the report is the notion that it is
scientific. It was sent out to the media and the public as a Scientific Report
with conclusions based on scientific research when, on closer inspection (and
by closer inspection I really mean just inspection), it is based on nothing but
assumptions, false truths and completely lacks academic peer review - a pedestal
on which all scientific papers have had to stand upon since 1665. I am a
scientist, albeit one at the start of his career, and it this type sudo-scientific
waffle that makes me strive to be a better scientist.
For anyone interested in reading the report for themselves
the like is both in text and below the image.
Source: http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/DUST%20PDF%20VERSION.pdf
