The reality vs the hype?

[move on]

Unfortunately it is a fact of life that people, scientists included, will look out for their livelihood first. If the only grants a scientist can get are those that require a predetermined outcome, then they will produce that outcome in their reports. You can see through all the fake science by digging deep enough into it yourself. Too bad that most people don't have the time to do it and they wind up relying on fake news reports to tell them what the facts are.

[propchef]

Originally Posted by move on

Unfortunately it is a fact of life that people, scientists included, will look out for their livelihood first. If the only grants a scientist can get are those that require a predetermined outcome, then they will produce that outcome in their reports. You can see through all the fake science by digging deep enough into it yourself. Too bad that most people don't have the time to do it and they wind up relying on fake news reports to tell them what the facts are.

I hope I never get this jaded.

You've clearly never been through the grant process, ever.

[RossWilliams]

Originally Posted by propchef

I hope I never get this jaded.

You've clearly never been through the grant process, ever.

'


I have and he is correct that proposals get tweaked to appeal to specific funders. But the larger issue is that funders choose who to fund based on their interests.



In the marketplace those that serve the interests of people with money thrive. Those that do research that doesn't serve the interests of people with the money have a hard time getting funding.



In terms of climate change, that means that research that tends to minimize the impact of fossil fuel will receive funding from the fossil fuel industry regardless of its scientific merit. The same is true of research that promotes a transition to electricity receives funding from the electricity industry. Research that supports conservation and reduced use of all forms of energy has no such benefactors.

[Craig1960]

Originally Posted by move on

Unfortunately it is a fact of life that people, scientists included, will look out for their livelihood first. If the only grants a scientist can get are those that require a predetermined outcome, then they will produce that outcome in their reports. You can see through all the fake science by digging deep enough into it yourself. Too bad that most people don't have the time to do it and they wind up relying on fake news reports to tell them what the facts are.

Yes some people do rely on fake news and ignore the obvious right in front of them. Anyone including you I guess that don't believe mankind has contributed to climate change over the last 150 years or so and can't help control it is following the wrong scientist.

If I'm wrong then this planet is in huge trouble which it may be anyway the way things are going.

[move on]

Originally Posted by Craig1960

Yes some people do rely on fake news and ignore the obvious right in front of them. Anyone including you I guess that don't believe mankind has contributed to climate change over the last 150 years or so and can't help control it is following the wrong scientist.

If I'm wrong then this planet is in huge trouble which it may be anyway the way things are going.

I don't listen to any one scientist. I do my own research. I look at the theory and at the data. You should try it. You will soon see that you are being bamboozled.

[RossWilliams]

Originally Posted by move on

I don't listen to any one scientist. I do my own research. I look at the theory and at the data. You should try it. You will soon see that you are being bamboozled.

I don't have the scientific training or knowledge to do my own research on climate change or to evaluate the conclusions of those that do. Its possible the consensus of scientists around the world is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. But the cost of wrongly assuming they are right and reducing carbon emissions is a lot less than the cost of wrongly assuming they wrong and doing nothing.

[move on]

Originally Posted by RossWilliams

I don't have the scientific training or knowledge to do my own research on climate change or to evaluate the conclusions of those that do. Its possible the consensus of scientists around the world is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. But the cost of wrongly assuming they are right and reducing carbon emissions is a lot less than the cost of wrongly assuming they wrong and doing nothing.

One of the first things you will discover is that there is no consensus of scientists. The claim that you often hear about 97% of scientists agreeing is a total fraud. Look it up. There is also a list out there of over 30,000 scientists, 1/3 of them with PHDs, who deny that manmade global warming exists.

[Solo_RV_Guy]

Originally Posted by carybosse

I can't fathom how anyone could drive a car in driverless mode around here with all of the construction. I can't see the lines in the road half the time and every weekend it seems they take an overpass or road out and send you on a new detour.

Absolutely agree. I was down in Ft Worth a few times in the last 3 years, and everything is still torn up/rerouted, but in different places each time. I think it'll never get finished.

Driving automation seems to have the disengaged, further disengage from the *task* of safely operating a motor vehicle. "We built a better mouse trap, and along came better idiots."

[Craig1960]

Originally Posted by move on

One of the first things you will discover is that there is no consensus of scientists. The claim that you often hear about 97% of scientists agreeing is a total fraud. Look it up. There is also a list out there of over 30,000 scientists, 1/3 of them with PHDs, who deny that manmade global warming exists.

So 1/3 disagree which sounds a little high but even so that means the majority don't deny it. Sure I can do "more" research on it but you can find whatever you want for answers out there. Doesn't mean they are right though.

I don't see us ever agreeing so I will just keep believing that we have contributed and hopefully can help control it. At least until the majority deny climate change.

[tetranz]

Originally Posted by move on

Unfortunately it is a fact of life that people, scientists included, will look out for their livelihood first. If the only grants a scientist can get are those that require a predetermined outcome, then they will produce that outcome in their reports.

Please give us a recent example.

I'm looking for you to point to a recent report or paper from a qualified scientist who concludes that human activities are affecting the climate in a bad way where your research has concluded that the funding was dependent on a predetermined outcome.

And tell us how you know this, i.e., your source of information.

[carybosse]

Might I suggest that those of you who wish to debate the intricacies of climate change find a side table, perhaps by messaging or some other platform to discuss your positions?

I tend to think both sides are overblown, but I really look at this thread as a good place to help myself plan for what appears to be an inevitable migration to EV vehicles. We have had some really good discussion on that here and I would prefer to not see the discussions that are linked to the world of RVs shut down.

[sinterior]

TFL did, or are doing a report on an F150 electric towing a small trailer to Alaska and are getting under 100 miles between charges, and have an F150 hybrid along to charge the ev if necessary

[carybosse]

Originally Posted by sinterior

TFL did, or are doing a report on an F150 electric towing a small trailer to Alaska and are getting under 100 miles between charges, and have an F150 hybrid along to charge the ev if necessary

That is not promising, as I would presume the air resistance to be the major influence on miles per charge. I guess we need a new term, MPCs.

[move on]

Originally Posted by carybosse

Might I suggest that those of you who wish to debate the intricacies of climate change find a side table, perhaps by messaging or some other platform to discuss your positions?

I tend to think both sides are overblown, but I really look at this thread as a good place to help myself plan for what appears to be an inevitable migration to EV vehicles. We have had some really good discussion on that here and I would prefer to not see the discussions that are linked to the world of RVs shut down.

How is it possible to discuss the future of electric motor homes without considering the belief in man-made climate change?