09-28-2019, 02:44 PM
(09-28-2019, 12:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:So far efforts to reduce our dependency on the private automobile, as was referenced here, have fallen flat on their face. And the ride share and food delivery enterprises have had the opposite effect of what was originally intended in that they actually increased car traffic and usage because so many, myself included, jumped on the bandwagon many thinking they could make a killing on it.(09-28-2019, 09:17 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: ** 28-Sep-2019 Hacks
(09-28-2019, 08:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: > My sources are those controversial ones, like NOAA, NASA and the
> IPCC. I know you consider practicing scientists hacks, but there
> it is.
You're the one who used the word "hack." Scientists at NOAA, NASA and
the IPCC are heavily conflicted, because their jobs depend on the
climate change narrative, and because they'll be fired or sidelined if
they have the audacity to challenge the narrative. They don't dare to
tell the truth as they see it. The organizations will lose all their
funding if they dare to challenge the narrative. That's pretty much
the definition of what a "hack" is. I don't know how anyone can be
more of a hack than the so-called scientists at NOAA, NASA and the
IPCC. They almost define the word "hack."
The scientific method requires that people not depend upon getting a certain result to get a bonus, get paid, or avoid being fired. Professional independence is not to be compromised with threats of job loss for honest results that fail to fit an agenda. Scientists are to be paid for valid work and not desired results.
Quote:Just look at the "green new deal," which is typical of the hacked crap
put out by these so-called scientists. The whole thing is a joke.
The green new deal will be politics and engineering, neither of which is science. We may need efforts to reduce the use of private automobiles and to get more efficient appliances. Economic incentives are tried and true means of getting desired results much of the time.
Quote:As I said, if you really believe the crap that these hacks are putting
out, then you've got 11 years left. Relax and enjoy it. Burn, baby,
burn!
Eleven years? Why not ten or twelve?
It has now been closed to half a century since auto dependency was first called into question when we had that big gasoline shortage where many waited in long lines just to get gas. There are a lot more cars on the road now then there were then. In 1997 author Jane Holtz Kay wrote a book title "Asphalt Nation" which took a closer look at our over reliance on the automobile. I communicated with her for a time, and she emailed me having to confess that not much had changed in the now two decades plus since the book was written.
What probably is going to have to happen is that the suburban areas are going to have to back down on their fetish for single family homes and nothing else. What is true and cannot be denied is that the way most suburbs are set up don't make the idea of mass transit suburb to suburb really viable. Over on the old forum I had a thread titled "Will We Ever Reduce Auto Dependency". So far it doesn't look as if it is going to happen anytime soon.
