400 mile electric RV
Hi, I was sure this was coming--but not as soon as this! https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/electric-adventure-rv-road-trip-180000971.html
Forum Discussion
With all due respect, merely a ‘popular notion’ lean in science, made possible by the targeting of a subjective historical baseline (often skewed by political Grant monies) with the subtle intent of producing a pre-ordained conclusion - this, made possible via virtual computer simulations ( * ) offering long-term climate projections…In fact, when it comes to matters involving earth’s temperatures, with all to objectively consider, CO2 is one of the least important items among a panoply, but is a reactionary catalyst for Gov’t intervention…In the U.S. this has resulted in a trend towards de-industrialization (a NIMBY syndrome - China Good!!) and social program dependency…
Almost all of these conclusions purposely neglect the chief cause which has been scientifically suggested to be the cycling of cosmic rays (the same source that results in elements - richer in neutrons…) than say iron (element #26), yet by dismissing this all important factor how can these studies claim any validity?? So by simply dismissing this and other more important factors (‘CO2’ by popular consensus the default boogeyman…) that contribute to climate far more than carbon dioxide (such as water vapor - having a far greater coefficient of heat, or say axial and orbital issues), most of what is repeated is merely that which has been implied, reported and repeated…Note the petrified redwood tree stumps which can be found at the Arctic circle (pre-industrialization era), and many examples in world history where a sudden lurch towards a ‘popular idea’ makes for numerous poor outcomes….However, to help underpin your preferred point of view, one might suppose that you too could agree that an ‘objective critical examination’ helps to ensure cogent policy making, eh - It’s a settled Science”!! What makes this so??
(* as with ‘virtual virus’ simulation computer programs - the vagaries of computer modeling)
3 tons
Almost all of these conclusions purposely neglect the chief cause which has been scientifically suggested to be the cycling of cosmic rays (the same source that results in elements - richer in neutrons…) than say iron (element #26), yet by dismissing this all important factor how can these studies claim any validity?? So by simply dismissing this and other more important factors (‘CO2’ by popular consensus the default boogeyman…) that contribute to climate far more than carbon dioxide (such as water vapor - having a far greater coefficient of heat, or say axial and orbital issues), most of what is repeated is merely that which has been implied, reported and repeated…Note the petrified redwood tree stumps which can be found at the Arctic circle (pre-industrialization era), and many examples in world history where a sudden lurch towards a ‘popular idea’ makes for numerous poor outcomes….However, to help underpin your preferred point of view, one might suppose that you too could agree that an ‘objective critical examination’ helps to ensure cogent policy making, eh - It’s a settled Science”!! What makes this so??
(* as with ‘virtual virus’ simulation computer programs - the vagaries of computer modeling)
3 tons
