Ford's new CEO is futuristic, and he really knows how to manage a business, which is going to improve the value of Ford's stock, like it did for the furniture company which he used to manage. Only when Ford's stock goes up 30% or more will I buy a Ford, and it must be futuristic. I don't want to be stuck in this pit forever.

Of course, futuristic means self-driving. What is it about self-driving that engineers cannot understand? Whatever it is, that's what Ford is going to be doing from now on.

There's no relationship anymore between social fantasies and the science and engineering that defines technology. Certainly, there is a new breed of engineers madly racing against time to produce the new self-driving, carbon-free electric vehicles. Time is their only enemy. They can never quite grasp the golden ring in the future, as the future keeps moving ahead of them, like the apple in front of the horse—perhaps a good definition of fantasy.

Social fantasies are not a product of science and engineering; they are a product of journalism. Journalists seal off science from the public and redescribe the subject in fantasy terms. Scientists and engineers used to try to explain the absurdities of social fantasies related to renewable energy and carbon-free electric vehicles. They disappeared in the background and gave up trying. (In a similar manner, criticism fatigue will eventually put Trump's agenda in control of our lives.) Criticism now days is like trying to hold back a river with one's hands.

Journalists are responsible for this situation, as they are stripping criticism from the media. Fakery is promoted as the real science, and criticism of it is condemned as anti-science. Nothing but positivism is allowed, as the fantasies of journalists cannot survive the negativism of criticism.

There is a substitute for criticism which pre-occupies modern journalists. A substitute is often an element of eradicating something essential. The substitute for criticism is bitching. Bitching is always endless, the simple reason being that it is unrealistically superficial. Bitchers complain and expect someone to solve their problems. It isn't possible without the real reality which looks at the problems and answers, which fantasizers do not allow.

Energy, for example, must eventually get down to nuclear reactors, while the reality controllers will not allow discussion of that subject. Safe and cheap nuclear reactors could be constructed, but nothing is allowed to move in that direction. Brain-deads will say, we tried it all. The problem is them doing the saying and trying. Until there can be free and open discussions including criticism, they haven't tried anything. Their purpose with the journalistic railroad job is to prevent progressives from leaving them behind. It has to be their doing instead of someone else's, while all they can handle is fantasies.

Nuclear reactors were designed in the most wanton and dangerous manner possible, because bureaucratic power mongers are reductionistic. They can't handle complexities, while wantonness reduces complexities to something they can handle. The procedure was to combine all of the reaction rods in one place, called the pile, and expect oceans of water to contain the energy. The minute something goes wrong, steam explosions destroy the environment including the safety mechanisms.

Nuclear reactors need to use horizontal rods which can be separated from each other with the only interactions occurring between an outer sleeve and inner core. Any number of rods can be used from one to a thousand creating small to large reactors which could never explode or create a problem with melt-down.

The reason why everything moves toward more problems and fewer answers is because incompetents push their way into social structures and shove out rational persons. Incompetents must fantasize their solutions to problems, because real realities expose their incompetence. They will say my version of a nuclear reactor is a fantasy, but I'm not preventing the discussion, criticism and research; they are. It's the method that's the problem. Not to mention the fact that I have spent fifty years studying science and technology, while the journalists and their side-kicks have never studied the subjects they cover. They should have been leaving space for persons who know what they are talking about, but they wanted it all to themselves.

Journalists Created Social Fantasies

Objective reality is being replaced by social fantasies everywhere. In the technical area, there is a degree of provability, which includes global warming, renewable energy, electric vehicles and self-driving vehicles. Why self-driving, when it has nothing to do with removing carbon dioxide from the air? Reducing accidents is the only explanation. It would be a joke if it were true, and it isn't true. The surface of the earth would need to be redesigned for electric vehicles and self-driving with no identifiable gain.

These social fantasies are not a product of science and engineering; they are a product of journalism. Journalists seal off science from the public and redescribe the subject in fantasy terms. Scientists and engineers used to try to explain the absurdities, but they disappeared in the background and gave up trying. Criticism now days is like trying to hold back a river with one's hands.

No criticism of these fantasies is being allowed. Positivism is demanded, as the claims will not stand up to criticism.

It is the promotion of a cause that creates such a standard. Proper standards of communication are thrown out the window to promote causes. Purified reality is demanded. Such reality control is dogmatism, which is what science replaced half a millennium ago. Now, dogmatism is back.

If journalists knew what they were talking about, they would use proper communication to describe it. It is because they are totally clueless on science and technology that they have to force the subjects onto society through corrupt communication. They can't evaluate criticism on science and technology, so they don't allow criticism. Promoting what they cannot evaluate is dogmatism, which is a path to totalitarianism.

Since journalists cannot evaluate science, they feel they must keep science out of journalism. But since the subject is a social dispute, journalists must have a position and it must be the proper position. So they look to consensus to align upon.

Seeking consensus as truth is the path to hell which is chosen by persons who don't know what they are talking about. Journalists should have been representing all views. To do that, enough science should have been allowed in the media to provide evidence, so the truth could prevail. Instead, journalists assumed they could not possibly be wrong in making a good guess. But they guessed wrong.

The guesses are always wrong in disputes, because truth doesn't produce disputes, only errors do. Errors always have motives behind them. The motives which produce the errors are the same motives which produce the wrong guesses. The motive with erroneous science is to protect power when the persons who wield it don't know what they are doing.

An unresolvable contradiction in journalism should at least render neutrality. Global warming doesn't produce that standard even in journalism, because too many persons have been convinced that all life on planet earth depends upon accepting the dogmatically derived conclusions. Getting off that treadmill of circular logic is not something global warming promoters are capable of doing.

Below the circular logic is a machine in science which churns out errors. Journalism and science were not supposed to be that independent of each other. A society that is no longer science educated is not the only problem. A lack of rationality standards is a critical element of the problem. Assuming science cannot produce errors, with no knowledge of science, is an example of the lack of rationality standards.

Society assumes it knows more and more about science all the time. It's an illusion of the type that comes from persons who are too ignorant to know how ignorant they are. It takes a certain amount of knowledge to understand a lack of knowledge. Judgment and perspective in science require a high of degree of thoroughness and broadness of knowledge. Even a lot of scientists are so specialized that they miss proper perspective.

Only a rational interaction of realities will produce the evolution of knowledge that overcomes conflict and errors. The rational interaction of realities is not occurring.

Journalists Contrived Fake Science (Emailed to Journalists)

Journalists seal off science from the public and replace it with fantasies aligned on causes. Scientists and engineers used to try to explain the absurdities, but they disappeared in the background and gave up trying. Criticism now days is like trying to hold back a river with one's hands.

Climatologists cannot explain a mechanism for global warming. Instead they use fake numbers, such as 3.7 watts per square meter to represent heat trapped in the atmosphere. There are no square meters in the atmosphere. No one can say what the number means. Climatologists convert it into 1°C, by reversing the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, while reversing it is not valid, as it only applies to surfaces.

On top of that, there is no way to trap heat in the atmosphere. Large amounts of heat move into and out of the atmosphere constantly. Temperatures vary 20 degrees or more between night and day. How could some of it get trapped and not the rest? It would be like trapping water in a river. The term “heat trapping gas” was contrived for propaganda purposes.

Some scientists were saying there is no other way to get heat into the atmosphere than greenhouse gases. They missed the fact that most heat gets into the atmosphere through conduction, convection and evaporation, as wind blows over the surface. Doesn't such an error say there are some real idiots in science? Yet propaganda from journalists says there can be no such thing as errors in science.

Journalists promoted the fakery of incompetent science at the expense of real science. Real scientists have always rejected global warming, but now they get shoved out and lose grants and the ability to publish; so they conceal their views.

Nonscientific persons often say they can look out the window and see global warming. They don't realize how drastically weather and climate vary. Melting in the Arctic is caused by warm ocean water flowing over the Bering Strait, not warm air which has no heat capacity. Northern Pacific Ocean water is heating for a mysterious reason which appears to be volcanic activity on the ocean floor. This effect is in addition to the planet warming constantly between ice ages, which occurs over a mere 12,000 years. During this short time, ocean levels rise 400 feet, while glaciers melt.

Dogmatism