Unthreaded
ACK, I chose 60 miles every hour, because the power of electricity to propel a car at a speed equivalent to 60mph, or 120mph or 180mph is not doubted. The maths of travelling 60 miles in an hour is easier.
The ability of battery cars to cover 60 miles in 2 hours of town driving is pushing the technology to the limits. Many urban drivers average less than 10 miles per day, so why aren't they buying loads of battery cars? I can understand why I see so few in supermarket car parks in Winchester.
golf charlie
One of the ironies of much of the political discussion is: what could be defined as extreme? For many, this seems to be anyone who does not agree with them. Extremists should be allowed into open debate, such that their opinions are aired in public (and not filtered through the media), allowing all to assess and reach their own conclusions. It will also have the side-benefit of getting the “extremists” out of their own echo-chambers, and into areas where their opinions can be properly challenged and addressed. Who knows? – this might give them the opportunity to show that their views are not as extremist as portrayed, or, if it is, it might even help them to lower their extremism.
Radical Rodent
Did someone check that UKIP doesn't repudiate extremists ?
stewgreen
Wind turbine quarries ?
7pm documentary about China environment
Features seg about huge Tibetan mine.
stewgreen
ACK
ACK
ACK
ACK
etc
Big Oil
Roll up, roll up get your gratuitous +1 from PCar. All you need do is write a post refuting anything ACK has written and a brand new, sparkling +1can be yours. Roll up, roll up.
ACK
golfCharlie. Why should I want a car to do a "24 hour endurance race, completing a minimum of 60 miles EVERY hour". Thats not what I want in my car. I, and many other people now, don't drive long distances and only really want a town car. If the price were right, a small electric car might just suit me. But I will continue using my totally unsuitable diesel people carrier, whose only redeeming feature is its high driving seat that I can get into and out of without doing contortions.
ACK
PCar. "ACK: Facetious argument. One can not chose who supports them. Your argument means if KKK or BNP supporters buy Cadburys' Fairtrade products, then Cadburys supports KKK and BNP. Do you see how stupid your argument is? "
No because my argument included the proviso that the party being supported by "unwanted elements" should repudiate them. In the case of UKIP some of the election candidates were right wing, made racist and other objectional statements and had to be deselected. Their deselection was appropriate but it threw a light on the support base of the party in some parts of the country.
"ACK, you have stooped to a new low in your support of the left and denigration of what you perceive as "the right"."
No, because as I wrote in a later post, parties being misidentified on the basis of some elements that support them applies across the political spectrum. Also if you work it through logically (which no one here seems to have done) my comment boils down to a belief that political parties are misidentified on the basis of some of their support base. I made no mention of the fact that such political parties must contain something within them that attracts such (unwanted?) support - but that's for another day.
ACK
monckton at The Carbon Brief:
No scientific or economic arguments to make, then: just a head-banging conformity with the Party Line. Six million people a year are dying because they do not have electricity. The international community could give them that by building coal-fired stations and grid interconnects, but instead they squander trillions on making barely-existent global warming go away, and allow a Holocaust a year to die.
golf charlie
Radical Rodent & stewgreen, Clarification of Extremists
When it comes to Extremists, banning, censoring and excluding people, the Comments at The Guardian, Real Climate and Skeptical Skience must come very high on the list.
Just think how many of Climate Science's greatest mistakes could have been resolved, at greatly reduced cost to human life and civilisation, if they had been interested in truth and honesty, rather than their own selfish greed and dogma.
If only 3% of the UK and US population had not been intimidated by the ruthless arrogance of climate science, and the draconian politics that resulted, the UK would not be heading for Brexit, and Trump would not be heading for the White House.
The Oppressives need to think about the true cost of hanging on to Mann's Hockey Stick, at all costs. They still maintain that everyone who voted for Brexit and Trump was wrong, as they turn the Denial Volume Control Knob upto 11, so they can't hear their own screams. With all the money they took, Climate Science might have evolved into something useful, but now, it is all going to be junked, because none of them will admit which bits are known to be falsified rubbish, and which bits are worth keeping. So Myron Ebell will decide for them, will he throw it all out, or a nice round 97%? Live by the sword, die by the sword?
I have just stocked up on windscreen de-icer, and put some extra additive into the windscreen washer bottle. Wellies and a spade are going in the boot. Non existent Global Warming can be fatal, especially for Climate Science.