"Electric car range anxiety to be cured by battery that charges in five minutes"

It's strange that nobody has invented:-

I thought there was an ice-age or catastrophe where our ancestors were down to a few thousand, as indicated by mitochondrial DNA.

Westfield at Shepherds Bush has a large Tesla recharging ststion on the lower floor only. Management shut the lower floor during lockdown ;-(

1. They are not 'under' the car
2. Often they *dont* work
3. I have yet to see one rated for 100A and 10KV

So go f*ck yourself.

If we *had* to go all electric, the answer is to build railway lines down the fast lane of motorways,. and have high speed car and truck transporters run on them...and charge the cars as you go.

But in the end if the population has any sense at all it will reject the wet dreams of the greens and understand that sometimes the price of Purity is just too high.

I can assure you the alternative is a lot of criminals not making so much money

Coldest April/May in a 100 years?

Steve has a rather unusual usage need, but I also once needed to drop everything and travel 150 miles for a funeral.

There are multiple ways of meeting that need, and plug in hybrid is just one of those.

Very rapid charging. Swappable batteries. Hire cars. Portable generator sets.

Those are all potentially viable options. The fact that they are not currently available mostly reflects that there isn't a very large EV pool of customers yet.

You can't seriously be suggesting that the local climate over a month or two is proof of anything?

But that is not te true case

But that is not te true case

That is because you are starting from two utterly false premises.

1. That climate change is supported by a large number of *scientists*
2. that the current measures to combat it are effective and will result in *just a little inconvenience.

First of all the number of scientists who are both involved in real climate science, and who believe it is as dangerous as the Great Thunderbox says it is, is zero.

There are half dozen or so fighting to save their careers who still claim that it is, but they don't *believe* it, either. They are caught in a lie that they cannot retract.

Climate change has completely separated itself from science. All the science points to the fact that the models are not producing anything like the correct results, and the assumptions on which the models are based are therefore at best incomplete, or at worst downright wrong.

the second assumption, that it merely is going to cost us a few pence on our electricity bills or a few extra stops on the way to Bangor, is ultimately horseshit as well.

Every reasonable study that has addressed the cost of going zero carbon has found that its a trillion dollar exercise that will achieve almost nothing.

The cost of adjusting to what little climate change we have had or will likely have, is far far less.

In fact climate change may itself save money as there are signs that a slightly warmer high CO2 atmosphere is very beneficial to crops.

The real danger of climate change is an ill considered rush that will in any case fail to meet a challenge that doesn't exist except in peoples minds.

However having said all that, the challenges of adapting to a low fossil fuel civilisation are real, and do need to be met. Not because ClimateChange, but cecause EROEI. Fossil fuels are not in the limit sustainable. Nor is 'Renewable Energy'.

Which leaves us with really just one viable primary energy source. Nuclear power.

The challenge is how to turn that into a mobile off grid power source.

My best guess is not batteries, its synthetic hydrocarbon fuel

So you want to throw us back to the 19th century?

Bill

It is very unusual to be longer - indeed whereas in the UK funeral notices might appear in the paper, Ireland broadcasts them on the radio. Why should people be expected change things to accommodate inferior technology?

What of other religions? Jews and Muslims have rules for fast burials.

It is not one of te possible outcomes. If the earths climate was that unstable with respect to CO2 it would have gone runaway many times in the past.

My BIL who is a Phd geologist, syas that is his one reason for utterly rejecting climate change by CO2. 'If their premises were true, we wouldn't have evolved be here now to have them'

The whole climate catastrophe scenario depends not on science. and CO2, but on a proposition that there is positive feedback in the climate.

They needed to assume this in order that the moderate increase in CO2 would give the quite rapid rise in global temperatures for the

Since then the climate has stubbornly refused to get significantly warmer at all. And indeed this winter has seen it actually cool, overall.

It is patently clear that whilst for sure climate changes, something other than CO2 is the dominant reason.

So climate change becomes something we cannot stop, because we simply do not know what is causing it. That much the *real* science now tells us.

Well both of them are just figments of your imagination, so I should have a glass of hot milk and an aspirin and dream of fluffy bunnies

It is not just a "certain religion". Christians burials in Ireland as mainly next day or the day after at latest.

I am not from Ireland and neither is my wife, but her family were and are.

Neither of which were associated with modulation of CO2 levels.

There are far more serious forces at work that a minor variation in a trace gas.

Unfortunately none of those more serious forces can be used to justify ripping off the public. more taxes, more state control and more power transferred to a centralised bureaucracy.

How many short-notice far-away funerals do you go to a year, out of interest?

Should we be concerned? ;)

Theo

Dear GB.

The Problem of Induction says that the world may be explained by any number of more or less wild hypotheses, but these fall into, ultimately. as Karl Popper pointed out, three categories.

1. Those that are demonstrably wrong. We call these junk science or bunk or nonsense.
2. Those that potentially could be demonstrated to be wrong, but

1. Those that cannot be even theoretically demonstrated to be wrong. Or indeed right. These we call 'metaphysical'. They are in the end acts of faith, or assumptions we make that are so basic that they form the foundations of how we think.

Global warming started off briefly in category 2. It was a hypothesis that seemed to make sense, and hadn't been disproved yet. By around

But then massive amounts of money were poured in to moving it from junk science to metaphysics. An unquestioned and indeed unquestionable Act of Faith.

Now, it doesn't matter what happens to the climate, "CO2 is causing it".

In the same way that a Muslim mutters 'in'shallah' (it is Gods will) today's liberal climatard mutters 'its Co2 what dunnit' (Or Brexit, or the Russians or the tory toffs or White Men or whatever...)

Not because of any demonstrable causal connection, but because this is the simple bigotry that has been instilled as as an every day exercise in the abuse of metaphysics.

Or as you know it, marketing and propaganda.

The fact of the matter is that you are scared. You are meant to be scared. You have deliberately been scared out of your tiny mind.

The world has undergone far far more horrendous climate change over its unrecorded history than ANYTHING being predicted by even the most egregious climatard.

All without man made CO2.

It is clear that irrespective of theories, we are the result of and subject to, having found an ecological niche in a broad range of climates, and have survived so far. For only a few thousand years. Dinosaurs were around for millions, before being wiped out by an asteroid

Shouldn't you be voting for orbital space guns to deflect asteroids?

There are risks from asteroids. There are risk from natural climate change.

The one thing there is *no* risk from, is man made climate change due to CO2

All the evidence *utterly refutes* any correlation of *significance* between rising CO2 and rising temperatures. There may be a little, but it's dwarfed by other effects like multidecadal fluctuations in ocean current and temperature, the sun's output, and so on.

Climate change happens, its always happened,but it's *nothing to do* with CO2. Indeed all the palaeological evidence is that rising temperatures cause rising CO2 levels after a couple of hundred years due to outgassing from warmer oceans.

Climate change is not an inconvenient truth. As any propagandist knows, you always tell the exact opposite of the truth

Climate change is a politically most convenient lie.

It justifies transfer of power and money from the citizen into the pockets of crony capitalists, and politicians and justifies more and more centralised bureaucracy.

The money so garnered is partly spent on buying journalists and scientists with grants, to further reinforce the credibility of the lie, which has now probably - after religion - become the biggest lie ever told.

All the evidence is that semi arid regions are now becoming greener under the impact of rising CO2

Of course its a conspiracy. Not formal, just tacit. Too many people are making too much money and winning too many elections to want to challenge the orthodoxy of 'climate change'

Cui bono?

It easier to ask who doesn't benefit, and there, there is only one answer Joe public. EVERYONE ELSE benefits by not challenging or promoting the lie The media benefits from new scares stores every week 'green' business benefits Government benefits The third world benefits A hundred activist organizations benefit. thousands of charities have jumped on it to magnify their importance.They benefit millions of scientists get grants so long as they accept as an article of faith that climate change is real man made and really happening. They benefit.

Only you and I who see perfectly good cars being taxed out of existence, whilst or electricity bills treble, are paying for this s*it

But the Global Warming Hypothesis doesn't rely on proof.

Bill