lumberjack

Ecofascism is what it is called and it is an inside joke. It is not a serious political position. It is meant precisely to confuse people like you.

What is more likely? That some climate scientists are scamming the whole world and making enemies of the most powerful governments in North America, Europe, Saudi Arabia and the rest of OPEC + all the billionaires and corporations and investment funds invested in Coal&Oil&Gas&EnergyUtilities, and they have somehow maintained this lie for decades out in the open, somehow managing to fool everyone, and with convenient climate change all over the world to somehow coincide with their lies?

Or the other option, that your political understanding of the world is lacking?

100km range fits the commuting needs of 95% of the people in western Europe.

In any case, the target demographic is likely not wealthy, so for them, less range for less money would be ideal. Plus, the smaller the battery the easier it is to fit, meaning less potential problems later on. Particularly important because these cars won't be crash tested.

I seriously gave thought to doing this exact thing. The problems I was uncomfortable with:

1. when you are working with multiple cars+models it is much harder to scale, every car is its own challenge, as such the operation is likely to remain small

2. customers might expect the rest of the car to also improve which would be problematic when you have to source parts or fix 10 to 15 year old car models

3. every new model you work with is a bit of an experiment, you don't really know whether your configuration is going to cause problems until it does; what worked with another model might not work with this one, in the worst case scenario, people get hurt and you're to blame; if you read any of the 100s of EV conversion blogs, they never get it right the first time round, there's always something that needs rethinking

As a side note, you don't have to buy anything from Tesla to do this. You can furnish yourself a whole package relatively easily from various suppliers. People were doing it before Tesla was even a thing.

A council flat is an apartment rented as part of a socialized housing scheme to low-income households. Usually the rent is much much much lower than renting on the free housing market. Sub-letting is usually explicitly forbidden when you are part of one of these schemes.

"The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points." FTA you linked but didn't read.

Many unis offer a prereqs class just for people like you and for others who might have had inadequate secondary schooling. You might want to check out whether your prospective college/university does this.

> The intense desire for personal wealth that one truly owns.

Not at all. It's the desire to get rich quick without lifting a finger. Also philosophically speaking, "wealth that one truly owns" as in "wealth that is not dependent on others" is not a thing. If your wealth is in Bitcoin, you are trusting in fellow Bitcoin users and your wealth is entirely dependent on their feelings about the cryptomarket. That is hardly a better safer store for your wealth.

Cost of bureaucracy is just abating the risks, so it is 100% a real cost.

What he means in the paper is, geopolitical boundaries. For example, Japan and China depending on each other's grids. Or the various African countries depending on each other. Or the middle eastern countries sharing a grid.

From the paper, the proposed technologies are:

"Key elements of the solution applicable to different cases are to (1) produce heat directly from solar and geothermal heat resources and from electricity; (2) store electricity as heat after current electricity demand is satisfied and electricity storage is full; (3) if thermal energy storage is used, store excess heat in water and underground rocks when current heat demand is satisfied; (4) if thermal energy storage is used, produce cold directly from electricity and store excess cold in water and ice; (5) produce hydrogen from excess electricity after all electricity and heat storage are full, and store excess hydrogen; (6) store excess CSP electricity in a phase-change material and remaining excess electricity either in pumped-hydro storage, as heat in underground rocks, or as hydrogen; (7) increase the maximum discharge rates of CSP, the number of batteries, or the maximum discharge rate of hydropower (while keeping its annual energy production constant) to help meet peaks in demand; (8) use heat pumps for cold and low-temperature heat loads wherever possible; and (9) use demand response for some loads to reduce peaks in load."

Not taking sides in this debate (which is over whether or not nuclear power should be used), however the paper has four authors and in the introduction they say:

"The main purpose of this study is to explore whether low-cost mixes using 100% WWS can match energy demand with intermittent supply, not to prescribe the only possible future energy mix in each region. Indeed, many different future scenarios can be constructed depending on the objective. The objective here is to determine whether a 100% WWS system, which we believe maximizes air quality and climate change benefits while minimizing catastrophic risk relative to systems using other technologies, can deliver energy reliably at a reasonable business cost worldwide."

So either way, if their modeling is good, it is still a useful assessment of options.

Do not buy into this stupid nonsense trend of late to attack the legitimacy of science. "Scientists say" is a perfectly legitimate way to convey scientific results. There is neither misinformation nor propaganda in the video. The climate deniers are not acting in good faith and will be intellectually dishonest no matter what you do. No reason to give them heed.

William Nordhaus and his cost estimates are themselves controversial and by no means some kind of standard in the field of climate mitigation economics. For people who paid attention, this was brought up when he won his prize. [1]

I dare say the IPCC knows better than both Econlib and Nordhaus. There isn't much of an analysis here. They ignore the most obvious huge cost: the risk of reaching the tipping-point after which global warming would be unstoppable. They ignore the positive externalities of climate action, which are plenty in themselves. They ignore the fact that it is not possible to not act now and then suddenly put on the brakes on warming when we reach whatever target they deem appropriate.

1. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/06/the-nobel-prize-for-cli...

At first I was sympathetic to his point. But then I realized that this is a classic case of picking the metric to push your agenda. What matters is that climate change is causing more severe weather and that weather is causing increasingly more damage and that this whole problem is severe enough to be a national security issue (indeed an international one). It is completely beyond the point that poor people have simultaneously been pushed into areas more prone to weather damage. A sensible person would think that is even more of a reason to combat climate change. A propagandist will twist it to somehow argue that climate change advocacy is "alarmist" and continue ignoring the issue while the real and potential costs keep rising exponentially the more we wait.

> which is that they have nothing to hide from companies or the government, especially law enforcement

Which is not true when you consider that all your life events are being used to estimate your suitability for life changing opportunities like getting a job or a mortgage or a visa.

No it isn't. It does not have any long term exposure effects due to ingestion of residue on produce.

Latex is not that hard to learn. The very basics you can learn in under 20 minutes. Then grab a template from openlatex or sharelatex and don't mess with it. And if something doesn't work out, ask on tex.stackexchange.

> Yet climate change scepticism is rising.

It absolutely isn't. The opposite is true. Climate change denial is falling very rapidly. Just check any of the multiple recent polls and surveys. You will see a big difference especially in the last decade.

Multiple sources: https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/

Everyone is susceptible to propaganda, including you and me. Democracy is based on information, so if you mess with that information, you can most definitely have a noticeable effect. The propagandists exploit the asymmetry of resources and time between them and you. They can lie easily, they have all the time and money to craft careful lies. You don't have all the time and money and domain knowledge to figure out each and every one of their carefully crafted lies. Not to mention other more sinister tactics like tracking you, finding out your biases and using them against you with targeted propaganda campaigns.

The courts think in a similar manner. When rich couples divorce, the courts mandate that the poorer parent and kids get enough from their other parent to retain the same lifestyle the were used to previously. If that means enough to maintain a private jet lifestyle, so be it.

Because a lack of empathy for other human beings is problematic, because it means that as soon as your self interest does not perfectly align with their well being you will think nothing of harming them.

Actually, it is the other way round and there is nothing wrong about that. In fact it is an essential part of any anti-climate change action. Poor people cannot afford a lot of the necessary proposed taxes on consumption and re-alignment of the economy that is needed to fight climate change so a core component of any action needs to be how to safeguard their living standard while acting against climate change.

There is really no "they". There are various not well defined groups pushing for some kind not well defined "Green New Deal". There are some who are anti-nuclear and some who aren't. The thing is, you can still use the momentum of GND to push for your preferred climate change mitigation action. You don't have to subscribe 100% to the ideology of someone else.

Just want to point out that "Christians" in this context refers to some sects of Christianity in America and these beliefs are not the norm amongst Christians worldwide. Actually I hazard, not even the norm amongst Christians in the US.

Although I'm sure that the NSA do their best, I would bet that Facebook and Google have a much more accurate profile. Not sure if there is a point in making this distinction, though.

It would not make sense today, but in 10 to 15 years, with climate regulations, having a carbon neutral jet fuel might start making a lot of sense.

1. The Democrats are not leftists. Liberals are not leftists. 2. Ideologically speaking both US Republicans and US Democrats are Liberals and pro-free trade, Trump is an exception.

Internationalist yes, but not pro-free-trade. And in practice it was always almost always the opposite of that. In Europe all the hard-left parties were anti-EU precisely because they were opposed to free trade and wanted to protect the local markets.

When were leftists NOT protectionists? Protectionism is anti-liberal and anti-free-market? It was always left-wing.