ACK
ACK
ACK
ACK

etc

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.

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.

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.

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.

tomo, reference the Brandt Report from 1980, this report in The Guardian about the Marrakech bewilderment:

"A UN source insisted that the $100bn target would be met by 2020, but said trillions would be needed to make development more sustainable. “The question is, how are you going to change the whole financial structure on this planet to get these big sums going?” said the source."

What has all the money been wasted on, apart from Political Parties, air fares and lawyers fees? Haven't they done enough damage to the financial structure of the planet so far, without ever having done anything beneficial for the disadvantaged?

tomo 10:54 when these solar powered cars can do a 24 hour endurance race, completing a minimum of 60 miles EVERY hour, but with an unlimited number of stops, they will have cracked the Unreliability problems, and have a product people might want to buy.

Hot News! Spaces are still available, by popular lack of demand.

"Future prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage in the UK TUESDAY, 7TH FEBRUARY 2017 CENTRAL LONDON
Guest of Honour: Will Lochhead, Head of CCS Policy, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy."

As part of a consumer driven push for economies in Government wasted money, write to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, with suggestions about the future prospects for Carbon Capture and Storage in the UK, maybe even asking why we need to have a CCS Policy at all.