FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Bernie Sanders - A strange moment in American history

Bernie Sanders - A strange moment in American history

(4:34) Senator Bernie Sanders calls on Republicans in congress to listen to scientists' warnings about climate change.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: LondonBoy (1062 days ago)

For a country who has irradiated all of the Middle East and parts of Africa, Asia and Eurasia with depleted Uranium - it is a bit rich for them to complain about global warming by their own PAID FOR scientists! This, is what happens when governments pay their own scientist to come to an agreed finding.

ReplyVote up (385)down (333)
Original comment

For a country who has irradiated all of the Middle East and parts of Africa, Asia and Eurasia with depleted Uranium - it is a bit rich for them to complain about global warming by their own PAID FOR scientists! This, is what happens when governments pay their own scientist to come to an agreed finding.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)

Exactly. It has been known that anyone who is paid by the government and disagrees with the agenda gets fired. It is similar to the situation "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" where scientists are fired if they reveal that they believe in a god. Everyone should see that movie to see how that works.

There is one person that I know who has tenure at MIT so he cannot be fired. He is openly against AGW. His name is Richard Lindzen and he is the professor of meterology, senior at the Cato Institute, and a leading climate skeptic. If you take away the possibility of being fired for telling the truth, more people will do exactly that instead of trying to make up fake data to fit the "agreed finding"

ReplyVote up (385)down (344)
Original comment

Exactly. It has been known that anyone who is paid by the government and disagrees with the agenda gets fired. It is similar to the situation "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" where scientists are fired if they reveal that they believe in a god. Everyone should see that movie to see how that works.

There is one person that I know who has tenure at MIT so he cannot be fired. He is openly against AGW. His name is Richard Lindzen and he is the professor of meterology, senior at the Cato Institute, and a leading climate skeptic. If you take away the possibility of being fired for telling the truth, more people will do exactly that instead of trying to make up fake data to fit the "agreed finding"

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat (1066 days ago)

Bernie Sanders is part of the Iluminati lizard people who are modifying the climate with chem trails, don't trust this guy! the IPCC is controlled by the lizard people. there is no climate change. it's all from lizard volcanoes and the sun god RA.

aa ha ha ha!

ReplyVote up (389)down (348)
Original comment

Bernie Sanders is part of the Iluminati lizard people who are modifying the climate with chem trails, don't trust this guy! the IPCC is controlled by the lizard people. there is no climate change. it's all from lizard volcanoes and the sun god RA.

aa ha ha ha!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)

Gated sanctuaries of the oil elite shield them and their progeny from the filthy air, water and soil they leave for the rest of us.

ReplyVote up (386)down (346)
Original comment

Gated sanctuaries of the oil elite shield them and their progeny from the filthy air, water and soil they leave for the rest of us.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)

I bet you enjoy driving your car just like the rest of us. So until you get on your high horse (pun intended) and stop using the oil, then you will always have companies willing to provide it at a price. You demand it and there is a supply but you're the first person to blame the suppliers when you should be blaming yourself for demanding it instead.

ReplyVote up (386)down (329)
Original comment

I bet you enjoy driving your car just like the rest of us. So until you get on your high horse (pun intended) and stop using the oil, then you will always have companies willing to provide it at a price. You demand it and there is a supply but you're the first person to blame the suppliers when you should be blaming yourself for demanding it instead.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)

Cars driving on renewables were emerging before the original oil tycoon, John D Rockefeller purchased and squashed the new technology and corrupted it's potential with purchased regulatory obstructions. Oil elites have continued the tradition of buying dozens of solar, battery CNG and hydrogen technologies and dissolving them out of existence for nearly a century. Oil elites have obstructed legislative change by being the largest campaign contributors purchasing the loyalty of a majority of our Congressional, Executive and Legislative branches and ensuring the double depletion tax subsidy, fuel taxes subsidy for roads, military spending subsidy to guarantee cheap supply all act to protect and keep their racket dominating the automobile industry. Think what you like. The fact is power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and a trail of evidence proves you are delusional that the epidemic of wheezing and cancerous public has no desire to demand clean air, water and soil. May you and your ilk invest heavily in coastal property.

ReplyVote up (400)down (373)
Original comment

Cars driving on renewables were emerging before the original oil tycoon, John D Rockefeller purchased and squashed the new technology and corrupted it's potential with purchased regulatory obstructions. Oil elites have continued the tradition of buying dozens of solar, battery CNG and hydrogen technologies and dissolving them out of existence for nearly a century. Oil elites have obstructed legislative change by being the largest campaign contributors purchasing the loyalty of a majority of our Congressional, Executive and Legislative branches and ensuring the double depletion tax subsidy, fuel taxes subsidy for roads, military spending subsidy to guarantee cheap supply all act to protect and keep their racket dominating the automobile industry. Think what you like. The fact is power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and a trail of evidence proves you are delusional that the epidemic of wheezing and cancerous public has no desire to demand clean air, water and soil. May you and your ilk invest heavily in coastal property.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)

You are in luck. Tesla has a car you can buy today that suits your needs. Did you buy one already? If not, why not? Oh, too expensive huh? Well, welcome to the real world. That's the whole problem -- cost. If it wasn't so expensive to go with an alternative fuel, everyone would be doing it.

The CEO of Tesla just made all their patents public domain so you can create a car using their technologies without having to pay a royalty.

ReplyVote up (411)down (358)
Original comment

You are in luck. Tesla has a car you can buy today that suits your needs. Did you buy one already? If not, why not? Oh, too expensive huh? Well, welcome to the real world. That's the whole problem -- cost. If it wasn't so expensive to go with an alternative fuel, everyone would be doing it.

The CEO of Tesla just made all their patents public domain so you can create a car using their technologies without having to pay a royalty.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)

The Tesla could have been reality when GM produced its electric car nearly 20 years ago. Afordable electric cars that go 280 miles would already be in production three years ago if the tech for 80 mile Nissan Leafs and Smart cars had not been so heavily invested in due to delayed progress by the oil majors. When the 500,000 car per year giga factory comes on-line in 2017, you can use the anus you have for a mouth to swallow your own vitrol.

ReplyVote up (406)down (362)
Original comment

The Tesla could have been reality when GM produced its electric car nearly 20 years ago. Afordable electric cars that go 280 miles would already be in production three years ago if the tech for 80 mile Nissan Leafs and Smart cars had not been so heavily invested in due to delayed progress by the oil majors. When the 500,000 car per year giga factory comes on-line in 2017, you can use the anus you have for a mouth to swallow your own vitrol.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)

Can you tell me how an oil company delayed the progress of an electric car? Apparently they were not successful in delaying the Tesla or the Leaf so I'm curious what specifically the oil companies did 20 years ago to prevent anyone from creating an electric car.

The only thing that I could find is regarding some lobbying the oil companies did to prevent the utility companies from building charging stations all over the country. Tesla is building their own charging stations, not the utility company. Makes sense because the utility company provides electricity not create the devices that use them. So that was not a factor in stopping the production of an electric car.

ReplyVote up (403)down (358)
Original comment

Can you tell me how an oil company delayed the progress of an electric car? Apparently they were not successful in delaying the Tesla or the Leaf so I'm curious what specifically the oil companies did 20 years ago to prevent anyone from creating an electric car.

The only thing that I could find is regarding some lobbying the oil companies did to prevent the utility companies from building charging stations all over the country. Tesla is building their own charging stations, not the utility company. Makes sense because the utility company provides electricity not create the devices that use them. So that was not a factor in stopping the production of an electric car.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)

Google, "rockefeller killed electric car" , and learn some history.

Auto manufacturers heavily invested in ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) squashed EV (Electric Vehicle) programs despite incredible demand upon realizing the electric motors last a million miles without parts or maintenance. Planned obsolescense was incorporated into the design of vehicles starting in the 1960s to ensure repeat sales. It isn't a miracle that so many 1950s and 1940's vehicles are still running in Cuba. Unless GM manages to get another bail-out to compete with Tesla in 2018, GM will have to rely on sales of trucks and sales in China to survive.

ReplyVote up (389)down (355)
Original comment

Google, "rockefeller killed electric car" , and learn some history.

Auto manufacturers heavily invested in ICE (Internal Combustion Engines) squashed EV (Electric Vehicle) programs despite incredible demand upon realizing the electric motors last a million miles without parts or maintenance. Planned obsolescense was incorporated into the design of vehicles starting in the 1960s to ensure repeat sales. It isn't a miracle that so many 1950s and 1940's vehicles are still running in Cuba. Unless GM manages to get another bail-out to compete with Tesla in 2018, GM will have to rely on sales of trucks and sales in China to survive.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)

Nope, sorry but Google did not answer that question. It appears you're trying to make unfounded statements without any backup support.

Regarding your second paragraph, I can understand the auto industry wanting to have a car that needs to be replaced more often; however, that is a strawman fallacy. We were discussing your comments about how oil companies prevented or delayed the production of electric vehicles. That's what I am calling BS. Trying to switch the conversation into how auto manufacturers didn't want to make them does not help make your point.

All electric cars can be charged at home so there was no need for refueling stations for the majority of the people. I would imagine most people can make it to work and back within the 80 mile capability of even the cheapest electric vehicles. A Tesla can get around 300 miles.

ReplyVote up (385)down (348)
Original comment

Nope, sorry but Google did not answer that question. It appears you're trying to make unfounded statements without any backup support.

Regarding your second paragraph, I can understand the auto industry wanting to have a car that needs to be replaced more often; however, that is a strawman fallacy. We were discussing your comments about how oil companies prevented or delayed the production of electric vehicles. That's what I am calling BS. Trying to switch the conversation into how auto manufacturers didn't want to make them does not help make your point.

All electric cars can be charged at home so there was no need for refueling stations for the majority of the people. I would imagine most people can make it to work and back within the 80 mile capability of even the cheapest electric vehicles. A Tesla can get around 300 miles.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)

Are you using Chrome as a browser with Google as a search engine? I had multiple hits and can't fathom how obtusely confident you are in your ineptitude.

ReplyVote up (379)down (358)
Original comment

Are you using Chrome as a browser with Google as a search engine? I had multiple hits and can't fathom how obtusely confident you are in your ineptitude.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)

Then why don't you give me the answer and post a link to backup your claims? Could that be because there is no way that the oil companies prevented auto companies from creating an electric car? They are completely separate industries and the oil companies do not dictate what car manufacturers do. There were some exceptions such as when they removed lead from gas, the engines had to be modified but that was a regulation reform -- not an oil company dictating policy. In fact, the oil companies fought hard to keep lead in the gas but they eventually lost.

ReplyVote up (390)down (353)
Original comment

Then why don't you give me the answer and post a link to backup your claims? Could that be because there is no way that the oil companies prevented auto companies from creating an electric car? They are completely separate industries and the oil companies do not dictate what car manufacturers do. There were some exceptions such as when they removed lead from gas, the engines had to be modified but that was a regulation reform -- not an oil company dictating policy. In fact, the oil companies fought hard to keep lead in the gas but they eventually lost.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)
ReplyVote up (413)down (357)
Original comment
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)

Your links just confirm what I have been saying. Here's a quote from the first one:

Begin Quote: Conspiracy? Unfortunately, no.… Sigh. Bye bye NYT #1.

It wasn’t Ford or Rockefeller or Roosevelt or Carnegie or Morgan. Or even Kettering.

As the great philosopher Pogo so famously said, “We have met the enemy … and he is us.” End Quote

You should have read some of the pages you linked. So why don't you tell me in your own words what role you think the oil company did to delay the production of an electric car from the automobile companies? Another refusal to do so will just support the fact that you were spewing BS.

ReplyVote up (411)down (339)
Original comment

Your links just confirm what I have been saying. Here's a quote from the first one:

Begin Quote: Conspiracy? Unfortunately, no.… Sigh. Bye bye NYT #1.

It wasn’t Ford or Rockefeller or Roosevelt or Carnegie or Morgan. Or even Kettering.

As the great philosopher Pogo so famously said, “We have met the enemy … and he is us.” End Quote

You should have read some of the pages you linked. So why don't you tell me in your own words what role you think the oil company did to delay the production of an electric car from the automobile companies? Another refusal to do so will just support the fact that you were spewing BS.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)

You should also read. The wiki link about patents being purchased by Shell and Chevron must be too painful for you to bear.

ReplyVote up (383)down (359)
Original comment

You should also read. The wiki link about patents being purchased by Shell and Chevron must be too painful for you to bear.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)

GM acquired the controlling interest in that battery technology in 1994. Then in 2001 Texaco purchased GM's shares. Where is the conspiracy in that? GM did not have to sell if they didn't want to.

Anyway, that did not stop anything. GM announced in early 2007 that they were going to use the batteries in the 2008 hybrid car. Toyota also uses NiMH batteries in all their HEV models.

Here is a link to the patent US6413670 LINK

I'm not a lawyer but it looks like the patent expired 7/2/2010 due to "LAPSE FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES". Tomorrow will be 4 years since the expiration date so where are all the electric cars now?

ReplyVote up (380)down (350)
Original comment

GM acquired the controlling interest in that battery technology in 1994. Then in 2001 Texaco purchased GM's shares. Where is the conspiracy in that? GM did not have to sell if they didn't want to.

Anyway, that did not stop anything. GM announced in early 2007 that they were going to use the batteries in the 2008 hybrid car. Toyota also uses NiMH batteries in all their HEV models.

Here is a link to the patent US6413670 LINK

I'm not a lawyer but it looks like the patent expired 7/2/2010 due to "LAPSE FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES". Tomorrow will be 4 years since the expiration date so where are all the electric cars now?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)

Until Lithium technology made NiMH obsolete, NiMH was the most threatening battery technology. GM still used NiMH until last year for the Hybrid Trucks and SUVs. Facts are facts until presented to die-hard lib haters.

ReplyVote up (379)down (355)
Original comment

Until Lithium technology made NiMH obsolete, NiMH was the most threatening battery technology. GM still used NiMH until last year for the Hybrid Trucks and SUVs. Facts are facts until presented to die-hard lib haters.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)

So you admit then that GM and other manufacturers of cars could have used NiMH batteries all along and was not delayed because of the purchase of the patent. I still fail to see how the oil companies delayed the car. Even if they did, where are all the electric cars today and why don't you own one? I have a hybrid using NiMH batteries so why don't you?

ReplyVote up (401)down (346)
Original comment

So you admit then that GM and other manufacturers of cars could have used NiMH batteries all along and was not delayed because of the purchase of the patent. I still fail to see how the oil companies delayed the car. Even if they did, where are all the electric cars today and why don't you own one? I have a hybrid using NiMH batteries so why don't you?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)

See NY Times link

LINK

See History of Energy Suppression link

LINK

ReplyVote up (362)down (339)
Original comment

See NY Times link

LINK

See History of Energy Suppression link

LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)

Why don't you just tell me what you want me to know and if I don't believe you, I will then click on the link for backup information. This is the same tatic that Sat does with cengland0 and he has taught me to not just click on random links unless I know what they are about to begin with.

Boreme has modified the way links work. In the past, you could see where it was going before you clicked on it. Now you cannot tell until it's too late. Then, when the window pops up, you cannot navigate the same as a regular page. Boreme removes the back button and other features and that makes it inconvenient to access links unless I absolutely have to.

ReplyVote up (376)down (322)
Original comment

Why don't you just tell me what you want me to know and if I don't believe you, I will then click on the link for backup information. This is the same tatic that Sat does with cengland0 and he has taught me to not just click on random links unless I know what they are about to begin with.

Boreme has modified the way links work. In the past, you could see where it was going before you clicked on it. Now you cannot tell until it's too late. Then, when the window pops up, you cannot navigate the same as a regular page. Boreme removes the back button and other features and that makes it inconvenient to access links unless I absolutely have to.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)

Acknowledging only what supports pre-conceived notions and avoiding reading anything that threatens pre-conceived notions and demanding to be spoon fed to further have an excuse for holding unsupportable positions comes accross as insecure pride in pretending to be holier than thou and and expecting people to wipe your ass.

ReplyVote up (382)down (325)
Original comment

Acknowledging only what supports pre-conceived notions and avoiding reading anything that threatens pre-conceived notions and demanding to be spoon fed to further have an excuse for holding unsupportable positions comes accross as insecure pride in pretending to be holier than thou and and expecting people to wipe your ass.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)

You made a claim but you cannot describe for us how the oil companies delayed the production of an electric car. So you must be wrong because you cannot prove it.

Sat used to post links to youtube video groups that could take 100 hours to watch all of them. Nobody should be flooded with useless information just to try to figure out what point someone is making. Just make your crazy claims and post a link to it as supporting documentation. It's as simple as that. You don't see me or originalmad posting random links without background information on what we are trying to get at.

ReplyVote up (380)down (324)
Original comment

You made a claim but you cannot describe for us how the oil companies delayed the production of an electric car. So you must be wrong because you cannot prove it.

Sat used to post links to youtube video groups that could take 100 hours to watch all of them. Nobody should be flooded with useless information just to try to figure out what point someone is making. Just make your crazy claims and post a link to it as supporting documentation. It's as simple as that. You don't see me or originalmad posting random links without background information on what we are trying to get at.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)

Fair enough. I will elaborate the points in the links from now on.

ReplyVote up (373)down (298)
Original comment

Fair enough. I will elaborate the points in the links from now on.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)

Glad you willingly sacrifice personal economy to benefit the environment by enriching the oil company patent holders for your NiMH technology and wish I could have been in a position to require replacement of my vehicles and join you. My current vehicles are 2007s. A 4.6 liter GMC Sierra and 2.6 liter Pontiac Vibe. Both will last until 2018. One of the entities for which I provide contract CFO services is a company that converts highway diesel tractors and school buses to run on CNG and will likely replace my truck with a CNG vehicle. I will replace my car with a Tesla or similar sub $30K EV in 2018.

ReplyVote up (371)down (350)
Original comment

Glad you willingly sacrifice personal economy to benefit the environment by enriching the oil company patent holders for your NiMH technology and wish I could have been in a position to require replacement of my vehicles and join you. My current vehicles are 2007s. A 4.6 liter GMC Sierra and 2.6 liter Pontiac Vibe. Both will last until 2018. One of the entities for which I provide contract CFO services is a company that converts highway diesel tractors and school buses to run on CNG and will likely replace my truck with a CNG vehicle. I will replace my car with a Tesla or similar sub $30K EV in 2018.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)

You think a Tesla will be sub 30K in 2018? Ever hear of inflation? We are in the middle of 2014 and the cheapest 84kWh Tesla is $79,900 and with inflation prices should be going up instead of down.

My hybrid -- a gas/battery combo car -- was about double your budget but still less than the Tesla. The hybrid feature added about 10K to the price tag and I will never recover the additional costs in gas savings. It's doubtful that I will even spend that much in gas during the entire time I own the car. I get about 24.5 MPG in the hybrid SUV which is pretty good.

ReplyVote up (381)down (325)
Original comment

You think a Tesla will be sub 30K in 2018? Ever hear of inflation? We are in the middle of 2014 and the cheapest 84kWh Tesla is $79,900 and with inflation prices should be going up instead of down.

My hybrid -- a gas/battery combo car -- was about double your budget but still less than the Tesla. The hybrid feature added about 10K to the price tag and I will never recover the additional costs in gas savings. It's doubtful that I will even spend that much in gas during the entire time I own the car. I get about 24.5 MPG in the hybrid SUV which is pretty good.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)

The $30K is not my figure. It is Elon Musk's. Economies of scale and the fact that Nissan also expects to have a 280 mile range EV below $30K in the same year lead me to believe that there might be some credence to the number. Investors would not back a 500,000 per year automobile plant without assurances that the price point would entice buyers to purchase the volume.

ReplyVote up (387)down (336)
Original comment

The $30K is not my figure. It is Elon Musk's. Economies of scale and the fact that Nissan also expects to have a 280 mile range EV below $30K in the same year lead me to believe that there might be some credence to the number. Investors would not back a 500,000 per year automobile plant without assurances that the price point would entice buyers to purchase the volume.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)

Don't hold your breath. It's hard to buy a standard gas powered honda accord for that price. We will have to just wait to see what the market will bear but I have serious doubts those cars will cost less than a current gas-powered car. If they do, then that will be wonderful.

ReplyVote up (386)down (321)
Original comment

Don't hold your breath. It's hard to buy a standard gas powered honda accord for that price. We will have to just wait to see what the market will bear but I have serious doubts those cars will cost less than a current gas-powered car. If they do, then that will be wonderful.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1062 days ago)

For brushless motors that last several lifetimes, quick recharge times and 280 mile range, I would pay $40K. Variable costs for materials and labor in the 2018 Tesla are below $15K even factoring for severe inflation. Once fixed costs are covered, the profits on a $30K price point could reach $10K per vehicle at the forecasted volume making Tesla a very underpriced stock.

ReplyVote up (378)down (314)
Original comment

For brushless motors that last several lifetimes, quick recharge times and 280 mile range, I would pay $40K. Variable costs for materials and labor in the 2018 Tesla are below $15K even factoring for severe inflation. Once fixed costs are covered, the profits on a $30K price point could reach $10K per vehicle at the forecasted volume making Tesla a very underpriced stock.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1062 days ago)
Latest comment:

I still have doubts. There are approximately 7,000 individual batteries in that car and it's made of aluminum which is more expensive than steel. I believe those were 18550 batteries and those are pretty expensive. Add 7K of them and a system that disables any that goes bad and you have an expensive car.

Time will tell. If I'm still alive in 2018 and remember about this, I'll have to come back and post a follow-up to this discussion.

ReplyVote up (365)down (343)
Original comment
Latest comment:

I still have doubts. There are approximately 7,000 individual batteries in that car and it's made of aluminum which is more expensive than steel. I believe those were 18550 batteries and those are pretty expensive. Add 7K of them and a system that disables any that goes bad and you have an expensive car.

Time will tell. If I'm still alive in 2018 and remember about this, I'll have to come back and post a follow-up to this discussion.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1062 days ago)

Its not the electric motor thats has ever been the problem, its the storage and lifetime of the energy storage system required and its still true today. Thats why electric trains and trams have existed for over 130 years, and everyone ever built is designed around using externally supplied electricity. Also someone so "educated in history" will know planned obsolence is a fact of life,they have known about it for some time. they even made a film about it "the man in the white suit" starring Obi Wan or Alec Guinness as he is also known.

ReplyVote up (372)down (344)
Original comment

Its not the electric motor thats has ever been the problem, its the storage and lifetime of the energy storage system required and its still true today. Thats why electric trains and trams have existed for over 130 years, and everyone ever built is designed around using externally supplied electricity. Also someone so "educated in history" will know planned obsolence is a fact of life,they have known about it for some time. they even made a film about it "the man in the white suit" starring Obi Wan or Alec Guinness as he is also known.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1066 days ago)

“97% of scientists published in peer reviewed papers say the following. Climate change is real, it is significantly caused by human activity, it is already causing devastating problems throughout the world.” Hogwash. That is not what the results say. It’s 97% of papers — not scientists. Many of those papers could be written by the same scientists but we don’t know because nobody published a list of scientists that believe in AGW but we do have a list of 750 that do not agree with AGW. The papers do not need to state everything he said in order to have been included in the 97%. Researchers have asked the authors of the papers if the survey results accurately reflected their views on climate change and many of them said no. That so-called survey is a complete hoax.

“Newspapers reported in Arizona on how Phoenix is going to get water because of the terrible drought we have seen in the southwest.” No kidding. Phoenix is located in the upper edge of the Sonoran Desert. Why didn’t he say the Sahara Desert is lacking water too?

“Australia is burning up.” Cherry Picking Fallacy. Also, Australia is not burning up. Temperatures average 25C in summer and 14C in winter. That’s very comfortable. LINK

“We have had major storms that have cost us billions and billions of dollars.” Name a time in Earth’s history when we did not have any major storms.

“Sea levels are rising that will flood cities like New Orleans.” That’s right but he forgot to mention that New Orleans has always had a history of flooding. It’s below sea level and the American Society of Civil Engineers say that it is sinking. Let’s also blame the flooding of Venice on global warming too.

ReplyVote up (348)down (311)
Original comment

“97% of scientists published in peer reviewed papers say the following. Climate change is real, it is significantly caused by human activity, it is already causing devastating problems throughout the world.” Hogwash. That is not what the results say. It’s 97% of papers — not scientists. Many of those papers could be written by the same scientists but we don’t know because nobody published a list of scientists that believe in AGW but we do have a list of 750 that do not agree with AGW. The papers do not need to state everything he said in order to have been included in the 97%. Researchers have asked the authors of the papers if the survey results accurately reflected their views on climate change and many of them said no. That so-called survey is a complete hoax.

“Newspapers reported in Arizona on how Phoenix is going to get water because of the terrible drought we have seen in the southwest.” No kidding. Phoenix is located in the upper edge of the Sonoran Desert. Why didn’t he say the Sahara Desert is lacking water too?

“Australia is burning up.” Cherry Picking Fallacy. Also, Australia is not burning up. Temperatures average 25C in summer and 14C in winter. That’s very comfortable. LINK

“We have had major storms that have cost us billions and billions of dollars.” Name a time in Earth’s history when we did not have any major storms.

“Sea levels are rising that will flood cities like New Orleans.” That’s right but he forgot to mention that New Orleans has always had a history of flooding. It’s below sea level and the American Society of Civil Engineers say that it is sinking. Let’s also blame the flooding of Venice on global warming too.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1065 days ago)

Thanks for that. It's good to know that, by closing our eyes and going "Lalalalalalalala&qu ot; we can solve our problems. My kids are going to be very happy to hear it.

Meanwhile the world gets hotter.

ReplyVote up (352)down (304)
Original comment

Thanks for that. It's good to know that, by closing our eyes and going "Lalalalalalalala&qu ot; we can solve our problems. My kids are going to be very happy to hear it.

Meanwhile the world gets hotter.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
LogicIsPower LogicIsPower (1066 days ago)

Remember when Los Angeles had smog alerts and acid rain? yeah we don't have those anymore, would you like to know why? It involved new legislation, regulation (Polluting Factories), scientific advancement (the catalytic Converter) along with a host of other things. Our air quality still sucks.

I just don't get climate change denial, is the argument that they believe that Humans can't have a negative affect on the environment? Well that just asinine, and not even worthy of a response.

Do the Deniers believe that this is a natural cycle? ok I can actually believe that. But using Los Angeles and China as examples of man made change, why would we add fuel to the fire if we are already in this "Warming Cycle" If it is a natural cycle shouldn't we take precautions to minimize the affect?

And now for the shocking one, deniers want to know where the money will come from to take on this challenge, I have no Idea, but I think we should start with 1 or 2 less big ass War Ships, cut corporate welfare and foreign aid completely, GE and Exxon do not need subsidies and if they do they should be allowed to fail.

Growing up in Hawai'i I got to see what happens, first hand knowledge of you will. I have seen the rise in tourism, then the once empty pristine beaches become littered with plastic, the sea life begins to leave, the reef shrinks then dies. . . .

I don't know anyone who enjoys living in a dirty house, why would we live on a dirty planet?

ReplyVote up (374)down (348)
Original comment

Remember when Los Angeles had smog alerts and acid rain? yeah we don't have those anymore, would you like to know why? It involved new legislation, regulation (Polluting Factories), scientific advancement (the catalytic Converter) along with a host of other things. Our air quality still sucks.

I just don't get climate change denial, is the argument that they believe that Humans can't have a negative affect on the environment? Well that just asinine, and not even worthy of a response.

Do the Deniers believe that this is a natural cycle? ok I can actually believe that. But using Los Angeles and China as examples of man made change, why would we add fuel to the fire if we are already in this "Warming Cycle" If it is a natural cycle shouldn't we take precautions to minimize the affect?

And now for the shocking one, deniers want to know where the money will come from to take on this challenge, I have no Idea, but I think we should start with 1 or 2 less big ass War Ships, cut corporate welfare and foreign aid completely, GE and Exxon do not need subsidies and if they do they should be allowed to fail.

Growing up in Hawai'i I got to see what happens, first hand knowledge of you will. I have seen the rise in tourism, then the once empty pristine beaches become littered with plastic, the sea life begins to leave, the reef shrinks then dies. . . .

I don't know anyone who enjoys living in a dirty house, why would we live on a dirty planet?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Sat Sat (1066 days ago)

pretty much spot on but i disagree with the following statement: "I just don't get climate change denial, is the argument that they believe that Humans can't have a negative affect on the environment? Well that just asinine, and not even worthy of a response. "

If you tell a lie enough times, people will start to think it's true.

The best response is to mock them into oblivion and if their "science" is sound enough to take it, they have nothing to worry about because the truth always wins, right? or does it...

ReplyVote up (391)down (337)
Original comment

pretty much spot on but i disagree with the following statement: "I just don't get climate change denial, is the argument that they believe that Humans can't have a negative affect on the environment? Well that just asinine, and not even worthy of a response. "

If you tell a lie enough times, people will start to think it's true.

The best response is to mock them into oblivion and if their "science" is sound enough to take it, they have nothing to worry about because the truth always wins, right? or does it...

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1066 days ago)

The point you make about smog and acid rain is an excellent one. It also shows that human activity CAN affect something as vast as the planet's climate system, both in creating a problem, and in solving it. Thanks, I will use it in further debates with deniers.

ReplyVote up (384)down (341)
Original comment

The point you make about smog and acid rain is an excellent one. It also shows that human activity CAN affect something as vast as the planet's climate system, both in creating a problem, and in solving it. Thanks, I will use it in further debates with deniers.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1066 days ago)

I think climate change deniers can be broadly split into 2 overlapping groups - those with vested interests, and those with strong libertarian tendencies.

Those with strong libertarian tendencies hate government so much they are willing to dispel science and common sense, rather than have government regulate.

ReplyVote up (371)down (351)
Original comment

I think climate change deniers can be broadly split into 2 overlapping groups - those with vested interests, and those with strong libertarian tendencies.

Those with strong libertarian tendencies hate government so much they are willing to dispel science and common sense, rather than have government regulate.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Asshole (1065 days ago)

agreed.

fu*k both categories!

ReplyVote up (352)down (338)
Original comment

agreed.

fu*k both categories!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Bernie crushes Trump's budget
Bernie crushes Trump's budget
Bernie Sanders: Is Trump a liar?
Bernie Sanders: Is Trump a liar?
Bernie Sanders reflects on Donald Trump's first 100 days
Bernie Sanders reflects on Donald Trump's first 100 days
Bernie Sanders on North Korea, Syria and Trump's tax returns
Bernie Sanders on North Korea, Syria and Trump's tax returns
Noam Chomsky takes a look at the Sanders campaign
Noam Chomsky takes a look at the Sanders campaign