placeholder

The battery has passed its real world tests with flying colors. That's why a 765 million dollar plant is now in the final phase of construction. This is a company who chief executive was in charge of battery development at Tesla. And it is not incumbent upon me to educate you. Why should I take hours or even days to paraphrase what is already on offer? I offered you a link to a thorough explanation of how their conclusions were arrived at. The simple takeaway is this: an M.I.T. study determined that to get to 100% renewables it would take a battery that costs $20 per kwh of capacity. To get to 95% renewables it would take a battery that costs $151 per kwh of capacity. At the time that article was written, even getting to $151 was considered to be improbable before the year 2030. Not only do lithium batteries now cost less than that, but at least one company has reached the $20 mark.

One of the most bizarre and tendentious posts ever to appear on aseannow.com. And that's saying a lot.

As Philip Bump pointed out in his article, young Americans were far more pro-Palestinian before this war.

Why not? For the time being it hasn't been banned from the West Bank. "The ban did not appear to affect the channel’s operations in the occupied West Bank or Gaza Strip, where Israel wields control but which are not sovereign Israeli territory." https://apnews.com/article/israel-aljazeera-hamas-gaza-war-eba9416aea82f505ab908ee60d1de5e4

Which, if anything, should mean that their protests were influenced by strong self-interest and not entirely based on principles.

Because you are claiming that reporting and opinion that contradicts the official Israeli narrative is supporting terrorism.

So criticizing Israel's conduct of the war, and reporting news that contradicts their official line, makes someone a supporter of Hamas? Simplistic thinking much?

Once again, the same kind of thing was said about student demonstrators against the war in Vietnam. Back when that was an unpopular point of view. Who turned out to have a better understanding of the situation there? And what about the Iraq War? Students Cut Class To Protest War High school and college students around the country walked out of class Wednesday to protest a war with Iraq, holding a series of rallies organizers predicted would be the biggest campus demonstrations since the Vietnam War. The "Books not Bombs" strike was being coordinated by the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition, formed following the Sept. 11 attacks. "The Bush administration is intent on plunging America into an illegitimate and pre-emptive war in Iraq that will only increase danger for Americans and the world," the coalition says on its Web site. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/students-cut-class-to-protest-war/

As I pointed out, these states routinely label as terrorists anyone who they feel poses a threat to their interests. Saudi Arabia just sentenced a woman's rights activist to 11 years in prison for terrorism.

Why is the simplest explanation of campus protests so hard to accept? Young people were sympathetic to Palestinians even before the war began. Why is that ignored? Variations on this idea that young people have been snookered into opposing Israel’s handling of the war in Gaza have been rampant in recent weeks. It’s a subset of a much longer-standing belief, particularly on the right, that young people arrive at their beliefs as a function of being brainwashed by various actors or technologies. https://archive.ph/BtgXX

A practice they share with the Saudi, Bahraini, and Egyptian government to whatever or whomever opposes them.

Not surprising that any news that contradicts the official Israeli narrative you would characterize as "terrorist propaganda". Attaching "terrorist" to whatever information displeases you.

Same sort of nonsense was said about student demonstrators against the war in Vietnam.

Even if those accusations were true, and "connections" is such a nice vague word, ya think that's why those countries banned Al Jazeera? Remember that it was Saudi Arabia along with the UAE that invented a provocation in order to justify a rupture with Qatar.

Let me see. I cited research from some of the most prestigious scientific journals. And that is what you call unproven academic research? I cite a couple of examples of companies that are actually manufacturing batteries and you dismiss that as theoretical. As for insights...was your claim that nobody knows what percentage of CO2 comes from fossil fuels one of those "insights"? What you call insights a rational observer would call "making things up" or maybe science fiction.

Actually, they didn't fail to respond. Rather they dismissed research from one of the most prestigious, maybe the most prestigious, scientific journal in the world.

Truly bizarre comment from oppositeworld. In the past, before Oct 7 it would have been considered a badge of honor to be banned by such repressive and brutal regimes like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. Now, apparently, it's a mark of shame.

Well, this is an El Nino year was was last summer. Now that a La Nina is on the way, temperatures should be lower next year. But they're still most likely going to be hotter, on average, than they were, say 10 years ago. There's not much anyone can do to stop this rise of temperature. Even if the world were to achieve net zero tomorrow, average temperatures would still go up for a while before the rise was stopped. And, of course, by itself, Thailand can't make a significant difference to the rate of global warming.

The heat produced by humanity is utterly irrelevant to the issue of global warming. It has never been part of the scientific discussion What is relevant is the effect of greenhouse gases on certain bandwidths of solar radiation after they come into contact with various portions of planet earth.

Exactly.

It may not be new, but in fact it certainly doesn't support your claims about the steady increase in temperature rise. And instead of offering valid evidence to contradict it, all you offer is empty words.

If anyone should be embarrassed it's you basing your case on the widely dismissed work of Dr. Roy Spencer.

I can't believe you are basing your assertions on the graph of Dr. Roy Spencer who can't get his work published in respectable journals and accuses the scientific world of conspiracy. This is definitely not a graph that the climatological research community bases its work on. On the other hand, the graph below reflects the consensus of the climatological community. I have taken the liberty of highlighting the year of 1998 in the graph below the first one just to make clear how tendentious your claim is. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24021772

I quote an article from Nature, possibly the most prestigious scientific journal in the world, that contradicts your claim, and you call it a nothing post. It's you who've got nothing.