I am always sceptical of the scientists anyway, they seem to be able to bend the theory to suit what hypothesis they started with.
I don't even know where to start with this.
I am always sceptical of the scientists anyway, they seem to be able to bend the theory to suit what hypothesis they started with.
the more the theories get changed, the more sceptical I am of the people involved in climate science.
Sorry, but other people's views are not equal when they fly in the face of evidence and scientific consensus. It's nonsense to suggest that. It's like saying we have to respect the views of people who claim that 1 + 1 = 3. No I don't!
What ever you may think, people are allowed to have their own views. Whist you may have made your mind up about certain things it's for each and every one to make their own minds up based on the evidence that is or isn't available.
I suggest that you act like an adult (I presume you are one?) and allow freedom of thought, freedom of speech and the freedom to allow others to have views different to your own. The example you give above doesn't do you any credit what so ever.
If the scientist acknowledged as 'The Father of Global Warming' can change his mind then I suggest there isn't irrefutable evidence. I would respectfully suggest that he knows more than you.
Both would be good. The scrappage scheme was actually more about the economy than anything green though - it boosted the new car industry a bit again after the recession. I can see the more polluting vehicles being taxed more and more heavily as time goes on though. The uptake of the subsidy is rising sharply though, it is definitely working as an incentive. Investment in an electric car infrastructure would be good too.
A scrappage scheme could go some way to removing a good number of the worst polluting cars from the roads which would help. The biggest problem is that if an e-tron or other electric/hybrid cars require a government subsidy to get people to buy them, then what happens when the government decide to stop the subsidy. What's more if a lot more "e-tron type" cars were sold it would still not make a big dent in the so called global warming because your would still need an increase in electricity generating capacity to cope with the demand and at the moment that increase would need to come from fossil fuel powered power stations and all this for 31 miles of electric power and all the rest using normal petrol.
If the A3 e-tron makes financial sense for the individual because of the subsidy and lower tax and company car tax then fine but I don't think they are going to 'save the planet'. And still no one has come up with the mpg figures for the car running say 100 or 200 miles on the petrol engine with all the extra weight of the electric motors and batteries. VAG have spent a lot of money on the MBQ platform and the new engines to make the cars lighter and more economical surely adding all that extra weight is going in totally the opposite direction.
No, I'm not missing the point - and I agree, there is no right and wrong answer (unlike both you and cemerson say where you keep telling me AGW is FACT because lots of people say so, whereas I'm just saying the climate is changing). MY point is the data is so sparse and inaccurate beyond 100 years ago that it can be interpreted in an almost infinite number of ways. What people have done is chose a particular way of fitting the theory to the data which provides an alarmist viewpoint, which others have jumped on and all of a sudden, there is a huge gravy train which is self sustaining.I think you're missing the point here. It's not about 'right' or 'wrong' it's about fitting the theory to the observations and using the theory to make predictions about the future. Right and wrong don't even come into it.
Horses for courses though.
At the minute, diesel is the smart choice for high mileage and long journeys while small petrol can be better for stop start.
If you're racking up 20,000+ per year doing 100 mile journeys I'd imagine the e-tron is not for you. If your commute is short enough that you can go mostly electric then it's almost a no brainer, especially as a company car.
The car is interesting on paper - and it should work for Audi regardless of environmental considerations.
I am genuinely stumped people exist that deny the environmental effects we're having on the planet. That said - best way to be "green" is buy a used car or keep yours till it falls over. The energy to build a new car from raw material outweighs the energy it consumes in the cars average lifetime.
We should all be more concerned about how much red meat we eat and how cows farts are making more greenhouse gases. That is true, but I'm joking so no need for anyone to get upset.
The Audi UK publicity blurb for the A3 e-tron is 580 miles total range. Which is implying somewhere north of 60 mpg when on petrol only given 31 miles on electric only and a 40 litre petrol tank.
It claims to regenerate the battery charge (KERS like) during braking so perhaps its possible ? I don't think its using the COD version of the 1.4 TFSI engine.
I'm still waiting for the final spec (and available options - if any) to be released.
That's interesting. 60 mpg is a lot less than the 176 mpg quoted in some of the Audi blurb. How does that rate compared with a normal 1.4 A3?
What I find interesting is that the electric range is quoted as ~30miles correct? Now this is enough to get to work and back if your round trip is less than this, however if your commute is more, then you would obviously be running the petrol engine on the return. Granted this would allow for significantly reducing your commuting fuel bill, but if you wanted to run electric the whole commute - surely the question is how many companies would allow you to recharge the car at work (using their electric) or provide facilites for doing so? (Assuming its not a company car, or even if it is - put them in place?). This is only an observation by the way - I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I'm wrong!
What I find interesting is that the electric range is quoted as ~30miles correct? Now this is enough to get to work and back if your round trip is less than this, however if your commute is more, then you would obviously be running the petrol engine on the return. Granted this would allow for significantly reducing your commuting fuel bill, but if you wanted to run electric the whole commute - surely the question is how many companies would allow you to recharge the car at work (using their electric) or provide facilites for doing so? (Assuming its not a company car, or even if it is - put them in place?). This is only an observation by the way - I'm sure someone more knowledgeable will correct me if I'm wrong!
The only problem with that argument is that if everyone stopped buying new cars their would be no second-hand ones to buy
Does the 'farting' only apply to cows or to all animals, including humans?
Yes price is a problem at the moment. If I compare the cost of the E-ton to my present car it would cost me over £2,000 more for a lot less performance. My present quattro is to me my 'ultimate' car and at this stage I do not see any point in going backwards in my car choice.My thoughts? Simples ...
... This is without doubt the future of motoring IMHO
If only it was a little cheaper I would be seriously tempted, but I suspect as technological advances in this field increase prices will drop