Comments by "DynamicWorlds" (@dynamicworlds1) on "Engineering Explained" channel.

BL y actually, they're censoring all non-corporate content (especially anything remotely political) reguardless of ideological leaning. There's a bunch of complicated collusion and conflicts of interests between google, the advertisers, and the corporate "news" stations (the latter 2, are surprisingly often the same conglomerates), but the tl;dr version is that it comes down to money and closed door talks. The ideology stuff is just a smokescreen cover for what's really going on, but too many people are too ideologically entrenched to see it happening across the spectrum, and not all of those that are able to see that, most are too apathetic and ill-informed about politics to put the dots together.
2
Murder MaroSS yeah, we really need to get much stricter with penalties for such deliberate fraud if this kind of thing is going on. Honest mistakes are one thing, but if a major company is going to put this amount of premeditation into knowingly avoiding regulations by a substantial amount on any product, they need to be made an example of in some way.
2
Ryan McCarthy I'm all for electric cars, but focusing on them before switching over your power grid is a bit of putting the cart before the horse, and not many places are doing good on that yet (and those that are, are mostly doing it with nuclear, though that's a different discussion). By the time we have a greener grid for power, we should have a better idea if fuel cells, manufactured hydrocarbons (be it synthesized, or biofuel), or pure electric (through better batteries or ultra-capacitors) are the way to go. Industry and electricity consumption are worse contributors than just driving right now. That said, if someone wants to use electric on a mixed electric grid for their commutes, I'm not going to knock it. Getting part of that energy from a source other than fossile fuels does help, especially in areas with a high amount of alternative energy sources.
1
Stephen Kramer it's called corporate espionage. Get the evidence that they're doing it and make it public. Then the other companies would be the ones going to court and VW would be sitting pretty. This was willful and blatent no matter how you want to spin it, and they should be punnished for it.
1
DucFanDan really, "church of climatology kool-aid". Sorry, but I gotta call a reality check on you for that. Sure there are plenty of things to criticize about how we're responding to climate change, but that it's happening is just a fact. The only studies out there claiming otherwise are the fraction of a percent bought paid by the fossile fuel industry (and many are by the same scientists that defended the tobacco industry in court, claiming that cigarettes don't cause cancer. Not only that, but more CO2 in the atmosphere could only ever cause warming because of physics. The sun radiates light in a spectrum which peaks in the visible range. A significant portion of that is absorbed and re-radiated in the infrared from the surface. (Because the Earth isn't anywhere near glowing hot) Adding a gas to the atmosphere which is transparent to visible light, but absorbs infrared (which CO2 is and it's very easy to make up a small scale experiment to test it yourself if you feel the need) will absolutely result in a higher temperature for the planet. That's just plain thermodynamics, and that law of physics is extremely unyielding (if it wasn't, we'd have perpetual motion machines).
1
Lysergic Casserole my understanding is that fuel cells are the most efficient way to use that fuel and that it was problems with the fuel itself (production costs and other practical concerns) that was why we weren't looking into it seriously. Always interested in being proven wrong though, if you've got some sources showing otherwise.
1