Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Real Engineering" channel.

  1. If you bloody them enough, they will break as the atomic bombs succinctly demonstrated. .One of the biggest flaw of the Pearl Harbor Attack was that it failed to actually do any significant damage to the US Navy.
    91
  2. +neeneko If we go by that definition then the Pearl Harbor raid wasn't an attempt at "bloodying the nose" at all. The Japanese knew fully well that they can never compete with the industrial powerhouse of the US (especially when their Navy is still around) ,so the attack was mainly to completely cripple the US forces in the Pacific and hopes in the time that the time it take for the US to rebuild its power there the IJN would have solidify control over the Pacific and maintain a good enough supply chain to support their industry. The attack failed in this objective . The defeat wasn't apparent to the Japanese (who even after Hiroshima was willing to fight to the end) until Fat Man detonated over Nagasaki . Even then there are element in the Japanese military that were still convinced that they should not surrender (many argued that the Soviet manoeuvre toward Japan at the time were a greater concern for the Japanese).
    64
  3. +caif4 Temporarily gone, the attack only managed to completely destroy 3 battleships . The rest while damaged were managed to be restored to active duty in the coming months to years . Still this do remove them from the theatre for awhile. Ironically , the battleship would actually be less useful in the Pacific War against the Japanese . I think one of the more egregious failure of that attack was they inability to destroy fuel depots , repair facility and even other asset (submarine related ones) .
    7
  4. Unless you're using fuel cells which do not combust the H2 with O2 to produce electricity (and releasing water as a byproduct) .
    6
  5. Didn't the German tanks have bigger guns ?
    6
  6. Do you support him on Patreon or do you just consume his free content? If it is the latter than your over entitled ass have no right to ask him to remove add on his free video, people like these make me sick.
    5
  7. Libya did not get invaded by a foreign power.
    5
  8.  @jeffbenton6183  No, it's a movie .
    4
  9.  @samuelevans5750  WTF? What the heck are you rambling about?
    4
  10. +Srikant Iyengar I kinda forgot what the energy density per/kg for every type of fuel but the problem with H2 is that it is not an energy dense fuel due to the large volume the gas tend to be in. You either need to supercool or put it under very high pressure (usually both) just to get it into a more usable state. +Al Grayson Shockwave is talking about fuel cells, not combustion engine using hydrogen. Fuel cells do not produce flame (though they do emit wasteful heat) when they oxidize hydrogen therefore they don't really "combust" them .
    3
  11.  @TS-jm7jm  Here is where you are wrong: 1) Multiple studies gave pointed out that BEV are far less polluting that ICEV in term of lifetime cost/impact even in the worst case scenario where the entirety of the electricity needed to power those batteries came from highly polluting coal power planet. When the energy mix is closer to 50% or more skewed towards renewable, a BEV ca be less polluting than and equivalent ICEV in just 5 years. This high upfront environmental cost of BEV is due to the pollution crated in the process in extracting the raw mineral needed for batteries. Thank full all batteries manufacturer are working toward better battery chemistry that reduces such problem .. 2)Your claim on windfarm being energy negative is incorrect as shown by data of wind power production. As for the bird deaths? They still kill less than caused by fossil fuel. 3)Your claim on the temperature have being stable is also false as the global temperature have been recorded to be rising at a rate =no t seen within the history of this planet. The only sensible point you made was about nuclear power.
    3
  12. Waiting for Thunderf00t to make a video on this.
    2
  13. Yes.
    2
  14. +RobertExplains I think batteries is a much better option for EV than Fuel Cell. There are just too many problems with HFC for it to be competitive even to compared current generation of Li-ion for automobiles. That's not even counting the batteries are more environmentally friendlier than HFC in terms of energy efficiency. Oh, I'm obviously talking about cars here. Things might be different for aircraft.
    2
  15.  @maxmiddelman2706  True, for applications where weight is paramount such as aircraft, shipping or long-range-high mass cargo over land hydrogen might be a better choice. That and also for static energy storage. For consumer vehicle however, hydrogen will never make more sense than batteries.
    2
  16. Not only do the A-10 suffered more combat loss than any other NATO aircrafts in Gulf War. They also were responsible for far more friendly fire incident. Lets not forget that thing got was so bad that the A-10 pilot had to use binoculars for target acquisition.
    2
  17. Whether you believe it or not, greenhouse effects are still real.
    2
  18. All those argument against man made climate change have been debunked https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php Oh, there is no need for population control. The population will moderate itself in the long run.
    2
  19.  @bvbxiong5791  Kyle Hill must be is a salty European too by your "logic" because he made a video that explained the "breakthrough" exactly like the guy you're responding too.
    2
  20. It would be next to useless against any enemy with some basic air defense .Russian MANPADS and SORADS would have field day with them.
    2
  21. It would be next to useless against any enemy with some basic air defense .Russian MANPADS and SORADS would have field day with them.
    2
  22. +Sahit Dodda Actaully, Hydrogen fuel cell are far less efficient than battery. Firstly you requires energy to produce , store and distribute H2 . Secondly, the theoretical maximum efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cell is 85%, though the truth is most current fuel cell can only manage an efficiency of 40-60%.In contrast current gen of battery EV have an efficiency of 85% and above.
    1
  23.  @naveenarora6467  Hydrogen for car is stupid beyond belief and is a dead end technology. Batteries are far better for that utility . Hydrogen would be more suited for energy storage or for large cargo ship and aicrafts .
    1
  24. Didn't Covidien sabotaged at least one effort to build affordable ventilators because "it wasn't profitable" enough" for them? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdkDlm-3YrY
    1
  25. People have also debunk Thunderf00ts video on hyperloop. Lets just say that Thunderf00ts say some very erroneously scientifically false thing in his "debunking" videos.
    1
  26. In which he repeated and doubled down on some his own inaccuracies.
    1
  27. Why?
    1
  28. Only if you like pollution.
    1
  29. They will never be cheaper than purely charging your BEV, though.
    1
  30. What is the big picture , then?
    1
  31. You do realise that DU round emit Alpha particle that can' penetrate your skin , right? You are more at risk takin a shorts 10 minute walk outside everyday than having them pressed against you skin.. Sure, they can be a radioactive risk if they get into into tissue m but if a 30mm DU round is inside you, in think you already have far worse medical concerns.
    1
  32. Bullshit,
    1
  33.  @EnglishLawyer  There are several problem with that: 1) The A-10 main gun is actually obsolete as it can't penetrate the armour of T-72 tank and anything more advance that that . In fact the guns was obsolete the moment it came into service in 1977 . It may still be useful for "soft" target like truck or IFV but there is problem with that too (see point, No 2). Of course this can be mitigated as the A-10 can carry large number of air to ground missiles capable of destroying these tanks which lead to the second problem. 2) The Ukrainian do not have air supremacy . Not only the A-10 will have to contend with the Russian Airforce , but the AA defense form the ground. Remember the Ukrainians have aircrafts of their own but they could not launch such a attacks on those column because of the exacts same reasons. The Russian have very good SHORAD that will shred slow moving targets like the A-10 3) Training. The Ukrainian have no experience operating the A-10 and have to be trained form the ground up to operate such machinery. This will take months While the A-10 did very well in Afghanistan because the Taliban have no capable AA. , it service records in Iraq wasn't as glowing : It destroyed less target than F-16 and other aircrafts while having the highest casualties of all coalition aircrafts, this is despite them having complete air dominance in Iraq. On top of that the A-10 also cause the most Blue on Blue deaths as well as collateral damage.
    1
  34.  @EnglishLawyer  Again, the problem with that is the Russians have vey good SHORADS and have access to MANPADS. This is the reason whey the Ukrainian themselves could not conduct successful air raid (and have to rely on action by Ukraine ground forces) to attack these soft targets despite having an air force of their own.
    1
  35. +cnoogs No the majority of CO2 that comes these days are through human activities. Volcanoes (which are the largest natural producer of CO2) produce only 200 million tons of CO2 annually . In contrast humanity pumps up 24 billion tons of CO2 each years (last year we [produced 38.2 billion tons) . That number do add up over time considering that the planet have a limited ability in sequestrating carbon dioxide. That doesn't even cacounting for other more potent greenhouse gases that we poduce (Methane eg).
    1
  36. +cnoogs Those numbers I provided are easily google-able( try it). Yes, we can do a rather accurate estimates of the numbers because we know how much fossil fuels are burned each year, how much of them that comes from natural sources (the afore mentioned volcanoes, the biggest natural releaser of C02) and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere through the ages from recorded data ( ice core and sedimentary drilling eg). We know for a certain that most of the CO2 really do comes from human activity and the rate/percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere have been steadily rising. Th biggest carbon sink on our planet is the ocean (the amount would be far higher if not for that role), but that to seem to comes at a cost to the ecosystem (the acidification of the ocean), this in turn reduced its future capacity to capture more released CO2 .Eventually it will be overwhelmed . As for plants and their ability to capture CO2, their role are mainly for stabilisation the amount of CO2 and of limited in role. Even they too have been severely compromised thanks to rapid deforestation that is occurring around the globe. If they are as effective as you claim, the buildup would not have happen in the first place Most of the thing you stated in your second paragraph (in 800 CE he earth's temperature was far higher than today eg, the truth is average temperature from this past few decades have been higher than in 800 CE) have been thoroughly debunked . While the planet have experienced fluctuation in global temperature, the rate of change have never been higher. In just less than a century , we have experienced changes that would have taken centuries and even millennia in the past. Most geologist are in agreement to this ( again the whole most geologist disagree with man made climate change is a myth).
    1
  37. +cnoogs Funny, you seem to missed the entire article which concluded that human produced CO2 are the reason for the upset in the balance and causing climate change. Talk about cherry picking. Just in case you'r wondering what they meant by "human producing less than natural sources" here is the explanation : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/ BTW, the main page also answers some of the myths that you believed: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
    1
  38. +cnoogs The only one being misled is yourself it seems . Though I'm unsure is you are actively deluding yourself by cherry picking data and ignoring facts or someone else is putting you through this. You ability to cherry pick and misquote data that supported your belief while ignoring the rest is astounding. Do you even bother reading those articles in the first place? Notice that while they show climate change have happened before , all the data supported the notion the rate of change have never been as drastic as it have been in the last century nor have the increase in CO2 ever been as fast. Funny that you missed the one that debunked your 800 CE was warmer than today data too. You also seem to misread the conclusion of the Ice core data too (no surprise there).
    1
  39. +cnoogs "Yeah the oil companies put me up to this. You sly dog, you got me. : Your words, not mine. I do find such cherry picking tactic to be perfidious at best and such I am now skeptical of your intellectual integrity. "You keep saying funny how I missed "this" and I misread "that" but yet you never say what it was I misread." Everything from the climate change data though the years to the threat of global warming on Polar bears population. You misread all of them or you conveniently ignore the entire body of the article in favour of misquoting certain lines from said article despite the rest of them pushing completely opposite conclusion. "The medieval warming stuff is only cooler than today if you get the temperature via tree rings. Of which they even stated the many problems in it. And the problem that method has is that it gets more inaccurate the further you go back in time. With the ice cores they said the problem is dealing with the complex interactions with the sunlight and the ice, of which they do not know if this effects the data to the upside, downside, or not at all. I'm going to believe the ice core data because that seems like it has a lot less problems. What did I misread about the ice core conclusion, exactly?" It seem that you tried to push the idea that climate change of this scale have happened before (it never did) and that you are certain that such change were natural (again those article disagree). How can you of all people be sure in your own stand if you admit that the data you're using is still flawed? That article pretty much showed that the methodology in which people convinced themselves of the medieval war period was indeed flawed. They concluded the fact that we are warmer now than for the past 1000 years is the only thing that can be supported by reasonable amount of data. "I wouldn't say you're cherry picking, just willfully ignoring. And if they say that website say "they're not completely sure" you accept it as truth." The only one her being willfully ignorant is you. The fact that you looked at the articles and data and completely dismiss all them over a few misquoted lines out of context illustrates that point succinctly. No scientist is completely sure of everything. That is something pretty much all scientist (anyone anyone who know enough of the scientific method) will tell you. However they can make conclusion based on all available data. The overwhelming amount of data support the theory of man made climate change.
    1
  40. +cnoogs "Okay. Nice attempt at insulting" Take it as you may. I'm just expressing my disappointment at your rather duplicitous nature of data interpretation. " But moving on, I agree CO2 has been increasing heavily, but the temperature has not. You refer me to the tree ring method, whose graph shows today has the highest temperature, but the scale is only back 1000 years ago. Increase that scale to 12000 years and you see a very different picture. And I accept that in 1000 years, today we have the highest temperature (the graph where temperature is derived from the tree rings - but again, that's just in the 1000 years)." No, the data still show that temperature are increasing faster today than any other time in history. You are confusing maximum recorded temperature with rate of temperature change. While we are still largely unsure of the detail of the multiple warming and cooling periods, we are sure (to a certain degree) that the rate of climate change that we are experiencing is indeed unprecedented. "Polar bears - so are you saying the population is in decline? If so, why do you disagree with my source. Speaking of, have you read any of my sources? Or was your point that polar bears will be in danger in the future? If that is your point, don't push the myth polar bears are in decline, they are not." You mean the very same source that said explicitly stated that climate change indeed might have adverse impact on polar bear population? Or do you ignore them pointing out the increase in population was due to reduced hunting by humans or that when that data was collected the range of ice sheets were still greater than it is now? Your source concluded that climate change is indeed a threat to polar bear population. "That means the at 800 CE was hotter than today - an original statement, which you tried refute earlier." I didn't try to refute, the collected data debunked that theory. There is no proof that 800 CE was hotter than today. The few observable data actually states the opposite. 'You are the one cherry picking. You choose the graph with a scale of only 1000 years to prove your point, but refuse to consider ice cores that show a more complete picture" You acts as if the ice core data actually debunks man-made climate change. If you actually looked at those tens of thousand of year data you'll find that they do no such thing. Cheery picking would be coming to your conclusion despite the fact that the people who do studies those ice core never agree with your conclusion. "The overwhelming support you suggest has been all refuted with my own: Polar bears, temperature graphs with a scale of 12000 years, ice volume/ocean height graphs - which just prove the ice caps began melting 12000 years ago." Ironic considering the full text and data analysing on very single one of those sources ( which highlights your extraordinary degree of cherry picking and misrepresentation of data that is literally written for you)pretty much agree that man made climate change is both real and a threat to the ecosystem . Unless you mean to say that none of the data you show supported your notion, you have only successfully refuted yourself.
    1
  41. Jets?
    1
  42. Batteries can be recycled when they finally reached their end in their 20-30 years lifespans.
    1
  43.  @jackschulz9398  Don't be so sure. Tesla already are rolling out plan to recycle their batteries and I believe other manufacturers may be planning to do the same. That not even counting the possibility of government mandating manufacturers having such program in the future.
    1
  44. And have them massacred by MANSPADS and SHORADS. Not only that their guns are useless against modern armour.
    1
  45. Your lost. He never recommended the stock in the fist place.
    1
  46. Did you even bother watching the video?
    1
  47. +Jeff Moore Again watch the video before posting anything else . It's clear that you don't. But just in case you have watch it : So you're saying that this video is completely wrong on all account for suggesting that The Tesla truck is innovative , effective and could change the industry? I guess Elon Musk is a snake oil salesman, then. Shame on Real Engineering for making me believe in Elon's vision.
    1
  48. +Jeff Moore Depend on what do you mean by being "critical" and the what the purpose of such "critical piece" are (be it review, skeptical rebuttal or simply exploration on concept an idea originate from the highlighted topic) , depending on what those are they can be of great value to society (in most case they are) . You seem to think that critics (they are actually no criticism of the Tesla truck in this video, but lets pretend there is ) are inherently bad , this is far from the truth.
    1
  49. “ CLICK BAIT “ You Keep Using That Phrase, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means .
    1
  50. +Jeff Moore By that logic nobody should talk anything about anything engineering related as they are all company secrets and these guys obviously don't work on the project. Do you actually have any valid rebuttal to the actual math and calculation in this video other than the misguided notion of what is "click bait" an whom should be allowed to talk about certain subjects?
    1
  51. +Jeff Moore Only someone who know absolutely nothing about math , physics or science in general would hold your view. There is no such thing as secret physic defying tech . Anyone can check out the theoretical limit of such device provided that they have sound grasp of the general concept. BTW, I also got the impression that you somehow seem to think this is my video. Do you even bother reading the name of this channel and the guy that is currently conversing with you?
    1
  52. +Jeff Moore In short : You don't watch the video and you don't even bother reading the name of the guy replying to you ( HINT: I never uploaded a single video on youtube , ever ). Either you're trolling or you are ridiculously stupid. Either way , I'm done here.
    1
  53. Is the Arena (Russia's active protection system similar to the Trophy) system less effective or are the tanks destroyed there just lacks these active protection systems?
    1
  54. Cherry picking a few controversial scientist while ignoring the thousands of other that disagree or debunked them isn't a conducive to finding out the truth.
    1
  55. There is no such thin a peer reviewed study that shows EMF are dangerous to large mammals. So , no, There is no scientific basis that supports your irrationality.
    1
  56. The environmental cost of LI-ion battery powered EV is till lower (less than half)than that of an ICE if we count the total lifespan of the vehicle. Sure , it does have a much larger footprint upon production but because it requires less maintenance and completely negates the environmental cost of the fuel needed to power it.
    1
  57. +Simon WoodburyForget You do know that when I say "environmental cost" I mean the amount of pollutant s and CO2 produced throughout their lifetime and not the dollar value , right? The Tesla and any battery powered EV is much more environmentally friendlier than both hybrids and fuel cell EV in that regards , and all three ar btter than pure ICE vehicles.. The only advantage of ICE over BEV is the range but this is not a concern for 99% of non commercial motorist with pretty much most ( if not all) BEV produced within 5 years having the range of over 500 km per-charge . As for the true cost in dollar value: mot of the cost of ICE (including hybrids) are not in the upfront cost, it is for the fuel and maintenance accrued throughout the lifetime of the vehicle. BEV (including Tesla) are lot more more cost competitive than you think and are definitely better than ICE (including hybrids) that are within their price range.
    1
  58. +PainX187 Except recycling Li-ion battery is a lot ,lot ,lot more expensive than simply mining them. There are good reason that battery recycling isn't a big business despite the huge boom in Li-ion battery using appliances in very facet of modern life.
    1
  59. It also created horrendous problem that sparked BEV in the first place.
    1
  60. Have you seen the videos rebuking ThunderF00T's faulty science?
    1
  61. Firstly, hydrogen powered cars ARE ELECTRIC CARS . Secondly, hydrogen will never be cheaper than batteries.
    1
  62.  @Juan_ChoS  Is this a serious question? Hydrogen in hydrogen cars are used to created electricity which run the electric drive train in such vehicle. This is pretty much the same as BEV like tesla, only far less efficient in the case of hydrogen.
    1
  63.  @Juan_ChoS  I suggest his own videos on hydrogen . Just search real engineering 's channel for hydrogen videos :)
    1
  64.  @steelshepherd6843  You're not making sense.
    1
  65.  @steelshepherd6843  None of what you just said refute the fact that we are :A) experiencing climate change at at rate that is unprecedented ..and B) human are most likely responsible for this round of climate change.
    1
  66.  @steelshepherd6843  Based on all data (which is wildly availed to everyone, contrary to your claim) Human made Climate Change is still the most universally accepted theory explain the current bout of climate change. Unless yiu care to proved actual peer reviewed papers that debunks man made climate change that its. BTW, Principia Scientific International doesn't really have much credibility considering they also think that wind turbines makes people sick and child vaccines as evil. Thy are at best described as contrarian /fringe.
    1
  67.  @steelshepherd6843  "You are taking their presented data at face value, you have not made a scientific point," No, I trust the experts in the field that have analysed those scientific data. "you like everyone else falls back on the same defences, " You mean falling back to scientific facts and verified data. You knows, *the truth*? " I'm not even saying people are not having an effect, only that the data is not accurate" Tbe data is accurate enough to explain the effects of climate change and correctly predicted future trends. "the effects are exaggerated' There is nothing exaggerated about the observed increased intensity of natural phenomenon (drought, tropical storsm etc) due to climate change. "what is being presented, and predicting it is far more difficult than they are acknowledging." i haven' met a single climate scientist that is worth his/her salt that claims their prediction is 100 accurate ofr they knew everything , ergo there is no basis for your complain here. Really ? another pseudoscience webtsite with questionable methodology as your source? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/ As for rest of your links: "https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?src=pm%3D%3D" ' This 1989 article have shown ridiculously outdated based on the increase in global and local(as in the US) temperature recorded through the 200s until now Heck it was in line with what predicted ibn your NASA link (yes your own NAS link correctly predicted that the temperature rise past the previous high after the year 2000s . "Specifically entropy, the primary method for heat loss of our planet is not even discussed. " The entropy parts have been addressed: https://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm It seem you rather cherry pick data (many outdated ) and quote dubious sources rather than the one that uses scientific method "1. In your first post you said my points were all debunked which is false." They have been debunked. "Skeptical Science, you would realize it is old, many if not most of the points were being argued about their accuracy even 12 years ago," That is abcaeu most of th dberate have been settled 12 year gao, and yest people keep on bringing them up. "You are afraid to find data countering your end and likely would acknowledge it if the situations reversed, "" False, I welcome any credible eb=vidence that would enlighten me on the thure nature if thing. You just failed to brought up any. "which is unlikely because only one is lucrative." Oil companies literally spent hundreds of millions sponsoring research that tried to debunks and discredit made made climate change. There is far more money to be made on your side . The fact that they failed so far despite being more well funded shows the strengths of the science behind them.. "Being published may be prestigious, but like most things that has proven to be a rigged game. I am not responsible for your lack of knowledge about all of the reports that have been cancelled or defended," Peer review isn't about being published. Its about having other researcher have a go at your finding and tries to dismantle you if they could. The beauty about peer reviews is that it quickly discredits any research and study that isn't up to mark. That is why many false papers (Andrew Wakefiled) quickly got debunked . The fact that thsoe studes got "cancelled"" shows the treght of the peer review method , '3. A consensus does mean a few things, a bias in publishing, a bias in funding, and easy money if you can produce similar reports. " You really don't understand how scientist mind works do you? A scientist is more likely to achieve fame and accolades if s/he manage to successfully debunks refutes an established report/paradigm or introduce new one that no one have ever thought rather than be a conformist. Because of this insular drive, it is only when the data is strong enough do a consensus usually appears. A fore the money enticement , as I said there is far more money to be made trying to debunk man made climate change.
    1
  68.  @steelshepherd6843  "Your entire point is other people are right and you believe them, " Only because they have been proven to be right. You on the other hand should trust people who are smarter than you. " The fact you think there is more money to be made solely in oil rather than government subsidized renewable energy should be a red flag considering both Tesla, the solar industry, and the political careers of those who champion them." You seem to not know that fossil fuel and ICE industry is far more heavily subsidised ( literally in the amounts of hundred of billion of dollars ) than renewable energy now or that very powerful political parties (the GOP in the US eg) do back them. 'Everything you say and every point you try to make has no analysis on your part, you are defending something you can't explain" I already explain it to you my analysis : *human made climate change and their impact is supported by all credible evidence that we gathered so far*.. The fact that you refused to listen shows the problem on your side "It should be the role of everyone to question the assertions made, it is the duty of the person making the assertion to prove it. I cannot disprove anything if it was never proven in the first place, at least o the degree that they have claimed." Again, the theory and data behind man made climate change have been challenged countless times and very single time they do came on top. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed scientific paper that proves their assertion to be correct. The fact that you chose to ignore them shows wilful ignorance on your past. "You walk in lock step with the narrative and have admitted as such, you are following solely what is popular and because it is popular." You mean like how the Earth is an oblate sphere orbiting around the sun is a "popular assertion". Facts are facts regardless of how "popular" it is. " There are a thousand comments of people trying to figure out what you call settled " If you actually spend time reading those comment you would find that most that tried to refute climate change are as ignorant of science as you yourself have shown. They few that seem to know seem to bent of cherry picking ) instead of arguing in good faith . "and yet you call others false when you can'explain it yourself." No, I called them false because they are incapable of providing irrefutable evidence /data to what they claim. In fact many of them have been thoroughly debunked . "Remember this in 2030 when we are still here" Another strawman form you. Almost all climate scientist agrees that man made climate change will not be the extinction of mankind (so of course we would still be here). At worst it would cause catastrophic ecological disaster that will cost humanity trillion of dollar in damage and countless lives and would take the Earth million of years to recover. ' come while the goal is never reached and the alarmism continues on, the goal post are moved, and the previous alarmist and their claims are forgotten in place of the new ones" Talk about ignoring realty. So far the=climate scientist have managed to correctly predict the effects of climate change, so no, no goalpost have been moved. They only one movie goalpost are climate change deniers, I remember the time that they tried to deny that climate change is even happening. "https://www.theepochtimes.com/chapter-sixteen-the-communism-behind-environmentalism-part-ii_2786362.html" Wow, another poorly researched, extremely biased and non credible source from you. That is the problem with you. Your opposition is based on some tribal mentality of political leanings instead of what the facts are pointing. You allow partisanship to blind your from seeing the truth, science doesn't care about political beliefs. "If you are emotionally attached to your tribe, religion or political leaning to the point that truth and justice become secondary considerations, your education is useless. Your exposure is useless. If you cannot reason beyond petty sentiments, you are a liability to mankind" ~ Dr. Chuba Okadigbo(Late)"
    1
  69. +cnoogs That is wrong on so many levels. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed
    1
  70. How much fuel (methane) that the craft needed to act as heat shield? And how hard is it to keep them in liquid form throughout the journey to space and back?
    1
  71. Nothing on the impact of afforestation on local ecosystems and species?
    1
  72. Yes, they can be recycled. It just way too expensive to do it so nobody really recycles it.
    1
  73. The problem is your gasoline engine is more destructive than just about all the sources on this list (except maybe coal) once you factor in the material cost too. So no, you're not better off with gasoline.
    1
  74. Recycling, batteries can be recycled.
    1
  75.  @Mitzoplick  Yes, the problem is recycling them is very ,tech extensive and very expensive. The cost benefit isn't just there for recycling li when mined li are far cheaper.
    1
  76.  @qwertygirl334675  No they did not get nets energy. While the fusion itself produced net energy, the laser used take magnitudes of more energy (more than 100 times more) than the energy produced by that fusion reaction.
    1
  77. I wonder what Thundef00t's take on this?
    1
  78. Salah video ke?
    1
  79. +Van Sohren Even you factor in the environmental cost to completely produce and the maintenance of these vehicles for its entire lifetime, they're are still far better than traditional diesel and gas powered vehicles in the environmental sense .
    1
  80. +cnoogs BTW cheek the links to the article under "What happened in the past?" to see why what most of what you said is ridiculous : https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
    1
  81.  @chessiejames  So? Multiple studies gave pointed out that BEV are far less polluting that ICEV in term of lifetime cost/impact even in the worst case scenario where the entirety of the electricity needed to power those batteries came from highly polluting coal power planet. When the energy mix is closer to 50% or more skewed towards renewable, a BEV ca be less polluting than and equivalent ICEV in just 5 years.
    1
  82. Too bad that theA-10 is obsolete for any other purpose beside COIN.
    1
  83. @Strawberry Kiys Still far less polluting than any ICE care throughout their lifetime , though.
    1
  84.  @Ironic1950  No, This is actually supported by facts . Several independent studies that looked into this have concluded that even in the worst case scenario that all the electricity needed to power a Tesla (that was the BEV they used in the study) came only form highly polluting coal, the Tesla will still be less polluting than an equal value ICE within both vehicles' lifetime. In the case where around half the energy of the grid came from clean sources(renewable or nuclear) a Tesla would cover their environmental cost within just a few years despite it having a higher environment cost (BEV are very polluting to produce).
    1
  85. Still less than the total amount of CO2 produced by ICE after you factor in the production cost.
    1
  86. +rabe When I say "cost" ,it is obvious I meant "environmental " cost (including CO2 emission). Based on that it is still far better than diesel. As for electricity, depending on the source it could be far better (natural gas, nuclear or renewable) or just as bad (if the majority of power came from coal plants) . If we go by unit cost is monetary value, then you might have a point.
    1