Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Tesla's Battery Supply Problem" video.

  1. 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
  2. Why?
    1
  3. Your lost. He never recommended the stock in the fist place.
    1
  4. 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
  5. It also created horrendous problem that sparked BEV in the first place.
    1
  6. Firstly, hydrogen powered cars ARE ELECTRIC CARS . Secondly, hydrogen will never be cheaper than batteries.
    1
  7.  @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
  8.  @Juan_ChoS  I suggest his own videos on hydrogen . Just search real engineering 's channel for hydrogen videos :)
    1
  9.  @steelshepherd6843  You're not making sense.
    1
  10.  @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
  11.  @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
  12.  @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
  13.  @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
  14. Yes, they can be recycled. It just way too expensive to do it so nobody really recycles it.
    1
  15. Recycling, batteries can be recycled.
    1
  16.  @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
  17. @Strawberry Kiys Still far less polluting than any ICE care throughout their lifetime , though.
    1
  18.  @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