Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "The Truth About The Tesla Semi-Truck" video.

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
Whether you believe it or not, greenhouse effects are still real.
2
What is the big picture , then?
1
+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
+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
+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
+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
+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
+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
Did you even bother watching the video?
1
+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
+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
“ CLICK BAIT “ You Keep Using That Phrase, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means .
1
+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
+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
+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
+cnoogs That is wrong on so many levels. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed
1
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
+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
+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
Still less than the total amount of CO2 produced by ICE after you factor in the production cost.
1
+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