Debunking Musk - TED talk 2022.

[BrianHG]

Part 1 of 4:



Enjoy.

[BrianHG]

Part #2:

[BrianHG]

Part 3 of 4:

[abquke]

OP mysteriously disappears before part 4 is up...

[robca]

OP mysteriously disappears before part 4 is up...

Musk briefly stopped tweeting obsessively about Twitter and sending emails about remote work cheats, and sent his goons after the OP. 

[BrianHG]

Part 4 of 4:

[PartialDischarge]

Ted Talk? I though Ted Talks were persons talking about a particular topic to an audience, this is a documentary

[El Rubio]

I wish I had “goons”.

[BrianHG]

Now for the finale:

[racemaniac]

What is this bullshit? A 'TED talk' that obviously isn't one. I wouldn't be surprised if the videos get taken down just for using the TED talk name without permission. And now a 5th video where the previous videos indicated it would be a 4 video series...

I haven't watched a single second of these videos yet, and i'm not inclined to do so if they can't even properly name the videos, or count to 5 O_o....

[pcprogrammer]

In the first video of the series they state that the interviewer is Chris Anderson and that he is the curator of this website: https://www.ted.com/

It also explains that TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design.

But the videos are quite lengthy and I'm not going to watch them. Already made up my mind about Mr. Musk.

[wraper]

Not a TED talk, author couldn't even get this without being misleading. And coming from a parasite riding on a Musk hype train in almost every video he ever released. How can you possibly do a reasonable or common sense (pun intended) thing when the only thing you do is "debunking" Musk on a weekly basis for 2 years. Did not watch these, but a few of his videos which I did were of a very low quality filled with nonsense, absurd conclusions and bunch of false information.

[pcprogrammer]

The youtube comments below part four praise the hell out of it

The level of information presented here to debunk this con man of the century is nothing less than impressive. In fact in a parallel and functioning world, this is the level of investigative journalism that the general public should expect from mainstream media, unfortunately that will likely never happen in the near future.

Holy Cow after watching all Four Parts, I can't even imagine the amount of time and research you and your team had to do to make this. I say great work.

[wraper]

Watched a bit of it. A level of information such as rambling about every single thing Musk said. Hence the total length of 5 videos sucked out of a single interview. Musk funds X-prize for carbon capture - Sceptic: we already have trees which work the best! Some shocking news for him, they work the best, but not good enough to deal with all of the emissions.

[pcprogrammer]

Watched a bit of it. A level of information such as rambling about every single thing Musk said. Hence the total length of 5 videos sucked out of a single interview. Musk funds X-prize for carbon capture - Sceptic: we already have trees which work the best! Some shocking news for him, they work the best, but not good enough to deal with all of the emissions.

That is because we chopped most of them down and growing a new one takes ages

[wraper]

Watched a bit of it. A level of information such as rambling about every single thing Musk said. Hence the total length of 5 videos sucked out of a single interview. Musk funds X-prize for carbon capture - Sceptic: we already have trees which work the best! Some shocking news for him, they work the best, but not good enough to deal with all of the emissions.

That is because we chopped most of them down and growing a new one takes ages

Even if we did not chop them, it still would not be enough. Frankly it's so dumb to lambast this incentive. https://www.xprize.org/prizes/elonmusk

This four-year global competition invites innovators and teams from anywhere on the planet to create and demonstrate solutions that can pull carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere or oceans, and sequester it durably and sustainably. To win the grand prize, teams must demonstrate a working solution at a scale of at least 1000 tonnes removed per year; model their costs at a scale of 1 million tonnes per year; and show a pathway to achieving a scale of gigatonnes per year in future.

Any carbon negative solution is eligible: nature-based, direct air capture, oceans, mineralization, or anything else that achieves net negative emissions, sequesters CO2 durably, and show a sustainable path to achieving low cost at gigatonne scale.

[pcprogrammer]

I don't know enough about the whole CO2 thing, but I would like to see a, to the micro gram precise (if possible), specification of where it all comes from.

And with that I mean a list of sources including biological organisms like animals (humans are animals too), plants, bacteria, etc and also things like industry, cars, our homes, etc.

This to see how we as humans are actually contributing to the total amount that is present in the air at the moment, and I would also like to know if it is the actual sole cause of the climate change.

I have tried googling what the actual CO2 emission is of a single human just from eating, pooping and breathing, but I got nothing.

[pcprogrammer]

Even if we did not chop them, it still would not be enough.

I meant over a very long time. If none of the trees were chopped there would not be space for farming, industry and our homes. The planet would most likely still be healthy though

[dietert1]

This isn't about micrograms but about millions of tons. Very educative to calculate the airspace taken way by 1 ton of CO2 at atmospheric pressure.
And we all know that earth and its biosphere takes aways roughly half of the total CO2 emissions. The other half has been accumulating in the atmosphere and it won't go away for millions of years. Before it goes away, the water of the oceans will go away as vapor and then what.

Regards, Dieter

[pcprogrammer]

That is the total sum of it all. But we are spoon fed that CO2 is the root of all our problems and we need to move away from fossil fuels to become CO2 neutral. Zero emission is also used in a lot of publications, and I feel that we are being misled, because we also emit CO2 ourselves.

The question is how much CO2 is produced by 8 billion humans just by eating and pooping?

The current ppm reading is, I believe, between 400 and 500. How this relates to tons, I don't know. How it affects the climate I don't know either.

[wraper]

That is the total sum of it all. But we are spoon fed that CO2 is the root of all our problems and we need to move away from fossil fuels to become CO2 neutral.

Humanity creates a large part of total CO2, and is the root cause. As minimum a very large part of it. The problem should be dealt both ways, reducing emissions and removing it from atmosphere.

Zero emission is also used in a lot of publications, and I feel that we are being misled, because we also emit CO2 ourselves.

"Zero emission" is applied to particular things, not humanity as a whole. Of course there will be no zero emission at all but net zero emission is possible (removing as much as was emitted).

[Psi]

If I was a mod I'd probably just lock this thread. Looks to me like a mix of FUD and ramblings.
Probably part of a smear campaign by some industry that stands to lose money from electric cars.
Don't get me wrong, Musk is by no means perfect, but on balance he is doing a lot of good.

The move to electric cars is a positive one. It doesn't matter if sometimes they are recharged using coal power plants, that won't always be the case. It's the move to electric and away from fossil fuels that is important.

Tesla and SpaceX are also good examples to show how much more progress happens when companies are run by the engineers and not by managers or people with business degrees.

[pcprogrammer]

The move to electric cars is a positive one. It doesn't matter if sometimes they are recharged using coal power plants, that won't always be the case. It's the move to electric and away from fossil fuels that is important.

Be that as it may, it is not the solution to a far bigger problem. For electric cars we still need to plunder mother earth. Lithium is the next fossil fuel, and if not lithium it will be cobalt, etc. None of this stuff is in endless supply. And it is not just CO2 that poisons our atmosphere. Think of al the other shit that is released during production of all the goods we consume.

Until scientists find a way to make all the needed elements from thin air, without any form of pollution, we will run into the same kind of problems over and over again.

[SiliconWizard]

We devise a lot of fancy models, none of which are remotely accurate. Climate is a VERY very complex matter.

The main issue is that we know (by observation) how things tend to "naturally" balance themselves, but we have no fricking clue how to reproduce this balancing technically, even though many claim otherwise. Heck, we don't even really know what a proper balance means. Things have gone really bad climate-wise in the past. The Earth is still there and life on it is still abundant. Does that count for things getting balanced over time in a "natural" way? And at what point do we consider things are OK and not OK? Who gets to decide? (Hint: for instance, just because some temporary climate situation does not please us humans does not mean that it is "bad".) By unilaterally determining the rules of what is right and what isn't, we are not doing any better than when we release huge amounts of pollutants. It's just two faces of the same coin. Just my humble 2 cents though, probably not a popular idea.

Depleting "non-renewable" resources (by that we usually mean, resources that don't get renewed in a time scale compatible with our own human time scale) is one thing, pollution is yet another. We could have found ways of using only renewable resources while stilling emitting a lot of CO2 and otherwise pollutants.

In other words, I'm not denying we have been abusive with our environment. We sure have. But I unfortunately think that we are mostly clueless as to how to make things better (short of stopping everything right now, which we can't), and that most of the solutions we come up with are every bit as bad as what led us to this situation in the first place. The same causes, the same consequences.

[dietert1]

The facts were known for at least 30 or 40 years and there are enough well written documents available online for anybody to know what is going on. The idea that we don't know what is going on is fantasy. Musk is one of those dreamers. No serious person will ever claim that humans will be able to put the carbon back to where it was 200 years ago. Electrical cars don't put the carbon back to where it was.

The average carbon dioxide footprint in western countries is roughly 2 or 3 times as high compared to e.g. India. That means the western model is destructive and needs to change, while many others don't have to change.

Regards, Dieter