Debunking HowTheWorldWorks : Episode 2 (Edited)

[lilhavanaboys]

I think it's very clear that "HowTheWorldWorks" doesn't know how the world works.

[Frostbite864]

I have to disagree with the last statement. Hydro-power is not neccessarily environmentally friendly. Dams can have very negative impacts on the environment. Other than that, this was a great video.

[SangriaStud28]

To the blue text box at the beginning of the video:

No, the reason you re-did it is because you don't know how to do a volume calculation. When you saw that Lake Michigan is 4,900 cubic kilometers (which is accurate) you calculated it in one dimension to 4.9 billion liters. If you do it right (in 3d as a volume) its 4,900,000,000,000,000 liters. Which makes your concentration negligible. Then you just did the typical leftist thing and discarded it cause it didn't fit your agenda.

[Frostbite864]

@SangriaStud28 How would it have been relevent to his "leftist agenda"? I don't see how a miscalculation of the amount of water in lake Michigan invalidates the rest of his points.

[hippydude89]

hydro power environmentally friendly? puh-lease.

[axe863]

Epic Win for debunking his pseudo-science

But

Epic Fail for pushing economic pseudo-science

[Gammaclipper]

Sounds to me like the problem has more to do with an impoverished state attempting to scrape together some more money by gladly taking on the externalities of these state sponsored companies. If these corporations were forced to own the land they dumped on they would probably take better care of it.

[Douglas1102]

Wow... thanks for taking the time to do this... you're right... he spouts bullshit at a record pace.

He banned me for calling him on his "disposing a flourescent lightbulb will cost you thousands horseshit." after he personally responded to my comment.

Now that I think about it...

His "best" "argument" against these bulbs is the tiny amount of mercury and how that makes them dangerous...

Well this vid certainly shows the hypocrisy of that claim.

[HipHopCoffeeMaker]

Wow, you are really making this guy look bad.

[ScrewLimbBizkit]

You mean HowTheWorldWorks didn't already look bad?

[FreakonaPeach]

Well... he didn't look to bad... to the right wing nut jobs (or is it left wing. *shrugs) that he calls his subscribers.

[aaron4820]

no he isn't.....howtheworldworks takes care of that himself just fine.

[zombiechaddy]

*Face palm* You didn't even watch his vid where he explains his "energy transitions." You'll see his explanation here at 13:38 (though, I recommend watching the whole thing.)

watch?v=TK8XuStoETg

It's great that you're willing to challenge ideas and engage in debate, but seriously, chose your battles a bit more wisely.

[ThinkAbout1t]

I did watch it. He hasn`t done anything to refute it. I go over this in the next video through annotations, because his response to this video was frankly idiotic, and didn`t even rebutt any of my points.

[LowcountryJoe2]

"You didn't even watch his vid where he explains his 'energy transitions.'"

What makes you think that I didn't see that? I'm not addressing what was said in the original video or in this reply. ThinkAbout1t makes a fine reply to clumbsy portion of HTWW. Instead of crude, electricity generation/distribution became more affordable and adopted for lighting (and other) purposes. Crude and gasoline usage arose for entirely different reasons but at one time, oil was a nuisance, not a resource.

[RoseSkye]

Zombie.. I just want to tell you, he made you eat your words.

[LowcountryJoe2]

"This is true, except for the fact that there are better alternatives.."

Oh, it's true now. But this is similar to the argument that HTWW made and your reply to him was, "BS!" in this very video.

And 'better'? BETTER is all relative. If it was truly better all the way around, they'd have adopted it and we'd have adopted anything that's truly better. I know what you're probably thinking, though, we're not properly considering the longer-term effects and the associated costs/benefits.

[ThinkAbout1t]

The way your comments have been posted makes it difficult to follow your point.

Which argument did HTWW make that I called BS on? The wealth cleaning up stuff? If so, absolutely, that is BS of the highest order. Wealthy people have the ability to clean up their mess, but the reason they`re wealthy most of the time is because they don`t expend the money to clean things up as is.

[LowcountryJoe2]

"The wealth cleaning up stuff? If so, absolutely, that is BS of the highest order."

That's the one. It was poor wording choice on HTWW's part -- wealthy societies have cleaned up their messes and found/used ways to produce stuff without emitting as much pollution.

The reason that people have become wealthier is because they've found ways to satisfy the demand of their fellow producers/consumers; pollutants are an unfortunate by-product of some production. To be continued...

[Wulfenbach]

To be honest they do clean up their stuff it its a the polution is a inconviente to them, or if they can turn it into a profit. ;)

[LowcountryJoe2]

Today's rather large Green movement exists precisely because society's basic needs are largely met for so many in society. Because North Americans live the way they do, affords more people the opportunity to care (focus much more) about the environment than spending precious time doing those things that would have taken much more time in satisfying basic needs.

Besides, today's Greens are affecting demand through their consumption choices/activism; notice how many businesses are going green?

[ThinkAbout1t]

Furthermore, it`s really sort of difficult to respond to you in general. Can you make a finite point? Your statements seem to be very general, and can not only be interpreted many ways, but can be spun many ways.

[LowcountryJoe2]

I'm being general and that's the way some people choose to discuss things. If you'd rather not reply because I might spin your answers, then don't reply or delete my posts or do a combination of both. It's your channel. I'm just a guest on it who wishes to have some dialog

[ThinkAbout1t]

Yes... I would like to have dialog... but... it's not that I'm worried about spinning my answers, I just don't really get what I'm supposed to be answering. What is your question or statement?

[LowcountryJoe2]

You didn't just delete a comment of mine, did you?

[LowcountryJoe2]

You may have. So, I essentially reposted the comment but made modifications to have it be more softball-like...even offering a potential rebuttal that you could use on me. Hopefully this comment will stick even though I am calling you out for you "BS" comment that may not have been warranted. Let's see if you're into censorship on you station.

[ThinkAbout1t]

No? what`s going on? Which comment is missing?

[LowcountryJoe2]

Con't. Countries have to go through the process of making it to the point where the tradeoffs for them are not GDP limiting. I know this irritates you and you'd prefer these countries adopt standards now but the cost is too great for them. In the mean time, if life spans and quality of life are improving most everywhere, the harm that we cause to ourselves is being mitigated by the benefits that are derived.

There's anoher issue, countries are sovereign, we cannot just tell them how to govern.

[ThinkAbout1t]

This is true, except for the fact that there are better alternatives to seek than simply not learning from the last 150 years of industrialization and destruction of the environment.

[LowcountryJoe2]

Follow the reasoning and do as your alias suggests. Planners in countries that are trying to increase their GDP per capita will follow an industrial policy where they'll gladly make the tradeoff of higher polutants to more output/consumption. As their living standards improve, so does education and the tradeoff calculus changes. These changes have been for the better for the environment; the first/second-world countries produce less polutants than they had in previous years. To be continued...

[ThinkAbout1t]

There`s a tipping point where it becomes incredibly difficult to turn back the environmental damage clock.

[LowcountryJoe2]

And if the tipping point is reached, Mother Earth will make us -- as humans -- pay for it. Now before you say, "see, you admit that we're killing ourselves!" Let me caution you that many environmentalists seem to prefer a less crowded planet [P. Ehrlich] and think that mankind is a scourge on the ecosystem. Establish which way it's going to be with you so that I know where you'll argue from.

Then, I'd really like to have a discussion with you regarding your seeming disdain for capitalism.

[1Weemaryanne]

About coal: Haven't I heard somewhere (sorry, no idea where or when) that coal is more valuable as raw material for the chemical industry, than as an energy source?

[DonQuixotedeKaw]

HTWW is a living obscenity, as bad as the worst there is in lies, lies, lies.

Please continue. Someone needs to put a cork in this bottomless shit jug.

[bello787878]

htww reminds me of the way i was when i was 11

[Miserenz]

BOOOOOOOM!  The non-expert has just been blown out of the water!

[Baronesa1980]

Excellent video

[geffel]

Theone thing that's been proven to fuck up the environment is greedy corporations trying to increase their profit margins.

[MNICY]

I do enjoy these videos. I would suscribe to anyone who could even be half as well at pointing out HTWW's bullshit!

[Quint37]

Keep up the good work. HTWW makes ludacirs statements and needs to be called on his bullshit.

[SomeFatGuy3591]

Im sorry dude your a smart guy. But you are so stuck on these specific topics. Why did you even upload an edited version of this?

[MNICY]

Because he was not happy with the original version obviously.

This version is much better done. I'm happy he did.

[ThinkAbout1t]

The Michigan lake case study contained far too many unnacounted variables that it sort of lost it's message. I decided to use the Ganges river instead.

[VaderSan]

He sticks to those issues because so far they are some of the greatest in that debate and HTWW still hasn't fully responded to them.