General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Django
Channel 4 News
comments

Comments by "Django" (@django3422) on "COP27: Nations need extra day to reach crucial climate change deal" video.

Actually, third world countries got far more devastation than benefits from the industrial revolution. Because nations got to outsource a lot of the most damaging activity to these places. I'd reccomend looking into the actual history of these countries as the reality is quite different from what you seem to believe at present.
2
So what's the truth in your eyes?
1
@Isclachau I'm asking you to be explicit and expand on it.
1
@Isclachau So you think because politicians and corporate leaders, people notorious for putting personal interests and financial gain before doing the right thing, don't manage to reach accords at these events, then that means that the idea of man-made climate change is a hoax? There's a leap in logic there.
1
@Isclachau Yes, like the Reagan administration did something about the AIDS crisis. Like the UN did something about the Syrian civil war. When have our glorious leaders ever put the needs of our species before their own interests? There is decades of research that has yielded irrefutable evidence that it is not a hoax and the longer we keep kicking the can down the road or refusing to take it seriously, the less we can do to safeguard ourselves. But no, you think that because a bunch of greedy sociopaths won't help, the evidence must be fake... and you question my intelligence?
1
The problem we've got is that the people put in place to try and resolve this have less interest in solving our climate crisis than they do in making themselves a cushy deal.
1
@Stoater1 And what counters do you have to all the very clear evidence showing that there is?
1
Only certain nations are really bothered about a cost of living crisis. Plenty of people worldwide already living in terrible poverty, so CoL crisis is more of the same for them. The climate crisis, though, that's something that's gonna effect everyone AND exacerbate the CoL crisis. So while it might not register with you, it is absolutely something that needs to be addressed and we need more people to recognise that.
1
Except it's measurable and we can see its effects in action. Denying it is ridiculous, you might as well insist that the sun orbits the earth.
1
@mrradman2986 It's as if some coal marketing body came up with a ludicrous fantasy story where coal is the good guy and burning it is the only way to preserve the ecosystem... and you've believed them. How? Why? If what you say is true, then how would the ecosystem have survived for the millions and millions of years that it did, prior to humanity discovering and burning fossil fuels?
1
It's not about controlling weather, it's about understanding the effects that our polluting activity has on the ecosystem and doing whatever we can to try and stem those effects.
1
@Rachel Wood Firstly, you're using hyperbole to try and be reductionist. Your electricity isn't going to be turned off in the name of climate change, your car isn't gonna be taken away. Be realistic or its hard to take you seriously. Secondly, are you even bothering to listen to the climate scientists who've devoted their lives to studying this? They understand it well but they keep being ignored because people would rather make exaggerated and ridiculous criticisms of the issue.
1
@Rachel Wood Where are you getting the idea that we don't have enough resources to implement renewable sources? That's a new one, never heard that excuse before. But ultimately, all you're saying is we HAVE to use fossil fuels or else we die. Ignoring the continued hyperbole there, the alternative is wiping ourselves out by poisoning our ecosystem. So let's assume for a second that you're not talking nonsense, if the choice is between increased hardship but continued existence OR guaranteed extinction... I'll go with the former.
1
Yes, we need to flood our world with CO2!
1
@philipmichael4106 If it gets warmer we also get more droughts, more land becomes arid and no longer arable. Fossil fuels aren't trapping current CO2 levels. It's ancient, it's from over a million years ago. Burning it up and releasing all that stored CO2 into the atmosphere is more than the ecosystem can handle.
1
@philipmichael4106 Interesting claim, can you explain why I can't find a single scientific body that agrees with that?
1
@philipmichael4106 A YouTube video, that's deep research. But how deeply have you looked into his career? He's a member of the Heartland Institute, y'know, the right-wing lobbyists that reject the scientific consensus on certain matters such as human impact on climate change and, this is the good one, negative health effects from smoking. Christy is a paid shill for corporate lobbyists. Try again.
1
@philipmichael4106 Patrick Moore, Canadian consultant? Also works with the Heartland Institute. Keep trying!
1
@philipmichael4106 Heartland Institute. Look it up.
1
@philipmichael4106 Once again, the Heartland Institute are notorious for paying scientists to publish studies riddled with misrepresented data, twisted facts and even outright lies in order to promote corporate interests. The fossil fuel industries have paid Heartland a lot of money, for figures like Christy and Moore to produce studies downplaying the severity of the situation, so that fossil fuel industries can continue plying their trade and getting government subsidies. Short answer, you've been conned.
1
@philipmichael4106 And then he went to work for a corporate lobbyist group. A point which you've been totally unwilling to address.
1
@philipmichael4106 Also, and this is me being very petty... "You've been conned" is a shorter answer than "you have been brainwashed" no matter which way you cut it.
1
@philipmichael4106 Then prove it.
1
@philipmichael4106 It does matter who he worked for, if he worked for a company with a financial interest in pushing a specific agenda. The only scientists supporting this idea that you can provide me all have done so off the back of Heartland Institute.
1
@philipmichael4106 "You need to wake up" - the guy who believes people openly employed by the fossil fuel industry
1
@philipmichael4106 "Marxist propaganda". At this point I definitely can't take you seriously, and that's saying something. You're too cowardly to address the fact that these men are working for the Heartland Institute and that this is an organisation with a long history of using faux-science to push corporate agendas. And now you're throwing out the "but Marxists" line which is pretty laughable because it's always done by people who definitely don't know what Marxism really is. Just makes you sound like some hysterical McCarthy-era loon, all worked up by the red scare.
1
@philipmichael4106 That's a lie, Happer is not a climate scientist. He had no formal training in the field. Points for finding someone who hasn't worked for the Heartland Institute but this is also the guy who, in 2015, believed he was writing an anti-climate change piece for a Middle Eastern oil company (it was actually a Greenpeace sting) and later worked for the Trump administration, probably the most anti-intellectual government that the US has ever had, and resigned because even his ideas were too wacky to swallow. His opinion pieces and papers on climate change have been widely decried by the scientific community and don't seem to have passed peer-review for scientific integrity in writing. So... eminent? Not even a little.
1
@philipmichael4106 What a compelling argument...
1
@philipmichael4106 The UN leaders are Marxist? I'm pretty sure at this point that you've got no dealings whatsoever with facts. You're spinning false narratives based on your personal fantasy. You've absolutely refused to acknowledge that the scientists you champion either work for a fossil fuel lobbyist or aren't actually climate scientists... And now here you are literally ranting about how the communist/marxist (because they're exactly the same, right) boogeyman is everywhere. I don't know how you manage to keep being so wrong with everything you say. That takes work.
1
@philipmichael4106 Do you ever employ critical thinking or do you just seek out loons who say things you already agree with?
1
@philipmichael4106 You've failed to apply critical thinking in regards to the "droves" (3 YT vids) you've sent me. You still fail to acknowledge that a scientist paid by corporate interests to make a case in favour of their business should be something to scrutinise. As for "I could send you my research but I won't"... I'll tell you what, I won't mince my words. You're lying, you have nothing. If you did, you'd use it. Instead, you cry about my biases as an excuse for not having any serious argument whatsoever.
1
@philipmichael4106 Give it up, you're really scraping the barrel now.
1
@philipmichael4106 I'm as much of a scientist as you are.
1
@philipmichael4106 Suspect away but, as we've established, you can't prove a damn thing including your own claim to be a scientist.
1
@philipmichael4106 You started this by citing your religion and you blindly cling to the few scientists you can find who support your beliefs, despite the fact I've explained to you several times now that they have been bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry. The activities of the Heartland Institute is well documented. Yet I'm the one blinded by ideology?
1
@philipmichael4106 Another compelling argument!
1
@philipmichael4106 When one line of argument fails, just switch to a new one, huh? Can't justify the integrity of your chosen scientists, never mind! Just switch from making bad science arguments to bad economic arguments.
1
@philipmichael4106 Arguing "but the economy" at the cost of human habitation is not just shooting yourself in the foot, its amputating the foot and using it to beat yourself to death with.
1
@philipmichael4106 Coming from the religious person who thinks we should be burning more fossil fuels 'cos its supposedly good for the planet, that doesn't mean anything. That's the problem with your economic argument, its the same principle as when you said a warmer planet means higher crop yields. You're not taking into account all of the negative effects that would far outweigh any gains. Its like saying a lower population would help because then we'd consume less resources. That's true but what it doesn't account for is the greatly reduced labour force to generate the amount of resources that we would still need. Yes, moving away from fossil fuels would have a negative impact on the economy, mostly in terms of fossil fuel profits (hence why the industry are paying Heartland Institute to try and persuade people to keep burning coal), but the upside is sustainability. We'd stand a better chance of maintaining an ecosystem that can support life. Because if we CAN'T do that, the economy is gonna have much bigger problems to worry about.
1
@Grouchy8108 You could say that about any issue we're facing.
1
@Grouchy8108 No, I'm pointing out how meaningless it is to just throw that out. How little it helps.
1
@Grouchy8108 What a bizarre, ironically pointless strawman to throw out there. Go on then, what homework have you done that pertains to this topic?
1
Be fair. A lot of these nations are either where industrialised nations mine the various resources we rely on OR it's where we outsource our manufacturing to. So a lot of these nations are suffering because of the greed and materialism of other, richer and more developed nations.
1
We've changed the ecosystem and affected the climate, that's undeniable.
1
@sasa1982uk You might want to double check that. You're going off misrepresented data from 1997.
1
@sasa1982uk The X axis was mislabelled, people drew false conclusions as a result. The people who did the study are the ones saying this and one is even on record saying that to believe that the data presents an argument against global warming is stupid or misled and certainly not scientific.
1
@sasa1982uk Oh, grow up. If you have any respect for the scientific method then you'll know that it is never a "done thing". The people involved are always pushing for further understanding which can mean reevaluating work and updating when new information comes to light. You were happy to cite the exact same research earlier but now that you've learned it doesn't actually state what you want it to, you've found some weak reason to try and justify its dismissal. How convenient...
1
@sasa1982uk The article is recent, but if you read it you'll see that they noticed it back around 2010. If this is your only line of argument...
1
@sasa1982uk This is so pathetic. You're the one who's come in with a fixed narrative, now you're throwing the toys out of the pram because you were going off of old research. All about the science when you thought it served you, now you're just spinning a fantasy based on ancedotes and your predictions of the future, which unsurprisingly sounds like the same stock complaints ignorant people have always had with this issue. And you've got the temerity to tell me that I'm too proud to notice I've been tricked? Take a long look in your mirror.
1
@sasa1982uk You've made the false connection that since our politicians are inept at solving this and squandering the money made, that therefore the whole thing must be nonsense. And you're still too proud to acknowledge that you got it wrong. Like that research paper you obviously didn't read properly, 'cos I know you weren't checking it prior to 2010...
1
@sasa1982uk How simple are you? Read the article. The X axis was mislabelled. So it was wrong back in '97. They noticed the error in 2010 after climate deniers started using it as evidence to support their argument. Stop being too proud. Accept you got got it wrong.
1
@sasa1982uk How some am I indeed...
1