Comments by "S Andersson" (@sandersson2813) on ""You've Just Committed Libel!" Piers Morgan's HEATED Debate With Eco Protester" video.

@BarryFromAdmin The guests are not making rational, scientific points. They are sensationalising and catastrophising the issue. For most people, at least in the developed world, climate change is just something of an inconvenience and something we adapt to with technology.
8
 @mmhmm9271 You wouldn't last five minutes without oil and gas.
4
@mmhmm9271 So why are you so anti oil? It is a crucial and necessary component of our lives, energy supplies and products we use. Until we have suitable alternatives then we HAVE to keep using it.
4
@clivegibbo6441 It's the inconsistency in their argument. They tend to focus on visible forms of pollution like cars and planes, which are actually a very small % of CO2. Funny they never talk about concrete, fashion industry, internet, data streaming etc. Just not trendy enough I suppose. They also don't realise that society cannot function without oil and there timeline is ridiculous as their catastrophication of what is largely not much more than a fairly minor inconvenience to most. The aims of extinction etc are hilarious and completely unfounded
4
@locobass They are not in favour of a slow move at all. They want it far quicker than is reasonable, possible or sustainable. The idea of stopping any new oil projects is 100% preposterous and has not given ANY consideration of what that would actually mean.
4
@simmo321 What disaster? Please explain why you think climate change will be anything other than a mild inconvenience to most in developed countries? It's not too hot, it's not causing dangerous weather events on an significant scale, it's not causing crops to fail, it's not causing animal extinction, it's not doing anything that the doomsday cults are soothsaying about. Do you seriously think the climate hasn't been hotter in human existence? The Vikings used to grow wheat in Greenland, we used to grow grapes in Northumberland, we had mini ice ages just a few hundred years ago and it wasn't a problem.
3
@laaaah4577 Why do you care?
2
@Richard482 Without googling, name me THREE species at risk from the effects of human induced climate change. Seeing as you think you know so much about it, you should be able to give me a very short list. That is to say species which are at risk from extinction from the rise in temperature since pre industrial times and please explain how you know their risk is associated with human element of climate change and wasn't just because of other factors.
2
Scared? Ha ha
1
@cloud10music-cyprus87 How did je get destroyed? What was their "gotcha"
1
@simmo321 Well I'm more qualified than Attenborough so use your appeal to popularity all you want. He's a TV presenter, not a scientist.
1
@mmhmm9271 If you want to be a vegan, fine, don't tell anyone else they should be one. If you don't want to use oil, oil products or energy derived from oil, you don't have to. Don't tell me I can't. We don't have an alternative to the role oil plays in society, so these idiots should not be telling us WHEN a transition should happen when society is not ready. The demands of these morons is the problem, it is inconsistent, dishonest and poorly informed in regards to our society and whether we have facilities to change.
1
@clivegibbo6441 Yes, we DO need new oil, if we don't need new oil, why so we continue to import it?. The UK energy supply is DEPENDENT upon oil. We are nowhere near having enough renewables even for our current electricity needs. We have 35m houses which use gas, are you going to pay 10k a pop to have each and every one of those replaced? We have 33m cars, you going to pay for them to be replaced to save a pitiful amount of CO2? You wouldn't last five minutes without oil. We are paying MORE to import oil and gas. They are basically communists who want a Marxist anti capitalist world. Why do these wonks get to say what the climate should be? Since when did they decide? Ps , you clearly know NOTHING about the energy industry are we are investing SHITLOADS into renewables.. We have the biggest offshore wind farms IN THE WORLD The energy market is by definition DEPENDENT on a mix of sources by necessity. Oil and Gas HAS to remain part of that for the foreseeable future.
1
@pgrothschild Such a pathetic argument. No one said it has to be "perfect" but we get 80% of our energy from oil and gas. So as you can see the transition will take LONGER than you want it to. Why can't you see/accept that? Every time we enter a new age it takes TIME, the expectations of these environmental wonks is unrealistic, uninformed, naive and makes them look really stupid and infantile. There is no rush anyway considering how minimal the UK contribution is.
1
@Richard482 Life on earth is NOT at risk at all. Without googling name me ONE species which has become or is at risk of extinction due to the effects of the contribution man has made to climate change. You have bought into the catastrophication of the climate debate. Also, do you seriously think that Britain's CO2 levels being reduced is going to "turn back climate"? With China, India, Brazil, Russia and the USA doing effectively fuck all it will make no difference, also how long do you think it would take given the decades it takes for CO2 to reach the parts of the atmosphere where it acts as a greenhouse gas? You don't just think that CO2 released today is causing it do you? It is laughable King Canute thinking to think you can turn back climate, and who are you to say what is a climatic optimum anyway? Why do you get to decide what it should be for everyone? Also, European road transport emits just 1% of global CO2, if you switched to all electric you might, once the cars have done around 40,000 miles save the planet a paltry 0.5% of CO2. Air travel is also only 2% of global CO2. You're focussing on the WRONG contributions. Running data and the internet is MORE than air travel, you're not criticising that are you? Furthermore 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct, with no input from man at all. You're tilting at windmills.
1
@Richard482 I asked you to do it WITHOUT googling. Also, that list isn't necessarily in regards to climate change by human influence. Also, it didn't mention any species. It just CLAIMED thousands would be facing extinction.
1
@Richard482 Yes Richard, I told YOU that. Again though you're FAILING to answer my questions. How do you know what a climatic optimum is and are you really so naive you think you can turn back climate? You do realise that human induced climate change is just a PART of climate change don't you? We are far better gradually reducing CO2 AND use science and technology to deal with the effects of climate change, especially as for most people, especially us in the developed world it is not much more than a minor inconvenience and not remotely a threat.
1
@Richard482 No, you cannot possibly say that. You can't be more than 100% responsible by definition. Can I be 110% responsible for a car accident? What a stupid statement. You do realise we are in a post glacial period right? Were we responsible when they were growing wheat in Greenland or growing grapes in Northumberland? Humans have lived in WARMER periods that today. You sound like the sort of wonk who think s that every type of weather we have is climate change by humans so if we have a flood it's climate changes if we have a windy day, it's climate change. I'm not denying climate change is real and that we play a part, but your sensationalist response to it is over the top.
1
@locobass Tesla is not a good example. Electric cars are not the solution to anything. You need to drove a Tesla about 50k to break even. European cars = 1% of global CO2. Making them electric saves fuck all
1
@BarryFromAdmin Like what? Making claims with buzzwords like "crisis" or "emergency" or using fanciful terms like "extinction" isn't rational. What exactly is a crisis about changes in climate? Climate kills 100x FEWER people than 100 years ago. Give me an example of why you think it is more important than I do. What exactly is so damaging about climate change that you think it merits being called an "emergency". I didn't say it didn't affect the developed world, I said it was a minor inconvenience which we can largely address with technology and science. Attempting to turn back the climate, especially when so many countries are making no effort is a LAUGHABLE King Canute exercise in futility .
1
@BarryFromAdmin Can you give an example of when the IPCC have EVER been right with their predictions? They have always EXAGGERATED the effect of things to predict the worst possible outcome, which has NEVER come to fruition. They should give a minimum, medium and maximum prediction rather than err on the doomsday cult aspect which when it doesn't come true denudes their credibility.
1