Comments by "S Andersson" (@sandersson2813) on "PBS Terra" channel.

  1.  @lsmftwitchell1939  You wouldn't last 5 minutes without hydrocarbons. If you got rid of hydrocarbons you'd put BILLIONS back into poverty. Life is good BECAUSE of hydrocarbons.
    19
  2.  @GraemeWight-wx3xz  Grow up. Children might be important to you, they aren't for everyone.
    9
  3.  @MrNobody34789  No it wouldn't. People will always have children.
    5
  4.  @KeanusRandom36  Even if you don't plan the pregnancy, you still choose whether or not to become a parent .
    4
  5. Correct, you're not an expert.
    4
  6.  @KeanusRandom36  of course you "choose". People plan pregnancy all the time. Some don't, some do.
    3
  7.  @ferrreira  What is naive is to think that human existence is threatened by climate change.
    3
  8. No, nothing close to it. You clearly don't know what exponential means. Sea level rise for example is hardly higher than a kerb stone in the last 300 years, and temperature has barely risen either . We simply hear more about things now
    3
  9.  @peterjones4180  None of what you say relates to temperature and EVERY country has a carbon footprint, not that I care but they do. If you are talking about diamonds, I presume you might be South African in which case you as a country DO make a contribution in regards to carbon which affects temperature. You claim that much of the plastic in tje ocean comes from the Chinese fishing fleet is HILARIOUS. Exactly how much plastic is on a fishing trawler?
    3
  10. Earthquakes sont happen due to the weight of the land or isostasy
    3
  11.  @pooryorick831  Ha ha ha. In what way are humans going to go extinct in 200 years? What a ridiculous statement.
    2
  12.  @deniscormier9329  How many people have black tar roofs? No one
    2
  13.  @milliousmiles  The world would be SHIT without oil. Your demand for oil determines supply. If you want no more oil, stop using it.
    2
  14.  @TheLosamatic  Places have always be flooding and in drought. Do you not realise we wouldn't even exist of the climate hadn't changed? Every geological period is due to climate change
    2
  15. Preposterous.
    2
  16. Covering with silver is a truly stupid suggestion.
    2
  17. 50 year old trees? There's trees in my country older than USA
    2
  18.  @peterjones4180  Because you tried to blame the Chinese for pollution and waste when YOUR country is worse for this. Typical American living in ignorance. Plastic in the ocean is NOTHING to do with Temperature either, but YOU raised it. Plastic in the ocean is also insignificant in compared to the carbon footprint of YOUR country Is your memory that short you can't remember what you typed two days ago?
    2
  19.  @peterjones4180  Carbon is shorthand for Carbon Dioxide seeing as you want to be a pedant. Every country bar a couple has an excess of carbon dioxide and carbon dioxide is a well known greenhouse gas. Personally I don't care as I don't see that climate change is a "crisis", but it is a fact that riisng co2 does lead to rises in Temperature.
    2
  20.  @peterroland6258  To say we have done nothing about it is just an outright lie. We have never done more.
    2
  21.  @aus3492  Yes, absolutely, plus there's more traffic too see the same number of insects are being hit by more cars which equals fewer insects hitting each car, plus average speeds have also reduced due to increased traffic.
    2
  22.  @LK-pc4sq  You aren't taking into account so many factors and coming to a quite ridiculous conclusion.
    2
  23.  @andycnorth1  No we haven't. You aren't comparing the same thing. In 20 years the number of cars on Britain's roads has grown by how many? What's happened to the average speed? What's happened to the design of cars? What's happened to the type of journey we not make? You are drawing conclusions based on two completely different circumstances and presuming that conditions 20 years ago are the same now. How can you not realise this?
    2
  24.  @1001books1  No it couldn't. Don't be preposterous.
    2
  25. Is this the doomsday channel?
    2
  26. You're one of the greedy people. How ironic.
    2
  27.  @deepashtray5605  Yes, you are. If you're a capitalist, live in a capitalist society then you are part of it. You wouldn't last five minutes without oil and gas, you're using it right now to post this.
    2
  28.  @kimweaver1252  I live in Antarctica and where I used to be able to grow fuck all, I'm now growing pineapples, bananas and oranges.
    2
  29.  @donaldkasper8346  I can think of at least 10 reasons off the top of my head why yields are increasing before mentioning Co2 or temperature. Correlation is not causation
    2
  30.  @donaldkasper8346  Again, you have ignored every other aspect of farming which can increase yield and implied that yield has ONLY gone up due to Co2. You have ignored irrigation, fertiliser, corn species changes, genetic modification, planting techniques, soil optimisation, better crop rotation, pesticides, bird control, planting techniques, better disease detection and resistance , harvesting technology etc and placed all of your eggs in one Co2 basket. Higher Co2, MAY improve crop yield, but to put it down as the ONLY thing as you have done is just laughably naive.
    2
  31.  @donaldkasper8346  Donald, you're approaching this from the position of an ignoramus. You are excluding EVERY other aspect of farming which leads to increased yields. Co2 may be ONLY a part of it. You are asserting it is the SOLE reason. To not accept that agriculture has changed massively over the years precisely to increase efficiency and yield is just a demonstration of your complete and utter ignorance. Your analogy is like saying that if crash deaths reduce as a result of a reduction on speed that it's down to the reduction in speed, whilst ignoring that the cars have become more safe. Your reason for increasing yield is simply PART of the story, NOT the cause. Yield for ALL crops has increased to the agricultural IMPROVEMENTS. All you need to do to show this is grow two crops using 2023 techniques and 1960's techniques, technology and science. You need a control group, and you don't have one in your example, you've also ignored that increased mechanisation would also correlate with rising Co2.
    2
  32.  @donaldkasper8346  You haven't plotted advances in technology, science, technique, machinery, soil, genetics or anything else which can influence yield against yield. You've jumped to a conclusion based on ONE data source, and you haven't conducted a control experiment and have bought into confirmation bias.
    2
  33.  @donaldkasper8346  That's if you ONLY consider, as you have done that Co2 is the only variable. There are hundreds of variables that contribute to yield gain and you are ignoring all of them. You can make ANY statistic day what you want if you view it in isolation as you have done. Go and run your model against yield and Co2 in a country which has made absolutely no agrarian progress in terms of technological and scientific development and does exactly the same as it did 60 years ago. That's how you demonstrate if Co2 is making the difference you claim, by having a control group where nothing has changed EXCEPT your input.
    2
  34.  @donaldkasper8346  Co2 IS all you're showing, you are constantly telling le that none of the other factors make any difference.
    2
  35.  @donaldkasper8346  Who is they?
    2
  36. That's sad you are glad you are at the end of your life now. Would you really rather be alive in the depressing 1950's
    1
  37.  @bernardcooper2618  You're just a deluded mug then. The climate is no reason not to have children. One is fine. How will his life be worse? EVERY generation has had a better life than the last and will continue to do so and climate for the majority of Western developed nations is nothing more than a minor inconvenience for very small periods.
    1
  38.  @Rickbailey695  What are you worried about?
    1
  39.  leel.5818  Ha ha ha. Over 99% of all soecies that have ever lived on this earth have become extinct WITHOUT humans. Can you name ANY species which have become extinct through human induced climate change? No, you can't.
    1
  40.  @GraemeWight-wx3xz  You live in a world of complete and utter ignorance then. You sound like a US Christian. Just because you don't know anyone, doesn't mean they don't exist. Grow up and stop seeing the world through your particular lens.
    1
  41.  @MrZippyCorgi  The point is that it is beyond clear we CANNOT transition at tje speed these idiotic doomsday cults want us to. Do you think we can go from 80% of our energy coming from non renewables in the timescale these childish idiots are demanding? Of course we fucking can't. It will rightly take decades We didn't have sufficiently good technology for renewables until relatively recently. Imagine we had 1980's wind technology as our renewables today.
    1
  42.  @batticusmanacleas510  What an absurd point of view. That isn't a silver lining. There has never been a better time to live.
    1
  43.  @milliousmiles  No there aren't. Millions of products are dependent on oil, not least electrical insulation. So in your world, no one would have electricity. There would be no cars, no roads, no steel. 80% of our global energy needs are NOT met by renewables. Yes, we will eventually have a better mix, bit it is RETARDED to stop oil UNTIL we can meet our energy requirements elsewhere.
    1
  44.  @harveyrichard2007  It really won't. It isn't a problem at least nothing like the catastrophising claims of cults like JSO. We are phasing them out gradually over time which is sensible. My point is the timescale that doomsday cults want us to is just stupidly naive. Even if you could stop CO2 tomorrow, you wouldn't see the difference for decades and all you'd do is impoverish people whilst still having climate change. Transition takes time, just like when we ran cars alongside coal trains, coal power stations and coal heated houses and now we run renewables alongside gas power and electric trains alongside diesel ones. Change necessarily takes time, and with good reason. Poverty isnt a short term issue at all. I'm not sure why you think that.
    1
  45.  @harveyrichard2007  Like everything else we will adapt and use science and technology to mitigate the effects. Weather and climate already kill 100x FEWER people than 100 years ago. Cold is a far bigger problem. Even the IPCC are telling these idiotic posh children to stop scaremongering.
    1
  46.  @dougaltolan3017  That simply isn't true. It's a challenge, it's not a catastrophe. What exactly do you think is the worst consequence of climate change? Seems you've bought into what the doomsday cults are saying.
    1
  47. @Havardr_Asbjorn How are you going to suffer exactly? Based on your name you are Nordic, you are probably the LEAST likely to have any significant effects. Humans wouldn't even exist without climate change and we have more science and technology at our disposal than at any other time. In some ways it's an opportunity, not a crisis. We will adapt as always.
    1
  48.  @imspyingonyou2243  What isn't important to me? Put some context on it.
    1
  49.  @heatherjoy479  What are you worried about?
    1
  50.  @harveyrichard2007  It's a necessarily long transition. No need to panic.
    1