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

S Andersson
PBS Terra
comments

Comments by "S Andersson" (@sandersson2813) on "What Will Earth Look Like When These 6 Tipping Points Hit?" video.

@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
@GraemeWight-wx3xz Grow up. Children might be important to you, they aren't for everyone.
9
@MrNobody34789 No it wouldn't. People will always have children.
5
@KeanusRandom36 Even if you don't plan the pregnancy, you still choose whether or not to become a parent .
4
@KeanusRandom36 of course you "choose". People plan pregnancy all the time. Some don't, some do.
3
@ferrreira What is naive is to think that human existence is threatened by climate change.
3
@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
Earthquakes sont happen due to the weight of the land or isostasy
3
@pooryorick831 Ha ha ha. In what way are humans going to go extinct in 200 years? What a ridiculous statement.
2
@deniscormier9329 How many people have black tar roofs? No one
2
@milliousmiles The world would be SHIT without oil. Your demand for oil determines supply. If you want no more oil, stop using it.
2
@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
Preposterous.
2
Covering with silver is a truly stupid suggestion.
2
@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
@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
@peterroland6258 To say we have done nothing about it is just an outright lie. We have never done more.
2
@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
@LK-pc4sq You aren't taking into account so many factors and coming to a quite ridiculous conclusion.
2
@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
@1001books1 No it couldn't. Don't be preposterous.
2
You're one of the greedy people. How ironic.
2
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@donaldkasper8346 Co2 IS all you're showing, you are constantly telling le that none of the other factors make any difference.
2
@donaldkasper8346 Who is they?
2
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
@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
@Rickbailey695 What are you worried about?
1
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
@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
@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
@batticusmanacleas510 What an absurd point of view. That isn't a silver lining. There has never been a better time to live.
1
@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
@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
@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
@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
@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
@imspyingonyou2243 What isn't important to me? Put some context on it.
1
@heatherjoy479 What are you worried about?
1
@harveyrichard2007 It's a necessarily long transition. No need to panic.
1
@imspyingonyou2243 I'm very bit as important as you.
1
@Spectacurl Stop being so silly.
1
@ljre3397 What's a maroon?
1
@ljre3397 How the hell do you expect anyone to get a 70 year old reference?
1
@BadgerBreath-rz1np you're a crackpot.
1
@wendilafey3943 more like no one wanted to have them with you.
1
@christill We will simply develop new techniques. Stop all the doom and gloom crap about crop failure.
1
Ha ha ha. What a truly stupid idea.
1
@ddhqj2023 If you stopped all European and US cars it would save 2% of global CO2. Big fucking deal.
1
@AKu-xs5vg exactly. They make dick all difference. Fly over an area see how little ground is covered in tarmac
1
@etienne8110 Car use is barely an issue. Cars in Europe = 1% of Co2 emissions. Why not find a better target for Co2 reduction, such as the fashion industry which is 10% of Co2 globally and wastes billions of litres of water.
1
@etienne8110 I didn't say there was anything wrong with getting a bus, but environmental zealots ONLY want to target Co2 sources which fit their agenda. You never hear them complain about co2 footprint of transporting vegan diets, internet, streaming, fashion, smoking etc. You could replace every vehicle in USA and Europe with an electric alternative and you'd save the world about 1% Co2, but only after each car had done about 40,000km. FYI, flying is only 2% of global Co2. Be consistent or just keep quiet.
1
@infj4w511 because it makes no difference
1
@bas4903 What a truly moronic statement. Oil doesn't serve a purpose in the geomorphology of the earth. It's in the crust, nowhere near the mantle.
1
@kimweaver1252 Deserts are light colours, is the surface cooler? Ha ha ha. What point are you even trying to make? Heat doesn't drive photosynthesis, light does, that's the "photo" element. Photo means light.
1
@kimweaver1252 Yes, but I still don't see what you are advocating for. You're talking about the albedo affect, but I don't really know why. Light doesn't have a temperature.
1
@kimweaver1252 Light doesn't degrade, it's energy which means it can only be converted to other forms of energy.
1
The first post in this thread is beyond stupid.
1
@kimweaver1252 Light is converted by the object absorbing the light. All energy doesn't eventually manifest as heat, that's also false. It can manifest as sound for example.
1
@kimweaver1252 You're losing. Not everything is converted to heat.
1
@kimweaver1252 You're the one making claims which are apropos of nothing. I don't have to make a point about GHG because that is not what I'm here to discuss.
1
@kimweaver1252 Some kinds of chemical energy are not converted to heat. Light that is never absorbed by an object is never converted to heat.
1
@kimweaver1252 The point is that doomsday cultists are making claims on climate change which are not scientific and are catastrophising the situation . Changing the rhetoric to suit their agenda.
1
@kimweaver1252 Remember you're the one which said reflected light carries heat away. That isn't true.
1
@kimweaver1252 The discussion is about how ridiculous it is to be considering changing the hue of road surfaces to reduce global temperatures and mitigate "climate change" You are trying to divert that discussion for your own agenda.
1
Your anecdotal evidence is absurdly stupid. That's not how you determine whether things are declining.
1
Tje ocean will not rose a few feet because of that.
1
@ryancox5097 Grow up mate. Humans have lived through MUCH worse with no science or technology. It's about adaptation, not trying to turn the tide back like King Canute. For the vast majority of people , especially people in developed countries like you, climate change will have almost zero impact on your life.
1
@hypsyzygy506 Yes, like Obama and Al Gore
1
@MarketRunsTheShow Are you one of these wonks who believe the unscientific claims of Extinction Rebellion? Humans are in no danger of extinction or even events which lead to significant loss of life.
1
Quoting The Guardian is about as credible as quoting Donald Trump. Give me an IPCC projection that has ever come close to becoming true.
1
@dentonfender6492 Humans are not in danger of extinction at all. Climate and weather kill 100x fewer people than 100 years ago and the population is growing at a rate of 70m a year. The world is not trying to live like Americans thank goodness. Our products and services are getting more efficient and we actually use LESS energy per capita than we used to. Americans use three times as much energy as Europeans for example, so fortunately American energy use is an outlier. The IPCC have recently told us that scaremongering and panic is not necessary. There isn't going to be "massive climate change" Crops grow at very wide varieties of temperatures and we can vary what we grow. We used to just eat what was seasonal. We won't even have to go back to that. Bet you do NOTHING to ensure you only eat locally grown food. What evidence have you got that wild species have declined since 1970, and even if they have, doesn't mean it was related to human induced elements of climate change does it?
1
@kmoses582 Anyone is a moron MORON using Iceland as an example. First of all it is located on the mid Atlantic ridge, a highly geologically and seismically active area. It has an ABUNDANCE of geothermal power. If any country is able to go renewable it's one like that, but it's a one off, especially with less than 400k people.
1
The Bible is bullshit mate.
1
@RebeccaTreeseed it's hilarious when Americans think 33mpg is good. Getting lessons from Americans on the environment is hilarious.
1
@RebeccaTreeseed Why did you assume I was a man? In what way is a new pick up "an eco disaster" if you only use $30 of petrol a month? Your house and food most likely contribute more to greenhouse gases. Why would you need an etrike? Why not just a trike?
1
@peterjones4180 Do you not realise that every US citizen uses more resources and creates more waste than any other country in the world per head of population?
1
@peterjones4180 Carbon in the lexicon "carbon footprint" REFERS to Carbon Dioxide. Sorry you haven't grapsed that. No one is claiming that the element carbon does anything in regards to climate, stop being a pedant. You know what it means.
1
@msandersen These studies are based on splatter surveys on cars. Yet car average speed, journey type, aerodynamics, cars etc have changed so much that you can't compare. Go for a walk in the country.
1
@Jc-ms5vv We are not driving out 100-200 species a day. Which hole did you pull that from? Tell you what, name 100 species that went extinct yesterday. If that was true there wouldn't be ANY life on earth for the last 100 years.
1
@kimweaver1252 Jesus Christ, what a pathetic argument. Cars, car aerodynamics, roads, , windscreen angles, average speeds, amount of traffic in front of you, the built environment being increased are all MUCH different now. If you drove a vintage car, in the countryside at 1950's average speeds your windscreen would be covered in them. By tje way, insect populations are not constant each year either. Your evidence is laughably anecdotal, and anecdotes aren't data
1
There are a million reasons why you don't get frost on your grass, none of which are climate related. Tje fact you mentioned you live in a city is a clue in itself.
1
Humans are at absolutely no risk of extinction due to climate change
1
That is an absolutely RIDICULOUS question.
1
What a ridiculous thing to bring up. You are comparing apples and oranges.
1
@1001books1 It's conspiracy theory nonsense. Do you have any idea how much testing and research goes into science and technology?
1
@1001books1 Ha ha ha. I was raising obvious points as to why there is a difference between insect splatter. If you don't take those questions into account, how can you come to the correct conclusion. You need to compare like with like, not apple's with oranges.
1
@1001books1 Ha ha ha. More like you haven't considered the implications of your stupid statement. I gave some very good reasons as to why the number of insects splattered on your number plate might be lower, but you chose to ignore all of them due to your cognitive dissonance and inability to concede you didn't think of any of those reasons. Carry on being sensational and reactionary without considering the facts, it keeps you ignorant.
1
@1001books1 My BS? You're the one blaming 5g.
1
@itspeekaboo Please explain how they measure the insect decline and please name me 10 species from that 27% that are no longer present.
1
@itspeekaboo Ha ha ha. Do you have any idea how flawed a method that is to determine insect decline? That's my point. It's not comparing like with like. Traffic is different, average speed is different, aerodynamics are different, vegetation is different. Secondly, you said there was a 27% reduction on the number of species, so please name me 10 species that you claimed have declined.
1
@itspeekaboo I didn't for a second claim anything about pesticide, I stated quite categorically that using squashed insects on the front of a car over a long period of time is a flawed method for determining insect decline over time. If you can't work out why the results would be different between a 1980's car and a 2020's car then you aren't very skeptical and you clearly don't have an enquiring or scientific mind. I could name at least a dozen reasons why you would get less squashed insects before you have to think about whether the population may be declining. The question is, why can't you?
1
@itspeekaboo Please name me 3 species in the last 10 years which have become extinct due to the human induced element of climate change. Over the last 4bn years, 99.999% of all the species that have existed on this planet have gone extinct with absolutely no influence from humans. Most species which have become extinct as a result of human influence are due to A) over hunting or B) habitat destruction, virtually no species by comparison are extinct due to the effects of the human element of climate change.
1
@itspeekaboo Name me threw species in the last 10 years that have gone extinct due to human induced element of climate change. In over 4bn years, 99.99999% of all the species that have ever existed have gone extinct due to non human influence, Extinction due to human activity has been due to habitat destruction and over hunting.
1
@itspeekaboo Earwigs aren't extinct or anywhere close to being extinct. I asked for extinct species that have become extinct as a result of the human induced element of climate change. You haven't demonstrated that. The Drisophila you mention hasn't been seen since 1893, so you haven't demonstrated it was due to climate change or even human interference at all.
1
@itspeekaboo Not in the effect that humans had any great impact upon it. You haven't proven that the extinction of that one insect was due to human induced climate change have you?
1
@itspeekaboo You're just giving me a list of extinct insects, you haven't demonstrated HOW they became extinct. I asked for a list of extinct species you can demonstrate have become extinct by the human induced element of climate change and you have failed to do so. Do you think climate change doesn't exist unless human influence it? Humans wouldn't even exist in the first place if the climate didn't change.
1
@itspeekaboo Climate has always changed regardless of whether humans influence it or not. I asked for a list of species that have become extinct due to the human contribution to climate change. You just gave me a list of extinct species, not how they came to be extinct. Humans wouldn't even exist as a species without the climate changing in the first place or do you think that climate only changes because of our contribution?
1
@itspeekaboo Most of those aren't even extinct. Kerr's Noctuid moth is only threatened.
1
@itspeekaboo Change in climate is a major driver in evolution. If you look at the entire stratigraphic chart every change in period is related to different climate conditions. It's 4.3bn years of history. Humans have only been around for approximately 200,000 years. All geological periods since mammals arose have been important. Eocene predates humans by millions of years.
1
@itspeekaboo First of all the earth wasn't created it formed by natural processes, secondly I didn't claim change in environment was the only factor for evolution. I simply stated it was one of the drivers and that we wouldn't exist without change in climate. We aren't headed towards an extinction event at all. For the vast majority of people , climate change is going to be not much more than a minor inconvenience. Climate change and weather kills 10X FEWER people than it did 100 years ago. Cold still kills many more. Science and technology can mitigate against the effects of climate change upon our society. Humans are at zero risk of extinction from climate change. You seem to be of the view that climate change is caused completely by humans, is that what you actually think?
1
There isn't anything like 5m rise predicted. Some scientist you are.
1
You're a capitalist, you wouldn't last five minutes without oil and gas and your demand drives supply.
1
The temperature DIDN'T go down during covid lockdowns.
1
@solconcordia4315 I didn't say oil for producing electricity. I said oil and gas in relation to not being able to live 5 minutes without. Yea, you are using oil to type. What do you think your laptop/phone/cables etc are made from/insulated with?
1
@solconcordia4315 How does one produce that electricity ? You do realise that electricity is only 20% of our energy needs, so where do you get the other 80% from if you can get electricity (when it's sunny and windy) from renewables. What do you do when it isn't sunny or windy? Where do you store the electricity?
1
@13οςΑπόστολος What's over?
1
@henrikfox8960 What are you ok about? Renewable energy development has never been more rapid. We will need fossil fuels for decades, so stop the catastrophising.
1
@kimweaver1252 Yeah. It's awesome. Penguin steaks with pineapple.
1
@jamesgreig5168 I'm making a point about the ridiculous catastrophising of climate change. Yes, it is happening, but even the IPCC has warned against such ridiculous rhetoric and needless panic.
1
@kimweaver1252 rice is not a rare food
1
@kimweaver1252 temperature is given in the shade in a specific type of slatted box not from someone's garden
1
@kimweaver1252 It is simply a case of changing what we eat, developing resistant species, improving techniques etc. We used to just eat what was seasonal, not import food. Humans are not at risk of extinction or anything close. Climate and weather kills 10x fewer people than 100 years ago, and do you really think humans haven't lived through WARMER periods? They used to grow wheat in Greenland for fuck sake.
1
@kimweaver1252 I am making the point that in order to measure temperature and the value we give to predicted temperatures those are IN THE SHADE. We dont record temperatures by using exposed thermometers in some chumps backyard do we? Your garden probably gets to temperatures you had no idea it did, frequently it will be 50c plus in the sun, but that isn't how we record temperature or forecast it. I am questioning HOW temperature has been recorded over time.
1
@donaldkasper8346 I didn't say you did, but if you can't think of plenty reasons as to why crop yield would/could increase regardless of Co2 you aren't thinking very hard are you?
1
@donaldkasper8346 Yes you do, because you haven't considered by how much the improvement of farming techniques has improved yields. Jesus, and yes, different species can massively increase yields. Look at bananas or tomatoes for instance Go and do a control experiment. You are blinded by your graph and clearly have no clue about the advancement of agriculture in that same period.
1
@donaldkasper8346 I'm not talking about your insular USA. I'm talking about your inability to consider the OTHER reasons why MOST crops have managed to increase yield and you have completely ignored it. Lime I said you HAVE NOT conducted ANY control experiments in this. You have an increase in yield, and an increase in Co2 (which corresponds with an increase in intensive agriculture) and have claimed it's a causal link. There are so many things in agriculture FAR more important to increasing yield than a miniscule increase in Co2. If yield was only dependent on Co2 increase we would still farm like it was 1960 and all that science and technology would be a worthless waste of money.
1
@donaldkasper8346 Who is talking about 1866 to 1960? Intensive farming and technology wasn't even a thing until post war. If Co2 has been increasing since industrial revolution we should have seen an increase in yield on your argument since that point, but we only did when technology and science advanced agriculture.
1
@donaldkasper8346 You're the one speculating. You're asserting the ONLY explanation for increased yields in crops is due to Co2 and are disregarding all the other factors which are far more likely. Why have they spent trillions on agricultural development of all they required was more Co2? Why don't they go back to cheaper methods if such good yields only need Co2? Why don't you look up when intensive farming began and when improvements in agriculture and agrarian practiced started to take hold?
1
@donaldkasper8346 When something is as complicated as growing crops with so many variables, only an idiot would insist that increased yields are due to a minute increase in Co2 and disregard all tje other things which have been done to improve modern farming. You are like a flat earther.
1
@donaldkasper8346 What agriculture technology and mechanisation do you think they had between 1866 and 1960, it was largely manual labour. Again, if all that is needed was simply a minute amount more Co2, why have they bothered with science, technology and mass industrialisation of crop growing? You've made a hill to die on that you're too proud to back down on. The majority of yield increase is down to better farming techniques, not a fractional increase in Co2.
1
@donaldkasper8346 You don't think there have been improvements in rice farming?
1
@donaldkasper8346 Where's your Nobel prize and billions of pounds? If what you were actually saying was true, you could go to every country in the world and tell them you could save them billions by showing them they don't need to spend ANY money on agriculture, science, technology etc and they can just go back to 1960's methods, because all that matter according to you is fractionally increased Co2. Do you know why they haven't? Because your claims are BULLSHIT. You seriously think that Co2 is the greatest single reason why yields have increased over time? Why haven't you gone to the Department of Agriculture, why haven't you made your fortune? You could be a billionaire. So why aren't you? Why are you just some chumpon YouTube with a tinfoil hat? You're just wrong, and your theory is naive, lacks any sort of control and doesn't take the hundreds of other factors which DO contribute more to yield into account. I could make EXACTLY the same correlation with the number of drunk people in a pub and the number of empty beer bottles, so by your reasoning they are drunk because they drank beer. Don't you realise how stupid an assumption that is? It doesn't follow they are drunk because there are empty beer bottles . You think you know better than farmers, scientists, soil scientist, geneticists, agronomists, seed specialists, hydrologists etc?
1
@donaldkasper8346 I'm asking why you aren't a billionaire? Why aren't you making tons of money by persuading government's that all that money spent on agriculture has been a waste of time?
1
Nobody farms in Greenland
1
@JayPea7204 They used to grow Wheat there. We have lived through hotter times than the current period. All these doomsday cults need to get a vot of perspective. You do realise that greenhouses don't need heating right?
1
@JayPea7204 October to May isn't growing season so it doesn't matter.
1
Please explain how we are doomed? Climate kills 100x FEWER people than a century ago. We NEED to continue using oil and gas until we are 100% transitioned and then we will still need oil and gas for products.
1