Comments by "robs2020" (@sbor2020) on "“Welby Is The Worst Thing To Happen To The Church” | Calls For Archbishop To Quit" video.

Actually, climate change activists aren’t focused on “cows farting” – they’re tackling the larger issue of human-caused (anthropogenic) climate change. While livestock methane emissions are a factor, the main targets are CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels, industrial processes, and transportation, which are the biggest drivers of global warming. Oversimplifying the science as “farting cows” misses the real focus on reducing all major greenhouse gases to protect the planet.
1
@Raven44453 The difference is that dinosaur-era climate was naturally balanced over millions of years, while today, rapid human-driven emissions are causing unprecedented warming that ecosystems can’t keep up with. If natural emissions didn’t harm the planet back then, why are today’s human-made emissions causing such rapid climate changes ?
1
@paulsawtell3991 The planet did survive extreme conditions millions of years ago, but those changes happened slowly over geological time, allowing ecosystems to adapt. Today, the difference is speed: human-driven emissions are causing rapid warming in just a few centuries, which ecosystems and human societies struggle to adapt to. Climate scientists study both past and present to understand these changes, and that research shows today’s warming pattern is unique and directly linked to human activity. If past natural changes took millions of years, why do you think rapid, human-caused changes happening in just a few centuries could be challenging for our ecosystems and societies ? Calling climate change a "con" ignores decades of scientific research and overwhelming evidence showing that human-driven emissions are accelerating global warming and its harmful effects on ecosystems and communities worldwide. If climate change were truly a “con,” what would be the motivation for thousands of scientists and experts worldwide to agree on it and push for solutions ?
1
@Raven44453 It seems that the right-wing “mob” cannot answer questions that critically evaluate your own position.
1
@kim-mariefreeston8336 If natural emissions didn’t harm the planet back then, why are today’s human-made emissions causing such rapid climate changes ?
1
@soot.2146 Dealing with your first point, the UK does indeed have oil and gas resources, especially in the North Sea, but these reserves are expected to last only around 10-20 more years at current production rates. Even if tapped, UK fossil fuels are sold on the global market, so they wouldn’t lower domestic prices. To ensure long-term energy security and meet climate goals, many argue that investment in renewable energy is a smarter approach, providing stable jobs and reducing dependency on finite fossil fuels Funding from fossil fuel investors supports Reform UK, and media platforms such as GB News, and TalkTV, which can shape public narratives by emphasising the benefits of fossil fuels and downplaying renewables. If the UK’s fossil fuel reserves are limited and don’t directly lower domestic energy costs, what are the economic, environmental, and social arguments for continuing to invest in fossil fuel industries versus accelerating investment in renewable energy ?
1
@NewAccount-yv3qr Rolling out the usual agenda: abolishing the monarchy, imprisoning political opponents, and no doubt denying climate change, and stripping citizens of their human rights. Are you a thoughtful, rational individual, or is this the creed of a reckless contrarian? If you consider yourself rational, provide clear evidence to support your stance.
1
@NewAccount-yv3qr Rolling out the usual agenda: abolishing the monarchy, imprisoning political opponents, and no doubt denying climate change, and stripping citizens of their human rights. Are you a thoughtful, rational individual, or is this the creed of a contrarian? If you consider yourself rational, provide clear evidence to support your stance.
1
@NewAccount-yv3qr Rolling out the usual agenda: abolishing the monarchy, imprisoning political opponents, and no doubt denying climate change, and stripping citizens of their human rights. Are you a thoughtful, rational individual, or is this the creed of a contrarian? If you consider yourself rational, provide clear evidence to support your stance.
1