Gentlemen,

The evidence is compelling.

You're outnumbered by the experts and scientists.

You can brush things aside all you want. The facts
are there and they are real.

I've given links from NASA. Here's another one with
evidence:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Also people like - documentary maker and environmentalist -
David Attenborough have urged world leaders to act as
leaders and limit global warming, which he called
"our greatest threat in thousands of years."

His call to tackle climate change was made at the United
Nations (UN) two week climate conference 2018 in
Katowice, Poland, on Monday December 3rd, 2018, where he
was given a "People's Seat" (representing the world's
people). There's more in the link below:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/kids-news/news/documentary-maker-sir-david-attenborough-calls-for-world-leaders-to-act-to-save-our-planet/news-story/ac41bc91a3e9676d10057d7a8f151e8e

Dear Philip S,

You first say; “ Good call it appears you are right regarding Merkel.”

Then you backtrack on culpability by saying; “Having re-read what AC and I wrote, neither of us said or implied she quit as Chancelor”

I'm afraid a technicality doesn't wash here old chum but rather leaves you in a less than flattering light. At least AC had the good graces to properly concede. I give him a tick for that.

Dear mhaze,

Are you really still smarting that much from losing the argument last time? This is pretty simple so I will repeat the situation. Trump said Warren did not have any indigenous ancestry, she said she did. Trump offered Warren $1,000,000 to her favourite charity if she would take a DNA test. Warren did and it proved she had indigenous ancestry. Trump then denied he had made the bet but when pressured said he would only pay if he could do the test himself.

Time to get over it mate.

SteeleRedux You read into things what is not there. Normally I would not even come back to you on this one, I was going to let you have a win, but you think you are so right with your comeback.
**
My exact comment.
Hasbeen Merkel is not the leader she quit the leadership (idiots gave her a 10 minute standing ovation ) about 6 days ago.

Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has been elected leader of Germany's ruling Christian Democrat Union (CDU) party, bringing Angela Merkel's 18 years at the helm to an end.
Posted by Philip S, Thursday, 13 December 2018 5:57:24 PM
**

1st sentence "Hasbeen Merkel is not the leader she quit the leadership"
Clear and concise, if you only read this sentence, she quit the leadership.

2nd sentence "Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer has been elected leader of Germany's ruling Christian Democrat Union (CDU) party"
Clear and concise, It says who is the new leader and WHAT she is the leader of.

Technicality, no you read only part of my comment or you read into it to mean chancellor which as anyone can see is not there.

As stated before.
I will accept a fail for not differentiating between CDU leadership and the position of Chancelor in this instance.

mhaze unfortunately we are all fallible including you
IF you can find it in you to defend the rant posted by ALTRAV then you have my sympathy
Foxy heard about trying to force a camel through the eye of a needle?
Just maybe the science is true, well it is, however we do not need to get down in the gutter to bad mouth those who think differently
I QUESTION the constant insults posted by a few, are we adults of badly behaved children
An inability to be civil is displayed here by a few

Belly, I will put my name on the list of names I believe you were aiming your question at.
Firstly, I find that too many people don't have the courage to say what they feel, for fear of being shunned or rejected.
This accounts for most of the population,"nearly half of the world agrees with us"??"Many countries do too"??
Secondly, because of this fact, things are mis-represented and so taken as fact, this is un-acceptable and must not be allowed to continue unchecked.
Thirdly, what some call insults or offensive, is a matter of opinion.
If in the normal course of ones delivery of a topic, the wording is not to the reader/listeners liking, they have the right to be offended, but not the right to call the one commenting, offensive.
The commentor is equally offended by being told they are offensive, so it seems that we must talk in a way that is not ourselves.
Consider this then, having a conversation with ten people, they all get offended at different times throughout the discussion.
In your opinion, which type of discussion do I use because I stand to still offend nine of them, whatever language, words, or method of delivery, I use.
Finally the ONLY appropriate and logical form of conversation is to speak your mind, in your manner, in your words, it's your right and you know the old saying, 'you can't please everyone'.
Belly, what is offensive is when you and those of similar attitudes try to virtue signal or virtue shame others as a response to exactly the same things you accuse me and others like me of.
Belly we may not be claiming that we are absolutely right all the time but we are stating that you are possibly wrong all the time.

What a pack of buffoons. All the product of a huge amount of spending from the fossil fuel industry, well exceeding what was spent by the tobacco industry.

There is not a scientific bone in any of you and yet you sit here running mantras directly from PR companies intent on spreading disinformation to retain profits. Why? Well the only way you could have so divorced yourself from the scientific reality as to be able to be making such sweeping statements of nonsense is if you felt you had some authority to do so. This is despite any expertise in the area at all.

Truly mindless minions the lot.

The vast majority of those working at the cutting edge of climate science are deeply concerned about the clear present and future impacts of climate change. Many are trying to figure out what that world will look like because human greed will likely stymie much of the action required to halt the warming. Sure some of the studies being done are questionable, but the vast majority are not. They are giving us a much needed heads up on what mitigation measures will be vital.

For this ignorant, pissant, bunch of deniers to be pillorying them in such a manner is typical. Unfortunately they are not self regulating like those who didn't believe smoking caused lung cancer and continued puffing away at 2 packs a day. They have found a refuge on OLO where they can gee each other on, safe in their smugness and bombast.