Search results

This debate was already degenerating into a match of who could shout the loudest. The deniers were winning in the emotive name calling and half baked facts. Now it's become a slanging march on both sides. Time to shut down.

And as somebody else who worked their backside off, I find those remarks ignorant and offensive as well. I didn't work on microwaves or TVs- I worked on major government systems dealing with thousands of millions of dollars. I had worked in IT for 25 years before that and I knew the magnitude of...

So that statement accepts that warming has previously taken place? Anybody who is looking for denial of climate change will be able to pull up things to support their view. But there's far more evidence that change has, and will, taken place than evidence that it has not. There's still...

A modest rise will change patterns a great deal. There are areas where rainfall will increase, and areas where it will decrease. There are areas where the temperatures will rise a little, and areas where they will rise a great deal. There's some maps on this article.

I Googled to see what I could find. What I found is that, from recent articles- eg realclimate.org, the best case scenario is that the earth will warm by 2C by 2100. That's enough to cause damage, but not enough to cause a catastrophe. However, that best change scenario can only occur with...

That is the way people from both sides of the fence are operating. It does nothing for intelligent conversation.

Let's not look at any of the facts presented. Let's just call them names and by implication dismiss whatever is said.