Mitch Cronin

Rattler? Are you joking? The man's sexual habits define him? You'd have to downgrade an awful lot of history's finest men if you used that same yardstick everywhere. Back on topic....kinda-sorta... I have a challenge for you, or Woxof, or anyone else who want's to take it... watch this video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...95060267517042# ...and tell me what, if anything, is wrong with the gist of what it's saying (I know there are some specifics that likely aren't accurate, but you can mentally delete those scenes)?

He did what he was told Rattler. He was a flippin' actor.

Who wants to bet that she won't be the first female president of the US of A? That unbelievable twit has captured the minds of everyone of average intelligence and below...., and the notion that anyone is interested in her, at all, has captured the minds of almost everyone of above average intelligence! They elected Reagan for pity sakes! ....just watch.

To fully grasp that mechanism, you'd have to take into account other things as well... like the fact that the Atlantic is widening due to continental drift... as well as changes in subduction zones - such as near Japan as the pacific plate rams itself under the Eurasian plate. I'd be surprised if, overall, there could be any appreciable net change in ocean area. The biggest chance for sea level rise, I think, is the possibility of the Greenland ice sheet melting... and obviously areas of the Antarctic ice sheets as well... though I don't think anyone is saying that's happening yet. To my mind, the sad thing is that no matter what is truth, those with the most money to gain (or lose) will be the ones to decide what action is or isn't taken. As with so many other aspects of life, the extreme short sightedness of the dollar will reign. I think the best we can hope to do for our later generations is to slightly minimize the damage we're causing to our environments with our wastes. I'm hoping that one day in the not too distant future, as our understanding of physics grows, we'll find ways to vaporize all the chemical stews we currently spew into our atmosphere and seas... Heck, maybe we'll even find ways to generate power while we do it!?

6,795,063,712 of us, and rising.... [from http://www.peterrussell.dreamhosters.com/Odds/WorldClock.php ]

[read with British Accent] Sir, I've reviewed your numbers and meticulously analyzed the entire thread, inside and out, top to bottom, from stem to stern, with every winkling widget and electronic fandangle known to man..., and I'm afraid I'm forced to bring to you the unsettling conclusion that.... although their origin is completely understood, they ....are ....wrong. I humbly, and respectfully submit, sir, that at least 6500 of those were from a man called Wax off (I believe?), a further 800 were Canus Shnookus (which I think is Old world "Ug-Latin" for a 'mischievous dog'.... not sure tho'?), ...four hundred and sixty two were from a Mr. Loon and his naughty cousin, ...one hundred and twelve were from a fellow named Alan Goare, ...ninety two were from Rattler, ...fourty seven were from myself, 23 from Kip, eleventy seven or eight from yourself.... and the rest divided amonst all the rest..., and of course there are always..... The Lurkers!....

That's a little more than facts escaping him... that's much closer to pure fabrication.

...said the Injin Chief to his visitor: Hmmm. You tell many things. Your tales have many arrows, and many paths. Our people will talk. Even the Eagle cannot know the choices he will make tomorrow. I think I agree with all of that Moon... except I think we may find we are making a difference. ...as you said, the science isn't complete.

Of course. We need it. I don't understand your last point (quoted in my above post) then... Who has it wrong? I haven't heard anyone claim the atmosphere is doing the heating. ? Put plainly, what is it that either Gore or Suzuki claim regarding the process that you specifically disagree with? (other than whether or not we're causing any problems ourselves.... where I gather you stand firmly on the side that say's we're not)

I didn't know anyone had claimed it was the other way around..., but surely you're not denying the existence of the "greenhouse effect", which serves to keep the heat in our atmosphere... are you?

And that's really the meat of the problem isn't it. Big money is being thrown at technologies to improve climate models..., so we'll continue getting updates on what they find... It certainly does seem like haste is ruling the day... but some say we've already taken too long. It'll be an interesting ride.

Two things... - None of those grandstanding putzes speak for me. and - Your blue highlight stirs an anger in me. I'm getting tired of hearing that line. The writer is wrong, it's used far too often. I would like to answer Albertans who like to think like that, that if they don't like Canada, then they are quite welcome to vamoose! The rest of us can work out the details of a deserving nation of decent people who want to work together. That, is really a topic for another thread. As for the record temperatures. Yes, that's an expected result of this global climate change that we're all discussing here. It would seem that few doubt our "climate" is changing, though the direction of change is not wholly agreed, nor the causes.... What I meant was, holding up record low temps across the province and saying something like "it sure doesn't look like global warming is happening here" makes it appear to me that you've missed these two points: 1- as stated above, broken records (on either end of the tube) are an expected result. and 2 - what happens over a few days or weeks or months, in any given locale, does not say anything about what the global climate is doing.

Canus, I appreciate the thought, thanks. ... but you haven't been paying attention... I don't have a "side"! ...and, you misunderstood my intent. I think it is quite valid to include those who have children in the group of those who have reason for elevated interest in the subject. It's well acknowledged that there are monetary interests on both sides of the debate. I don't need to offer you any more links to establish that. Surely you can't deny that concern for the welfare of your kids, and theirs, takes one to where monetary concerns are in the back seat. So isn't it worth noting that point when considering the motives of those who believe we need to act? Rattler, Way back near the beginning of this thread we established that a few day's worth of weather does not equate to "climate", ...and that extremes and new records are an expected result of "climate change".

Interesting debate on the topic "The Science and Politics of Climate Change" (though dated -2007-, most, if not all, is still worth hearing, 2 years later): http://fora.tv/2007/10/28/Science_and_Poli..._Climate_Change

Thanks Don. Your 2c is worth at least $1.52 in my book.

The news of the corruption and thieving that's happened in the carbon credit trading business, is sad. It throws another cloud layer of nonsense, that has absolutely nothing to do with the process of getting to the heart of the matter, right smack in the way. ...it's an obfuscation. (hope that word fits? never used it before... sounds right to me....like an obstructive confusion...?....guess I'll lookitup ) Don.... told'ya. ... ...

A "low blow" Canus? Ok let's try this scenario: Two couples live in a cave... one of those couples has two children, the other has none.... One day the four adults (all nearing the age when their own parents met their makers) are discussing whether or not they should build a door to the cave to keep critters out while they sleep. The couple without kids likes the fresh air and don't want a door. The couple with the kids wants to keep their children safe... Who has more at stake? Should the kids get a vote? If those kids are too young to know what's best for them, should their parents be able to vote on their behalf? "Low blow", my fanny! Seems to me it's a simple fact of life that those with progeny will have more of an interest in what sort of world they leave behind. I initially asked the question when I began to wonder if some of the difference between opposing points of view might have anything to do with what people have to lose, either way.... Obviously, if there are huge costs involved in reducing our contribution to the greenhouse gasses - and clearly there are - those who stand to lose the most money will have an elevated interest... I submit that likewise, those who have hopes of thier children, and grandchildren, etc, carrying on their family line, will also have an elevated interest. Where is the fault in that?

Rattler, I hope the moderators don't "close" the thread.... Why stifle legitimate debate? Sure, sometimes, in any debate, some might seem offside, but as long as honest debate, and further understanding is possible, any attempt to kill the conversation is itself offside. ...imho I think there are more not so "entrenched" people here than you're seeing.

There's no doubt people, some as easily as sheep, are being led, but I think it comes from both poles of this topic. The first conversation I had with folks who actually know a thing or two about science, (and without any place or context for an agenda) very nearly had me convinced they must be right. "It's easy to debunk the debunkers" I was told.... I asked lots of questions, but it really wasn't the right time for the conversation, so I didn't get any more at the time (family gathering).... I've since come to see there is much to be learned, and much to digest.... However, and this is not something easily washed aside, if their worst case pictures are as true as they fear, all this time dithering has the potential to severely limit our options. I can only hope someone believable will sometime soon step up to the plate, and resolve the debate, one way or another. ....I know that's going to take time though... time to accumulate and decipher more data... time that some say is costing us much. ....and yes, for those of us with children, I think we do, quite naturally, have more to be concerned about.

....I tried that once too...

Woxof, you're something of a practicing propagandist, aren't you? I asked you a question, with no intent to insult. You chose, not only to not answer me - "maybe yes, maybe no" -, but you instead spoke to an imagined audience, attempting to muster their support behind you, by spewing nonsense about what you MISread in my question. Need I remind you it wasn't long ago that you and I agreed to be civil to one another? I disagree with Don on this one point, I see insult in your propagandizing. You portray me as a bully without conscience, without reason, without logic and without principle? How? Because of what you IMAGINED was between the lines in my question? Let's have a look at your answer to my question: ...and earlier: Firstly, can you see what you've done? You assumed I accused you of that. Not once did I breathe any hint that I might think anything like that of you, much less accuse you of it, yet you assumed it and carried on speaking to your imagined gang of followers -- who, by the way, are just as likely to be either sitting back and shaking their heads, or laughing their asses off and wondering if they should encourage you some more. (some people are terrificly amused watching others get excited)--... as though it were all true. I'm trying to help you here Woxof. There's a reason you keep running into trouble here... You're reading things into what is actually written, and forming your opinions of those authors and their motives, based on those erroneous assumptions. Know that MOST people won't be describing their true thoughts very accurately... We do have the very good fortune to have a few here who are really good at it, but writing clearly doesn't come easy to most us. So give people the benefit of doubt and ask them to articulate their thoughts a little better before tossing them in all those nasty little cubby-holes you seem to keep so handy. ...and for goodness sakes, how many times do I have to tell you I am no more "supportive" of anthropogenic global warming theory than I am of any theory to the contrary? I DON'T KNOW ! Do you hear that Woxof? I don't know. So I read, and listen, and wait for those who can know, to find out for the rest of us. Cheers, ...have a good day... think about what I've said... (and I'm certain that English Bishop would know full well that he cannot know you well enough to accuse you of anything at all)

I ask because I think the answer speaks to your interests. If one has children I think they're necessarily more interested in the quality of world he/she leaves behind. That certainly doesn't say that one who doesn't have children would necessarily not care, but I think he/she is less likely to, because he has less reason to. Do you have children?

Woxof, do you have any children?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejEVczA8PLU