Mitch Cronin

As much as you do with your alleged degree and your anonymity Hadji. In the same vein as in your response to IFG, if you want any of us to take you or your opinions seriously, shouldn't you identify yourself? I'd like to know who any of you nay-sayers ever hear quoting Suzuki or Gore? You ALL seem to keep holding them up as poster boys to dismiss the other side, yet I've rarely - if ever in the last long while- heard the other side indicating those are the voices to listen to. Whatupwidat? Hmmm? Just for yuk, I'll see your alleged BSc in geology and raise you a pair of biologists (one with a doctorate and one with a masters) of those I know closely (brother and cousin) who don't believe climate change is bunk at all. Not that their opinion is any more relevant than any geologist's...

...as for the 5 cent bags not getting people to change... I can only speak for my wife... she grumbled and changed immediately. Now she's happy for the change.

I disagree with that as well... Unless you subscribe to the notion that as individuals we can't have any effect on our global environment?... It's infinitesimally minor, to be sure, but it's making all those bits count that can win elections, for example. I'm undoubtedly in the minority, but I probably engage in as much social discourse here as anywhere else... Over time, I've learned a fair bit from these pages... Certainly about other people's opinions, if nothing else.

http://www.beyonddiscovery.org/content/view.article.asp?a=73 Evidently it's still a concern, but I guess among those who study it, perhaps more alarming concerns have come to light.

Because that's not what many scientists are saying. Yep, the number of those who disagree does appear to be rising (though even that is hard to know), but since most of us are not climatologists (including professor Plimer), it seems to this observer that listening for more learned opinions is worth doing. And I absolutely agree with Chock that being "good stewards of the earth" is a worthwhile goal, regardless. I regret my use of the term "clueless" earlier in this thread woxof, it clearly bothered you and for that, I apologize. It's interesting though, that even since then you've continued to post tidbits that make it appear, to me, that you may still not be aware of the difference between local weather and climate. I think if you'd read a little from some better sources, you'd find that even those scientists who continue to endorse the global warming theory will tell you the temperature changes they anticipate would be on the global average... which doesn't mean that everywhere would experience warmer temps. What it would mean is greater changes in weather would be more common... more extremes... some areas could even experience lower temps. That's how I understand it.

Woxof.... sigh... one more time just for you... There is a vast difference between "climate" and "weather". Looking at the "weather" in any given location, over as ridiculously short a period as two years won't even get you close to seeing any "climate" change, regardless of what happened. By posting things like last year's weather you're proving yourself to be somewhat clueless. ....Ok, so maybe I shouldn't say that, but I'm losing patience with you.

Dear Woxof.... sigh.... do you still not know...? ....

...could solve a couple of problems by throwing her in a halfway house with convicted male sex offenders.

Interesting, informative, and powerful report.... thanks for that link CD. Chills down my spine as well...