Those who have the power to do so, should step in and say something along the lines of... "All standard plastic bags available to bag your shopping in the supermarkets from 2010 onwards, must be bio-degradable., we are giving advance warning to the factories and suppliers of the major supermarkets that it will become illegal to make the normal plastic bags from september 2009.." etc

read somewhere that if they had plastic bags in the time of the crusades, the archaeologists would still be digging them up....

jackkcaj on 3/13/2008 1250 PM
...
Does anyone realise that the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere during a single volcanic eruption is more than man has been responsible for during our entire existence?

ackkcaj on 3/13/2008 706 PM
Subject: Plastic Bags from Supermarkets
Message: ermm maybe you should check where you get your information from, those figures do not include erruptions, also the government is not exactly a reliable source as they also collect your taxes.

[edit] BTW that was aimed at msg 36
[edit2] I did like your 'tin foil hat' reference, obviously your argument is not very good when stood alone, hence you needed to beef it up with a reference to a conspiracy implying that i wear a tin foil hat.
You really need to be more confident in your argument then you wouldn't feel the need to ridicule as part of the debate.

Whats wrong with taking a rucksack and not using carrier bags at all?

Well 2 things,
1) a quick googling will find you *multiple* sources that have the same information, people output approx 150x more CO2 than volcanoes...
2) The tin foil hat was a joke remark about you referring to "don't trust the goverment/scientists/whoever".

Some more links if you can be bothered to look. Of course they are probably all members of the Freemasons so are all fibbing:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
http://www.ees.nmt.edu/Geop/mevo/geochem/co2.html
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano

If you are a scientist and follow the scientific method then I apologise, since you'd know scientists don't just pull a number out the air, since if they did the other scientists would shoot them down.... its called a peer review.

AP
Tuesday, March 11, 2008

More evidence from the International Conference on Climate change last month which produced the Manhattan Declaration (see post below) of the way in which scientists who are sceptical about man-made global warming find their work is suppressed. A detailed piece on the website of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works reports:

During the conference, scientists revealed the lack of tolerance science journals and institutions have exhibited for skeptical climate views.

‘We [fellow skeptical scientists] talked mostly of work and upcoming papers and went through the standard ritual of griping about journal editors and the ridiculous hoops we sometimes have to jump through to get papers published. But some of the guys had absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views. Really outrageous and unethical behavior on the parts of some editors. I was shocked,’ wrote conference participant Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review, on his blog on March 4. (LINK)

Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, a former global warming activist who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, presented scientific findings at the conference refuting rising CO2 fears. Zágoni’s scientific mentor Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," but he claims NASA refused to allow him. ‘Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results,” Miskolczi said according to a March 6 Daily Tech article. (LINK) [Note: Clarification from original posting. Miskolczi worked with NASA, not Zágoni.]
Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, noted that many of his scientific colleagues did not attend the conference because they “feared their attendance might affect their employment.” D’Aleo described the fear of retribution many skeptics face as a “sad state of affairs.” But D’Aleo noted that he believes there is ‘very likely a silent majority of scientists in climatology, meteorology, and allied sciences who do not endorse what is said to be the ‘consensus’ position.’ Other scientists have echoed these claims. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, asserted in December 2007 that skeptics have a much harder time publishing in peer-reviewed literature. ‘Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,’ Paldor, who was not in attendance at the New York conference, wrote in December.

From this post, and in particular if you follow the links, you will find a wealth of other information which illuminates the mind-blowing scale of the global warming scam and how it has been perpetrated — for example, that proponents of MMGW have been funded over the past decade to the tune of $50 BILLION whereas the sceptics have received a meagre $19 MILLION. In other words, MMGW is a giant cash cow for scientific researchers, while those who refuse to latch onto the poisoned udder find they risk professional suicide. Even so, the number of scientists now ‘coming out’ to declare that MMGW is a monumental fraud is growing by the day.

jackkcaj on 3/13/2008 803 PM
....