Sound logic on gas prices
 

I know this is an emotional subject with many of us. However, one of my fav. economists prepared this article to shed some light on the subject.

Anyone in Hawaii should send this to their lawmakers.

Enjoy!


A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31, 2005, AND THEREAFTER
GASOLINE PRICES

Click here to Print |

Nationally, the average per gallon price for regular gasoline is $2.50.

Are gasoline prices high? That's not the best way to ask that question. It's akin to asking, "Is Williams tall?" The average height of U.S. women is 5'4", and for men, it's 5'10". Being 6'4", I'd be tall relative to the general U.S. population. But put me on a basketball court, next to the average NBA basketball player, and I wouldn't be tall; I'd be short. So when we ask whether a price is high or low, we have to ask relative to what.

In 1950, a gallon of regular gasoline sold for about 30 cents; today, it's $2.50. Are today's gasoline prices high compared to 1950? Before answering that question, we have to take into account inflation that has occurred since 1950. Using my trusty inflation calculator (www.westegg.com/inflation), what cost 30 cents in 1950 costs $2.33 in 2005. In real terms, that means gasoline prices today are only slightly higher, about 8 percent, than they were in 1950. Up until the recent spike, gasoline prices have been considerably lower than 1950 prices.

Some Americans are demanding that the government do something about gasoline prices. Let's think back to 1979 when the government did do something. The Carter administration instituted price controls. What did we see? We saw long gasoline lines, and that's if the gas station hadn't run out of gas. It's estimated that Americans used about 150,000 barrels of oil per day idling their cars while waiting in line. In an effort to deal with long lines, the Carter administration introduced the harebrained scheme of odd and even days, whereby a motorist whose license tag started with an odd number could fill up on odd-numbered days, and those with an even number on even-numbered days.

With the recent spike in gas prices, the government has chosen not to pursue stupid policies of the past. As a result, we haven't seen shortages. We haven't seen long lines. We haven't seen gasoline station fights and riots. Why? Because price has been allowed to perform its valuable function -- that of equating demand with supply.

Our true supply problem is of our own doing. Large quantities of oil lie below the 20 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The amount of land proposed for oil drilling is less than 2,000 acres, less than one-half of one percent of ANWR. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there are about 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR. But environmentalists' hold on Congress has prevented us from drilling for it. They've also had success in restricting drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off the shore of California. Another part of our energy problem has to do with refining capacity. Again, because of environmentalists' successful efforts, it's been 30 years since we've built a new oil refinery.

Few people realize that the U.S. is also a major oil-producing country. After Saudi Arabia, producing 10.4 million barrels a day, then Russia with 9.4 million barrels, the U.S. with 8.7 million barrels a day is the third-largest producer of oil. But we could produce more. Why aren't we? Producers have a variety of techniques to win monopoly power and higher profits that come with that power. What's a way for OPEC to gain more power? I have a hypothesis, for which I have no evidence, but it ought to be tested. If I were an OPEC big cheese, I'd easily conclude that I could restrict output and charge higher oil prices if somehow U.S. oil drilling were restricted. I'd see U.S. environmental groups as allies, and I would make "charitable" contributions to assist their efforts to reduce U.S. output. Again, I have no evidence, but it's a hypothesis worth examination.

Return to Articles Page

fuel costs
 

I'd have to research this in more detail, but the problem with using 1950 as the base is that the US was still feeling the effects of post World War II inflation. Plus, I'm not sure whether the Korean War was on at that point. These may have contributed to higher than usual gasoline prices at the time. As a kid in the mid- to late 1950s, I distinctly remember premium gas widely available in the northeast for under 30 cents a gallon. In fact, I remember my father filling his 1958 Buick for under 30 cents a gallon. I'm not sure it crossed 30 cents until the early '60s and, as I recall, the rate of increase was pretty mild until the '70s gas shortages. Using this guy's "trusty inflation calculator" and moving the year to 1958 and premium gas to 30 cents, the current price should be $1.97 -- for premium. Instead, it's currently headed for $4.

This guy sounds like an apologist for a government that's done little or nothing about gas prices while oil companies are awash in profits. And, typical for these guys, he twists the statistics to fit his thesis.

Sorry to beat on this one, but I was right, guys. Take a look at this chart: http://oregonstate.edu/Dept/pol_sci/fac/sahr/gasol.htm and you'll see that there was virtually no gas price inflation until the early to mid-'60s. This is another bogus argument by a conservative columnist. These guys give the respectable conservatives a bad name. Next thing you know, Williams will be writing that we found WMDs in Iraq!

Random thoughts:

Data point - I found a cute book for my dad (82, born in 1923). The book lists all sorts of trivia for the year 1923. It included the price of gas (11 cents/gal) and gave the average income. I did the math against our current average wage (around $35-40,000 I think, depending on where you live) and $2.50 a gallon (2 weeks ago). Gas today is one half the percentage of income that it was in 1923. Reason? Probably increased efficiency in drilling, transporting, refining, etc.

As the world grows, adding more people, more homes, and more cars - unless supply rises with the growth, then prices will go up. Simple math.

Our home and business development models are built on suburban sprawl. This takes a lot of petroleum to function. There is no short term way to alter the fact that we all have to drive a lot. If the parameters change (gas goes up) to the point of discomfort, we will change our patterns long term. On an individual level you can beat the system now: live near work, drive an efficient car, insulate your attic.

Last thought: If we built nuclear plants in the 1950's and 60's that are still on line, surely we could build better, safer plants today. South Carolina has a couple of nuclear plants in a relatively small state - electric prices are 12% below national average and there is a good energy supply to attract new industry.

Theory aside, $3 gas bites. (Near term reaction).

Now that's some sound logic on gas prices! Limoncello, I hope you're finding an adequate supply. I heard things were running short in SC.

limoncello - Good point but sorry to say that you can not use your data. Anything $$$ wise pre June 5, 1933 is irrelevant.

longislander1 's data starting @1950 is good.

Sorry for the stale data.
SC gas supply - had lines yesterday, seems better this morning. Saw one station raising the price from $2.45 to $2.99 for regular.
Aside from gas, if you'd like a good example of a supply and demand market, watch the prices on plywood, lumber and shingles in the next 6 months. It could also affect the money market, if enough people borrow money to repair/replace their homes. Harder to guess that one, though.
Gas mileage: noted the Boxster 20-21 mpg figures in another thread. It's about what I get, except for the track. I burned almost a tank in 3 runs, but as Tom cruise once said, sometimes you just gotta say "WTF". :)

I think the amusing point is that the government is supposed to "do something" about the current level of gas prices.

For those of you in that crowd, what specifically do you feel the government "should do." And, in the same vein, how much SHOULD gas cost anyway? What is the magic number?

Those of us who remember the last time the government stepped in to handle prices, well, that didn't work out very well. I remember the gas lines and it was NOT fun.

I think that Williams credentials as an economist are substantial. He is not apologizing for anyone, simply saying that there are some very fundamental factors that COULD be worked to improve the supply of oil and refined gasoline.

I will post other respected economists who agree 100% on this. Frankly, when is the last time anyone here actually took on the "greens" when they were blocking ANYTHING that remotely looked like it could generate energy within the US.

On the point above on nuclear eneregy, yes, yes yes. However, the same Greens who fight oil drilling would have a fit if you propose to build a nuclear plant in the US.

From the GREENS point of view, we would all park our Porsches and buy a Prius. It is the "virtuous" thing to do, right?

:cheers:

All good points.

Thanks.

More logic on gas prices!

An oil 'crisis'?
Thomas Sowell (archive)


August 23, 2005 | Print | Recommend to a friend


With oil prices passing the record-breaking $60 a barrel level and heading even higher, the word "crisis" is now being used and all sorts of political "solutions" are being proposed. Is there really a crisis?

One of the dictionary definitions of a crisis is "the point in the course of a serious disease at which a decisive change occurs, leading either to recovery or to death." Is that where we are when it comes to oil? Are we either going to solve the problem of oil or see it destroy us economically?

Political and media definitions of "crisis" are much looser than the dictionary's definition. In political semantics, the word "crisis" has come to mean any situation that someone wants to use to justify doing something that will be called a "solution." Crises are a dime a dozen by political and media definitions.

Almost as common as crises are conspiracy theories. Whenever the price of gasoline shoots up, California's Senator Barbara Boxer can be depended on to demand an investigation of the oil companies. The fact that previous investigations have found no conspiracies is no deterrent.

Why, then, are oil prices so high?

There is no esoteric reason. It is plain old supply and demand. With the economies of huge nations like China and India developing more rapidly, now that they have freed their markets from many stifling government controls, more oil is being demanded in the world market and there are few new sources of supply.

What should our government do?

We will be lucky if they do nothing. But, with Congressional elections coming up next year, that is very unlikely. Candidates for Congress next year, and politicians hoping to run for President in 2008, are virtually guaranteed to come up with all sorts of "solutions."

These "solutions" will be packaged as brilliant new ideas, courageous and far-seeing. But most will be retreads of old ideas that remain untested or which have been tested in the past and found wanting.

Price controls, arbitrary new higher gas mileage standards for cars, "alternative energy sources," and other nostrums are sure to surface once again.

The last time we had price controls on gasoline, we had long lines of cars at filling stations, these lines sometimes stretching around the block, with motorists sitting in those lines for hours.

That nonsense ended almost overnight when President Ronald Reagan, ignoring the cries of liberal politicians and the liberal media, got rid of price controls with a stroke of the pen.

What happened is what usually happens when government restrictions are ended: There was more production of oil. In fact the 1980s became known as the era of an "oil glut" and gasoline prices declined.
Today production is being held back, not by price controls, but by political hysteria whenever anyone suggests actually producing more oil ourselves. Organized nature cults go ballistic at the thought that we might drill for oil in some remote part of Alaska that 99 percent of Americans will never see, including 99 percent of the nature cultists.
People used to ask whether there is any sound if a tree falls in an empty forest. Today, there are deafening political sounds over oil-drilling in an empty wilderness.

Nor can we drill for oil offshore, or in many places on land, again for political reasons. Nor can we build enough refineries or even build hydroelectric dams as alternative sources of power.

Many of the same people who cry "No blood for oil!" also want higher gas mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and more flimsy cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents -- in other words, trading blood for oil.

Apparently the only things we can do are the things in vogue among nature cultists and the politicians that cater to them, such as windmills and electric cars. That is why we would be better off if the government did nothing and let people adjust their own energy consumption individually in their own ways as the prices of gasoline and fuel oil rise. But that is also politically unlikely.


Soaring oil prices have revived the old bogeyman that the world is running out of oil. Economics is a great field for nostalgia buffs because the same old fallacies keep coming back, like golden oldies in music.

Back in 1960, a best-selling book titled "The Waste Makers" by Vance Packard showed that the known reserves of petroleum in the United States were only enough to last another 13 years at the current rate of usage. Yet, 13 years later, the United States had larger known reserves of petroleum than in 1960.

This has been a worldwide phenomenon. At the end of the 20th century, the known reserves of petroleum in the world were more than ten times what they were in the middle of the 20th century -- despite an ever-growing use of oil.
There is of course some finite amount of oil and of other natural resources. The big leap is in going from saying that there is a finite amount to saying that we are running out.

When John Stuart Mill was a young man, he worried that we were running out of music, since there were only 8 notes and therefore there was only a finite amount of music possible. At that point Brahms and Tchaikovsky had not yet been born nor jazz created.

No matter how many centuries' supply of oil there is on the planet, the high cost of oil exploration ensures that only the most minute fraction of that oil will be known at any given time. Thus there have long been recurring false predictions that we were running out of petroleum, as well as other natural resources.

The high cost of extracting and processing oil ensures that not even half of the oil in a known pool of oil will be brought to the surface and sent off to the refineries.

A generation ago, only about a quarter of the oil in a pool was likely to be brought to the surface. That is because the cost of extracting and processing oil from a given pool tends to increase as you drain from deeper into that pool.

Even at $60 a barrel, most of the oil that is known to exist is too costly to extract. How much will be extracted depends on how much higher the price of oil goes -- and how much new technology can recover more oil at lower costs.
What if the government did nothing about oil prices? Rising prices would lead people to reduce their use of oil and lead producers to drain some of the more costly oil out of the ground.

Many people in politics and in the media seem to be alarmed about the rising cost of gasoline and of the petroleum from which it is made. But they only seem to be. What they are really alarmed about are the prices -- and prices and costs are very different things.

Prices are what pay for costs. The government can impose price controls on gasoline or petroleum tomorrow but that will not have the slightest effect on the cost of oil exploration or the cost of extracting and processing the oil that is found.

When the costs are no longer being fully covered by prices, production is likely to be cut back, whether it is the production of oil or anything else. This is not speculation. This is what has been happening for literally thousands of years, going back to price controls in ancient Rome and Babylon.

Yet price controls have always been popular politically, despite being counterproductive economically. After all, how many votes do economists have and how many voters know economics?
Some people love to believe that prices should be kept down to a "reasonable" level, something that everyone can "afford." Yet the notion of "reasonable" prices is itself unreasonable. The costs of producing oil don't depend on what we can afford or consider "reasonable." Nor does the cost of anything else.
Someone can always invoke the image of an elderly person on a fixed pension being unable to buy enough fuel oil to keep warm in the winter. Taking care of such isolated situations would not make a dent in the massive government budget. But the real goal of such anecdotes is to justify imposing government controls on all of us.

Make no mistake about it, there are many people out there just itching to tell us what to do -- and make us do it. That is why the word "crisis" gets used so much, and not just about oil, in order to soften us up for their taking over our lives. That is a bigger problem than the so-called "oil crisis."

seems to me people want to drive big SUV and gas hungry sportscars and
not pay allot for gas like the rest of the world.

I guess we'll just have to wait for all that Oil the pro-Iraq war people were promising Bush. It's coming soon right??

funny story I recently met a girl who lives an hour away. At
$30 for 1/2 tank, I'm having second thoughts.

Your last point is amusing and EXACTLY what happens when the price of a good is increasing. Each consumer makes decisions about the use of that resource/service and then acts. Some folks won't date the girl, some will, some will ask her to meet at the motel half way.

Others will use their motorcycle for a romantic outing.

Re: the Iraq oil, the oil is flowing. In and of itself, it won't make a large dent in price, simply not enough there.

I think the interesting issue is that we are willing to fight a war around the world to ensure oil is pumping (among other things) but we will not confront the greens in the US on getting at more of our own oil or in building Nuclear PPs here in the US.

"let the good times roll!"

I was just kidding about the Iraq oil. Yet I'm not so sure that it wasn't floated as a justification for a premptive (read NOT an iminent threat) in Washington. Did our oil intelligence fail as well? :D

We can drill every hole in the world and our fixation with cars and travel will rise with it. Ever go for a drive on the highway and count the number of SUV's, Luxury gas guzzlers, PORSCHES, and pick ups? and once in a blue moon you'll seen one of those hybrid cars.
This country doesn't take well to being told "do you really need a 4 ton automobile?"
Its easier to feed the beast than to get it on a diet. A diet that would make our dollars go longer and perhaps give our children some clean air to breathe.
Humans have been on this planet for Millions of years yet we've done more harm to this little blue planet in the last 100 years than the previous 1000.

Well, I not sure where your points are headed?

Humans love being in motion, there is no question about that. From the horse to horsepower, this has cativated our attention for centuries.

Yes, I see no end to our love affair with mobility. In the long run, that love will drive us beyond petroleum products and to who knows what.

While I might think an SUV is a dumb thing, the great thing is that I do not have to buy one. I am free to spend my money on other things. Shoot, I can eschew driving altogether if I want. I love not having anyone else tell me how I should move around or if I should move around.

The key point here is that price IS the mechanism that makes supply and demand intersect. Mess with that mechanism and you are head for trouble. Just ask Jimmy Carter!

Specific to your comments on clean air, I suggest that you look at the modern auto in the US. For example, my wife's Subaru is so clean that the air coming out of the tailpipe is cleaner than the air coming into the intake (if you are driving in LA). IIt actually functions as an air cleaner.

The rap on autos and pollution is outdated at best.

Lastly, if you want to see environmental devastation, I suggest you research the history of floods, earthquakes, typhoons, forest fires, glaciers, ice ages, etc. I think our "fragile" plant has plenty of destruction "built in" and it has survived just fine. The doom and gloom of the 1970s forecasted our end by 1999 but here we are, just doing fine!

Now, if we can only survive the world that the "greens" have in store for us. We would all be riding bikes and wearing Birkenstocks!

IMHO!

:cheers:

The rap on autos and pollution outdated? :eek:

There are a Billion Chinese who are buying cars at an alarming rate. And those cars are not beholden to the strict pollution standards that we impose.
A single mainland province of China has more people in it than all of the USA.
Add to that their commercial trucks, factories and their heavy reliance on coal for home heating and you have a giant hole in the ozone. Not to mention India and other highly populated countries and their outdated autos. We're not the only country with cars.


and THe rest of the USA isn't California. our environmental standards are much much less. Just travel to Texas which has some of the most polluted cities in the country.
ANd here in New Jersey we have more cars than people. Anyone who thinks that doesn't have an effect on air standards needs to read up on some of the recent EPA findings that forced the previous comissioner(and former NJ governor) to resign from the Bush Adminstration.
Even if our autos run at lower levels of pollution, people are driving more, walking less and more people own cars than at any point since the car was invented. All that consumption ads to gloabl warming. If you believe in that or as the current administration refers to it "gloabl climate change". :D

Thanks for mention of Jimmy Carter. Boy, what a mistake he made in his innagural address:

"Our material resources, great as they are, are limited. Our problems are too complex for simple slogans or for quick solutions. We cannot solve them without effort and sacrifice. Walter Lippmann once reminded us, 'You took the good things for granted. Now you must earn them again. For every right that you cherish, you have a duty which you must fulfill. For every good which you wish to preserve, you will have to sacrifice your comfort and your ease. There is nothing for nothing any longer.'"

On the other foot, in spite of being in a war, Americans are asked to sacrifice nothing. Yay W!

I fear I'm getting too political here. Apologies in advance. :o

There are a billion Chinese, but there are not "a billion Chinese who are buying cars". There are, however, many more Chinese now able to afford cars, and you can thank everyone who walks into Walmart for that. They now have jobs, and more expendable income due to those jobs. Two distinct reasons for that...

1. Our labor unions have priced the American worker right out of their jobs.

2. Americans want clean air, water, and soil, but are unwilling to pay for goods manufactured under those restrictions.

And maybe you haven't been to LA recently, but I've spent significant time there and in the DFW area recently, and LA seemed hands-down much more polluted than DFW. If California didn't have tougher pollution standard there would no longer be any freeway shootings there... because you wouldn't be able to see the car next to you! :D

All that and the air quality in the USA is markedly cleaner than it was in the 1970s.

China and India will deal with their air quality issues also.

Next disaster in the making?

Of course, we COULD have less air pollution if we want. We simply need to incur the costs. Drive less (a cost) mandate fuel economy standards that are higher (a cost) make the engines even cleaner (a cost) etc. etc.

Which cost would you incur and for how much cleaner air?

All of us are FOR things like cleaner air (even if we can't define that) esp if it seems to cost others vs our selves. If we had to pay for additional air pollution devices on our cars voluntarily, how many of us would (I wouldn't).

Re: global warming, give me a break!

The recent data suggests the polar ice caps are getting THICKER!

BTW- why is it bad that the Chinese are buying cars but it is OK if Americans are.



:cheers:

The misery quotient under the Rev Carter was certainly the highest I can remember in my lifetime. The guy was an awful President and has made an even worse ex-President.

But, he is a nice man and so, he goes on.

BTW- for all of you who are ready to torch your Boxster and turn over a new leaf (think of how the greens will love you!), here is a list to select your next car from!

Enjoy!

:dance:

Top 10 Passenger Cars for Fuel Economy

No organization tests every vehicle's fuel economy in real-world driving. The challenge of obtaining every vehicle early in the model year, then driving them all over a specific route under identical conditions, is insurmountable. Therefore, we have to rely on Environmental Protection Agency estimates. While you can't expect your vehicle to get the exact mpg figures supplied by the EPA, mileage estimates do let you compare vehicles.


Cars.com Top 10: Most Fuel-Efficient Passenger Cars for 2005
According to Environmental Protection Agency estimates, the following passenger cars are likely to deliver the best gas mileage. They're listed in order of anticipated fuel economy (city), starting with the most miserly.


Vehicle Name MPG (City/Hwy)* List Price
Honda Insight 61/66 TBA
Toyota Prius 60/51 $20,875
Honda Civic Hybrid 48/47 $19,800
Volkswagen Golf 38/46 $15,830 - $19,580
Volkswagen Jetta 38/46 $17,680 - $24,070
Volkswagen New Beetle 38/46 $16,570 - $25,450
Honda Civic 36/44 $13,160 - $19,800
Toyota Echo 35/42 $10,355 - $10,885
Toyota Corolla 32/41 $13,680 - $17,455
Scion xA 32/37 $12,480

China has very low emissions standards vs. the West.
And foreign automakers are only too happy to oblige.
Imagine a country three times the US in population with cars three times more toxic to the environment? Zero effect on the planet? I don't think so.
Even conservatives from industrial backgrounds like Paul O'Neill pressured the current adminstration to do SOMETHING about global warming.
But like all other fiscal responsibilities we prefer to do nothing and continue on our merry way. We have become very short sighted. Hopefully this gas situation will change some things.
btw, I've been living up here in the Northeast my entire life and I and people much older than me can tell you we don't have winters consistently like we used to. In only 25 years things have changed from what they always used to be.

"China has very low emissions standards vs. the West.
And foreign automakers are only too happy to oblige."

Do you suggest that car makers not sell to the Chinese? Why not? If you were an investor in any car company, would you want them to not sell to China?

Do you suggest that the USA set emissions standard for the rest of the world?


"Imagine a country three times the US in population with cars three times more toxic to the environment? Zero effect on the planet? I don't think so."

What is the effect on the planet? Where is your science and what would you do about if you WERE correct?


"Even conservatives from industrial backgrounds like Paul O'Neill pressured the current adminstration to do SOMETHING about global warming. "

Paul O'Neill is an economist, not a chemist or biologist. What would you have the USA do about global warming when there is no agreement among the scientific community that there is such a thing?


"But like all other fiscal responsibilities we prefer to do nothing and continue on our merry way. We have become very short sighted. "

When was it that WE were not short sighted? Would you go back to the 60s when we had NO EMISSIONS standards at all? Were we long sighted then?

"Hopefully this gas situation will change some things."

Yes, it will. The market will adapt. Folks behavior will change as it is always changing. Do you think buying habits will remain the same if gas reaches $4.00 per gallon. I don't. Folks respond to prices and incentives. Likewise, at $70 a barrell, oil companies will start drilling more marginal fields, ASSUMING the government will allow them too!



"btw, I've been living up here in the Northeast my entire life and I and people much older than me can tell you we don't have winters consistently like we used to. In only 25 years things have changed from what they always used to be.[/QUOTE]"

This is total crap science. Two years ago, NE had it worst winter ON RECORD. Record cold and snow. If the planet were warming up, how did this happen? I lived in NE for 25 yrs too and the winters were all farily variable. Climate science does not rely on one's own memory.

Last winter, San Diego had awful weather. It means nothing from a climate perspective, which is measured in 100 years chunks.

I really don't want to get involved in this discussion, but I am curious about something Brucelee said. "The recent data suggest the polar ice caps are getting thicker". Do you have a citation for this? I'm just curious.

I will try to find that cite.

Thanks

See the reference to Antarctica,


Global Warming Doubt Dispelled? Not Really
Friday, August 19, 2005
By Steven Milloy

Is the debate now over for skeptics of global warming hysteria? Readers of USA Today may certainly have that impression.

“Satellite and weather-balloon research released today removes a last bastion of scientific doubt about global warming, researchers say,” reported USA Today on Aug.12.

Certainly the USA Today report was partially correct – the researchers did, in fact, “say” [read “claim”] that “the last bastion of scientific doubt” had been removed. But claims and reality often don’t match up.

Three papers published in the journal Science last week purport to debunk an important argument advanced by skeptics of the notion of catastrophic, manmade global warming. The skeptics’ argument is that while temperatures measured on the Earth’s surface seem to indicate that global temperatures have increased at a rate of about 0.20 degrees Centigrade per decade (deg. C/decade) since the 1970s, temperatures measured in the atmosphere by satellite and weather balloons have shown only a relatively insignificant amount of warming for the same time period (about 0.09 deg. C/decade).

The implication of the skeptics’ argument is that whatever warming seems to be happening on the Earth’s surface, similar warming isn’t happening in the atmosphere. This might mean that any observed surface warming is more likely due to the urban heat island effect -- where the heat-retaining properties of concrete and asphalt in urban areas artificially increase local temperatures -- rather than increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.

One of the new Science studies reported that the satellites had drifted in orbit, causing errors in temperature measurement. Corrections to the satellite data, according to the researchers, would increase the atmospheric warming estimate to 0.19 deg. C/decade -- more in line with the 0.20 deg. C/decade warming of the Earth’s surface. Another study reported that heating from tropical sunlight had skewed the balloon temperature measurements.

Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, one of the studies’ authors, told USA Today that, “Once corrected, the satellite and balloon temperatures align with other surface and upper atmosphere measures, as well as climate change models.”

So is it really game-set-match in favor of the global warming alarmists? Not so fast, say the skeptics.

When University of Alabama-Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, a prominent climatologist, factored the newly reported corrections into his calculations, his estimate of atmospheric warming was only 0.12 deg. C/decade -- higher than the prior estimate of 0.09 deg. C/decade, but well below the Science study estimate of 0.19 deg C/decade and the surface temperature estimate of 0.20 deg. C/decade.

As to the claimed errors in the weather balloon measurements, Spencer says that no other effort to adjust the balloon data has produced warming estimates as high as those reported in the new study and that it will take time for the research community to form opinions about whether the new adjustments advocated are justified.

Climate expert Dr. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project says the temperature adjustments are “not a big deal.”

“Greenhouse theory says (and the models calculate) that the atmospheric trend should be 30 percent greater than the surface trend -- and it isn’t,” says Singer. “Furthermore, the models predict that polar [temperature] trends should greatly exceed the tropical values -- and they clearly don’t ... In fact, the Antarctic has been cooling,” adds Singer.
Singer also had some related thoughts concerning the gloom-and-doom forecasts concerning future temperatures.

Last January, a study in the journal Nature estimated that a doubling of atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide would increase global temperatures anywhere from 1.9 degrees Centigrade to 11.5 degrees Centigrade by mid-century. But Singer says the researchers “varied only six out of many more parameters necessary to model clouds… Their result confirms… that clouds are still too difficult to model and that climate models underlying the Kyoto Protocol have never been validated.”
So it’s far from “case-closed” on global warming skepticism. Moreover, aside from the controversy over the satellite and weather balloon data, many key climate questions remain unanswered including: whether humans are causing significant warming; whether warming is undesirable; and whether anything be done to avert any undesirable warming.Because of its prohibitive costs, alarm over global warming has been rejected numerous times by President Bush and the U.S. Senate. European nations are already discovering that their economies can’t live with the Kyoto Protocol that was just implemented in February.

Despite alarmist media reports, global warming-mania is melting. It’s no wonder the alarmists are in such a hurry to close the book on the science.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com, is adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and is the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

More!


Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth
by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.

Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.



Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.
The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.
Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.

In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.

Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.

So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.

But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.
Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

Lush Environment

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.

Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

One last one!

Polar Ice Cap Studies Refute Catastrophic Global Warming Theories
by James M. Taylor (December 16, 2001)

Summary: More recent studies of the polar ice caps show the polar ice caps are holding their own and actually growing slightly.

[www.CapMag.com] A series of recent studies shows that the polar ice caps, which should be shrinking if dire global warming theories are correct, are maintaining their mass and in fact growing slightly. The studies suggest satellite temperature readings, which indicate no global warming of the lower atmosphere, are more reliable than surface temperature readings, taken by humans under varying conditions, that had indicated a slow, gradual warming.


A study published in the December 3, 1999 issue of Science magazine, authored by Ola Johannessen, Elena Shalena, and Martin Miles, reported Arctic sea ice had declined by 14 percent from 1978 through 1998. In a related story, columnist Richard Kerr pondered "Will the Arctic Ocean lose all its ice?" The mainstream press ran with the story, giving dire warnings that global warming was upon us.

However, CO2 Science Magazine later noted that in the Johannessen study, "essentially all of the drop . . . occurs rather abruptly over a single period of not more than three years (87/88-90/91) and possibly only one year (89/90-90/91). Furthermore, it could be argued from their data that from 1990/91 onward, sea ice area in the Arctic may have actually increased." More recent studies of the polar ice caps verify CO2 Science Magazine's skepticism, and show the polar ice caps are holding their own and actually growing slightly.



Antarctic sea ice edge expanding

A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.
A later study, also published in Journal of Climate (Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I., "Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology," Volume 13: 4441-4451 (2000)) reached a similar conclusion. The study reported significant increases in Antarctic sea ice between 1987 and 1996. The study further indicated the 1990s exhibited increases in the length of the sea-ice season.

Arctic ice thickening, expanding

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s. Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago.
Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory.



Surface vs. satellite readings

Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages.

However, precise satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago.

"We have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming," explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Global warming skeptics have pointed out that most of the surface temperature readings indicating a warming have been taken in underdeveloped nations, where reliability and quality-control are questionable. In developed nations such as the United States, by contrast, the readings tend to show no warming. Moreover, skeptics note, surface temperature readings are influenced by artificial warming associated with growing urbanization, which creates artificial heat islands around temperature reading stations.

"While the greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have grown in the last 50 years, the correlation with a warming of the world's climate is weak and far from being generally accepted by the scientific community," James L. Johnston, a member of The Heartland Institute's Board of Directors, observed in the August 4 Chicago Tribune.

Global warming proponents, on the other hand, now counter that warming, despite prior consensus to the contrary, might occur in the lower atmosphere only after a general warming of the Earth's surface.



Models shown to be inaccurate . . . again

The recent polar ice studies, which measured surface rather than atmospheric temperature trends (and which were far removed from the effects of urban heat islands and questionable third-world temperature readings), lend weight to the argument that satellite readings, not surface monitoring stations, are correct.

"In considering all of the above results, it is likely that the global extent of sea ice is on the rise. Such observational evidence flies in the face of model predictions of global warming that say climate will change first and to the greatest extent in the Earth's polar regions," concludes CO2 Science Magazine.

CO2 Science suggests that self-regulating mechanisms, such as clouds, enable the Earth to keep a relatively steady climate despite the changes in CO2 concentration that have been a regular part of Earth's history.

Viewing the new data in conjunction with other studies that properly filter out the imperfections of human-collected temperature readings, CO2 Science concludes, "There has been no global warming for the past 75 years."

Thank you.

You are very welcome.

:cheers:

HAHA! Sorry Brucelee, but that was a good laught to start my day. Anyone that thinks the air is clean obviously doesn't look up into the sky.
http://educate-yourself.org/ct/Photo...p_image052.jpg
Sorry but those aren't clouds up there. Also contrails and exhaust doesn't linger in the sky (especially at that high altitude) for that long.
They especially don't spread into a large cloud like this:
http://educate-yourself.org/ct/Photo...s/IMGP4236.jpg

Next time you see a checker board up in the sky just ask yourself....."Why are they doing that??..."

Is that why Bush was given a report two years ago that a large glacier on the polar cap had cracked, one that hasn't moved in hundreds of years??


Sorry guys, I'm not trying to knock anyone but unlike most of you, I have access to a lot of fed info. All I am saying is "There are more important things to worry about, all of this is just a distraction"
Just my two cents from your friendly 986board agent. :cool:

"HAHA! Sorry Brucelee, but that was a good laught to start my day. Anyone that thinks the air is clean obviously doesn't look up into the sky.

Sorry but those aren't clouds up there. Also contrails and exhaust doesn't linger in the sky (especially at that high altitude) for that long.
They especially don't spread into a large cloud like this:


Next time you see a checker board up in the sky just ask yourself....."Why are they doing that??...""

Boy, I hate it when data gets in the way!

See following!

America's air has become a great deal cleaner over the last generation. Since measurement began in 1970, U.S. emissions have fallen dramatically, even while GDP and travel have more than doubled. America, in other words, is producing much more while polluting less.
Ambient air pollution levels
(1976-2001)

Ozone -33%
Sulfur Dioxides -67
Nitrogen Dioxide -42
Carbon Monoxide -73
Particulates * -27
Lead -97

Note: * 1996-2001

Source: Index of Environmental Indicators, 2003

Production vs. pollution
1970-2000

Vehicular mileage +149%
Economic production +161%
Airborne emissions -25%

Source: Index of Environmental Indicators, 2003

Note: Table made from bar graph.






"Is that why Bush was given a report two years ago that a large glacier on the polar cap had cracked, one that hasn't moved in hundreds of years??"


Well that MIGHT be true but what do you conclude from that. If the polar caps are dynamic and they are growing in mass (which they are) they might acutally crack from time to time. Ice tends to do that when it MOVES and ENLARGES!




"Sorry guys, I'm not trying to knock anyone but unlike most of you, I have access to a lot of fed info"

You may have access but you have not shared any data, just innuendo. We do welcome data!

:cheers:

1.We do set emissions standards for the world. (As well as the EU).
The Chinese measure how far behind the west they are on emissions standards
by the example we set. While Europe is on Euro 5 standards, China is still trying to adapt to Euro 2.
2. OK I have no scientific evidence to suggest that a country 3x's the USA with cars 3x's more toxic is hurting the environment. conclusion: the abscence of evidence means there are no negative effects to the enviroment. Just because you can't produce irefutable evidence doesn't mean there isn't damage. Find me a single field of science where that community is unanimous? Cancer?
3. Paul O'Neill aside from being an economist is also the former and long serving CEO of a Alcoa, a company that had minimizing pollution and toxic waste as a corporate responsibility. Has he (a cabinet member of several U.S. Presidents) also been duped by Greens on the reality of Global warming errr "Global climate change"? If so then I don't feel so bad because I'm not as smart as he is.
4. Short sighted? We've done more to compromise the fiscal and eviromental future of this country in the last 20 years than the previous 200 years of this country existence COMBINED. Pick up 'Running on Empty' by Pete Petersen, a conservative afterall.
5. LONGTERM Higher Gas prices = INFLATION. hold onto your hat Mr. Bush.
You're about to know what Mr. Carter felt like back in 70's.
6. I said CONSISTENT weather. Erratic weather patterns where one winter is the worst on record while the previous winter is the mildest, has never been the norm up here.

BTW, Gas hit $3.50 a gallon for 93 this morning at my local gas station. On Tuesday it was $2.75

1.We do set emissions standards for the world. (As well as the EU).

The Chinese measure how far behind the west they are on emissions standards
by the example we set. While Europe is on Euro 5 standards, China is still trying to adapt to Euro 2.

Clearly we do not SET standards for the Chinese, they have CHOSEN to follow other standards. That is there choice, which it seems to me should aleviate concerns about their buying all those "dirty cars."

"2. OK I have no scientific evidence to suggest that a country 3x's the USA with cars 3x's more toxic is hurting the environment. conclusion: the abscence of evidence means there are no negative effects to the enviroment. Just because you can produce irefutable evidence doesn't mean there isn't damage. Find me a single field of science where that community is unanimous? Cancer? "


Go back to the point you made earlier. If the Chinese are choosing to move their emissions standards up voluntarily, then this so called TOXIC impact on its air quality will be mitigated.

Still, you do not offer up what you would do to deal with these Chinese calamity that you predict? Will you not allow Chinese citizens to purchase cars? Will you not allow car manufacturers to sell cars in China?

What do you propose?

"3. Paul O'Neill aside from being an economist is also the former and long serving CEO of a Alcoa, a company that had minimizing pollution and toxic waste as a corporate responsibility. Has he (a cabinet member of several U.S. Presidents) also been duped by Greens on the reality of Global warming errr "Global climate change"? If so then I don't feel so bad because I'm not as smart as he is."

So, you think Paul O'Neill is smart and he believes in Global warming, so ergo, it must be true? Interesting logic. I guess his opinion is worth more than the temperature readings in the atmosphere and the measurements of the polar ice caps.

Think of all the work we will save for those climate guys now. Paul has spoken!

"4. Short sighted? We've done more to compromise the fiscal and eviromental future of this country in the last 20 years than the previous 200 years of this country existence COMBINED. Pick up 'Running on Empty' by Pete Petersen, a conservative."

Who is this WE that you speak of and what criteria do you use. By all objective measures (many of which I have posted here) significant progress has been made in reducing ALL FORMS of pollutants here in the USA.

I guess you will need to fill me in on this.

"5. Higher Gas prices = INFLATION. hold onto your hat Mr. Bush.
You're about to know what Mr. Carter felt like back in 70's."

As President of the US, what would YOU DO to "control" the price of oil and gasoline? How would YOU increase supply of oil and gas IN THE SHORT RUN?

How much SHOULD gas cost in the US and why?

Oh, and comparing the US economy of 2005 and the 1970s is a complete joke. I won't bore you with the DATA but the inflation rates and interest rates approached 15%. Unemployment up etc etc.

Not a fun time and we have come a long long way.

To wit, today we found out the economy added 146K jobs last month and the unemployment rates dropped to 4.9%

Ah, data, get some!



__________________

Fine, you asked for it: :ah:


----- SNIP -----
LAB TEST SUMMARY
08.13.2002
EDMONTON, ALBERTA, CANADA
.
.
.
Edmonton recieved approx. 2.5" of snow/ice rain precipitation between Nov. 8-12, 2002.
A sterilized container as directed by nw labs was placed in an open secure area in the north end of the city.

The sample was sealed after the collection period and delivered to the lab. An analysis was performed on Aluminum and Barium only.

Aluminum

0.148 mg/l

Barium

0.006 mg/l

It is the scientific opinion of the lab that the aluminum content of the sample is HIGH and unusual.

Plant material chlorosis, as a result of plant inability to uptake nutrients may be an indication of metals (aluminum)in our mostly alkaline soils around Alberta.

...
----- END SNIP -----

----- SNIP -----
CBS News reported on bizarre geo-engineering experiments proposed for global warming reduction. The report confirmed that one of the methods advocated by physicist Edward Teller is to fill the atmosphere with metallic particles to "scatter away 1 or 2 percent of the sunlight..."
....
Former military officers used a private jet to obtain a sample of aerosol material being emitted by a military cargo aircraft. Laboratory tests on that sample reportedly confirmed that the effluent contained both aluminum and barium.
....
The toxic effects of barium are confirmed by a 1992 Department of Health and Human Services publication. It states that barium can cause breathing difficulties, increased blood pressure, changes in heart rhythm, stomach irritation, muscles weakness, swelling of the brain, as well as damage to the liver, kidney, heart and spleen.
----- END SNIP -----


Next time you see the checker board in the sky, leave an open container to collect rain/snow samples. Thake it to a lab and for under $100 you can get it tested and prove to yourself.

Brucelee: PM me if you want more details, I will provide an much info as I can without getting into trouble. I will not post more specifics on an open forum.

No need to PM.

My point in the postings is not to suggest that environmental issues are all bogus and that we can safely ignore any issue. Clearly as a society we haven't done that and will not in the future.

My point was to counteract the absolute doom and gloom perspective adopted by the Greens and parroted by the liberal media.

No improvements are sufficient for this folks, only the next calamity to befall us.

If you go back to the 60s and 70s, ALL of the predicted disasters related to pollution, population, oil reserves being depleted, turned out to be DEAD WRONG!

BTW-my favorite prediction that was on the cover of TIME MAGAZINE I believe in 1990 was that the world was headed for a TOTAL ICE AGE. I remember the cover of the issue, with the globe frozen over.

The funny thing about that issue was that many same forecasters of this ICE AGE are now leading the global warming charge.

Hmm, you'd think that would hurt their credibility wouldn't you?

Peace my friend!

:cheers:

People who say the world is going to end tommorow are not to be believed.
But that doesn't mean that the impact that we've had on this planet in only a couple of generations isn't cause for deep concern.
China's emissions acounted for 1% in 1950. Today it's nearly half of the U.S.
and Equal to Europe. EVERYONE is concernend about China's escalating pollution.
I recently read that Japan's steel industry has offered to help the Chinese to produce less toxic manufacturing methods. I guess they figured out they'll soon be breathing the same dirty air.

Take it from someone that lives in New Jersey where the smell of pollution penetrates through car windows and is nothing short of overwhelming. Sometimes I have to raise the top on the BOxster because the air so bad.
We can do more harm in a short amount of time than anyone realizes. I don't need the Greens to tell me my air is filthy. I live it every day.

Yes, I grew up in NJ and understand localized issues. Yet, I can tell you that the vast majority of the US has air that you would die for.

My point is simply that progress has been made and will continue to be made.

Ocassionally, I get behind a car from the 60s here in CA. You would not believe how badly that car smells. Well, I do remember that they ALL smelled that way back then.

I simply remark on progress but am not blind for the need to keep going.

For Christ sake we are all driving a German luxury car that takes premium gas and 9 quarts of oil. Our collective hobby here is to burn fossil fuels for sheer pleasure. Go fill up your cars and quit ********************in.

986President, I think you're on to something.

When I was a kid, and I got all grouchy and ********************y, my mother would give me a tablespoon of caster oil because she was sure I was constipated and that's what caused the attitude.

I'd highly recommend that everyone posting on this thread fill up your Porsche to the brim with nice, expensive premium fuel, drop the top, and take a very long drive this weekend. May I suggest some Santana for the CD player?

Let this be our caster oil and be "good for what ails you"

If you feel guilty doing this, then you probably should go ahead and plan to sell your Porsche and buy one of the econoboxes (preferably a hybrid) that Richard suggested earlier.

I'm keeping my Boxster though, and I'm still keeping the dream alive to swap my 2.5 for a 3.4... which will no doubt be a bigger fuel hog and produce more fumes.