|
Filled up for $1.78/gallon
Holy cow!! :dance:
Enjoying it while it lasts. :ah: But since we drive Porsches, perhaps this is something we're not concerned about. :D SO much for the theory that gas would go up again after elections. :cool: |
Quote:
Nice one, we can only dream of prices like that in the UK, we pay about the same for a litre :( |
I love Supply and Demand.
|
Behind the recent slide in oil prices.
Mild winter weather has something to do with it. So does heavy selling by financial funds. But a largely overlooked factor in the recent plunge in oil prices may portend an end to the multiyear rise in crude: For the first time in years, the developed world is burning less of it. Fresh data from the International Energy Agency show oil consumption in the 30 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development fell 0.6% in 2006. Though the decline appears small, it marks the first annual drop in more than 20 years among the OECD countries, which drain close to 60% of the 84.4 million barrels of oil used globally each day. Industrialized nations' demand tiptoed into negative territory in 2002, but the dip was so slight that it registered as flat. Yesterday, U.S. benchmark oil for February delivery settled at $50.48 a barrel, down $1.76, or 3.4%, on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Earlier in the day, futures fell below $50 a barrel for the first time since May 2005, hitting a fresh 20-month low after the Energy Department said U.S. crude-oil stockpiles rose the most in more than four years. Oil has been sliding since peaking above $77 in July. This year, prices have fallen 17%. The tipping point where oil prices begin to erode demand was reached last summer, several industry analysts said. The fall in oil use by the industrialized world is a sign that the reactions to higher oil prices by businesses and consumers from the U.S. to Germany to Japan may be adding up to a cycle-turning downdraft in demand. The resulting shift in global cash flows could mean a big boost for oil consumers' economies at the expense of producers and exporters. Other signals, both economic and psychological, have been popping up for some time: Demand for gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles has been falling, while investment in and sales of alternative fuels such as ethanol are booming. Even the Bush administration is vowing to reduce America's dependence on crude. Gasoline prices in the U.S. are also falling, both because of swelling inventories and the slide in crude-oil prices, which can take four to eight weeks to fully pass down to retail pumps. Yesterday, the AAA automobile club reported regular-grade gasoline below $2 a gallon in Michigan, and at $2 a gallon in Missouri and Oklahoma. The Energy Information Administration of the Energy department said the national average price of a gallon of gasoline was $2.23 as of Jan. 15. The national average may continue to fall in coming weeks, the EIA said in a weekly review published yesterday; it said prices could get close to $2 a gallon by the end of this month or early in February, noting the possibility that the national average could fall below that level. To be sure, global oil demand grew 0.9% in 2006, owing to steady growth in China and the Middle East. But that was down from growth of 3.9% in 2004 and 1.5% in 2005. And the price fluctuations highlight the role played by expectations, rather than simple supply and demand, in determining the price of oil on world markets. Many analysts are just starting to review, and lower, their price forecasts for this year, though a fair number still expect crude to rebound to $60 a barrel or even higher. So do some investors who have placed big bets with their own money, including Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens. For some, this stems in part from a belief that $60 is the price the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries aims to defend, though the cartel's de-facto leader, Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi, seemed to cast doubt on that notion this week when he said he saw no reason to support further output cuts. But a few analysts say oil's four-year surge could be ending. "The bubble is bursting," said Frederic Lasserre, head of commodity research at Société Générale in Paris. "The sentiment has changed, and for the first time since January 2002, the hedge funds are going short at the start of the year." News of the oil-demand drop comes as the debate over how to curb energy consumption is reaching a fever pitch in the U.S., the world's biggest oil consumer. Next week, President Bush is expected in his State of the Union address to expand on a call he issued last year for the country to end its "addiction" to oil. In Congress, bills are circulating to impose cap-and-trade programs, which amount to putting a price on global-warming emissions produced by the combustion of fossil fuels. While this government debate goes on, the OECD data suggest, the market itself is having an effect: When energy prices go up, people consume less energy. A lasting downdraft in oil prices would trigger a profound redistribution of wealth around the world, putting more money in the pockets of consumers in the West and ending the bonanza enjoyed by oil-company investors and by petro-states such as Venezuela and Iran. Currencies of some bigger oil exporters, including the Mexican peso, have faced downward pressure in line with falling oil prices. Airlines -- including British Airways PLC and Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. -- have begun removing fuel surcharges imposed on passengers. Nations with significant oil industries -- including Saudi Arabia, Russia and the U.S., the top-three producers -- stand to take a hit to employment, profit and tax receipts in their oil sectors. The signs of waning demand for oil began bubbling up early last year. Saudi Arabia began to quietly cut back its output in April because it couldn't find buyers for all its crude. Iran, OPEC's second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia, was forced to store unsold oil in tankers last summer. Yet oil prices were sending contrary signals, peaking on July 14 at $77.03 a barrel because of fears that geopolitics or natural disasters were bound to reduce supplies. At the time, supplies were perceived to be tight, with little spare production capacity available globally to offset sudden losses. Since then, oil prices have fallen by 34% despite supply cuts by OPEC to shore up prices. Mr. Lasserre's take on the situation is that prices of close to $70 a barrel -- they averaged $66.22 a barrel for 2006 -- marked a turning point. "People wanted to know the point at which oil prices would affect demand; now they have the answer," he said. One factor that could insulate the world from a big price rebound, paradoxically, is OPEC's recent output cuts. By trimming production, the cartel has swelled the world's volume of spare oil-pumping capacity, particularly in Saudi Arabia, thus easing fears of a supply disruption in some part of the vast global oil chain. In remarks to reporters in New Delhi this week, Mr. Naimi said the kingdom's spare-capacity cushion would expand to three million barrels a day by Feb. 1, when the second round of output cuts agreed to by OPEC take effect. That is a half-million barrels a day more than is exported by Iran, whose nuclear-research standoff with the U.S. has stirred jitters about supply disruptions in the Persian Gulf. Oil buyers are watching for signs of OPEC's next move. Some OPEC members, such as Venezuela and Iran, were clamoring for further production cuts, though Mr. Naimi shot down that idea this week. Some analysts see larger, game-changing forces in motion. One is the rise of nonoil transport fuels. "Last year was a tipping point in a lot of ways," says Philip Verleger Jr., an oil economist who heads PK Verleger LLC. "Biofuels will take bigger and bigger bites out of petroleum demand," Mr. Verleger said, noting climate-change and security concerns relating to the supply and use of petroleum. "Alternate fuels will take up all the growth, leaving petroleum demand static in the next two or three years." Forecasts by the IEA suggest biofuels output could rise to the equivalent of more than five million barrels of crude oil a day by 2011, close to triple output of such fuels in 2005. Global oil demand last year rose by 780,000 barrels a day to 84.4 million barrels a day, the latest IEA data show. "Virtually every day, there is a new biofuels plant announced somewhere in the world," says Lawrence Eagles, head of the IEA's oil-industry and markets division. Mr. Eagles said that in 2005, world output of biofuels was some 650,000 barrels a day, the equivalent of 1.95 million barrels of conventional Middle Eastern crude oil. Biofuel output could rise to as much as 1.7 million barrels a day, or the equivalent of 5.1 million barrels of conventional crude, by 2011, if capacity-expansion plans are taken into account. According to data published yesterday by the IEA, oil demand last year fell in all three major OECD regions -- North America, Europe and the Pacific. The latter two regions have from time to time had weak oil demand when economic growth was weak. But growth in U.S. oil demand had typically offset this weakness for the OECD as a whole. But last year, the picture changed more noticeably. "Maybe they started to use less when we hit $3-a-gallon gasoline," Adam Sieminski, an oil analyst at Deutsche Bank, said of U.S. consumers. "Perhaps, toward the middle of 2006 we hit a tipping point." But Mr. Sieminski questions whether people will forget the pain because oil prices have dropped -- and oil use will again start to increase. |
Over here it's $2.81 a gallon of 91 octane (Unocal 76), i think it went down about 4 cents from last week :)
|
Hi,
$2.14/gal. for 92 octane here in Mpls. yesterday - of course, my Boxster is in hibernation - figures... :mad: But, $1.98 for 87 octane which my Passport uses :) Happy Motoring!... Jim'99 |
Quote:
|
CA is special, and to think, the nerds here want to INCREASE our gas tax each year.
Thanks loads!!!!!!!!!! |
I don't get it! Why is gas so much more expensive here in CA?! :mad:
|
^ disturbing sig
anyhoo...doesn't matter you'll be paying $3+ a gallon by this time next year. $4-5 a gallon in two years. The cost of a gallon of gas is rising quicker than the cost of living and rising quicker than the average worker gets in wage increases. |
Hi,
Well, everything is relative. It's just that Gasoline prices impact the psyche more than many other things because it represents a loss of freedom - the freedom to go where and when one wants. Many other everyday items cost waay more than gasoline, some ridiculously, and inexplicably so, but don't spark the reaction fuel prices do. Some examples:
Happy Motoring!... Jim'99 |
I can do without nearly all of those things...but the engine oil which I only need once a year.
gas is something that you really don't have a choice about. You may save a few bucks by going to different gas stations but if the lowest price to fill your tank is nearly twice what it was two years ago. You are a paying. Or you are a staying home, or taking public transportation (if it shows up, waited 2 hours today). Everbody else can switch from Starbucks to cheapo instant brand, from listerine to generic supermarket brand, from bottled water to tap water, and make tremendous savings yet still be able to go one with their lives without skipping a beat. Can't do that with unleaded. |
Quote:
I just changed cars and improved my mileage per gallon by 50%. Also switched from premium to regular gas, save another .20 per gallon. In the long run, everyone has alternatives. It is the use of these alternative that has resulted in the drop in demand for oil and the drop in oil prices to under $50 per barrel. Simple economic behavior. BTW-I will take any bet you want on that gas price you pointed to. Lastly of course, the historic price increases on gas has actually been moderate on a percentage basis. Adjusted for inflation, it has NOT been a large issue for many many years. It appears that the last year was a blip. Of course, you do have to strip out the taxes on gas to see the REAL cost, which in some states is nearly .40 per gallon. So, in the example above, the real cost of gas is likley about $1.40 per gallon. Not bad I think! We shall see. Next time, read the article and respond with facts, not hype! |
question, when crude was last $50 a drum two years ago, how much was a gallon of unleaded? Now that its back to $50 why is unleaded still a dollar more per gallon than it was two years ago?
Are we going to see a a dollar drop in the price of a gallon of 93? |
Quote:
I agree with what you say and found the article to be very credible and informative. Gasoline, even at it's recent high was still a very good bargain given cost/mi. or Therms/gal. compared to many other possible fuels. We're just so used to paying a historically low price for it, that the new realities are stinging a lot of people. Happy Motoring!... Jim'99 |
When I have a sour stomach, I'd pay $200 a gallon for Pepto Bismol! I gotta have my pink stomach stuff when I feel like :barf:
|
Paid $2.39/gal for Sunoco 93
|
I filled up today at $2.29 for 93 at a Shell down the street. Not too shabby. I hope prices stay this way for a while!
|
Quote:
Regarding the specific price per gallon in your area, look to your state and fed gas tax as a source of discrep. In CA case, we also have our own "special fuel" mandated by state law. Costs more! |
Warm in N.E.
One must also take into account, while the rest of the nation freezes in extremely cold temperatures, the Liberal North East ( a vast consumer of all energies) is enjoying a rather mild winter which has led to surplus of heating oil due to less demand. More crude is now available for gas but since that demand is off things are starting to back up.
We also are not "addicted" to oil. Oil is the life blood of a free capatilist economy. Are we addicted to a steady flow of red blood cells? Too bad the Ecocrats will not allow drilling in the Arctic or Gulf for our own oil which would add to the surplus and thus furthur drive down prices and boost the overall everyday Joe's economy. We can only wait and see. 986geezer |
Quote:
|
Quote:
WEll said. It's funny though. After all the hype it all comes down to supply and demand, for whatever reason. |
Quote:
Simply put: because you guys are crazy out there. PS. great picture. |
Quote:
Funny you should mention this. Last week I was looking at a cartoon with my son. I think it was called "Captain Enviroment" or something. Anyway, it was created in 1993. 5 kids were part of Captain Enviroment's posse. They alll have superpowers of some type that heal the earth. They have weapons like the Scum-o-copter, the sludge cannon, eco body armor. . . you get the point. The premise of this cartoon series is that the earth will be a catastrophic, madmax-type wasteland by the YEAR 2000!!! unless we stop consuming so much energy. THere's an eco-villain and all the bad guys have sludge, dirt or toxicity incorporated into their surnames. It was outrageous and mortifying yet hysterical to watch. Luckily my son found it humorous but I see how this type of stuff terrifies some young folk. |
Quote:
Alas don't forget Perrier or other high end water bottles. $10 a gallon. Much more depending on when and where you buy it. Even at Walmart bottled water runs about $3.00 for a 12 pack of half liter bottles. WATER, mind you. Water!! The planet's most plentify resource. |
Gobal warming
Ah yes Bruce, the Global Warming (caused by American capitalisim of course) story. A computor model shows that greenhouse gasses caused by US mainly, have made the planet warm up and will soon kill us all. I will bet I could make a computer model that would prove a pig is a steam engine but that wouldn't make it so. G.W. is a THEORY. A cursory course in geology will reveal that the plant has cooled and warmed over the centuries, plates have shifted, mountains have risen and fallen, well you get the picture. The ice was one mile thick over here in the Hudson Valley and the debris it deposited created Long Island. All this without evil characters like Wallmart, Exxon, Wall Street and Enron. How could this be? Maybe the activety of the sun had something to do with it? Nah, doesn't fit the political agenda of the Progressive marxists who hunger for control. This anti american trash is pushed in our high schools and colleges but not everybody is buying it.
Enough of my soapbox, just might be able to get my gas guzzleing taxed 986 out for a spin as the sun is shining and I may need to pick up a few cigars (OH NO not Cigars!!). I may even start installing my nice new center caps. We will see. 986geezer |
As usual, the science of "global warming" is more complex and less dramatic than the popular press or politicials can handle.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ |
An except:
What are the take-home messages: The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential. The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 °C. The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it). The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising. The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.) Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales. Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects. Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere. There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat. Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term). Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems. Remember: Water vapor and carbon dioxide are major greenhouse gases. Water vapor accounts for about 70% of the greenhouse effect, carbon dioxide somewhere between 4.2% and 8.4%. Much of the wavelength bands where carbon dioxide is active are either at or near saturation. Water vapor absorbs infrared over much the same range as carbon dioxide and more besides. Clouds are not composed of greenhouse gas -- they are mostly water droplets -- but absorb about one-fifth of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth. Clouds can briefly saturate the atmospheric radiation window (8-13µm) through which some Earth radiation passes directly to space (those hot and sticky overcast nights produce this effect - that is greenhouse but has nothing to do with carbon dioxide). Greenhouse gases can not obstruct this window although ozone absorbs in a narrow slice at 9.6µm. Adding more greenhouse gases which absorb in already saturated bandwidths has no net effect. Adding them in near-saturated bands has little additional effect |
Z: You can bring a thirsty donkey to the water but you cannot make it drink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming "The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"[1]—has been investigated: In the journal Science in December 2004, Dr Naomi Oreskes published a study of the abstracts of the 928 refereed scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change" and published from 1993–2003. This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view—the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change. The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis[1]." Z: You can learn about a person from the company he keeps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories Z. |
"This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view—"
The "consensus view" was that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was flat. This agreement did not make it so. Nor does consensus trumph bad science. |
I heard printer ink was the most expensive liquid per gallon. Im sure a gallon of molten gold would be more but you get the idea. Thats why I just buy a new printer everytime I run out of ink. Get the newest printer and ink cartridges for about 20 bucks more.
|
Quote:
I agree mostly (about 99%) with what you say/cite here. Global Warming is a theory, as yet unproved. Lack of historical records and the relative infancy of climate modelling are poor foundations from which to make predictions. The Historical Record dates mainly back only 150 years or so. Speculation beyond that is based on such diverse sources as Chromatic study of gas bubbles trapped in ice (which is really only a snapshot from which much speculation is derived) to old paintings of Winter Scenes which showed rivers being frozen, which are now usually not frozen over. There can be many other explanations of such events than Climate Change, such as occasional aberrations, which we have also experienced in our lifetimes, but which in and of themselves, do not support a theory of man-made climate change. Computer modelling is currently such that the earth is broken into 15 mi.² grids. In each of these, the grid is either reflective (cities, desert, rock) or absorbant (vegetation, Lakes, etc.), precipitating or dry, etc. Now, we all have experienced where it can be cloudy or raining just a couple blocks away, while in our position, it is sunny and dry. So, these models are not yet developed to a point where they provide useful and undeniable replication of real-world events. So, in all, I remain unconvinced of some of the more dire predictions. That said, there are literally billions of tons of Carbon released into the atmosphere which were, prior to the industrialization of the world, locked up in the oceans and rock. A gallon of gasoline weighs about 6.25 lb. and is composed of about 80% Carbon. This means that everytime we burn a gallon, we're releasing 5 lbs. of Carbon into the atmosphere (or about 80 lbs./tankful). I cannot state, nor do I believe, that this is having no effect whatever. Global Warming may well be happening, and a Tipping Point may be reached in my, or my nephews' lifetimes. I'm just saying that so far, the Science has not proved such a thing. And if unproved, there is no guarantee that they will ever be correct with these predictions, or if so, as severely as a prevailing view seems to think. But, the Science is not as pure or as empirical as the Scientific Method dictates. Politics and Funding have much to do with how the argument is presented and pursued. How much funding do you think is currently available to those Scientists and Institutions who are proferring the opposing view that all this is incorrect?. If you are a scientist with a family to support, and a career to advance, or a University with need to fund R&D and gain Grant money, which position are you most likely to pursue from a practical standpoint?... Happy Motoring!... Jim'99 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
QUOTE=z12358]Z: You can bring a thirsty donkey to the water but you cannot make it drink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming [I]"The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years.......you can learn a lot about a person from the company he keeps. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories[/urlZ.[/QUOTE] __________________________________ Sure can. -" One of the most decorated French geophysicists has converted from a believer in manmade catastrophic global warming to a climate skeptic.. . . . .Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 & http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/entry1431768.shtml In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers." Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists. “Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future…Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary,” the 60 scientists wrote. See: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 For more on this, see the following link. http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777 100 years of media reports on global warming and cooling. They can't decide what it is. http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice_timeswarns.asp |
[QUOTE=z12358]Z: You can bring a thirsty donkey to the water but you cannot make it drink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming "The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"[1]—has been investigated: In the journal Science in December 2004, Dr Naomi Oreskes published a study of the abstracts of the 928 refereed scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change" and published from 1993–2003. This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view—the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change. The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis[1]." QUOTE] _-------------------------------------------- SO we don't know who is the author of those 928 articles? Gee, I wonder how many authors wrote those articles. Were there 928 seperate authors? DOes one author who is a true believer write multiple articles about global climate change? ALmost certainly. What does explicitly or implicitly support mean?. Suppose the following is written: "While manmade activity likely affects the 'global climate change' and the enviroment, we just dont know how much, significant or insignificant it is. " Does this mean that I implicity or explicity believe in global warming? It sounds like it but what am I really saying. To attribute this statement to a consensus belief of global warming is atrocious, yet almost certainly common if one were to peruse your 928 articles. Even if everything you printed here is true, and just suppose there really is a "consensus" about manmade global climate change, then fully 25% of the remainder of articles don't agree. |
JS:
SO we don't know who is the author of those 928 articles? Gee, I wonder how many authors wrote those articles. Were there 928 seperate authors? DOes one author who is a true believer write multiple articles about global climate change? ALmost certainly. The study covered ALL 928 articles in the ISI database (covering ALL peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world) having "global climate change" in their keyword list. What does explicitly or implicitly support mean?. Suppose the following is written: "While manmade activity likely affects the 'global climate change' and the enviroment, we just dont know how much, significant or insignificant it is. " Does this mean that I implicity or explicity believe in global warming? It sounds like it but what am I really saying. To attribute this statement to a consensus belief of global warming is atrocious, yet almost certainly common if one were to peruse your 928 articles. The above example would not have entered the 75% consensus universe as it would have directly contradicted with the consensus hypothesis: "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities". Even if everything you printed here is true, and just suppose there really is a "consensus" about manmade global climate change, then fully 25% of the remainder of articles don't agree. Not true. Read carefully. Quote: "The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis." Z. |
MNBoxster:
Global Warming may well be happening, and a Tipping Point may be reached in my, or my nephews' lifetimes. I'm just saying that so far, the Science has not proved such a thing. And if unproved, there is no guarantee that they will ever be correct with these predictions, or if so, as severely as a prevailing view seems to think. More often than not science deals with probabilities. Predictions produced by a hypothesis don't have to be spot on (in both level and timing) to raise credible concerns. Consider also the risk management aspect. Even if there was only a 20% chance that we're causing global warming and that we're close to (or beyond) the tipping point with signifficant and unforseeable consequences if true, can we -- the mankind -- afford to disregard that risk? If a doctor tells you: "I can't yet prove it for sure, but there is 20% chance that you have lung cancer right now." -- would you continue smoking until the proof showed up? Would you refuse to invest in further tests and research, so that you can have the $$ to buy a new suspension for your car, as you planned? But, the Science is not as pure or as empirical as the Scientific Method dictates. Politics and Funding have much to do with how the argument is presented and pursued. How much funding do you think is currently available to those Scientists and Institutions who are proferring the opposing view that all this is incorrect?. If you are a scientist with a family to support, and a career to advance, or a University with need to fund R&D and gain Grant money, which position are you most likely to pursue from a practical standpoint?... Arguments like this are very presumptious and USA-centric. Presumptious because they perpetuate the myth of a liberal media and liberal science, and USA-centric because they assume the whole world (scientists, media, and politics) is engulfed in it. Are you claiming that the GWB administration is actually arm-twisting USA scientists into raising the global warming issue? Sorry to say it, but it borders on the delusional. Why would a country like Norway that is extracting so much of its revenue from oil production and sales be interested in perpetuating a "myth" or signing a treaty (Kyoto) that would negatively affect its revenue stream? Could they be onto something that's far more important than the $$ they are about to forgo? Z. |
First off, as the article that I cited states fairly clearly, there is some evidence that the planet is "warming" to some degree and in some places. The amount/degree of warming and its impacts is FAR from a settled issue. It some sense, it depends WHERE and HOW your measure.
The leap from there to where most alarmists go is HUGE and simply not as "accepted" by the scientific community as the media would have you believe. To me, the real issue is, IF warming is ocurring, how extensive/intense is it and what is a logical extension of the current trend lines (this is where those fuzzy climate models come in.) More importantly, there is no hard evidence that I can see that suggests that this warming is induced by carbon emissions and/or if so, that we know to what degree. If our carbon emissions were the cause of warming, how did the planet start to warm long before we were generating these emissions? To wit, based on what I have read, we began coming out of the "little ice age" in the 1800s, long before we were driving cars. If that is true, I find it funny indeed that we now look at the Porsche in your driveway and want to ban it. Thoughts? |
I just traded in the Box. 1.78 clams a gallon, I can now afford my dream ride! I was thinking about putting a new exhaust, lowering it and do you think 10 ft wheels will fit or will I need spacers?
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website