Gas prices and the economy

[Schu]

Zoli, as I said in my last post, you can see that we humans are the cause of accelerated climate change, without all of the
science. Go too the Smithsonian Institute or the Library of Congress web sites, and look up the records. You will find through
research, that average temperatures did not fluctuate much year by year, before the industrial revolution. Sometime after that,
you will see the gradual rise of the temperatures.

Now to really bring it home. Average out the temperatures going back about 200 years before the industrial revolution, too
the revolution (write them down), then skip 20 years and average out the temperatures after the revolution to current. You
will be very surprised how much of a difference there is. No that ain't science, but us humans tend to keep pretty good
records, and those records are being ignored by nay-Sayers on our changing the climate. And true those records only go back
about 500 years (depending on country), but you will see a drastic change.

Side Note: Water vapor is not a green house gas.  Water vapor is a reflector/refractor, it reflects sunlight which is why it is much
cooler when it is cloudy out, but it also can prevent heat from escaping, which is why a sunny day that gos cloudy will remain
warm. Now I do realize that clouds are not solely made up of water-vapor, it is just an example.

[Zoli]

If those articles are your sole source of information Zoli, then you've been deceived.

I'll make this easy for everyone to put into perspective, by quoting one of those very same articles that you've cited:

So the disagreements really break down into two. There's the science: human influence is either significant or not so significant; and there's economics: we must have policies which make drastic changes to society, lifestyles and industrial policy – what George Monbiot called "a war against ourselves" – or we must sensibly adapt, and are foolish to create more unnecessary human poverty and misery when we don't need to.

In short: the deniers are spieling disinformation on behalf of industry and the politicians. It's all right there, Zoli. The entire thrust of BOTH of those articles is "Why should we mess up our economy and lose our grip on wealth and power..? Forget the science... let's just side-step the facts and consider what a tiny minority of dissenting and heavily invested hacks would like us to believe."

Get the picture..? You have about 50 or 60 pre-paid, right-wing hacks on your side, Zoli.

And I have about 5800 un-invested international scientists on my side. All of whom insist that man-made carbon emissions are causing a greenhouse effect on this planet.

And your comment regarding the TPG and Wikipedia is completely unrelated and it has no place within this discussion. It's a cheap shot... and I don't expect you to let it happen again.

First: I'm sorry about my wikipedia question; if I knew that is a sensitive subject for you, I would never asked; and it was curiosity, nothing more.
Second: even with my limited English knowledge, unproven doesn't mean denial, it means that the no proof is available(yet); I've stated before, and now I'm stating again: I consider the men-made CO₂ based global warming theory unproven.
Third: if an article in an online magazine, which I've linked with a sole purpose to present a group of scientists, means trusted source for you - well, you should know.
And here's one of the reasons which makes me skeptic:

We find that, together, unsustainable groundwater use, artificial reservoir water impoundment, climate-driven changes in terrestrial water storage and the loss of water from closed basins have contributed a sea-level rise of about 0.77 mm yr⁻¹ between 1961 and 2003, about 42% of the observed sea-level rise. We note that, of these components, the unsustainable use of groundwater represents the largest contribution.

Source: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1476.html
How this peer reviewed article fits the image about the rising sea levels? Or this one is written by the "pre-paid, right-wing hacks" - if yes, then think again; a lot.
And almost every week I see a new scientific article related to the "global warming effects", which shows different explanation then the CO₂ theory; that's why I became skeptic.
@Schu: water vapor indeed is GHG, check your favorite(whichever online or offline it is) encyclopedia to confirm; for the rest I will return later.

[perez007usa]

As long as corporations keep on polluting, we will have globe warming, high CO2 content, we neglected, to say in part why, is that we are cutting down "trees", the rain forest, and the more you cut down, the more buildup of gases  it will become. To hell with the Planet Earth they  would say, if they can make a profit from it. they will. Once they finish with the Earth, they will just toss it aside, and get ready to look elsewhere, and do it again.       

[Adaminus]

As long as corporations keep on polluting, we will have globe warming, high CO2 content, we neglected, to say in part why, is that we are cutting down "trees", the rain forest, and the more you cut down, the more buildup of gases  it will become. To hell with the Planet Earth they  would say, if they can make a profit from it. they will. Once they finish with the Earth, they will just toss it aside, and get ready to look elsewhere, and do it again.      

The unfortunate truth of human nature, and even a majority of the animal kingdom aswell. We will never "learn" because we will always consume and nothing is renewable infinately, not even the sun.

The best we can do is to limit our impact but it often feels pointless, the animals dont give a shit, and neither do the apes in the suits counting the profits.

At the same time, i am no saint, i waste electricity, i use old low efficiency machines at home to wash my clothes or heat my sauna.

We were not built to say "no" to convinience, it takes incredible willpower to do so.

Now, i will be long gone before my personal "footprint" has taken its toll, so will the business men that exploit what we have, i put my faith in science pulling us through and developing a means to normalize things in the future.

I wont say however "1" man cannot change anything as my reason for not stepping up because history has proved time and time again that it is possible. I also am not entirely sure where i am going with this (my concentration gets fucky sometimes) and i have lost my train of thought.

I hope for things to improve so that future generations can live in similar luxury to myself without having this "ecological distaster" story looming over them.

Ah thats it, As a species we can bring awareness to it, but there is too much money involved to actually do anything significant about it when it comes to "fighting the man" giving power to the man with the biggest wallet is a dangerous thing in my opinion.

I hope this has contributed something if not then please disregard it.

Adaminus

[perez007usa]

We will never "learn" because we will always consume

Ah thats it, As a species we can bring awareness to it, but there is too much money involved to actually do anything significant about it when it comes to "fighting the man" giving power to the man with the biggest wallet is a dangerous thing in my opinion.

GREED! that's is all what is amounts to.

[Tessera]

We all need to remember that we are living in primitive times.

Try to imagine where our species will be in two or three million years.

And how do you think those future humans, living three million years from now,
will regard us when they look back into their own past..?

We are the Ancients, ladies and gentlemen. So don't expect too much from us.

[Cylnar]

Though if we continue on our current path we may not get the chance to evolve further.

And in three million years our distant descendants might no longer be "human" in any real sense, any more than our anthropoid-ape ancestors three million years ago were "human".

Unless that is, we do something that arrests our evolution, like curing death.

[Tessera]

I don't expect humans to physically evolve much further than we already have. Let me explain why...

Evolution is imposed from the outside. It has nothing to do with how much time has passed, or what the species might "want." Evolution doesn't automatically happen -- no matter what. It is a response to unfavorable environmental conditions. You either evolve, so that you can better cope with those prevailing conditions, or else you perish and go extinct.

Well, the fact of the matter is, we humans are no longer affected very much by environmental factors. Thanks to our technology, we control our environment more than our environment controls us. We are the very first species in the entire history of life on Earth who can make that claim.

Is it too cold outside..? No problem... technology has provided us with warm winter coats and heated homes. Is it too hot outside..? No problem... technology has provided us with swimming pools and air conditioners. Is there less food growing in a particular location..? No problem... technology has provided us with agriculture, supermarkets and refrigerators. Are there a bunch of diseases in a certain region..? No problem... technology has provided us with medicine and antibiotics.

Do you see what I am driving at..? There are no longer any environmental factors which would have a significant impact upon future human evolution. So this may very well be "it" for us as a species.

The only changes that I expect for human beings in the future are purely aesthetic changes. If the environment is no longer affecting us enough to drive our evolution, then the only significant factor remaining would be natural selection amongst ourselves. We'll just keep selecting mates based upon who looks "the hottest."

I can envision a future where all of the girls are gorgeous, slim and have big tits. And all of the guys are handsome, 6-feet tall and have big dicks. We may also become more intelligent, on average. But aside from that, I don't see any significant evolution taking place for our species and for the reasons that I've already mentioned.

Of course, there's always the possibility of genetically engineering our own offspring (eugenics). We may very well play around with something like that in the near future.

[Cylnar]

The stupid people are breeding a lot more than the smart ones, since they don't really plan things, and tend to be conservative churchgoers and thus are discouraged from using birth control or abortion as often. So I could see us actually decreasing in intelligence (a la Idiocracy), even as we become physically more appealing.

We're also creating new evolutionary challenges for ourselves as a byproduct of our control of environmental factors. Not just climate change but also pollution is greatly affecting millions, even billions. Incidences of heavy-metal contamination and poisoning (lead, mercury, etc.) are increased in the industrial world and greatly increased in many areas of the developing world. The same for androgenic chemicals, herbicides and pesticides, radioactive waste (especially in wake of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters) and countless other pollutants. The prevalence of conditions such as asthma and autism is increasing every year. People who can withstand greater concentrations of man-made toxins will tend to be selected for survival and reproduction...evolution, in other words.

[Tessera]

Consider an alternate scenario...

Once everyone is gorgeous, then what will be the most desirable traits in a potential mate..?

Remember... everyone will be universally HOT looking by then. So what's left..? Which traits will we prefer, in a world where everyone is gorgeous..?

I'm betting that once we get to that point, the most desirable trait will then be... BRAINS.

And that's why I think people will eventually get smarter.

[Tessera]

Zoli, as I said in my last post, you can see that we humans are the cause of accelerated climate change

"Since Jan. 1, the United States has set more than 40,000 hot temperature records, but fewer than 6,000 cold temperature records, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Through most of last century, the U.S. used to set cold and hot records evenly, but in the first decade of this century America set two hot records for every cold one, said Jerry Meehl, a climate extreme expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. This year the ratio is about 7 hot to 1 cold. Some computer models say that ratio will hit 20-to-1 by midcentury, Meehl said.

"In the future you would expect larger, longer more intense heat waves and we've seen that in the last few summers," NOAA Climate Monitoring chief Derek Arndt said."

SOURCE: Newsday (a Long Island newspaper)

[Schu]

Exactly.

The Pacific Northwest and Alaska had the most brutal winter on record this last time around. Western Washington, had below freezing temperatures for months on end, and record snow fall. We're not talking inches people we are talking 10's of feet in snow fall, that's not normal. British Columbia and Alaska had well below normal temperatures, in fact, the "Bering Sea" ice sheet had moved farther south then it ever has before.

All the while the Midwest and East Coast were setting record high temperatures in the dead of winter, as well as record lows for snow fall. I still have family in the Midwest, and the one grandparent I have left (who is well into her 90's), said that this was the most mild winter she has seen, and the most brutal tornado season ever. I would dare to say that our climate is in bad shape and is only going to get worse.

On topic: I actually saw a station selling gas for 3.64 a gallon. Maybe (if we are lucky) we might just see it drop to 3.00 a gallon. I hope it stays there (or lower), I'm sick and tired of paying 3 times more for food than I was paying a year ago.

[Zoli]

...
On topic: I actually saw a station selling gas for 3.64 a gallon. Maybe (if we are lucky) we might just see it drop to 3.00 a gallon. I hope it stays there (or lower), I'm sick and tired of paying 3 times more for food than I was paying a year ago.

Maybe it has to do something with a BP refinery?

[perez007usa]

Maybe it has to do something with a BP refinery?

Hell NO! All it is, is just a big "game" for them to play, using others peoples money instead of theirs.  Yea! gas prices are down, enjoy it while  it last, cause it will balloon faster, than it was coming down.

   You want to see how a nation can be cripple. Control  the gas prices. You can't buy food cause it expensive, why?  To pay for the fuel to get to the stores. Travel, will come to a standstill. Why?  Fuel prices are up, you can not even put gas in your tank. Airlines, Bus lines  may go bust , fuel cost WILL be added to your ticket, which you wouldn't buy. Need I say more.

[Schu]

...
On topic: I actually saw a station selling gas for 3.64 a gallon. Maybe (if we are lucky) we might just see it drop to 3.00 a gallon. I hope it stays there (or lower), I'm sick and tired of paying 3 times more for food than I was paying a year ago.

Maybe it has to do something with a BP refinery?

Zoli, as posted before. Most if not all the products that come out of that refinery go to British Columbia (Canada), not the US or even Wa state (where it is located). Hell, most of the jobs there are held by Canadians. Its not even an American owned company, BP stands for British Petroleum.

So you know, Cherry Point is just a few miles from the Canadian border on the coast of Washington, near Ferndale. Also we have 5 other refinery's in Washington that are American owned. So why again, do we stay in the top 5 highest gas prices in the country, sometimes the highest, I have actually seen gas sell for 5.00 bucks a gallon here.

[perez007usa]

Simple,  GREED,Maaaa, Haaa, Haaa

[CSM101]

Simple,  GREED,Maaaa, Haaa, Haaa

in it's simplest terms, yeah

[perez007usa]

Hay Schu,  we have been seeing the gas prices coming down,( my area 3.14 tops). Now that the 4th is over, it jumped to 3.25, no little by little increments, a penny or two a day, like the way  they did this time around, but nnoo, it jump, to 3.25. guess I' ll take my bike out. and use it.

 When people stop buying, these cooperation are going to start crying when the people do stop, I would not let it pass them, to go to the government and tell them to "make" the people buy.

 I would not let it pass them one bit, they had their bailouts, now they want more. Sounds like a crude and shameful  way of playing  Oliver.