OT: Gas Prices

[Renegade 13]

Captain Kwok said:

And I'm sure that a 1st year university student (no offence intended) can really interpret the evidence better than the large percentage of professional scientists who do this for a living.

No offense taken However, I should correct you; I'm no longer in university. I was forced to leave due to some...rather unpleasant and severe personal issues. I think I still have a slightly better than average knowledge of science though, I try to keep learning

Now for the debate! Everyone knows that data can be twisted to suit the agenda or personal beliefs of whoever is analyzing it. As the saying goes "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

I would have to question these scientists who are doing the analyzing of the data. After all, preconceived notions will influence people, no matter how hard you strive to keep bias out of science, at some point with climatology personal analysis comes into it. Where one scientist may see one thing, another will see something totally different.

Just think that everyone "knew" 500 years ago that the Earth was flat, just like everyone today "knows" that global warming is a fact...even though there is a lot that we don't understand about the intricacies of the way the world works. Granted, the above analogy has deep flaws, but pervasive myths have a way of self-perpetuating themselves. If someone is raised being told that global warming is a fact, they will believe it. They will, perhaps, see it where it does not exist.

There are also groups of scientists (who aren't merely know-it-all 19 year-olds ) who do study this for a living, who do not agree with the theory of global warming. Granted they are in the minority right now, but to make another, perhaps more apt analogy.

In cosmology, string theory was first proposed about 30 years ago, if memory serves. The theory was derided by the vast majority of cosmologists, astrophysicists and astronomers. Today it is one of the leading theories. Just because a theory does not have much support in the scientific community, does not mean it is invalid. The same could apply in this situation.

Whew...didn't realize I could be so long-winded. Now please, show me the error of my ways and point out the flaws in my logic. I always enjoy learning something new! BTW, not being sarcastic, I really do want to see if holes can be poked in my logic!

[Azselendor]

Natural causes of global warming is only a small percentage of the problem - and one that we can't really do much about. What we can do something about is cleaning up the way we live.

The problem is money, however. To clean up the world would most likely bankrupt every nation in the world five times over.

[rdouglass]

Yes, I think the oil companies are ripping us off and doing it because they can.

I vote for archologies (at least IIRC that's what they're called). There are places currently that are trying them small scale and they are meeting with mixed results.

Today, I drive to work and back 35 miles round trip and burn approx 2 1/2 gal gasoline to do it. 200 years ago I would have climbed down my stairs from my upstairs living quarters to my street level shop.

The new(!?) idea is to go back to these community environments where you can do all your daily tasks (work, shop, etc.) without having to drive a vehicle. What is an archology except one of these communities on steroids.

I've seen recent Discovery Channel (and other) shows on floating cities, gigantic city skyscrapers and other such constructs. Didn't notice a car road in any of them. And I don't think there are too many that would disagree that if we eliminated automobiles, gas would be cheaper and the earth would be a little cooler. No we would not stop any normal climactic changes, but we would induce them less.

[Renegade 13]

KlvinoHRGA said:
Natural causes of global warming is only a small percentage of the problem - and one that we can't really do much about. What we can do something about is cleaning up the way we live.

The problem is money, however. To clean up the world would most likely bankrupt every nation in the world five times over.

All it'd take is one or two large volcanic eruptions to emit gigatons of greenhouse gases, and make any human effort to stop greenhouse gas emissions futile.

[PvK]

Ya, or an asteroid strike. So, you're saying, we may as well cause cataclysms ourselves?

Y'know, that SUV blocking my view would have flown off the bridge if the driver had a natural stroke or heart attack, so I may as well have shoved them off the bridge. Falling to its death was a natural process which I just helped along, and I profitted from it, so it's all good, right?

PvK

[Renegade 13]

PvK said:
Ya, or an asteroid strike. So, you're saying, we may as well cause cataclysms ourselves?

Y'know, that SUV blocking my view would have flown off the bridge if the driver had a natural stroke or heart attack, so I may as well have shoved them off the bridge. Falling to its death was a natural process which I just helped along, and I profitted from it, so it's all good, right?

PvK

Nope. I think we should do what we can to keep emissions low, within reason.

However, it won't take much for nature to undo anything mankind tries to do (as has been shown multiple times in the past). If something like Krakatoa erupts again...well that'd put a chunk of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, many of them worse than just CO2 (water vapor for one is worse than CO2 if I recall correctly, methane as well for retaining heat).

Comparing an erupting volcano to pushing a person of a bridge...well that's just ludicrous.

[ToddT]

In regurds to gas/oil prices, you guys are leaving out the speculators and hedges funds, that have a intrest in driving up prices for their own needs.

gloabal warming, volcues do spew a lot of gases,b ut the also seend large quanties of ash into the upper atmaosphere causeing temps to actually drop. Mt pinatoba (sp) causes a slight drop for around a year.
that also applie to all exaust emissions, they contain particulate matter that has the same effect. so both the burining of oil has been sending both componets into the atmosphere. one tends to cause heating the other cooling.
funny thing particulate emmissions from us and europe are dropping, but are rising in china and india. cleaning up the the particulate emmisions are easy, the co2...........

[Atrocities]

People in the US started buying those huge SUV's because gas was affordable and the big SUV's were something that the Jones had so they had to have em.

I hate huge cars, SUV's, and most huge trucks. I don't see a purpose to them if your not using them to hull things and or huge amounts of people.

Now Gas prices have spiked and the poor are being priced right off the road. There are calls by some to raise the gas tax in order to "punish" SUV drivers. To me that is just utterly [censored] silly. The only ones who would be hurt by a $3.00 gas tax would be people like me who can barely aford the current price of gas. Hell I am about $0.50 per gallon away from being permentaly forced off the road. And I am not alone.

Higher gas prices serve only to make the roads less congested for the rich, the very people who can aford higher prices and taxes. The people who buy and drive those huge mother [censored] SUV's in the first place.

Ya, lets punish them by raising the price of gas to the point where only they can aford to drive. Ya, what a real incentive for them to stop driving those gas guzzling SUV's, price the poor and lower income right off the road and presto... no more congestion. Ya, bang on idea there guys.

Less drives, as we all know the ratio, 80% of Americans are at the poverty level or within a pay check of it, so by raising the gas prices to $4.00 and higher per gallon, most of us will be priced right off the road. Less drivers means less congestion. Not nessassarly less polution mind you, as those who can aford to buy those huge SUV's, will still be out their driving them, but with far less traffic.

But hey, this is progress in a free market so who am I to *****.

[Atrocities]

Brazil had the right idea back in the 80's. Now they are about a year away from telling OPEC and the Oil companies to piss off. If they can make sugar based fuel work with flex fuel cars, then why in the hell can't we?

[Suicide Junkie]

Wouldn't it be nice to have prices much higher, but have your first X liters subsidized and cheap?

You should add something like this to your plan in the ruler of the world thread.