Gas prices in 2012? At least $4?

[suspectnumber961]

Bill McKibben: Climate Denial Is Creating "The Great Carbon Bubble" | | AlterNet


Our GOP presidential candidates are working hard to make sure no one thinks they’d appease chemistry and physics. At the last Republican debate in Florida, Rick Santorum insisted that he should be the nominee because he’d caught on earlier than Newt or Mitt to the global warming “hoax.”

Most of the media pays remarkably little attention to what’s happening. Coverage of global warming has dipped 40% over the last two years. When, say, there’s a rare outbreak of January tornadoes, TV anchors politely discuss “extreme weather,” but climate change is the disaster that dare not speak its name.

And when they do break their silence, some of our elite organs are happy to indulge in outright denial. Last month, for instance, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by “16 scientists and engineers” headlined “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” The article was easily debunked. It was nothing but a mash-up of long-since-disproved arguments by people who turned outmostly not to be climate scientists at all, quoting other scientists who immediately said their actual work showed just the opposite.

It’s no secret where this denialism comes from: the fossil fuel industry pays for it. (Of the 16 authors of the Journal article, for instance, five had had ties to Exxon.) Writers from Ross Gelbspanto Naomi Oreskes have made this case with such overwhelming power that no one even really tries denying it any more. The open question is why the industry persists in denial in the face of an endless body of fact showing climate change is the greatest danger we’ve ever faced.

Why doesn’t it fold the way the tobacco industry eventually did? Why doesn’t it invest its riches in things like solar panels and so profit handsomely from the next generation of energy? As it happens, the answer is more interesting than you might think.

Part of it’s simple enough: the giant energy companies are making so much money right now that they can’t stop gorging themselves. ExxonMobil, year after year, pulls in more money than any company in history. Chevron’s not far behind. Everyone in the business is swimming in money.

...

When I talked about a carbon bubble at the beginning of this essay, this is what I meant. Here are some of the relevant numbers, courtesy of the Capital Institute: we’re already seeing widespread climate disruption, but if we want to avoid utter, civilization-shaking disaster, many scientists have pointed to a two-degree rise in global temperatures as the most we could possibly deal with.

If we spew 565 gigatons more carbon into the atmosphere, we’ll quite possibly go right past that reddest of red lines. But the oil companies, private and state-owned, have current reserves on the books equivalent to 2,795 gigatons — five times more than we can ever safely burn. It has to stay in the ground.

Put another way, in ecological terms it would be extremely prudent to write off $20 trillion worthof those reserves. In economic terms, of course, it would be a disaster, first and foremost for shareholders and executives of companies like ExxonMobil (and people in places like Venezuela).

...


You should just enjoy enjoy things while you can....and let your kids and grandkids deal with a trashed planet..... It's the right (wing) thing to do!

[Arragonis]

Worth a read if people are going to continue using or emphasising contraversial names for others of differing views :

Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers

From the WSJ Opinion Archives - WSJ.com

The article does continue the "religion" meme that James referred to earlier - and to be perfectly clear I don't subscribe to that view of those who accept CAGW, people's views are far more complex and worthy of more respect - but it puts the origins of "denier" in relation to this debate into context. I agree with the ending though :

And what is it but an act of bullying to deny that there is any room for honest disagreement, to insist that those of us who are unpersuaded are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, that we are not merely mistaken but evil?

I have to say rehashing campaign pieces from campaign websites quoting campaigners calling people who do not agree with their campaign names is not going to be all that pursuasive. If you insist on continuing then I feel my ignore list may get its one and only member. If you want to debate then do so.

I'm also very very tired and fed up of the "right = evil anti AGW skeptic denier Republican oil funded new world order conspiracy" and "left = tree hugging hippie watermelon commie" bollocks names used by both sides.

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

You should just enjoy enjoy things while you can....and let your kids and grandkids deal with a trashed planet..... It's the right (wing) thing to do!

If we carry on like this then the oil will have run out and we will have boiled / frozen to death before anything gets done.

Enough name calling, please.

[Ladogaboy]

Relatively speaking, we are all ignorant. Human history comprises only a small fraction of the Earth's history, and our meteorological data comprises only a small fraction of human history. Based on what we do know about the geological history of the Earth, it is quite possible Earth maintained much warmer average temperatures throughout most of its history than what we're currently experiencing. In fact, some fossil evidence points to the fact that, for most of Earth's history, the poles weren't even frozen.

Sensationalism is sensationalism, regardless of the source. Are we putting pollutants into the air? Yes. Is that bad? Yes. Is it the sole cause of "global warming"? Truthfully, nobody knows.

The sad fact is, most people are too apathetic to care either way, and all of this talk about global warming and pollutants in the air falls on deaf ears. The energy spent (wasted) talking about the subject could be better spent on programs that actually help to provide a solution. Don't tell people to install solar panels on their homes; make it in their best interests to do so by investing in solar companies and providing cheaper alternatives. Let the free market do what it does, and when the masses of sheeple realize that they can't just "plug in" or "pump" their way to cheap energy, they'll catch on. No need to proselytize.

[user removed]

Find a way to fix it that is cost effective, or wait to see if the gloom and doom prophecies are actually correct. After all the world has been going to end since the Roman Empire.

Beginning to contemplate the ignore list also Arragonis.

In fact life expectancy has been climbing during the exact period of time that proponents say we are going to kill ourselves. Now obesity and over consumption may actually reverse the trend for the first time in the modern era.

I have a way to fix it that is cost effective, and no one seems to want to become an advocate. Why would that be the case?

It's simple, they don't want it fixed, then they would have nothing to sensationalise, and nothing to incessantly post on threads that are unrelated to their cause, useless drivel that changes no ones opinion.

It's called put up or shut up, propose practical solutions, or spend your time finding practical solutions that are real and affordable. If not then you are irrelevant.

regards
Mech

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Old Mechanic

Beginning to contemplate the ignore list also Arragonis.

If I'm at risk of being put on the list by something I have tapped here then I apologise, my interest is to get into solutions - even CO2 reducing ones if you like.

More light, less heat.

[euromodder]

Latest word is there simply isn't any climate warming over the last 15 years ...
We've just had the worst cold in 70 years.

Contrary to popular belief or indoctrination, we are not witnessing more extreme weather.
We are obviously seeing it more often in a sensationalist , globalized media landscape.

For most of the weather's effects, we are to blame, though not through climate change, but because of how many of us there are, where we want to live and how we want to build houses and infrastructure - forever increasing the paved surfaces.
Latest trend here is to pave just about the whole front yard !
What isn't paved, is covered in gravel spread out over a plant-barrier.

Why are people surprised when places like Pensacola Beach or Bangladesh get washed away ?
They shouldn't be.
It's barely above the water !

Why aren't houses in Tornado alley built to withstand high(er) wind velocities ?
Why does most of the US still put small powerlines above the ground - we've been digging them in, gives far less trouble (if you keep track of where they went) .
Why build a house next to an eroding cliff face or a river ?
We are dumb-asses, bringing weather mayhem over ourselves, then blame the weather for it.


Our winters are winters again, the kind our parents and grandparents knew.
And summers are summers again, the kind that produced great wines.

The main issue is that we're burning far too much oil (and other materials) far too quickly while no new oil is being made by nature to compensate for our consumption.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Worth a read if people are going to continue using or emphasising contraversial names for others of differing views:

The key word there, though, is "honest". How much of the disagreement on climate science - or evolution, vaccination, nuclear power, etc - is actually honest? That is, how many of the people disagreeing have made the slightest attempt to actually understand the science, instead of (at best) doing a cursory scan to look for a few words they can twist into loopholes for what they believe?

I'm also very very tired and fed up of the "right = evil anti AGW skeptic denier Republican oil funded new world order conspiracy" and "left = tree hugging hippie watermelon commie" bollocks names used by both sides.

I get tired of it, too, the more so as it's less than accurate. I'm certainly no leftist, more of a libertarian (in the pre-Koch sense) than anything. Though I might pass as a tree-hugging hippie if I tried, though I was only really interested in one of the "sex, drugs, and rock&roll" triad.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

Our GOP presidential candidates are working hard to make sure no one thinks they’d appease chemistry and physics. At the last Republican debate in Florida, Rick Santorum insisted that he should be the nominee because he’d caught on earlier than Newt or Mitt to the global warming “hoax.”...

You should just enjoy enjoy things while you can....and let your kids and grandkids deal with a trashed planet..... It's the right (wing) thing to do!

Do you have any evidence to back the implication that one political party consumes more petroleum than others? Like all religions, it seems more popular to talk about ideals than to practice them. Republicans for example, extol the principle of low government spending, but ever since Regan and the Bush's, they have been the largest spending presidents. Democrats extol the virtue of charity and distribution of wealth, but have been shown to be among the least charitable people.

It may be fact that members of the Republican party consume more oil than others, but so far I have seen no evidence of this. Al Gore, a Democratic leader and self-proclaimed environmentalist, has consumed far more petroleum than I or my entire family ever will. As far as I can tell, people are consumers by nature, regardless of political/religious affiliation. It's far easier preaching to others how to live than to be the example.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

The key word there, though, is "honest". How much of the disagreement on climate science - or evolution, vaccination, nuclear power, etc - is actually honest? That is, how many of the people disagreeing have made the slightest attempt to actually understand the science, instead of (at best) doing a cursory scan to look for a few words they can twist into loopholes for what they believe?

With the exception of Nuclear Power (I still think it has a purpose but needs control) I think we can agree - to disagree that is, in a respectful way ? I hope we can anyway.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by euromodder

Latest word is there simply isn't any climate warming over the last 15 years ...

The Vikings have arrived