Gas prices in 2012? At least $4?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

You couldn't be arsed thinking about my point over name calling either ?

What name-calling? Accurate descriptions are not name-calling, and false descriptions - such as describing those who reject climate science as skeptics, when they're anything but - are just lies.

Further, if these people were really skeptics, we'd expect them to apply equal skepticism to both sides, but they don't. Instead, every claim, no matter how easily disproved, that can be used to cast doubt on climate science is embraced with a pure credulity untinged by any hint of skepticism. The Sun's getting warmer? Other planets are warming too? Climate scientists are just in it for the money? The Romans grew grapes in Britian, and the Vikings went to Greenland for tropical beach vacations? Where's the skepticism?

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

If you want to consider just environmental predictions, how about the Ice Age being triggered by sulfate emissions that the denialists like to go on about?.

According to the USGS Kīlauea emits 2,000 to 4,000 tons of SO2 (which absorbs water and mass) and becomes hydrogen sulfate.
So not really worried about that.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Or we could consider that flurocarbons destroying the ozone layer thing. That's a nice example of a double-edged prediction: the environmental types were predicting a disaster from continuing use of flurocarbons, while the business-as-usual types were predicting economic disaster if they couldn't use them. Well, most flurocarbon use was banned, the ozone hole stopped growing (score one for environmentalists), and the economic disaster didn't happen.

My problems with the "hole in the ozone"
- No one has been able to prove more UVx reaches the ground with the hole in place.
- No one has been able to prove it effects human health.
- The base line measurements were taken from a serries of experements done in 1956.
- The largests ozone holes were observed after the decline of high stratospheric CFCs
- All the science is based on an observation sample size that is too small to make any valid conclusions (1956 + 1976 till now).
- The vast majority of CFCs were released in the northern part of the world but the big bad hole is in the south, hows that work?
- The Ozone layer ignores our predictions and does what ever it wants.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

Oil is used to power over 90% of our transportation fleet from land, sea, to air.

Why are we here, if not to discover how to reduce the amount of oil we use? So I drive an Insight: if I drive the same amount as the average person, I use anywhere from a third to a fifth as much oil as they do. Has my personal economy been adversely affected? Or do I in fact have more discretionary income?

Further, I now do basically all my work via telecommuting, which means I drive maybe half as much as the average person, cutting my oil use even further. Hasn't had an adverse effect on my personal economy, as I have more free time (time not spent commuting), and more money.

Now repeat that over several million people (and companies who e.g. optimize their shipping), and it seems perfectly possible to reduce US oil consumption while improving the economy.

Without oil our present way of life would cease to exist.

OK, but are you really all that fond of your present way of life?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

What name-calling? Accurate descriptions are not name-calling, and false descriptions - such as describing those who reject climate science as skeptics, when they're anything but - are just lies.

Further, if these people were really skeptics, we'd expect them to apply equal skepticism to both sides, but they don't. Instead, every claim, no matter how easily disproved, that can be used to cast doubt on climate science is embraced with a pure credulity untinged by any hint of skepticism. The Sun's getting warmer? Other planets are warming too? Climate scientists are just in it for the money? The Romans grew grapes in Britian, and the Vikings went to Greenland for tropical beach vacations? Where's the skepticism?

The name being used is intended as an insult - look at the origin as I tapped earlier. Quite a few Scientists including those on the pro side of the debate have banned the word, along with the usual ones from the other side from their own websites including climate modellers.

So far I have let through every non-spam comment and automatically allowed previous posters to comment. I would like to trust people to be sensible with this and not have to start moderating out comments.

Therefore I ask you to comply with the following:

a) civility is essential;

b) accusations are not to be made;

c) the words denier, liar and fraud are not permitted (this list may increase): see (a) and (b);

...

h) liberally sprinkle your comments with good-humour, honesty, and ‘smiley’ or ‘winky’ faces, to keep the tone convivial.

If you aren't willing to switch off a word someone finds offensive then it seems there isn't going to be a debate here. It isn't going to pursuade anyone just offend. Its up to you - my choice is to tune out so I won't be seeing any of your arguments. Meh.

[Ladogaboy]

I think the major problem with... let me just call them the hotties (forgive me, I don't remember all of the tags and don't care to learn) is that their arguments have a fundamental disconnect. They haven't yet proven any definitive connection between the burning of fossil fuels and the current warming phase.

The ability to track temperatures globally, measure polar ice cap thickness, maintain a database of anomalous weather incidents, etc. has only been possible for the last 50-100 years. So the data they have collected is confined to a period that is contained within the period across which the "cause" has occurred. That means that they have no control. That means that no matter how they try to justify it, their findings are unscientific. So I apologize, but I must consider myself a skeptic.

[Olympiadis]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

True skepticism is a good thing. The problem here is that the climate "skeptics" want us to go on believing that the world is flat, and ignoring all that pesky science that says it's round.

Link to proof of this claim about climate skeptics ?

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Only if you a) don't have a clue about the science involved; and b) refuse to learn. We might, by exactly the same logic, claim that because the roll of any one die is very difficult to predict, the house doesn't have the edge in craps, yet somehow casinos still make a profit :-)

Actually the logic of the fact that any roll of die is unpredictable is exactly why the casino makes the profit. It does not suggest that the casino somehow has a superior ability to predict the outcome. It's just that the casino is betting against your ability to predict successfully.

The "warmers" have used this same sort of reasoning to the effect that if they cannot scientifically prove what is causing the warming, then skeptics are unable to disprove their claims. This is not science folks.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

The name being used is intended as an insult - look at the origin as I tapped earlier.

No, it's not. It is intended as an accurate description. If it is to be banned because it is considered insulting by some, why is not the misuse of the word "skeptic" to describe the same people - which we true skeptics consider equally insulting - also banned?

If you aren't willing to switch off a word someone finds offensive then it seems there isn't going to be a debate here. It isn't going to pursuade anyone just offend. Its up to you - my choice is to tune out so I won't be seeing any of your arguments. Meh.

I notice a post using the insulting term "warmist". Others have used the insulting term "climate alarmist". So why not equal treatment for everone? Or are you just pushing your own prejudices?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

According to the USGS Kīlauea emits 2,000 to 4,000 tons of SO2 (which absorbs water and mass) and becomes hydrogen sulfate.
So not really worried about that.

According to the EPA "Over 65% of SO2 released to the air, or more than 13 million tons per year, comes from electric utilities, especially those that burn coal." (Cited here: http://www.a2gov.org/government/publ...Pages/sox.aspx )

Kilauea emits about 850 tons/day, about 310,000 tons/year, or about 2.4% of what US power plants emit AFTER implementing all the emissions controls required by the Clean Air act.

Seems like you need to work on your math, in addition to basic science. And then you might work on a bit of history, and look up the effects of major sulfate-releasing eruptions from Pinatubo back through Krakatoa & Tambora to Lakhi.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

According to the EPA "Over 65% of SO2 released to the air, or more than 13 million tons per year, comes from electric utilities, especially those that burn coal." (Cited here: http://www.a2gov.org/government/publ...Pages/sox.aspx )

Kilauea emits about 850 tons/day, about 310,000 tons/year, or about 2.4% of what US power plants emit AFTER implementing all the emissions controls required by the Clean Air act.

This would be an interesting, and valid point, IF Kilauea was the only active volcano on the planet. From the numbers I've read, Eyjafjallajoekull was releasing 3,000 tons of SO2 per day during its months-long active period. And many more add to the release of SO2.

To make matters more interesting, SO2 is one of the man contributors to the cooling of the troposphere, so wouldn't SO2 actually mitigate global warming?

[NeilBlanchard]

Would you be skeptical of your heart surgeon when she says that you need to have a quintuple bypass?