Gas prices in 2012? At least $4?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

Yes, but tell me how many doctors will "prescribe" a lifestyle change instead of a pill.

Quite a few of them will at least try. Now you tell me how many people will actually make such a lifestyle change when it is prescribed. One in ten, maybe? (And that's a generous estimate.) But a majority will take the pill. So which actually does more medical good?

[ever_green]

Expect a good hike in prices soon because of sanctions on iran.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

Please define "present" and "natural range." Present and natural range meaning what we have experienced in the last 50 years? 100 years? 200 years?

How about the last 5000 years, give or take a few: the period in which essentially all our civilization developed, and to which our agriculture (and much else) is adapted.

[QUOTE[Are we talking about about the natural range that includes winters so bitter that the Delaware River froze over and soldiers literally froze to death while marching.[/QUOTE]

Bitter? Grew up in that country, on a tributary of the Susquehanna. It froze over every year, solidly enough to skate on. Likewise, anyone outdoors for prolonged periods without proper cold-weather gear risked freezing to death. But did the Indians freeze to death in the same climate?

[QUOTE[A range that includes the Sahara Desert's expansion over the last 10,000 + years? (predating modern fossil fuel use)[/QUOTE]

But not predating goats or intensive grazing :-)

How are those people who are (supposedly) in awe of nature and the environment so afraid of change?

It's the rate of change, and the extent, which matters. Yes, barring a complete runaway Venus-effect warming, some species will survive, and it'll all be the same in a hundred million years or so. While I admit to a certain intellectualy curiousity about what a world inhabited by the descendants of extremophile bacteria would be like, I really prefer a world in which I can reasonably expect to go on living comfortably for the immediate future.

It's illuminating to consider that the closest natural analog to the current warming is probably the Permian-Triassic extinction event: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian...tinction_event

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

So, how is it that you accept plate tectonics, which is a "younger" science than climate change? [pre-planned diatribe]...[/pre-planned diatribe]

You are missing the point completely. I am not in anyway denying that our climate is in flux; however, I do not believe that our current crop of global warming scientists have proven the cause.

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood." People might be more inclined to listen to what you have to say if you, in kind, listen to what they have to say.

jamesqf at least understands what I am saying. He and I might not agree, but at least I don't have to repeat my basic point EVERY time I respond.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Quite a few of them will at least try. Now you tell me how many people will actually make such a lifestyle change when it is prescribed. One in ten, maybe? (And that's a generous estimate.) But a majority will take the pill. So which actually does more medical good?

This has not been my experience at all. In fact, a number of my friends are doctors, nurses, and pharmacists, and they bemoan the fact that, in many cases, they aren't allowed to provide lifestyle coaching. Too much of a liability since it is not, technically, something that they are trained to do. One of my friends who is currently finishing his residency told me that very few (maybe < 10%) of doctors actually study nutrition in any way.

The opposite seems to be the case in countries with socialized medicine, because the state doesn't want to have to pay for pharmaceuticals and sick people.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But not predating goats or intensive grazing :-)

Goats made it stop raining? As it is, the dry cycle for the Sahara seems to be ending, and it might well be turning back into a savannah within our (at least, my) lifetime.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

It's illuminating to consider that the closest natural analog to the current warming is probably the Permian-Triassic extinction event: Permian

Not quite, unless you are planning on covering 2,000,000 square miles of the Earth's surface with lava. I'm not sure that even Dr. Evil could pull that off.

Our current, global climate isn't even as high as it was speculated to be during the Cretaceous Period.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by ever_green

Expect a good hike in prices soon because of sanctions on iran.

I thought Iran was canceling oil delivery to England and France. That might have an interesting effect for the global market...

[NeilBlanchard]

The quickest increase in carbon dioxide from volcanoes is 100ppm per Million years -- or 0.0001 per year.

We are now averaging at least 2ppm per year (actually this is increasing!) -- this is 20,000X quicker than it ever has been. Humans are the only plausible cause.

We also have actual physical evidence -- the isotopes of carbon now in the atmosphere could only have come from fossil fuel.

Again, to reject the scientific conclusions is no more possible than it is to reject the fact that the earth orbits the sun, or that the universe started with a big bang or that the same DNA control the growth of all biological life.

Back on topic: I paid $.3559 for my most recent tank. The next day it was $3.569 -- this is an increase of ~35 cents a gallon in about 2 months. Oil companies are still making record profits.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

I am not in anyway denying that our climate is in flux; however, I do not believe that our current crop of global warming scientists have proven the cause.

But that is your problem right there. Instead of trying to understand the science - which abundantly proves the case - you go by what you "believe".

[Ladogaboy]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

But that is your problem right there. Instead of trying to understand the science - which abundantly proves the case - you go by what you "believe".

I'm laughing to myself a little bit because this is the exact same logic that was used by a bible-study instructor in order to illustrate how I should share the same interpretation as everyone else.

Why is it that I am wrong because I don't think/feel/believe that the current group of global warming scientists have successfully, and scientifically proven their case? Why is it I'm wrong because I do agree with scientists who have, based on their studies and analyses, come to the conclusion that global warming (while it might exist and might be a trend) is not, necessarily, an unnatural occurrence?

I think the biggest sin that the global warming scientists have made is that they put humans above the environment. We are not. Like bovines belching and farting, animals producing carbon dioxide, and plants producing oxygen, we are just another facet of our environment. As a species, we are responsible for the extinction of thousands of other species. That trend started thousands of years before fossil fuels, and unless we learn to live within our means and the carrying capacity of this planet, that trend will continue long after there are no more fossil fuels to burn. "Green energy" isn't the answer, either. As with so many other problems that humans fail to understand, the answers lie inside, not outside.