Gas prices in 2012? At least $4?

[TheEnemy]

For some shoe on the other foot thinking,

Say it turns out that we are responsible for very little global warming. With all the science says its true, we have to change everything, we are destroying the world...etc.

What will the world look like if environmental issues no longer carried any merit with the public?

What would the backlash be with the vast majority no longer believing science?

What would corporations be able to get away with environmentally then?

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

For some shoe on the other foot thinking,

Say it turns out that we are responsible for very little global warming. With all the science says its true, we have to change everything, we are destroying the world...etc.

What will the world look like if environmental issues no longer carried any merit with the public?

What would the backlash be with the vast majority no longer believing science?

What would corporations be able to get away with environmentally then?

Sounds like what you are saying is the same as saying "what if we discovered that cigarette smoking actually does not cause cancer... just think how many people would smoke!!"

1) There are already a lot of people smoking that won't quit no matter what the science says (and there already a lot of corporations that are able to get away with being environmentally irresponsible), and

2) If cigarette smoking actually does not cause cancer, then so what if more people start smoking?? (and if being environmentally irresponsible has no impact, then so what if corporations get away with being more so??)

Basically such a scenario would make no difference. Those that believe in the scientific method today will continue to believe in it; those that don't understand the scientific method will still not understand it.

The data won't simply disappear in a 'magical poof' either... true scientists will be able to explain exactly why the data they had led them to a certain conclusion at one point, and why new data they received led them to a different conclusion later... thereby further bolstering the scientific method. That is the way it works... there is no 'magic' to it.

The problem with Y2K and Global Warming and other forecasts of 'doom & gloom' is that they can be blown completely out of proportion by the media... scientists (who may not be media savvy) are asked what is the worst that can happen and then that is taken as what will happen... and it is the scientist that is dragged through the mud for giving his/her honest answer...

[TheEnemy]

Cigaret smoking doesn't quite fit, becasue there are other environmental issues besides global warming. But if you equated smoking with polluting in general then it would be pretty close.

Wouldn't more people smoke if it was found that it doesn't cause cancer? I think so seeing as it was one of the main pushes to convince people to stop smoking even though the fact that it also contributes to other health risks.

Right now big corporations don't have a lot of credibility as far as environmental concerns go for good reason. Imagine passing environmental legeslation when a big corp. can say "I told you so about global warming and this is the same". Politicians and much of the voting public will not have as much faith in environmental legeslation. But even I would have to be way off on my calculations for that to be possible.

To use you smoking analagy a little further do you think some of the newer policies like putting pictures of cancer patients on the pack are going to be effective on getting people to quit smoking? I don't.

A lot of the problem is the scientific method has been all but thrown away by both sides. Neither one is willing to listen to the arguments of the others. (no I am not counting the heartland institute as an actual scientific body)

When the first climategate happened I took the time to read some of their emails. Some made me feel better about their work, others made me not so sure. For one the were talking about figuring out why the more recent climate data was not fitting their models and trying to figure out where the energy was going. But on the other hand they were also talking about cutting certain people out of the data loop because they weren't sure what side they were on. Surrounding yourself with only those that agree with you is not going to get you at the truth, nor is it a basis for good science. Part of the scientific method is hash out the different ideas/conclusions until all of the details are figured out. Global warming is far from figured out as any honest scientist will tell you.

There have been calls by some climate scientist to have the credentials of others removed, or to have Neurenburg style trials for any scientist that questions man caused global warming. Jim Hansen (NASA), and Dr Heidi Cullen (Weather Channel climate scientist) come to mind.

Then on top of that like you said the media blowing everything out of proportion.

[Frank Lee]

Gas prices might get real interesting, real soon.

[suspectnumber961]

The Republican Brain: Why Even Educated Conservatives Deny Science -- and Reality | | AlterNet

* this guy found out what I did...rational arguments don't work...weiny-heads are not rational

I can still remember when I first realized how naïve I was in thinking—hoping—that laying out the “facts” would suffice to change politicized minds, and especially Republican ones. It was a typically wonkish, liberal revelation: One based on statistics and data. Only this time, the data were showing, rather awkwardly, that people ignore data and evidence—and often, knowledge and education only make the problem worse.

Someone had sent me a 2008 Pew report documenting the intense partisan divide in the U.S. over the reality of global warming.. It’s a divide that, maddeningly for scientists, has shown a paradoxical tendency to widen even as the basic facts about global warming have become more firmly established.

[TheEnemy]

I would say its not necessarily a partisan issue.

I have both extreems of the political spectrum in my family, and I can tell you from experiance that talking sense to either side no matter how insane their claims are. I'm not immune to it, I don't think anyone is immune to it.

Breaking AGW into political spectrum

Republican => Its not happening to it is happening but its natural, and it could even be good.

Democrat => Its happening, its our fault, its bad.

Indipendant (me) = Its happening, its at least partly our fault, it will be a mix of bad and good.

Frank: he he yeah with all the saber rattleing with Iran, and the fluctuations in the middle east things could get interesting.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

Cigaret smoking doesn't quite fit, becasue there are other environmental issues besides global warming. But if you equated smoking with polluting in general then it would be pretty close.

I think it actually does fit, perhaps better than you think. Suppose tobacco didn't actually cause all those really serious long-term health problems like cancer & heart disease. There's still be all sorts of minor unpleasantness, like smokers feeling free to stink up any room they happen to be in, fires caused by careless smoking, and so on. And of course we taxpayers would still be subsidizing tobacco growers.

Likewise, there are all sorts of unpleasant things we have gotten as side effects of a (cheaply) fossil-fueled world, from power plant emissions urban congestion to 40-foot RVs. Now most of these might not cause serious harm, but as with smoking, it'd still be a nicer world if we weren't subjected to them.

[TheEnemy]

Ok I'll go with it.

Say the long term health problems of smoking were to be refuted by the medical community tomorrow. But not the fact that its addictive.

How long before the tobacco industry starts using it money and political power to start marketing their product?

How long before the rules on where you can smoke start getting changed?

How long before someone can smoke in a restaurant again?

How long before "smok em if you got em" becomes a common phrase again?

My guess... less time than it took to make it how it is now.

Now replace tobacco industry with Industry in general, and smoking with Global warming.

If it turns out that we aren't responsible for that much of the global warming then much of the environmental progress that has been made will be in jeopardy. Keep in mind that even though you pointed out that due to the uncertanty that I admit in my calculation means that the IPCC figures could be correct, the opposite is equally true, I could be massivly over-estimating mankinds effect.

[NeilBlanchard]

Tobacco denialists were the models for the climate denialists. In fact they hired some of the same people to spread the FUD. They delay and say we need more studies.

Global warming conspiracy theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[suspectnumber961]

Are Gas Companies Toying With Gas Prices to Help Get a Republican in the White House? | AlterNet

U.S. demand for oil and refined products — including gasoline — is down sharply from last year, so much that the United States has become a net exporter of gasoline, unable to consume all it makes.

Yet oil and gasoline prices are spiraling upward. [...]

While tension over Iran has ratcheted up in the past few months, oil and gasoline prices have leapt far beyond conventional supply-and-demand variables. Financial speculators are piling into the market, torquing the Iranian fear factor into ever-higher prices.

"Speculation is now part of the DNA of oil prices. You cannot separate the two anymore. There is no demarcation,"said Fadel Gheit, a 30-year veteran of energy markets and an analyst at Oppenheimer. "I still remain convinced oil prices are inflated."

Gee, I wonder what happened to the invisible hand of the free market? Well to be honest, I don;t really wonder about that at all. You see, we've seen these types of "games" before in election years. For example, wasn't it funny how in both 2004 and 2006 oil prices declined significantly in the run-up to the November elections at a time when lower prices would presumably benefit Republican incumbents.

....

Not so bright to ratchet up the thing with Iran in an election year?

....