PDA

View Full Version : They're baaaaack


The Unseen
05-09-2007, 10:48 AM
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TROPICAL_WEATHER?SITE=TXMID&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

I'm getting the effects of it right now...it's no biggie, just gonna be like a bad rainstorm.

Last year virtually nothing happened, so I guess that means a bunch of stuff will happen this year.

drowe
05-09-2007, 10:50 AM
that blows.

hehe.
get it.

VoteLynnSwan
05-09-2007, 10:51 AM
i thought this was about Locusts... they're worse.

tEk
05-09-2007, 10:55 AM
let's hope we don't have another crisis where they can some how stretch it into a reason to raise gas prices. . . . again:rolleyes:

VoteLynnSwan
05-09-2007, 11:17 AM
Gas costs more than cigerettes up here...

At the gas station the other day, the sign said

3.29/gallon for Gas
3.27 for cigerettes.

P-L
05-09-2007, 11:38 AM
Gas costs more than cigerettes up here...

At the gas station the other day, the sign said

3.29/gallon for Gas
3.27 for cigerettes.

I don't think Gas will ever reach cigarette prices in Michigan. It's hard to find a pack of smokes for under $5.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 11:51 AM
I got word about a national gas boycott for May 15. I will definitely take part.

Sportsfan486
05-09-2007, 11:56 AM
I got word about a national gas boycott for May 15. I will definitely take part.

lol..

The day before or after their sales will just be that much more. It'll probably make them chuckle, though.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 11:57 AM
Apparently, if every American decided to not fill his or her gas tank on that day, it would remove almost $3bb worth of revenues from the economy. That's pretty significant.

EvilMonkey
05-09-2007, 12:03 PM
Apparently, if every American decided to not fill his or her gas tank on that day, it would remove almost $3bb worth of revenues from the economy. That's pretty significant.

and that money will be right back the next day when everyone fills up. Only way anything will happen is if people take a week and either bike, carpool, take the bus, etc. People pushing back filling their tank a day does nothing. A lot of people finding other ways to get to work and skip filling a tank of gas would have an impact.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 12:07 PM
I wish people would do that more. I take public transportation, and I know a lot of other people do as well. I have a car, but I only drive it at night and on weekends. I'm lucky that I live where I do with all the public transit options.

EvilMonkey
05-09-2007, 12:14 PM
yeah being in college in a big city, i just walk around or bike mostly, only time i really use my car is to drive home.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 12:25 PM
I think the boycott works to an extent because it throws off the supply/demand situation with the gas stations. The refineries are pumping out the gas to refill the tanks at the stations. If the stations don't sell, the tanks are still full, so then what? It basically creates a bottleneck at a lot of levels and forces some issues. It also impacts consumption. Gas companies price the gas based almost entirely on the demand of the days before. That's why things are always in flux. If demand is messed up even for a day, it will change things.

Moses
05-09-2007, 12:27 PM
I don't think Gas will ever reach cigarette prices in Michigan. It's hard to find a pack of smokes for under $5.

Try coming to Canada. It costs $9+ for a pack of smokes.

Sportsfan486
05-09-2007, 12:27 PM
I wish people would do that more. I take public transportation, and I know a lot of other people do as well. I have a car, but I only drive it at night and on weekends. I'm lucky that I live where I do with all the public transit options.

We need to learn from Europe.. you can go ANYWHERE quickly and cheaply using mass transit over there. It's really something else.

Oh, and because people actually, you know, walk and bike over there 95% of the women are in shape compared to like 30%? over here. It's a beautiful thing.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 12:29 PM
Let's keep this away from the political. Not saying we're going there, but I'd rather not get this locked.

Sportsfan486
05-09-2007, 12:29 PM
I think the boycott works to an extent because it throws off the supply/demand situation with the gas stations. The refineries are pumping out the gas to refill the tanks at the stations. If the stations don't sell, the tanks are still full, so then what? It basically creates a bottleneck at a lot of levels and forces some issues. It also impacts consumption. Gas companies price the gas based almost entirely on the demand of the days before. That's why things are always in flux. If demand is messed up even for a day, it will change things.

It wouldn't affect anything... and if it DID they'd just RAISE prices to recoup their losses from that day.

We need gas. They know that. Pretending we don't for a day won't change that.

Trust me, I hate it as much as anyone. I used to drive 100 miles 4-5 days a week in an old car. My gas was more than my price of living.. it stinks.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 12:30 PM
Europe has a lot of mass transit in the metropolitan areas, but there's also plenty of rural areas with no way to get around. They have absolutely no regulation on gas prices. I think Europeans pay twice what we do for gas, which makes mass transit, fuel efficiency, and other methods worth much more. We whine and cry about $3 a gallon. Europeans tend to make less net income and pay more in gasoline.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 12:32 PM
It wouldn't affect anything... and if it DID they'd just RAISE prices to recoup their losses from that day.

We need gas. They know that. Pretending we don't for a day won't change that.

Well, I know this. I'm not sure why the prices suddenly went up. OPEC hasn't changed the supply of crude oil being sent to the US for refining. It's really, really odd why the price jumped 30 cents for no reason. The money will be there in the end, but the losses from 1 day can affect nationwide prices for weeks. If they drop the price 20 cents, it will take some time to slowly work the prices back up to those levels.

Sportsfan486
05-09-2007, 12:35 PM
Well, I know this. I'm not sure why the prices suddenly went up.

Because the rich like to get richer?

lol

tEk
05-09-2007, 12:36 PM
Europe has a lot of mass transit in the metropolitan areas, but there's also plenty of rural areas with no way to get around. They have absolutely no regulation on gas prices. I think Europeans pay twice what we do for gas, which makes mass transit, fuel efficiency, and other methods worth much more. We whine and cry about $3 a gallon. Europeans tend to make less net income and pay more in gasoline.dude you are wrong about how much money they pull in. i vacationed in italy to see some relatives recently. everyone i say was wearin prada or gucci or some designer crap. then they had bmw's or mercades benz's. and lived in really expensive "loft apartments" is what we could call them that are compareable to living in socal(price wise). we are talking 300-500k for a 2 - 3br loft/condo. this was in the city though so maybe the rich live in the city and the poor live in small villages.

tEk
05-09-2007, 12:37 PM
Because the rich like to get richer?

lolhaha yea as soon as swarzenegger got voted back into office the gas prices in cali suddenly went from 2.10 a gallon to well over 3 bucks in under a month.

Sportsfan486
05-09-2007, 12:38 PM
dude you are wrong about how much money they pull in. i vacationed in italy to see some relatives recently. everyone i say was wearin prada or gucci or some designer crap. then they had bmw's or mercades benz's. and lived in really expensive "loft apartments" is what we could call them that are compareable to living in socal(price wise). we are talking 300-500k for a 2 - 3br loft/condo. this was in the city though so maybe the rich live in the city and the poor live in small villages.

People get paid more in Europe, average wage over there is equivalent to like $35,000-40,000.

Everything costs more too, though, except a LOT of people don't have cars because you don't need one.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 12:38 PM
In Europe, it is very stratified. The rich live in the cities, and the poor live outside. There is a lot of "old money" in Europe, with wealth being passed from generation to generation. Rags to riches stories are not very common there. I know that in England especially, they have social barriers to kind of keep the status quo. Italy has a very large differential between the rich and poor. You were in a very nice neighborhood.

bsaza2358
05-09-2007, 12:40 PM
People get paid more in Europe, average wage over there is equivalent to like $35,000-40,000.

Everything costs more too, though, except a LOT of people don't have cars because you don't need one.

Workers may make more, but the tax burdens are very high. Social welfare stuff. Lots of healthcare, medicaid, medicare, social security, welfare, etc. The governments are much larger, and their programs are designed to help everyone. The working pay the way for the rest of the country. Not a huge capitalist swell overseas.

TitleTown088
05-09-2007, 02:35 PM
I would totally refuse evacuation during a hurricane.

The Unseen
05-09-2007, 02:47 PM
I would totally refuse evacuation during a hurricane.

That must rank up there with "Hey guys, watch this!" for things most often said just before death.

awfullyquiet
05-09-2007, 04:25 PM
Try coming to Canada. It costs $9+ for a pack of smokes.

nine in usd? or in cnd?

because i spend eight bucks on a pack of smokes. (seven eighty four. close enough)
or would if i didn't decide to go tubed and roll my own (of which then they're 2.90 a pack in the great chity of chicago)

gas is also ridic. ergo. public transportation is godlike.

bussing is really one of the most efficient forms of transportation.

if you have 30 people on a bus, you get something along the lines of 130mi/gal/pass. which, if you think about it. beats the hell out of cars. where if you have a jetta with 4 people, you're getting 120mi/gal/pass. that and there's less cars on the road, easing congestion... planes are somewhere around 60mi/gal/pass. so. word of the wise, carpool.

Zim3031
05-09-2007, 04:50 PM
Oil companies actually have very low profit margins. Those complaining of "price gouging" have no idea what they're talking about.

awfullyquiet
05-09-2007, 04:55 PM
so they have low profit margins, they're still making record breaking profits!

maybe you missed economics, but record breaking profits are kind of tied into profit margins. sure, the profit margins are alot less than say, houses, or barbie dolls... but relative industry profit margins are about equal, and they play that way to make record profits. further proof that most of the industry is indifferent to social consciousness, only the bottom dollar.

Zim3031
05-09-2007, 05:04 PM
so they have low profit margins, they're still making record breaking profits!

maybe you missed economics, but record breaking profits are kind of tied into profit margins. sure, the profit margins are alot less than say, houses, or barbie dolls... but relative industry profit margins are about equal, and they play that way to make record profits. further proof that most of the industry is indifferent to social consciousness, only the bottom dollar.
You don't think their prices are reason able correct? What is reasonable? As I said XOM's proft margins right now are at about 12% or 14%, at their peak, when the long-term average profit margin for the oil industry in aggregate is about 8% or 9% depending on where you get your numbers (XOM has constantly outperformed the others in this industry in this regard because they are the best in what they do) Is making that 9 or 12 cents on the dollar unreasonable to you? This is far, far , far lower than many historical median and average profit margins in many, many nonvillified industries. The US government takes about twice that from gas taxes alone and they are not faced with the risks, pressures, and extreme competitions of the oil industry. Is this tax unreasonable? Is the government gouging us? If oil companies were "gouging" then their margins would be going up dramatically, right? Because lord knows that when a barrel of crude goes from about $20 in the late 90's to $65-$70 nowadays we shouldn't expect ANY increase in the price we pay at the pump? If 'gouging' were this easy, one wonders why XOM simply stops at 13% margins? Why not go for 30%, which is still lower than some other companies? Why would the historical margins be less than 10%? Perhaps it's more complicated than the ol' "gouging" rhetoric, no?

ripdw27
05-09-2007, 05:12 PM
first of all this topic was originally abuot a hurricane and then evolved to gas prices and europe...

there are very few wealthy Europeans, i have several friends from Europe. Its not very safe and one of my friends house got burned down. the only rich people are prime ministers, people high in government and military, which is why theres so many foreigners in America. Do you really think they would still move here if they were making more in Europe??? nooo

TitleTown088
05-09-2007, 05:24 PM
That must rank up there with "Hey guys, watch this!" for things most often said just before death.

Whatever you say sabrina.



http://images.quizilla.com/S/starrchilde/1044076047_sQuizDrCox.jpg

steelersfan43
05-09-2007, 11:51 PM
I wish people would do that more. I take public transportation, and I know a lot of other people do as well. I have a car, but I only drive it at night and on weekends. I'm lucky that I live where I do with all the public transit options.

Yea, people are fat and lazy. If I want to go somewhere, I walk/run, take the metro, or bike

cunningham06
05-10-2007, 12:02 AM
Apparently, if every American decided to not fill his or her gas tank on that day, it would remove almost $3bb worth of revenues from the economy. That's pretty significant.

Supply and Demand. If people are still driving around, it doesn't matter when they fill up, the demand stays the same.

cunningham06
05-10-2007, 12:05 AM
first of all this topic was originally abuot a hurricane and then evolved to gas prices and europe...

there are very few wealthy Europeans, i have several friends from Europe. Its not very safe and one of my friends house got burned down. the only rich people are prime ministers, people high in government and military, which is why theres so many foreigners in America. Do you really think they would still move here if they were making more in Europe??? nooo

Is this a serious post? There are plenty of wealthy Europeans, just because your friends aren't doesn't mean there aren't any wealthy people there. I know plenty of wealthy Europeans.

cunningham06
05-10-2007, 12:06 AM
I would totally refuse evacuation during a hurricane.

Evacuation is a ***** during a hurricane. I live in Houston, and when Rita was coming there was a recommended evacuation for my neighborhood and traffic was ridiculous. It took some people over 7 hours just to get to nearby cities. I preferred to take my chances.

kalbears13
05-10-2007, 12:33 AM
I hope everyone boycotts gas on the 15th, so I know to get my gas on the 15th. No lines!

nobodyinparticular
05-10-2007, 12:34 AM
that blows.

hehe.
get it.

I lawled. I really did. Good one.

cunningham06
05-10-2007, 12:34 AM
Gas stations should raise their prices on May 16th just to be assholes, that would be hilarious.

kalbears13
05-10-2007, 12:37 AM
Gas stations should raise their prices on May 16th just to be assholes, that would be hilarious.

They should lower it like 3 cents on the 15th so everyone's like "Forget this! I'm saving 50 cents and filling up today!"

sweetness34
05-10-2007, 07:38 AM
Don't have to worry about these things, unless Lake Michigan plans on having tropical storms sometime soon. :D

All we've got to worry about are tornadoes. I'lll take my chances with those rather than a Hurricane thank you.

Bengals1690
05-10-2007, 10:28 AM
nine in usd? or in cnd?

because i spend eight bucks on a pack of smokes. (seven eighty four. close enough)
or would if i didn't decide to go tubed and roll my own (of which then they're 2.90 a pack in the great chity of chicago)

gas is also ridic. ergo. public transportation is godlike.

bussing is really one of the most efficient forms of transportation.

if you have 30 people on a bus, you get something along the lines of 130mi/gal/pass. which, if you think about it. beats the hell out of cars. where if you have a jetta with 4 people, you're getting 120mi/gal/pass. that and there's less cars on the road, easing congestion... planes are somewhere around 60mi/gal/pass. so. word of the wise, carpool.


camels are 3.14 a pack in tennessee...

ripdw27
05-10-2007, 09:48 PM
Is this a serious post? There are plenty of wealthy Europeans, just because your friends aren't doesn't mean there aren't any wealthy people there. I know plenty of wealthy Europeans.


my bad, the cities my friends are from there are few wealthy people

TitleTown088
05-10-2007, 10:20 PM
Don't have to worry about these things, unless Lake Michigan plans on having tropical storms sometime soon. :D

All we've got to worry about are tornadoes. I'lll take my chances with those rather than a Hurricane thank you.

In Illinois? I let farts that make bigger wind swirls than an Illinios tornado.

cunningham06
05-10-2007, 10:32 PM
god, i love people like you. then, when you get stranded on your roof, you'll expect the government to waste MY money to save your worthless self. if you refuse to evacuate, i would hope that the coast guard/government/relief workers would completely ignore you and your property after the fact.

but boy, yeah, i'd rather risk katrina than spend a few minutes in a car leaving town. that sounds like an awesome idea. you're so smart and tough and cool.

Ok, I'll go through this point by point for you so you can understand. The evacuation was recommended, but that's it. Some parts of Houston had mandatory evacuations, I was not in one of them. I know reading can be challenging, but it was hurricane Rita, not Katrina. Katrina caused a little rain here but that's it. Rita was a wildcard and it wasn't a sure thing where it was going to go. It was a possibility that it would hit Galveston and then move on to Houston, but it ended up missing us entirely. Traffic wasn't moving, people were stuck on roads until the hurricane passed. But hey, you're right had the hurricane hit I would probably be better off stuck in traffic trying to get out of the city. Coincidentally many of the areas that traffic was packed into are the first places to flood in Houston.

And yes, I am.

cunningham06
05-10-2007, 10:36 PM
that's pathetic. but then, i wouldn't expect a 17-18 year old to have any vague understanding of social/political issues.

If people are busy trying to be self righteous in their scheme to not buy gas on May 15, why not take advantage of that and get your gas quickly? After all this idea won't have the impact that the supporters are saying it will. Gas companies will not choke on their stockpiles driving prices down. Now if the movement was don't drive on May 15, and KalBears was saying he would drive around more than usual just to spite them, I would say he's a jerk and there's no reason to do that.

kalbears13
05-10-2007, 10:45 PM
If people are busy trying to be self righteous in their scheme to not buy gas on May 15, why not take advantage of that and get your gas quickly? After all this idea won't have the impact that the supporters are saying it will. Gas companies will not choke on their stockpiles driving prices down. Now if the movement was don't drive on May 15, and KalBears was saying he would drive around more than usual just to spite them, I would say he's a jerk and there's no reason to do that.

I wouldn't do that. I don't get gas. I wouldn't try to hurt the cause. I do believe gas prices are high. That's the reason I don't get gas myself. Where I live it's like 25c a gallon more expensive than the gas 15 miles away. My parents don't want me to get gas at the local gas station because it's expensive so whenever they go by that gas station 15 miles away they always take the car I drive. I'm not saying I have it hard or anything not paying for my own gas, I'm pretty sure everyone else has it harder.

TPFKA#1SaintsFan
05-11-2007, 01:47 PM
ahhh, so it was quite clear that rita would cause absolutely no damage whatsoever and that there was no chance it could cause mass flooding, say, or cause fires similar to what was seen in new orleans after the hurricane had passed. again, i have no problem with you exercising your right to darwinism. i have a major problem with the complaints and whining that would come after when suddenly the government owes you something because you couldn't get off your couch.

further, i've been to houston. there are more than two roads out of the city, or to other areas of the city. this was, surprisingly, NOT the case in new orleans and more importantly, in mississippi.

but yeah, again, you must be one tough mofo to sit through a hurricane. it takes a lot of intelligence to give mother nature a big middle finger when the destructive power is so proven. awesome.

You have to understand, as if you don't already, a significant chunk of people in the south are f'n idiots. Probably not in Texas, but where I live "hurricane party" is an actual term, and it's pretty self-explanatory. People look for any excuse to get ******, whether it be a regular ol' Sunday or a potential devastating storm.

TPFKA#1SaintsFan
05-11-2007, 02:03 PM
heh, i FULLY understand that. i lived/worked out of lafayette/abbeville/new orleans for a while, and i still have a few friends from there to mississippi. i hate to blame some people for not getting out (there's never adequate bussing or alternate transport for some people who don't have cars), but i have a hard time sympathizing with anyone who can and just doesn't.

Really? I'm from Lafayette, lived in Abbeville for 18 years, and am now living in Lafayette again. That's pretty cool.

sweetness34
05-11-2007, 04:41 PM
In Illinois? I let farts that make bigger wind swirls than an Illinios tornado.

Um considering we have tornadoes swirling around our area pretty much all summer. And yes, these things have gotten up to F-4's and F-5's before.

cunningham06
05-11-2007, 06:43 PM
QED, right? just because you say it's true means it MUST be true. prove it.

I don't have to. It's basic economics: supply and demand. If people don't drive any less than they normally do, it doesn't matter if they don't get gas on one particular day, because they will have to refill soon enough. What the gas stations lose on May 15th they will make up on May 16th and the days following. How do I know it won't do anything? Because it has been done before. Do you honestly think that this is the first time that someone has planned an event such as this? No it has been done before, and there is no reason that things will change this time.

cunningham06
05-11-2007, 07:07 PM
ahhh, so it was quite clear that rita would cause absolutely no damage whatsoever and that there was no chance it could cause mass flooding, say, or cause fires similar to what was seen in new orleans after the hurricane had passed. again, i have no problem with you exercising your right to darwinism. i have a major problem with the complaints and whining that would come after when suddenly the government owes you something because you couldn't get off your couch.

further, i've been to houston. there are more than two roads out of the city, or to other areas of the city. this was, surprisingly, NOT the case in new orleans and more importantly, in mississippi.

but yeah, again, you must be one tough mofo to sit through a hurricane. it takes a lot of intelligence to give mother nature a big middle finger when the destructive power is so proven. awesome.

Ok, so now you're trying to backtrack to cover up the fact that you hastily read my post and thought "hey here's a chance for me to be an asshole! Sweet!" and didn't notice that I was talking about hurricane Rita and not Katrina. For someone who criticizes nearly everyone for not reading posts, I'd expect better. Rita and Katrina are completely different, as well as other factors that make my situation very different from New Orleans. When Rita hit it was a category 3 hurricane. Now a level 3 hurricane is nothing to be scoffed at, but Houston isn't right on the coast, we have a bit of a buffer zone inbetween us and the Gulf. It was quite improbable for there to be mass flooding where houses were completely underwater. So even if it were to hit dead on it wouldn't have been close to as destructive as Katrina. Katrina was one of the strongest hurricanes ever to hit America. When it hit it was a category 5 hurricane. There is a massive difference between the two, and if you honestly think the two are comparable then you are ignorant. So you say you've been to Houston. Lets think about some differences between Houston and New Orleans and how the situations would differ. Most of Houston is about 50 feet above sea level. Most of New Orleans is below sea level. For this reason it is much more unlikely for Houston to experience flooding close to the level of New Orleans. New Orleans was a massive flood waiting to happen. The levees breaking were one of the huge contributors to the flooding of New Orleans, Houston does not have levees that can potentially flood the city.

Good call, there are more than 2 roads out of the city, but many of these roads go through the lower parts of Houston at some point which are always the first to flood. When the city is as big as Houston with a population of 6 million, the roads no matter how numerous are going to be ridiculous. As for New Orleans I agree, the road system has been terrible for quite a while because the state was so poor.

And again, yes I am. If it was a mandatory evacuation and the hurricane was Katrina level, I would have been gone, but it wasn't.

TPFKA#1SaintsFan
05-11-2007, 10:22 PM
Ok, so now you're trying to backtrack to cover up the fact that you hastily read my post and thought "hey here's a chance for me to be an asshole! Sweet!" and didn't notice that I was talking about hurricane Rita and not Katrina. For someone who criticizes nearly everyone for not reading posts, I'd expect better. Rita and Katrina are completely different, as well as other factors that make my situation very different from New Orleans. When Rita hit it was a category 3 hurricane. Now a level 3 hurricane is nothing to be scoffed at, but Houston isn't right on the coast, we have a bit of a buffer zone inbetween us and the Gulf. It was quite improbable for there to be mass flooding where houses were completely underwater. So even if it were to hit dead on it wouldn't have been close to as destructive as Katrina. Katrina was one of the strongest hurricanes ever to hit America. When it hit it was a category 5 hurricane. There is a massive difference between the two, and if you honestly think the two are comparable then you are ignorant. So you say you've been to Houston. Lets think about some differences between Houston and New Orleans and how the situations would differ. Most of Houston is about 50 feet above sea level. Most of New Orleans is below sea level. For this reason it is much more unlikely for Houston to experience flooding close to the level of New Orleans. New Orleans was a massive flood waiting to happen. The levees breaking were one of the huge contributors to the flooding of New Orleans, Houston does not have levees that can potentially flood the city.

Good call, there are more than 2 roads out of the city, but many of these roads go through the lower parts of Houston at some point which are always the first to flood. When the city is as big as Houston with a population of 6 million, the roads no matter how numerous are going to be ridiculous. As for New Orleans I agree, the road system has been terrible for quite a while because the state was so poor.

And again, yes I am. If it was a mandatory evacuation and the hurricane was Katrina level, I would have been gone, but it wasn't.

Actually, when Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, it had weakened to a category 3 hurricane, so yeah a category 3 can cause a lot of devastation. It would be much more accurate to look at what happened to Biloxi, though, when looking at the damage caused by the storm itself. New Orleans was such a huge disaster due to a poor flood protection system in a city that's basically a huge bowl surrounded by water. If NOLA was above sea level, the crisis would not have been near as extreme as it was. And obviously, without getting too political, having someone competent to step in immediately in the aftermath to weaken the crisis that became would have only been a plus.

awfullyquiet
05-14-2007, 03:01 PM
Um considering we have tornadoes swirling around our area pretty much all summer. And yes, these things have gotten up to F-4's and F-5's before.

those things are scary.
shits, man. going all hiding in the basement... having a beer or two. waiting for the all clear sign. it's like air raids.

Zim3031
05-14-2007, 05:09 PM
The boycott will absolutely not work. It's plans are simply not grounded in reality.

The demand for oil is not being diminished by a bunch of self-righteous people not pumping gas on one day, the demand is simply being deferred. Oil consumption as a whole is not being lowered, you think that gas stations can't hold out for a day? Give me a break. They have reserves. It's laughable if you think you can"hold out" longer than you can.

The only thing this boycott is good for is giving its participants some silly sense of self-satisfaction that they are "part of the solution" and thinking that they should be rewarded for having such "moral courage" or speaking "truth to power" or some type of nonsense. Every summer people whine about this and Congress sends some probes to see if they are "doing anything" and the issue goes on and on.

You want cheaper gas prices? Lower consumption. Stop trying to think of some quick fix to everything when they need to think in terms of the long run.

cunningham06
05-14-2007, 08:11 PM
i'm sure you know that, as hurricanes near land, they tend to increase in strength before dying once over land. so it's not improbable (let alone impossible) for a cat-3 to intensify as it nears land. oddly, that's exactly what happened with katrina (which was, iirc, a category 3 mid-gulf and didn't intensify until it was much closer to land). so while it DIDN'T happen with rita (i haven't ever so much as implied that it did), believing that it wasn't possible was stupid. *shrug* i'm done arguing this. i think you're pathetic, you think you're fully justified. there's nothing here to agree on.



how many is many?



which was NOT what you originally said or implied.

No, Katrina grew stronger as it crossed the gulf at one point becoming a category 5, but once it got closer and was about to hit New Orleans, it weakened to a category 3.

Well obviously Rita didn't turn out like Katrina, I think that's pretty obvious. But you were trying to compare Rita and Katrina earlier in this conversation even though the situations were completely different for the two.

I'm sorry NJX but I don't feel like counting the flood prone roads in Houston. Every time there is heavy raining there are always video feeds on the news of roads overflowing and people who were in their cars who drowned.

Evacuation is a ***** during a hurricane. I live in Houston, and when Rita was coming there was a recommended evacuation for my neighborhood and traffic was ridiculous. It took some people over 7 hours just to get to nearby cities. I preferred to take my chances.

I never implied anything, all I said is evacuation sucks in a hurricane. I clearly state that it was a recommended evacuation. I never condoned refusing evacuation in a mandatory evacuation case, I didn't mention it. I just commented on what happened in Houston, and how in many cases it could have been more dangerous to evacuate then stay home, because of the chance of getting stuck in traffic once the hurricane came.

This has been one of the most poorly constructed arguments I've seen in a while. Do you have a list of responses that you copy and paste for every argument? Honestly where did the "that is not what you said or implied" come from? My original post was simple, and I did not state what I would have done in case of a mandatory evacuation, because as I clearly stated it was recommended.

cunningham06
05-14-2007, 08:41 PM
when it's been done before, was there 100% buy in? but yeah, i'd just bank on the fact that no one else will do it so that makes it ok for me to not do anything whatsoever that's even vaguely proactive. i mean, you might as well go buy a hummer and just rev the engine all day. what's the point, nothing is going to fix anything because someone's tried everything once. TERRIBLE reasoning that makes very little logical sense. but hey, i'm sure absolutely no one would try taking public transportation and figure out how bloody easy it is and start driving less afterwards. but no, that's a positive result, which as you see it, isn't a possible outcome. nothing can possibly change, right? gosh. what a convincing argument.

although, realistically, the organizers should've been a bit smarter and done this on the final day of the quarter, as that *would* throw off the numbers in a way that was more substantial and tangible to the oil companies. although according to cunningham, we should just all burn some more gas, because we've tried everything else and it didn't work.

No there wasn't 100% buy in then and there won't be tomorrow. What exactly is proactive about buying gas on May 16th but not on May 15th? People are still wasting just as much gas, this is just a half-baked scheme that has no grounding in simple economics. Your hummer point is completely irrelevant. Please reread my posts since you seem to have had trouble doing that in this thread. I have never said that I plan on wasting more gas than usual on May 15, just that people who get gas on the 15th aren't terrible people.

Ok way to try to broaden the subject to make it ambiguous and inarguable. We are talking about a specific event here so try to stay focused if you can. Nothing is going to fix anything because everything has been done before? Not getting gas on a particular day has been done before and been completely ineffective, and there is nothing to suggest that tomorrow will be any different. What's different this time for THIS EVENT don't try to make this topic any more vague. What's changed since last time that this was tried? The cause isn't don't drive on May 15th, it's don't buy gas on May 15th. If you would take the time to read what I've said you would realize that I have already posted how not driving on a particular day would be a good way to make a change. If people start using public transportation because of this good for them, but that isn't the premise of this event.

I'm sorry but changing the day you pump gas but not the demand for gas is a stupid way to try to make a change. If the cause was don't drive on May 15th, I would be all for it, that is a much more sensible way to make a change. Or start using bio-diesel fuel, that's a good cause and makes a lot more sense than this.

The last line of this post completely discredits what you're trying to say. While you misinterpreted what was written earlier, at least you kept it somewhat civilized. Please find where I said we should burn MORE gas on May 15th. Yet again you attempt to make our discussion more vague. Other things have been tried and had success, not pumping gas on a particular day is not one of them. Honestly you are pathetic, "cunningham thinks that this cause is a stupid idea and won't work, he must think preserving gasoline is a bad idea and want to burn gasoline just to be wasteful!" If I just start making up things about you that will just lengthen an argument that we honestly don't need to be having. NJX hates Christmas and beats children! Who cares what he has to say because I made something up about him based on nothing! Assuming you have half a brain you should be able to understand why this cause won't have the desired effect, but you honestly look like an immature bull-headed fool right now. Since you are incapable of admitting you are wrong I'm glad that this event is close so this argument will be over soon.

steelersfan43
05-15-2007, 08:50 AM
Yay for high gas prices!
Except people wont try any other way of transportation unless it gets to $20 a gallon.. :/

cunningham06
05-15-2007, 05:10 PM
*shrug* so take some bloody initiative and do something else. don't buy gas for a week or a month and take rail or busses. gosh, just think what might happen if a few people, rather than just not buying gas, actually combined that with public transportation instead of throwing up their arms, whining that nothing would work, and buying gas anyways. but you're right, i can't imagien people doing anything but exactly what they're told to do by some greenpeace like organization. i know i get my jollies from doing whatever PETA thinks i should do.

Congratulations, you finally found the point. As I have said numerous times already there are better ways to protest high gas prices. We're talking about group movements here, people individually using public transportation is great but not the subject at hand. Like the last sentence you wrote here says people are just joining this cause because they think it sounds nice even though plausibly it's not an effective way to make a difference. I despise when people don't use their heads and just follow the crowd in an illogical direction.

i did NOT make it broad and inarguable. the entire second half of your argument consisted of (exactly) "How do I know it won't do anything? Because it has been done before. Do you honestly think that this is the first time that someone has planned an event such as this? No it has been done before, and there is no reason that things will change this time." your argument centers entirely on the fact that because something has been done once and failed, it can't ever possibly work. that's a stupid argument. if we're talking about not getting gas on a single day that's a stupid argument and if we're talking about anything else that's a stupid argument. again, that's akin to saying "people have tried public transit and limiting consumption before and it didn't work, so it will never work." or maybe "people have tried curing AIDS before and it didn't work, so there's no possibility of there ever being a cure." and yes, before you bloody say something else stupid, we're talking about gas. notice that this is a comparison and that i'm pointing out a logical fallacy in a moronic argument.

again, how do you have any bloody idea that the only result will be that people won't pump gas? how do you know there won't be any side effects? because the organizers were short sighted and because people are sheep? or do you think that maybe, just maybe, someone might take the opportunity to ride a bus or light rail for the first time? no, couldn't be. people have tried that before and it didn't work.

Ok, lets go over some basic science. If you are doing an experiment and you get a result, and then repeat the experiment without changing the variables then the result should be similar if not the same. Your comparison to the public trying mass transit is completely off base because as I have said many times this isn't limiting consumption, just the day of consumption. People not using gas is always beneficial, but that is a completely different subject than the don't pump gas on May 15 movement. Your AIDS comparison is close to being applicable but it needs to be modified to fit what we are talking about here. Say you are a scientist trying to cure AIDS, you try a certain formula or whatever and it doesn't work. You try the formula again and it still doesn't work. Maybe, it's time to try something else. Trying to fix a problem by doing the same thing over and over again is not effective. There have been other more effective ways of combatting gas prices. Could you please stop making stuff up about how I am against doing anything to fix the problem when that is not the case at all. It's extremely immature and I'm embarassed for you that you can't configure an argument without overstating what the other person has said in an attempt to make them look like a radical.

Could there be side effects? Sure. Will this movement have the effect on gas prices that the people who thought up this event had in mind expected? In my opinion no.

ny10804
05-15-2007, 05:59 PM
Before starting an argument with njx, just remember that he is incapable of being wrong. I'm being serious.

steelersfan43
05-15-2007, 06:25 PM
Before starting an argument with njx, just remember that he is incapable of being wrong. I'm being serious.

Yea, and anywho, is this cunningham chap that guy who thinks global warming is a hoax?

Why is njx even talking to this joke?

steelersfan43
05-15-2007, 06:29 PM
which is a great point. realistically, it would be socially better if gas prices did jump to the neighborhood of $4-$6 per gallon, as that would, pretty conclusively, end the sale of garbage vehicles like hummers, navigators and whatever gargantuan crap ford is peddling these days. it would force several of the US producers either out of business or make them re-think their strategy for building cars. and it would push people out of their cars and onto public transportation in greater numbers, as middle america would begin to find it difficult to justify both living in the suburbs (where public transit is often more difficult to use) as well as driving to work every day.

Even if it gets to $5, I doubt a significant amount of people will actually do anything, just protest about the prices. I dont think they realize there are ways to go somewhere there other then driving.

Zim3031
05-15-2007, 06:32 PM
Even if it gets to $5, I doubt a significant amount of people will actually do anything, just protest about the prices. I dont think they realize there are ways to go somewhere there other then driving.
People want to do what is cheapest and most convenient. When eventually there is a time that oil prices are so high that it is simply no longer the cheap source of energy it once was, new forms of energy will pop up over night and start being used. And these oil companies will be the first ones there, you can guarantee that.

steelersfan43
05-15-2007, 06:39 PM
People want to do what is cheapest and most convenient. When eventually there is a time that oil prices are so high that it is simply no longer the cheap source of energy it once was, new forms of energy will pop up over night and start being used. And these oil companies will be the first ones there, you can guarantee that.

If everyone just rode bikes everywhere, it would solve/help so many problems...

1global warming- way less co2
2screw over oil companys- assholes
3screw over mean oil producers such as iran
4 mess up china, there prices would go crazy
5traffic/smog-less gas burning
6obesity-yea, more exercize

Zim3031
05-15-2007, 06:41 PM
If everyone just rode bikes everywhere, it would solve/help so many problems...

1global warming- way less co2
2screw over oil companys- assholes
3screw over mean oil producers such as iran
4 mess up china, there prices would go crazy
5traffic/smog-less gas burning
6obesity-yea, more exercize
You're joking right?

steelersfan43
05-15-2007, 06:44 PM
You're joking right?
nope..........................

awfullyquiet
05-15-2007, 06:47 PM
...as middle america would begin to find it difficult to justify both living in the suburbs (where public transit is often more difficult to use) as well as driving to work every day.

which is exactly what i did. between a bike, and the public transportation system of the great chity of chicago, i can reach anything i could humanly need without driving. which is the way it should be.
don't get me wrong, i love a nice drive every so often, and wouldn't hesitate to put some money into my gas tank if it was 4-6 dollars a gallon. but, i also get 27 mpg.

now what would really solve problems is if most cars were diesel. america is the only first world country that doesn't actually refine its diesel. sure, we're probably six cetane boosts away from having diesel revolutionize the road. if the government put higher standards on the diesel fuel production, semi's would get better mileage, larger trucks would get better mileage, SUV's would get better mileage.

Zim3031
05-15-2007, 06:48 PM
nope..........................
Being such a proactive environmentalist such as yourself, isn't it wasteful to be spending time on the computer right now? Aren't you wasting energy that you don't truly need? Who needs light bulbs also? Candle light uses far less energy and causes virtually no pollution whatsoever. Aren't you being selfish and not thinking of all the poor animals in the arctic?

steelersfan43
05-15-2007, 06:51 PM
Being such a proactive environmentalist such as yourself, isn't it wasteful to be spending time on the computer right now? Aren't you wasting energy that you don't truly need? Who needs light bulbs also? Candle light uses far less energy and causes virtually no pollution whatsoever. Aren't you being selfish and not thinking of all the poor animals in the arctic?

Well none of that is really up to me, being as i am still in highschool, and if i wasnt on the computer, someone else would be right now...

sweetness34
05-15-2007, 06:54 PM
those things are scary.
shits, man. going all hiding in the basement... having a beer or two. waiting for the all clear sign. it's like air raids.

Eh, the storms usually pass over my city. We're in a hole and for some reason the storms just pass right over us. I mean we still get raid and high winds, but during like snow season, whatever they predict our area will get, we get much less than that while the surrounding areas get more. I have seen a twister touch down though in Bloomington. I was at an air show like 10 years ago and all the sudden the clouds got black, and then started turning green. I was on a fork lift with a couple camera guys taping the show (my dad was one of them) and we saw this twister come out of the clouds and go to the ground. One of the freakiest things I've ever seen. Although once it touched the ground it disappeared back up into the clouds.

Zim3031
05-15-2007, 06:56 PM
Well none of that is really up to me, being as i am still in highschool, and if i wasnt on the computer, someone else would be right now...
So, you want people to stop driving cars because its wasteful, but admittedly you don't want to cutback on using energy? And make up some silly excuse that because I don't want to conserve, that you won't? What kind of ridiculous proactive attitude is that? You want change to happen, but you won't change it yourself.

steelersfan43
05-15-2007, 06:58 PM
So, you want people to stop driving cars because its wasteful, but admittedly you don't want to cutback on using energy? And make up some silly excuse that because I don't want to conserve, that you won't? What kind of ridiculous proactive attitude is that? You want change to happen, but you won't change it yourself.

Obviously you dont understand/dont read, ill explain it to you.
I live with my parents/sisters... Theres no way to get them to do any more to conserve then is already being done... The computer would be on anyway, with my sister using it, all im doing is wasting her time.

cunningham06
05-15-2007, 06:59 PM
Yea, and anywho, is this cunningham chap that guy who thinks global warming is a hoax?

Why is njx even talking to this joke?

WTF are you? I don't believe I've ever even talked to you. I hope you know that I wasn't serious when I said I thought Global Warming is a hoax. I just don't buy all the BS that Al Gore tries to spoon feed the public. I will speak no more on that topic since that will get this thread locked.

Zim3031
05-15-2007, 07:04 PM
Obviously you cant read, ill explain it to you.
I live with my parents/sisters... Theres no way to get them to do any more to conserve then is already being done... The computer would be on anyway, with my sister using it, all im doing is wasting her time.
So? Just because they don't want to practice that lifestyle, doesn't mean you can't make some type of attempt to do it. You're just trying to rationalize doing something that, according to what you believe, is helping pollute our environment and destroy our ecosystems and lifeforms.

Of course, you, admittedly just being in high school probably don't have a very deep understanding of how cars are kind of... important.

awfullyquiet
05-15-2007, 07:05 PM
Eh, the storms usually pass over my city. We're in a hole and for some reason the storms just pass right over us. I mean we still get raid and high winds, but during like snow season, whatever they predict our area will get, we get much less than that while the surrounding areas get more. I have seen a twister touch down though in Bloomington. I was at an air show like 10 years ago and all the sudden the clouds got black, and then started turning green. I was on a fork lift with a couple camera guys taping the show (my dad was one of them) and we saw this twister come out of the clouds and go to the ground. One of the freakiest things I've ever seen. Although once it touched the ground it disappeared back up into the clouds.

yeah, i used to live in the way west suburbs of chicago, see: farmland. and the storms would come off of 100 miles of said farmland, and bang, as soon as you started hitting civilzation, tornados kept popping up.

there was one night like nine years ago, i was standing outside of this store i was working at, and looked outside, and it was that crazy green colour, and lightning lit up the sky, and showed something like nine funnel clouds. none ever touched down, but if they did. i don't even know.

steelersfan43
05-15-2007, 07:10 PM
So? Just because they don't want to practice that lifestyle, doesn't mean you can't make some type of attempt to do it. You're just trying to rationalize doing something that, according to what you believe, is helping pollute our environment and destroy our ecosystems and lifeforms.

Of course, you, admittedly just being in high school probably don't have a very deep understanding of how cars are kind of... important.


Once agian you have failed to read my post... I have gotten them to buy florencent bulbs, organic food, all that.

This computer, right here, would be in no more use daily if i was on or off of it. My sister does homework on it everyday, and she has to get off at 10, she has 30 minutes of homework, and spends the whole day on it when she gets on, i am delaying when she gets on, this computer would be on the same amount if I didnt use it.

Obviously you, being an idiot and all, don't understand that you have legs, and there are these big things called buses!

Zim3031
05-15-2007, 07:28 PM
Once agian you have failed to read my post... I have gotten them to buy florencent bulbs, organic food, all that.

This computer, right here, would be in no more use daily if i was on or off of it. My sister does homework on it everyday, and she has to get off at 10, she has 30 minutes of homework, and spends the whole day on it when she gets on, i am delaying when she gets on, this computer would be on the same amount if I didn't use it.Then shouldn't you be trying to do everything you can to stop them from "wasting energy" while on the computer? Are you saying that when you live on your own that you will do all of these things? You won't ever go on the computer unless it's truly necessary? Will you walk or wait for a bug every time you need to go somewhere? Do you not want to put the AC on when it's hot outside? Do you ever watch television?

Should I be forced to sacrifice my personal freedoms and my standard of living because you think that I'm destroying the world? A world that uses no energy and causes no pollution is illogical based on what we know at this point. Our standard of living would be decreased so dramatically that we would basically be cavemen. Should we do this because you believe that these actions are setting forth events that will inevitably destroy us? That whole thought process seems somewhat ridiculous to me.

Plus fluorescent bulbs suck. They never light well enough, are very ugly, and are annoying to replace.

Obviously you, being an idiot and all, don't understand that you have legs, and there are these big things called buses!
I'm not aware of a convenient bus service that will get me from Jersey to New York. Not everyone lives a short walk away from everything they could possibly ever need in their life. I can't walk five miles to the grocery store every time I need to get something. We should stop using planes too! Swimming across the ocean would be great for getting into shape! They cause far more pollution than any car ever could.

Zim3031
05-15-2007, 07:46 PM
poor excuse.

http://www.njtransit.com/sf_bu_schedules.shtml

there are several hundred busses on regular schedules just in new jersey (the PA website won't pull up, but i have a sneaking suspicion that based on the number of people who work in new york and live in NJ, there are plenty of busses). there are several ferries that run back and forth across the river. you actually have a working rail line that connects you to things (unlike denver).
Wait? So i should drive all the way out to a bus station purely to use that bus? Is that honestly convenient and reliable enough to get me there on a consistent basis? So now I have to leave earlier from home to get there on time? I use the train all the time when I'm not worried about getting there on time. It avoids traffic. But these transit systems aren't nearly as convenient or reliable as you seem to let on. There's constantly delays and strict train schedules (they're not the safest places in the world either). I am willing to pay the higher costs of driving for its benefits and that is a choice that I am free to make.

cunningham06
05-15-2007, 07:49 PM
we're likely much closer to bio-fuel than to any kind of diesel at this point. the numbers that i've seen (they may have been quoted someplace in this thread, but i can't find them) suggest that bio-fuel, if prices continue to rise at rates similar to the last 12 months, will be a very real option in slightly under 3 years. if anyone cares, i can try to dig that info back up, but i don't have it with me right now. the biggest stranglehold is currently NOT oil or the fuel companies, but the corn industry, which has been supporting major tariffs against the import of sugarcane. sugarcane apparently gives exponentially more energy than fuel mad from corn and is much easier to convert. if sugar producers were able to import at prices somewhat near corn in the US, there would likely be a MUCH larger market for bio fuel as it would be MUCH cheaper to both produce and thus, to buy.

Bio-fuel is already being made and can be purchased although it is hard to come by in some places. You can buy the equipment necessary to make your own bio-fuel over the internet.

cunningham06
05-15-2007, 07:51 PM
you're trying to compare human behaviour, which is not always directly cause and effect and is almost never repeatable under similar circumstances to scientific behaviour, during which chemical X will always bond with chemical Y because of whatever properties either chemical possesses. that's just not a good comparison. i would submit that there is virtually no test for human behaviour where the actions will always be identical given the same test, whereas in, say, the molecular world, you can have circumstances where the effect will be identical.

regardless, i can agree to disagree at this point. i think that the potential for good makes it worth doing and worth supporting. *shrug*

We'll see in a few days.

steelersfan43
05-15-2007, 08:01 PM
Then shouldn't you be trying to do everything you can to stop them from "wasting energy" while on the computer? Are you saying that when you live on your own that you will do all of these things? You won't ever go on the computer unless it's truly necessary? Will you walk or wait for a bug every time you need to go somewhere? Do you not want to put the AC on when it's hot outside? Do you ever watch television?

Should I be forced to sacrifice my personal freedoms and my standard of living because you think that I'm destroying the world? A world that uses no energy and causes no pollution is illogical based on what we know at this point. Our standard of living would be decreased so dramatically that we would basically be cavemen. Should we do this because you believe that these actions are setting forth events that will inevitably destroy us? That whole thought process seems somewhat ridiculous to me.

Plus fluorescent bulbs suck. They never light well enough, are very ugly, and are annoying to replace.


I'm not aware of a convenient bus service that will get me from Jersey to New York. Not everyone lives a short walk away from everything they could possibly ever need in their life. I can't walk five miles to the grocery store every time I need to get something. We should stop using planes too! Swimming across the ocean would be great for getting into shape! They cause far more pollution than any car ever could.

Ill will come back later to argue this more, but Im going out to play basketball. Anywho, if it was an option, Id love for everyone to go back to being cave people.

steelersfan43
05-15-2007, 09:13 PM
Then shouldn't you be trying to do everything you can to stop them from "wasting energy" while on the computer? Are you saying that when you live on your own that you will do all of these things? You won't ever go on the computer unless it's truly necessary? Will you walk or wait for a bug every time you need to go somewhere? Do you not want to put the AC on when it's hot outside? Do you ever watch television?

Should I be forced to sacrifice my personal freedoms and my standard of living because you think that I'm destroying the world? A world that uses no energy and causes no pollution is illogical based on what we know at this point. Our standard of living would be decreased so dramatically that we would basically be cavemen. Should we do this because you believe that these actions are setting forth events that will inevitably destroy us? That whole thought process seems somewhat ridiculous to me.

Plus fluorescent bulbs suck. They never light well enough, are very ugly, and are annoying to replace.


I'm not aware of a convenient bus service that will get me from Jersey to New York. Not everyone lives a short walk away from everything they could possibly ever need in their life. I can't walk five miles to the grocery store every time I need to get something. We should stop using planes too! Swimming across the ocean would be great for getting into shape! They cause far more pollution than any car ever could.

>. I dont even have ac btw..

Yes you should sacrifice your 'personal freedoms' and you are destroying the world. You need to wake up and realize that everyone cant live in a wonderful suburban town, have four children, have a nice family car go on sunday drives, and take a nice two week vaccation to some tropical island every year all their life. That is not environmentaly sustainable, no matter how much you want it to be. Remember that thing you learned in third grade science called carrying capacity? well guess what, it applies to humans too...

You do reallize that you are arguing against saving the planet from being destroyed yes? Seems pretty illogical... and for what? lazyness?

cunningham06
05-15-2007, 10:22 PM
>. I dont even have ac btw..

Yes you should sacrifice your 'personal freedoms' and you are destroying the world. You need to wake up and realize that everyone cant live in a wonderful suburban town, have four children, have a nice family car go on sunday drives, and take a nice two week vaccation to some tropical island every year all their life. That is not environmentaly sustainable, no matter how much you want it to be. Remember that thing you learned in third grade science called carrying capacity? well guess what, it applies to humans too...

You do reallize that you are arguing against saving the planet from being destroyed yes? Seems pretty illogical... and for what? lazyness?

Keep in mind that no matter what we do the climate will keep on changing. Sea Levels have been rising since the last Ice Age and it's not necessarily all on humans.

steelersfan43
05-15-2007, 11:15 PM
Keep in mind that no matter what we do the climate will keep on changing. Sea Levels have been rising since the last Ice Age and it's not necessarily all on humans.

... one would think that, since ice melted...

Even leave out global warming, overpopulation is the main problem, all others stem from it.

cunningham06
05-15-2007, 11:21 PM
that's a bad correlation. of course sea levels rose since the last ice age: the ice melted. what you fail to mention is that, based on scientific predictors that've worked flawlessly for something around 400,000 years to predict ice growth and temperature, the earth is doing something that isn't predicted. since we were discussing scientific phenomenon earlier in this thread, i'll go back to that point: based on 400,000 years of evidence, the earth has gone through climate change based on precession, axial tilt and eccentricity of its orbit (as predicted by milankovitch). for the first time, it's out of whack based on that data and has been, oddly, in the last 50-100 years. i don't care what you think of al gore, the science is there and its good. there is absolutely no debate among climatologists with any real standing in the community that the earth is warming at an unprecedented (considering circumstances) rate. the only clear data that corresponds is human activity.

does this mean that the earth is going to heck, and the doomsday scenarios are correct? not necessarily (i tend to think the predictions to the far edge on either side of the spectrum are garbage). does it mean that we should carefully consider what the economic impact might be of the ice caps melting and the temperate zones of earth becoming deserts versus the economic impact of burning less coal (for example)? absolutely.

There are several prominent figures who disagree with mainstream scientists beliefs on global warming. Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT is one of the most respected meteorologists in the USA and he disagrees. There was a global warming debate on CNN back in November I believe in which Lindzen was debating Bill Nye on global warming. Direct Lindzen quote "there is no credible evidence that the rising rate of the sea level has accelerated," which is contradictory to what Gore was saying. The New York Times even called him out since he strayed from the facts when he said that the sea level would rise 20 feet in the next 100 years.

Alarmism is a huge issue that goes hand in hand with global warming. Who hasn't seen the projected future where the Empire State Building is underwater? While Global Warming is a concern, it is not the catastrophe that some make it out to be.

steelersfan43
05-15-2007, 11:34 PM
There are several prominent figures who disagree with mainstream scientists beliefs on global warming. Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT is one of the most respected meteorologists in the USA and he disagrees. There was a global warming debate on CNN back in November I believe in which Lindzen was debating Bill Nye on global warming. Direct Lindzen quote "there is no credible evidence that the rising rate of the sea level has accelerated," which is contradictory to what Gore was saying. The New York Times even called him out since he strayed from the facts when he said that the sea level would rise 20 feet in the next 100 years.

Alarmism is a huge issue that goes hand in hand with global warming. Who hasn't seen the projected future where the Empire State Building is underwater? While Global Warming is a concern, it is not the catastrophe that some make it out to be.

This is why we are all going to die. :(

Sportsfan486
05-15-2007, 11:57 PM
This is why we are all going to die. :(

I thought more or less the same thing. LOL

Zim3031
05-16-2007, 04:04 PM
and moreso because it should be relatively easy to play it safe(r) without economic impact.
Really? Would you mind elaborating on this one? I'm not calling you out or anything, but it seems to me like many greenies have some very extremist plans to "control global warming"

Zim3031
05-16-2007, 04:32 PM
Yes you should sacrifice your 'personal freedoms' and you are destroying the world.
We don't know that, though. That's the catch. We have absolutely no clue about that. This is all hype and that's it, this "certainty" that people pretend we have. Anyone who says we are causing global warming is a liar because we simply do not know even close to enough to make that statement with any sort of confidence. Many scientists believe we are contributing to it, but have absolutely no clue whatsoever as to the extent of that contribution and whether or not it is material or insignificant or whether or not this warming is cyclical. If it is changing (and these trends are not just cyclical - another thing we don't know - we should learn to adapt to those changes just like, oh, I don't know, every other living being on the planet has had to before us. But the hysterical people are focusing only on 'prevention' even though we have no idea what we are supposedly preventing and no idea if reducing CO2 emissions will "prevent" anything. So, if we focus on trying to prevent something that is not preventable and we realize we should have been focusing instead on adaptation, our children's children will actually be WORSE off. That's the problem. We have recorded history going back what, 7000 years or so? Humans have been around what, a couple hundred thousand years? The earth is billions of years old. Extrapolating a 50-year "trend" far into the future makes no sense whatsoever.

Oh, and just a note about some of these fuel efficient cars. One way to make a car more fuel efficient is to make it lighter and less sturdy. Some research has indicated that even the meager increase in CAFE standards a few years ago has added thousands more car accident deaths per year than before. Another way is to change the fuel source, which currently makes these cars more expensive. Also, if you make cars more fuel-efficient you essentially lower the cost of driving, so the assumption that people will drive the same amounts as they do now in less fuel--efficient cars (and subsequently that total pollution will go down) is not something that is known and can be argued to perhaps be incorrect. Everything involves a trade-off....everything.

Anyway, I'm done talking about this. Feel free to respond if you'd like.

VoteLynnSwan
05-16-2007, 04:37 PM
evolution occurs over thousands of years... not over two hundred. An extreme increase in the amount of Carbon dioxide in the air has occured since the industrial revolution... there is no denying that correlation. An increase in global temperature would have dire effects on most plant life, and obviously in turn it would have dire effects on all animal life on the planet.

cunningham06
05-16-2007, 08:58 PM
actually, lindzen does NOT disagree that warming is occuring. he disagrees that it is entirely an anthropogenic (human) effect. to quote:

"(1) global mean temperature is about 0.6 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen about 30 percent over the past two centuries; and, (3) carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (one of many, the most important being water vapour and clouds) whose increase is likely to warm the earth." - http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Lindzen/canadian_reactions_to_sir_david_king.html

further, it's utterly moronic to believe that the sea level won't rise if the ice caps melt. if the ice on, say, greenland melts off entirely, the sea level must, as a result, rise. it'd be like pouring water into a bathtub and expecting nothing to change. regardless, the quote you have proves absolutely nothing and realistically, doesn't even say anything. hasn't accelerated when? today? in the last year? in the last decade? it has certainly accelerated since the last ice age. it's probably remained relatively constant since 200kya.



*shrug* like i said, i believe the extreme reactions on either side are ridiculous. alarmism is just as bad as sticking one's head in the sand, and moreso because it should be relatively easy to play it safe(r) without economic impact.

I didn't say Lindzen believes that Global Warming isn't happening, he just has a different view on the matter from most scientists. Yes the sea level rises as the ice caps melt but we're talking about a couple of feet of elevation in the sea level over the next 100 years. When Lindzen said that he was comparing the rising rate now to what it has been in the last century and it hasn't accelerated in the last 50-100 years. In 1940 the temperature in the Arctic was the same, if not warmer, then it is now. As for Greenland, there is some information that the ice sheet on it is growing.

Honestly, at the moment natural disasters and climate anomalies are all just being blamed on global warming because we don't know for sure what is causing some of these things, and that's an easy thing to blame it on.

cunningham06
05-16-2007, 09:01 PM
evolution occurs over thousands of years... not over two hundred. An extreme increase in the amount of Carbon dioxide in the air has occured since the industrial revolution... there is no denying that correlation. An increase in global temperature would have dire effects on most plant life, and obviously in turn it would have dire effects on all animal life on the planet.

Ugh, I hate it when people say this because common sense is sadly not being used very much anymore. Global warming is making a warmer wetter world, which is BETTER for plant life. There are consequences for our world becoming warmer, but plant life won't suffer because of it. Plant life will improve in a warmer wetter world because those are good conditions for growth.

cunningham06
05-16-2007, 09:07 PM
right... but it's more expensive (for the most part) and not widely available at all. nor are cars equipped to run on it. thus the point having been that it would be MORE widely available before any enhanced diesel.

Actually if you make it yourself it is much cheaper. You have to spring for the equipment initially, but if you have a reliable way of getting the vegetable oil you need to make enough fuel, you will end up saving money over time. Cars are equipped to run on it because it still has a base of oil, just a different type. If you've ever seen the show TRUCKS! they did a segment on bio fuel. Whatever the hick with the mullet who hosts the show's name is, made the fuel and put it directly into his truck and drove and it worked out fine, in fact he got better gas mileage.

awfullyquiet
05-16-2007, 09:19 PM
we're likely much closer to bio-fuel than to any kind of diesel at this point. the numbers that i've seen (they may have been quoted someplace in this thread, but i can't find them) suggest that bio-fuel, if prices continue to rise at rates similar to the last 12 months, will be a very real option in slightly under 3 years. if anyone cares, i can try to dig that info back up, but i don't have it with me right now. the biggest stranglehold is currently NOT oil or the fuel companies, but the corn industry, which has been supporting major tariffs against the import of sugarcane. sugarcane apparently gives exponentially more energy than fuel mad from corn and is much easier to convert. if sugar producers were able to import at prices somewhat near corn in the US, there would likely be a MUCH larger market for bio fuel as it would be MUCH cheaper to both produce and thus, to buy.

THIS i do know.
Seeing as my family are corn farmers in southern IL, the real issue for why E85 production is slow is because of the lack of production capability. It's the fact that the corn refining is slow. But. My personal opinion. A few years ago, i got 30k in a severance package. I almost was going to use that to start my ultimate plan. Like you, sugarcane has MUCH more potential energy, it can be grown in the south (where manufacturing jobs have been destabilized for years... and it becomes the ultimate fuel pipeline. refineries in texas. sugarcane growing in alabama, missisippi, louisiana, arkansas, georgia, e85 plants in between... sugar production can really be accomidated here in the US. Maybe not the entire production of gasoline (i wrote up a business plan, submitted it to a few VC's and Banks...), but well over 60% of gasoline can be converted to E85 in 15 years. That will reduce our foreign oil consumption drastically, reduce prices, and E85 runs much cleaner. It's a win win situation for america if they move to do that... Create more jobs. Save the farmers. Save the environment. Reduce foreign oil consumption. Bio-Diesel is also a huge alternative too that i think gets oft overlooked in the hippiedom. I know a bunch of people who run their tour busses on chinese food grease. They get decent mileage and it's cheap as hell, because most of the time, these places have to pay to get rid of it, and if someone comes buy and picks it up for them and uses it. it's a win win situation for everyone.

I like win win situations.

cunningham06
05-16-2007, 09:20 PM
*shrug* you quoted lindzen after bolding a statement that i made saying that no climatologist with any real standing believes the earth is not warming at an unprecedented rate. that still stands. the earth is warmer right now than every indicator that has worked for nearly 400ky predicts. significantly warmer.

and i'm calling complete BS with a capital S on your implication that the ice sheet in greenland is growing. it isn't. it isn't growing in nunavut, canada. it isn't growing in antarctica. greenland's has "grown" at high elevations, due mostly to drainage issue caused by lower elevation meltoff that more than makes up for the "gain" at higher elevations (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/314/5803/1286). said report references the report from the norwegian scientists you likely found on google. regardless, let's even assume they were moderately correct. ice growth is NOT a single control event. ocean salinity and insolation both have large effects on the formation of ice, regardless of temperature. further, there's debate by the scientist's own institution in Norway (Bjerkens) as to whether the data measured from the higher elevation areas (where the gains occured) is even correct.



sort of like el nino. again, i'm not yelling that global warming is coming to get you (a la south park), but it's extremely naive, imo, to believe that the earth isn't doing something very strange and completely inexplicable from significant hard evidence.

The Greenland bit was from an article Lindzen wrote. He claims there is evidence, but didn't specify what kind. I've never seen Lindzen pull out complete BS so I'm somewhat trusting of what he has to say. Oddly enough my dad is actually pretty good friends with Lindzen.

That's a great Southpark, one of my favorite episodes.

cunningham06
05-16-2007, 09:26 PM
not necessarily true. extended solar radiation at the equator would likely create a desert formation, as plant life tends to be very adapted to a certain climate. if you shift that climat north, the plant life will follow, leaving a void and pushing out arctic flora (in the end).

most of this is immaterial, anyways. if the ice caps melted, the influx of fresh water into the ocean and the various streams would have other more environmentally catastrophic effects (likely triggering the next ice age, for example). as bad as some of the science was and as bad as the movie was, day after tomorrow did a fairly accurate job of describing how vital the north atlantic current is to moderating temperature north of the equator. in fact, it's widely believed that the little ice age was caused by a massive (absolutely massive) chunk of ice breaking off of greenland or canada and melting in the current.

On the equator that is assuming that there isn't enough moisture to keep the land fertile enough for plant life. There will be fewer hot and arid places after Global Warming has gone on for a while. It's possible for the equator to turn out that way, but there are plenty of places further north that are hostile to plant life that would suddenly become farmable land.