Official "What are you thinking about right now?" (Political Version)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LQ1Z34

Why even bother with the onion ********?

---

Someone seems awfully upset that their candidate is so lampoonable.

Oh I thought that article was real and reported it to the NY Times who reported it and now it's actual news, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

Someone seems awfully upset that their candidate is so lampoonable.

---

Umm. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm writing in Gary Johnson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LQ1Z34

Umm. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm writing in Gary Johnson.

---

He should be on the ballot in all 50 states. Last I heard he was anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LQ1Z34

Umm. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm writing in Gary Johnson.

---

Should join in on the Romney bashing, cuz it's fun.

I think Gary Johnson would get more votes on a GOP ticket than Romney will get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LQ1Z34

Umm. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm writing in Gary Johnson.

---

I'm voting for Jill Stein. Kudos to third party voters.

President Obama claimed yesterday that Washington can't be changed from the INSIDE. really??

I believe President Reagan has already proved that "Theory of Consensus" to be false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete4256

President Obama claimed yesterday that Washington can't be changed from the INSIDE. really??

I believe President Reagan has already proved that "Theory of Consensus" to be false.

---

assuming he did say this, i'm curious then how a person who initially ran a campaign promising change actually intends to bring it? is he admitting now that he err'd in thinking he could bring "change".

anyway, i dont' disagree with this current obama's statement. it's the prior one that was full of sh!t.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

I'm thinking about writing in Palin this time ... "Drill, Baby, Drill" .. sounds so much SMARTER today with gasoline at $3.99.

The woman was 4 years ahead of her time .. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete4256

sounds so much SMART

---

we expect nothing less from you

I just trolling around tonight .... lol .. with a few facts thrown in for good measure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete4256

I just trolling around tonight .... lol .. with a few facts thrown in for good measure.

---

You have illustrated quite well that you have absolutely no clue how gas prices work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobie

You have illustrated quite well that you have absolutely no clue how gas prices work.

---

or grammar

Yep I know how they work .. but you don't it seems.

When the economy is progressing and every one has a job and work the demands is a lot great than what it is right now. So, in 2007- 2008 price were where they are now. Odd that with a depression going on world wide right now that prices would be at where they were when the economy was working under bush just fine.

In walks shut 'em down Obama and the oil rigs leave and production is stopped and jobs go bye,bye. IE no freaking demand and now we have no production. In fact we have so little oil drilling now that even the weak demand is causing the price to top $4.00 a gallon. No one can build a refinery .. thank you EPA.

Just image what you're gonna be paying when Romney gets the economy on track next year ... hmmm. But you're gonna hear the MEDIA nut jobs complaining about $5 a gallon gas ... lol

of course if Obama wins the election there be no problem, because you won't have a job to drive to every day anyway in 4 more years. But hay, I'll be retired in any event no matter who wins (that solves the problem on this end).

Get out there and enjoy one of the last nice weekends of 2012,
Pete4256

High Gas Prices:

A. War causing unrest in middle east. Thanks Murica World Police
B. Speculation in the Markets by commodity traders

Who has no effect on Gas Prices:

POTUS

Gas should be closer to $10 a gallon. I hope it gets there, because that will throw a wrench in our fatass carbon-sponsored lifestyle.

I like how Pete (your stereotypical mindless drone) blames Obama, not enough drilling, and the EPA...when in fact, as Obama spoke of, drilling is higher in the US now than it ever has been...and we're producing over 50% of the oil we use, for the first time ever. Still, mindless Pete goes on about it being the president's fault...when in honesty neither Pete's utter misconception, or the actual high production percentages, can be attributed to our commander in chief.

Gas prices are something completely artificial...driven by demand, speculation, and able to jump when a warlord in africa rattles his saber. In this country, the actual price is way, way lower than it should be due to subsidies provided to Big Oil by that big old nasty government...but wow, try to take those away and watch Pete cry all day about $6 and $8 a gallon gas prices. Tough nuts, sugar, that's what it should be...but your bought-and-sold buddies in the psuedo-Tea Party will make sure those subsidies never go away, so our late-60's era fuel efficiency stays right where it is while we pollute our atmosphere, cause global warming, and wonder why our kids are so effed up with allergies, asthma, and every other mutation and deformity that rapidly warping an atmosphere in two centuries can bring about.

Pete, read a book. And not something Ann Coulter wrote, ffs.

You know who doesn't have a huge problem with $10 gas? Smart people that bought efficient vehicles, like my 55mpg Prius. Or, also, people with useful, current skills that can telecommute. Strangely enough, I fit both camps. So you can gas up your Mitsubishi Monstrosity that gets 11mpg for $150, and then *****, while people that used their brains whiz by in hybrids and electric cars.

The world is not responsible for your stupidy - but, unfortunately, we are often stuck with the ramifications of it (like two Bush terms).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

Gas should be closer to $10 a gallon. I hope it gets there, because that will throw a wrench in our fatass carbon-sponsored lifestyle.

I like how Pete (your stereotypical mindless drone) blames Obama, not enough drilling, and the EPA...when in fact, as Obama spoke of, drilling is higher in the US now than it ever has been...and we're producing over 50% of the oil we use, for the first time ever. Still, mindless Pete goes on about it being the president's fault...when in honesty neither Pete's utter misconception, or the actual high production percentages, can be attributed to our commander in chief.

Gas prices are something completely artificial...driven by demand, speculation, and able to jump when a warlord in africa rattles his saber. In this country, the actual price is way, way lower than it should be due to subsidies provided to Big Oil by that big old nasty government...but wow, try to take those away and watch Pete cry all day about $6 and $8 a gallon gas prices. Tough nuts, sugar, that's what it should be...but your bought-and-sold buddies in the psuedo-Tea Party will make sure those subsidies never go away, so our late-60's era fuel efficiency stays right where it is while we pollute our atmosphere, cause global warming, and wonder why our kids are so effed up with allergies, asthma, and every other mutation and deformity that rapidly warping an atmosphere in two centuries can bring about.

Pete, read a book. And not something Ann Coulter wrote, ffs.

You know who doesn't have a huge problem with $10 gas? Smart people that bought efficient vehicles, like my 55mpg Prius. Or, also, people with useful, current skills that can telecommute. Strangely enough, I fit both camps. So you can gas up your Mitsubishi Monstrosity that gets 11mpg for $150, and then *****, while people that used their brains whiz by in hybrids and electric cars.

The world is not responsible for your stupidy - but, unfortunately, we are often stuck with the ramifications of it (like two Bush terms).

---

I don't think you would want that. Unless you can telecommute straight to a farm and dairy to buy food. Those prices would kill the trucking industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete4256

Yep I know how they work .. but you don't it seems.

When the economy is progressing and every one has a job and work the demands is a lot great than what it is right now. So, in 2007- 2008 price were where they are now. Odd that with a depression going on world wide right now that prices would be at where they were when the economy was working under bush just fine.

In walks shut 'em down Obama and the oil rigs leave and production is stopped and jobs go bye,bye. IE no freaking demand and now we have no production. In fact we have so little oil drilling now that even the weak demand is causing the price to top $4.00 a gallon. No one can build a refinery .. thank you EPA.

Just image what you're gonna be paying when Romney gets the economy on track next year ... hmmm. But you're gonna hear the MEDIA nut jobs complaining about $5 a gallon gas ... lol

of course if Obama wins the election there be no problem, because you won't have a job to drive to every day anyway in 4 more years. But hay, I'll be retired in any event no matter who wins (that solves the problem on this end).

Get out there and enjoy one of the last nice weekends of 2012,
Pete4256

---

I really don't think you could be more wrong re: gas prices if you tried. If you think weak demand is causing prices to go UP, then you, simply put, have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

I don't think you would want that. Unless you can telecommute straight to a farm and dairy to buy food. Those prices would kill the trucking industry.

---

I understand, and I think it would be a bitter pill, but we've had what, 40 years to improve our efficiency in transportation...and have done nada. Obama finally passed something this year, 2012...from many scientist's POV it's too little too late.

I don't mind a struggle now if it means we finally put better infrastructure in place and make our lifestyle something that can last for 300 years, instead of just 100 before we break everything. It's going to be a catastrophe one way or another - a little one now, or a big, likely unstoppable one later.

Because of rage's very realistic fears, there's a very strong public policy interest in making sure consumers are using less gas as soon as possible, so that there's enough to go around for trucking and other commercial use.

Pete seems unfamiliar with the concept of inelastic goods.

How I thought gas prices worked:

Attachment 38784

I don't think 10 dollar a gallon gas should happen until public transportation is expanded. Last thing we need is people quitting jobs because it costs them more to drive to work than the paycheck is worth. Also the prices of the hybrids on the used market haven't come down enough for the poorer to be able to afford one yet. The time is soon, but definitely not yet.

just curious what the impact to our electric grid will be once everyone starts plugging their cars in.

http://www.earthtechling.com/2010/03...on-power-grid/

Quote:

---

The study concludes, among other things, that one million PEVs may be on U.S. roadways within a decade, with concentrations of the vehicles in the major metropolitan areas of the West Coast and the Northeast. In order to surmount the technical hurdles associated with charging that may plug-in electrics, it recommends staggered charging (i.e., designated charging times for different areas, presumably by zip code) as a way to reduce the potential negative impact on electric load, as well as new tools for power companies in managing PEV use.

---

Presently there are some 243 MILLION registered vehicles in the US. This study is talking about the effects one million cars over the next decade may have and concludes that staggered charge times amongst other things may be necessary. Drop in the bucket anyone? So in CAL you can only charge between the hours of 11pm and 6 am. In ARZ you can charge between 6 am and 10 am. I don't know...the thought of it seems comical to me and we're talking only one million cars.

So after we raise gas prices through the roof to promote electric cars we can then raise electric prices through the roof to promote err...the next poorly thought through "enhancement". Yeah!!

Not saying we shouldn't reduce oil consumption in the US.....but people need to stop talking like it could happen overnight with pricey hybrids. Technology and more importantly infrastructure isn't close yet to us being able to do so in significant number. And while I hear so many say that they realize it can't happen overnight blah blah, they seem to forget that when they discuss it. I suppose by being extreme about it you possible advance the discussion....but like this thread talking about 10 dollar gasoline, it's advanced in the wrong area. Dramatically raising gas prices right now puts the cart before the horse.

And continuing to subsidize oil companies so that gas stays artificially low at $3.58/gallon, to continue our unsustainable lifestyle while we head towards full irreversible ice caps melting, is....a wiser policy choice?? Let alone more drilling, pipelines, and environmental disasters while we feed our need.

The Obama and auto maker agreement to raise average MPG over the next 8 years is a great start...that is technology, and advancements, that have been adopted by other modern cultures that we have willfully ignored for decades. That's a great start.

Enhancing public transportation is another huge need - major cities like NY, Boston, and Chicago have nice systems. Charlotte has a nice new light rail, but it just goes in one direction...conservatives inside our city government fight tooth and nail to not expand it, despite the one we have being a major boon to our growth and economy. Florida and some other states rejected grants to pay for improved public transportation - I think some of that was anti-Obama feeling, of course.

I don't expect immediate changes, but 30-40 years of inaction, and purposeful, staunch ignorance, like with the killing of the electric car in the late 90s, really sticks in my craw.

I expect slow improvements to wind power and solar power over the next 10-20 years that make electric sustainable...I expect a few more nuclear plants, as we realize that coal can't work forever...and I expect gains from the population seeing higher bills and conserving more. I expect our entire structure will change - instead of cities full of wasteful neon signs and bright lights on for every store at 3am, we'll have a smarter system. Instead of power plants that just shovel coal in at all times, we'll have a smarter infrastructure that can work with demand and not burn excess carbon. I expect better appliances that use less power, and the phase-out of particularly inefficient units.

Ever drive by one of those huge stores full of lights at 3am? I do, and wonder, why the heck is there all that wasted power? Its cheaper in the wee hours, but holy heck...this is our culture. That store should be powering security devices and thats it. But look around our working world - everyone leaves lights on, PCs running...its like our whole infrastructure is based on power being unlimited. It's how we treated water, before we polluted it into an unusable state...but eventually we smartened up, created oversight, and cleaned up some of it that we could. I have hope that our race will be the same with power, its use, and the resources that create it - becoming knowledgeable and responsible, instead of using it thoughtlessly.

Overall, I expect the country to actually mature and take responsibility for its resource use and power needs, instead of just flicking a switch, paying a bill (complaining) and not thinking about it beyond that. Maybe I expect too much, maybe all of that is dreams and I'll never see it during my lifetime...but if so, and if the world continues to look to us as a leader and country to emulate, then our race is pretty much doomed.

Quote:

---

And continuing to subsidize oil companies so that gas stays artificially low at $3.58/gallon, to continue our unsustainable lifestyle while we head towards full irreversible ice caps melting, is....a wiser policy choice?? Let alone more drilling, pipelines, and environmental disasters while we feed our need.

---

Appreciate your viewpoint here, agree with most of it but I do think the ice cap melting is fear mongering. I think it kind of silly to think the positive changes we can make over the next 10-50 years would have any real effect on the global climate. It's not a reason not to do it though. Sure I buy that we can and have had a negative effect. I just am not certain it's anywhere near what some make of it. Earth warmed many times w/o industrialization...but lets leave global warming aside from this because it murks the water beyond an oil stain. We need oil. We are ultra dependent on it as a society so yes I am for more drilling, pipelines, etc. I believe it can and must be done concurrently with vast improvements to alternative energy technology and infrastructure.

Quote:

---

The Obama and auto maker agreement to raise average MPG over the next 8 years is a great start...that is technology, and advancements, that have been adopted by other modern cultures that we have willfully ignored for decades. That's a great start.

---

This is something I don't understand. I seem to recall every president coming to agreements to raise average MPG. They all one up the predecessor. Does it ever happen? I recall one of the big changes over the past decade I believe was that the listed MPG actually had to be accurate lol. Here's Bush's energy policy being heralded by greenies which called for improvements starting in 2011 and a 35MPG average by 2020, supposedly the biggest increasae in 32 years: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,1388102.story. Obama now raising that to 54 by 2025.

Quote:

---

Enhancing public transportation is another huge need - major cities like NY, Boston, and Chicago have nice systems. Charlotte has a nice new light rail, but it just goes in one direction...conservatives inside our city government fight tooth and nail to not expand it, despite the one we have being a major boon to our growth and economy. Florida and some other states rejected grants to pay for improved public transportation - I think some of that was anti-Obama feeling, of course.

---

Conservatives are stupid in this area. http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulli...d_public_trans. Public transportation / infrastructure development is an area that all should be in agreement with.

Quote:

---

I expect slow improvements to wind power and solar power over the next 10-20 years that make electric sustainable

---

I think thats a stretch for wind and solar alone in the next 20 years to power our grid (if that's what you're saying). From everything I've read where technology presently is these are a drop in the bucket. They often don't pay for themselves which is why without govt. subsidies very few homes / businesses are installing them. I do expect improvement in those fields and for them to assist the grid but I think ultimately our change away from oil for the large part of our energy consumption will come from individual power generation of various sources. We will move away from power generated at one location and distributed along lines to the masses and instead there will be many options such as fuel cells, biomass, solar, etc. for individuals to create and use their own power. I'd like to think that over the next 100 years each home/business will become self-sufficient in their energy needs. You'll buy a generation source just as you buy an air conditioner or a furnace. No more distribution lines. No more, or at least much less, large power plants and generating facilities. From what i've read they've had much more success generating electricity with alternative energy sources on smaller scales such as for a home than on a larger scale for a national grid. The biggest problem is the politics of it all. Developing something that the homeowner can purchase for their own energy creation will put MANY out of a job and more importantly big business that's in bed with Washington won't allow it and Washington itself needs the profit center as every electric company i'm familiar with is publicly owned I believe.

Quote:

---

Ever drive by one of those huge stores full of lights at 3am? I do, and wonder, why the heck is there all that wasted power? Its cheaper in the wee hours, but holy heck...this is our culture.

---

Agreed...much of that however stems from litigious fears. I think these places weigh the cost of electricity (which is minimal individual but sure it adds up collectively) vs. the risk of lawsuit should something occur on their property after hours. I don't think someone just forgets to hit the switch and shut off the parking lot lights. In the end, if we were creating our own electricity I think we'd all be much smarter with it.

Quote:

---

Overall, I expect the country to actually mature and take responsibility for its resource use and power needs, instead of just flicking a switch, paying a bill (complaining) and not thinking about it beyond that. Maybe I expect too much, maybe all of that is dreams and I'll never see it during my lifetime...but if so, and if the world continues to look to us as a leader and country to emulate, then our race is pretty much doomed.

---

Agreed. Unfortunately I feel Govt. is just as in bed with the suppression of advancement in energy improvements as is big business. Electricity is one of the most significant ways our Govt. controls us. Seriously, is there anyone that thinks it wouldn't be more efficient to create and store your own power needs on an individual basis? On a much smaller scale I struggle to think we can't find a way to do it. I think govt. is far more fearful of that however than big business is.

I agree with most of that. I'd love it if more homes had solar, and contributed to the grid instead of taking from it. But our solar needs to catch up with germany and even China, and it hasn't because oil/coal are so cheap. That's the big problem - its cheap, and the temptation is there to just go balls-deep and mine every mountain and suck oil out of Alaska, while the alternatives get no attention, no development, no staff and no improvements...then in 40 years we're out of complex carbon, the earth is 110 degrees and we don't know sh@t about alternatives. Extreme, sure, but possible.

The ice cap stuff isn't fear mongering...I've linked to pictures of the poles from space from the 70s, and then the 2000s, to highlight the massive difference. Antarctic researchers are now seeing new types of warm-weather penguins and predators that haven't been in antarctica ever, due to the warming climate. Scientists even finally put a number on 'how much', percentagewise, global warming is due to humans and not natural earth cyclical changes - and that number was over 70% somewhere. It's a different issue, but these are easy to see and read facts that go ignored. And we can ignore them when insulated to daily life here in the US, where a few degrees don't matter. Try living on an island or coast that is losing ground every year.

That's why guys like me oppose more pipelines and drilling...environmental impact, continuing cheap oil, and using up what we may need in the future. What if there's an actual end-of-civilization catastrophe and we need gobs of oil...and we used it all up in 100 years to get california strawberries to florida every day? Even worse, we obliterate our icecaps at both poles while fighting about if, in fact, we can do anything to stop it. It's like mother earth is choking at the dinner table, and one guy wants to go help her and the other guy is stopping him saying 'wait, you don't know that she's choking, or that you can stop it, so let's just keep eating! Why are you in the way of my butter?!?'

I don't think solar and wind can work alone to support us in 20 years - heck no - but we can certainly treat them seriously instead of marginalizing them (1%, etc) and bypassing them in favor of oil/coal all the time. A lot of conservatives spend their time b*tching about wind turbines making the coastline ugly, killing 10 seagulls a year, or generating sound waves that no one can hear. Like those environmental effects matter hugely, yet polluting our atmosphere and raising the earth's temperature - eh, no biggy. The hypocrisy is often dumbfounding.

Being forced to create and manage power on our own would be really interesting, but with our culture going more and more into efficient city style living, it's not realistic - millions of folks in apartment complexes can't all have solar panels or wind turbines in their only window. I'd love it if people had to manage it themselves...but this is a culture that can't balance its checkbook or learn enough to know when politicians are lying or incorrect.

I think our country should focus on the obvious wins - public transportation, ownership of our energy use, and coming to terms with climate change as nearly all other advanced countries have. There's plenty of middle ground to work with...unfortunately this is one of the worst times in our history in terms of politicians not working together. It's tough to be sensible and not freak out, especially when so much of the country is more concerned about an imagined socialist state, or government takeover of healthcare, or even a spiritual apocalypse, then they are about an actual scientific conclusion about our activity ruining the planet. That's probably the most frustrating part of living in this country right now, for me.

It looks like Romney is making a run for Palin's record of stupidity. Either this guy really is that stupid, or he really doesn't want to be president anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

I understand, and I think it would be a bitter pill, but we've had what, 40 years to improve our efficiency in transportation...and have done nada. Obama finally passed something this year, 2012...from many scientist's POV it's too little too late.

I don't mind a struggle now if it means we finally put better infrastructure in place and make our lifestyle something that can last for 300 years, instead of just 100 before we break everything. It's going to be a catastrophe one way or another - a little one now, or a big, likely unstoppable one later.

---

It would be more than a struggle if the trucking industry went away, it would be an absolute disaster. I don't think you realize just the importance of Trucks. No trucks, heck even if the few are dumb enough to stay in the profession (which even now is still in high demand for drivers), there would be no way supply would meet any kind of demand on any products. Construction would grind to a halt, infrastructure, which is already pretty awful would get even worse. No, new buildings, no new homes, no trucks to haul the equipment you want to go green with. 10 dollars a gallon would just be the death of the economy with the exception of a few cities I think.

Every single thing you pretty much deal with, what you stand on, has been hauled by a truck.

and that is less of a struggle than dealing with worldwide climate disaster?

Just because something is more easy to comprehend, and more 'immediate' in terms of a hit to your lifestyle, does not make it more serious or difficult to overcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

and that is less of a struggle than dealing with worldwide climate disaster?

Just because something is more easy to comprehend, and more 'immediate' in terms of a hit to your lifestyle, does not make it more serious or difficult to overcome.

---

just because something makes sense doesn't mean there isn't unanticipated consequences that are worst. Sure, "save the trees" is a nice pitch...but are the actions taken really going to reverse any climate change? If the answer is yes, than lets do it and pull up our britches. If the answer is, "i don't know", than you can't justify destroying the economy to do it. Very often it seems we save a tree to kill a forrest.

Anyhow, trucking wouldn't stop...the price would just be passed onto the consumers and in addition to gas prices everything else would increase in price. the economy would crash as unemployment would rise to unimaginable numbers. trucking would reduce as demand for trucks would reduce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

and that is less of a struggle than dealing with worldwide climate disaster?

Just because something is more easy to comprehend, and more 'immediate' in terms of a hit to your lifestyle, does not make it more serious or difficult to overcome.

---

Economic disaster and climate disaster are both disasters. Doing what you're saying doesn't necessarily avoid a climate disaster because other countries would be harming the climate still. I doubt in our lifetime unless a climate disaster would unfold that the world would unify with how you feel.

It's that kind of "shoot first, ask questions on the future impact later" mentality that got us in an environment crisis to begin with, I dont understand why we should use it to try and get out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Economic disaster and climate disaster are both disasters. Doing what you're saying doesn't necessarily avoid a climate disaster because other countries would be harming the climate still. I doubt in our lifetime unless a climate disaster would unfold that the world would unify with how you feel.

---

If those other countries jumped off a bridge, would you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by etothep

If those other countries jumped off a bridge, would you?

---

apparently there are many whom would say yes;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ragecage

Economic disaster and climate disaster are both disasters. Doing what you're saying doesn't necessarily avoid a climate disaster because other countries would be harming the climate still. I doubt in our lifetime unless a climate disaster would unfold that the world would unify with how you feel.

---

This is what I don't get. It is unfolding. Today. Right now.

Is that not clear to other people? After hearing reports and science and pictures of melting icecaps, sinking islands, and all kinds of species screwed up by our behavior...this is still a question?

This is just one of the most baffling things about living in this country, in this world to me. republican presidential nominees can universally say that global warming doesn't exist, or is junk science. And people in everyday life, despite a scientific consensus, constant reports of our environmental impact, and a rapid ascent to a tipping point that our race likely can't come back from, just sort of shrug it off as not that serious, not happening, or just not relevant to their life.

What is it about climate change that causes this behavior in humans? Is it that hard to understand? Is it just not readily apparent in your commute and job, so therefore it's non existent? Is it just too scary to think about, so it's safer to downplay it or pretend is isn't happening? I'd honestly like to know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alloutwar

This is what I don't get. It is unfolding. Today. Right now.

Is that not clear to other people? After hearing reports and science and pictures of melting icecaps, sinking islands, and all kinds of species screwed up by our behavior...this is still a question?

This is just one of the most baffling things about living in this country, in this world to me. republican presidential nominees can universally say that global warming doesn't exist, or is junk science. And people in everyday life, despite a scientific consensus, constant reports of our environmental impact, and a rapid ascent to a tipping point that our race likely can't come back from, just sort of shrug it off as not that serious, not happening, or just not relevant to their life.

What is it about climate change that causes this behavior in humans? Is it that hard to understand? Is it just not readily apparent in your commute and job, so therefore it's non existent? Is it just too scary to think about, so it's safer to downplay it or pretend is isn't happening? I'd honestly like to know.

---

it's naive of us to think we fully understand our climate and human impact related to it.

it's naive of us to think that crashing the economy, our way of life, putting people in tent cities and killing each other for food to reduce oil consumption will somehow magically fix the climatic situation. (that is what an abrupt increase to $10+ per gallon would do)

it's naive of us to think humans have had no impact and thus we shouldn't do anything.


climate change IS hard to understand. for alot of reasons. First off there's the whole fact that the earth has gone through many significant climate shifts prior to humans populating the earth. Secondly scientists themselves discuss the poor data instrumentation still in use today, let alone the very suspect data we have from as little as 20 years ago. There were so many crude methods and poor quality control for temperature data, water depth and temp. in prior years that's its not an easy sell for me.

the concensus as I know it is that climate change is occurring and humans are contributing...but to what extent? i haven't seen any quantification and have seen much disagreement about that in the scientific community. there's also the noise of conflicting data that causes trouble understanding. For example, I've read that I think it was Indiana or Illinois University first reported in 07 that the Arctic Ice was melting to a 30 year low. The same university also reported, in the same year, that Antarctica ice was growing to a record high. There's also many that question whether global warming will really be that bad for humans. Depends upon how significant it is, but humans adapt. It's hard to quantify. Then there's Wolfgang Knorrs findings which both sides of the argument are trying to mold to fit their position; http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html, http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/20...mfortable.html

Quote:

---

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.

---

How can you not read stuff like that and question the accuracy of many of the findings that have been used to scare us into action?

The short of it is that we need less hysteria, less fear mongering, less computer models flawed by suspect data and more research and more facts.

here's an article with quotes from many recognized experts in their field stating that antarctica is in fact cooling and ice growth at least in 07 was at record highs despite numerous misleading media reports that Antarctica was melting away.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...1-a92b4ebbccbf

Since 08, there's alot of back and forth on the accuracy of Antarctic ice melting or growing. Scientists are constantly coming up with new computer models which are enhanced by new data put in. Garbage in, garbage out....if the models need to be changed so much one has to at minimum question their reliability.

And FWIW, i'm not saying that Antarctica cooling is proof that global warming isn't occurring. I'm saying that the media hoopla telling us for years that it'll be all gone by weeks end and later learning it has in fact grown leads to some of the skepticism and problems trying to sell the theory.

lol @ 'scare us into action'

The US collectively digs in its heels and does nothing. A few people that take this seriously and work at fixing it or finding solutions are labelled 'greenies' and things run around about Al Gore making it all up for profit, or every Green technology or advancement just being a 'scam'. Collectively, folks (like you above) will search all day for any potential ammunition to say it isn't settled, it isn't happening, we're only responsible for 10% or 50% or something...and yet the hugest, factual, before-your-eyes indicators are ignored or dismissed. Hottest summer in a century? wildfires everywhere, drought, shrinking islands, shrinking icecaps, warm-weather creatures in antarctica...and yet more credence is given to a tiny report with a snowballs' chance in hell of mattering one way or the other? It's incredible.

How much do we need to know in order to start taking it seriously and making changes? We don't know everything about the human body yet...so should we just ignore all science and medicine collected up until now? We don't know everything about fracking, or long-term impacts from oil drilling offshore, but I don't see you pulling the breaks there. Same will long term cell phone exposure on our ears. Unless of course, anything pro-environment is fear mongering?

It's complex. There is tons of science, some of it confusing and even contradictory. But to go back to the hoopla, its all fear mongering, they're trying to control us or profit from it, its all chicken little BS, etc...it's ridiculous. What is likely the largest and most serious threat to our entire race is ignored or downplayed because it's simply inconvenient. I think future generations will look back at a time when we were focusing on which political party said God more, and legislating against abortion, and bickering about free markets for healthcare, and realize that we missed the last opportunity to save ourselves.

But hey, we didn't know everything, kids. We should wait until around 2200 when we have a good body of data to draw from, then consider any incremental lifestyle changes, or taking 'science' seriously.

interesting food for thought:

Story showing what countries are doing to combat carbon emissions. Note that the US is a model for those wanting to avoid doing anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Naomi Oreskes

And so the argument I was trying to point out is that, as ordinary citizens, many of us feel, well, we don't know what to think. You know, we've heard a lot of conflicting things about climate change so - and I've heard many people say to me, I'm open-minded about it.

And so the argument I was trying to make was to say, well, in this case, being open-minded - although it might sound good at first and may sound good in principle - it actually doesn't make sense when you have now more than half a century of accumulated scientific data put together by thousands of different scientists all around the world, men and women, black and white, Republicans, Democrats, you know, all, you know, very diverse scientific community, over half a century of work. At this point, to say that you're still open-minded is to really be ignoring this huge body of scientific evidence that really points to a very, very strong conclusion.

.....

We said, well, if there's so much scientific evidence, why do so many of us have the impression of a raging scientific debate? And so we've spent five years researching this question. And, you know, it's funny for me because it's funny for me to even be having to have this conversation, because I first published on the scientific consensus on climate change back in 2003. So I've now been working on the consensus piece for almost a decade.

But for the last five years, Erik Conway and I have been working on this question why so many of us think there's a raging debate. And what we showed in the book is that there have been systematic efforts organized by people outside the scientific community to undermine the scientific data and to convince all of us that the jury - scientific jury was still out in order to delay government, business and community action on taking steps to prevent further manmade climate change.

---

Climate change and wildfires

Quote:

---

It's worsening. In the U.S. July was the hottest month ever recorded and this year is on track to be the nation's warmest. Climate scientists say it's a combination of natural drought and man-made global warming. Each decade since the 1970s has been nearly one-third of a degree warmer than the previous one.

Sea levels are rising while Arctic sea ice was at a record low in September. U.S. public health officials are partially blaming unusually hot and dry weather for an outbreak of the deadly West Nile virus that is on pace to be the worst ever. Scientists blame global warming for more frequent weather disasters, with the World Health Organization saying: "Climatic changes already are estimated to cause over 150,000 deaths annually." Others put the toll lower.

.....

A NASA study this year found the most extreme type of weather, which statistically should happen on less than 0.3 percent of the Earth at any given time, is now more common. Until recently, the most extreme year was in 1941 when extremes covered 2.7 percent of the globe. From 2006 to 2011 about 10 percent of the globe had that extreme weather, with a peak of 20 percent, the study said. That was before this year's record extremes started.

The issue of man-made global warming is "totally missing" from the campaign between Obama and Romney, says Jacoby. It should be talked about, he says, because "we're running a serious risk of passing a much-damaged planet to our descendants."

---

arctic snow study

Climate Change is now something so scary to much of us that it isn't even discussed by the left wing in politics. They have to appeal to everyone, and a lot of Americans just can't handle the thought of this thing, which has been factual science for decades, being true. Appealing to ignorance has become more important than being factually accurate, and that's appauling.