Replies are closed for this discussion.
I love your avatar. It makes me happy. You are also a cool dude and I appreciate our exchanges.
I appreciate most exchanges among this group, because people here make me think. You're also kind of making my point.
1) Is there a crisis?
2) Before we deny something desirable and useful of ourselves (cheap energy), how sure are we of premise #1?
The weather is sort of the ultimate chaotic system I think. Furthermore, who are we to say what it should be like? To what degree have we all agreed that there's a problem?
John Stossel is not the smartest man I've ever seen (no offense John). but I think he's an honest and sincere researcher and reporter. I bring him up because he points out that the one consistent factor in determining quantity and quality of human life is money.
Let's sum it up this way:
The poorer people are, the shorter they live. SO before we abandon the least expensive ways to power this lovely society of ours, SHOW ME THE BENEFIT of abandoning fossil fuel for costlier alternatives. Make a good case or STFU. Making energy expensive or unavailable decreases the quantity and quality of human life.
Did you include the effect of inflation or the cost of a gallon of gas in relationship of average wage in this statement?
Here's a different view:
The "real" price of gasoline: Gasoline cost 27 cents a gallon in 1949 compared to around $3.60 today.* How has the relative cost of buying gas changed over the last 63 years? Presented here are two tables computing the annual "real" cost using our seven indicators, one in 2012 dollars, and the other in 1949 dollars. While the two tables show the same trends, they do give a different perspective.
Using the 2012 table and the CPI and the GDP deflator, we see that gasoline was quite expensive in 1980 and 1981 and the cheapest in 1998 and 1999. Today, the real price using these two measures is higher than the period at the beginning of the 1980s.
By looking at the share of the Consumer Bundle and GDP per capita, the story is a bit different. In 1981, a gallon of gas took as much out of what the average consumer spent as $3.90 does in 2011. And as a share of GDP per capita, gas was even more expensive in those earlier days with it at over $5.02 in 1980 and more expensive in the earlier years. Both wage indexes show the prices then and now are similar.
The other table tells the story in a different way. Let us look at relative cost to a worker to fill up using 1949 dollars. That year the 27 cents it cost for a gallon of gas, took a certain share of the worker's wage. The interesting question is, has the cost as a share or percent of the worker's wage increased or decreased over time? The table shows that for the two wage rates and price of gasoline in other years, this cost has fallen. Since wages have increased faster than the price of gasoline, by 2012 an unskilled worker spends less than two-thirds as much, as a percent of wage, for a gallon of gasoline than the 1949 worker. For a production worker it is only half. The table shows that the $3.61 a worker paid in 2012 would be comparable to only 19 to 23 cents (in 1949 prices "share" of the wage.
When we use the GDP per capita, the cost has fallen faster. Looking at the table shows that a gallon of gasoline costs around 13 cents a gallon (in 1949 prices) if measured as a "share" of the GDP per capita. This is because in 1949, 27 cents was .015% of per capita GDP, while in 2012, $3.61 was .007%.
Finally, comparing its cost as a share of GDP, we see that in 1949 prices, it is about 6 cents. This means that a gallon gasoline was six times larger as a share of output in 1949 than it is today.
Click on: The "real" price of gasoline.
Surely, a wonderful person like Steve Forbes-- being a mouthpiece for the Oil Lobby...
Poison the well much? A little ad hom as well.
Is there any consensus on valid data sources for information on global man made climate change crisis?
Otherwise, I don't even see the point of research, let alone panic.
In other words, strong enough data to make the case for man made climate crisis does not exist.
So, just as I can't get excited about God (no good data), it's the same reason I can't get excited about man made climate crisis.
As for consensus, "Science," Richard Feynman once said, is "the belief in the ignorance of experts."
Science is based on facts and evidence, not consensus.
Science is based on facts and evidence, not consensus.
Ultimately, the facts and evidence seem to get hijacked by both sides. What's a man to do?
If you are requiring data that has gone uncontested, then in such a highly politicized topic, you won't find any. Every time good information is produced it is lambasted by someone with a vested interest in claiming it's wrong. That's how things go in this age of information and rapid response PR. It's not far different from how the gasoline companies found people to say leaded gas was safe or cigarette companies to say that their product doesn't cause cancer. Among the scientific community, the consensus is there and the data is accepted. Those who don't accept it have reproduced the data and gotten the same results. Case in point: Richard Muller. He was a "climate skeptic" funded by the Koch brothers, adamant climate change denialists, to come up with his own data to determine if the world was actually warming, because they suspected the data they had to be unreliable. Here's what he found:
Unlike previous efforts, the temperature data from various sources was not homogenised by hand – a key criticism by climate sceptics. Instead, the statistical analysis was "completely automated to reduce human bias". The Best team concluded that, despite their deeper analysis, their own findings closely matched the previous temperature reconstructions, "but with reduced uncertainty".
Last October, the Best team published results that showed the average global land temperature has risen by about 1C since the mid-1950s. But the team did not look for possible fingerprints to explain this warming. The latest data analysis reached much further back in time but, crucially, also searched for the most likely cause of the rise by plotting the upward temperature curve against suspected "forcings". It analysed the warming impact of solar activity – a popular theory among climate sceptics – but found that, over the past 250 years, the contribution of the sun has been "consistent with zero". Volcanic eruptions were found to have caused short dips in the temperature rise in the period 1750–1850, but "only weak analogues" in the 20th century.
"Much to my surprise, by far the best match came to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice," said Muller. "While this doesn't prove that global warming is caused by human greenhouse gases, it is currently the best explanation we have found, and sets the bar for alternative explanations."
Thanks for the informative post.
I'm not claiming anything except confusion. I don't know. I don't know what to make of man made climate change. I'm not convinced that any call to action has been established.
I get facts about opinions and opinions about facts.
I appreciate everyone's contribution to this thread by the way. Again, I only mean to illustrate my confusion and rather than feeling fearful, I am left disinterested in the notion of man made climate change crisis thingee.
I'm about to shout and I'm asking your pardon in advance.
WHY HAS NO ONE HERE TOLD ANDY IT'S OKAY IF HE DOESN'T BELIEVE?
C'mon, post your reasons for witnessing to him.
Check your data source on my age. I'm an adult. And at 5'11" I would not say that I am small. Although I only weigh about 160 lbs, less than most of my contemporaries.
I think Tom was urging others to recognize that the subject matter is controversial, and the fervor of some is, honestly, disturbing.
There's belief and then there's suspension of belief. Denying evolution and AGW requires the latter.