Click it up another couple degrees!

[Dubya]

Europeans allready pay more than triple what we do and yet they still buy their fuels because they need to. It's a shame you are such a closed minded individual.

You seem to be real good at posting lies and not very good at finding primary sources of information. That's odd for someone claiming to be a geologist who worked for the oil industry.

About.com: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/prices.html#Motor

About.com: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/prices.html#Diesel

Those are the weekly EIA reports for gasoline and diesel in various countries compared to the US. None of those European countries have gasoline or diesel prices more than 3 times what we pay. The price of the commodities is basically the same and it's the taxes that are different. You can get the price from the EIA excluding taxes by just using the EIA links for petroleum.

About.com: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/prices.html#Motor

Here is one for gasoline and notice the weekly commodity prices are about the same:

About.com: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/prices.html#Motor

Notice the weekly commodity prices of gasoline in the UK and France are actually cheaper than the US.

1. I know how to find primary sources of information and prove somebody is just making things up.

2. How did I know it was a lie?

a. I've researched all the energy sectors before.

b. Your lips moved.

Here is the home page for the EIA and even though it's a little harder to navigate than it once was, you can find energy reports on nearly anything in any country.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Of course, being a geologist, you would know that! Now, what were you saying about me being a revisionist?

How about that price at the pump or do you ignore that price for a reason? Although I must say, French prices have stayed constant where ours have gone up considerably, so at the moment French drivers are only paying 2.3 times what we pay per gallon of gas.

The Uk though is worse, the drivers there are paying 6 pounds 22 which equals out to around 10 bucks per gallon, so there they are indeed paying triple what we do.

So piss off liar.

Cost of Gasoline in France - Americans in France

Current price of gas in London England in U.S. dollars

I gave you the latest weekly prices with and without taxes and proved you wrong. You're the one who claimed the prices in Europe for gasoline and diesel are more than three times what they are in the United States. That makes you the liar and the lie has been proven with PRIMARY sources and not a Denialista's mouth.

Face it Dude, you're out of your league! I've spent years on Q&A sites, before political sites and know how to find information that can't be disputed. It doesn't take long to figure out anything you say is suspect, so you can either stick to the facts or do a whole lot of posturing to try to make your "shooting fish in a barrel" opinions look good!

Even a right-wingers isn't going to believe your lies, though I'm sure they appreciate your failed efforts for their cause.

 

[Dubya]

Didn't Ted Dansen tel us like, 10 years ago that the world was going to end, in like, ten years?

These goofs have never been right about anything.

Why don't you quote Ted Dansen and quote some opinions from the New Orlean Saints on their global warming views? Obviously, such views are more important to you than science.

Sure buddy sure. Remember this blast from the past? Then to make things more difficult they started telling us that if we didn't pay them their carbon taxes the world would end in 1000 years. That way no one could check their work, (how perfect a scam is that...put off the impending doom till those who could prosecute you are long dead and forgotten), or how about those interminable "tipping points" we all were warned about? Hmmmm???

"Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."




Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent

Scientists 'expect climate tipping point' by 2200 - Science - News - The Independent

'We have hours' to prevent climate disaster - thestar.com

BBC NEWS | UK | PM warns of climate 'catastrophe'

Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles - Green Living - Environment - The Independent

Five years to save world from climate change, says WWF - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

And this is just a few of the "tipping points"....allmost all of which we have now passed BTW, that's why they keep placing the "tipping Points" farther and farther into the future now...

So you tell me dubdub, how many failures do you give to someone before you figure out their science isn't up to snuff?

That's just more meaningless babble!

What's your position going to be in the near future when Greenland starts melting again?

 

[Oddball]

You mean like it melted when Scandinavians started colonizing it?

Guess that was all the fault of them CO2 belching Viking boats, huh?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Didn't Ted Dansen tel us like, 10 years ago that the world was going to end, in like, ten years?

These goofs have never been right about anything.

Why don't you quote Ted Dansen and quote some opinions from the New Orlean Saints on their global warming views? Obviously, such views are more important to you than science.

They'd be equally relevant as the shit you global warming moonbats are spouting there cupcake.

Take another bong-hit and go back to sleep.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You mean like it melted when Scandinavians started colonizing it?

Guess that was all the fault of them CO2 belching Viking boats, huh?

Obviously from all the mead....

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Didn't Ted Dansen tel us like, 10 years ago that the world was going to end, in like, ten years?

These goofs have never been right about anything.

Why don't you quote Ted Dansen and quote some opinions from the New Orlean Saints on their global warming views? Obviously, such views are more important to you than science.

Sorry, my bad, it was like 24 years ago...

In 1988, Ted Danson declared that we only have 10 years left. It's almost been twice as long since he made that ignorant comment. Al Gore said it a short time ago and most recently, Leonardo DiCaprio has said it.

Point being.. I'm 52.. I've been listening to this alarmist shit from the environazis since the 70's.

They're rarely correct about anything.

 

[Trakar]

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."

Dr. Viner's comments were not official projections, they were mere off-handed comments made to a reporter who asked him his opinions about the implications of recent studies indicating warmer winter temperatures. That said, they were ilconsidered and at best ill-advised, especially without qualification. If we continue along the current path it may well be that a century from now, many children who live in regions that current receive annual snowfall, may not see snow with any regularity.


Scientists 'expect climate tipping point' by 2200 - Science - News - The Independent

Please highlight what you find in this article that supports your statements or refutes the statements of others.

We have hours' to prevent climate disaster - thestar.com

"...Prince Charles has said we have only an estimated 100 months. Unless the world comes together and negotiates a meaningful agreement to rapidly reduce greenhouse gas emissions nine months from now – at the Copenhagen meeting of the United Nations climate conference in December – another 90 months won't help. We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it..."

I didn't know that prince Charles was a climate scientist, or that was even speaking in the name of science, it sounds to me like he is being a politician and trying to urge political action.

BBC NEWS | UK | PM warns of climate 'catastrophe'

I see a theme developing
"...The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned..."

Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles - Green Living - Environment - The Independent

I applaud Prince Charles enthusiasm, but are you actually claiming that these are climate science projections?

"...Delivering the annual Richard Dimbleby lecture, Charles said that without 'coherent financial incentives and disincentives' we have just 96 months to avert 'irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it'..."

Five years to save world from climate change, says WWF - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

While the World Wildlife Fund is an admirable ecological group, their subjective assessments are not based solely on the science but on the economics of cleaning up and mitigating the impacts they perceive. I think they are probably closer to being accurate than not, but I don't see any dates for the disaster, merely a date that will signal when the cumulative factors overwhelm any realistic chance to prevent anthropogenic sourced climate problems from beginning. Personally I think they are being way too optimistic, as the impacts have already began.

And this is just a few of the "tipping points"....allmost all of which we have now passed BTW, that's why they keep placing the "tipping Points" farther and farther into the future now...

None of these op-eds and media fluff discuss tipping points, and for the most part the "disasters" they promulgate exist in some nebulous future era, none have predicted immediate damage and most of the deadlines mentioned as when substantive political action needs to begin to address climate change issues, have not yet come to pass.

So you tell me dubdub, how many failures do you give to someone before you figure out their science isn't up to snuff?

I'm still waiting for you to present one clear climate science failure, but if "one-strike and your done" is you mantra, you should have left the field of play nearly 3 years ago.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's always "100" or "10" something...

Why 100 Years?

 

[Dubya]

Didn't Ted Dansen tel us like, 10 years ago that the world was going to end, in like, ten years?

These goofs have never been right about anything.

Why don't you quote Ted Dansen and quote some opinions from the New Orlean Saints on their global warming views? Obviously, such views are more important to you than science.

They'd be equally relevant as the shit you global warming moonbats are spouting there cupcake.

Take another bong-hit and go back to sleep.

Unfortunately, believers in AGW have a much better chance of being right than the people in New Orleans will have raising future generations, because the city isn't going to be there.

With all that arctic sea ice loss and loss of June snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, I expect those "every 150 year" Greenland melts to become a regular occurence, so your Denialista Days are already doomed without a major reversal of trends. You can't lose three times the area of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the Northern Hemisphere in June without causing significant global warming, not to mention all that arctic sea ice.

 

[RollingThunder]

You're not too good with economics are you. How much do europeans pay for gasoline and diesel?

I'm good at spotting bullsh*t and you peg the meter all the time.

But go ahead, I could use another good laugh, and explain to everyone just how the fossil fuel industries are going to make more money when their products become more expensive than the alternative energy sources because an appropriately high level of taxation has been put on all human sources of carbon emissions (not breathing, so don't wet yourself). Electric vehicles already cost several times less for the electricity to go somewhere than it would cost for the gas to go the same distance. If gasoline in the USA goes up to, let's say, current European price levels due to a carbon tax, how will that affect the demand for electric vehicles?. If the cost of coal and gas electrical generation becomes higher than the cost of wind and solar, what will the hard-headed managers of the grid do? Will the oil companies run ads like the American tobacco company did in the sixties and seventies, after the link between cancer and smoking came out, showing pictures of people with black eyes and bruises talking about how "I'd rather fight than switch!"? LOLOLOL.

Europeans allready pay more than triple what we do and yet they still buy their fuels because they need to. It's a shame you are such a closed minded individual.

"They still buy their fuels (at a high price) because they need to" but they only "need to" because there haven't been any viable alternatives. Now there are. Electric vehicles, compressed or liquid hydrogen fueled vehicles, fuel-cell powered vehicles, even possibly some compressed air powered vehicles, are all already in service or in development. Electric vehicles are already cheaper to operate than gasoline IC vehicles. Put some solar on your roof and never pay for fuel again. Much better batteries have already been developed and will be on the market within a few years. EV's will be able to travel three or four hundred miles on a charge and the trip will cost a fraction of the cost of using a gasoline fueled car.

So, walleyed, I have to ask you, so what if Europeans are paying more for gas now "because they need to"??? So what??? What does that have to do with your absurd claim that the fossil fuel industries will make more money if a hefty tax is placed on carbon emissions and the price of gas doubles because of the added tax. How are they going to make more money off of selling fossil fuels when everyone is switching to other, much cheaper sources of energy? Are you really retarded enough to still imagine that the fossil fuel industries will continue to have some kind of monopoly???

 

[RollingThunder]

You mean like it melted when Scandinavians started colonizing it?

Guess that was all the fault of them CO2 belching Viking boats, huh?

Oh, Screwball, you only embarrass yourself with these witless and very ignorant posts.

Greenland was not melting when the Vikings tried colonizing it. That's a stupid myth of your cult of AGW denial.

 

[RollingThunder]

Didn't Ted Dansen tel us like, 10 years ago that the world was going to end, in like, ten years?

These goofs have never been right about anything.

Why don't you quote Ted Dansen and quote some opinions from the New Orlean Saints on their global warming views? Obviously, such views are more important to you than science.

They'd be equally relevant as the shit you global warming moonbats are spouting there cupcake.

So....the opinions of random sports jocks is as relevant as the conclusions of the professional climate scientists who spend their lives studying the climate processes.....geez, dude......that's what all of the ignorant, anti-science retards say.

 

[Oddball]

You mean like it melted when Scandinavians started colonizing it?

Guess that was all the fault of them CO2 belching Viking boats, huh?

Oh, Screwball, you only embarrass yourself with these witless and very ignorant posts.

Greenland was not melting when the Vikings tried colonizing it. That's a stupid myth of your cult of AGW denial.

Mmmm...So Norwegian and Swedish historical accounts are all just made up, several centuries after the fact.

You're funnier than the birfers.

 

[Trakar]

You mean like it melted when Scandinavians started colonizing it?

Guess that was all the fault of them CO2 belching Viking boats, huh?

Oh, Screwball, you only embarrass yourself with these witless and very ignorant posts.

Greenland was not melting when the Vikings tried colonizing it. That's a stupid myth of your cult of AGW denial.

Mmmm...So Norwegian and Swedish historical accounts are all just made up, several centuries after the fact.

You're funnier than the birfers.

Except within the natural variations of "good years" and "bad years," the southern coastal valleys Greenland have always been habitable and even farmable. The problem for the vikings attempting to colonize greenland several hundred years ago, was 2-fold:

1. even in "good years" the northern european farming practices the vikings were familiar with were incapable of sustainably providing the types of crops they were attempting to cultivate at the levels they were trying to produce to sustain independent colonization.

2. "bad years" are much more the rule at that latitude and placement than "good years," and unfortuantely the vikings established their colonies near the end of a long set of good years and just as the conditions were shifting to a string of bad years forcing an abandonment of these colonies.

native americans lived in the vicinity prior to and subsequent to the Viking's departure. It wasn't so much that the climate changed before the vikings got there or later on, it is just that the vikings were unprepared for what the actual climate was and were trying to keep doing what they had always done in a region that had a very different climate than they were used to or prepared for instead of trying to adapt and change their habits to adjust to a new environment. There is actually a very good lesson and analogy to modern climate change in this historic event, but if you don't understand what actually happened, I doubt that you are going to learn from their failure.

 

[westwall]

"Alaska is going rogue on climate change.

Defiant as ever, the state that gave rise to Sarah Palin is bucking the mainstream yet again: While global temperatures surge hotter and the ice-cap crumbles, the nation's icebox is getting even icier.

That may not be news to Alaskans coping with another round of 50-below during the coldest winter in two decades, or to the mariners locked out of the Bering Sea this spring by record ice growth.

Then again, it might. The 49th state has long been labeled one of the fastest-warming spots on the planet. But that's so 20th Century.

In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Widespread warming

That's a "large value for a decade," the Alaska Climate Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks said in "The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska."

The cooling is widespread -- holding true for 19 of the 20 National Weather Service stations sprinkled from one corner of Alaska to the other, the paper notes. It's most significant in Western Alaska, where King Salmon on the Alaska Peninsula saw temperatures drop most sharply, a significant 4.5 degrees for the decade, the report says.



The new nippiness began with a vengeance in 2005, after more than a century that saw temperatures generally veer warmer in Alaska, the report says. With lots of ice to lose, the state had heated up about twice as fast as the rest of the planet, in line with rising global greenhouse gas emissions, note the Alaska Climate Center researchers, Gerd Wendler, L. Chen and Blake Moore. After a "sudden temperature increase" in Alaska starting in 1977, the warmest decade on record occurred in the 1980s, followed by another jump in the 1990s, they note. The third warmest decade was the 1920s, by the way."








While the globe warms and people swelter, Alaska is chilling | Alaska Dispatch

 

[Trakar]

While the globe warms and people swelter, Alaska is chilling | Alaska Dispatch

The research paper upon which this article is based does not reflect the impressions you seem determined to cast.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V006/111TOASCJ.pdf

The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska
"...As pointed out above, winter gave the strongest cooling, as at this time solar radiation is weak, and advection plays the major role. Surface observations confirmed the reanalyzed data set. Cold Bay, located at the western extreme of the Alaskan Peninsular (see Fig. 1), recorded an increase of atmospheric surface pressure during the study period and the N-S pressure gradient between Cold Bay and Nome decreased. In addition, the stations of the Bering Sea: St. Paul Island, Nome and Kotzebue - all reported a decreasing wind speed, a result to be expected with a weakening Aleutian Low. All of the above observations cause a smaller amount of relatively warm air from the Northern Pacific being advected into the Bering Sea and Alaska; hence the observed cooling [13]. However, Barrow, north of the Brooks Range, is not substantially affected by the decrease in advection, and here the general warming observed for the Arctic Ocean is dominant.


In summary, the long term observed warming of Alaska of about twice the global value, as expected by the increasing CO2 and other trace gases, is sometimes temporarily modified or even reversed by natural decadal variations. This is not the first observed occurrence that can be found in the historical record of Alaska [14], as the 1920’s were warm, and starting in the mid-1940’s a cold period occurred lasting some 3 decades, after which it become warm again..."

 

[westwall]

While the globe warms and people swelter, Alaska is chilling | Alaska Dispatch

The research paper upon which this article is based does not reflect the impressions you seem determined to cast.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V006/111TOASCJ.pdf

The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska
"...As pointed out above, winter gave the strongest cooling, as at this time solar radiation is weak, and advection plays the major role. Surface observations confirmed the reanalyzed data set. Cold Bay, located at the western extreme of the Alaskan Peninsular (see Fig. 1), recorded an increase of atmospheric surface pressure during the study period and the N-S pressure gradient between Cold Bay and Nome decreased. In addition, the stations of the Bering Sea: St. Paul Island, Nome and Kotzebue - all reported a decreasing wind speed, a result to be expected with a weakening Aleutian Low. All of the above observations cause a smaller amount of relatively warm air from the Northern Pacific being advected into the Bering Sea and Alaska; hence the observed cooling [13]. However, Barrow, north of the Brooks Range, is not substantially affected by the decrease in advection, and here the general warming observed for the Arctic Ocean is dominant.


In summary, the long term observed warming of Alaska of about twice the global value, as expected by the increasing CO2 and other trace gases, is sometimes temporarily modified or even reversed by natural decadal variations. This is not the first observed occurrence that can be found in the historical record of Alaska [14], as the 1920’s were warm, and starting in the mid-1940’s a cold period occurred lasting some 3 decades, after which it become warm again..."

It doesn't? A small section of the paper.....There is much more.

"1926 was the warmest year ever recorded not only in Fairbanks, but also in
Sitka (southeastern Alaska) and Barrow (northern Alaska),
for which stations the data are available. The mean decadal
temperatures of Fairbanks show for the 1980’s the highest
value (-1.94°C) followed by the 1920’s (-2.39°C) and 1990’s
(-2.59°C). Further, a sudden temperature increase in Alaska
was recorded starting in 1977 [5], seemingly driven by the
change in polarity of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
Index [6], which went from dominantly negative before 1977
to dominantly positive values after that year. An update
version of the temperature trend for the mean of the 20
Alaskan first order stations is presented in Fig. (2), showing
that the temperature increase was non-linear. Besides the
strong temperature increase starting in 1977, on which
Hartmann and Wendler [5] reported, a cooling trend in the
2nd half of the first decade of the new century is clearly
visible. At this time it cannot be decided whether this is a
climatic shift during the first decade of the 21st century or if
it represents decadal-interdecadal variability."

 

[Trakar]

While the globe warms and people swelter, Alaska is chilling | Alaska Dispatch

The research paper upon which this article is based does not reflect the impressions you seem determined to cast.

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V006/111TOASCJ.pdf

The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska
"...As pointed out above, winter gave the strongest cooling, as at this time solar radiation is weak, and advection plays the major role. Surface observations confirmed the reanalyzed data set. Cold Bay, located at the western extreme of the Alaskan Peninsular (see Fig. 1), recorded an increase of atmospheric surface pressure during the study period and the N-S pressure gradient between Cold Bay and Nome decreased. In addition, the stations of the Bering Sea: St. Paul Island, Nome and Kotzebue - all reported a decreasing wind speed, a result to be expected with a weakening Aleutian Low. All of the above observations cause a smaller amount of relatively warm air from the Northern Pacific being advected into the Bering Sea and Alaska; hence the observed cooling [13]. However, Barrow, north of the Brooks Range, is not substantially affected by the decrease in advection, and here the general warming observed for the Arctic Ocean is dominant.


In summary, the long term observed warming of Alaska of about twice the global value, as expected by the increasing CO2 and other trace gases, is sometimes temporarily modified or even reversed by natural decadal variations. This is not the first observed occurrence that can be found in the historical record of Alaska [14], as the 1920’s were warm, and starting in the mid-1940’s a cold period occurred lasting some 3 decades, after which it become warm again..."

It doesn't? A small section of the paper.....There is much more.

"1926 was the warmest year ever recorded not only in Fairbanks, but also in
Sitka (southeastern Alaska) and Barrow (northern Alaska),
for which stations the data are available. The mean decadal
temperatures of Fairbanks show for the 1980’s the highest
value (-1.94°C) followed by the 1920’s (-2.39°C) and 1990’s
(-2.59°C). Further, a sudden temperature increase in Alaska
was recorded starting in 1977 [5], seemingly driven by the
change in polarity of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
Index [6], which went from dominantly negative before 1977
to dominantly positive values after that year. An update
version of the temperature trend for the mean of the 20
Alaskan first order stations is presented in Fig. (2), showing
that the temperature increase was non-linear. Besides the
strong temperature increase starting in 1977, on which
Hartmann and Wendler [5] reported, a cooling trend in the
2nd half of the first decade of the new century is clearly
visible. At this time it cannot be decided whether this is a
climatic shift during the first decade of the 21st century or if
it represents decadal-interdecadal variability."

A conclusion is an overall assessment. Yes, there is much more to the paper. Much of it is interesting and very worth reading, but none of it contradicts or refutes anything I have said, nor does any of it support your denial of the underlying mainstream climate science understandings.