Cafe La Petit Roche

[Stormcrow]

Use will certainly pick up as prices go down but I would think it will not get back to what it once was. I have personally made many carpooling arrangements that I would have never made a few years ago and unless gas gets back to $1.50 a gallon I will keep carpooling. It is a huge money saver no matter how much gas is. It not only saves in gas but also depreciation on your car. I think there is a sizable portion of people that will continue this trend of conservation. I doubt consumers will stop screaming until the relaxation period is in the low $2's. People have seen how high gas prices can cripple the economy and households. I do agree with your cycle though. We went thru this same thing but with a smaller spike in prices a few years ago. I remember the good ole days of $1 gas not to long ago.

Well, yeah, people may not cease screaming about prices altogether but lots of people I talk to already seem less concerned now that prices are starting to come down. I'm convinced it's a grand psychological game. Prices never spike without a legitimate underpinning, but I'm pretty sure that the downward side is fairly well choreographed to prevent as big of a slide in prices as market forces might otherwise demand.

I do hope most people have made some permanent changes in lifestyle to prevent such a huge runup again. It isn't the magnitude of the prices that causes economic turmoil but the rate of change and the magnitude of the change itself. We're not out of the woods on this by any means.

[Architect]

Well, yeah, people may not cease screaming about prices altogether but lots of people I talk to already seem less concerned now that prices are starting to come down. I'm convinced it's a grand psychological game. Prices never spike without a legitimate underpinning, but I'm pretty sure that the downward side is fairly well choreographed to prevent as big of a slide in prices as market forces might otherwise demand.

I do hope most people have made some permanent changes in lifestyle to prevent such a huge runup again. It isn't the magnitude of the prices that causes economic turmoil but the rate of change and the magnitude of the change itself. We're not out of the woods on this by any means.

I agree about the trend of price spikes never returning back down to the prior plateau. This is just like construction prices...as many of you know, they've spiked MUCH higher than fuel over the past 5 years, and they NEVER go back down. Unlike the cost of fuel however, the construction price fluctuation was tied almost exclusively to market conditions of supply-demand between hurricane rebuilding and asian growth demands on steel/concrete, etc.

[abdintp]

Crude just went below $120 per bbl. Maybe the bubble has finally popped. It seems as though $4 a gallon gas was the tipping point for Americans. It has been sliding ever since it reached that point in mid July. Down over $27 since then.

I'm curious to know what is in the media and what people are saying about this: I'm spending the summer in Istanbul.

Here's an interesting article about that fact.

http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/200...#ens_id=1032882

It says essentially the lowering in the prices was forseen, isn't expected to last, and is actually based a lot on a large decrease in the amount of gas that Americans have been using.

See, we CAN drive less, we just don't want to, haha.

[skirby]

I think the main factor, if you exclude natural events or war, will be how low gas prices drop before OPEC cuts back production. If prices drop below the $3 mark then I think Americans will go back to their old habits. If this happens soon enough then the price of oil will fall right in with the war in Iraq as being not that important for the upcoming election. Some nights on the evening news the war is not even mentioned. America has a habit of forgetting about what no longer in front of its face.

[johnnydr87]

[skirby]

Why didn't they pan out and show Al Gore from above pulling the strings.

One interesting thing from yesterday. The head of the Arkansas Highway Department said that people should go out and buy more gas. The state needs the tax money so his department can build more highways.

Question: If gas stays at the level it is how long before the taxes will be raised?

[johnnydr87]

Why didn't they pan out and show Al Gore from above pulling the strings.

One interesting thing from yesterday. The head of the Arkansas Highway Department said that people should go out and buy more gas. The state needs the tax money so his department can build more highways.

Question: If gas stays at the level it is how long before the taxes will be raised?

Hey skirbo,

This tit for tat argument is a waste of time--I'm sure we both agree. There are bigger fish to fry.

Global warming was real two and half years ago when we first had this argument; global warming is real today; and global warming will be real tomorrow. Whether or not your acknowledge it is your legitimate choice--but only insofar as your choice has a basis to it.

And please realize that your choice DOES have consequences. Whether Arkansas stays at the back of the pack as far as alternative energy, whether it stands in middling ground, or whether it leads the way, lies in large part with how its people perceive, and understand, the implications of global warming. It lies in large part with how science is treated in schools. (And I'm not talking just about attracting just manufacturing plants, I'm talking about the actual brains behind it.) Whether Arkansas ever develops its own research triangle, or intellectual havens outside of Little Rock and Fayetteville, or pulls itself out of 49th rank in anything--depends on how its citizens take on the new challenges. Simply following once the path has been perfectly cleared by other states--like Texas--won't be enough.

I won't go through my history with the issue, but I think I've been fortunate enough to have been exposed in order to make a more complete decision. As such, this issue has a personal significance, and I probably get impassioned to the point that it's counter productive. (My bad.)

But please remember: global warming isn't a liberal/conservative issue. It really isn't. It isn't, it isn't, it isn't. I personally know of no conservatives at my school who dispute it, and I know of a decent number McCain/Palin supporters who agree that something should be done--basically, all the McCain/Palin supporters I know.

Time passeth; global warming encroacheth. Yet time in Arkansas stayeth still. I'm getting old myself--I first posted in this forum 3.75 years ago. I've matured a bit since then. It won't be but 1.5 years before I'm in the workforce, another muggle trying to make my way. And like countless other Arkansan progeny, my narrative will follow the same, tired and worn tune: as much as I'd like to work in the state, I don't think I'll be able to. I'll have to commit myself somewhere else.

Such is life.

I'm done with anonymous, circular debates online.

[skirby]

Hey skirbo,

This tit for tat argument is a waste of time--I'm sure we both agree. There are bigger fish to fry.

Global warming was real two and half years ago when we first had this argument; global warming is real today; and global warming will be real tomorrow. Whether or not your acknowledge it is your legitimate choice--but only insofar as your choice has a basis to it.

And please realize that your choice DOES have consequences. Whether Arkansas stays at the back of the pack as far as alternative energy, whether it stands in middling ground, or whether it leads the way, lies in large part with how its people perceive, and understand, the implications of global warming. It lies in large part with how science is treated in schools. (And I'm not talking just about attracting just manufacturing plants, I'm talking about the actual brains behind it.) Whether Arkansas ever develops its own research triangle, or intellectual havens outside of Little Rock and Fayetteville, or pulls itself out of 49th rank in anything--depends on how its citizens take on the new challenges. Simply following once the path has been perfectly cleared by other states--like Texas--won't be enough.

I won't go through my history with the issue, but I think I've been fortunate enough to have been exposed in order to make a more complete decision. As such, this issue has a personal significance, and I probably get impassioned to the point that it's counter productive. (My bad.)

But please remember: global warming isn't a liberal/conservative issue. It really isn't. It isn't, it isn't, it isn't. I personally know of no conservatives at my school who dispute it, and I know of a decent number McCain/Palin supporters who agree that something should be done--basically, all the McCain/Palin supporters I know.

Time passeth; global warming encroacheth. Yet time in Arkansas stayeth still. I'm getting old myself--I first posted in this forum 3.75 years ago. I've matured a bit since then. It won't be but 1.5 years before I'm in the workforce, another muggle trying to make my way. And like countless other Arkansan progeny, my narrative will follow the same, tired and worn tune: as much as I'd like to work in the state, I don't think I'll be able to. I'll have to commit myself somewhere else.

Such is life.

I'm done with anonymous, circular debates online.

johnboy,

Get with the program. The video you linked to is about climate change but you are still stuck in the past with the term global warming. It is funny that global warming wasn't working out so now the problem is with climate change. Your soon to be talking head claims in his video that storms are growing stronger with each hurricane season. There has been no proof for this except for those who follow the gospel of A. Gore.

By the way are you ready to do your 3 or 4 months of government service that Obama has declared you will be doing?

[turboturtle]

johnboy,

Get with the program. The video you linked to is about climate change but you are still stuck in the past with the term global warming. It is funny that global warming wasn't working out so now the problem is with climate change. Your soon to be talking head claims in his video that storms are growing stronger with each hurricane season. There has been no proof for this except for those who follow the gospel of A. Gore.

By the way are you ready to do your 3 or 4 months of government service that Obama has declared you will be doing?

Skirby the change in terms is irrelevant to the central issues of the debate. It was the Republican party and Bush who co-opted the climate change terminology because of their inability to be accountable when they were wrong. They were afraid that admitting man-made increases in greenhouse gases were the cause of global warming would offend people like you and they would not get re-elected in 2004. So, they redefined the term to help elect the worst president ever twice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/20/w...e_n_145141.html

[skirby]

Skirby the change in terms is irrelevant to the central issues of the debate. It was the Republican party and Bush who co-opted the climate change terminology because of their inability to be accountable when they were wrong. They were afraid that admitting man-made increases in greenhouse gases were the cause of global warming would offend people like you and they would not get re-elected in 2004. So, they redefined the term to help elect the worst president ever twice.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/20/w...e_n_145141.html

Tturtle maybe you should do a little research. The Nature Conservancy claims that global warming and climate change are two different phenomena. Funny how some people blame GW on everything. Anyway johnboy's post was a link to Obama and he was talking about climate change not global warming. My point was that jb should read before he talks about something. If he would have used climate change then I would have had nothing to say about the subject.

[turboturtle]

Tturtle maybe you should do a little research. The Nature Conservancy claims that global warming and climate change are two different phenomena. Funny how some people blame GW on everything. Anyway johnboy's post was a link to Obama and he was talking about climate change not global warming. My point was that jb should read before he talks about something. If he would have used climate change then I would have had nothing to say about the subject.

I think that the Nature Conservancy is right. My research is fine. The fact that the GWB administration did co-opt the different language was for political expediency. It had nothing to do with science. The GWB admin could not have cared less for science.

Skirby, you cannot defend the GWB administration on the environment (or much else) with a straight face. I do blame him for many things. Some of it is not what he did do, but what he didn't do.

There is a consistent pattern with his administration that goes like this... No we're not in a recession the economy is strong. Holy cow! Who could have seen this coming? The government is doing everything right with hurricane preparedness.. Holy cow! Who could have seen this coming? We accomplished our mission in Iraq and there is no insurgency. Holy cow! We've lost another 3,000 troops, who could have seen this coming? There is no global warming and if there is, it is certainly not caused by man. Holy cow! There is climate change and it is being caused by man. There are WMD in Iraq and terrorist are going to use them against us, we must pre-emptively strike. Holy cow! Who could have seen that coming? The federal government should spend less and balance the budget. Holy Cow! The National Debt clock broke. Who could have seen that coming? We are an ownership society. Holy cow! Highest rate of foreclosures in a life time. Who could have saw that coming?

Do I need to list all the admin folks who resigned in disgrace? Or the criticism, supporting of the above paragraph, that has been leveled against him by former members of his administration?

GWB spoke often about accountability, but has sought to not be held accountable for the worst condition this country has been in since we were born and before. If you think I should not hold him accountable for that, then I hold the people who voted for the dummy accountable. On the later, I'm willing to give them a pass because 1) we limit the President to two terms (thank god!), and 2) GWB was awfully talented a duping people into voting for him, perhaps the best we've ever seen.

Before you criticize Johnny or me again about a such a silly thing as the invocation of a "historical" term to describe climate change, global warming, or environmental change. Ask yourself are you clinging to old ideas of governance? The results of GWB's two terms in office should be your resounding answer that question.

[LRU1967]

The New Yorker recently quoted Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Professor at the University of Copenhagen, and an authority on ice and climate as follows:

"...the climate is always changing, sometimes very abruptly, so the last thing that mankind should be doing is adding its own forcing actions--like pumping unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Because you never know-- you never know -- what will tip the balance and send us hurdling into another abrupt change, and into another era."

[EJC]

Hey skirbo,

This tit for tat argument is a waste of time--I'm sure we both agree. There are bigger fish to fry.

Global warming was real two and half years ago when we first had this argument; global warming is real today; and global warming will be real tomorrow. Whether or not your acknowledge it is your legitimate choice--but only insofar as your choice has a basis to it.

And please realize that your choice DOES have consequences. Whether Arkansas stays at the back of the pack as far as alternative energy, whether it stands in middling ground, or whether it leads the way, lies in large part with how its people perceive, and understand, the implications of global warming. It lies in large part with how science is treated in schools. (And I'm not talking just about attracting just manufacturing plants, I'm talking about the actual brains behind it.) Whether Arkansas ever develops its own research triangle, or intellectual havens outside of Little Rock and Fayetteville, or pulls itself out of 49th rank in anything--depends on how its citizens take on the new challenges. Simply following once the path has been perfectly cleared by other states--like Texas--won't be enough.

I won't go through my history with the issue, but I think I've been fortunate enough to have been exposed in order to make a more complete decision. As such, this issue has a personal significance, and I probably get impassioned to the point that it's counter productive. (My bad.)

But please remember: global warming isn't a liberal/conservative issue. It really isn't. It isn't, it isn't, it isn't. I personally know of no conservatives at my school who dispute it, and I know of a decent number McCain/Palin supporters who agree that something should be done--basically, all the McCain/Palin supporters I know.

Time passeth; global warming encroacheth. Yet time in Arkansas stayeth still. I'm getting old myself--I first posted in this forum 3.75 years ago. I've matured a bit since then. It won't be but 1.5 years before I'm in the workforce, another muggle trying to make my way. And like countless other Arkansan progeny, my narrative will follow the same, tired and worn tune: as much as I'd like to work in the state, I don't think I'll be able to. I'll have to commit myself somewhere else.

Such is life.

I'm done with anonymous, circular debates online.

Global warming wasn't real before, it was theory. Just as it is now. I'm surprised you haven't at least acknowledged it's theory considering how global measurements actually went down considerably last year.

But, we can agree on this, it's NOT a liberal/conservative issue...it's a movement. Neither right nor wrong, yet.

[johnnydr87]

Global warming wasn't real before, it was theory. Just as it is now. I'm surprised you haven't at least acknowledged it's theory considering how global measurements actually went down considerably last year.

But, we can agree on this, it's NOT a liberal/conservative issue...it's a movement. Neither right nor wrong, yet.

I'll respond to this because it's particularly important.

Let's be clear what is theory in science and what is fact. Confusion is often stirred around the terms "theory" and "fact" because they are used completely different in science than in everyday vernacular.

In scientific research, nothing is fact. Nothing, ever. This is something that is taught when doing scientific research: you can only support or refute a theory, never prove it. A theory only tends towards becoming a fact with the more research that buttresses it, but it never, ever is a proven fact. For these reasons, I have been coached when writing lab papers to specifically use the terms "support" and "refute" (never "prove" or "disprove") because you can only have levels of confidence (through statistical analysis), but never prove anything outright.

By that token: atoms are a theory (specifically, the "atomic theory"). A theory upon which all modern science is based. We apply the atomic theory to loads of scientific advancements in chemistry, physics, material science, etc. We would have hardly made a very large portion of our advancements over the past century without our knowledge of the atom.

Evolution, too, is a theory, weighted in evidence.

Global warming is a theory, weighted in evidence. (And if it's ever contended with another theory with similar grounding in evidence, I promise I'll fully accept that I had the wrong stance.)

Theories are not guesses, or even educated guess: they're for all intents and purposes "facts" that have been supported by research conducted, and corroborated, by many scientists. These findings are published in articles in scientific journals, and when you hear the term, "peer-reviewed," it means that the article has undergone rigorous review and critique by other eminent scientists in the field. The process, from locating a problem/situation to study, to posing a scientific question, to forming a hypothesis, to designing a research/experimental strategy, to conducting research/experiments, to analyzing data, to forming conclusions on your hypothesis/forming a theory (where applicable), and finally to publishing the article, lasts years.

S'all, folks. (For real.)

[EJC]

I'll respond to this because it's particularly important.

Let's be clear what is theory in science and what is fact. Confusion is often stirred around the terms "theory" and "fact" because they are used completely different in science than in everyday vernacular.

In scientific research, nothing is fact. Nothing, ever. This is something that is taught when doing scientific research: you can only support or refute a theory, never prove it. A theory only tends towards becoming a fact with the more research that buttresses it, but it never, ever is a proven fact. For these reasons, I have been coached when writing lab papers to specifically use the terms "support" and "refute" (never "prove" or "disprove") because you can only have levels of confidence (through statistical analysis), but never prove anything outright.

By that token: atoms are a theory (specifically, the "atomic theory"). A theory upon which all modern science is based. We apply the atomic theory to loads of scientific advancements in chemistry, physics, material science, etc. We would have hardly made a very large portion of our advancements over the past century without our knowledge of the atom.

Evolution, too, is a theory, weighted in evidence.

Global warming is a theory, weighted in evidence. (And if it's ever contended with another theory with similar grounding in evidence, I promise I'll fully accept that I had the wrong stance.)

Theories are not guesses, or even educated guess: they're for all intents and purposes "facts" that have been supported by research conducted, and corroborated, by many scientists. These findings are published in articles in scientific journals, and when you hear the term, "peer-reviewed," it means that the article has undergone rigorous review and critique by other eminent scientists in the field. The process, from locating a problem/situation to study, to posing a scientific question, to forming a hypothesis, to designing a research/experimental strategy, to conducting research/experiments, to analyzing data, to forming conclusions on your hypothesis/forming a theory (where applicable), and finally to publishing the article, lasts years.

S'all, folks. (For real.)

Yes, it is theory. And now there is mounting evidence in another direction. Hence more reason to be skeptical. That'll all I'm saying... ...there is reason to be skeptical and avoid bowing to the boisterous crowd suggesting that 1) they know global warming is upon us and 2) they have the slightest clue how to remedy it.

[johnnydr87]

Study: Stopping emissions won't prevent decreased rainfall, higher seas

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28861757/

Dang.

WASHINGTON - Even if the world can cap carbon dioxide emissions tied to global warming, expect to see droughts and sea level rise that span centuries, not just decades, according to a new study sponsored by the U.S. government.

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that's not true," lead author Susan Solomon told reporters.

Instead, the team concluded, warming tied to higher CO2 "is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop.

[...]

Solomon noted that while global warming has been slowed by the oceans, which absorb carbon, that positive effect will wane over time and eventually oceans will actually warm the planet by giving off their accumulated heat to the air.

[...]

"Even so, there would be changes in snow (to rain), snow pack and water resources, and irreversible consequences even if not quite the way the authors describe," he said. "The policy relevance is clear: We need to act sooner ... because by the time the public and policymakers really realize the changes are here it is far too late to do anything about it. In fact, as the authors point out, it is already too late for some effects."

So, the benefits will be reaped by generations 1000 years from now? Ouch, makes it that much harder to do the right thing.

"A society grows great when old men plant trees

whose shade they know they shall never sit in." - Greek Proverb

[skirby]

For those interested in the accuracy of temperature recording and the trend of global warming read:

US and Global Temperature Issues.

[johnnydr87]

For those interested in the accuracy of temperature recording and the trend of global warming read:

US and Global Temperature Issues.

I'll look it over when I'm done with class work.

I've certainly heard theories that there are other potential causes of global warming, such as the activity of the sun (which was published in a scientific journal, but subsequently contended in another journal article). Like I said, if science says I'm wrong, then clearly I'm wrong. As far as I know, no theories have been promoted and peer reviewed and had the support of global warming. That said, there are many other reasons to reduce fossil fuel dependency, or to have a decent set of environmental regulations (as far as what pollution plants can output). I'm an environmentalist, and, yes sir, everyone should be.

That said, I did just do a quick background search on the "Science and Public Policy Institute."

Science and Public Policy Institute:

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President with the website drawing heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton. Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

SPPI describes itself as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science." It also proclaims that it is "free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry.

So, who is the Frontiers of Freedom Institute (such a lofty, Orwellian name):

The Frontiers of Freedom Foundation, Inc., operating "simply as" Frontiers of Freedom (FF) was founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop of Wyoming".

[...]

Exxon Funding

According to a 2003 New York Times report, "Frontiers of Freedom, which has about a $700,000 annual budget, received $230,000 from Exxon in 2002, up from $40,000 in 2001, according to Exxon documents. George Landrith, President of FoF told the New York Times "They've determined that we are effective at what we do" and that Exxon essentially took the attitude, "We like to make it possible to do more of that".[1]

Funding from Exxon includes:

* 2002: $100,000 for the "Center for Sound Science and Public Policy" (sic), $97,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach Activities", and a further $35,000 for "Global Climate Change Science Projects";[2]

* 2003: $95,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach" and a further $50,000 for "Project Support - Sound Science Center";[3]

* 2004: $50,000 for "Climate Change Efforts", $90,000 for "Global Climate Change Outreach", $40,000 as "Project Support - Climate Change" and a further $70,000 for "Project Support- Science Center & Climate Change";[4]

* 2005: $50,000 for the "Annual Gala and General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for "General Operating Support"[5];

* 2006: $90,000 for "General Operating Support" and a further $90,000 for the "Science & Policy Center"[6]; and

* 2007: $90,000 for "energy literacy".[7]

Just sayin'.

[hogwash]

I think you bring up an important point. Studies from these think tanks appear from nowhere and are given credence because it is from an "institute." While not all are bad, its so difficult to differentiate junk from anything that is legitimate because its not peer reviewed. It would be interesting to see what form this article would take if it were submitted to a journal. However, I don't think the author's intent is so much to make a contribution to science as it is to influence policy.

[hogwash]

. Oops

[hogwash]

Triple Post! Shazaam!

[EJC]

I think the funding by Exxon certainly can call the paper into some level of higher scrutiny, but much of what is stated in there is pretty obvious and probably should not be in dispute.

In the end, the paper only shows how little we know and that our fact gathering is flawed. Earth is definitely ever-changing, that much is obvious. What's less obvious is what causes it, and how detrimental it really is.

[skirby]

Is funding by Exxon any worse than funding by the government or Al Gore? After all Al Gore is in the global warming business so anything he puts money into will carry his views and an increase to his bank account. Did you hear that Gore has pulled some of his data that he uses in his presentations because it did not have any scientific foundation.

[EJC]

Is funding by Exxon any worse than funding by the government or Al Gore? After all Al Gore is in the global warming business so anything he puts money into will carry his views and an increase to his bank account. Did you hear that Gore has pulled some of his data that he uses in his presentations because it did not have any scientific foundation.

No, I don't consider it any worse than what Mr Gore is behind. I'm sure that Gore has had to re-tool his presentations as it comes to light that some data may not be reliable. I'm also sure that he doesn't always re-tool when he should because he has a cause that he supports and believes in whether it's true/factual or not. But I can also see how it might be likely that someone receiving funding from Exxon might already be in lock-step with their viewpoint (without any pressure from the financial backer)....it's a fairly common phenomenon. ...birds of a feather...

[johnnydr87]

Interesting film coming out: http://www.ageofstupid.net/ I plan on seeing it in my neck of the woods.

I took a class in spring semester from a NASA scientist that covered global warming from a solar system perspective. It really brought me up to speed on the phenomenon--and how complicated it actually is. E.g., higher temps mean more water vapor, which means more clouds, which means cooler temperatures (the color white reflects 90% of sunlight). Or the fact that the temperatures rise faster on the arctic extremes than they do closer to the equator due to the heat diffusion effects of CO2 (which is vastly abundant on Venus' surface, and explains why its polar and equator temps are the same). Or the carbon cycle, solar cycles, and their effects on the earth...and why global warming is clearly not a natural phenomenon or natural cycle.

Studying climate change from a solar system-wide perspective--as in, studying the atmospheres of other planets and their moons--really shed light on global warming. Irrefutable--no doubt. I hope to be doing more on this issue once I graduate.