• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gasoline prices zip toward $3 mark

So now you have to go back almost 30 years to blame the GOP?
JC-ROFL.gif

Reagan, Bush Sr and GWB all enacted offshore drilling bans and you blame the democrats. We have been dependant on foriegn oil since the 70s, so blame them.
 
Yeah, better to keep spewing the sulfur so you can save a few cents a gallon.:roll:
Breathing is overated, anyway.

I thought it was carbon that was the problem? The increase caused prices of everything to increase since it is transportation cost.
 
I thought it was carbon that was the problem?

Uhh YOU are the one who brought up sulfur in diesel. Are you saying that only one compound in the entire world can possibly be a pollutant? There's no possibility that sulfur could be bad if carbon dioxide is ALSO bad?

ptif219 said:
The increase caused prices of everything to increase since it is transportation cost.

Naturally. What's your point? Transportation costs are ALWAYS part of the cost of a product. That's nothing new.
 
Last edited:
I thought it was carbon that was the problem? The increase caused prices of everything to increase since it is transportation cost.

You really should do some research before you start looking like a fool.
Have you ever heard of sulfur dioxide?
 
When was it the president’s job to fix/control oil prices?
 
Uhh YOU are the one who brought up sulfur in diesel. Are you saying that only one compound in the entire world can possibly be a pollutant? There's no possibility that sulfur could be bad if carbon dioxide is ALSO bad?



Naturally. What's your point? Transportation costs are ALWAYS part of the cost of a product. That's nothing new.

So when is the last time people talking about GW brought up Sulfur or pollution. Nobody says pollution any more it is green house gases.

So it doesn't bother you that prices increased ?

How about the trucking companies going out of business the last few years?
 
So when is the last time people talking about GW brought up Sulfur or pollution.

Sulfur dioxide has nothing to do with global warming. When it is ejected into the stratosphere, it can actually help to cool the earth. That's what happens during a volcanic eruption.

ptif219 said:
Nobody says pollution any more it is green house gases.

That's BECAUSE we've largely already addressed the air pollution problem associated with things like sulfur. Granted, it's still a problem in places like California and Texas, but in general our air is getting cleaner.

ptif219 said:
So it doesn't bother you that prices increased ?

No. Sometimes that's just the price you have to pay for not destroying the earth. Do you really believe that businesses should be able to belch any kind of pollution they want into our air, soil, and water, just to save a few dollars?

ptif219 said:
How about the trucking companies going out of business the last few years?

What about them? That was caused more by the 2008 oil bubble and the collapse of the manufacturing industry (especially the automotive sector), than by any new environmental laws.
 
Last edited:
Sulfur dioxide has nothing to do with global warming. When it is ejected into the stratosphere, it can actually help to cool the earth. That's what happens during a volcanic eruption.



That's BECAUSE we've largely already addressed the air pollution problem associated with things like sulfur. Granted, it's still a problem in places like California and Texas, but in general our air is getting cleaner.



No. Sometimes that's just the price you have to pay for not destroying the earth. Do you really believe that businesses should be able to belch any kind of pollution they want into our air, soil, and water, just to save a few dollars?



What about them? That was caused more by the 2008 oil bubble and the collapse of the manufacturing industry (especially the automotive sector), than by any new environmental laws.

So then green house gases are not pollution?
 
So then green house gases are not pollution?

Decide for yourself:

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into an environment that causes instability, disorder, harm or discomfort to the ecosystem i.e. physical systems or living organisms.[1] Pollution can take the form of chemical substances, or energy, such as noise, heat, or light. Pollutants, the elements of pollution, can be foreign substances or energies, or naturally occurring; when naturally occurring, they are considered contaminants when they exceed natural levels.
 
They usually run 85%. They need the reserve capacity in case of an unforeseen problem and also so the supply doesn't get too far ahead of demand. Prices would drop and so would their profits. It's funny how people forget that oil companies are for profit companies and their main goal is to maximize profits, not provide us with cheap, abundant energy.

I don't believe prices would drop. The world needs oil. If there was more oil then theres plenty of other nations interested in buying.
 
I don't believe prices would drop. The world needs oil. If there was more oil then theres plenty of other nations interested in buying.

It's dropping right now due to supply increases.
 
It is now global warming no one says pollution anymore.

Global warming currently is a function of a particular type of pollution. Hope that helps with your confusion:2wave:
 
Last edited:
Global warming currently is a function of a particular type of pollution. Hope that helps with your confusion:2wave:

There is no global warming and the scientific info is being revealed as lies.
 

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report - Times Online

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”


The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.
 
UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report - Times Online

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.

“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”


The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.

But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.

You do know the study of the Greenhouse effect has been going on for half a century and there have been thousands of studies and papers written about it. The Greenhouse Effect is proven science.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7h.html
 
Last edited:
You do know the study of the Greenhouse effect has been going on for half a century and there have been thousands of studies and papers written about it. The Greenhouse Effect is proven science.

7(h) The Greenhouse Effect

It is proven there are green house gases. It has not been proven it controls our weather.
 
It is proven there are green house gases. It has not been proven it controls our weather.

The greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring process that aids in heating the Earth's surface and atmosphere. It results from the fact that certain atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane, are able to change the energy balance of the planet by absorbing longwave radiation emitted from the Earth's surface. Without the greenhouse effect life on this planet would probably not exist as the average temperature of the Earth would be a chilly -18° Celsius, rather than the present 15° Celsius.
 
The greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring process that aids in heating the Earth's surface and atmosphere. It results from the fact that certain atmospheric gases, such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane, are able to change the energy balance of the planet by absorbing longwave radiation emitted from the Earth's surface. Without the greenhouse effect life on this planet would probably not exist as the average temperature of the Earth would be a chilly -18° Celsius, rather than the present 15° Celsius.

So the sun and sunspots do not matter?
JC-hysterical.gif
 
So the sun and sunspots do not matter?
JC-hysterical.gif

Of course they do. So does volcanic activity, plate tectonics and ocean currents. There are lots of things that affect earths climate. Man just might be one of them.
 
Back
Top Bottom