America's arrogance astounds me; despite our freeze, record heat persists worldwide!

fractal2
reply to post by Rezlooper

 

You've got a really big long post with lots of data and tell me how there is record temperatures. Let me start with two questions. What was the average global temperature in 2012? What was the average global temperature in 2013?

A better question is what is the average global temperature for the last 20 or 30 years and the best question is where do you get that data from? Isn't that the real problem? NASA says this:

Scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) say 2012 was the ninth warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The ten warmest years in the 132-year record have all occurred since 1998. The last year that was cooler than average was 1976.

The map at the top depicts temperature anomalies, or changes, by region in 2012; it does not show absolute temperature. Reds and blues show how much warmer or cooler each area was in 2012 compared to an averaged base period from 1951–1980. For more explanation of how the analysis works, read World of Change: Global Temperatures.

The average temperature in 2012 was about 14.6 degrees Celsius (58.3 degrees Fahrenheit), which is 0.55°C (1.0°F) warmer than the mid-20th century base period. The average global temperature has increased 0.8°C (1.4°F) since 1880, and most of that change has occurred in the past four decades.

Unfortunately, to me, this is where the argument comes unstuck.

So the statement was made, it is hotter now than the mid 20th century....so when in the mid 20th century?

"Average" temperature again.

A little research will show that during the WW2 in the early 1940s Europe (supposedly the World up there), experienced the COLDEST Winter in 100 years...yes it was unusual, yes its what saved Russia from invasion...Perhaps it was the Arctic Vortex again?

Nevertheless, this "once in 100 years" cold snap effectively Lowered the Worlds temperature "Averages" in that period.
So, If you are comparing the Now Actual Temperature, with the 1940s Average, then we are hotter than then.

I presume temperature returned to normal in the 1950s-1976..someone wrote. So 1976 was again the coldest year? (Im asking I did not know that), So Naturally, this 1976 cold snap Again, dropped the "Average" temperatures, and comparing the now "Average" to then cannot be considered a reasonable logic question.

So, I can tell you, where I live, the temperatures of the past 5-6 years HAVE been cooler, than they were in the late 1990s early 2000s (which was a drought time here...El Nino etc)

This is the great problem with continuing to use and reference "Averages"...because frankly, averages dont work, there are Far too many variables.

Mini Ice ages have been noted (in the North Hemi), on and off for at least 1500 years.

The Black Plague era was suppose to be the coldest ever, 1432 was a start of a few years that plants didnt grow in Europe.as found by tree rings of that period (thought to be a Volcano in Indonesia..soot in the atmosphere), the mid 1800s were considered to be the coldest ever...etc etc..2000 years ago during the Roman Empire, scholars believe the World Europe/ME ect was in a Warm period....which also aided in the expansion of human civilization and technology. Even images of civilizations then showed the people wore little clothing, togas, tunics and such like, women had exposed tops etc, no underwear....so it obviously wasnt snowing in that period.

Tho averages seem like a good idea at the time, 100 years of recorded "averages" really proves nothing, and is of little scientific value IMO, because of the very short length of time.

The weather will keep changing, until our dear Earth is consumed by the Sun......Human and other animals and plants, just have to deal with it, and adapt/evolve or die, just like we always have.

Thats what makes it all so exciting......

reply to post by Rezlooper


How about increasing climate instability which will ultimately finish with establishment of a new ice age- since that is the usual state of planet earth- according to ice core data.

reply to post by amazing

There ARE many Americans that see this north American cold snap and think "Wow...I guess there is no such thing as global warming." Those idiots are who this thread is about.”

Because of a hand full terrorist now and then, the entire world population needs to be spied upon and monitored. If you dislike this idea, it might perhaps be because you are a terrorist? So you better accept it all because you have nothing to hide. Right?

When the political establishment has become worried about the climate, we need to accept their views and worry too, otherwise we are idiots and environment terrorists. After all. They are all worried on behalf of us all , and they do things for the better good. Right? Thus you should all contribute and pay all those environment taxes and respect all those new restrictions that are apposed on you, in order to save the environment. We all want a cleaner world. Right?

This is the way the leftwing globalists always plays their cards. They play on feelings and guilt and in this way they use us all and thus they cashes in. Nobody wants to be an idiot, we all want a cleaner world , and everyone claims they have nothing to hide. So what’s the real problem here, you might ask? Wouldn’t we all be better off just accepting everything coming their way and thrust that it’s all in our best interest. Surely they understand things better than ordinary people.

Yes. Sure we could, but things are happening rather rapid these days. Personal freedom and behavior that we use to take for granted only a year ago are suddenly taken away from us the next year, and it keeps on coming. We all still live a pretty comfortable and decant life in the west, but our personal freedom is taken away from us piece by piece and the things that we use to do are increasingly getting restricted , regulated and controlled. I also fear the political correct censorship that the establishment use to control the public speech and criticism of ordinary people. It’s about to destroy healthy critical meanings, leaving the establishment to go ahead undisturbed with their dangerous agenda.

In my country, the entire government use to take a three month long holiday every year. That’s the only time in the year when the country is in real piece. The news in the media takes a time out , and the acid they use to spray on people every day to keep them hateful and worried stops. The same does the multitude of new laws, regulations and restrictions that (our hardworking politicians) imposes on us every week. It’s pretty much how one would want it always to be.

Perhaps we all would be better off if they all took a permanent holiday? Perhaps most People are wise enough to find out and do the best things that are in the best interests for us all by themselves, without all the regulations ,laws and restrictions that the politicians apose on us? What happened to the thrust People had in ordinary People and their ability to take the right decisions? Before there used to be politicians that was arguing that "Freedoom should be given everybody under responsebility". What happened to this saying and these politicians? Why isnt it valid anymore?

ketsuko
And do you know what was happening in Alaska when we had our unusally mild winter two years ago?

Oh, it was setting records for cold.

Do you know why? Because the very same polar vortex we are being blessed with was stuck over them.

And we thought we had some bad weather last year, but it was nothing compared to what happened in Europe and Russia with the cold.

And, yes, the Southern hemisphere is experiencing a heat wave, but they just got done having some unusually brutal winter weather, especially in South America.

This stuff happens. It goes in cycles, and it is called weather.

This stuff happens. It goes in cycles, and it is called weather.

ketsuko, check your Mail Box, I sent you am PM on the 3rd.

Yes, it is, it's Weather.

I can attest to you that the team of 50 scientists producing the 1,200 pages of calm, reasoned, dispassionate science in the report did achieve their goal of objectively analyzing and interpreting data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. They carefully demonstrate the inconvenient facts about the world’s climate discussed below, and when you have that any politicization would just detract from the presentation, as Al Gore shows in his global warming political harangues.

That is in sharp contrast to President Obama’s own EPA, which issued its “endangerment finding” legally authorizing regulation of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, without submitting the finding to its own peer review board established by federal law precisely for that purpose. What were they so afraid of if 97% of scientists supposedly agree with them? That violation of federal law has now been challenged in court, and is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. But this would not be the first time that the Administration of this lawless President has openly flouted the law.

The authors of the report do not deny that there is some effect of warming the planet from mankind’s emissions of CO2, primarily from use of traditional carbon fuels such as oil, coal, and natural gas. The argument is over how big of an effect that is, how that compares to natural causes of climate change, and whether the human caused effect threatens a catastrophe, or even severe distress, to human civilization and the environment. The conclusion of the report is that the U.N.’s IPCC has exaggerated the amount of global warming likely to occur due to mankind’s emissions of CO2, and the warming that human civilization will cause as a result “is likely to be modest and cause no net harm to the global environment or to human well-being.”

The fundamentals of the argument is that CO2 is not some toxic industrial gas, but a natural, trace gas constituting just 0.038% of the atmosphere. For readers disadvantaged by excessive exposure to the party propaganda organ called the New York Times, that is less than 4/100ths of one percent. The report states, “At the current level of 400 parts per million, we still live in a CO2-starved world. Atmospheric levels (of CO2) 15 times greater existed during the pre-Cambrian period (about 550 million years ago) without known adverse effects,” such as catastrophic global warming.

Your move Global Warmist Alarmist

It's the Sun.

reply to post by Rezlooper

Dude, these kind of posts are what make me wonder about shills. Come on, you live there and you're acting like you don't know what's going on in your own country. You come on here and post about being cold and needing blankets. This is what Australia is experiencing right now...you must really take people for being blind.

I'm a shill because I'm in sunny Queensland and i told you how it was, you got me wondering if you work for Al Gore?
We had 2 days of hot weather where I am, today i went for a swim and the water was cold as FU*K mind you it was at Maleny falls. All im saying is from my point of view we had one 40c degree + day, OMG today its a top of 28? in Queensland holy # balls Batman.

please stop fear mongering Below is todays forcast niceeeeeeee.

Now why isnt it scorching hot here, as i said it was a set of predicted circumstances which was predicted by the weather man a week previous and nothing to do with global warming.

now please go away with your tin hat Google warrior.

Weather forecast for Brisbane, Queensland, Australia


Weather in Brisbane for the next 7 days
Weather in Brisbane - today - Saturday - 11.01.2014 - by hour
1:00 4:00 7:00 10:00 13:00 16:00 19:00 22:00
Sunrise : 05:05
Sunset : 18:45
Temperature 20°C 20°C 23°C 26°C 27°C 27°C 25°C 23°C

Metallicus
People are arrogant because they don't agree with you?

Oh, the irony.

Congrats op.Its a rare skill to be able to make an obnoxious weather thread.

reply to post by Rezlooper


Minus the crazy claims...it is just an indication of an ever changing climate that is relatively stable (in context of recent times). Places freeze while others receive warm-spells and vice versa. This isn't a sudden symptom of "global warming" but rather that of a planet that isn't static.

For instance, when I was young, a small "hill" in Southern California received snow-fall. Even places within the valley, in years past long ago, received snow. It isn't indicative of anything except an ever changing climate in the grand scope of time.

Places that enjoy a relatively stable weather system, have received occasional disruptions; does that prove one way or the other for "global warming"? For instance, in 1947, it snowed in the San Gabriel Valley in Southern California. That is not a typical pattern of weather, but it can happen.

I find it interesting in regards to the arguments from both sides. This proves this! This proves that! All hogwash really.

A mini ice age! Thats insane i live in Weatern Australia its 42 degrees right now (108F) i highly doubt that we are.. Id gladly welcome it haha

reply to post by muSSang

Hello muSSang..

it looks like the op has no idea of what summer in Australia is like.....

as you would be familiar with....every summer some heat waves.....some bushfires....unfortunately some animals die....and sometimes people too succumb to the heat.....

some people have never heard of....the sunburnt country...

bushfires/cyclones.....can worry me when they're close.....but they're part and parcel of our environment,we have grown up with them..

and with the cool....I had to wear a sloppy joe on Christmas day...we had a cold snap from the south....

amazing
Yeah, I love how "winter" suddenly 'proves' there is no global warming. LOL Fools can't see past their own noses. One cold event doesn't disprove or prove global warming, yet I've got idiots on facebook posting stuff like "Negative 17 here..yep that's global warming for you!" How many times did these people get hit on the head?

Yeah poor us who are listening to the scientists who are not lying, and can see the truth despite the propaganda claiming "mankind is causing Climate Change"... You forget that it is not called Global Warming anymore, but "Climate change"...

BTW, countries around the world have had record cold/winter as well ever since this whole lie about "mankind is causing Climate Change/Global Warming" started... Record winters haven't been happening only on the U.S....

China's Extreme Cold Snaps Records

Becky Oskin, OurAmazingPlanet Staff Writer | January 08, 2013 06:29pm ET

An unusually cold winter across China has some regions hitting their lowest average temperatures in more than 40 years, according to state media reports. The Chinese national meteorological agency said polar fronts caused by global warming are to blame for the frigid air. The freeze is the coldest winter in 28 years, the English-language newspaper China Daily reported. The national average temperature across China's vast territory was a chilly 25.2 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 3.8 degrees Celsius) since late November. In northeast China, which typically has snowy, cold winters, the average temperature was an icy 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 15.3 degrees Celsius), the lowest in 42 years.
...

www.livescience.com...

Africa

Snow surprises South Africans as cold snap strikes


The Associated Press Posted: Aug 07, 2012 12:43 PM ET| Last Updated: Aug 07, 2012 12:34 PM ET

People slowly came outside despite the cold wind across South Africa today, pointed their mobile phone cameras to the sky and opened their mouths to taste a rare snowfall that fell on much of the country.

The snow began Tuesday morning, part of an extreme cold snap now biting into a nation still in its winter months. By mid-afternoon, officials recorded snowfall across every South African province except Limpopo, though a formal report from the region had yet to reach the South African Weather Service, agency spokeswoman Kenosi Machepa said. Satellite imagery suggested the snow reached there as well, she said.
...

www.cbc.ca...

Antarctica.

Record winter ice cover in Antarctica

Matthew Denholm |
The Australian |
October 24, 2013 12:00AM


WINTER sea ice cover in the Antarctic has grown to its largest extent since satellite records began in the late 1970s, defying most climate models and muddying the waters of the global warming debate.

The latest data from NASA's satellites shows the winter sea ice cover around the frozen continent reached a record 19.47 million sq km last month. That beats last winter's 19.44 million sq km -- itself a record.
...

www.theaustralian.com.au...


Europe.

Freezing cold March sets records across Europe


By Justin Grieser


March 29, 2013 at 1:15 pm

Like much of the eastern U.S., Europe has been stubbornly cold this March. In spring’s absence, arctic air and heavy snowfall more typical of January have kept temperatures some 3 to 4ºC below normal across the continent.

The Met Office reports this has been the UK’s coldest March since 1962, with an average temperature 3ºC (5.4 ºF) below normal. Through March 26, the mean national temperature was 2.5ºC, making it the 4th coldest March since records began in 1910.
...

www.washingtonpost.com...

Russia.

Down to -50C: Russians freeze to death as strongest-in-decades winter hits (PHOTOS)


Published time: December 19, 2012 15:00
Edited time: December 19, 2012 19:58

Russia is enduring its harshest winter in over 70 years, with temperatures plunging as low as -50 degrees Celsius. Dozens of people have already died, and almost 150 have been hospitalized.

­The country has not witnessed such a long cold spell since 1938, meteorologists said, with temperatures 10 to 15 degrees lower than the seasonal norm all over Russia.

Across the country, 45 people have died due to the cold, and 266 have been taken to hospitals. In total, 542 people were injured due to the freezing temperatures, RIA Novosti reported.


The Moscow region saw temperatures of -17 to -18 degrees Celsius on Wednesday, and the record cold temperatures are expected to linger for at least three more days. Thermometers in Siberia touched -50 degrees Celsius, which is also abnormal for December.
...

rt.com...

South America.

Record cold and snowy winter across much of South America

Posted: Monday, August 5, 2013 12:00 am


While we residents of beautiful North Idaho were enjoying a near record amount of sunshine and our seventh hottest July in 118 years since at least 1895, our South American friends were, by extreme contrast weatherwise, shivering in their coldest, and in some cases, snowiest July in living memory.

More than two feet of snow buried parts of southern Chile in mid July. The Chilean Army was called upon to rescue people trapped by the blizzard. There were several deaths caused by hypothermia across both Chile and Argentina. Flu cases mounted. Livestock losses were widespread in both sheep and cattle.
...

www.cdapress.com...

Of course Canada...

January 7, 2014 1:30 pm
Will this be Canada’s coldest winter?

By Nicole Mortillaro Global News

TORONTO – Many people across Canada may be struggling to remember the last time it was so cold — and for so long.

It’s definitely been a few years since Canadians have experienced a cold winter.
...

globalnews.ca...

We can go back years and see that record winters have been happening across the world as well. but you keep claiming it is just happening in the U.S...

Then, there is the fact that the main scientists who have been behind this hoax that is "Anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change" have been caught TIME AND AGAIN lying, posting false data, and erasing their records among other tactics to keep "the sheeple" dumbed down believing their "Climate Change/Global Warming is being caused by mankind lie"...

Climate Change is, and has been happening, but it is being caused by natural factors, and it isn't just Global Warming, records winters have been happening across the world as well.

That's because the map of the world actually looks like this, anyone who's been home-schooled knows that. D'uh...

www.ritholtz.com...

gort51
Unfortunately, to me, this is where the argument comes unstuck.

So the statement was made, it is hotter now than the mid 20th century....so when in the mid 20th century?

"Average" temperature again.

A little research will show that during the WW2 in the early 1940s Europe (supposedly the World up there), experienced the COLDEST Winter in 100 years...yes it was unusual, yes its what saved Russia from invasion...Perhaps it was the Arctic Vortex again?

Nevertheless, this "once in 100 years" cold snap effectively Lowered the Worlds temperature "Averages" in that period.
So, If you are comparing the Now Actual Temperature, with the 1940s Average, then we are hotter than then.

I presume temperature returned to normal in the 1950s-1976..someone wrote. So 1976 was again the coldest year? (Im asking I did not know that), So Naturally, this 1976 cold snap Again, dropped the "Average" temperatures, and comparing the now "Average" to then cannot be considered a reasonable logic question.

So, I can tell you, where I live, the temperatures of the past 5-6 years HAVE been cooler, than they were in the late 1990s early 2000s (which was a drought time here...El Nino etc)

Talk about the spin zone here, my God. The global average temperature is per year, not over a series of years as Amazing was pointing out. He clearly said that ten of the hottest years (by average temperatures per day over that year) have been since 1998. So you take and spin it in your own direction to make it look like a misrepresentation of average temps by saying that one cold year would bring down the averages for an entire period. LOL, boy oh boy how you guys try to deceive the gullible. Your entire post is meant to confuse what is really being discussed here, but it won't work. Most of us here can see right through the BS.

reply to post by Rezlooper


Most people are only as aware of the world as their front yard. Others are as aware as their TV tells them, and I bet all the news in the U.S. focused on how cold it was there, so they just assumed it was like that everywhere. People on average are pretty shallow when it comes to self and environmental awareness, so this is no surprise. "Jeez, even the mist at Niagara Falls froze, it must mean something!!???"

Okay folks...I give up. The argument on both sides is unwinable. This whole argument mainly focuses around carbon emissions, but my true concern is methane and hydrogen sulfide gas.

But, before I get into that, the argument on both sides seems to be about money and who benefits. The skeptics believe this whole thing is a farce made up so that governments can tax. Could it be that scientists became alarmed way back in the 70's with our careless habits that were causing pollution and thought up ways to stop it, thus, one idea became a tax to discourage people from using fossil fuels. And on the other side, wouldn't the oil, coal and natural gas industry have a lot to lose if a tax were created. Seriously, ask yourself who has the most to lose here, the government or energy corporations. Seriously, do you think the government is hindered in any way by not being able to tax you right now. I highly doubt it, they are spending and spending regardless of that extra income and will continue to spend. But, on the other hand, what happens to the hundreds of billions of dollars that these energy companies have amassed?

Who has the most to lose? The government or gas, oil and coal companies? The answer is real simple. So, who is most likely the side telling the lies...the side with the most to lose. There is simply way too much money at stake for these companies to sit by and do nothing. They will fight this agenda with their own agenda tooth and nail spending countless billions to accomplish their goal of making you all believe every thing is fine and this is a "natural cycle" while mass animal die-offs escalate to three per day in the world, sinkholes keep opening up, weather extremes become the norm, disease pandemics threaten our very existence, unexplainable explosions and fires increase on a daily basis, volcanoes spew more and more dangerous gas, the oceans continue to warm and rise, roaring 90 foot waves regularly smash the shores in places they were unheard of, fireballs keep exploding over our cities, heat waves smash records so extreme that wild life and people die by the scores, and on and on it all rages.... Whatever! I guess I'm just a fear mongering doom pornstar, or, I'm not so gullible and naive to just sit back and watch the show all expenses paid for by the OIL, COAL and NATURAL GAS corps!

Back to methane gas and why we should all be more concerned with that over carbon dioxide.

In 2010, methane levels in the Arctic were measured at 1850 nmol/mol, a level over twice as high as at any time in the 400,000 years prior to the industrial revolution. Historically, methane concentrations in the world's atmosphere have ranged between 300 and 400 nmol/mol during glacial periods commonly known as ice ages, and between 600 to 700 nmol/mol during the warm interglacial periods. It has a high global warming potential: 72 times that of carbon dioxide over 20 years, and 25 times over 100 years, and the levels are rising. Recent research suggests that the Earth's oceans are a potentially important new source of Arctic methane.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Released on 10/27/2013 by the USGS (photo above in the slideshow) are the latest readings of methane over the Arctic area. Methane that is being released above 1950 pbb (parts per billion) is in red. To put those numbers into context, what is considered a 'normal' release of methane? According to Dr. James Hansen, an American adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, 1250 ppb is a livable level. We are now well surpassing that level daily.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You can see that we are well past the livable level of methane gas that is spewing from the Arctic. If you really want to take some time and read about the methane gas research I have done then read the first link above and follow it up with these other threads that I created last year about the dangerous gas theory. The last one I created is the second link above.

Recent methane leaks, sinkholes may be evidence dangerous gas theory correct

Dangerous Gas theory in relation to drug resistant bacteria and mutating viruses

Dangerous Gas theory in relation to earthquakes and increased seismic activity

Dangerous Gas theory in relation to increasing fireballs

Keep in mind that I wrote these threads over the course of last winter from Dec. 2012 to Feb. 2013. Many of these things have increased in numbers since, for example, the known mass animal die-offs have increased to 3 per day now versus just 2 per day last year.

You also need to check out the Jumping Jack Flash Hypothesis to get information on all this and the tracking of unexplained explosions and fires. He does a great job of tracking everything on a daily basis. An incredible amount of information in there. His hypothesis is what led me to write the original dangerous gas theory thread.

Anyways. Just so you know...I'm more concerned with methane than CO2 because it is much more deadly to our atmosphere at 72 times worse over 25 years. I do believe that these gases are releasing into our atmosphere from the oceans and many other sources at alarming rates that shouldn't be overlooked or wrapped up into this silly carbon tax argument. Take a look for yourselves and research it a little bit.

reply to post by Rezlooper

Very good post. I've read some of your methane posts, and will focus more on it. You've probably answered this, but how will we know when methane is affecting humans, what will be the signs of illness to first show up? Thanks for being the voice in some wilderness, or a canary in a cage, and hopefully being the bird who says the sky is falling.

reply to post by Rezlooper


Well Rez... I've come to think of you as Mr Methane as much as I came to think of Rising Against as Mr. Kennedy for the pure level of time, effort and acquired expertise resulting from that. It's why I was a bit confused by this direction as something different for ya.

On the methane though? I'll be 100% totally blunt here. When you started on that path? I was dubious... Methane equates to cow farts for how I've literally come to expect it be mentioned in the AGW debate. You persisted tho...and researched..and persisted some more. In time? You really have won me over to at least stand with a fully open mind to what you've presented and continue to develop on that aspect.

After all, one thing no one can debate because it's blatantly self evident. Climate changes have occurred and, at times, quite suddenly by geologic frame......with mystery stamped under causation. Methane eh? Hmm.... As good as any and better than most to ponder as the missing factor in some of those mysteries.

I really look forward to more threads from ya on this side of it ...and if the oceans are burping up that gas and others at increasing volumes? We are in serious trouble until we find out why, how and IF it CAN be mitigated. If not..how to adapt, and perhaps quickly.

reply to post by Rezlooper


Actually, if you really think about it, the fossil fuel companies still really won't loose anything, no mater how much tax is involved.

Here is why: they have us all over a barrel, even the governments.

Think about what all in our world uses fossil fuels, be it oil or coal. Our entire infrastructure across the globe depends upon these fuels for many different reasons. From movement of people, to movement of goods. From having electrical power to simply live daily lives, to having that same power to produce goods that are bought by consumers (and the governments).

Think about all the equipment that the military uses: Jets, Tanks, Ships (not all ships are nuclear powered, only subs and carriers), Vehicles.

Think about all the people that need to get back and forth to work......that do not live inside a city infrastructure. Not everyone has a bus, train or subway that they can use. Not everyone lives within walking or even bike riding distances from where they live to where they work (or shop even).

Think about all the first responders and the vehicles they use. Hospitals using emergency vehicles or even helicopters to transport people.

No mater how much anyone is taxed, they STILL will NEED to use these fossil fuels. The world became dependent upon them, and it is not something that can be replaced over night.

Think about consumer goods that you and everyone uses: How many things that you own contain plastic? Plastic comes from oil of course.

So taxes get raised. Will that stop me from buying gas for my car? No. I need to be able to use my car to get from where I live to places that are work or places to buy food, to hospitals in case I get hurt. 15 miles is just too far for me to walk or ride a bike. I'll just have to do without something else so I can afford it.

Oil companies know this. They know that many consumers will still pay, even with a heavy tax in place. They know that they will still make money from their product.

Just take a look at cigarettes. How much tax is there on a pack of cigarettes now? And yet people still buy them.

Addiction is a powerful thing......whether it's Nicotine or Gasoline.

reply to post by Rezlooper


U do know Australia is going through the summer right. U CO2 alarmist need to go hibernate.