Sorry, but "scaring the pants off your partner" would be considered a form of abuse. How would you like it if your partner tried to "strong-arm" you into taking an opinion about an issue, and with an ultimatum? If you read enough about Peak Oil, you realize that we are running out of light sweet crude, which poses no *immediate* problems. I don't know if it is a peculiarly American trait to rally around an "Armageddon" scenario, or if it is simply folks who need a rise because their day-to-day lives are just flat-out boring, but you folks need to stop with the so-called scare tactics.
Finally, I stand by my post about the alarmist amateurs. Stay away from Savinar, who is apparently a lawyer (and we all know a monkey can become a lawyer, so that certainly isn't impressive) and is pretending to be a physicist or geologist; Jay Hanson, who claims to have absolutely no credentials; and DSM-ratable psychotics, like Ruppert. If anybody gives the Peak Oil "movement" a bad name, it is these three clowns.
PeakOil is You
Hello Pt 1
by pkwonofsocal » Wed 26 Jan 2005, 18:23:07
>If you read enough about Peak Oil, you realize that we are running out of light sweet crude, which poses no *immediate* problems. I don't know if it is a peculiarly American trait to rally around an "Armageddon" scenario, or if it is simply folks who need a rise because their day-to-day lives are just flat-out boring, but you folks need to stop with the so-called scare tactics.
Apparently the governments of US, Britain, Iran, or China don't agree with you about the consequences of PO. That's why they are trying to grab as much oil as they can.
>Finally, I stand by my post about the alarmist amateurs. Stay away from Savinar, who is apparently a lawyer (and we all know a monkey can become a lawyer, so that certainly isn't impressive) and is pretending to be a physicist or geologist; Jay Hanson, who claims to have absolutely no credentials; and DSM-ratable psychotics, like Ruppert. If anybody gives the Peak Oil "movement" a bad name, it is these three clowns.
Fine. It's ok to ignore them if you wish. Except there are many others who preach the same subject without their scare tactics.
Once again, I say that if ignoring a problem can make it go away it's not a bad survival strategy.
Apparently the governments of US, Britain, Iran, or China don't agree with you about the consequences of PO. That's why they are trying to grab as much oil as they can.
>Finally, I stand by my post about the alarmist amateurs. Stay away from Savinar, who is apparently a lawyer (and we all know a monkey can become a lawyer, so that certainly isn't impressive) and is pretending to be a physicist or geologist; Jay Hanson, who claims to have absolutely no credentials; and DSM-ratable psychotics, like Ruppert. If anybody gives the Peak Oil "movement" a bad name, it is these three clowns.
Fine. It's ok to ignore them if you wish. Except there are many others who preach the same subject without their scare tactics.
Once again, I say that if ignoring a problem can make it go away it's not a bad survival strategy.
- pkwonofsocal
Newbies and visitors MUST watch this important video
by NevadaGhosts » Fri 28 Jan 2005, 17:53:13
- NevadaGhosts
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 703
- Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Your First Post
by Aaron » Tue 15 Mar 2005, 10:03:06
Mine
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')very photon of energy we use comes from one single source. The nearest star... our sun.
The only way around this is to emulate the same process of fission & fusion that powers stars, and create energy the really, really old fashioned way. The problem is creating a sustainable process for fusion that is safe and reliable.
Thus, every form of energy in use or proposed today is a carrier, not a producer of energy, some more efficient than others. Therefore, every advance of modern man is a direct result of hydrate fuels, which were created through geologic processes storing the energy of photosynthesis... including computers... lol.
Light crude oil is the most efficient carrier we know... nothing else comes close. No amount of demand stimulation, technology advances, alternative use, or magic dust can change this basic fact.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')very photon of energy we use comes from one single source. The nearest star... our sun.
The only way around this is to emulate the same process of fission & fusion that powers stars, and create energy the really, really old fashioned way. The problem is creating a sustainable process for fusion that is safe and reliable.
Thus, every form of energy in use or proposed today is a carrier, not a producer of energy, some more efficient than others. Therefore, every advance of modern man is a direct result of hydrate fuels, which were created through geologic processes storing the energy of photosynthesis... including computers... lol.
Light crude oil is the most efficient carrier we know... nothing else comes close. No amount of demand stimulation, technology advances, alternative use, or magic dust can change this basic fact.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron - Resting in Peace
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
by Pops » Tue 15 Mar 2005, 10:42:16
April 3, 04
[quote]
Hello all,
It seems to me that it is pretty obvious that any finite resource will have a mid point of availability. It isn’t a huge leap them to understand that the high point of discovery indicates the eventual high point of production. While economists can wax about “demand destructionâ€
[quote]
Hello all,
It seems to me that it is pretty obvious that any finite resource will have a mid point of availability. It isn’t a huge leap them to understand that the high point of discovery indicates the eventual high point of production. While economists can wax about “demand destructionâ€
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
-
Pops - Elite
- Posts: 19746
- Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Re: Your First Post
by lowem » Tue 15 Mar 2005, 11:01:21
My first post
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lowem', 'A')re there enough remaining resources to replace all the existing vehicles with hybrids? ER members have been debating this one.
It's probably a good step in the right direction though.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lowem', 'A')re there enough remaining resources to replace all the existing vehicles with hybrids? ER members have been debating this one.
It's probably a good step in the right direction though.
2004-07-20, 13:02:50
*wince*
-
lowem - Expert
- Posts: 1901
- Joined: Mon 19 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Singapore
by clv101 » Tue 15 Mar 2005, 11:02:35
1st post
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clv101 Wed Jun 02, 2004', ' ')I've been convinced of "Peak Oil" since I first came across it about a year ago... however I came across this article today:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=38645
I don't believe it for a moment, peak oil just has too much evidence and makes too much sense! But it makes you think... what if we've got it wrong? I wouldn't be the first time, in fact the vast majority of what people believed to be true about the world turned out to be wrong given enough time.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clv101 Wed Jun 02, 2004', ' ')I've been convinced of "Peak Oil" since I first came across it about a year ago... however I came across this article today:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.a ... E_ID=38645
I don't believe it for a moment, peak oil just has too much evidence and makes too much sense! But it makes you think... what if we've got it wrong? I wouldn't be the first time, in fact the vast majority of what people believed to be true about the world turned out to be wrong given enough time.
2nd (I think) post
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('clv101 Wed Jun 02, 2004', 'C')ould someone explain to me why peak oil isn't a national debate? I'm sure many governments all over the world have been presented with the evidence and I'm doubly sure the current US administration are 100% aware of the concept having personally seen it first hand with their own domestic production in the 70?s.
So, if we can assume many governments are aware of the impending energy and accompanying economic disaster why no word? What would happen if the government produced an energy white paper explaining peak oil, explaining the imminent shortfall and also that there wasn't an easy way out.
I'm sure this would be jumped on by the media and the public debate we?ve been asking for would be with us?
Is it however because a government can never admit to anything other than a better tomorrow? If they published such a paper would investment stop overnight, would consumer spending decline, would such a report create economic disaster all by itself whilst the oil continued to flow placing the country in question in a worse position than other more uninformed countries?
If we accept that economic disaster is assured come peak oil, is it better to experience it sooner (by educating the population) or to wait until we are forced into it?
"Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen." The Emperor (Return of the Jedi)
The Oil Drum: Europe
The Oil Drum: Europe
-
clv101 - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1050
- Joined: Wed 02 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Bristol, UK
)
