Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby davep » Fri 22 Feb 2008, 20:20:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')So therefore, if we don't appropriate further solar energy, the net effect relative to current usage is zero (or negative if we get our act together).


But we are appropriating more via biofuels. "Waste" is some other lifeform's food.


If you read David Blume's book "Alcohol Can Be A Gas!", you can see how ethanol production can be placed into a holistic permaculture design whilst improving soil and biodiversity relative to what farmers are doing now. It won't replace our current consumption, nor is it designed to.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here are so many areas where we have inefficiently used land mass (or even recently desertified areas) that the scale required to harness solar would not need to take away from natural systems using it.


How could it not? There is no "extra" solar.

There is no "extra" wind. Harness the energy from the wind and what happens to the systems that energy once supplied? The seeds of many plants ride the wind.

You don' t seem to grasp the scale here.


Stop this idiocy. I understand the need to examine the potential problems with any technology, but we have created deserts where once there were forests. These areas can be utilised for producing biomass that both increases biodiversity and allow us to harness the byproducts. There could be a net increase in biodiversity if it isn't planned as an industrial exploitation. As for wind, I don't think windmills thirty metres up will affect seeds (far less so than trees etc). However, there could be a risk to birds. Just stop being so strident and try to discuss the dangers realistically.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 22 Feb 2008, 20:26:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '
')You specifically mentioned appropriation of NPP. I specifically said that we can appropriate NPP from human-degraded areas. You then proceed to ignore me. I'm aware that we can't carry on increasing appropriation of NPP, and I didn't mention increasing it. Yet you furiously set about building a straw man...


I never use strawmen. You seem pissed you don't grasp what I am saying and resort to attacking me instead.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for capturing "solar on a scale to support (...) population and consumption...", I don't think any of us expect the same levels of consumption.


Oh? Do you see a drop in human population to a sustainable level of 2 to 3 billion? Or do you see us not adding 3 billion more by 2050 as projected in the most optimistic scenario?

Do you think we will not try to meet future energy demand by any means possible?

Let me try another approach.

We cannot look to solar, via sunlight, wind, or biofuels to replace fossil fuel energy on the scale and in the manner we use them today and support a population billions beyond carrying capacity with billions more coming...without serious environmental consequences.

It just isn't sustainable.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 22 Feb 2008, 20:29:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')Stop this idiocy.


Ok. I won't respond to your lack of a grasp of basic ecology and thermodynamics.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby BigTex » Fri 22 Feb 2008, 20:35:19

Monte, I love reading your ideas....

But sometimes it SEEMS like maybe you are not respecting other points of view because you are too busy being exasperated that someone else may not be fully UNDERSTANDING your point of view.

The pattern is that someone proposes a partial solution that could never be a complete solution, and you ding the proposal because it is not a complete solution. The person proposing it may not have intended for it to be a complete solution, but considered it to be better than doing nothing.

Just an observation from the balcony.
Last edited by BigTex on Fri 22 Feb 2008, 20:37:58, edited 1 time in total.
:)
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby davep » Fri 22 Feb 2008, 20:37:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '
')You specifically mentioned appropriation of NPP. I specifically said that we can appropriate NPP from human-degraded areas. You then proceed to ignore me. I'm aware that we can't carry on increasing appropriation of NPP, and I didn't mention increasing it. Yet you furiously set about building a straw man...


I never use strawmen. You seem pissed you don't grasp what I am saying and resort to attacking me instead.


Not at all, my dear Monte. What is your position on using already-appropriated NPP for alternative uses? Do you not agree that we can use already human-degraded land for other uses? If not, why not? As far as scale-risk is concerned, the appropriation of NPP has aready happened. You were using the appropriation argument as a risk. This would help mitigate that risk. Do you agree?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for capturing "solar on a scale to support (...) population and consumption...", I don't think any of us expect the same levels of consumption.


Oh? Do you see a drop in human population to a sustainable level of 2 to 3 billion? Or do you see us not adding 3 billion more by 2050 as projected in the most optimistic scenario?


Here we go into your tired circular arguments. you based your 2-3 billion on a median value of a synthetic study. However, if you take the median values after 1981 (i.e. the more recent, accurate studies) the results are different. I've even done it for you

Image

(oops, I had an attack of fat fingers for 1994, I'll repost it some time)
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'D')o you think we will not try to meet future energy demand by any means possible?

I think that's a risk. I also think that so long as people like you won't broach alternatives, we will be doomed to use any means possible.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'L')et me try another approach.

We cannot look to solar, via sunlight, wind, or biofuels to replace fossil fuel energy on the scale and in the manner we use them today and support a population billions beyond carrying capacity with billions more coming...without serious environmental consequences.

It just isn't sustainable.

OK, carrying capacity, see graph above. It's not as cut and dried as you seem to think. I don't hear anybody arguing about using energy "in the manner we use them today", so why bring it up?
Last edited by davep on Fri 22 Feb 2008, 21:16:24, edited 1 time in total.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby careinke » Fri 22 Feb 2008, 20:55:43

Welcome back Monte, I see you are still trying to emulate that damn gorilla, (just kidding).

Cliff (Start a rEVOLution, grow a garden)
User avatar
careinke
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 5047
Joined: Mon 01 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific Northwest
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby davep » Fri 22 Feb 2008, 21:01:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')Stop this idiocy.


Ok. I won't respond to your lack of a grasp of basic ecology and thermodynamics.


I wrote that in relation to a specific issue. Of course, you sidestep it and launch into an ad-hom. I see you haven't changed tactics after your holiday from PO.com.

If you don't want to respond to my posts, that's fine. But I'll still keep pulling you up on your dogmatic black-and-white approach. It's a shame, because you have some decent things to say. It's just ruined by your attempt to position yourself as far more intelligent than you actually are (ad-hom touche :lol: ).
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 22 Feb 2008, 21:58:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', ' ') The person proposing it may not have intended for it to be a complete solution, but considered it to be better than doing nothing.


And therein lies the fallacy in much of our thinking about these issues.

There is no techno-fix.

We cannot do just one thing.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 22 Feb 2008, 22:16:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')Not at all, my dear Monte. What is your position on using already-appropriated NPP for alternative uses? Do you not agree that we can use already human-degraded land for other uses? If not, why not?


Do you posit that these lands support nothing living? A desert is not devoid of life. In the most biodiverse county in the USA, (San Diego) 675 of the 1600 angiosperms are in the desert portion of the county.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s far as scale-risk is concerned, the appropriation of NPP has aready happened. You were using the appropriation argument as a risk. This would help mitigate that risk. Do you agree?


This 40% appropriation of NPP happened in the face of the advent of fossil fuel use. How much do you think this would increase without fossil fuels? We are going to burn more wood, biogas, and divert more land to biofuels. We are going to harness the tides, the wind, and any other form of solar energy...but on a scale unheard of....

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ere we go into your tired circular arguments. you based your 2-3 billion on a median value of a synthetic study.


We have been over this before...ad naseum.

No, I do not. I base it upon the consensus of the leading experts in the field.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'D')o you think we will not try to meet future energy demand by any means possible?


I think that's a risk. I also think that so long as people like you won't broach alternatives, we will be doomed to use any means possible.

Won't broach alternatives? What do you think I have been doing for the last 37 years?

There are no alternatives to fossil fuels that will support a population in severe overshoot on a sustainable basis.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's not as cut and dried as you seem to think. I don't hear anybody arguing about using energy "in the manner we use them today", so why bring it up?

You never heard of Chindia?

China is still having 10%+ growth with 300 million people each year trying to move to the city and and buy a car.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 22 Feb 2008, 22:20:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')Of course, you sidestep it and launch into an ad-hom.


I think you need to look up ad hominem attack.

I never use them. I will only debate the merits. Telling you that you don't grasp the concepts here is an observation of reality, not an ad hominem, nor a personal attack.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 22 Feb 2008, 23:45:15

Davep:

"Do you not agree that we can use already human-degraded land for other uses?"

So Davep, if your child, or wife, or mother were raped, would you hold that, since she has already been "degraded" that it is of no consequence for them to be raped in the future?

I hope not. I hope you find the very question extremely offensive.

And so I hope you understand why I find your question equally offensive.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby dohboi » Fri 22 Feb 2008, 23:46:52

Oh, and a warm welcome back, MQ. I'm glad, for one, to see you back at it in fine form.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby LoneSnark » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 03:01:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow much do you think this would increase without fossil fuels?

Quite a bit, I would guess. Luckily the question is not how we are going to live without fossil fuels but simply living with less than we are accustomed too.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') hope not. I hope you find the very question extremely offensive.

And so I hope you understand why I find your question equally offensive.

Your question appears to be meaningless. If I am speculating to you about possible uses of my home after it is damaged your response should in no way be similar to if I raped your wife.
User avatar
LoneSnark
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 03:24:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LoneSnark', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow much do you think this would increase without fossil fuels?

Quite a bit, I would guess. Luckily the question is not how we are going to live without fossil fuels but simply living with less than we are accustomed too.


And who is going to acquiesce to this that you know?

Living with less and less every year as the pie grows smaller with each new mouth to feed, clothe, and provide a job for.

We will burn everything in sight and take over as much as we can from other living things to try and maintain the status quo.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby davep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 09:56:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')So therefore, if we don't appropriate further solar energy, the net effect relative to current usage is zero (or negative if we get our act together).


But we are appropriating more via biofuels. "Waste" is some other lifeform's food.


If you read David Blume's book "Alcohol Can Be A Gas!", you can see how ethanol production can be placed into a holistic permaculture design whilst improving soil and biodiversity relative to what farmers are doing now. It won't replace our current consumption, nor is it designed to.
By misappropriating a rather romantic and unproven technology (permaculture) Blume is unknowingly (or not) scamming the credulous public for book sales. While industrial ethanol (the most efficient kind) is at best slightly useful, home scale alcohol production would be a complete waste of time. It would make more sense to feed the corn to pigs and ride them to the commune house.


Blume has practiced permaculture for a long time. You're good at smearing things you haven't read and know nothing about. Whereas Blume has spent decades in the fields of both permaculture and ethanol production. I wonder who has the more merit? The practitioner or the naysayer who hasn't even bothered reading what he's criticising?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here are so many areas where we have inefficiently used land mass (or even recently desertified areas) that the scale required to harness solar would not need to take away from natural systems using it.

How could it not? There is no "extra" solar.

There is no "extra" wind. Harness the energy from the wind and what happens to the systems that energy once supplied? The seeds of many plants ride the wind.

You don' t seem to grasp the scale here.

Stop this idiocy. I understand the need to examine the potential problems with any technology, but we have created deserts where once there were forests. These areas can be utilised for producing biomass that both increases biodiversity and allow us to harness the byproducts. There could be a net increase in biodiversity if it isn't planned as an industrial exploitation. As for wind, I don't think windmills thirty metres up will affect seeds (far less so than trees etc). However, there could be a risk to birds. Just stop being so strident and try to discuss the dangers realistically.This is more agricultural and thermodynamic voodoo. How can you expect places we have already reduced with our abuse to expand our industry? Sheer madness.

Voodoo? We were discussing a specific potential risk brought up by Monte. Seed dispersal would be far more disrupted by lower-lying elements such as trees than windmill poles. That's why windmills should be much higher than other elements of the terrain, due to their adverse effect on the wind. Get a grip with the rhetoric...
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby davep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 10:12:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')Not at all, my dear Monte. What is your position on using already-appropriated NPP for alternative uses? Do you not agree that we can use already human-degraded land for other uses? If not, why not?


Do you posit that these lands support nothing living? A desert is not devoid of life. In the most biodiverse county in the USA, (San Diego) 675 of the 1600 angiosperms are in the desert portion of the county.


Are you saying that a man-made desert has more biodiversity than a carefully husbanded replacement? It's all about choices. We can choose to allow biodiversity or not when planning succession.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s far as scale-risk is concerned, the appropriation of NPP has aready happened. You were using the appropriation argument as a risk. This would help mitigate that risk. Do you agree?


This 40% appropriation of NPP happened in the face of the advent of fossil fuel use. How much do you think this would increase without fossil fuels? We are going to burn more wood, biogas, and divert more land to biofuels. We are going to harness the tides, the wind, and any other form of solar energy...but on a scale unheard of....


That's obviously a risk. But moving on from a consumer-based society to a less wasteful one could mitigate that. Also, just because the scale would be large, doesn't mean that we can't appropriate existing resources. As I've mentioned elsewhere, the vast majority of corn produced in the US goes to feed cattle. It's wasteful. We need to be looking at orders of magnitude better use of resources.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ere we go into your tired circular arguments. you based your 2-3 billion on a median value of a synthetic study.

We have been over this before...ad naseum.

No, I do not. I base it upon the consensus of the leading experts in the field.

It is not a consensus, it's a median value of various studies over three decades. The amplitude of the differences shows that it is anything but consensual.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'D')o you think we will not try to meet future energy demand by any means possible?

I think that's a risk. I also think that so long as people like you won't broach alternatives, we will be doomed to use any means possible.

Won't broach alternatives? What do you think I have been doing for the last 37 years?

There are no alternatives to fossil fuels that will support a population in severe overshoot on a sustainable basis.

I do love the way you contradict yourself in two succeeding paragraphs. To summarise, first off "I do look at alternatives" then "there are no alternatives". You're set in your ways and have been coming at an angle that we're in overshoot for nearly four decades. You ignore or berate anything that deviates from your conclusions, even when the studies are done by more qualified people than you or I. It's a bit sad really.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's not as cut and dried as you seem to think. I don't hear anybody arguing about using energy "in the manner we use them today", so why bring it up?

You never heard of Chindia?

China is still having 10%+ growth with 300 million people each year trying to move to the city and and buy a car.

So it is. However, I wasn't talking about them. I discuss potential solutions. We know that we're going to be faced with an end to the age of easy energy. Chindia will grind to a halt in its present form. We'll power-down whether we like it or not. So, when we discuss future scenarios, please don't add caveats about things being impossible if we try to sustain our current lifestyles. We all know that. The question is whether we can do it or not, not whether we can sustain our current gluttony.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby LoneSnark » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 12:27:40

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd who is going to acquiesce to this that you know?

Living with less and less every year as the pie grows smaller with each new mouth to feed, clothe, and provide a job for.

In 1990 Americans seemed happy enough with their 1990 living standards. And that is assuming less and less every year would mean reversion back to previous living standards, which it does not. A world with less oil means fewer and fewer vacations to Australia, smaller and smaller cars, but all the fancy electronics we can stand. Seriously, unless the drop is severe every year I doubt people will notice outside of an academic sense.

Nowadays, prosperity is owning an iPhone, not driving a hummer.
User avatar
LoneSnark
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 514
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 12:38:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')As I've mentioned elsewhere, the vast majority of corn produced in the US goes to feed cattle. It's wasteful. We need to be looking at orders of magnitude better use of resources.


Of course. But we aren't. In fact the demand for meat from grain is on the rise in the developing countries. That is not going to change by design anytime soon. That is reality, cultural direction and asset inertia.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t is not a consensus, it's a median value of various studies over three decades.


This study shows a median value of 2 to 5 billion.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he medians of the low and high estimates provide a range from 2.1 to 5.0 billion people. With the current Earth population estimated to be 6.1 billion people,24 the median range of sustainable carrying capacity estimates suggests that the Earth's population be reduced in order to be sustainable.


Using energy as a measure, 1 to 3 billion:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')sing standards of living lower than the current North American average, estimates of carrying capacity using energy as a metric range from 1 to 3 billion people. This is less than half of the current global population.


http://www.ilea.org/leaf/richard2002.html

The consensus of 17 leading experts is 2 to 3 billion, I cite here:

http://eco.gn.apc.org/pubs/smail.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') do love the way you contradict yourself in two succeeding paragraphs. To summarise, first off "I do look at alternatives" then "there are no alternatives".

No contradiction at all. We need to look to sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels, but there are no alternatives to fossil fuels that will support a population in severe overshoot on a sustainable basis.

We need to develop alternatives within sustainable parameters, not to try and meet the energy demands of a population in severe overshoot. That's just not possible on a sustainable basis.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o it is. However, I wasn't talking about them. I discuss potential solutions. We know that we're going to be faced with an end to the age of easy energy. Chindia will grind to a halt in its present form. We'll power-down whether we like it or not. So, when we discuss future scenarios, please don't add caveats about things being impossible if we try to sustain our current lifestyles. We all know that. The question is whether we can do it or not, not whether we can sustain our current gluttony.

You cannot talk about our energy future and not talk about China and India.

We aren't abandoning our current gluttony, nor do we have any plans to do so in the near future. China is not building a future beyond oil, they are building a future upon oil.

Yes, we are going to hit a wall of reality, but not before we pull out all stops to sustain our current lifestyles. China has had a taste of the American way of consumption. They are not going back.

We will be at war before we powerdown. Iraq is but the first volley.

And even if we powerdown, we still have a severe population overshoot that cannot be sustained with alternative means.

We are in overshoot. The scale is just too big.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sat 23 Feb 2008, 12:50:57, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron