by SarahC1975 » Sun 20 Nov 2005, 13:44:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wilburke', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('killJOY', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')ohn Denver is the biggest doomer, because he works towards the doom with giving the cornucopians a rationale for doing nothing.
You got it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: he's a complacency-monger.
Absolutely correct. The main problem with JD (and with other so-called "debunkers") is that they have a nagging tendency to cherry-pick, choosing a target (say, Simmons one day, or Heinberg the next), taking something one of them has discussed (a Simmons quote on depletion, a Heinberg discussion on population matters), then spinning it into a straw position that does not square with the actual ideas being discussed. It is easy for the simple-minded to be deluded into equating a
discussion of population into "support" for Nazi-style atrocities.....people like Bill O'Reilly do this sort of smear every day. Also, it is also easy to take the work of someone like Colin Campbell (who has been very open about his methodology and purpose from day one), and jump on his changing calculations, as if that somehow
proves that he is unreliable, instead of reflecting a high degree of integrity.
JD purposely takes a negative position on just about everything discussed on this board, for reasons that are known only to him. Some of his derived conclusions are ludicrous: for instance, read his views on why debt is a non-problem, or muddle through his continuing diatribes against Peak Oilers who supposedly "oppose" conservation (hint: nobody opposes conservation; the idea is that conservation
is not enough).
In the end, what you have is a highly verbose troll spouting
opinions, substituting malice for arguments. It is not worth debunking this debunker, nor is it particularly useful to pat him on the back for the sparse occasions when he is correct in his analysis. Ignore this man, please. There are plenty of other skeptics on this site who present much more thoughtful (and non-insulting) arguments.
Agreed. JD comes off as a malicious punk looking for attention who has no degree of self-awareness, no understanding of scale, no understanding of complexity and no knowledge of history or human nature.
About 1 out of 10 posts will post something useful. The other 9 are over-the-top ridiculous type stuff where he claims we will "eat uranium", beam power from the moon, that oil could go to $2,000 a barrel without the cost of food going up or that we can keep the American suburban economy afloat by replacing cars with bicycles.
He also seems to assumme people (both average citizens and decision makers) are going to react rationally when gas is at $5.00 or $10.00 a gallon.
It's a rather pathetic blog that is mostly good for it's "car wreck" value, as in one can't help but to look at it the same way you look at a car wreck.
Sarah C.
by some_guy282 » Sun 20 Nov 2005, 13:52:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SarahC1975', '
')
He also seems to assumme people (both average citizens and decision makers) are going to react rationally when gas is at $5.00 or $10.00 a gallon.
That is personally my biggest problem with the soft landers. If we reacted rationally to this problem, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule. – Nietzsche
Time makes more converts than reason. – Thomas Paine
History is a set of lies agreed upon. – Napoleon Bonaparte
-
some_guy282
- Tar Sands
-
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Sun 18 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
-
by JohnDenver » Sun 20 Nov 2005, 21:57:10
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wilburke', 'A')ctually, there are not ANY noted Peak Oil authors who would claim that fertilizers are made from oil, nor are there any who would claim that electricity mostly comes from oil.
Really? How about this quote, from the endlessly quoted peak oil standard "The Oil We Eat":
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')oday we do the same, only now when the vault is empty we fill it again with new energy in the form of oil-rich fertilizers.
http://www.harpers.org/TheOilWeEat.html$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he term they usually use is "fossil fuels", which includes natural gas (the primary source for fertilizer) and coal (the primary source for electricity in the US).
That right there shoots down the peak oil food crisis theory. NG and coal won't be peaking for quite some time, so fertilizer is a non-issue, for at least the next 50 years. Pesticides are also a non-issue because the amounts used world-wide account for an infinitesimal fraction of oil use, and pesticides too can be manufactured from NG, coal, tar sands etc.
NONE of the noted peak oil authors are pointing out these simple facts. Why is that Wilburke?
by JohnDenver » Sun 20 Nov 2005, 22:17:31
Here's another lie for you Wilburke.
Matt Savinar says this on his website "Life After the Oil Crash":
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ybrids or so called "hyper-cars" aren't the answer either because the construction of an average car consumes approximately 27-54 barrels (1,110-2,200 gallons) of oil.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.htmlHe bases this statement on the following data:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he average car will consume during its construction 10% of the
energy used during its lifetime.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Res ... #anchor_72
This is the same fallacy as the one I pointed out in the above post. Savinar is leaping erroneously from "it takes a lot of energy to make a car" to "it takes a lot of oil to make a car"; just like the food crisis fearmongers are leaping from "it takes a lot of fossil fuel to make fertilizer" to "oil depletion will cause a fertilizer crisis". The ol' "switcheroo", as I like to call it.
The really sad part is that Matt refuses to fix that error, even though he is well aware of it. That speaks volumes about the pessimists' commitment to the truth.
by lakeweb » Sun 20 Nov 2005, 22:21:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SarahC1975', 'A') good example of what I'm talking about is today's post on peakoildebunked that says we're going to solve peak oil by transferring our consciousnesses into computers and then using teleportation:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JD, on Peak Oil Debunked', '[')i]
"Advances in neuroscience will allow a person to be scanned and transferred into a computer . . ."
"Ultimately, the human body could become obsolete altogether as we transfer our consciousnesses into computers where our intelligence could be augmented thousandfold and we could travel independent of physical matter. We could actually "be" a spacecraft or other vehicle, or imbue physical matter with intelligence. Aliens have probably done this already . . ."
Source:
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/200 ... cated.html
And to think, I thought it had no value. (I haven’t been reading it much lately.) I guess it may be a good study of the delusional mind.
I'll have to do my hello on the new members. It is because of JD I've joined PO.com
Best, Dan.
by SarahC1975 » Sun 20 Nov 2005, 22:42:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SarahC1975', 'T')his is more embarrassing/painful to read than your post about the monetary system and "eating uranium" and "vertical farming" combined.
Sarah, I could care less whether you are embarassed or pained by what I (or in the above case Roland) write. The point of Roland's post is that the future is not determined. You can pretend and pose all you want, backslapping with your fellow group-think luddites, but the fact remains: you don't know the future.
I know enough to know that the only person who would even theorize that downloading my consciousness into a computer and then teleporting myself across the galaxy is what the future holds is a loony-tune.
JD, have you considered getting professional help? There is something about your writing that reminds me of a friend of mine who was eventually institutionalized.
In the meantime, why don't you stick to posts like the one with the pictures of the bicycles or the one about New Urbanism. Those were actually useful and informative posts. 90% of the rest of your blog is, like I said previously, like a car crash and smacks of somebody who needs to deal with issues from childhood.
Sarah C.
by orz » Mon 21 Nov 2005, 00:15:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')I know enough to know that the only person who would even theorize that downloading my consciousness into a computer and then teleporting myself across the galaxy is what the future holds is a loony-tune"
That whole piece was not meant as solution to Peak oil. It was there to say:
1) Don't underestimate technology. It may not save our lifestyles but it has a decent chance of saving civilization.
2) Humans are not necessarily just "animals fighting for food." We may be at the moment, but we can evolve beyond that.
3) The brain thing wasn't there as a soultion for peak. It was just meant to say that the pardigm of what is human can, and probably will change in the future. From research done so far on the human brain, it just seems to be a bunch of electrical signals shooting around, not some separation of mind and body as the religious might make you believe. If this is true, then there's nothing inconcievable about transferring your memory(conciousness) to a computer, which then of course would be able to move across all electrical conduits wireless or not.
I'm not going to defend all of JD's posts, cause some of the personal attacks and techno ideas are ridiculous, but this one was not so, and it seems the message of it is being missed:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he point of Roland's post is that the future is not determined.
Are you crazy enough to think you know the future for certain?
by SarahC1975 » Mon 21 Nov 2005, 00:39:27
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('orz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')I know enough to know that the only person who would even theorize that downloading my consciousness into a computer and then teleporting myself across the galaxy is what the future holds is a loony-tune"
That whole piece was not meant as solution to Peak oil. It was there to say:
1) Don't underestimate technology. It may not save our lifestyles but it has a decent chance of saving civilization.
Mesopotamia is the birthplace of civilization, and technology does not seem to be saving it at the current moment.
But I supposse once it evolves to the point where we can dowload our brians into computers and teleport across the galaxy, things like depleted uranium, white phosphorus, and rape rooms will be long-forgotten memories.
Sarah C.
by lakeweb » Mon 21 Nov 2005, 01:33:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SarahC1975', 'T')his is more embarrassing/painful to read than your post about the monetary system and "eating uranium" and "vertical farming" combined.
Sarah, I could care less whether you are embarassed or pained by what I (or in the above case Roland) write. The point of Roland's post is that the future is not determined. You can pretend and pose all you want, backslapping with your fellow group-think luddites, but the fact remains: you don't know the future.
Well, Golly JD, When do we start?
Best, Dan.
( post ad ad hominem response below...)
by orz » Mon 21 Nov 2005, 02:12:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')esopotamia is the birthplace of civilization, and technology does not seem to be saving it at the current moment.
Well, it ain't gonna solve political or social issues unrelated to oil. I mean if the country decides to enter a nuclear war, we're screwed, but technology can reduce the incentives for doing so. Why hasn't it in the past. Well, when energy is cheap, why bother? I mean energy research isn't as sexy as designing space shuttles and making much $$ in IT. Even if you don't agree that we will be able to scale up the technology in time to maintain a global civilization, you can't deny there is a huge amount of research taking place in alternate energy now.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut I supposse once it evolves to the point where we can dowload our brians into computers and teleport across the galaxy, things like depleted uranium, white phosphorus, and rape rooms will be long-forgotten memories.
Actually, uh, they will be. Anyway, you're latching onto this point too literally. I really doubt you will see this in your lifetime even if peak oil turns out miraculously to be a non issue somehow, so don't worry about it. This point is just made, from how I see it, as a counter to the statement that we are no different from bacteria and are doomed to ecological constraints of this planet permanently.
