What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
by mekrob » Sun 10 Sep 2006, 12:36:06
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') could understand it if the actual catastrophe was to come in 200 years. People usually don't care if they'll be dead when the consequences actually take place. But you're talking about decades. If that is the case, either those alive today or their sons and daughters will be the direct victims.
Americans are selfish pigs, have you not learned this by now?!?! They don't care about others, many not even about their children's futures. They have been told over and over about global warming, depletion, etc. What is their response? "It won't affect me". They don't even think about it affecting their children.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') mean, it is obviously better to go through some inconvenience today than to starve tomorrow, right?
It was obviously better to prepare better national security before 9/11 wasn't it? It was obviously better to prevent Hitler from gaining full control of Germany, wasn't it? It was obviously better to build better levees in New Orleans, wasn't it?
But guess what? We didn't do shit and we won't do shit again with this because it would be an inconvenience to the present, which is all America cares about.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') doubt Carter talked about the emergency in the terms you guys are using here. Otherwise it would have been all over the news.
Let's see what Carter said in
1979:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he energy crisis is real. It is worldwide. It is a clear and present danger to our Nation. These are facts and we simply must face them.
I can't find the other quote, but he also warned that at the current trend, all known oil reserves would have been used up by 1990 because we were still going on an exponential growth curve.
What was America's reaction? Voting Carter out, voting Reagan in, and the end to the "suffering" by getting rid of regulations and so forth. We had a clear warning almost 30 years ago and we squandered it. It was better to go full speed into a brick wall than to take a little pain now so that in the future we'd have none. We pussied out. Simple as that. We in effect knew what was happening and we decided to ignore it. It was labelled a conspiracy to steal from Americans, etc etc.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ush is currently curtailing civil rights that are much more important than the "right to posess an SUV". If that can be done for security reasons, why can't much less be done to prevent starvation? [/qutoe]
They still don't see it happening to Americans, but instead to terrorists. They're willing to give up freedoms, as long as they don't have to give them up, but instead, someone else.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m still not getting it. According to you guys, the economy will be wrecked anyway and it will happen quite soon.
Well the American people don't know this, so if the government instituted it, they would see it as an infringment upon their freedoms, and so forth. America can't see into the future, only the present is what they care about.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')ow can it be "uneconomical" when starvation is the alternative option?
1) It first reaches a point where it is uneconomical to the companies. Companies are designed to make money, not be good citizens and help people out.
2) It will eventually reach a point where it takes more energy to produce than what you get out of it, so it's like digging your own hole.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his makes sense if you are offering some palliative options. But if there was very little that could be done to alleviate the consequences, wouldn't it be a bit sadistic/masochistic to endulge in discussion of these tragic events? I mean, what is the need to start suffering today when one will suffer inevitably tomorrow. It just increases the amount of time one spends suffering while not achieving anything else in the process. You know what I mean?
If we can get the people to stop their idiotic behaviors, then we buy more time. Continue on such paths and so forth and we alleviate alot of pain in the future because then the extra oil that we save by not burning it now can be used for the future for necessities so that future catastrophes either won't exist or will exist in lesser degrees.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell, for many reasons: out of indignation, out of frustration, in the effort to achieve some justice, in the effort to raise awareness of the truth, in the effort to move people to do something, in the effort to prevent future abuses,...It is also a matter of integrity to me, etc
I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
by lorenzo » Sun 10 Sep 2006, 12:43:04
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'I')F this Peak Oil crisis were to have any significance, then it would show by the attempts to mitigate it and to do something about it. (What Miki says). But not very much of that happens here at this forum.
Ummm...this logic seems to me...well...flawed. So a problem is only significant if it can be fixed? By that logic, metastatic cancer is no big deal.
You exactly prove my point. What do we read in any medical research institute's list of priorities: research into fighting cancer. It's a huge problem, hence the huge number of scientists working on it. Millions of peer-reviewed articles on it.
Global warming. Huge problem. Huge multinational mitigation effort (UNFCCC, Kyoto, EU ETS, etc...), huge number of articles, science institutes, experiments, satellites, etc... working on this.
"Peak Oil" supposedly is a huge problem too: "we're all going to die", "mass die-off soon", "life in the cosmos will go extinct", etc... I consider these to be big problems. But what do we see? Not a single scientist has ever written an article about Peak Oil. Not one.
Hence the suspicion that it's a fantasy construct.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'T')he reality is that sometimes problems are just so big that they defy any sort of significant mitigation. Sometimes the best you can do is pray to whomever it is you pray to and hold on tight.
See, I don't know where you're from, but in my world, when a group of people has a case that shows that "life in the cosmos will go extinct because we're running out of oil" (etcetera), then there will be other people who look at this. If the claim is credible, scientists, engineers, governments and intellectuals open a public debate and get together to study things. They then look at options for mitigation. Then a whole process gets underway to get things moving on a political, social, economic and cultural level. Of course, they only do this for "big" problems. "Life in the cosmos, etcetera" is a big problem.
And you seriously think that all rational people in the real world out there are going to do is "pray"?
This proves to me that you have no case from the start. Your conclusion proves the weakness of your case.
The only thing that really interests me in the Peak Oil myth, is that it's a good way to think about big systems and big global problems. It's a creative hobby. It can even be used by foresight institutes, futurists and scenario-writers. But I think it's best for some of you to begin to realise that it's merely a fictitious effort. When you start to confuse fantasy with reality, you have to be careful that you don't take it too far. Some people here have actually sold their house to buy a piece of land to plant their own food, etc... So the Peak Oil myth can be dangerous if you believe in it too much.
If more people start acting this way, based on bestselling fantasy books, written by people who can be rationally called macchiavellistic freaks preying on insecure people, then I seriously consider sueing those authors. They are a danger to the public good and to public sanity. These guys could fall under the "sect act" (in Europe). They indoctrinate people only to get money out of them.
by smallpoxgirl » Sun 10 Sep 2006, 12:59:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '1')-Being in a democracy doesn't mean lawlessness. Just like there are laws that curtail unlimited freedom in order to prevent people from abusing each other, there are other special situations in which a nation needs to sacrifice freedom in order to prevent an even worse damage to their rights. I mean, it is obviously better to go through some inconvenience today than to starve tomorrow, right?
Certainly this is true. The problem is that the most reasonable policy isn't always what wins votes in a democracy. Some times groundless optimism and flatery win the day. US domestic oil supply peaked in '71. Prior to that, we imported very little oil. Once our oil supply started to drop off and we became dependent on imported oil, the Arab Oil Embargo happened in 73-74. In '76, Carter took office and made energy independence a big priority. Our national speed limit was dropped from 70mph to 55mph to improve gas milage. People started insulating their houses, building energy effecient designs, installing wood stoves, exploring solar, etc. Great strides were made, but the idea of conservation fundamentally conflicted with "the American Dream" and the Gospel of Capitalism. Our country is deeply imbedded with the idea of "more". Use more, spend more, buy more. It really is the American way. People were grudgingly willing to accept the idea of using less as a temporary fix, but not as a lasting one. Reagan swept to power on a tide of popularity with basically the philosophy of "We're Americans and we're bad asses. We just need to build up our military and we'll take oil from whomever we want." All the progress that was made under Carter was quickly washed away. If you go out today looking for books about efficient home design, most of what you will find was authored in the late 70's and early 80's.
So yeah...When Bush talks about "The American way of life is not negotiable," that's what he means. We are not going to use less. We are not going to buy less. We are not going to spend less. And we have lots of bombs, so you better not argue.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', 'I') doubt Carter talked about the emergency in the terms you guys are using here. Otherwise it would have been all over the news.
It was. It definitely was. He made speaches on live TV imploring talking about the energy crisis and imploring people to conserve energy. I'm not old enough to remember, but I bet it was on the news most nights in the late 70's. It was a big deal. People were spending hours in line at gas stations to get gas. Gas stations were running out of gas.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '3')-Bush is currently curtailing civil rights that are much more important than the "right to posess an SUV". If that can be done for security reasons, why can't much less be done to prevent starvation?
Because Americans really don't care if the Gestapo watches their every move. As long as they can keep shopping and driving, they're happy.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', 'I')'m still not getting it. According to you guys, the economy will be wrecked anyway and it will happen quite soon. What's with the Carpe Diem philosophy when the situation is this severe and impending (ie, an emergency)?
by mekrob » Sun 10 Sep 2006, 14:46:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Peak Oil" supposedly is a huge problem too: "we're all going to die", "mass die-off soon", "life in the cosmos will go extinct", etc... I consider these to be big problems. But what do we see? Not a single scientist has ever written an article about Peak Oil. Not one.
Hence the suspicion that it's a fantasy construct.
Not a single scientist? By whose count? What makes someone a scientist? Do they have to do all of their work in a lab, which is generally considered to be a scientist?
If that is the case, and it seems so, then no, there aren't and their
shouldn't be any reports from scientists about it. Why is that? Because Peak Oil deals with geology and that is almost always done out in the field. If those are included in scientists, then you are obviously missing Deffeyes, Campbell, King, etc. All of those are geologists or engineers and they have written or talked about it extensively
What about the Hirsch report? That was done by the US government of all organizations!
There have been plenty of credible persons who have written on the subject as well as a key organization that would not likely have published it.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f the claim is credible, scientists, engineers, governments and intellectuals open a public debate and get together to study things.
The US army and the US government have both opened their ears and eyes to the subject and have both commissioned reports on it, both of which weren't too great.
Let's not forget ASPO, which has Campbell at the head and he is a geologist/scientist.
Seems like there is some discussion. I don't see why you say there isn't any.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')f course, they only do this for "big" problems.
They tend to do anything about 'big' problems that they and their buddies can exploit, ie. make a shit load of money off of. Cancer leads to tons of research dollars. Even gloomy global warming is generally regarded by most as being decades off before any major effects will be felt and even then they are still able to push for more consumerism: hybrid vehicles, biofuels, solar panels, etc. It's not the end of the world for those discussions because there is profit in it.
But for Peak Oil, there is nothing that can be exploited from it since the main message is DON'T overeat, DON'T turn on the AC/heat too much, DON'T drive, DON'T shop, DON'T travel, etc. All that leads to is less consumerism and thus less money for businesses. Not even Global Warming is that big of a scaretactic.
I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
by lorenzo » Sun 10 Sep 2006, 15:34:51
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')Peak Oil" supposedly is a huge problem too: "we're all going to die", "mass die-off soon", "life in the cosmos will go extinct", etc... I consider these to be big problems. But what do we see? Not a single scientist has ever written an article about Peak Oil. Not one.
Hence the suspicion that it's a fantasy construct.
Not a single scientist? By whose count? What makes someone a scientist? Do they have to do all of their work in a lab, which is generally considered to be a scientist?
Tut tut, don't dodge the point. A scientist is someone who has published scientific articles in science journals that are peer-reviewed by the scientific community. It's a rather straightforward concept and process.
Show me one Peak Oil author who has ever got one of his articles through the peer-review process of a scientific journal. One will suffice. Thx.
If PO were the crisis some of you make it to be, then there would be more than one scientist writing about it. Many more than one. Scientists. You know.
The Beginning is Near!
by smallpoxgirl » Sun 10 Sep 2006, 15:35:45
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'Y')ou exactly prove my point. What do we read in any medical research institute's list of priorities: research into fighting cancer. It's a huge problem, hence the huge number of scientists working on it. Millions of peer-reviewed articles on it.
And we have what to show for all that? Butkiss. Nothing. More people every year dying from it. Now they get the choice of dying quickly and somewhat painfully vs. dying slowly, really painfully, and expensively.
I think I'm getting your angle though. You wouldn't by any chance be bucking to run this new government bureau of really expensive research into useless unworkable solutions to peak oil would you?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lorenzo', 'G')lobal warming. Huge problem. Huge multinational mitigation effort (UNFCCC, Kyoto, EU ETS, etc...), huge number of articles, science institutes, experiments, satellites, etc... working on this.
Net end result? Earth in a toaster oven. Lots of people researching, but nobody doing anything. The scale of the problem defies a workable solution. Heck Kyoto was a token gesture and we couldn't even agree on that.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lorenzo', 'S')ee, I don't know where you're from, but in my world, when a group of people has a case that shows that "life in the cosmos will go extinct because we're running out of oil" (etcetera), then there will be other people who look at this.
Actually you do know where I'm from...I am from the section of North America currently under occupation by the US government. And around here we don't do things that way. If the government gets such a report it classifies it Top Secret and only lets a few corporate CEO's know about it. Those guys figure out a way to make a billion dollars off the catastrophe. They then move all the money into numbered Swiss bank accounts, declare bankruptcy, and move to the Cayman Islands.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lorenzo', '"')Life in the cosmos, etcetera" is a big problem.
by mekrob » Mon 11 Sep 2006, 10:11:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ut tut, don't dodge the point. A scientist is someone who has published scientific articles in science journals that are peer-reviewed by the scientific community. It's a rather straightforward concept and process.
Show me one Peak Oil author who has ever got one of his articles through the peer-review process of a scientific journal. One will suffice. Thx.
If PO were the crisis some of you make it to be, then there would be more than one scientist writing about it. Many more than one. Scientists. You know.
Why would they need to go through a scientific journal? It is COMMON SENSE among geologists and petroleum engineers that oil production goes up, then comes back down. That's PetroEng. 101! There is no need for any discussion about it. No need for articles about it. Why? Because everyone KNOWS it.
I want to put out the fires of Hell, and burn down the rewards of Paradise. They block the way to God. I do not want to worship from fear of punishment or for the promise of reward, but simply for the love of God. - Rabia
-
mekrob
- Expert
-
- Posts: 2408
- Joined: Fri 09 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
-
by PenultimateManStanding » Mon 11 Sep 2006, 11:59:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ut tut, don't dodge the point. A scientist is someone who has published scientific articles in science journals that are peer-reviewed by the scientific community. It's a rather straightforward concept and process.
Show me one Peak Oil author who has ever got one of his articles through the peer-review process of a scientific journal. One will suffice. Thx.
If PO were the crisis some of you make it to be, then there would be more than one scientist writing about it. Many more than one. Scientists. You know.
Why would they need to go through a scientific journal? It is COMMON SENSE among geologists and petroleum engineers that oil production goes up, then comes back down. That's PetroEng. 101! There is no need for any discussion about it. No need for articles about it. Why? Because everyone KNOWS it.
come on now, mekrob, don't be obtuse. There aren't any peer reviewed articles in Anthropology Today, so oil production just keeps going up. Duh!
by venky » Mon 11 Sep 2006, 13:02:18
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ut tut, don't dodge the point. A scientist is someone who has published scientific articles in science journals that are peer-reviewed by the scientific community. It's a rather straightforward concept and process.
Show me one Peak Oil author who has ever got one of his articles through the peer-review process of a scientific journal. One will suffice. Thx.
If PO were the crisis some of you make it to be, then there would be more than one scientist writing about it. Many more than one. Scientists. You know.
Why would they need to go through a scientific journal? It is COMMON SENSE among geologists and petroleum engineers that oil production goes up, then comes back down. That's PetroEng. 101! There is no need for any discussion about it. No need for articles about it. Why? Because everyone KNOWS it.
Actually, Lorenzo does have a point that the amount of basic research done on Peak Oil is pretty much limited; compared to something like global warming it is nothing!!. I did explain some of the reasons for that in my post and I think your point is valid too; depletion is conventional wisdom amongst Petroleum industry. There was this guy from Schlumberger who came recruiting to our university last year. I asked him point blank when he thought oil production would peak. He answered quite calmly 2015 and said that we would $100 before we saw $40 once again.
But still, while it might seem that Peak Oil is perfectly logical and widespread to us as we spend a lot of time on this forum and reading such articles, but outside we are a minuscule minority. There is no one with whom I interact in real life who had any idea of Peak Oil before I explained it to them. And regarding Lorenzo's claim, this is what a search of Peak oil on google scholar came up with. 429,000 pages.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Pea ... tnG=Search
There are some peak oil articles that made it past peer review
And suprising global warming gave me only 145,000 pages
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en ... tnG=Search
But I think that is because Peak and Oil are rather common terms
I play the cards I'm dealt, though I sometimes bluff.
Only Man is vile.
by lorenzo » Mon 11 Sep 2006, 18:56:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'Y')ou exactly prove my point. What do we read in any medical research institute's list of priorities: research into fighting cancer. It's a huge problem, hence the huge number of scientists working on it. Millions of peer-reviewed articles on it.
And we have what to show for all that? Butkiss. Nothing. More people every year dying from it. Now they get the choice of dying quickly and somewhat painfully vs. dying slowly, really painfully, and expensively.
No, actually we got the beginning of a cure:
News - Q&A: Skin cancer gene therapy
How scientists eradicated deadly skin cancer in two men using gene therapy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5305420.stm95% relevance | 1 Sep 2006
News - Gene therapy rids men of cancer
Scientists clear two men of deadly skin cancer by genetically modifying their immune cells.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5304910.stmAnd we got some nice research finding new things: Cancer jab 'stops 75% of deaths' A cervical cancer vaccine could cut deaths by three quarters if given to all 12-year-old girls, a study says.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5311598.stmEtcetera.
But you're right, with your attitude ("all we can do is pray"), we would be nowhere.
So we're not counting on you. We would be fools.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lorenzo', 'G')lobal warming. Huge problem. Huge multinational mitigation effort (UNFCCC, Kyoto, EU ETS, etc...), huge number of articles, science institutes, experiments, satellites, etc... working on this.
Net end result? Earth in a toaster oven. Lots of people researching, but nobody doing anything. The scale of the problem defies a workable solution. Heck Kyoto was a token gesture and we couldn't even agree on that.
by lorenzo » Mon 11 Sep 2006, 19:12:54
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mekrob', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ut tut, don't dodge the point. A scientist is someone who has published scientific articles in science journals that are peer-reviewed by the scientific community. It's a rather straightforward concept and process.
Show me one Peak Oil author who has ever got one of his articles through the peer-review process of a scientific journal. One will suffice. Thx.
If PO were the crisis some of you make it to be, then there would be more than one scientist writing about it. Many more than one. Scientists. You know.
Why would they need to go through a scientific journal? It is COMMON SENSE among geologists and petroleum engineers that oil production goes up, then comes back down. That's PetroEng. 101! There is no need for any discussion about it. No need for articles about it. Why? Because everyone KNOWS it.
The Sun goes up, then comes back down too. All astronomers know this.
Stating the obvious is not very useful. And Peak Oil is not the obvious. The Peak Oil discourse here is one about clear dates and clear die-off scenarios.
So would you care to give us a single reference of an article about PO that puts a date on "Peak Oil", as is commonly done by the peak oil bestselling money makers, and which was published in a scientific journal? Just one. Thx.
The Beginning is Near!
If can be uneconomical if it takes more energy to extract it than what the product provides. Extraction of oil sands uses tremendous amounts of natural gas to do the processing. Currently about 100 BTUs of natural gas is used to produce 150 BTUs of oil from the sands. It's a god awful ecological disaster and really produces very little energy in the process.
