[AnnaLivia]

I gotta set something straight here, because I just noticed I screwed up on my last post.
FoxV said this (I have edited it down):$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') am fully aware of global warming and its consequences. I am aware that global warming is both real and present.

What I am saying is that all those Global warming models are based on assumptions that fossil fuel consumption (CO2 production) will accelerate for a long time to come (if not indefinately). Global warming is based on continued fossil fuel use. Peak Oil is based on the end of fossil fuel use. These too states of world crisis contradict each other.

In the end I am not concerned with Global warming because Peak Oil (and the imminant political/economic world crisis it is causing) is a far more immediate problem as well as the ultimate solution to global warming.

[Xelat]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FoxV', '
')and keep in mind that the coal use they talk about relies on cheap oil to be available to mine and transport. If Oil is too expensive to use then so is coal (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/PageTwo.html)

[Liamj]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AnnaLivia', 'I') gotta set something straight here, because I just noticed I screwed up on my last post.

[Ludi]

Thank you, Anna.

[Pfish]

Just got through reading Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear. Perhaps not his best effort—some of his other works have better plots and storylines. Crichton uses a fictional setting to make three great points.

The first is Global Warming requires a more objective opinion. The author makes a case for the fact that the earth might be undergoing a natural warming period—if it is warming at all. A couple of facts he points out is in the 70’s scientist were touting a global cooling period. He states there are as many scientists questioning the concept of global warming as there are supporting the phenomenon. Note: I am not here to support his view (one crisis is enough for me.) Read the book and do your own research.

Second point. Whenever you look at problems in society, look towards the senior/retired/experienced professionals for accurate opinions (this sounds familiar.) They have no axe to grind or agenda to promote. They do not make money with their views, but they serve as a voice of reason and fact.

Third point, and this is the main thrust of the book. Newspapers, magazines and TV have started to use the words “crisis” “critical” and “ terrorism” to a greater extent in covering events in our world. In fact, Crichton points out exactly when this started to occur—in October of 1989—when the iron curtain fell and the Soviets were no longer a threat to the western world. Governments, lawyers and the media float us from one crisis to the next in order to keep us obedient, fearful and paying taxes—it is in essence of what makes the western world go around.

In the epilogue, Crichton points to one of America’s darker periods in talking about the eugenics debacle. Presidents, Nobel Laureates and leading citizens of the day lined up in support of castrating undesirables to preclude “their” genes from spreading into “our” culture. To me it is amazing how eugenics has been written out of US history while Hitler’s barbaric cleansing is a reminder of what happens “when madmen rise to power.”

So…..to the point…..if we had a single item in today’s news that would scare the crap out of the public and put us in a State of Fear….wouldn’t it be Peak Oil? Nothing affects Wall Street like the price of oil. And as the recent weeks have reminded us, nothing can affect our lives like the supply and demand of crude. If the above three wanted to keep us in a State of Fear why not play the Peak Oil card? Maybe PO is too close to the truth and the rest of this crap AIDS, global warming, Ebola, mad cow, mean bees and terrorism are nothing more than a smoke screen.

[Tapas]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pfish', ' ')
Maybe PO is too close to the truth and the rest of this crap AIDS, global warming, Ebola, mad cow, mean bees and terrorism are nothing more than a smoke screen.

[Ludi]

The only thing Crichton makes a case for is his own ignorance.

[Tapas]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '
')The only thing Crichton makes a case for is his own ignorance.

[Golgo13]

'Smoking gun' on humans and global warming claimed

[Pfish]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tapas', '
')
Global Warming is real. It is a growing crisis that has been studied and tracked by hundreds of researchers and scientists. They have a general consensus on this global phenomenon that is being triggered by human activity. The only thing they disagree on is the critical level and date.

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ack to the main question: When do govenments play the Peak Oil card?

[dark-suzie]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ack to the main question: When do govenments play the Peak Oil card?

[sjn]

Governments won't play the "Peak Oil Card" until it's in their interests to do so. Why would you expect any different? Governments certainly want their public to feel threatened by fears that they can be seen to address. Whether that's to blame certain minorities for all societies ills or to create a foreign enemy with which to distract and decieve. What they don't want though, is for the public to be afraid of something that the government is unable to do anything about; if that was to happen the goverments would soon lose their power and chaos would reign supreme.

As for Eugenics, it is real science. It may be distasteful and the methods historically imployed have certainly been appalling both by the Nazi's and the US; but it is none the less valid from a practical point of view. Genetics affects Homo Sapiens just like any other life form. The biggest problem with eugenics to my mind is who makes the decisions on what are beneficial traits and how they come to those decisions. Nature is usually the best placed, evolution hedges its bets on the future, a diverse genepool will more likely come up with sucessfull traits in unpredictable future environments. Also be aware though that a large part of the Eugenics movement in the US was practised by normal individual American citizens, by conscious decisions about who would make "appropriate" breeding stock for their own offspring. I've read that this form of eugenics is still commonly practised within the Jewish community in the US.

Finally, Michael Crichton is an intelligent writer but he has always had an agenda. David Brin wrote a rather interesting critique of Crichton in is blog: Michael Crichton vs Science

[Tapas]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pfish', '
')Science has no preconceived notions or fantasies. Scientific argument only gets stronger with more debate and facts.

[MicroHydro]

AIDS is killing 3 million people per year, and still growing. This might not be a "crisis" to most yet, but it certainly will remain to be part of the long emergency.

We were lucky with SARS. If it had become a global pandemic, hundreds of millions of deaths were possible. Maybe not a full blown "crisis", but certainly a near miss. The virus still exists in animals. Maybe the next time SARS crosses over to humans, we won't have the resources to contain it.

Y2K would have caused some real economic problems if the problem had not been identified and corrected in advance. The failure of a crisis to materialize was due to a lot of hard work by many thousands of programmers, which cost many millions of dollars.

Global climate change by definition can never be perceived as a "crisis" because long gradual trends will always be masked by short term fluctuations. The fact that oil prices fell on Friday does not negate the fact that they are headed up long term. The world climate is changing whether one chooses to pay attention or not.

Peak oil is not a "crisis" either. The most dramatic short term consequences are undesirable political and economic shifts that were likely even if oil remained abundant. The year to year changes otherwise will be gradual enough that whatever happens, it will become the new normal, rather than a crisis.

[k_semler]

I have noticed the following about "problems" presented by the media, and PO fits neither of these:

1. If the problem effects the nation, or a significant part of it, present it as Problem-->Solution. This is done to give closure to the case, and not have people worry about it.

2. If it does not effect the nation, or only a very very small portion of it, (ie 1 or 2 families), then it is OK to present only the problem. But make sure that preventitive measures are spoken about so it has less ability to effect the masses of people

3. If it is a live event that effects a very small portion of the nation, (a bank robbery, high speed chase, hostage situation), then cover it miniute by miniute until the situation is resolved. After all, the good guys always win, dont they?

4. If it is a live event that effects the nation or a large portion of it, (Sept. 11, August 15 2003 blackout), then focus on that event's possible solution. Then cover the event until the solution seems to be in sight, and cease coverage. The viewer/listener is then left to thier own devices to assume it turned out good. (who really didn't know that our electrical infastructure is one of the oldest in the world, and little better than some third world countries?)

Unfortunatly, PO fits in none of these catagories. It will effect our nation, (and world), on a massive scale and there is no solution even remotly in sight of solving the situation which will impact the globe. Yes, some solutions have been proposed, but at best it is as if using a peice of plywood to deflect an incoming 4" mortar. Until PO fits one of these four models, then it will not be covered to any significant amount in the mainstream media. Currently, PO just does not fit with the media's model of presentation. They decide what the population thinks about everything, and it will not be divulged until thier message can be taylored to brainwash the masses effectively to further enhance thier own personal debit.

Almost every event covered by the media can be linked to an increase in consumer goods if you look hard enough. (terri shaivo=living will, 09/11=guns, other PPE, 0815/2003 blackout=generators, Y2k=gasoline; generators; food; ammo; weapons; "yay it's 2000" paraphanalia, superbowl=beer, war="support our troops" stickers on cars, high speed chase=more insurance and cellphones). All media coverage encourages people to go spend money to stimulate the ecomomy. PO encourages thriftiness, which would undermine our modern debit-driven economy. PO will get no coverage until it is far too late, and all the signs of the depression are in full swing.

[TrueKaiser]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tapas', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pfish', ' ')
Maybe PO is too close to the truth and the rest of this crap AIDS, global warming, Ebola, mad cow, mean bees and terrorism are nothing more than a smoke screen.

[sjn]

Of course these things are real. Just because they're used as a smoke screen to cover more immediate globally significant dissonance doesn't mean they aren't real. If "The End Of Life As We Know It" is going to make these things irrelevant to most people they suddenly don't matter so much. Personally, I think that matters like "Global Climate Change" and habitat destruction are massive issues that could potentially result in the Earth becomming uninhabitable. I've previously been very concerned about vCJD though given the uncertainty of the next few years it suddenly seems less important. I think AIDS is going to be a big problem here in the UK. I know many young people who just don't care, they have unprotected sex with just about anybody and everybody, I think this will actually have a very significant impact over the next few years. Ebola seems to be nothing new. The lastest research into the "Black Death" actually pins the disease to an Ebola variant as opposed to Bubonic Plague which has terrorised Europe for best part of the last 400 years. Islamic terrorists have been made into an easily identifiable enemy. The persecution of innocent muslims results in radicalisation which creates the very problem it set out to solve; this is of course entirely deliberate.

And yet all these issues are easily dismissed individually. They can all be addressed in some symbolic way, with small sucessess built into major triumphs. How might any government address an issue like Peak Oil which threatens to undermine the most fundamental assumptions upon which civilisation is built?

(Sorry if I haven't made a lot of sense, I've had rather a lot to drink... oh well...)

[Ludi]

Of course Micheal Crichton is an intelligent person and writer, that doesn't absolve him from ignorance, or a kind of stupidity. I know PhDs who are incredibly "stupid."

[bobcousins]

I often wonder about this. Peoples perception of risk, and what makes a good story, are seriously skewed. I am sure there are good reasons for this. People want to be scared. But not too much.

There is some natural selection at work among governments and the media, but I'm not sure about what makes the public tick. Possibly on one hand it is helpful to know about unusual threats, but you don't need to be told about actual everyday threats. On the other hand, you don't want to be paralysed by fear. Basically, keep people excited, but let them sleep at night.

There is a chemical in the body that makes fear exciting. This varies between individuals, as you would expect. This is important, because it encourages some individuals to take risks, which may be advantageous to the group. Equally, you need some individuals to play it safe. Risk taking also reduces with age. I believe all this behaviour is the product of evolution, but is now exploited in various modern ways. Killing mammoths is no longer possible, so we satisfy our need with a horror movie or bungee jumping

The ideal scare needs to line up with inherent fears of the populace, and the interests of the state. The ideal scare for the media is something, well scary, but not very likely to happen, and can be forgotten about by the time of tomorrow mornings newspaper.

So what makes the news here is a man bitten by a "deadly" banana spider. He didn't die, so its not that deadly. I haven't checked, but I think the number of people dying from spider bites in the UK is zero. The real risks are car accidents, heart diease, lung cancer, but these are not good stories.

People are naturally xenophobic, and governments lay claim to protecting the people, so an ideal scare is threat of invasion by some other people - commies, al qaeda, canadians- they all work. It needs to be something tangible and credible though. Asteroids are no good. People are not scared of them. And the government can't pass laws against asteroids. Equally global warming isn't really scary. Having your house flooded every year is though. To tackle global warming entails enacting unpopular measures. No good. Passing laws against foreigners is much better. It doesn't matter that they don't pose any actual threat. In some ways it is better, because when your policy fails it doesn't matter.

So the dynamics of scaring people, gaining legitimacy to protect people who think they are scared, and being scared, generally add up to scares which miss real threats completely.