And obviously they also don't seem to want to broach the topic of DIE OFF as the endpoint. They just look at it as a permanent (but mild) drop in standard of living.

Like pumping our sewage back into the aquifers to accomodate the overshoot? Los Angeles is F-d in more ways than one and with each passing day I feel more resolute in my decision to move out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/16/us/16 ... ef=science

vision-master, at least the populace of California won’t freeze when they can no longer afford heating oil or natural gas to heat in the winter like those living in Minnesota may. The prices for those resources will sky rocket long before global warming will make your winters more moderate. Better stock up lots of thermals!

ammo is going up in price and some of the bulk food suppliers (Mountain House) have suspended sales.

Good to see you, Matt. Yup, I'm running into trouble with arranging bulk purchases of food for my cache. I was going to spend my entire stimulus check on storable foods but it's getting very expensive if you can even find it.

As for the article the OP referenced, since when is a trip from Illinois to Yellowstone 3,500 miles?

Anyways, it seems like there is more and more of a "soft-sell" going on in the MSM with regard to the state of oil and gas. I just watched a segment on MSNBC with Alex Witt where the reason for high prices was placed, without the usual spin, on the fundamentals - supply cannot meet demand, therefore high prices. And I'm seeing more and more allusion to fundamentals across the MSM. It's like they are softening up the populus so that reality won't come crashing down on it.

Better than sweating to death.

Yes, it's much better to leave a nice clean corpsicle that someone else can throw upon their bonfire.

Si, pero ustedes todos necesitan hablar y entender Espanol!

(sorry for the butchering - I'm quite rusty)

Oh please! I've visited family in Wisconsin and Chicago when the temperature was 100 F and 80%+ humidity! And you think California is hot? At least we can get away with swamp coolers in much of the state. You have to use expensive to run refrigerated air conditioning because there’s too much humidity. To be comfortable you have major expenses summer and winter.

The same way a 50-year-old drunk calls the pot-smoking teenager down the street "the neighborhood nuisance"?

Listen, there are more ways to heat a home than through oil and natural gas. If people are so stuck in their ways that they won't investigate the options, then screw em.

Read the Illuminati thread-Labor Day just might be right!

Don't be too hard on them. Not even all PO-aware people take dieoff for granted (at least in the first world).

I'd prefer the media to let the situation sink in gradually, rather than overdramatizing it and causing the imminent-PO-theory to lose credibility if oil price temporarily comes down again.

I think if people don't know what the worst-case consequences are, they aren't going to be motivated to do anything. The more mainstream the peak oil coverage, the more watered down and superficial the nightmare scenario. It kind of goes along the lines of: "Gee, we won't be able to drive our cars anymore. We'll get to know our neighbors again. So what's the big deal? I guess I'll just let it run its course."

I don't think an adult person - espiecially in car-dependent America - with an IQ above 80 could seriously say that, if he puts any thought into it. Arguments like "I'll just cycle to work" are the immediate responses against PO, but their fallacy is so evident that they're immedieately demolished by a look at the greater socioeconomic picture.

Except I will be cycling to work.

(If I'm still employed then, and I'm working on it)