Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Improving Peak Oil Credibility

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

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 03 Apr 2010, 17:55:34

mcgowanjm wrote:OKIE DOKIE.

First, Starvation taking place in America. I can't convince
you of 9/11, the Federal Reserve is a RICO, Climate Change, World PO in 2005, US PO in1971,
the Sixth Extinction, or that the US is an Empire.


You don't need to convince me of 9/11, it was on the telly, climate change is a fact and has been happening for eon's, of course the world peaked in 2005, everyone knows that, and as far as extinction or whatever your definition of empire might be, thats still more than a little up in the air based solely on your past postings.

And associating all of this with peak oil in 2005 is exactly why PO suffers in the eyes of some in terms of credibility.

mcgowanjm wrote:you even believe the US Economy is Recovering.


Ain't that awful, being stuck with this reality?

mcgowanjm wrote:A) Obesity is out of control (Again, you think being obese
is as far from Starvation as is possible.


Make up your mind, either 1 in 6 Americans starved in March of 2010 according to your christmas prediction, or they are fat. I suggest you pick a reality, and stick with it, prior to making my point for why it would be nice if such things weren't automatically linked to PO by any crazy with a keyboard and hair brained idea.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby JustaGirl » Mon 05 Apr 2010, 17:45:51

I have to wonder how "great" the depression would have been if the dust bowl had not happened. 27 states were severely affected by it. Just a thought.
Only those who can see the invisible can do the impossible.
JustaGirl
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Wed 09 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Petoria

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 05 Apr 2010, 19:24:30

Update on peakoil.com's credibility:

VMarcHart wrote:Here's the belated tally through March: 181 predictions, 5 rights, 50 wrong, 126 open. The theme of March was famine, hunger, empty shelves, etc. Didn't happen.

There are only 3 predictions for April, and then most of them are for December 31.

Yep, listen to this board.



http://peakoil.com/open/bold-prediction ... 5-315.html
Ludi
 

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AAA » Mon 05 Apr 2010, 19:52:21

Ludi wrote:Update on peakoil.com's credibility:


LOL I thought about posting the same thing earlier today.

The bold predictions thread is a disgrace to po.com
How can Ludi spend 8-10 hrs/day on the internet and claim to be homesteading???
User avatar
AAA
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed 12 Nov 2008, 04:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 05 Apr 2010, 20:17:33

AAA wrote:The bold predictions thread is a disgrace to po.com



But it is one of my very favorite threads! :lol:
Ludi
 

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby shortonsense » Mon 05 Apr 2010, 20:49:16

JustaGirl wrote:I have to wonder how "great" the depression would have been if the dust bowl had not happened. 27 states were severely affected by it. Just a thought.


I am confused....to what comment are you referring? And how does your comment relate to the credibility of peak oil when lumped in with various forms of crackpottery?
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby shortonsense » Mon 05 Apr 2010, 21:17:41

AAA wrote:
Ludi wrote:Update on peakoil.com's credibility:


LOL I thought about posting the same thing earlier today.

The bold predictions thread is a disgrace to po.com


I don't think so. I think the thread highlights the obvious...and it isn't a po.com critique, its more like, predicting stuff is hard, especially the future. (paraphrasing a Dane)

What REALLY causes peak oil credibility problems, in general, is that the crackpottery brigades tend to have a high volume level, they make up cool sounding and sometimes plausible scenarios, and then they try and one up each other until a perfectly predictable result occurs.....the loudest and most ridiculous wins.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Loki » Tue 06 Apr 2010, 00:18:51

shortonsense wrote:What REALLY causes peak oil credibility problems, in general, is that the crackpottery brigades tend to have a high volume level, they make up cool sounding and sometimes plausible scenarios, and then they try and one up each other until a perfectly predictable result occurs.....the loudest and most ridiculous wins.


Can you post some quotes of this crackpottery? This would both illustrate your point and cause me to be entertained. A double win!
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby shortonsense » Tue 06 Apr 2010, 09:24:43

Loki wrote:
shortonsense wrote:What REALLY causes peak oil credibility problems, in general, is that the crackpottery brigades tend to have a high volume level, they make up cool sounding and sometimes plausible scenarios, and then they try and one up each other until a perfectly predictable result occurs.....the loudest and most ridiculous wins.


Can you post some quotes of this crackpottery? This would both illustrate your point and cause me to be entertained. A double win!


Are you seriously suggesting you have never seen any? The faked moon landings and real moon landings hiding aliens over at "the other place" seem to be the perfect example of how a given newby would wander into a peak oil site and be confronted with this kind of stuff. Around here there is a pretty strong 9/11 contingent, "there is no evidence a plane hit the pentagon!", you haven't bumped into this around here? Seems kind of difficult to avoid.....
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby mcgowanjm » Tue 06 Apr 2010, 09:58:30

shortonsense wrote:
Loki wrote:
shortonsense wrote:What REALLY causes peak oil credibility problems, in general, is that the crackpottery brigades tend to have a high volume level, they make up cool sounding and sometimes plausible scenarios, and then they try and one up each other until a perfectly predictable result occurs.....the loudest and most ridiculous wins.


Can you post some quotes of this crackpottery? This would both illustrate your point and cause me to be entertained. A double win!


Are you seriously suggesting you have never seen any? The faked moon landings and real moon landings hiding aliens over at "the other place" seem to be the perfect example of how a given newby would wander into a peak oil site and be confronted with this kind of stuff. Around here there is a pretty strong 9/11 contingent, "there is no evidence a plane hit the pentagon!", you haven't bumped into this around here? Seems kind of difficult to avoid.....


You can give us that quote of somebody besides a Corny linking 'Faked Moon Landings' with
9/11 and PO.

Of course you'll never do such a thing because only the Disinfo Artists here link the above.

Never do we get some CT like Greenspan/Federal Reserve/ Housing Bubbles/
9/11/Afghan/Iraq Invasions for Resources . Oh No, cause that's much too close to BAUReality.
close to reality.
mcgowanjm
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby mcgowanjm » Tue 06 Apr 2010, 10:04:54

SoS wrote:"there is no evidence a plane hit the pentagon!"


And you can give us the Proof that Flight 77 did
hit the Pentagon.

Because the Only planes I've seen proof of around the Pentagon on 9/11 at/around 9:30 am are as follows:

Venus 22(Gulfstream), Venus 77 with Brent Scowcroft circling
WH, Word 31 (Another E-4b :!: ), Gopher 06 (following something into the Pentagon, then same ID'ing Flt 93 'site', Bobcat 14 and Bobcat 17.

With NORAD Still not providing a Timeline that makes sense and not one military individual
punished.

9/11 the US enters Bizarro World. War for Resources begins. Strange that.
mcgowanjm
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby shortonsense » Tue 06 Apr 2010, 23:20:39

mcgowanjm wrote:
SoS wrote:"there is no evidence a plane hit the pentagon!"


And you can give us the Proof that Flight 77 did
hit the Pentagon.

Because the Only planes I've seen proof of around the Pentagon on 9/11 at/around 9:30 am are as follows:


This thread is not meant to be yet another rehashing of the crackpottery in question.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby bl00k » Fri 09 Apr 2010, 08:51:58

Everybody knows what ticks people off when talking about peak oil. It's the unrealistic sounding doomer prediction. People don't like to be told something extremely negative which contradicts or shocks them to their very core. It's a major case of cognitive dissonance.

Thats human nature apparently so no use in discussing.

The solution lies in toning down the negativity without lying. It lies in refraining from sounding very certain while making (doom-)predictions. It lies in letting the people decide for themselves whats wrong and whats not. You have to talk in terms of what is important to the people or in terms of what they fear.

Take for instance the anti-muslim sentiment which is apparent in most Western countries. Everybody knows a lot of oil producing countries are mostly Islamic countries and most Western countries import oil from them one way or another. This means that Western consumers are funding these Islamic countries and their corrupt leaders by consuming oil (truth is not important, it's the beliefs people hold to be true). I always like to point out that my country (Netherlands) imports oil from Iraq (not much, but still), clearly supporting some 'bad' people financially. Apart from that it's country specific what will work and what wont. The Netherlands has a sizeable support for environmental movements, which obviously holds the same views against consuming oil.

OK, so thats an argument for ending our oil dependence. I don't think you can make a convincing enough point to prove that oil will peak or has peaked until it actually is clear and is felt directly by the people. I fear only an oil shock will be enough to get things started right now. I'm talking 1973. A slowly increasing gasoline price is far less impressive, annoying as it is for most motorists.

As far as association with 'conspiracy theorists' I think we'll just have to be careful. For instance, when talking about Iraq. Whats weird about a country wanting to secure resources anyway? It's the most basic strategic move anyone could make. Furthermore it's not like America is 'stealing' oil, it has to pay like all other buyers of Iraqi oil. Just as the US has invaded Iraq, Russia bullies Georgia for having an alternative route for Caspian Sea oil.

The main thing here is to stop condeming these actions too clearly. Try being more neutral while still remaining authentic.
The man who moves a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.
User avatar
bl00k
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat 17 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby mcgowanjm » Fri 09 Apr 2010, 10:24:43

^
^
^
l
l___
The solution lies in toning down the negativity without lying. It lies in refraining from sounding very certain while making (doom-)predictions. It lies in letting the people decide for themselves whats wrong and whats not. You have to talk in terms of what is important to the people or in terms of what they fear.


But then you go full circle. No need to do anything.
We've already decided our fate. Like Lovelock saying we've already pulled the trigger, we're just awaiting the results.

The conversation you wish for should've taken place between Carter's Malaise Speech and Bush/Reagan's October Surprise (Iran Hostages released 25 minutes after Reagan Inaugurated).

Heinberg wrote:The “party” was humanity’s one-time-only opportunity to fuel economic growth and technological innovation with a bounty of cheap, abundant energy from fossil fuels. The harvesting of oil, coal, and natural gas has inevitably proceeded on a best-first or low-hanging fruit basis. While the Earth still possesses a wealth of unexploited energy resources, the cheapest and easiest-accessed of those resources have by now already been used. All of these fuels are in the process of becoming more expensive, and the various energy alternatives are limited in one way or another in their ability to replace hydrocarbons. That means we are currently seeing the end of economic growth as we have known it. The impacts for transportation, globalization, and world food supplies will be serious indeed.
mcgowanjm
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby mos6507 » Fri 09 Apr 2010, 13:15:25

mcgowanjm wrote:But then you go full circle. No need to do anything.


If we're just delivering a death sentence then there is little to be gained in telling people. You'd be better off letting them be blissfully ignorant for as long as possible.

Everyone's got to decide for themselves how much opportunity remains for better outcomes if people change their behaviors collectively. If we're going to go the way of lifeboat ethics and musical chairs, then there is no strategic advantage in doomerism becoming mainstream. It will only touch off a stampede for the lifeboats, heavily disturbing the lay of the land as far as land values and which areas are at or over carrying capacity. There will be no way to predict whether you're doomstead will remain in some bucolic neighborhood or chioked out by new development.

Sometimes I think the only impulse to spreading the word is the psychological need for social acceptance, rather than having these thoughts remain compartmentalized.
mos6507
 

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby shortonsense » Fri 09 Apr 2010, 14:41:54

mcgowanjm wrote:The conversation you wish for should've taken place between Carter's Malaise Speech and Bush/Reagan's October Surprise (Iran Hostages released 25 minutes after Reagan Inaugurated).


The conversation DID start back then. It resulted in things like hybrid vehicles being rolled out during the last crash in gas prices in the US (1999), freed up the interstate transportation of natural gas at prices more profitable to producers, led to research into shale gas which powers the market today, and continues through this very day. Only someone who never leaves their cave could miss these things being in places where they weren't just 5 years ago.

Image


And don't even get me started on the Volt.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 09 Apr 2010, 17:30:39

mos6507 wrote:If we're just delivering a death sentence then there is little to be gained in telling people.



What death sentence? Everything will be fine, our civilization is collapse-proof, apparently.
Ludi
 

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Homesteader » Sat 10 Apr 2010, 01:32:16

Ludi wrote:
mos6507 wrote:If we're just delivering a death sentence then there is little to be gained in telling people.



What death sentence? Everything will be fine, our civilization is collapse-proof, apparently.


Whew, I was worried there for a bit.
"The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences…"
Sir Winston Churchill

Beliefs are what people fall back on when the facts make them uncomfortable.
User avatar
Homesteader
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1856
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Economic Nomad

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Loki » Sat 10 Apr 2010, 02:05:31

Ludi wrote:
mos6507 wrote:If we're just delivering a death sentence then there is little to be gained in telling people.



What death sentence? Everything will be fine, our civilization is collapse-proof, apparently.


There's a difference between economic collapse and civilizational collapse. The latter is the dieoff hypothesis, which I reject.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby mcgowanjm » Sat 10 Apr 2010, 09:49:27

Loki wrote:
Ludi wrote:
mos6507 wrote:If we're just delivering a death sentence then there is little to be gained in telling people.



What death sentence? Everything will be fine, our civilization is collapse-proof, apparently.


There's a difference between economic collapse and civilizational collapse. The latter is the dieoff hypothesis, which I reject.


What you're about to find out is that there is no difference between the two.

If you have no economy you have no civilization.

LATOC wrote:The issue is not one of "running out" so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. The human body is 70 percent water. The body of a 200 pound man thus holds 140 pounds of water. Because water is so crucial to everything the human body does, the man doesn't need to lose all 140 pounds of water weight before collapsing due to dehydration. A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him.

In a similar sense, an oil based economy such as ours doesn't need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10 to 15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty.
mcgowanjm
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 66 guests