Could you fill us in on what experts and what books were mentioned please?  Did NYT mention any websites like TOD, or did they hopefully go full DEFCON 1 with LATOC & DIEOFF?

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Hubbert, Deffeyes, USGS, EIA, Oil Shockwave exercise, Simmons, Yergin, anonymous "well placed Saudis" who share Simmons concerns, Rocky Mountain Institute, Goodstein. Blogs linked include LATOC! hubbertpeak.com, peakoil.com, Energy Bulletin.
Didn't link in the best Peak Oil website on the web? Jesus Christ, give me a break.
The EB folks really deserve all the acclaim they can get, peakoil.com's been around a long damned time, Savinar's been fighting the good fight...they are all quite deserving.
Ah, this would be a rant so look out....

<rant>
Re: "deserve all the acclaim they can get..."

Of course they do. Not the point. Matt Savinar has been outfront for a long time now. Defcon 1.

Maybe it's just ego, but when we do this stuff at TOD, I like to see it recognized for its quality in addition to what other good websites have provided in taking the lead in the past.... I know that TOD is relatively new in the world but still we've been around for a while now.

I think TOD offers up a valuable, honest and often technical kind of discussion that can not be found almost anywhere else on the web about peak oil. End of story. If some people (including the NY Times) can't figure that out, then they are just mediocre journalists. I believe--though I can't prove it--that our regular readers include Heinberg, Kunstler, Pickens, Raintree and many other "influential people" who lurk here but don't contribute. When I introduced myself to the local Boulder Relocalization Group, all I had to say was "Hi, I'm Dave from The Oil Drum". They knew who I was. They read (and still do) the website everyday. And many people who I met at ASPO-USA in Denver back in November read it too. Jesus, at this point Stuart is actually getting famous for the interesting, obscure but very illuminating posts he does. Hell, I even get the occasional e-mail.

Point is, I don't like it that TOD is neglected by some guy at the NY Times because he hasn't done his homework. Screw him.
</rant>

Dave,

Relax. Whenever I go gasoline syphoning, I scrawl "The Oil Drum was here." onto the bumbers. So the time when the Times links to your site in a tiny sidebar will come sooner than later.

Thus far, my site has only gotten three visits from the Times link and two of those were from me testing the link.

Best,

Matt

LOL - That's hilarious!
Take it easy Dave - we're the new kid on the block.
Maybe they know their readership is not up to following the technical discussion on TOD.
The punditry-class (and that includes the armchair pundits among the readers) listen only to specialists. The NYT is a world of 'experts' with very particular degrees and opinions,  each of whom can miss important details from the fringe of their field and other fields. Plus the editorial board have their advertisers to consider. Don't want to scare the consumers :)
Dave,

No need to worry about TOD exposure.  This site is so cross linked to the other sites that people will get here as a second or third link.  The people that are inquisitive and scientific minded will stay and browse the details.  The others will go  back to the other sites for an easy summary of what they should do.

You can't force people to accept hard truths, only expose them to it.

You have done your part well.  Give yourself a pat on the back and wait for the knowledge stored here to filter out.

I was curious about the crosslinks so checked out the sites mentioned by the NYT.  I was astounded to find out that peakoil.com does not have TOD on their list of peak oil sites.  If anyone is tied in there, perhaps they could get that corrected.  
Submit it.  So far as I know, all the links at PeakOil.com were submitted by visitors.  They are screened, but anything reasonably peak-oil related that is not outright spam is approved.
If the public rated technical discussion highly then scientists and engineers would be wealthy, corporate executives would know more math than averages and ROI, and HO would rule the world.  The Times is not after us, they are after influence peddlers.  In the U.S. like it or not that currently means people who avoid technical stuff like the plague.
"Fighting the good fight."

Not this hombre. I'm here solely to increase my inclusive fitness.

BEst,

Matt

I would agreee (and I dont blame you). We all have inclusive fitness algorithms that we genetically cant help but follow - very few of us follow them consciously. For those that REALLY care whether TOD was mentioned in NYT piece, ask yourself 'why'?

Is it because the site is so good that other people should read it thus making their lives better by better preparing for post peak?

Is it that you want more posters here to learn more stuff from?

Is it that TOD readers are somehow cooler?

Does it generate a 'tribal algorithm' feel-good camaraderie like a fraternity, or a club, or a sports team might?

Something else?

Any reason is valid, if we choose to feel that way, its because we like it, which is OK. Just interesting to think about the 'why' sometimes.

"Is it that TOD readers are somehow cooler?"

Hm, sounds like one of those DUETs (Deep Universal Eternal Truths) that Don Sailorman is always flogging ;)-

Those who are particularly interested in seeing TOD on the NYT sidebar can use this form to write to the Talking Points editors (TP = the series this article showed up in):

http://select.nytimes.com/membercenter/ts_extraform.html

Although, I guess you have to have Times Select to do it.

Here's the problem folks. Does the TOD deserve to be mentioned? Of course. Had TOD been mentioned but not LATOC would I have thought, "Gee, what the fuck? Why wasnt' I menationed?!" Of course.

But if anybody here is looking to build a mass movement on a process that, even in the best case scenario, promises the deaths of billions due to war, starvation, and global wide cascading systems failures, you're brain has picked the wrong issue on which to pursue its Machiavellian desires.

This ain't the issue that is going to make you famous beyond a very tiny niche of people who attend relocalization meetings and perhaps the occassional billionaire Texas investor.

You're not going to get rich, famous, or be better liked as a result of being able to explain how cascading systems failures now all but guarantee catastrophe. One of the reasons I've largely stopped giving public talks about this (unless I'm getting paid) is that the message boils dow to this:

"Hey folks, the bad news is 3-to-6 billion of us are going to die. The good news is this is a great opportunity to start that vegetable garden you've always wanted!"

If you convey the facts honestly, that's what ends up being the message, even if you don't state it directly.  So it's not the issue on which to pin your hopes at being popular.

I hope that isn't taken the wrong way.  

Right now, I posit that less than 1 out of 100 people could explain to you what "peak oil" is.  I doubt it will EVER get to beyond 2-to-3 out of 100.  People are just going to blame their favorite scapegoat as the shit hits the fan. That's what millions of years of evolution has produced, sadly. In the past, we'd go kill somebody and take their stuff. That's pretty much how we're going to attempt to solve this too.

Best,

Matt

I may more or less agree with you (which is why I didn't actually send in that NYT form myself), but there's a little greedy monster inside that roars a tiny roar when you see a missed opportunity for "your" website to become a little more famous—regardless of the topic (grin). I'm over it now.
Yankee,

That's my point. If they mentioned TOD but not me I would have been upset too. But I have a lot of my social and financial capital invested in this. So my thinking would be:

"if they didn't mention me, I might be doing something wrong and if I am doing something wrong, book/dvd/newsletter purchases are going to drop and then my chances of purchasing the off-the-grid Ecobunker with the harem on some tropical island are shot to shit."

Most folks, including the posters here and elswhere are not thinking along these lines. They aren't selling anything and/or they are posting anonymously so they stand to gain no social capital from this in the real world.

So if you're doing just for the heck of it, then great. I post on some baseball boards even though I don't stand to gain socially or finanically from it. But if, in the back of my head, I was I'd need to reevaluate my strategies for inclusive fitness.

If you're doing in hopes of expanding your territory beyond a tiny niche of society, then maybe there are other issues which would provide a higher personal EROEI if that makes sense.

It's a Machiavellian way of looking at things, but the world's a Machiavellian place.

BEst,

Matt

Matt - Looking at your comments under this user name: Before today, you have made 6 postings. Today, you made 52. 52! You have your own web site with a very strong position that is far from the mainstream view around here. Is it really necessary that you come over here and try to dominate like this? 52 postings in one day is far from reasonable.

If I want to read your stuff I can go to your web site. I prefer to read the insightful analyses of Dave, Stuart, HO, PG and the many commenters here. TOD is consistently one of the highest quality blog discussion boards I have found. I am worried that if you come here peddling your LATOC scenarios that TOD will fall into the same navel-gazing disasturbation that afflicts so many Peak Oil sites, especially yours. If you are looking for new victims to infect with your message of despair and hopelessness, I hope you will look elsewhere.

There are certainly days when Leanan, LevinK, or Sailorman, for examples, post truckloads of comments.  To be fair, I think the number of Matt's comments had more to do with the back and forth discussion than with an intent to proselytize.  
Chill.  That's Matt's pattern.  He comes and goes.  He won't be here posting 56 messages every day, so don't fret about it.  
Halfin, while I understand your concern, I think your slightly ad hominem attack is unjustified.  I greatly appreciated the exchanges  between Stuart and Matt, and I assume many others  did as well.  I tend to agree with Stuart's more nuanced position, yet a logical person cannot ignore the chance of a serious dieoff.  Frankly, everything boils down to unrestrained population growth.  And unfortunately, if we've learned anything this century, it is that humans will continue to reproduce exponentially, even in times of misery.  Our enormous population is getting to be a house of cards, with each card representing a particular essential and finite resource.  Fossil fuels make up only one hurdle that humanity will soon face.  Even if we manage to hit a home run by creating truly renewable and scalable technologies - I have a hard time seeing how we are going to avert disaster if the population keeps increasing.  Already, the steady stream of reports of environmental degradation and global climate change seem like they are from a horror movie script.  The Gulf Stream is slowing down.  The melting speed of the icecaps and permafrost are much worse than scientists' already dire predictions. The ski industry is having to make snow, because so many mountains are dry.  If you follow environmental science, you get the distinct impression that we are heading for a cliff. The ocean are already seriously degraded.  See: [The Fate of the Ocean http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/03/the_fate_of_the_ocean.html
].  Population growth will be checked, one way or another, because we are running through our all our resources like a crack-addict on payday.  Even strong conservation measures cannot win against our burgeoning mouths, faces, and grabbing hands.  

Yet perhaps peak fossil fuels will be the impetus we need to get our sustainable house in order, but I stronly fear our momentum has already sent us past the point of no return(in terms of climate change, at the very least).

Halfin,

Well this chimp could back to his corner of the cage and start flinging monkey poo at you as you seem to be doing here. Fortunately, I have evolved past the territorial instincts you express here.

I want you to notice something: there are alpha males on TOD such as Stuart, PG, Dave, West Texas, and others. You, my friend, are at best a beta. Why is that?

Well, the alpha's like Stuart understand that a bit of sparring between among the alpha's is good for the overall management of the cage and the health of whole chimp clan. The sparring done here harpens the instincts for when we do battle with the cornucopian chimps who would like to invade our territory and take our females.

Your inability to understand this is why I suspect will remain a a beta for the rest of your days.

True alphas can spar to sharpen their skills without actually attacking each other. It's actually somewhat of cooperative and rather sophisticated exercise when you think about it.

Ask the alpha males here at the TOD (PG) and they will tell you I routinely toss leafy branches (links to TOD stoires) to them from my side of the cage. If the alpha's subscribed to your thinking, I'd stay on my side of the cage and they'd stay on their side. That, in the end, would lower our ability to defend against the cornacopian chimps who we now have on the run as evidenced by the recent NY Times article. Soon, we shall have their females too.

Of the 46 posts, I think probably 30 of those were in one thread where I and the alpha Stuart sparred over whether our predicament will descend into a giant contest of global poo-flinging or transition into more cooparative cage management. If anything, I suspect that attracted more chimps to this side of the cage as everybody likes to see a bit of sparring between alpha-males.

The other posts were me cracking jokes, so I don't see how that plays into your accusations.

Remember Halfin: the chimp who flings monkey poo at his fellow chimps ends up with poo all over him.

Anyways, have fun being a beta!

Best,

Matt

"Hey folks, the bad news is 3-to-6 billion of us are going to die. The good news is this is a great opportunity to start that vegetable garden you've always wanted!"

You've got my vote for quote of the year Matt.  I suggest selling T-shirts and coffee mugs with the above words in neon font.  

"In the past, we'd go kill somebody and take their stuff."
Yes, though we can be quite a cooperative species - the catch is that our Enviroment of Evolutionary Adaptedness was that of small groups, where, like the TV show Cheers, everyone knew your name.  Once populations go beyond that, the trouble really begins.

Vegan,

We're FANTASTIC at cooperating within our own tribe in order to kill other tribes

That's Human History 101 for you. (Tragically)

I supposse this can be channelled into positive action. Mabye we could cooperate between TOD, LATOC, Po.com and do a board invasion of some cornocopian discussion board.

Best,

Matt

In a sense, you do become a celebrity. A peak oil celebrity, that is. Of course you're not going to get the Bono celebrity status, but lots of people would thank you for getting the word out.

I started a peak oil site back in October 2003 (if you do a Spanish language search for "peak oil", Crisis Energética would come in first position). I am a technical journalist (IT) and I did that because I always have felt the need of communicating with others, specially when there's something important to say. In our forums, we have a thread called "New users, introduce yourselves here", almost everyone contributing to that thread there thanks the founders and users of the site saying things like "I was feeling alone, I thought I was nuts!, I needed to find people with the same concerns as yours". Of course it helps being the largest peak oil site in Spanish (English continues to be a barrier for a lot of Spanish Internet users).

Our visitors base is smaller than TOD or LATOC (btw, thanks again Mat, you're sending us lots of users), but our site has, as today, 1829 registered users (the majority of them doesn't contribute, but I suppose they find useful to receive the daily digest), and our forums have already passed the 20K messages mark.

I know we could do "better" than that, in the sense of getting more traffic and visitors (we hover between 2k and 4,5k unique daily users), but we have chosen not to go over the board with the issue (being a self taught journalist helps a bit also). Before starting the site, I went to see a geology professor from my local university, he's the only Spanish member of ASPO, and a frequent contributor to the main Spanish newspapers (when they let him). He gave me a very good advise, very similar to something I have read today here at TOD (thanks NC):

You can't force people to accept hard truths, only expose them to it

So that's the way we do it, perhaps is slower, but the people who finally come aboard and contribute are the best ones. And I think TOD is that kind of site also (well, I think TOD surpasses us in many aspects!).

Relax Dave. Your site is very popular. Here in Russia many oilguys (owners and executives) read it so that just to sniff a mood.
Lucky I. Just another million bucks today.

Thank you for a good job.
Andrei.

Wow!

So, Andrei, as a Russian oil industry 'insider', can you give us any more information about the state of Russian oil production now and in the near-term future?

Soon enough, anybody serious will find their way to The Oil Drum. Great work, guys!

It's be interesting to see how the NY Times article increases traffic on the PO sites.  Will this be an inflection point?

To put my political scientist hat for a moment, I would have to hypothesize that elite opinion, framing, and agenda setting are all influenced quite a bit by the New York Times.  I don't know that Joe Six Pack will read the NYT op-ed page in the morning, but the other editors, the politicians, the opinion leaders as we like to call them in my field, they are going to read it...and I don't see that being a bad thing at all.
Yeah, TOD is all over my site so people who are smart will follow links and get here. I wouldn't sweat it too much.

Thank about it this way: I get the task of filtering out the crazies.

Best,

Matt

No links to ASPO? How could they missed it?
They couldn't have missed it.  It's the second link to come up when you Google peak oil (Matt's site is first).  

If it's not listed, it must have been intentionally left out.  Maybe they didn't want links that were too scientific/technical.

Funny, for me ASPO comes first:

  1. ASPO - peakoil.net
  2. LAOC
  3. peakoil.org
  4. hubbertpeak.com
  5. Wikipedia
  6. peakoil.com
...
47. TOD NYC
The difference is searching for peak oil or searching for "peak oil" (in quotes) ???
No, I think it just changed.  Dunno if Google changed their algorithm or one of their bots re-catalogued one of the sites in question or what, but it changed yesterday.
For me LATOC come in first if I search: peak oil
ASPO come is first if I search: "peak oil"
Maybe I'm behind the times.

The oddities of google will never cease to amaze me.

ASPO comes up first for both peak oil and "peak oil" for me today.  Obviously, that was not the case yesterday.
One the one hand, NYT may be excused for not linking to TOD given the fact the TOD website does not even show up in the first page of the google search of "peak oil" (with or without quote marks around it). On the other hand, it might be argued that if NYT journalists cannot go beyond a simple google search and enable their readers to a rich depository of information that they might have missed by relying alone, what is the use of paying for NYT?
Not in the first and not in any other.