First of all, that comment wasn't even directed at WT, so right off the bat your opinion can be considered completely out of whack! :laughs:

Second, I quoted Prof. Deffeyes. Those were his words, written on his blog, following his admissions at market manipulation. I'm laughing at the irony of it all. I'm sure you're probably attaching an emotional reaction because you feel bad at being so blind.

However, there IS a difference between both cases. On the one hand, I was referring to how someone tries to add an EMOTIONAL element to a scientific debate, on the other, I am laughing at someones OPINIONS whose hands have been found caught in the cookie jar.

Notice the disconnect you are obviously experiencing between SCIENTIFIC DEBATES and OPINIONS. If anyone is being hypocritical, its you!

And I don't need to 'prove' anything to anyone. Prof. Deffeyes, in his OWN WORDS described how he advised several hedge funds on peak oil, and about how one particular hedge fund in Japan 'made a hell of a lot of money' on his advice. Further more, he explicitly states that his own investments 'a la 'non-sucker bets'' made him a very wealthy man 'on paper', and that he was grinding, gritting and crunching his teeth at the recent spot oil decline.

How on gods green earth could you possibly try to defend this man? No human being is above reproach. It's truly sad that his acknowledgment of the sucker-punch he made on the rest of the world is ignored by this community. Someone should hold him accountable.

It's going to only get worse over the next few years after we reach a new production maximum every few months :laughs:

Hello mudlogger,

Yes, some on this site work in the Oil patch.

Thanks for saying so, Mudlogger, I always suspected that this is the case.

No, the people posting on this site are not looking at wealth and retirement due to the obscene profits of these earth-destroying industries. A lot are just trying to get by and compensate for the losses they took in the 80's and 90's.

From my reading of the posts and discussions here I cannot perceive anyone just getting by or attempting to recover from losses incurred over a decade ago. There's a whole lot of money in the oil industry and plenty of people here spend a lot of time counting their money and dreaming of obscene profits approaching in the post-peak future.

And I do have to say: Any money earned in the business of destroying the Earth is blood money. The oil industry is making a mess of the Earth. Contrary to all of the glorious promises of the past century, the 21st century world is filled with pollution, destruction, exploitation, oppression, and bloody warfare because of the accursed substance.

Although the people here allegedly know the consequences of Peak Oil (you know, billions of impoverished people dying) they still can hardly contain their greedy dreams of collecting huge profits over the next several decades because of their oil investments and trading oil futures contracts. Isn't that just obscene?

I have a moral, ethical, humanitarian and environmental objections to this sort of vile behavior.
Don't you?

A lot of us are bemused, slightly grumpy old men wondering where the next bank of talent is coming from to keep this 'obscenely profitable earth destroying industry' on the road.

I hope that the next bank of talent never shows up because the obscene profitable industry is succeeding too well at making a sewer of the Earth. What is the value of a living planet? Would you say that a living planet is more valuable than the American Way of Life?

Do you do any of the following?

Drive a car.
Sit at a plastic encased consol, key pad, on a synthetically covered and upholstered chair
Eat food not locally grown
Drink Water, Coke, Juice out of a carton or plastic bottle.
Buy Chinese jew-jaws, doo-hickeys or toys.
Live more than 20 minutes walking distance from work (I have to, I cannot afford the prices).

I know, I know: The oil addicts are not allowed to criticize their drug-dealers.

I do all of these things but the American civilization prevents me from doing otherwise. There was a non-consumer exclusively-solar-powered civilization which formerly inhabited this land: America eradicated that culture and fought a genocidal war against it until its members were driven deep into the Everglades where a small number survived into America began directing its military aggression and bloody warfare elsewhere.

I mourn every day for what was lost because America has transformed this land into a desolate, lifeless, polluted wasteland incompatible with any sort of life except for mindless consumption and oil addiction and all the other addictions which Americans use to escape the dreary hell of soulless technological life.

David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1

If you are an environmentalist, David Cohen, that's great. You must be pretty lonely here, though, since the overwhelming majority of posters here explicitly advocate despoiling the last remaining vestiges of the Earth for the sake the last remaining drops of oil.

My gosh man, can you possibly be serious? You say that you have read TOD for a year now, and this is what you believe? You have really blown any semblance of credibility. That is definitely the clueless statement of the day.

Look back at my gas tax story and see how many people here would be willing to pay very high gas taxes to cut our use of oil. The number was high. IMO the vast majority of people who post here are environmentalists.

Well. You have mananged to piss off the two senior contributors on the The Oil Drum. Are you happy now?

I brought up God because you did, on your website. I quoted Luke's gospel. You niftily avoided that. I'm not even a Christian, I don't believe that Christ arose from dead and visited us as God's Son to save us. I seek useful statements wherever I find them.

But, really, the problem is that you are insane. Any other kinds of arguments with you would miss that important, all-encompassing point.

It is truly unfortunate that in a public forum like this, anyone who knows how to type, no matter what their state of mind, can make comments. You are, unhappily, an exemplary case in point.

Sometimes I feel like throwing in the towel, saying "screw it", it's not worth it to write for a website where people like you can just make up any damn thing you please. Well, you don't win today, now or ever. I will continue to write on these issues because that is what is necessary to do.

I feel sorry for you. Life must be a daily Hell for you. It's a pity, really, and so sad — these manifestations of the human condition.

Finally, you said I get "emotional". Yes, I do. I did not ask to be born onto a planet that has more than its fair share of people like you. I did not ask for any of it. It was all just handed to me. Sometimes, I don't leave the house. You've just reminded me why that is.

You also lobbied against a California amendment (which happened to fail) prior to last years' elections, right? I distinctly remember you investing a great amount of effort in pursuit of that goal.

So, it was Texas, but now it's California? You can't even get basic facts right. Why is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

I wrote essays explaining what would happen if the measure passed. I was actually ambivalent about passage. If it had passed, I think it would have raised gas prices, which would have meant more conservation. My beef was with the way it was being marketed. I never argued against the measure. I said I thought it was a bad idea, and I defended against some incorrect and misleading information. But I am actually friends with one of the people who helped draft the measure. She certainly realized that I had no ulterior motives.

Mr. Rapier, are you employed in the oil industry? Do you have investments in the oil industry? Do you trade in oil futures? These are the sorts of disclosures that I would need in order to judge the merits of your views within their proper context.

So you need to certain disclosures before you can judge the merits of my views? How’s that? If I make argument X, does that argument suddenly change if I change employers? The merits of my arguments stand regardless of whom I work for. Yes, I work for the oil industry. I have stock through my company 401K. I do not trade oil futures. And I have been completely open at all times about these issues. And I have consistently argued that we need to reduce our usage of fossil fuels. But I won’t ask you if you are somehow financially involved with the ethanol industry before I will address your arguments. That would be a bit of an ad hominem fallacy, don’t you think?

I am almost certain that you are not an environmentalist. Am I correct about that much?

Your lack of credibility is showing. My energy use per capita is a fraction of the average American’s. That is no accident. I have spent years of my life working on alternative energy. I have preached conservation, solar and wind power, higher gas taxes, etc. Check my list of stories. And you expect anyone here to believe that you are a regular reader? If you were, you wouldn’t have to ask whether I am an environmentalist.

I have read your posts, Mr. Rapier, and have reached an entirely different conclusion. I wonder why?

Given your incredibly wrong statements so far, I would say that the reason you reached that conclusion lies within you. You have reached the conclusion you chose to reach, and not the one supported by the evidence.

Well, here is a real mystery: I regularly read The Oil Drum and have done so for a very long time. How is it that I reached the above conclusion?

Again, look in the mirror and ask yourself why you would come to spectacularly incorrect conclusions. I can’t answer that for you. Perhaps it’s a comprehension problem. Perhaps you are not a native English speaker. Perhaps you have an agenda and just wish to spread misinformation. You will have to answer that question yourself.

Whether or not someonee is an environmentalist, or "works for the man." (hint, most people with technical expertise do, not many mom and pop shops are hiring a lot of scientists) has little bearing on the value of their analysis. It DOES perhaps have bearing on their ability (and willingness) to carry out a task or a job, which is why Bush being an oil barron is ample disqualification for his rise to the throne, er, um, I mean presidency. So, the whole ad hominem attack route has some validity when discussing what a person will likely do in the future, or questioning the sincerity of his efforts at current endeavors, especially those that went poorly and were handled with less than sterling competence, but it has very little bearing on statements of verifiable technical fact or well reasoned analysis.

What you do want is for someone to have some reputation to put on the line, which RR does, and perhaps some reasoning skills and technical competence, which he also appears to have. Since RR isn't running for office or any other position of trust, his personal beliefs are irrelevant, as are financial motives. What he says is either supported or unsupported.

I would also like to add that I don't consider myself an environmentalist (as I'm sure anyone who read some of my posts would figure out), but this has more to do with my utter inability to find any discernable connection between "environmentalists" and people whose actions indicate that they care in the slightest for the environment, or the good of their fellow man for that matter. In any case, the labels a person chooses for himself, and those applied by or to others are little more than name calling, in most cases*. The world just isn't that simple.

* Notable exception, Democrat or Republican determines who controls the agenda in washington, which is very relevant. The most conservative Dem is "more liberal" than the most liberal Republican, because he voted to give control over to Pelosi (or Reed) rather than their (clearly more conservative) Republican counterparts. That is, in most congresses, the one and only vote that matters substantially. In that case labels matter, in the case of "environmentalist" or "technocrat" or whatever, it probably doesn't.

"therefore the future belongs to you much more than it does to an older codger like me or Deffeyes. Youthful vigor and intelligence constructively applied to opportunities has an infinite value."

Bob Shaw this is where we have differing opinions.

I believe that Hothie's life ,if chaos visits us, will be extremely brief and uneventful. He will go without anyone even being aware.

What he brings to the 'table' is worthless in the extreme.
He has pissed off most of those he tries to cross swords with due to hisarrogance, blunders and misplaced hubris.

I shudder to think that this is our replacement. I don't think he is worth the salt in his biscuit.
Like another said though, "good that he is here so we can see what most of society is like"......circling the drain.