148 comments on Peak Oil - Whom to Believe? Part One - "There's Plenty of Oil, CERAiously"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
148 comments on Peak Oil - Whom to Believe? Part One - "There's Plenty of Oil, CERAiously"
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“What people need to hear loud and clear is that we're running out of energy in America.”
—George W. Bush, May 2001
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.





GAIA Host Collective
What is even more interesting than brainwashing -- which is after all as old as civilization itself -- are the tactics people adopt to try to avoid it.
One tactic is to fasten one's mind very tightly onto a handful of scientific first principles and then to attempt to organize the overwhelming complexity of the world through that lens.
I imagine that this has been done ever since Newton's time as science waxed and religion waned, at least among the cognitive elite. There's isn't much that isn't amenable to the Three Laws of Motion or some slightly approximate popular version thereof. For instance, even stating "What goes up must come down" can be highly informative and even reassuring if one is beleaguered by a priapism. But, of course, Newtons Laws apply to much more than one's private(s) life. They pretty much explain all things political and social or at least give a good approximation.
Of course, we have since gone on to apply quantum mechanics and relativity to equally good effect but on a disappointingly smaller audience.
I hereby posit the Laws of Usefulness of Scientific First Principles for the Avoidance of Brainwashing
(1) For a principle to be useful, the broader public must be convinced that they can have a vague clue about it.
(2) The scientifically minded layman, after reading a couple of popular works on the principle, must be capable of feeling he is one of the elite few who now understands it perfectly.
Asebius,
Best comment ever! That had me laughing! Written as only a true linguaphile can write!
For anyone who didn't get Asebius' very funny comment, look it up. It's worth it.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/priapism
(I guessed your enjoyment of words when you used 'revenant' in a previous comment, although I would have used 'atavism' or 'atavistic,' myself, since a Sasquatch is more of a throwback than a ghost. Not that I'm a cryptozoological expert!)
[atavistic is indeed better, i think i'll go change it ;-) ]