60 comments on Oilwatch Monthly - April 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
60 comments on Oilwatch Monthly - April 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
I haven't checked in here in some time--is this was TOD:E has turned into?
Of course the peak oil camp (which definitely includes me) shouldn't trumpet every month with a lack of a new high as proof of anything, just as the deniers shouldn't make a big deal out of the numbers quoted above. Doing so is equivalent to the incessant claims of the global warming deniers that there's nothing to GW because it happens to be cooler than normal outside their window on a given day.
Everyone involved in these conversations needs to keep in mind which battles are worth fighting, and which ones are just a silly waste of time. Getting more people to pay attention to peak oil is a very worthwhile cause, but petty nastiness and getting hyped up over one month's numbers (not that hightrekker did the latter) do nothing to achieve that goal.
Lou-
Point well taken--
Civility and tolerance will attract more readers and possibly lead to increased knowledge on this very critical subject.
I will refrain from kneejerk responses-
best
hightrekker
Yes, thank you, a voice of rationality. I thought K100 had a good point.
You need to review Keithster100's posting history, coupled with his famed pumping of particular ethanol stocks, right here on TOD, which he shortly thereafter dumped as soon as other buyers were propping his price up to where he wanted to sell. And note that those stocks subsequently fell. Long time posters here are aware of what he is while newer posters may not know.
As for what debunkers will say, they already said it in the prior thread that announced this new "high" where it was also discussed that these agencies are now rolling in tar sands to C&C production numbers. That is obviously NOT C&C so it distorts the picture. Remove tar sands and the C&C number is down almost a million barrels from May 2005.
Um no, can't really agree with you.
1. Whoever this guy is, his history doesn't necessarily invalidate his remark. As I mentioned in another post somewhere, just because big business thinks it is going to make a fast buck out of global warming mitigation, doesn't mean global warming is suddenly invalidated.
2. Last I heard, there is no law against writing a load of baloney, promoting yourself or your interests, or anything like that on the internet. If anyone bought ethanol stocks and lost money, it really is their own darned fault. All the information is available. The scientific papers have been written and published. If someone can't put that information together and figure out that corn ethanol is a big scam, that's their problem, I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.