 | Answering the Comfortable Questions about Energy | The Oil Drum | Peak Oil Media: "Humans > Yeast?", Moyers, Kunstler, Rubin, Olbermann & Krugman |  |
322 comments on DrumBeat: June 28, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
322 comments on DrumBeat: June 28, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
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
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“No civilization can survive the physical destruction of its resource base.”
—Bruce Sterling
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- 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
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Re: Peak Scam (linked uptop)
It's kind of funny. It appears that one thing that many people on the left and many people on the right agree on is that Peak Oil is a scam.
I posted a comment on that blog that is awaiting "moderation". Interested to see if he'll let it through or not.
I posted a comment, also awaiting moderation, after yours, neither of which is up yet.
"An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head."--Eric Hoffer
Perhaps the greatest challenge presented by Peak Oil will not be finding practical solutions to the ensuing energy shortages, but the breakdown in the social and political fabric. (Kuntsler talks about this danger in his video posted today here on The Oil Drum.)
Concerned about the rise of totalitarian governments, especially those of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, Eric Hoffer tried to find the roots of these "madhouses" in human psychology.
With the coming of Peak Oil there will certainly emerge many demagogues who pander to the public's propensity for wishful thinking. These people are incredibly dangerous.
It still boggles the mind how a country as well educated and technologically advanced as Germany could have succumed to the ravings of a madman.
DownSouth-- do you live in the USA? Just look around you for an explanation, or at least confirmation that "a country as well educated and technologically advanced as Germany could have succumed to the ravings of a madman."
We are not as well educated as the Germans were. And our advanced technology is run by foreigners or super-specialist nerds who obey only money and will believe anything to get more. That's why the day after America's Reichstag fire, our fuehrer called not for personal sacrifice, but continued shopping.
So Germany's problem was that they were too willing to obey an official-looking hierarchy, and our problem is that we're too willing to be whores.
Now an all-whore Fourth Reich offers some entertainment value.
Perhaps I should make it clear from the start that I am NOT an admirer of Adolf Hitler or his politics. But at the start Adolf Hitler wasn't presented as a raving madman at all. This attitude, that he was truly dangerous and a threat was confined to a small number of people on the left of German politics. For many on the right he was seen as something close to a saviour. He was also probably the first truly modern politician.
He was a wartime hero, a straight talkin' kind of guy, a rough-diamond, a bit of a maverick who could talk to ordinary people in style they understood. He was no fancy intellectual. He wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty. He'd seen action and he'd dragged himself up, and in way his life-story seemed to symbolize or personify the history of contemporary Germany. He was a kind of icon.
He had a distinctive way of speaking that apparently appealed to people and made him sound down to earth and honest. He was, after all, an Austrian, and Austrian German sounds kind of 'folksy' compared to high German, well at least I think it does.
Compared to most politicians in Germany Hitler seemed to have a vision, to actually believe in something passionately, a new and better world, a world where everyone pulled together for the common good. It was left or right, rich or poor. It was Germany, a 'volk' united, prosperous and free. He was a breath of fresh air, a new start, the promise of a new beginning, hope one could believe in.
Before television politicians gave long speeches. Hitler gave long speeches. He was good at it. He touched people and moved them. Normally we only hear tiny portions of his speeches, the climaxes, when he's in full flow and reaching the summit of his climb up the rhetorical mountain. The long journey up and onwards is an unknown territory for most non-specialists in German history. Hitler's long speeches are impressive political theatre. Communication is a complex mix of many different types of signals. It isn't just about words and what they mean, but how they sound and how they are used, the gestures one uses, the impression one gives, how one 'plays' the hall like an actor or musician, the ebb and flow of the crowd. Hitler mastered the art of communication in his prime. This made him terribly dangerous as his politics were so extreme, only at the time this was a minority view. The Reds were seen as a bigger threat to society than Hitler.
What's really frightening about what happened in Germany is that it could happen again somewhere else, given similar circumstances. The German experience was extreme, but it would be fatal to imagine it was unique and unrepeatable. Hitler was the leader of a political cult. He was surrounded by a small group of ruthless, highly motivated, determined men, with a secret programme for change, men who wanted to save Germany and restore its greatness. The totalitarian mindset was and is not confined to Germans. There are echoes of totalitarianism and the search for a leader of distinction in our own, troubled societies. The phrase, cometh the time, cometh the man, springs to mind.
Writerman - well said about Hitler's talents, even though peculiarly he was a far from appealing or impressive person in one-to-one situations (he tended too much to intolerant monologue diatribes).
The thing was that the rest of the Nazi gang desperately needed him for his marketing genius. And so he could not be dismissed as the lone ranting nutter he otherwise would have been.
But there's also the myth put about by the politically-correct stilted history propaganda, that Naziism somehow just started in the 1920s, apparently by the personal initiative of nasty Mr Hitler. In reality Hitler's success was because he plugged into the anger of the age. WW1 was caused by the population pressure of the Slavic world against the German lands, and a century of the rich people's embrace of multiculturism profiteering therein. (Just like today.) WW1 was primarily about a dream of driving back the Slavs to make "Lebensraum", and sparked by a Slav assassinating that Archduke in Sarajevo.
When WW1 ended in humiliation for the Germans, massively aggravated by Churchill's stupid reparations policies (opposed by Keynes), the ground was set for the racist hatred which Hitler as an unqualified homeless vagrant could fully connect into. The Jews were a convenient first scapegoat because they were easy to envy and located right there to be attacked. But they weren't what Naziism was primarily inspired by.
There are many differences between USA in 2008 and Germany 1928. For one thing, USA is just now losing the wars, and is not yet destitute.
Still, it is pretty obvious that masses of people will swarm behind the likes of Huey Long, for example-- to get away from present personalities. Who knows where he might have gone with somewhat different circumstances?
All it seems to take is a destitute population and a charismatic leader who gives them hope for a better future. If they can be convinced there is no hope, they will never rise -- the Russian serfs submitted for many generations before a revolution finally was kindled out of WWI.
I believe that Americans will sink into a wallow of useless and helpless self-pity for a long time before any demagogue will have the power to move them. We are going to look more like Albania than Germany.
I don't think it would take much to motivate Americans to support tyranny. You could probably get 40% of the population to support you tomorrow if you promised them that nuking Tehran would deliver $1.50/gallon gas. Imagine where they'll be in 10 years.
More than that would vote for Bush if he ran again, and he's already killed hundreds of thousands of people for little or no gain and has tried pretty hard to turn the US into a police state.
The Nazis never got more than I think about 42% of the vote, and that was with brown-shirts terrorizing the populace at voting time.
Churchill's reparations policy?
Please advise on his position in the British Government in 1919, and how he influenced matters as opposed to how the French influenced the setting of reparations.
For a very interesting view of WWI reparation talks, read "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" by Keynes. It contains a very nerd-friendly view of German coal production capability with TOD-like numbers for why the reparations were stupid.
I have just now looked at the Wiki article, however, and may someday read "The Carthaginian Peace: or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes", by Mantoux, which is a refutation.
I would compare America today more along the lines of
of Russia pre Bolsheviks (1917)
The same ilk of people in power and the use of
subtrafuge then who seized power,also have done the
same today in the USA.
Of course my mere mention of the 800 lb gorrilla at
the table makes me an automatic lunatic.
Quick..someone call the Mossad and alert them.
Not at all, I believe. All Americans are either "rich" (by any historical standard) or "pre-rich", meaning they believe if they work hard and do the right thing, they will become rich. Of course, there are some who could be said to be in the position of the serfs in pre-Bolshevik Russia, and there are large numbers of "invisible" people -- the mentally ill, the destitute aged, the poor blacks (and some whites) in inner cities -- but they are invisible to the New York Times, and therefore, of no consequence (to the ruling class, anyway).
Pre-Bolshevik, I don't believe the serfs and the working classes in the city had any such idea as hop for any better future. They were the downtrodden, and they accepted it as the will of God -- until everything blew up in the first world war.
This will all change when Americans become the Formerly Well Off, and whine about their reduced condition.
Yes, and this article was particularly amazing in the misunderstandings/ misinterpretations of what Peak Oil is.
WT - "one thing many people on the right and the left agree on is that Peak Oil is a scam."
Too True! I listened to the audio presentation from PRI posted by Leanan this morning and heard Brian Urstadt giving a Peak Oil story to be published in Harper's. He makes a comparison of Peak Oilers to groups that believe in "The Rapture". I found it offensive but I realized listening to him that his derisive attitude was based on the snarky notion that "people are very clever and we'll figure it out". (Cornocopian to readers of TOD) A lot of my friends and family think my views are "extreme" and out of the mainstream. Once you are branded with this "stigma" everything you present subsequent is suspect. Who listens to a nut?
IMO Peak Oil is commonsense. Who can realistically assert the earth is infinite in it's resourses? An economist perhaps...
And of course the statements by ExxonMobil, et al, that we don't have to worry--worst case--about Peak OIl for decades have provided fodder for the conspiracy theorists.
My family nicked named me the Doom Master on a recent visit :)
I did get a chance to talk with some family friend who are in their 80's and lived through the depression. They pretty much confirmed most of my arguments and these are smart wealthy people that have dealt with money from the time of the great depression forward.
They flat out told me they where happy that they where in their 80's and probably won't live through what we are going to live through.
Some of my friends call me the "doomster". I've since learned to keep my mouth shut. Let the lemmings run. Not my problem.
That article seemed an example of a tremendously smart and educated person still caught in the Denial phase with regards to peak oil and spinning out refined and fanciful theories why it could not possibly be true...been hearing a lot of these from friends lately...
Yup. This is a good example of how the U.S. media marginalizes relevant discussion about important issues.
The Left (in this case, the democratic party) takes one position on an issue, the Right another, both incorrect. The Kudlow's, O'Reilly's, and NPR's then showcase rigorous debates featuring speakers from both sides. Since both sides are mostly arguing garbage, each can legitimately trash the other.
But it makes for a fantastic spectacle. The debaters rant and rave, shout at each other, and so on, evoking emotion in their audience.
Most people, at least those unfamiliar with the facts about the issue at hand, will passionately latch on to one side or the other. This method is much more effective at minimizing critical thinking and public dissent than is totalitarian censorship.
An example is the Iraq War. The Democrats say that although it was a noble invasion, the Right is running it poorly, spending too much money, etc. Republicans say that the Left is standing in the way of success. What's never mentioned is that the invasion/occupation are fundamentally wrong, illegal, and based on outrageous lies.
A good book on all this is Noam Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent.
Ya...this highlights the major problem living in a country with only a two party system. If your thinking does not coincide with either party, you are marginalized from having much effect on the direction of federal government. Perhaps this is why voter turnout has declined in modern times?
I think so. For many Americans, it's difficult to relate to the positions of either party. There's a general sense of disillusionment with the whole political system. People feel as if they don't have any ability to impact policy, particularly on meaningful economic issues that impact their daily lives. For these people, it's much easier to simply 'drop out' - to not vote, to not participate, to altogether neglect the and important national issues.
This is probably why spectator sports, church, and 'Sex in the City' are so wildly popular. They provide feelings of involvement, meaning, entertainment, something to discuss with peers, etc.
Agreed...it's also why Ron Paul had a pretty strong backing. He connected with a BUNCH of folks. I liked some of his ideas, but not the whole package. There have been some strong Independents in past years that have gotten support by people but not corporations and lobby groups.
And where Hitler got most of his backing - from disillusioned Germans.
Political discussion in the U.S. is currently a circus, and revolves around 'cultural issues' such as same-sex marriage. But with the onset of extreme economic hardship and general disarray, that will change. We'll likely see a magnified 'Ron Paul effect', led by the ambitious politician who connects to the masses by openly discussing relevant economic issues and who promises a cure.
But by that time there will be no cure. Resource depletion and climate change will be in terminal stages. Such extreme social/economic conditions are ripe for the fanatical, extremist leader. Just as Weimar German was ripe for Hitler.
For those of us who see this coming, it will be very painful and frustrating to watch all this unfold.
the "parties" see everything through the lens of keeping or gaining power. They are cutthroat and diligent but mainly battle each other, oblivious of any impending iceburgs
I think the two party system is inherent in our way of representation. More than two parties is unstable. Occasionally America has had three parties, but this doesn't lst for long. Our elections are essentially winner take all, because of that it is better for a voter to support the party which supports his views by 51%-49%, rather than to form/join a third party which he might agree with 80% of the time, but which will never have any power. The parlimentary system allows there to be several parties, and even minor ones, by their ability to form/break a ruling coalition can have a significant impact on governance. It is our curse for being the first modern democracy. We didn't have the experience of others to draw on. And once formed tampering with the system becomes sacrosanct.
Unfortunately two parties tend to drive out independent thinkers, who by nature are unlikely to support all of a given parties agenda.
It is the first past the post voting system which is responsible for the 2 party system.
In countries with proportional representation in the lower house,not just the upper house or senate,smaller parties can get representatives elected.Sometimes they get the balance of power.
This can sometimes mean instability.But look where stability in the 2 party system has got us.
Getting an existing government to change to proportional representation is difficult as it is not in the interests of the 2 major parties.
New Zealand is the only country that I can think of which has done this recently.Not for the first time the Kiwis lead the way.
It appears that one thing that many people on the left and many people on the right agree on is that Peak Oil is a scam
Having been stolen by Gypsies and raised by wolves,
I believe I know a scam when I see one.
Okay the wolves part is a fabrication,but the Gypsy
part is true.
$9 trillion in American debt
Worst trade deficit in American history.
Worst budget deficit in American history.
Weakest dollar in American history.
More home forclosures per capita since great depression.
Neg per capita savings not seen since 1933.
Worst 8 year market performance since great depression.
1 in 6 Americans without healthcare insurance.
Highest bankruptcy rate in American history.
And someone thinks oil is infinite so Iam a kook.
It isnt like Americans need another worry with all
they have on their plate now.
Americans are scared its all true about P.O.
Dont mistake that thousand yard stare as anything but
shell shock.
Seems like Peak Oil theory is where climate science was about ten (or twenty!) years ago. I read the first IPCC report in 1991, and it's taken something like 15 years for the results of climate science to gain widespread public acceptance. For years, I'd bring up the threat of climate change to anyone who would listen, and it was always marching into a strong headwind. Now the winds have changed, and it's an odd sensation to have them at my back.
However you must understand how I feel now. I fight a headwind even when I produce scientific journal documents that say what I am people skoff at me. So I fight a headwind just like you did. I do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming however I do believe in Global Warming, Global Cooling and Urban Heat Island that causes skewed results.
There is plenty of data out there that blows IPCC out of the water. I have no idea why people take 1!!! Place as gold standard.. Its like taking the gold standard of the Church back when the earth was the center of the solar system. You were labeled a Heretic for having a differing voice. I have yet to have ANY person give me concrete evidence we are responsible.
I want real proof that we are responsible not some stupid model.. I want real proof that shows WHY in the ice core data CO2 lags Temperature not the other way around. As the Temperatures go up CO2 went up after not the other way around. There was about a 800 year lag! Dreaded lag indeed. I want real proof that shows why Sunspots seem to drop off when there is dramatic lower temperatures and global cooling or little ice ages. I want to know why it just "happens" to happen then if the sun is not responsible. I want to know a multitude of things however I can never get reasonable answers.
What usually makes me irate about all this is that its always the same talking points from Hansen, Gore, IPCC etc.. There is never any independent research done by rabid followers who actually read the journals. In reality all that is spewed by the no longer "Global Warming" crowd but the "Climate Change" crowd so they can say SEE SEE!!! ITS CLIMATE CHANGE!!! we are responsible no matter what happens. Its all work to dupe the retarded into paying tax for energy and a giant scheme for making money. Do some simple research on how much money can be made from Carbon Credits and be horrified by it.
Of course I get negative ratings. No replies just negative ratings. What fun I love this new system btw Leanan honestly it allows me to see people for who they really are that they read what I wrote and do not have a spine to answer.
Hello Slicer -- no, you are getting no replies because the vast majority of people reading this site have already read a lot about climate change and made up their own minds based on the preponderance of evidence that it is anthropogenic in nature. You would need to come up with some pretty amazing new evidence to change people's minds.
I would agree. It's not that they don't have the spine to answer. It's that they're too bored. Heck, for something like this, I'd rather people just hit the rating button than drag out the same old arguments again and again and again. Improves the signal to noise ratio immensely.
It seems strange that you should advocate using the buttons for a totally different purpose to that which they were presented and on which they were voted.
They are ostensibly for noting when a poster is outside of site rules, such as repeatedly calling others idiots, which has apparently gone unremarked and uncensured by moderators.
Personally I am not interested in the GW debate, and am happy to pass over the posts on it.
However, it is perhaps rather dangerous to have someone who is moderating on two different peak oil forums as well as posting numerous comments, ie presenting particular opinions, and determining the information flow into the forum by being the sole draftee of the linked posts, to now be promoting such a strongly normative re-interpretation of the 'ratings' button.
The argument that moderation is now impossible without it is also entirely specious, as far bigger sites than this manage without.
It is perhaps more difficult to control and direct the exchange of information with more postings and a bigger throughput, but if moderation is instead to ensure reasonable compliance with site rules rather than a wish to direct then the problem is fairly trivial.
Your response is why I suggested deleting the down arrow. He stated a view that most disagree with, including me, but he was civil about it and not unduly long about it.
So I repeat - Drop the down arrow. drop the down arrow. Drop the down arrow. Drop the down arrow. drop the down arrow. Drop the down arrow. Drop the down arrow. drop the down arrow. Drop the down arrow. Drop the down arrow. drop the down arrow. Drop the down arrow. Drop the down arrow. drop the down arrow. Drop the down arrow. Drop the down arrow. drop the down arrow. Drop the down arrow. Drop the down arrow. drop the down arrow. Drop the down arrow....
He was not civil. Posting anti-AGW anything is uncivil. It is, in fact, deadly. This is not child's play and there is not a single - not one, and I mean this literally - anti-AGW "believer" anywhere that can post anything even remotely resembling coherent arguments, let alone valid ones. They have no science to back up their arguments. They recycle the same tired lies over and over, as this poster has further down the thread.
Thus, they know they are full of crap and/or are not able to understand what they read and/or are brainwashed. All are dangerous.
If there was the slightest credibility to the anti- argument, I would fight tooth and nail for anyone to post in that vein. I am a huge believer in the Constitution, but as the Constitution doesn't allow for yelling "fire" in a theater, it also does not allow for NOT doing so when there is. It's called, at minimum, manslaughter. Manslaughter is not polite no matter how you twist it.
We are WAY past the point where we can entertain these kind folk. Their actions are negligent (fill in the blank) at best, and crimes against humanity at worst.
However, Leanan's point is taken and I shall attempt to respond less, or not at all to such tripe.
As for DM, your presentation of the ratings system is incorrect.
Cheers
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
It's worth the time to take a look at the graphs on this page. The adjustments made to the dataset are magnitudes greater than what is considered the observed warming.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diff...
I want real proof that shows WHY in the ice core data CO2 lags Temperature not the other way around. As the Temperatures go up CO2 went up after not the other way around.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
What I really want to know is why the last 10,000 years have been so damn stable: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gif
Either post your links or shut the hell up. Right here, right now, post them all. I'll blow every single one of the less than a handful you can even find that are legitimate science and/or have not already been proven to be bullshit or just wrong.
Do it, or shut the hell up. That should be the policy for any climate denialist: produce or perish.
Cheers
Nobody will listen its quite evident. Look at my negative ratings it shows it already. But for your reading pleasure enjoy. BTW linked cause I do not feel like rewriting it all.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&add...
There is one of my many threads there. You can search my name there and come up with all kinds of other information. I have also posted information here as well so its not like its new :)
However I do not expect to be greeted with any kindness. The second link is where I get called everything under the sun.. I have dealt with worse than "shut the hell up" so yeah.
I hope you have access to a University to get the journals and read them before you respond :)
Ohh and I think you will notice by my posts there I am not against stopping what we are doing. I just think we are going about it wrong. I think the entire motive is wrong and if we focused on real problems instead of smoke in mirrors if there was "Climate Change" caused by humans it would be taken care of by simple real acts that devastate our families lives today.
I assume your link was to get me to Christy's work? Figures. The supposed problems with the satellite data? Already adjusted for. His work was wrong.
Gee, what a surprise.
I told you, not one. And next time you want to spread your lies and bullshit, provide links TO THE RESEARCH, not a radio show. AND, not from 2004.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4227#comment-370445
No please don't. I can't stand any more of this anti AGW BS on this site.
Please.
I'd be happy to see all discusion of AGW disappear from this site. Every thread seems to be an opportunity to obsess about CO2, no matter what the original topic was.
So you bring up EVs and nuclear power as a replacement for oil - then someone brings in that furphy about nuclear waste, then someone mentions CO2 reduction as a counter argument, then ouila, we've become a climate change discussion web site.
Even worse when you mention CTL. People jump in instantly and denounce it as the work of Satan, so it is impossible to have any rational discussion.
Every path that we take to soften the blow of peak oil will have drawbacks. Pollution/AGW might be one of them, depending on which path we choose, therefore I think it is fair game, and actually important to discuss.
Forget the so-called rating system; it's a pretty unintelligent addition to this site...I agree with your rant about climate change. Climate change is real and has existed for billions of years. Warming and cooling have occurred multiple times. We do not currently have any definitive understanding of the causality. It doesn't really matter, however, what the causes of either cooling or warming happen to be; if either occurs, there will be consequences--and we need to respond appropriately. I think the current orthodoxy to the effect that some 30 years ago the climate was the ideal and we should somehow return to that period by cutting CO2 emissions is simply crazy and based on pseudo-science. Let's adapt as best we can; reversion is a pseudo solution.
I am more concerned about Global Cooling than I ever would be about warming also..
Fact: Medieval Warming Period, Wine was made in UK, Followed by Little Ice Age thus ending UK wine production.
Fact: UK producing wine again.
Fact: Vikings lived in Greenland and were able to do agriculture.
Fact: They were driven out by cold.
There is violent changes in climate and if anything.. Our more modern world is incapable of handling violence.. Prepare for it either way and just move on.. Deal with real problems like umm.. Poisoning the planet? Like Aquifers being damaged by chemicals, Salinity in fields, Damage to forests, Cancer rates, everything else that is fubar... We should deal with those now. If we deal with those problems instead of chasing a problem that would happen for our "great grandchildren" then maybe just maybe we would get something done. Talk about how people are dying from Cancer bring that one up.. Or kids who have Asthma trust me thats awful... My brother had it growing up its very frightening without even having it just seeing someone with it.
Get some real impacts of our heavy carbon society be it causing this crap or not.. We cannot control cyclical weather trends.. or even climate trends.. when you start to read Dr. Richard Alley's ice core studies things get all the sudden very profound and scary.. And it shows how we are not prepared much like the vikings.
If you discount the supposed positive feedback from water vapour (dubious, given our knowledge of climate variations over the last 100 million years) then the IPCC models show a 1 degree rise in temperature over the next century due to the burning of the remaining trillion tonnes of coal.
There's an additional 1 degree rise from deforestation.
In other words, cutting down trees is as much a problem as burning fossil fuels. Why do trees get cut down? Overpopulation, mainly.
That's what I worry about.
I expect there is some human contribution to warming. I expect a large part of it is natural. Either way I'm not too worried about global temperatures going up 1 degree in my lifetime, which is what I think is plausible. Human beings can adapt to that.
Overpopulation and the energy transition are much bigger challanges.
As for species extinction - stop chopping down the damn forests. We've wiped out untold species over the last 100 years using axes and bulldozers. Your average ecosystem can handle a warmer winter better than it can handle being razed to the ground.
"We cannot control cyclical weather trends.. or even climate trends"
Control climate? No, not yet and maybe never, but we can change it by our actions.
So far your links have led me to: debunked work from 2004 from a known denialist, and one who has been connected to the Exxon BS engine; to a non-climate "scientist" who is connected to the Heartland Institute and was part of that bogus "climate conference" where he presented bullshit on solar cycles; and work from 1998.
You keep posting, but post illogical, unscientific opinion based on irrelevant, de-contextualized information.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4227#comment-370445
You have failed the challenge.
Cheers
That is a false assertion. I'm sure you can do better than that. Given that humankind flourished only during the current warm period and none before - despite being essentially what we are now for at least the last 100k years - I'd say there's a fair chance the unprecedented length and stability of the current warm period had a little something to do with it.
I've explained this before, but perhaps that was vefore you began reading TOD. I'll only cover the part about the CO2 lagging in the paeoclimate record here:
That was predicted, by none other than James Hansen -before the ice cores were made. Essentially geologic climate change is driven by three major factors:
(1) Changes in insolation as a function of lattitude and seasons. These are driven by slow -and easily predicable changes in the orbit of the earth.
(2) Changes in the albedo (ability to reflect sunlight) of the earth. These are caused mainly by the changing temperature of the planet.
(3) Changes in the concentrations of the primary greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Before the industrial age, these are primarily driven by changes in the climate system (ocean temperature, and amount of ice), but can also be affected by volcanism, ans weathering.
Numerically (2) and (3) are of similar importance, and (1) is much smaller in size. However in geologic time, it is mainly (1) which determines the timing of ice ages. Once (1) kicks in, lets say for a warming phase, then over several hundreds of years the modest temperature change modifies causes (2) and (3), which, with considerable delay raise the temperature still more, leading to yet more (2) and (3). These are refered to as positive feedbacks, and they lag the changes initiated by (1).
No in the present era, humans are changing factor (3) very rapidly. So rather than calling (3) a feedback, it makes more sense to consider it to be the driving force of modern climate change. (3) of course will also affect factors (2) and (3), but these are slow feedbacks, that we won't see for hundreds of years.
The key insight, is that for different timescales, which factors control the system are different. The observations largely confirm the predictions of the models used, not refute them. But there are many players who want to confuse the issue. You probably heard their incomplete arguments, and thought they seemed reasonable. In the real world systems, with feedbacks ocurring among multiple terms, simple intuition often fails. You need to resort to mathematical models in order to gain understanding, and not be led astray by simplistic arguments.
Excellent.
Why they don't get: 600,000 years with never going above about 300 ppm. Now, 387 ppm.
WTF?
Cheers
Being an ethanol supporter and seeing many, many posts referring to ethanol as a scam or worse, I'm use to having something I support called a scam. No big deal.
Make my day, call Peak Oil a scam all you want. I will still support it because Peak Oil is true. Name calling is child's play and reflects more on the person doing it than anything else.
X, ethanol is a scam when its based on natural gas and massive government support.
I do however support cane ethanol (Brazil) and a certain level of ethanol from corn and wheat and the development of systems that turn the corn into ethanol with a decent EROI (and preferrably without natural gas imputs).
Does anyone know if gasses such as methane from piggeries or waste treatment plants can substituite for natural gas?
"Does anyone know if gasses such as methane from piggeries or waste treatment plants can substituite for natural gas?"
While it can be substituted on a small scale, the output of these "methane digesters" is generally high in nitrogen and CO2, and as a result, is a low BTU gas so substandard it cannot be mixed with pipeline gas. In fact, the most efficient production is from anaerobic (or however you spell it) digesters operated at high temperature. There are Rube Goldberg methods of removing some of the CO2, but not the nitrogen. In fact, the most common method for removing CO2 is to use iron shavings, like from a machine shop. Using CO2 in a EOR project results, in a fairly short time, in corrosion, casing leaks and the expenditure of massive amounts of money.
Methane digesters were in use in rural India, and probably other places, in the 1970's.
US energy giant Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) has begun running 50,000 homes on cow power.
This week, the company began collecting methane from the manure of 5,000 cattle at Fresno County-based Vintage Farms as part of a deal with Californian firm BioEnergy Solutions. The deal gives PCG&E 3bn cubic feet of methane per year under a long-term contract approved by the California Public Utilities Commission last May.
Is ethanol-from-corn saying to the Saudis, "We can burn our food, can you eat your oil?"