Yeah, Craig, humans have survived ice ages and super volcanos. I'm not sure what makes this time different. Of course, all out nuclear war or runaway greenhouse warming may mean only a few survive somewhere like southern Patagonia. What's clear is that the planet won't continue to support 7 billion+ humans. At some point the herd will be dramatically culled.

Sometimes it cycles through more than once.

I also think - since H.sap is supposedly the "intelligent" species - that we have a basic responsibility to choose to do something about it, since we created the mess, instead of throwing up our hands and just riding along, trying to pretend that what we do doesn't matter.

Clearly, what we do, have done, and will do, does matter.

Sign up to do some volunteer work - work at a food pantry, donate a winter coat, work with kids, plant a garden, support a wildlife fund.

Do just about anything instead of sitting in the dark crying over spilled milk.

Could you provide a link to the Berman piece? I often ponder how much our culture of hucksterism infects the way we think about everything.

Part of that is that we are primed, upon hearing about any problem, to expect to be sold some solution (usually one that requires us to buy something). So if I just present our present predicament to students or others, in all its grim glory, they insist that I add a nice final pitch of "50 simple things you can do (or buy) to prevent GW, PO..."

I am put in mind of the scene in "The Music Man" where he is convincing the citizens of River City that a new pool hall in town is a great moral hazard, and so they need to form a band (for which they will purchase the instruments and uniforms from him).

We are all citizens of River City, and for every presentation of any problem, we expect the presenter to follow up immediately with exactly some such pitch--otherwise it is simply bad form, like telling a joke and leaving off the punch line.

On the other point, perhaps a few will end up living some idyllic eco-lifestyle after the dust settles, and I do think that this is the best sales pitch for the eco-music-men to throw out there.

But human extinction cannot be ruled out. People like Noam Chomsky (in the video series "The Nation" did on GW&PO last year) are starting to talk about it. We pride ourselves on being resilient and resourceful, but we are, in the end, just one species, and species are going belly up at a rate thousands to tens of thousands of times faster than the background rate (of around on extinction per million per year).

The most recent causes of despair include Fatih Birol's observation that, given the commitments to energy infrastructure that have been made or are being planned, we are on the path to burn enough once-safely-sequestered carbon to heat the globe 6 degrees C beyond pre-industrial levels.

A few years back, Mark Lynus wrote a gripping book called "Six Degrees" that was intended as a warning of what may happen if we push the earth up by each degree. The last chapter is pretty much 'end of story.'

But one reason it was 'end of story' is because it was thought at that time that it would take about that much warming to kick off the feedback of destabilizing sea bed methane hydrates in places like the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, where more than a trillion tons of methane lie waiting to take us into a much hotter and more hostile world.

But it is looking as if we have already crossed that boundary--seas in the Arctic have been described as 'bubbling as if boiling' from methane release. Some (a surprising few, given the gravity of the consequences) of us are waiting with baited breath for the official report of the international team of scientists that was rushed up there to study and measure the 'dramatic' release. It should come out in March or April.

Note that a significantly warmer planet means:
--wind speeds regularly reaching hurricane levels even inland,
--actual hurricanes becoming super-canes (the force of some from earlier in the earths warmer past left gouges on the ocean floor that are still visible),
--ever more extreme droughts alternating with ever more extreme deluges wiping out most plant life
--"wet bulb" temperatures becoming too hot for humans to survive
--ocean circulation failing, causing anoxic conditions that create clouds of poisonous H2S gas
--loss of most photosynthesis that produces both oxygen and the basis of the food chain
...

Granted, the last two would probably take a while to fully develop, but this is the future we have now pretty much bequeathed to our progeny and to the living world.

There is plenty of reason for at least some reflection on how we got here, as well as some anger at those most responsible.

Most of the world's useful engineering and scientific information can be stored in a vault somewhere safe, people need not start from scratch again.

Of course it could be stored in a vault somewhere. It is just highly unlikely that it will be. That being said it is likely that many books will survive the collapse. Unfortunately most will probably be burnt as fuel.

Even if world population could be held constant, in balance with "renewable" resources, the creative impulse that has been responsible for human achievements during the period of growth would come to an end. And the spiraling collapse that is far more likely will leave, at best, a handfull of survivors. These people might get by, for a while, by picking through the wreckage of civilization, but soon they would have to lead simpler lives, like the hunters and subsistence farmers of the past. They would not have the resources to build great public works or carry forward scientific inquiry. They could not let individuals remain unproductive as they wrote novels or composed symphonies. After a few generations, they might come to believe that the rubble amid which they live is the remains of cities built by gods.
Energy and Human Evolution

Ron P.

By chance or intention, libraries and other stores of information burn or are otherwise destroyed. Those who knew how to read or access them die or are killed. People (or at least those in power) no longer value the knowledge or distrust the people who do...

There are many ways that knowledge gets destroyed.

I choose to front the possibility of the worst happening, just for the sake of honesty.

I hope and pray and work toward it not happening, but those hopes and prayers and work are seeming more and more in vain every day.

Over the years, I've tried to pass along these ideas to my one-time friends, but they mostly ignore my e-mails. I acquired the name "Dr. Doom" about 3 decades ago and I guess it stuck. That was about the time I started to cut back on the booze, since it only made my head sore...

E. Swanson

@shox and Wise

By coincidence, I just read a transcript of William Faulkner's Nobel prize banquet speech...1950. Well worth reading.

Feeling doomed sometime? Sure. Give up? Never. Too much to do and we need all hands...all hands.

Faulkner....as follows:

Ladies and gentlemen,

I feel that this award was not made to me as a man, but to my work - a life's work in the agony and sweat of the human spirit, not for glory and least of all for profit, but to create out of the materials of the human spirit something which did not exist before. So this award is only mine in trust. It will not be difficult to find a dedication for the money part of it commensurate with the purpose and significance of its origin. But I would like to do the same with the acclaim too, by using this moment as a pinnacle from which I might be listened to by the young men and women already dedicated to the same anguish and travail, among whom is already that one who will some day stand here where I am standing.

Our tragedy today is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it. There are no longer problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up? Because of this, the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat.

He must learn them again. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid; and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the old universal truths lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed - love and honor and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion. His griefs grieve on no universal bones, leaving no scars. He writes not of the heart but of the glands.

Until he relearns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man. I decline to accept the end of man. It is easy enough to say that man is immortal simply because he will endure: that when the last dingdong of doom has clanged and faded from the last worthless rock hanging tideless in the last red and dying evening, that even then there will still be one more sound: that of his puny inexhaustible voice, still talking.

I refuse to accept this. I believe that man will not merely endure: he will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past. The poet's voice need not merely be the record of man, it can be one of the props, the pillars to help him endure and prevail.

From Nobel Lectures, Literature 1901-1967, Editor Horst Frenz, Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1969

Hey Breadman;
Just in case.. Stoneleigh (Nicole Foss, of The Automatic Earth) Talking at USM tonight, Wishcamper Ctr, Lee Hall (?).. 7pm. Should be interesting.. but I might take your advice and leave some time to meditate afterwards!!

Bob

I consider music to be a large portion of the "why bother?" myself. It is probably the most important part of our humanity, and preserving music is definitely a worthwhile pursuit.

It is the light that helps drive the darkness away while we do what needs to be done.

[never mind - there's nothing to say to someone who ends an absolutely totalizing apocalyptic rant with "and that's all there is to it". Not anything that Leanan would like, at any rate.]

@ Shox

Nonsense.

You do it your way and I will do it my way and will continue to hope for the best. Property with gardens and woodlot...river full of fish, livestock, chickens, good water, mild climate...good solid friends in our community, and bullets for several guns.

I don't know what else I could do? I sure as h%## won't whine about any misfortune that comes my way. My Dad always said if you do your best, that is all that can be hoped for from any man. Also, if the world is better off for you having lived, then your life was successful.

Maybe the life won't be full of promise, maybe we won't thrive, but I for one will keep on plugging away and hope to provide for family and friends.

That's about it. TOD reading is probably a compulsion at this stage of my awareness. 'Looking forward to the reincarnation of TAE. I appreciate the knowledge and wisdom of TOD posting folks.

You need to get a grip and help carry the load, IMHO.

Cheers.....Paul

Shox, you present an interesting case but you go way, way overboard. Saying that the only life possible would have to live in containment chambers is just absurd. We may really mess up the atmosphere but not that bad. And life can withstand global warming. It has many times before and there will be nothing really special about this one even if it get 10 degrees hotter.

I have already presented my argument against the likelihood of human extinction. Saying that extinction seems inevitable is just not realistic and I think that if you thought about it with a little more logic than before you would come to the same conclusion.

So obviously I believe there will be survivors. And one has a far greater chance of becoming a survivor if you prepare to be one. Those who prepare to save themselves and their families will have a far, far greater chance of surviving than those who decide to try to save the world instead.

But of course you are correct about the lawlessness, corruption and anarchy. But one can prepare for that as well. If I were younger, and had the funds to do so, I would try to organize a defensive farming community, with all the homes in a central village and have everyone arm themselves to the teeth. Of course that would not be a guarantee of survival but it would greatly enhance one's chances.

Ron P.

That may be - tomorrow, or a month from now, or many years from now.

The only question that seems relevant, when the future is unknown, is how are you going to live your life today ? You do have a choice about that.

Possible reading material for shox: Solnit's "A Paradise Built in Hell" which is about human responses to disaster.

Surprisingly, sometimes disaster brings out the best in people. I too see the juggernaut bearing down on us, but still think that communities will manifest solidarity because that is what communities do. I'm sure there will also be ugliness to balance the books, but I just don't see the Hobbesian slaughterhouse that shox seems to be predicting.

OTOH, any and all of us could be wrong.

All of you who counsel optimism, or pessimism, or indifference are going to share the same fate as the unwitting billions of souls who have never heard of Peak Oil and planetary collapse.

But that has always been true, peak oil or no peak oil: in the long run, we're all dead.

Indeed, that became a common theme in the art of Europe after the plague. The Danse Macabre, the Dance of Death, showed death dancing with people from all walks of life: pope, king, maiden, pauper, child, etc. Rich or poor, old or young, all colors and creeds, we are all united in our ultimate fate.

Kunstler, this morning:

The President intimates that we will surely return to the turbo economy of a fast-receding yore. He is missing something big there. We are not going back to that. The fiesta is over. And his job is not to try to go back there, because it is impossible. His job was to lead an epochal re-set of the economy to a very different disposition of things, smaller, finer, more local. It is so far outside the box he's in that light-years cannot even begin to describe the distances involved. And I completely dismiss his claim that the reason no prosecution of Wall Street misconduct happened was because, however odious their schemes and scams were, they were technically legal.

If you don't like the rules, change them or make them unenforceable.

Democracy has morphed into oligarchy.

What Democracy? If the topic is the US of A - the US of A was supposed to be a Republic.

Agreed.

The banks, when faced with losses, go to the Fed to be bailed out with more funny money. They then make more money for their bonuses by buying Treasuries.

If you complain about this, they tell you that if this doesn't happen and they are allowed to fail, the ATM's will stop working. If you try to regulate them, they say you are an anti-capitalist Marxist. (What does that make them?)

So it's a no win catch-22 with the banking system. You can't let them fail, yet you can't regulate them. This is not paranoid conspiracy theory; this is fact. The founders of the United States wrote about this kind of thing 200 years ago.

But no worries, nature will finish off these banksters. This is the silver lining, folks, to peak oil. Nature is taking her revenge on us corrupt humans.

Bernanke can't print oil, and we should all be thankful for that. Collapse will finish off this house of cards.

Good points. But the very vastness of our numbers makes us vulnerable to the next microbe that comes along and figures out how to best exploit this vast, ready-to-eat mono-culture. This goes for our major crops and domesticated animals. As things devolve, the ability to muster coordinated research and preventive action on the international scale needed will be next to nil.

Besides the devastations of GW that I cited below, there are still plenty of nukes around for us to hurl at each other; and plenty of chemical, biological and conventional weapons as well. Not to mention all the nuclear plant, each of which will inevitably end up like Fukushima or worse, poisoning ever larger swaths of the world. We won't mention the enormous variety and mass of persistent, toxic industrial chemicals that we continue to unleash into the environment, or the number of exotic species we have introduced into new environments where they run amok and wipe out all competitors, or the sheer devastation of mining, logging, development, and all the other insults we unleash directly on the land.

We are collectively a very large, fragile giant, crushing much around us that could have supported us, and stumbling towards an imminent fall. Perhaps some will find a way to crawl out of the wreckage. Perhaps not.

Homo sapiens are the least likely of all vertebrate species to go extinct. Humans and their domestic animals and pets make up 97 percent of the land vertebrate mass of the earth.

Well I wouldn't bet on that. Unlike 100% of the other species, Humans have access to weapons of mass death. The biggest threat may be biological weapons. Consider if bio-weapons are released during a hot war that are airbourn and have a fatallity rate of 98%. Or after a collapse, some survivors salvaging equipment unleash bio-weapons into the atmosphere.

Consider Klebsiella planticola, a GMO bacteria that was found to destroy most plant life. Has this GMO bacteria been released into the environment, it would have quickly devastated crops killing off the food supply to humans and animals. With the die off of plant life, humans and animals would quickly go extinct.

I think the combination of global malnutrition, global nuclear warfare, and global biological warfare would be the one, two, three punch that causes human extinction. The threat of extinction is real.

FWIW: I believe the odds of a nuclear war after an global economic collapse is 100%. I can't see how global war will be avoided. As soon as nations face bare supermarket shelves, they will go to war to take what they need to feed their populations. The people will empower radical leaders that will bring resources to the masses, just as they always have done throughout history. This time will not be any different.

We can already smell the first whiff in Europe as one by one, Nations loose there democractically elected leaders (Greece a couple of months ago, and Italy just a few weeks ago) replaced by plutocracies instigating forced austerity on the people. We will soon see EU nations fight back with new leaders taking back power and unification of nation populations with nationalism and state controlled economies - aka Fascism!

All this rhythms with the first globalization collapse that began between WW1 and WW2.

My knowledge of paleohistory is getting pretty rusty but haven't there been ultra-dominant top species before us -- some of whom shot self in foot by their own success? I'm trying to recall a mention I think I read in a "dinosaur" book of some "vaguely pig like" creature which dominated the available land mass in some prior epoch, then basically ate everything in sight and erased itself from the map. I remember wondering (at the time of reading) whether it drove SUVs :-)

Of course human extinction is a possibility, just an extremely unlikely one. The coming collapse will likely cull our numbers dramatically. Our numbers could go from seven billion to less than one billion, perhaps down to a few million. But there will be survivors.

Large numbers now are no guarantee of survival. Consider the passenger pigeon for instance.

Population size in 19th century: Approx. 3-5 billion
Population size in 20th century: Zero

I don't think anyone predicted that at the time.

Here are a couple of possible mechanisms for human extinction:

1. Genetically-engineered virus. Generally, there is some % of natural immunity to any disease. But if we allow for genetic engineering, then it seems a virus could be created with 100% mortality rate. Not even deliberately. See:

Nowak, R. (2001). Disaster in the making. New Scientist, 13 January 2001.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16922730.300-disaster-in-the-makin...

2. Extreme global warming (6 degrees plus).

Not many climate scientists have modelled very extreme, or runaway global warming (with feedback factor > 1). But the few who have stuck their necks out generally think it *is* possible, and would have very bad results if it happened. See for instance James Hansen ("Storms of My Grandchildren"). Or Mark Lynas and the various fun-and-games described in his final chapter, with anoxic oceans and fuel-air methane explosions.

Quick summary at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/apr/23/scienceandnature.climatechange

It's hard to see anyone surviving that, not even a few (relict) hunter-gatherer populations. Not much left to hunt or gather I'm afraid.

This means that more countries will have to use what they have rather than importing more oil.
i.e. The US will have to cut consumption down to less than 10 mbpd!

By 2020, natural methane emissions will be unstoppable, so by then, nothing we do will matter any more.

"prospect of being legally bound to a world of 4C warming"

And even if we tried mightily, we have no idea whether we can just warm the world up to a certain point and then stop. It is far more likely that, because of feedbacks, four degrees will lead to five which will lead to six...

It's as I always state. There are too many other 'immediate' poblems in the world for peoples attention to last too long and as Burgundy put it yesterday in his very insightful post there are too many distractions.

I'll bet if we we cruising along wth $40 oil, economy doing nicley, no middle east uprising.........then some real attention would be forthcoming

Not to mention the average politicians' avertion to committing political suicide by telling his people exactly what it would mean to reduce their carbon footprints by any meaningful amount. We all know what it means: a complete and utter change of lifestyle and a complete sea change in the capitalist growth model.

hmmmm.. maybe asking a bit much right now.

Marco.

No one will agree to suicide their economy

No. Of course not. Instead we all agree to suicide ourselves.

Yup. Someone did a study about three years ago, which concluded that Maine can grow enough wood sustainably to heat about 10% of our houses. I don't remember if they included commercial buildings or not.

But if we can provide only about 10% of our heating fuel as wood, it would make more sense to use it in homes, or maybe in nursing homes, etc., where they need heat 24 hours per day, seven days per week, instead of in public schools where they need maximum heat for about six hours per week, and then nothing for the other 162 hours per week.

Right now we have five or six school districts in the immediate area that are doing conversions to burn wood, and they each refer to an ample supply of wood within fifty miles. But after they convert a dozen or more big school buildings, and Colby College, that wood supply may quickly look much less ample.

The way things are going, I can only say that we will be multi tasking the money, and using it for fuel as well.

Craig

We can either ratchet down from our current position in steps, and build in sustainable culture as we go through careful alliance between plural forces of our current system, or we can go all out resource war.

A few questions come to mind. Just who is this "we" you speak of? Does that include the Chinese? The Indians? Or how about the Iranians? You have to be talking about the whole world here and "we" will just watch this thing play out between nations as it unfolds.

And just what is a "sustainable culture"? There are many different culture on earth today. The only ones that might be sustainable are the ones that have zero population growth and are not drawing down their natural resources of forest, top soil, water and fossil fuels. There may be such a culture somewhere but I don't know of any.

The earth cannot sustain seven billion people for any great length of time. If we could then we would not be destroying the ocean fisheries or drawing down the water tables all over the earth, of using up our topsoil, increasing the size of deserts, clearing the rain forest and dry forest, driving so many species into extinction or using up our remaining fossil fuels.

Sustainable culture indeed.

Ron P.

Britain at least has experience fighting in Afghanistan with much older technology :p

Lawsuits will be filed but a right leaning court will side with law enforcement.

A problem with your eyesight will be taken as proof that you are a protestordomestic terrorist, and you will be dealt with as such.

Similar thoughts in North Carolina

http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?storyid=%7B625c82da-c4b5-403e-81...

The geology in the NE doesn't allow for simple re-injection of waste fluids. The bedrock is shallower and the sedimentary basins that do exist are tighter and smaller. Some flowback is being sent to Ohio for re-injection, but I don't think they could handle all the flowback produced currently from PA.

suyog, I think that horse left the barn long ago.

Selco said in the early days of the Balkan Collapse people said, "someone will put a stop to this..."

Three presidents and twenty years after Reagan/Bush, we find ourselves saying the same thing... meanwhile...

Problem is, if we don't borrow "enough", the guvmint borrows in our name.

Suyog
Given the positive difference between inflation and interest rates, borrowing makes sense, this may sound like tragedy of commons but it's true. If you have to buy, buy on credit. Today's money is worthless tomorrow.

The money of kings is gold. The money of gentlemen is silver. The money of workers is barter. The money of slaves is debt.

Chrome - That is exactly the dilemma. All activities are inherently dangerous.: drilling, frac'ng, driving your car to work, playing high school football, high speed police chase, flying home to see granny for Christmas, etc. So the question is what hazards do we accept and which ones are rejected. Obvious not only is there no "one size fits all" answer but there's also the question of "too risky" to whom? There's no risk to someone living in San Francisco if wells are frac'd in NY. Likewise there's no direct risk to someone living in NY from an oil spill in the GOM. In fact, such an event might financially benefit New England fishermen by knocking out some competition.

So back to my original position: risk assessment should be local IMHO. If the folks in PA don't want any wells frac'd in their state then so be it. But which folks in PA should make that decision? The landowner who might make $2 million from his NG royalty? The risk may be acceptable to him. Or the land owner next door who won't get a penny of royalty? Is the risk, no matter how small in might actually be, worth it to him? And the guy who's been unemployed for a year who can now get an oil patch job paying him more than he's ever made before? Frac'ng is all positive for him.

So does the majority rule? Do you let the politicians make the final call? Do you give minority opinions a veto right? One obvious point: there will never be a unanimous agreement. But at the end of the day a decision must be made. Even not making a decision is, in effect, making a decision. Consider the Keystone pipeline. The president has chose to wait until after the election to make a decision. That is making a decision: no approval now. That might satisfy some supporters from the left. But a risky move IMHO: if gasoline prices jump up right before the election you can bet the right will run endless ads pointing to Keystone and blaming the president. And that may well be THE deciding factor in the election. Similar risk for NE politicians who oppose drilling if there's a NG shortgage during the winter in a few years. Politcians face the same delimma with their careers: risk vs. reward.

I think this ring of containment is actually pretty vulnerable.

You may be right, EoS, but that will be cold comfort to the military and political leadership in Tehran. Soviet weapons in Cuba was enough to throw the United States into a tizzy in the early 1960s. You don't have to surround a country to intimidate and evoke a defensive response.

I am sorry but I can't remember the Israelis calling for the annihilation of all Iranians, something the Koran advocates for all Jews, and as for the Mullahs, the clowns in charge of Iran at the moment who seem to suffer from ball gown and silly hat syndrome if they are morally opposed to fission weapons why are they spending millions of dollars trying to build them?

Has it ever acured to any of you that they reason the Americans are there in force is too prevent any power in the region gaining control over the Gulf region and therefore dictating terms too the rest of the world. America and its allies didn't go too war against Iraq in 1991, because they invaded Kuwait, they went too war because if they had not done Iraq would have dominated the gulf and dictated the price of oil. If Iran gets a Nuclear Weapon they will do the same. If they can do that they will have there hands on the economic wind pipe of the world, does anyone want that? 10 dollars a gallon anybody.

If you don't think that is not on the cards Sudan is demanding 32 dollars a barrel in transit fees from the newly independent South Sudan too transport there oil, 10 times the normal rate. Get real, these clowns think that they have a mandate from God too rule the world.

I think I've finally come to realize why Israel considers an Iranian bomb (or probably a Saudi one as well), as an existential threat. Its not that they actually believe what they say ,"that the Persians are so crazy they'd use it in spite of the consequences". The real threat to Israel is a slow demographics threat. The more unsecure Israelis feel, the greater the numbers who will emmigrate, and the sooner the Palestianians become the dominate demography within the fortress. So they figure a Persian bomb is checkmate, you lose.

Thats interesting. R.P. is the only candidate who would seriously cut military funding. So the grunts are not against cuts to their supposedly revered military. Maybe the prospect of not having to serve in pointless wars is more important than having a big budget for shiny new miltary toys.

Ron is a true Libertarian. They believe that government should be limited to Courts, Police and military, abeit most say, "to keep the heathens from our shores."

He is also rare in being opposed to the war in Iraq.

I really like Ron, but wish he had never read Ayn Rand. Like most Libertarians, Ron thinks he IS John Galt.

Seriously, he is at least consistent, if a bit fanatic. I would enjoy having a friendly discussion with him. Maybe one of us would change the mind of the other.

Craig

According to Wikipedia, Ron Paul served in the Air Force and the Air National Guard in the 1960s and had the rank of Captain.

More in depth polling would really be needed to determine why military people back him. One could easily just conclude they like the idea of being paid to be in the military but not have to worry about being in a war since Ron Paul is against foreign involvement.

Doesn't prevent the MSM from describing has anti- military. Its amazing that the same people who are so into letting people vote with their money are willing to dismiss this inconvenient fact in their narrative.

On Ron Paul - I would rather vote for a principled person I disagree with than unprincipled person who agrees with me. As they say fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. As a proud Liberal will not be voting for the current incumbent of the White House.

This is a political anomoly.

RP supporters are more likely to donate, post in forums/social media, etc. RP supporters are also more active when in the young-voter demographic. The military is a micro-slice of US demographics. That's why, if you count donations, he gets more.

It's math. Not a sign of support.

Between PX credit, tattoo shops, strip clubs, crappy used car dealers, etc., Joes do not need to be sending in political donations. In fact, they should be encouraged to remain apolitical.

Extraction and arbitrage...

Actually, there is a huge opportunity for horrific imagery: going to these sites by ship and waiting for a lull in the wind to ignite large fields if possible. The image of the polar seas on fire - and the control of those images by those who initially get them - could be the most iconic of the century. It'd be difficult and dangerous, but it should be done; I hope someone is well along in planning such an expedition.

There's even a rationale for it, of course... CO2 being less of a short-term positive feedback than methane.

I still have to pinch myself now and again to remind myself that these news articles are not part of some gloomy third volume of Brunner's Zanzibar/Sheep novels.

But most people probably either do not understand the gravity of this type of news or they think of it as fiction, like the novels you refer to above. For many of them they probably consider it a flight of the liberal elitist mind, getting carried away with a minor amount of data that will inevitably be countered by their main source of entertainment, Fox news.

And so we push on to next tipping point.

For a feeble attempt at perspective...

From the article:
"methane emissions from this region were about eight million tonnes a year, but the latest expedition suggests this is a significant underestimate of the phenomenon."

If the current estimate is 1/10th reality, this area would be producing the same amount of methane as all the world's livestock.

"Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually"
www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html

See also Global Methane Inventory: ruminant livestock = 16% of total annual methane production ("enteric fermentation" in the chart):
http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/methane/intro/cycle.html

I am betting that TPTB don't care two hoots about the ice melting, for them it presents an unprecedented opportunity to explore the Arctic.

Just another bit of bad news in a continuum of depressing articles. Amazing how mundane it can be reading about something that could be a world and life changing event. A major methane release has long ranked right up there on my list of Big Deal things to watch out for. We've been waiting for The Sxxx To Hit The Fan - how ironic if it turns out it's just planetary flatulence that does us in.

gog - Not that simple. How do you know Encanna or Chesapeake dumped the frac fluids into the environment? Remember much of the frac fluid contamination in PA and NYC came from local municipalities that charged companies a fee to dump the nasties into their treatment plants and then discharged it untreated back into the streams. Both states had to recently pass laws making it illegal to continue doing so. Or the nasties could have been dumped on to the ground by disposal companies that E. and C. paid a small fortune to dispose of properly. There was a case early on in PA where a land owner was busted for allowing a disposal company to dump the nasties into his own pond. Again, the operator paid the disposal company a big fee to get rid of it properly. But once the nasties are transfered to the disposal company it belongs to them. Or it could have been due to poor drilling practices done by E. but not by C. Or vice versa. Like I said...not that simple. Good regulations that are MONITORED AND ENFORCED are the key to getting it done right.

As far as the "cutting risk" proclamation it's rather hollow. First, the state can collect samples of the frac fluid anytime it wants to and cheaply ID every component. Another simple approach: pass a reg that requires full disclosure to the state or you don't get a frac permit. Each state can make the rules as they wish...no company has a constitutional right to drill a well anywhere in the US unless they comply with all the rules. Second, frac water costs money. Pumpimg more frac water than needed wastes money. The companies don't spend anymore money then necessary to frac a well. If they could consume less water they would. If the state regulators want to limit how much water is used on any frac all they need due is pass a new reg. That's how it's done in Texas. It really isn't difficult to control the situation if the politcians/regulators really want to.

The EPA found fracking chemicals in an aquifer. Pretty darn simple.

It became less simple when the EPA also found chemicals in their ultra-pure quality control water samples. It brings up the question of how careful the EPA was in collecting their water samples.

Also note that the EPA drilled below the water aquifers into the gas reservoirs and collected samples. Encana's point is that of course there is gas in the gas formations and that the EPA should have terminated drilling at the bottom of the water formations.

I have no idea what the EPA was trying to do. Their methodology makes no sense to me. The fact that the control samples were contaminated implies that they screwed up somewhere - that's what controls are all about. And this is not a shale gas reservoir, so what was their point in publishing the results?

To quote Encana:

The gas reservoir at Pavillion is as shallow as 1,100 feet and has no cap rock to prevent the gradual upward migration of gas. This unusually shallow gas naturally “pollutes” groundwater. And, says Encana, there is no contiguous water aquifer to move water through the area. This is not shale gas, which is usually found more than five times deeper.

It's a shallow gas field, and it is quite common in areas with shallow gas for the gas to get into the aquifers. In addition, the water in the area is naturally contaminated with sulfates, dissolved solids, and other chemicals. Problems were reported with it as far back as 1880. Bad water is quite common in the American West.

In addition, oil companies in the area historically drained their oil field wastes to pits. Encana says it is trying to find these old pits and clean them up. In Alberta we were not allowed to drain waste to pits because there is a tendency for it to get into the groundwater.

The American Petroleum Industry has checked in with its opinion on the EPA report:

API blasts EPA report on hydraulic fracturing

The oil and gas industry’s biggest trade group is blasting a government report that linked hydraulic fracturing with possible groundwater contamination in Wyoming.

Too many questions already have been raised about the data underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft report, said the American Petroleum Institute.

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead and state regulators have raised questions about some of the water samples drawn at EPA’s deep test wells in Pavillion, Wyo., after some of the results could not be replicated. Industry and Wyoming officials also have questioned whether the EPA may have introduced contaminants when it drilled those test wells.

“The oil and natural gas industry, Gov. Matt Mead and state agencies in Wyoming have raised numerous questions on the sampling process and lack of peer review for the EPA’s draft Pavillion groundwater report,” said Erik Milito, API’s group director for upstream and industry operations, in a statement.

Bottom line: The EPA is going to get roasted over the coals by the industry and the Wyoming government on this one because they can't back up their conclusions with solid data.

Also Oil surges nearly $4, then eases, eyeing Iran

Tuesday and briefly surged nearly $4 a barrel in a furious burst of trading that traders attributed to renewed jitters over Iran, expectations of further monetary easing and possibly computer-driven trading.

Brent and U.S. crude prices shot up quickly at 9:45 a.m. EST (1445 GMT), adding to gains and briefly rising more than $3 as volumes surged in one of the most concentrated bursts of trading activity in months.

Other commodity markets did not jump, and traders and analysts remained unable to pinpoint a specific trigger for the price surge and news of a collision shutting the Houston Ship Channel was added to the mix.

Zadok

I cannot answer about what Bob heard from Nicole but when she came to Austin and gave her talk I had the same experience. A good crowd who listened in rapt attention.

In the Q&A she was strong on cash and cash equivalents (short term US Treasuries) as the current safest bet. She is not big on gold because she is convinced that the great deflationary contraction coming will take gold down along with everything else. Like a lot of others on TOD she thought the best investments were in lasting things - some land, a well constructed house, a good garden, etc.

It is really hard to know whether there will be inflation or deflation, but she makes a strong case for deflation.

The IMF is the global mobs enforcer-- liquidate all resources, take away wages and services, and hand the citizens the bill.
This is from a loan to a dictator that is part of your client state relationship, and has moved the cash to Switzerland, and given the contracts for a project that will never work to the very people who loaned the money.
These people are scum!

I only wish to see another. "...just one more! It ain't reeealy that cold."

we like Perseids more, because they are... um... more observation-friendly - in August

Nah, that's our rainy season = rain = cloud = no starry sky :(

NAOM