Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 9:43 am Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
pstarr wrote:
And yes we do in fact eat fossil fuels, as our farm soil can not produce it without fertilizer inputs and diesel-powered machines.
The right question isn't whether we are eating oil right now. The right questions are:
1) Given that we are using oil for a lot of wasteful purposes (like driving four-seater cars that have only the driver inside), if there was an oil shortage caused by peak oil, how many things could we easily give up before the oil used for agriculture started being an issue? The answer to this one is: a lot. We could give up half of our oil consumption without touching food issues at all.
2) Is high-yielding agriculture possible without any oil at all? The answer to this one is: definitely yes. Look at the Cuban example.
Joined: Jan 16, 2005 Posts: 322 Location: Delft, Netherlands
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 11:07 am Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
There was a link to the POD blog on this site, but it was removed because of the withering contempt that JD regularely showered over the PO admins and moderators. However, given the selfconfidence JD has I can imagine his contempt.
His blog is very valuable, because too many people on this forum are far, far too negative and depressed about PO to be healthy. I'm pretty sure JD has saved at least a few people from just jumping under a train from getting too caught up in all the doommongering going on at PO.com. In fact some of the people on his blog frankly say that they were saved from suicide by JD. Now this is a service that one cannot but praise JD for!
Otherwise, JD has plenty of wacko ideas that are just plain silly to my view.
Read his blog if you find you are getting too depressed to function correctly and need a breather. If anything his undisputable sense of humor and strong writing skills will give you a lift.
Cuba, which introduced policies in the early 1990s aimed at encouraging investment by foreign energy companies, increased its oil production to more than 75,000 barrels a day in 2004 from 18,000 barrels a day in 1992.
...It imports at least 53,000 barrels of oil a day from Venezuela, much of it already refined into gasoline, under an agreement that allows it to have the oil at below-market prices. Energy analysts say that Cuba separately imports as much as 25,000 barrels of oil a day to meet growing transportation demands; Venezuela is thought to supply much of this fuel.
_________________ "Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:04 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
JD's blog had a very specific and completely moronic agenda: to debunk the theory of peak oil. You can debate the timing, the rate of decline, and the human implications but can't deny it. Geologic fact. So JD was by definition unhinged. And claimed to be a vegetarian.
Every post was therefore soiled by JD's bias. He trashed his arguments before he made them. he alienated me with the blog name. He biased his own arguments. He shouted derision of simple fact. That made him an idiot, however bright he and his minions believed him to be. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
pstarr wrote:
JD's blog had a very specific and completely moronic agenda: to debunk the theory of peak oil. You can debate the timing, the rate of decline, and the human implications but can't deny it. Geologic fact. So JD was by definition unhinged. And claimed to be a vegetarian.
Every post was therefore soiled by JD's bias. He trashed his arguments before he made them. he alienated me with the blog name. He biased his own arguments. He shouted derision of simple fact. That made him an idiot, however bright he and his minions believed him to be.
Actually he addressed the naming issue. He never argued Peak Oil as a geological fact. It is just so that Peak Oil theory in doomerish view is more than a geological peak. This is the peak and the following doom. In fact it is the doomers who captured the name "Peak Oil" and turned a simple geological fact into the theory of doom. So Peak Oil Debunked is the perfect name for that blog.
As to alienation - what else could have possibly happened? Views are too far apart. _________________ There is no knowledge that is not power.
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
pstarr wrote:
JD's blog had a very specific and completely moronic agenda: to debunk the theory of peak oil. You can debate the timing, the rate of decline, and the human implications but can't deny it. Geologic fact. So JD was by definition unhinged.
When one cannot debate peak oil, they can always create straw-man arguments about "doomers", and pretend they're winning all the arguments.
Or, they can create a false dichotomy. Redefine peak oil as a rhetorical conflict between those who think everything will be fine, and those who think we're all going to die. This is another great way to win arguments.
It's just a game. The goal is to twist the rhetoric so that one's ego feels better for having formed a more clever argument. It's also about selecting the appropriate "facts" which agree with one's own position, and to prove wrong anyone who might disagree.
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:29 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
BrownDog wrote:
It's also about selecting the appropriate "facts" which agree with one's own position, and to prove wrong anyone who might disagree.
you have pretty precisely described, how doomers work. But you forgot to add adhominems against those who disagree. With adhominems the picture is complete them.
Have a nice day. _________________ There is no knowledge that is not power.
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:34 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
sch_peakoiler wrote:
BrownDog wrote:
It's also about selecting the appropriate "facts" which agree with one's own position, and to prove wrong anyone who might disagree.
you have pretty precisely described, how doomers work. But you forgot to add adhominems against those who disagree. With adhominems the picture is complete them.
Have a nice day.
Selective perception is a blind spot of more than just these mythical "doomers" that you talk about.
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:40 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
Wikipedia how to set up a strawmen wrote:
1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quote an opponent's words "out of context" -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy)
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
anytime I see 'doomer' I bristle then I disregard the user. They're cornies, short for cornucopean. Technoweenie cornucopean roles off the tongue. I think I'll start a thread "End of Progress--No Future" It'll sure to incite. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
BrownDog wrote:
sch_peakoiler wrote:
BrownDog wrote:
It's also about selecting the appropriate "facts" which agree with one's own position, and to prove wrong anyone who might disagree.
you have pretty precisely described, how doomers work. But you forgot to add adhominems against those who disagree. With adhominems the picture is complete them.
Have a nice day.
Selective perception is a blind spot of more than just these mythical "doomers" that you talk about.
I was referring to very certain doomers actually. Selective perception is common to many people. I noticed that the higher the personal engagement in one of the parts of the theory the higher the selective perception. But this perception itself is a common fact and is widely used. _________________ There is no knowledge that is not power.
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:53 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
pstarr wrote:
Wikipedia how to set up a strawmen wrote:
1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quote an opponent's words "out of context" -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy)
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
anytime I see 'doomer' I bristle then I disregard the user. They're cornies, short for cornucopean. Technoweenie cornucopean roles off the tongue. I think I'll start a thread "End of Progress--No Future" It'll sure to incite.
The stream of adhominems from doomers is proportional to the lack of factual evidence of their theories _________________ There is no knowledge that is not power.
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:04 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
sch_peakoiler wrote:
I was referring to very certain doomers actually.
Then why use an ambiguous term, then?
sch_peakoiler wrote:
Selective perception is common to many people. I noticed that the higher the personal engagement in one of the parts of the theory the higher the selective perception. But this perception itself is a common fact and is widely used.
I've observed the same correlation. Not sure I follow the 'widely used' part.
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:08 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
sch_peakoiler wrote:
The stream of adhominems from doomers is proportional to the lack of factual evidence of their theories
the waste-stream of utopian nonsence from cornucopean technoweenies is inversely proportional to their age, income, and maturity. Kids believe in the tooth fairy. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
pstarr wrote:
sch_peakoiler wrote:
The stream of adhominems from doomers is proportional to the lack of factual evidence of their theories
the waste-stream of utopian nonsence from cornucopean technoweenies is inversely proportional to their age, income, and maturity. Kids believe in the tooth fairy.
your theory registered, homey.
I have a couple of questions to ask. But I will do it in Jan 2007, and in some other topic;) _________________ There is no knowledge that is not power.
Posted: Wed Nov 22, 2006 2:02 pm Post subject: Re: Peak oil debunked
MrBill wrote:
In a US concentric way you are correct. Current modern agricultural practices use natural gas to make nitrogen fertilizer (plus a lot of waste water in the process) plus most of our farm machinery does run on conventional diesel fuel. This is the most productive, economical way to run a modern farm in the USA today.
However, in much of the world, where the majority of the people are (5/6ths) conventional farming means a mix of draught power, dung, crop rotations and human inputs to produce in many cases more yield per acre plus less land wasted or idle. Their standards of living are lower, but they are not eating fossil fuels either.
you do not know what you are talking about. India is now completely dependent on the 'green revolution' of pumped irrigation and ng fertilizers. So is Africa. And China is quickly moving in that direction.
MrBill wrote:
old and new technologies such as draught power, wind, water, solar, electric from various sources including coal, hydro, nuclear, etc. perhaps to help produce transport fuels such as cellulosic ethanol, bio-diesel and hydrogen that can power 25-40 HP tractors if that is more economical than draught or human power. Again the question becomes will that be sufficient to feed 9+ billion people on less land?
cornucopean nonsence. Wind, solar, water electric account for less than 2% of our energy mix and there is neither the grid infrastructure nor the alternate power industry in place to change this before precipitous peak decline. Biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol and hydrogen fuels are not sources but energy drains.
MrBill wrote:
Standards of living will have to fall and trade-offs will ensure we cannot carry-on with existing farming methods. This does not mean that there are not alternatives to artificial fertilizers or fossil fuels. It does mean that the alternatives may not be as good as that what they are replacing. Get used to it.
yes there are alternatives. Organic agriculture and permaculture methods may (if we are very lucky) help to maintain a medieval mode of life.
MrBill wrote:
An example from Nepal is the use of dung as both a source of fuel and as fertilizer. Dung competes with firewood for heating and cooking. Dung is also used to fertilize fields under a system of permaculture. It is a trade off. You cannot use the dung for both cooking and heating as well as fertilizer. But firewood, especially at altitudes, is also a scarce resource, that although renewable, has to be used sparingly to give the trees enough time to regenerate. So everyday people have to decide whether to use dung for cooking and heating or as fertilizer.
Not in NASCAR Country.
MrBill wrote:
A classic economic trade-off based on marginal utility. But a small mountainous country manages to feed a population the size of Canada's on a fraction of the arable land. Living standards are naturally lower, and they do not produce an exportable surplus, but they provide for their own needs* without (many/scarce) expensive inputs of diesel or other artificial fertilizers.
apples and oranges.
MrBill wrote:
Thereby refuting the claim that we CANNOT live without eating fossil fuels. Instead it is a question of sustainable population growth combined with sustainable permaculture and harvesting trees in a sustainable manner. It is not a peak oil problem at all, but a population control question.
You suggest agriculture and lifestyle changes would mean a complete reorganization of energy and nutrient flows and population locations and movement. This would require a redistribution of land and resources that is politically impossible. You want revolution? That is what your prescription calls for. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
