[Plantagenet]

The New York Times published two separate articles over the weekend disparaging the idea of peak oil.

New York Times bashes peak oil

Opposition to the idea of peak oil runs strong in the liberal mainstream media----after all, high oil prices are all caused by evil speculators, donja know.

[Xenophobe]

dup

[Xenophobe]

Pointing out how ridiculous peak oil is does not equate with declaring war. deleted reality trumps half a decade of personal Rapture scenarios and the continuous "kicking the can down the road" game which has been going on for half a decade now in congregations all across the web.

[Plantagenet]

Pointing out how ridiculous peak oil is does not equate with declaring war.

The New York Times is the "paper of record" for the US liberal establishment. The failure of the New York Times and other parts of the MSM to report on the reality of Peak Oil and the huge problems it may create is one of the reasons that so many people who get their facts from the New York Times and similar organs of the MSM across the US are completely ignorant about the risks posed by peak oil.

[Xenophobe]

Stereotyping is so much easier than actually reading an article and deciding what parts of it are good, make sense, and what parts do not. Don't you think?

[rangerone314]

Pointing out how ridiculous peak oil is does not equate with declaring war. deleted reality trumps half a decade of personal Rapture scenarios and the continuous "kicking the can down the road" game which has been going on for half a decade now in congregations all across the web.

I wonder how many people in Roman times predicted the end of the Roman Empire and the subsequent chaos?

I also wonder how many times they were ridiculed each time it didn't happen.

[Xenophobe]

I wonder how many people in Roman times predicted the end of the Roman Empire and the subsequent chaos?

Well, the FIRST time the Barbarians came through the gates, I imagine more than a few people knew for sure something bad was in the offing.

Considering the number of peak oils we've been through without the dreamed/wished/hoped/prayed for consequences of peakers? I'd say the history on this topic just isn't working the same way.

I also wonder how many times they were ridiculed each time it didn't happen.

But with Rome, the barbarians did wreck the joint occasionally. Multiple times. So after the FIRST time, people could always reference the past for how bad it MIGHT get the next time. Peak is like that...how bad was your 1978? 2000? 2005? Or maybe the next peak, 2010?

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2010/12/p ... crude.html

The problem with always claiming that the wolf is at the door is that SOMETIME the wolf had better be at least spotted off on the horizon to maintain credibility.

[Plantagenet]

The problem with always claiming that the wolf is at the door is that SOMETIME the wolf had better be at least spotted off on the horizon to maintain credibility.

Did you somehow miss the last five years with global oil production peaking in late 2005-early 2006 and the oil price then running up from 2005 to 2008 to hit $148/bbl and then the concomitant global economic collapse of the last two years?

I suggest you go to the library and start reading old newspapers from 2005 onward so you can learn whats been going on the world---its been a really interesting five years since oil peaked!

Cheers!

[Sixstrings]

Opposition to the idea of peak oil runs strong in the liberal mainstream media----after all, high oil prices are all caused by evil speculators, donja know.

I've always found that odd, that most liberals seem to be peak oil deniers. As a demographic group, they're otherwise quick to jump onto climate change, whole foods, "fair trade," green living, and yet they just don't warm up to peak oil. Maybe because there's no solution? Liberals like solutions, if it's something that can't be fixed they don't want to talk about it.

[EnergyUnlimited]

Opposition to the idea of peak oil runs strong in the liberal mainstream media----after all, high oil prices are all caused by evil speculators, donja know.

I've always found that odd, that most liberals seem to be peak oil deniers.

They understand that Peak Oil, if true, spells the end of Liberal paradigm.
They cannot adapt to this simple fact so their reaction is irrational (anger and denial).

Liberals like solutions, if it's something that can't be fixed they don't want to talk about it.

Indeed.

[vtsnowedin]

Well at least the NY Times is now discussing the issue. That alone can be seen a progress. I think there numbers are a little fussy and incomplete. No mention of field declines in the North sea, Mexico or Alaska. They make re-drilling North Dakota sound like a large increase in world production without showing total world production or the actual size of the ND increase. There is as much left out here as is included.

[Xenophobe]

Did you somehow miss the last five years with global oil production peaking in late 2005-early 2006 and the oil price then running up from 2005 to 2008 to hit $148/bbl and then the concomitant global economic collapse of the last two years?

Of course not. Who would ever randomly associate oil plateau's or peaks with credit and housing bubbles, confuse economic collapse with recessions, and think that a modest upturn in prices of a single valuable commodity would be a causal factor in either? Correlation does not guarantee causation.

I suggest you go to the library and start reading old newspapers from 2005 onward so you can learn whats been going on the world---its been a really interesting five years since oil peaked!
Cheers!

It has been. And people confusing economic collapse with a recessionary environment shouldn't throw stones in glass houses! Besides, the 5 years after the 78/79 peak were much more exciting than this "economic collapse" (otherwise known as 2 years of recovery nowadays).

[mos6507]

I've always found that odd, that most liberals seem to be peak oil deniers.

You are wrong about "most liberals are peak oil deniers". I think most liberals accept peak oil theory when it's explained to them, but they would believe in technofix. Think Friedman and "Hot Flat and Crowded". This is because the majority of liberals are eggheads and so they buy into the idea that we can innovate our way out of any jam (think Star Trek).

[mos6507]

They understand that Peak Oil, if true, spells the end of Liberal paradigm.

Peak oil is the end of the way of life that both liberals and conservatives hold dear. I don't think anybody wants to see their lifestyle degrade into 3rd world subsistence conditions.

That being said, I think conservatives fear peak oil more because it will decimate the global free market system and there will be strong calls to ration and share.

[mos6507]

BTW, Planty, I don't know why you are tarring the NY Times as a "liberal" rag when they are the ones who chose to give the infamous Michael Lynch a space to spew this famous piece of denialism.

[Plantagenet]

BTW, Planty, I don't know why you are tarring the NY Times as a "liberal" rag when they are the ones who chose to give the infamous Michael Lynch a space to spew this famous piece of denialism.

Hi Mossie:

You don't get it.

The NY Times is clearly part of the MSM and clearly has a liberal bias. The New York Times also regularly publishes anti-peak oil news stories and editorials, such as those by Michael Lynch anti-peak oil piece by Michael Lynch published in the NY Times

Thats the point. The NY Times and the liberal media are opposed to the idea of peak oil because it confounds their message that the US is on track to return to BAU.

[davep]

There appears to be a fairly large spread of political ideologies on this site, so I don't see how being of one particular political persuasion can be considered to be a break on accepting PO.

And journalists of many persuasions run pieces rubbishing PO. There really is no left-right rule for who would or wouldn't accept PO. You just seem to want to attack 'liberals' no matter how spurious the argument.

[Plantagenet]

There appears to be a fairly large spread of political ideologies on this site, so I don't see how being of one particular political persuasion can be considered to be a break on accepting PO.

And journalists of many persuasions run pieces rubbishing PO. There really is no left-right rule for who would or wouldn't accept PO. You just seem to want to attack 'liberals' no matter how spurious the argument.

Not really.

Perhaps you missed it, but there is another active topic entitled "Fox News declares war on Peakers" claiming that Fox News unfairly bashes peak oil. I posted there saying much the same thing that you've posted, i.e. that no one particular political persuasion can be considered to be tied to accepting or rejecting PO. This topic simply reinforces the point that I made there that both LIBERAL media (the NY Times etc.) and CONSERVATIVE media (Fox News) do a poor job of covering peak oil, and in particular the New York Times has often provided a platform to Michael Lynch and others who bash peak oil.

The New York Times anti-peak oil position is particularly strident ---- in fact, one of the current lead news articles up now here at "peakoil.com" is about two recent anti-peak oil stories in the New York Times.
peakoi.com news story about anti-peak oil stories in the NY Times

[davep]

This topic simply reinforces the point that I made there that both LIBERAL media (the NY Times etc.) and CONSERVATIVE media (Fox News) do a poor job of covering peak oil

Ok, fair enough.