 | Hurricane Ike, Energy Infrastructure, Refineries and Damage Models Thread #4 (Updated 9/12 23:00 EDT) | The Oil Drum | Peak Oil Update - August 2008: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers |  |
DrumBeat: September 13, 2008
Posted by Leanan on September 13, 2008 - 10:05am
OPEC cut decision proving ineffective - Khelil
ALGIERS (Reuters) - OPEC's decision to cut output is proving ineffective against speculators, its president Chakib Khelil said on Saturday, adding its next gathering in December would hopefully take more "practical" steps."The current situation of the oil market is caused by speculators' practices," Algeria's official APS news agency quoted him as saying. "OPEC's decision to reduce output has proved to be ineffective against those speculators."
He added: "We are not working against supply and demand, but against speculators."
"The next OPEC meeting planned for December 17, 2008 in Oran will come out with a decision that we hope will be more practical," said Khelil, also Algeria's energy and mines minister.
Alitalia 'running out of fuel'
Italy's national airline, Alitalia, may have to cancel some flights because of a lack of funds to buy fuel, a top official has warned.Augusto Fantozzi, Alitalia's bankruptcy administrator, made the comments as he called unions to emergency talks a day after the latest session broke down.
The unions earlier quoted him as saying flights could not be "guaranteed" because we cannot "get fuel".
Venezuela seeks to lower tone in US diplomatic spat
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez sought to lower the tone of a diplomatic spat with the United States, saying he doesn't plan to take more steps against his country's biggest oil customer.Chavez thrust the OPEC nation into its worst diplomatic crisis with the Bush administration in years by expelling the U.S. ambassador on Thursday, triggering a feud between Washington and Latin America's leftist leaders.
Lula's new lucre: Brazil may keep full control of offshore oil
The reserves, though hard to reach, are expected to propel Brazil up the table of oil producing nations. Tony Hayward, chief executive of BP, Europe's second biggest oil company, says the new finds are "as significant as the North Sea" - which in the 1970s was one of the new frontiers that helped pull the world out of its last big oil shock.But the find is also set to pit one of the world's most important emerging economies against both foreign equity investors and international oil companies. Many in the leftwing government seem determined to avoid sharing the coming bonanza. The future shape of the industry may be decided by short-term political imperatives ahead of presidential elections due in 2010.
Nigeria Militants Say They Are Holding 27 Oil Workers
LONDON -(Dow Jones)- Niger Delta militants said Saturday that they are holding 27 oil workers in a camp attacked by the army and would only exchange them against their jailed leader.
Chevron Lawyers Indicted by Ecuador in Oil-Pit Cleanup Dispute
(Bloomberg) -- Two lawyers for Chevron Corp., the second-largest U.S. energy company, were indicted in Quito, Ecuador, over allegations stemming from a cleanup of oil pits that's now the subject of a multibillion dollar lawsuit.
Transportation Energy Data Book
New data in this year's edition include: transportation petroleum use by mode; ethanol consumption; number of vehicles per 1000 people in different regions of the world for 1996-2006 (China grew from 9.3 to 26.6); mpg for trucks as a function of speed; characteristics of daily driving; percent of housing units with a garage or carport; and more.(You can get a free hard copy if you live in the U.S. Otherwise, there's a downloadable PDF.)
Uppsala Research makes a breakthrough in China
Professor Kjell Aleklett, (known for his research on the world’s declining oil resources) and his researchers at Uppsala University have been given a challenging task – they will estimate China’s future need for oil and gas.“What our own future will be here in the West depends very much on what happens in China,” says Kjell Aleklett.
“Today China uses much less energy per capita than Europe and the rest of the Western world does. But if many of those Chinese who currently live in rural areas (which is the great majority) move to the cities then China’s energy needs will greatly increase.
“Already China imports half of the oil it uses and those imports will need to increase if energy consumption rises since China already extracts as much oil as it can from its own reserves. But more oil barrels to China means fewer to the rest of the world,” states Kjell Aleklett.
Nigeria militants order oil workers to leave delta
ABUJA (Reuters) - Nigeria's most prominent militant group on Saturday warned oil companies in the restive Niger Delta to withdraw their workers in the next 24 hours after a gunbattle with security forces.The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), responsible for attacks that have cut more than a fifth of the OPEC member's oil output, threatened to retaliate against oil workers after at least three people were killed in fighting between security forces and militants in Tombia in Rivers state.
Why a windfall tax is not the answer
Gordon Brown unveiled a new range of measures to help those struggling with soaring fuel bills this week – all of which were thoroughly underwhelming in the face of the enormous energy price hikes households have suffered in the past nine months.The promise of a few extra pounds a week if we have a cold winter, along with a few extra discounts on insulation materials, will not go very far to help families already struggling with 50 per cent increases in their energy bills in 2008. It will help people to get their energy bills down for the longer term, but that is only half of the problem.
'Gas Spike Ike' shows need for fuel policies
It will be interesting to see if a regional fuel shortage will have any effect on political polls. Republicans have historically been more in favor of expanding refining capability, but the states most affected by a hurricane-related shortage are already expected to go Republican in the general election.Simply put, U.S. refinery capability must increase somehow. The counterarguments, while valid to some degree, are outweighed by the suffering and inconvenience put upon the population when disasters break out.
A rush on gas stations always brings to mind the energy crisis of the 1970s and the rationing endured by civilians during World War II.I doubt if few or any of use would endure such restrictions today no matter how good the cause.
Food bank struggles to keep up with demand
Second Harvest is facing an unprecedented food shortage. Its August donations dipped by 40 percent as demand exploded from the 515 social services agencies that rely on it for food to distribute.
Sodden farmers struggling with a changing climate
A terribly wet summer in the UK has left farmers facing the worst harvest in 40 years and the task of adapting to new conditions.
Weather, fuel costs, have farmers at crisis point
BRULE – Erratic weather throughout 2008, not just record-setting rainfall amounts in August, have disrupted the farming cycle in all parts of the province, but particularly along the Northumberland shore. "Nobody needs to tell me there's global warming," says Harold Tattrie.
Renewable, efficient energy touted to US lawmakers
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Energy experts urged U.S. lawmakers on Friday to focus on efficiency and renewable energy, as well as increased domestic production, as they consider legislation to address volatile fuel prices.Speaking at a bipartisan energy summit hosted by the U.S. Senate, experts encouraged lawmakers to invest in research and technology and make tax credits for renewable energy consistent.
"An on-again, off-again production tax credit is not a way to promote stable development of renewable energy," Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, told lawmakers.
"Uncertainty is the enemy of investment, whether for renewables and alternatives or for conventional energy."
We have more than enough oil on our own shores within our economic and environmentally sensitive grasp to meet our daily needs and be free of foreign blackmail. Drill for it now and put it in our cars as rapidly as we can. Build more refineries to process that oil. Cut gasoline grades down to about five, no more. Build nuclear and natural gas fired power plants. Convert coal to oil. Stop subsidies for ethanol and other uneconomic idiotic solutions and let them die a rapid death before these boon doggles drive our taxes up dramatically and drive our food prices out of reach of the average family, where we end up going hungry so a radical environmentalist or a government employee can feel good about him or herself for “saving the planet”. And stop this crazy idea of conserving energy. We don’t need to conserve, we have all the energy we need, if we will just go get it. We need to expand our opportunities and horizons, not limit them. Limits are for losers and whiners. Of course we need to continue working on economic energy solutions to replace crude oil. And in spite of what the so-called experts tell you, we are no where near “peak” oil. But new, economic technology will come along if we just let the power of our industry and capitalism operate efficiently and without impediments and constant second-guessing from an out-of-control, heavy-handed, stupid government that screws up everything it touches.
Worldchanging Interview: Founder of the WorldWatch Institute, Lester Brown
A large share of the world's oil is used for transportation and we know that a good part of that can be substituted -- we can substitute, as I mentioned using plug-in hybrids with, we can substitute wind for example, any source of electricity, but wind, because it's clean, or -- for automotive fuel, for gasoline, or for diesel. So that takes care of a large part of our use of oil. But there's still a lot more. And the more difficult ones to substitute are construction machinery -- heavy duty construction machinery -- some farm implements, jet aircraft. They're more difficult. But what we can begin to do with, I mean jet aircraft can run on ethanol as well as jet fuel. So that's entirely do-able. The trick is to develop sources of liquid fuel that are not environmentally disruptive -- and are not socially competitive with, for -- the food supply. And that means developing cellulosic ethanol as a form of liquid fuel that can be used in the place of gasoline and biodiesel.
Canadian Scholar Thomas Homer-Dixon Launches CIGI’s 2008-09 Signature Lecture Series
“In coming decades, Canada and the world face an unprecedented convergence of natural, social and economic stresses, such as worsening energy scarcity, changing climate, rapid population growth, mass migration and widening gaps between rich and poor,” says Dr. Homer-Dixon. “At some point, these stresses are likely to cause sharp, sudden shifts in world order, including breakdown of economies and political systems. This possibility is not, in itself, bad news. In times of crisis, people often show their greatest capacity to change their institutions and behaviors.”
Essential elements could face peaks of their own
Heard the warnings about peak oil? If -- actually when -- petroleum production reaches a maximum level and starts to decline, soaring prices and declining supplies could cause social and economic chaos. Peak oil, once mocked as a concern for the distant future, could soon be upon us.But what happens when we exhaust other products of the Earth? Many of the metals we get from mines are crucial for modern technology, even if we've never heard of them.
Workers, employers welcome 4-day week
Public employers are at the forefront. In Minnesota, cities from Albertville to Zimmerman, counties and schools are making the switch or considering it. Even some private businesses, although more tentatively, are embracing what they call the compressed workweek.Higher energy costs are triggering the change, with employees saving 20 percent of their commuting gas money while building costs drop with less heating, cooling and even toilet paper used when the doors are locked on Friday.
Secret Energy Savings of Dual Tariff Energy Bills
The first thing to do is contact your electricity supplier and check if you are on a 'dual tariff', and, secondly, ask what the tariffs are. You will soon see there is likely to be a huge difference between the 'peak' and 'off-peak' charges. In other words electricity used at night-time could be as much as 60 per cent cheaper than electricity used during the day. Standard peak hours are generally from 0730hrs to 1930hrs.
Brazil plans to build 50 more nuclear power plants
RIO DE JANEIRO (Xinhua) -- Mines and Energy Minister Edison Lobao announced Friday Brazil plans to build 50 to 60 nuclear power plants in half a century, with each having capacity of 1,000 megawatts."The general idea is to build one plant per year," he said during a visit to the construction site of Brazil's third nuclear power plant, Angra 3.
Obama and McCain: Silent on Climate Change
Barack Obama and John McCain are ignoring the biggest news event in human history. They aren't alone. Very few media outlets are reporting the news either.On August 31, NASA released photos showing the North Pole has become an island for the first time in the past 125,000 years. (Please read that line again, look at the NASA image, and let it penetrate.) The summer ice cap at the Arctic is melting so fast that Dr. Mark Serreze, a sea ice specialist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, said the Arctic may have entered a "death spiral" caused by global warming. For the first time in human history, the ice cap no longer touches neighboring continents. But the presidential campaigns are nearly silent on the unprecedented threat of global warming.
Russia tries to raise oil production
MOSCOW (AP) — Home to abundant oil reserves, Russia rarely worried about where the next barrel would come from — until now.With analysts expecting production to fall this year for the first time in a decade, Russian companies are pushing to find new oil in remote regions such as the Arctic Shelf and East Siberia — but their efforts are hampered by crippling taxes that give the government much of the recent gains from high oil prices.
The Kremlin is now apparently considering tax cuts aimed at letting companies keep enough of the country's windfall from higher oil prices to invest in exploration — on top of cuts earlier this year that analysts and industry executives said they didn't go far enough. Russia's oil industry is calling for $16.3 billion in further breaks from next year.
Key issues behind Russia's effort to increase oil production:FALLING OUTPUT: Russia's wells will produce 0.5 percent less oil this year than the 491.5 million tons they did last year, analysts think, although the government is sticking with its forecast of a 1 percent increase. It would be the first decline in a decade. Older fields are producing less and companies are looking for new oil, but that's expensive.
CARACAS/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Friday imposed sanctions on Venezuelan officials it accused of helping Colombian rebels smuggle drugs, deepening a diplomatic crisis that raised the specter of an oil supply cutoff.
Russia says it must stake claim to Arctic resources
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia must stake its claim to a slice of the Arctic's vast resources, the secretary of Russia's Security Council said on Friday at an unprecedented session of the council held on a desolate Arctic island.Russia, the world's second biggest oil exporter, is in a race with Canada, Denmark, Norway and the United States for control of the oil, gas and precious metals that would become more accessible if global warming shrinks the Arctic ice cap.
Nigeria: Shell Extends Force Majeure On 200,000 Bpd
The escalation of violence by militant rebels in the Niger Delta this year has repeatedly crippled oil supplies from Nigeria, which exports about 2 million barrels of oil daily.The loss of high quality crude from the world's eighth largest oil exporter helped push oil prices to record highs above $147 a barrel in July. Shell, the operator of Bonny Light, is the worst hit by the rebel attacks.
Nigerian troops attack militants' positions
LAGOS, Nigeria: Militants say Nigerian troops are attacking their positions in the south and they warn of reprisal raids on the country's oil industry.Lt. Col. Sagir Musa of the military task force charged with calming the oil region has confirmed there was an armed engagement on Saturday.
Oil shale development seems always just over horizon
Want to know why oil shale isn’t being commercially produced in western Colorado yet?A former government petroleum expert offered a concise explanation: The oil companies don’t really want it.
Energy companies “are not excessively interested in bringing in a new field so long as, by gradually increasing the price, they can stimulate production in the older regions,” Dr. David T. Day said.
Oil's fall to $100 won't change frugal energy use
NEW YORK - The worst oil shock since the 1970s has put a permanent mark on the American way of life that even a drop in oil's price below $100 a barrel won't erase.Public transportation is in. Hummers are out. Frugality is in. Wastefulness is out.
Although oil prices dipped beneath the $100 mark Friday for the first time in five months, it still isn't cheap and Americans have long memories. They are saddled with debt, high food costs and home prices worth far less than two years ago.
Paul and Anne Ehrlich explore the genetic and cultural evolution of the Earth's dominant animal, looking at what's gone wrong.
Nuclear output could as much as double by 2030-IAEA
VIENNA (Reuters) - Nuclear power production could as much as double by 2030 as countries seek relief from rising fossil fuel costs and a remedy against global warming, the International Atomic Energy Agency said on Thursday.
USDA overestimates corn-to-ethanol use: trade group
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. ethanol refiners are unlikely to use as much corn in the coming year as the government estimates due to weak margins and high corn prices, a trade group said on Friday.U.S. ethanol refiners probably will consume 3.8 billion bushels of corn in the next 12 months to make the alternative motor fuel, compared with the Agriculture Department estimate of 4.1 billion bushels, or a third of the 2008 corn crop. The 2008/09 marketing year opened on September 1.
Group: Global warming could cost Ohio its buckeyes
It's not the best-researched global-warming theory, but it could be the most horrifying to certain fans of college football: Environmentalists said Friday that climate change might push the growing range of Ohio's iconic buckeye tree out of the state, leaving it for archrival Michigan.
Antarctic winter ice gets bigger; Arctic shrinks
OSLO (Reuters) - The amount of sea ice around Antarctica has grown in recent Septembers in what could be an unusual side-effect of global warming, experts said on Friday.In the southern hemisphere winter, when emperor penguins huddle together against the biting cold, ice on the sea around Antarctica has been increasing since the late 1970s, perhaps because climate change means shifts in winds, sea currents or snowfall.
At the other end of the planet, Arctic sea ice is now close to matching a September 2007 record low at the tail end of the northern summer in a threat to the hunting lifestyles of indigenous peoples and creatures such as polar bears.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Chris Martenson has just posted Chapter Eighteen: Environmental Data of his crash course.
It is about what is happening to the environment but not about global warming. It is also about peak everything else, peak coal, peak uranium, peak copper and whatever.
I was shocked to learn that all the good coal, anthracite coal, is almost completely gone and the second best coal, bituminous coal, is already post peak. Bituminous coal peaked in 1990. We are now making up the difference with the third best grade, subbituminous coal. We are now even mining lignite coal, or brown coal, which has slightly higher energy content than ordinary rocks.
We have the same story with Uranium. We are mining more and more oar to get less and less uranium. France’s uranium production peaked in the late 80s and is now down to nothing. U.S. uranium production peaked in the early 80s and is now down to almost nothing.
This chapter is 16 minutes 22 seconds long and is well worth your time to watch.
Ron Patterson
Good clip-the coal story continues to deteriorate. One minor thing Chris missed (which is not unusual as even guys like Mish can't grasp it) is that the money supply growth will continue over the long term, as it is in no way connected to energy growth. The possible supply of any currency (especially the US dollar) is infinite, with finite energy supplies on a finite planet. The only finite part is the paper, but adding zeros fixes that. My point is that declining energy quality and energy supply is inherently inflationary in the extreme over the long term. The economy will not stop "growing" but an increasing percentage of the population will feel that this "growth" hasn't raised their personal standard of living as the growth will be illusory.
The vast majority of the effective money supply is composed of credit, which only functions as a money substitute during the expansion phase. Unlike a currency hyperinflation that divides the underlying real wealth pie into ever smaller and less valuable pieces, a credit hyper-expansion, such as we have recently lived through, creates multiple and mutually exclusive claims to the same pieces of pie through leverage. It is the extinguishing of these excess claims, as expansion morphs into contraction, that crashes the money supply.
In the long term, fiat currencies all go the same way, but that doesn't mean there can't be a tremendous deflation in the meantime. The collapse of the credit bubble guarantees it. Attempts at 'printing' (monetizing debt) will be useless, as liquidity injections cannot keep pace with credit destruction, and liquidity will in any case be hoarded by anyone in a position to do so (as is already happening). 'Printing' will also be counter-productive, as it will result in much higher interest rates in the bond market. We are headed squarely into the liquidity trap, where scarce cash will be king and real interest rates will go through the roof.
For daily coverage of the unfolding crisis, click on the link on my profile page.
The treasury can borrow directly from the FED rather than through the auction system. Auctions have the potential of being fixed (there are only a few parties bidding on that debt) and therefor rates say high in a deflationary environment.
Money supply is shrinking fast. Will the FED act?????
Stoneleigh--
I am almost pathologically drawn to your column. I sit on tenterhooks every morning until you post. But why? There seems to be little to be gained from knowing about the storm that can not be avoided. Seems like only Jesus can bail us out of this one -- but he seems to be visiting a different planetary system at the moment.
I am not an economist; my brief fling with Wall Street was a complete disaster when I got taken for a ride by a broker who was described as a "fine Christian family man" and I decided never to re-enter that particular casino.
My question is, why all the talk of "inflation"?
Your argument seems so airtight, and your predictions have almost entirely been accurate. And yet the various "gurus" babble on incessantly about the danger of inflation, as though they never heard of credit collapse.
What are they trying to sell?
What Stoneleigh is forgetting is "Helicopter Ben". The head of the FED. He will simply not allow deflation to happen, and can create essentially infinite credit at the press of a button. There isn't going to be real deflation. Rather the reverse...
Have a look at this inflationdata chart.
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/M3%20Money%20Supply/M3_...
The M3 money supply peaked at an estimated 18% or so growth per year. While the growth rate is declining, it's a long way from being negative.
See the M1 figure at the bottom, bouncing around zero for the last year or so. See the peak late in 2008? That's Ben & Co. You'll start to feel it in about 6 months, nothing like a good old hit of inflation to get the economy juiced and running.
The general objection to that point is that while the Fed can make credit available, it cannot force people to borrow. Individuals and businesses need to be willing and able to take on and service additional debt, and they (we) are pretty much tapped out. The metaphor is "pushing on a string".
My counter to that is that there is a "borrower of last resort" : the US government. They can borrow and simply send checks to everyone. Only one loan needs to be written to get a vast amount of additional credit/money into circulation. A tax cut has a similar effect, but distributes the largess differently. Of course, it doesn't need to be the Fed writing the loan, it can be selling regular bonds, but the point is that the US Government can act as a borrower of last resort while the Fed acts as a lender of last resort. One weekend in a smoke-filled room.
Can we really doubt that when faced with significant deflation that this option will not be exercised?
Really? 1% base rate? 0% base rate? Happened in Japan.
The people want it, the banks want it, the government want it and it's the natural end point of fractional reserve banking. The whole population indebted to the banks to the maximum possible level. Exponential functions, there's always a limit.
I think there's a whole lot of consumption left in the USA yet.
Even 0% is not low enough, as Japan discovered. The nominal rate is not important - it is the real rate that matters. Under deflationary conditions, when the loss of credit reduced the effective money supply, the real rate is the nominal rate minus negative inflation. Real rates can be high even at very low nominal rates.
The simplest way to increase available money would be to reduce taxes to zero/low and at least partially monetize the debt (pay it off in paper). The currency would quickly re-inflate, as it became worth much less. This would have nasty effects on people who value money (ie, retirees, pensioners etc), but would probably be a good thing for those of us who are still young, and might want to live in a house some day.
Hmm, my comment is at -1. Well, it is a bit of a troll. Society as a whole needs to decide how to allocate resources; if they all go to the old, there's less for the young. If it all goes to the young, there's less for the old. Deflation is really bad for poor / young people -- its usually linked to recession, and there's no incentive to put capital to work. Inflation is really bad for the old -- they can't increase income easily, because all they have is money, not good jobs.
Mike Shedlock [sp?] thinks that deflation is inevitable; that you can't force people to borrow. But you don't need to force people to borrow--all you need to do is ensure that they have more money, and decreases in taxes can also have that effect. No "pushing on a string" here. I think "helicopter ben" is right so far as inflation is concerned. He's just not trying hard enough.
GreenMan,
This article explains why there are unpleasant consequences to using the Treasury as the lender of last resort (expanding the federal deficit):
http://www.financialsense.com/Market/pretti/2008/0912.html
Goldman Saks (the most connected of the 'shadow banks') estimates the federal deficit to go from $160 billion in FY 2007 to $565 billion (!) in FY 2009. This will not be without consequence.
Errol in Miami
Bill Gross (PIMCO) is calling for 1 trillion in 2009 so IMO 565 is light.
It looks increasingly likely deflation is the growing problem. There's massive deleveraging of the financial system, meltdown in home prices, equities down, wages stagnant, and the global economy is slowing, resulting in dropping commodity and oil prices.
If you want a nice bit of history take a look at this:
Marriner Eccles
Eccles was a Mormon, Republican, businessman, who basically laid out the foundation of the New Deal before the Senate, two months before Roosevelt came in. Roosevelt then made him head of the Fed. What's interesting is how standard this all seems, but it was quite innovative thinking at the time.
There's a lot of problems with these solutions today including: 1)The US is 10 trillion in debt, and relying on China, Russia, and Gulf states to lend us money. 2)Any resulting new boom, will quickly be slowed by rising oil prices.
We need a new Eccles or two.
the big problem today is with the bailout of fannie mae and fredie mac, our debts have exceed our value. though the economists when asked will spew double speak about this. they will claim that the gdp for the united states does not equal it's value, while in the next sentence point out the opposite but for a different country.
Though by doing this they have turned a very likely possibility of a complete collapse of the united states economy into a certainty.
I would agree with your basic point, but it should be noted that as one of the Pitt's noted there is an awful lot of ruin in a country.
Japan, for instance, has a national debt of 188% of GDP, against around 60% for the US, not including the F & F fiasco.
They also have a population which is rapidly ageing and will soon be in decline. However, they are net savers.
Internal debt via too generous mandated spending can also always be halted or repudiated, it is the external debt which is trickier.
So you are correct, but there may be some time to go before the pigeons flap their way to roost.
I am not forgetting Helicopter Ben. He's already been round circling overhead, but he dropped 'free debt', not free money. See The Resurgence of Risk - A Primer on the Developing Credit Crunch, my take on this as written as a TOD post in August 2007.
Money supply measures reflect a flight to safety, not inflation, and they do not reveal the on-going destruction of credit.
In addition, you cannot ignite a wage/price spiral when unemployment is about to skyrocket. Workers will have no bargaining power at all.
"I am almost pathologically drawn to your column. I sit on tenterhooks every morning until you post. But why?"
Perhaps it's because there's value in just knowing itself. I know that's true for me.
Same with peak oil. Can't get enough information, not a damn thing I can do about it.
It's the difference between those who want to die in their sleep, versus those of us who want to do it with eyes open.
Stoneleigh: Is the value of the US dollar currently being propped up by foreign central banks for political and/or short term economic reasons? What % of US T-bills are being held for these reasons? You state "cash" will be king-how do you calculate the actual market value of the US dollar in the current economic environment? Do you actually think China purchased 400 billion dollars of FanFred bonds because they are retarded? Seriously? The USA is being supported currently and it appears that you feel this support is permanent-why exactly? What is so inherently special about the US dollar that makes you feel is will be "king"-it can't be the fiscal situation, or the current account situation-what is it?
With regard to the dollar, I think you confuse the domestic and international situations. When I say 'cash is king' I mean that the value of cash (in any deflating economy, not just the US) will rise in comparison with the value of goods and services domestically. I do not mean that the US dollar will be king in relation to other currencies internationally. However, I do expect the dollar to continue to rise relative to other currencies temporarily on a flight to safety. (As improbable as that sounds, investors are likely to panic as deflation picks up speed and revert to a previous safe haven - in this case the long-standing reserve currency.) The dollar has been rallying since March and I would expect it to continue to do so for perhaps several months (with minor interruptions from time to time). Beyond that the future of the dollar is not rosy.
Relative values of currencies will depend on which currency is deflating most quickly. The only ones I would hazard a prediction on are the US dollar (a temporary rise, possibly quite sharp), the Canadian dollar (a fall as the Albertan energy economy falls flat on its face), the yen (a sharp and sustained rise as the carry trade unwinds), antipodean currencies (a fall as the yen carry trade that supported them unwinds) and the euro (a substantial fall as economic disparities in Europe wreak havoc with European unity).
Supporting currencies through the central banking system is a recipe for losing vast sums of money at times of great upheaval, when the power of the collective demonstrates how little power central bankers actually have to stand against forces of nature.I don't expect any attempted intervention to make any practical difference, except perhaps to make matters worse by wasting scarce resources by throwing good money after bad.
Stoneleigh: Yes, the US dollar is the "long-standing reserve currency". This is because at one time the USA was by far the most powerful economy and the largest creditor nation. Today the USA is by far the largest debtor nation and dependent upon foreign support for the continued fuctioning of the present economy. Re temporary deflation-you never know-maybe I am wrong on this one, but it is difficult to sustain given the Argentina-like qualities of the current USA economy IMO.
Just to be clear, I don't regard deflation as a short term event. Deflation supports economic depression and economic depression supports deflation in a spiral of positive feedback. I would be very surprised if such an event was shorter in duration than the Great Depression, which would imply at least 10 years. I don't expect the dollar to hold up for that long, but I do expect cash to be king domestically for that long.
Argentina suffered a systemic banking collapse that beggared the middle class (see And The Money Kept Rolling in - And Out by Paul Blustein for more on the background). Many of the erstwhile middle class now live in Villas Miserias (slums, or Hoovervilles) surrounding Buenos Aires. It would have been worse had their difficulties not been relatively isolated, so that recovery has been possible (for some).
We will not be so lucky. We face the same systemic banking crisis, and the same fate for the middle class - the loss of savings, investments, incomes, entitlements, benefits and homes - but we face it at the same time as many, if not most, other countries. The potential for serious international consequences is therefore significant.
Stoneleigh: I would surprised if you are not aware of the major economic differences between the USA of the 30s Depression and the USA of 2008, but you are talking as if the differences are minor. The USA had a structurally sound currency in the 30s-today it is based on hope and little else. You should explain how you envision a long lasting deflation without the dollar holding up.
Just forget about DEFLATION, there won't be any.
I am repeating what I have said earlier:
1. The world is no longer on a gold standard. And central bankers are free to print money whenever they want.
2. the global economy is not slowing as much as many would like to think. That's in large part due to continuing growth in India, China and the rest of south Asia.
Never forget, that's nearly 3 BILLION people, almost half the world's population. Their actions — with their new found freedoms — are far more powerful than those of the 300 million in America and the 491 million in Europe, which combined represent only 11.4% of the world's population.
You must have missed the MSM headlines-China (dependent on the USA) is collapsing- retail sales are only up 24% YOY
Ahh. The fateful words "Chinese consumer" are nearly upon us. Listen for their dread sound in newscasts, with trepidation.
24%, doubling period of 2 years 9 months. Takes us to 2011... Didn't the Mayan calendar stop in 2012?
The U$S is backed by 6000 nuclear weapons.
Let resource warfare begin.
Actually, one of the reasons I'm here at all is that the US dollar is actually backed by Saudi oil. Yon Americans get to export their inflation over the whole oil consuming world. Nice eh.
So the weapons back the oil and the oil backs the $. Same difference.
This really isn't a US issue. I don't think the dollar will be the only currency in trouble by any means. I expect huge swings in both relative currency values and interest rates, which will also cause mayhem in the derivatives market.
I think we are facing global deflation as a result of global credit excesses such as the staggering growth of derivatives - from essentially nothing 30 years ago to their current level of perhaps $750 trillion. Now that is inflation - a huge increase in the effective money supply (money and credit) relative to available goods and services created as a result of leverage. Unfortunately it's value is 'faith-based' - entirely dependent on rapidly waning confidence. It amounts to little more than a pile of IOUs with huge associated counter-party risk.
As for the differences between the 1930s and now, we are now in worse financial shape and far less prepared than we were then to face a liquidity crunch. We are far more indebted, have vastly higher expectations, are already maxed out in terms of both time and money (usually credit), have very few truly useful skills, are completely dependent on expensive and creaking centralized life-support systems, have a dependency mentality, do not produce or control any of the essentials of our own existence etc etc. We will be in very deep trouble in the not too distant future. Is it difficult to see how this could lead to prolonged depression?
Stoneleigh:
Glad to see you back on TOD.
Given the scenario you map out of the collapse of notional fiscal realities based on faith would you agree that the global economy will return to a reality based on real inputs to life?
These would appear to be energy and food and the skills associated with their production. It also seems likely that both these sectors will avoid deflation and will experience price inflation as consumers shift money out of foibles into the purchase of real necessities.
This also argues for a global realignment of state relations. The Gulf states, Russia, Brazil, Venezuela will prosper due to the fact they have inexpensive energy. A group of agricultural states (Canada, US, Russia, China?) may also do well as surplus food stocks will have value to the petro states.
Apart from maintaining internal domestic order I do not see the future value of a military. The example of Iraq shows that the use of force destroys the very resources you wish to seize, and also that any sheepherder with a semtex stuffed sheep can make life miserable for an occupier.
Basically, I just trying to model your thoughts forward and gauge how the relationship between the notional fiscal and the rock hard physical will play out. Marx said it was going to be miserable; I guess we get to find out if he was correct.
I agree about the return to a reality based on real inputs to life, but the way you frame your point about certain sectors avoiding deflation confuses the nature of deflation. Inflation and deflation are monetary phenomena, not increases or decreases in prices. When deflation occurs, nothing avoids feeling its effects. Assets prices will drop across the board, probably very rapidly once we reach 'critical mass'. Consumer prices will fall as well, although prices will be simultaneously lower and less affordable, as purchasing power will be falling faster than price.
I agree that energy and food will increase in relative value in comparison with most other things, but this is likely to mean that they fall less far in price than other things, not that they do not fall at all. They should become less affordable more quickly than other things as a much larger percentage of a much smaller money supply chases them preferentially.
Over the longer term, I expect extreme economic upheaval to have as devastating an effect on supply as lack of purchasing power will have on demand in the shorter term. In a capital constrained world of (temporarily) lower oil prices, many projects will not be viable. Both the financial and physical risks may be too high for the private sector, suggesting that state involvement in the energy industries is likely to increase. It may be difficult, however, to revive projects abandoned during the bust.
I think we'll see oil tied up in bilateral contracts, and otherwise removed from the global market - resource grabs, sabotage, piracy etc. Great powers know that oil supply is finite and that global production is peaking. They also know that oil is strategically vital as it sustains hegemonic power. As the free market era comes to an end with the implosion of the global credit bubble, and oil ceases to be fungible, great price volatility should ensue, along with substantial local variation in availability.
Hi Stoneleigh,
always fascinated to hear hese economic digresses to the Energy issue as it seems to me that it will be in this realm that the issues surround energy 'peaking' will be crystalized.
I was wondering what your view on commodities was if you have one. You talk about deflation -which I guess would mean commodity price reduction- but energy peaking would seem to suggest commodity prices increasing (scarcity due to reduced abilty to mine...)
The best summary I have heard is that any discretionary item will reduce in price while any non-discretionary item will tend to increase. (I know about the two 'models/views' of inflation btw. (price/money supply)).
I would be particularly interested in your views on Gold as it seems to intersect many issues...
Nick.
Deflation should bring down all commodity prices, at least temporarily, as demand falls first, while the effect of upheaval on supply takes longer to manifest. I think gold is heading for about $650 per ounce, and could go further, although I think in the long term it should go through the roof. If you can afford to own it for the long term, it's a good insurance policy. It should be much cheaper in a few months to a year from now though, so that may well be a better time to buy.
The fall in oil should be temporary as well, for the same reason - deflation drops demand and then the resulting disruption hits supply. Disruption would include all manner of above-ground factors such as lack of parts, lack of money to conduct business, sabotage, resource wars, terrorism etc. Ultimately, oil will be so expensive that ordinary people will be completely priced out of the market. However, it's the price in real terms that matters, not the nominal price. The nominal price could be lower, but oil could still be much more expensive in real terms. Eventually it should be higher in nominal terms as well, which against a backdrop of a collapsing money supply means prices reaching for the sky in real terms.
Good to see you back, Stoneleigh! In which year do you think the US money supply will collapse? What are the metrics of that collapse? MZM growth rate<5%/yr?
US M3 & MZM have been growing at over 10%/yr since mid 2007. However the growth rate has fallen back to 12%/yr. The bailouts of Fannie and Freddie and perhaps other industries would require an increase in money supply.
http://www.nowandfutures.com/images/m3b_mzm.png
Shadowstats has M3 growth rate falling to 14%/yr.
http://www.shadowstats.com/imgs/sgs-m3.gif
"Deflation should bring down all commodity prices"
My view is that investors will sell their US dollars and US government debt which will bring down the value of the US dollar.
The US$ Index has increased recently but will soon fall back towards 70, probably just after the US November election. This will cause prices of precious metals and energy to increase, when measured in US dollars.
http://quotes.ino.com/chart/?s=NYBOT_DX
Currently, holders of US treasuries are getting a real interest rate of about negative 5%. This is not sustainable. The US Fed/Treasury probably intervened to bring down the prices of precious metals and energy recently. Perhaps they thought commodity prices could form another asset bubble. However, there is now an even more dangerouse asset bubble in US treasuries and dollars.
I agree with Peter Schiff's comments below from
Last Gasp of a Doomed Currency
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/schiff/2008/0912.html
In the blog you link he indicates that Lehman would be bailed.
At the moment it does not seem as though it is.
Presumably this is a significant difference, and may indicate that the very loose treatment of companies leading to the unsustainable debt hypothesised and rapid inflation may not occur.
It also seems invalid to simply add the guaranteed mortgages to the National debt as after all there is a real asset, the houses, to at least partially cover them.
Given the assumption that inflation will be a problem, it is unclear why losses should be incurred on the mortgages, as the debt would be inflated away, and so the losses would still fall on foreign creditors.
It is worth noting that Japan's debt is around 188% of GDP, on a population which is ageing and will be falling.
The American official debt of around 60% of GDP is comparatively modest, although low savings mean that the US is more exposed to foreign creditors.
It is also not valid to argue that bankruptcy will ensue due to increased mandated spending.
This is more easily repudiated or inflated away than debt held by foreign creditors if the money is not available.
"The American official debt of around 60% of GDP is comparatively modest, although low savings mean that the US is more exposed to foreign creditors."
American unfunded liabilities are about 700% of GDP. Does that matter?
Storms on the Horizon
May 28, 2008
Richard W. Fisher, President/CEO Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
http://dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm
http://intelstrike.com/?p=263
Inflation has been occuring for a long time in the US, with a few deflationary blips along the way.
http://www.longwavecycles.com/part5/
I am not trying to deny that US finances are in a mess, just trying to see whether they are in fact in more of a mess than everyone else, which if that is not the case will have implications for the exchange rates of the dollar against other currencies on the way to all our bankruptcies.
Unfunded liabilities in the US are obviously vast, and aren't going to be paid.
I've no idea how that compares to unfunded liabilities elsewhere - many of the southern European countries, for instance, have such murky accounts that it is difficult to determine what they are, but what is clear is that the official public debt is far larger than in the US relative to GDP.
Not being a financial dude I have no way of assessing it, but the mess that most other countries are in looks to be just as bad as the US.
This is an important point. Much of Europe has been in a far worse housing bubble than the US, and its implosion will rip the heart out of many European economies. The UK, Ireland, Spain and the Netherlands in western Europe are poised to suffer the most, and much of eastern Europe is also in serious trouble. Iceland, which had turned itself from a country into a giant hedge fund, will suffer greatly.
The US will probably be better off than quite a few other places, as improbable as that sounds to those who know how bad things are in the US. Banking is global, hence bad paper issued by one jurisdiction can easily ruin others. The US has been a huge source of bad paper of course, but Europe has also played the securitization and leverage game. There is bad paper everywhere, hence the loss of trust between banks that is leading to cash hoarding (one reason why you can't increase liquidity during deflation).
We seem to be in a house with very poor plumbing, but trying to work out which part of the weak piping will explode first is difficult.
In Europe, a huge variety of languages and National accounts which have differing standards make comparative assessment difficult even if you were a top-notch financial guy.
Some areas like Italy made hiding the true situation behind opaque accounts an art form long before the Statistics offices of the US and UK discovered the joy of fudged figures and were genuinely attempting to draw an accurate picture.
This is about the best site I have found to give some idea:
http://frencheconomy.blogspot.com/
See the bloglist on the right.
A surprise contender for the first to crash may be Iceland, who leveraged to put the US and UK to shame, but OTOH they may well be supported by the other Scandinavian countries.
Greece may be the likeliest to win in the race for the bottom, as tourism tanks.
Thanks.
Yes, I was moving back and forth between the conventional meaning of inflation and the Austrian definiton.
Cheers!
There is another angle to the strengthening of the dollar.
In case of international banking failure the recovery is much higher where the good assets are. The delays and stick saves may very well be about repatriating the better assets.
http://londonbanker.blogspot.com/2008/09/ring-fences-rustlers-and-global...
The dollar is "king" because, if anything, our massive debt to other countries, especially Japan, China, and OPEC countries.
These countries know if they try to diversify their foreign exchange reserves away from the dollar, or even pretend to, the value of the dollar would collapse, meaning their existing dollar foreign exchange reserves would become worthless. It's a catch 22 that's worked very well in our favor.
"the Canadian dollar (a fall as the Albertan energy economy falls flat on its face),"
No sign so far of falling flat on the face in Calgary. House prices have leveled off because of over-building but Canada doesn't have a sub-prime crisis with hundreds of thousands of foreclosures. 7-Eleven in Calgary is still begging for workers at $11/hr plus benefits plus retention bonus. I lived through the last oil boom collapse in the early 1980s, when Calgary's economy had a heart attack and fell dead to the ground after Trudeau initiated his National Energy Policy (= steal the oil money from Alberta and give it to southern Ontario and Quebec, where the votes are). (See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Energy_Policy)
Alberta's conventional oil production fell off a cliff a few years ago after peaking in the 1970s, and then wobbled on a plateau while secondary recovery methods used super-straws to get the last drop. Today we have three times as many wells producing one-third of peak. (Data at www.capp.ca) The Seven Sisters and the nationals have too many billions invested in the oilsands to let a brief fluctuation make them hesitate.
Also, the Alberta oil economy began booming when oil passed $35, so even if it goes back down to $80 or so, everything will keep moving along. The Seven Sisters are desperate to book additional reserves on their balance sheets, not from some generalissimo-run kleptocracy but a stable country like Canada which is seldom in the news. (How many non-Canadians even know we are having a federal election on October 14?)
Every time you open a newspaper, Alberta looks better and better.
I work for an oil company in Alberta and I haven't a clue what you are talking about.
you do know that Georgia attacked the break away republic first, which was populated by Russian citizens(all be it in a underhanded way by Russia)?
the whole Russia attacked innocent ol Georgia thing is a distortion of the American press.
Conventional energy in Alberta is heavily depleted. Tar sands are marginal economically, hugely destructive environmentally and are driving water shortages in an arid area. Economically, many projects will not be viable in an era of demand destruction due to crashing purchasing power (where demand is not what you want, but what you are ready, willing and able to pay for) and therefore prices. Extraction costs have increased enormously in recent years, while oil prices have already fallen substantially and have further to go. So far we have really only seen the effect of speculation shifted into reverse, but demand destruction is also looming.
This is not to deny the obvious reality of peak oil, and its inevitable long term effect on oil prices, but in the shorter term we are in for a bust. Alberta is in for a world of hurt, especially in the over-valued property market.
stoneleigh
"a credit hyper-expansion, such as we have recently lived through, creates multiple and mutually exclusive claims to the same pieces of pie through leverage. It is the extinguishing of these excess claims, as expansion morphs into contraction, that crashes the money supply."
thanks for laying out details of the difference in money & credit.
brian t.
thanks to u too for u'r thoughts re inflation/deflation.
i am amazed at how such brilliant minds are on opposite sides re this debate. above + largi, puplava , mish, etc.
on tod leanan has said deflation, wnc observer- hyperinflation to deflation,don sailorman-inflation [memmel recently saying so for don has been right].
it seems to me that no one has had a clear measure or marker to even know if they are starting to be accurate; much less putting some comparative numbers on the reason one process or the other [inflation/deflation] will be the likely path. puplava gives deflation a 5% chance of being primary; but no marker as far as i know.
i tend to think hyperinflation; but i see the point that debt/credit is a coming tsunami that might overtake any measures.
when i used wiki for liquidity trap the way out is fed discount window, dropping funds rate etc. & the stimulus checks in our accounts. we sure are consumers & that check can go out quickly; already being talked about by obama for another one.
anyway i guess this matters to me mostly for investments as i have placed my bets i am ok to lose mostly with hyperinflation as central[preps are good either scenario imo], but i sure would change some of them if i saw deflation taking hold.i know we have had at least a whiff of deflation recently & actually oil price is a primary measure -as pointed out by nate ,darwinian & others.
economics also is new to me & fascinating to live on the cusp of the big movements i see unfolding- even if they are sometimes scary.
Thanks!
... as when the value of every house in America declines. Liquidity injections do nothing but cover banks and investment houses' bad debts.
I would like to borrow $100,000 from my bank. I cannot borrow from the Fed, but my bank can. They borrow the $100,000 but do not lend it to me, even though I can turn that $100,000 into $200,000. My bank uses that money instead to cover losses they made in mortgage securities. Since the collateral for those securities is has diminished and since I cannot borrow the $100,000 I will not receive the $100,000 in profits that I hoped to earn from my borrowing; the bank will not earn anything on their $100,000, either ... even the Fed gets nothing because the securities they received from my bank as collateral is worthless. It is as if the Fed throws $100,000 into a fire!
This process, multiplied (with variations) in the entire country is what is happening; this is deflation @ work. The economy is made up of borrowing for investment with returns over time. Without borrowing or lending there is no economy. Since currencies are instruments of borrowing and lending, if there is little or no borrowing or lending, it doesn't matter how the currencies are denominated.
Borrowing and lending - credit activities - are the measure of inflation (and deflation) not so much prices.
A good inflation indicator is 30yr Treasuries! The government borrows money and repays over 30 years; if the buyers of these bonds thought there would be inflation in that period, they would add an 'inflation premium' to the discount.
Prices have to do with relative values of goods and services as they are measured against each other. Fuels, water and waste- carrying capacity are becoming higher- valued relative to financial services and residential real estate. This revaluation is embedded within the culture and is unreachable by monetary policy.
Said a wag in 1929; "Don't tell my mother I work on Wall Street, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse!"
The revaluation is reflected in volatility ... but, deflation rules. Since large sectores of the US economy are losing value and liquidity cannot effect these values ... the overall trend is deflationary, regardless of what the Treasury or the Fed do.
Trouble with the deflationary argument is.
Name one country that has fallen which hasn't then had run away inflation. In all the country's which I looked at they print money to try and buy there way out of trouble... Zimbabwe is a prime example. Time after time its inflation that's the problem.
BrianT – I think you are confusing “economy” and “money supply”.
It is very possible to have a rapidly growing money supply and declining economy.
I agree with Mr Martensons connecting energy and economy (and ecology) and IMO what we are experiencing right now is the aftermath of the economy that was pushed into overshoot beyond what the NET energy could support. COLAPSE!
By the way “Crash Course” is really great. Ideal for introducing people to our predicament and even a few choice nuggets for the veterans.
Cudos Chris.
This is simply not so, Martenson covers these points, and others, quite thoroughly in chapters 1 thru 12. It is also simply incorrect to say that money growth is "in no way" connected to energy growth. Virtually everything in the economy is interconnected in some way. I think what you are talking about is inflation, not growth in real money or assets. It is true that there is no limit as to how far paper money can be inflated. Martenson gives some great examples of this fact in his presentation and emphatically stresses this very point.
Money inflation is not true growth in money but exactly the opposite. I guess it is all about semantics. But in runaway inflation, as the number of dollars grow the actual buying power of that money shrinks. The actual money supply, in the future, will shrink even the number of dollars in circulation increases exponentially. And there are causes of this phenomenon which are not totally disconnected with the shrinkage of our energy supplies.
The impossibility of infinite growth on a finite planet is one of the main points the whole course.
"We are now even mining lignite coal, or brown coal, which has slightly higher energy content than ordinary rocks."
One of the local Utility companies in South Louisiana is burning lignite coal, you know, the stuff that is slightly better than burning rocks. Well, those rocks go straight from the mining operation to a long conveyor to straight in the boilers of the generating plant. The lignite burned at the plant provides the energy equivalent of 6 million barrels of crude oil each year. In fact they found burning rocks so much to their liking they secured a second source of rocks for a another plant in the late 80s! The slightly older plant generates 558 MW MW and the slightly newer one 721 MW. A third plant is being built that uses petroleum coke, which for years was consider a pretty useless byproduct that now has a market and is in plentiful supply. These rock burning fools have arrangements with Wyoming coal producers to serve as backups. You know, 100 plus car unit trains from Wyoming to Louisiana and back with the empties.
"I was shocked to learn that all the good coal, anthracite coal, is almost completely gone."
We still burn it here at home -- for a price. This year we're cutting back.
I was shocked to learn that the anthracite we get now comes from old mines that are having their "columns" taken out. Basically, there are mined-out areas that are being revisited using techniques that take the whole tops off the mine, then the columns in and around the mined-out deposits are simply removed.
It's the last of the dregs.
Segway fails to blaze a new trail for police
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/434537
It would be nice if somebody could come out with a decent electric bicycle.
I'm in Santa Rosa, CA and all our downtown police ride Zap bikes. A competition of sorts was held a few years back, conventional bicycles vs. a police car vs. Zap bicycles: Take the call, arrive at location. In downtown traffic conditions, the Zap bicycles arrived first followed shortly by the conventional bikes with the car arriving last... and the police on conventional bicycles were considerably winded from their rush. It was, in the long run, no competition at all.
http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-bikes
>It would be nice if somebody could come out with a decent electric bicycle.
They have:
http://texaselectricbikes.com
http://alienscooters.com
I've been commuting on a TidalForce M-750 E-bike for several years.
Gasoline supplies:
Does anyone know what the lowest level gasoline inventories have been since ~1970-75 and when it occurred? At 187.9 million barrels now, I think next week's petroleum report may bring us to one of the lowest levels this decade, if not one of the lowest since the 70s/80s oil crisis?
I try to keep up with it at www.setenergy.org
Onwards,
Dennis
Gail (I think) said you really can't compare inventories now with in the past. Because now most gas contains ethanol, and it's not counted in the inventories as gasoline.
The most commonly used number for Minimum Operating Level (MOL) is about 170 mb, necessary to keep the system functioning, e.g., pipelines and tanker trucks full, etc. IMO, the best way to express it is as hours of supply in excess of MOL. Remember, this is a nationwide number.
Does this number take into account Leanan's remark about Gail's comments about ethanol, just above, or is it necessary to think about it in some more complicated way?
It's really a volume measurement. You need a certain minimum volume in order to keep the system going. I suspect that what is happening in the Gulf Coast area right now is that we are draining down the storage at distribution terminals. It's probably a good idea to start limiting your car trips to work and food runs (especially once the gasoline shortages hit in full force), and think about taking mass transit to work, if that is an option. You want to keep a reserve of gasoline in your car for emergency uses for as long as possible.
About that emergency reserve, a person's gotta love today's generic news story, where a politician from wherever says something such as:
Could there be any more efficient and effective way to create just such a rush?
Note that according to those words, she carefully avoided saying anything about meeting near-future demand, which might just possibly be what people are concerned about...
If you run the story through the Generally Assume the Opposite Filter, you get the following:
Hopefully you don't hear the similar comments in 2009 from McCain (or Palin)-"Please do not panic" "Your bank deposits are fully insured" "There is absolutely no need to withdraw your funds".
An acquaintance who survived/escaped from Tower One, I believe it was, headed for the exits with colleagues just as soon as they announced that people should stay put, that the safest place was on your own floor. She was in the high 70's I think. That was enough for them to assume the opposite. She says as she got towards the bottom few levels on the staircase, the concrete walls were fissuring and opening up around her..
Does anyone know what the lowest level gasoline inventories have been since ~1970-75 and when it occurred?
I was looking at this earlier today. This week's level is the lowest in 8 years, and is probably the lowest level ever in terms of days of supply on hand.
I spoke to my wife in the Dallas area earlier today (I am in the Netherlands) and she said gas rationing is already happening, and a number of stations are out of gas. I am telling all friends and family that there is a significant risk that major areas run out of gas in the next few days, so top off everything.
After looking at EIA data, I believe next week's gasoline inventories will be lower than any monthly average since the 1970s (as long as they fall at least 1 million barrels from the current 187.9 Mb -- and I think they will fall 4+ Mb). Also, I think we will have at least one more week of gasoline inventory reduction in the following weekly report, which could bring us below 180 Mb. The Minimum Operating Level the DOE refers to is a 20 day supply. So, if we are consuming 9.09 Mbd like last week, supplies need to be 181.8 Mb. Luckily (and thanks to the scarcity-induced price hikes), demand is falling to lower than usual levels this Fall, which may keep our low inventories higher than the MOL -- but it's gonna be close.
I see gasoline shortages occurring sort of like the loss of airline routes -- the worst shortages occur away from the main supply pipelines and interstate routes in rural America.
Since ethanol fuel is a category in blending components, I don't see how today's gasoline inventory numbers aren't pretty much apples to apples from past inventory numbers (except for the lower Btu of the 10 Mb of ethanol, which is important and makes the absolute inventory level even lower). How does Gail's comment apply?
Here's to a sustainable energy transition,
D
After looking at EIA data, I believe next week's gasoline inventories will be lower than any monthly average since the 1970s (as long as they fall at least 1 million barrels from the current 187.9 Mb
The lowest level that the EIA shows - and this tracks back to 1990 - was 185.6 million barrels the week of August 29, 1997.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wgtstus1w.htm
However, on a 'days of supply' basis, this week's level was likely the lowest ever.
re 1990 -alot fewer people then...lower energy use per capita....i.e. 180 mil barrels today is much less than it was in 1990 related to national infrastructure
I mean no disrespect, but isn't topping off everything extremely irresponsible as a way to respond to a gas shortage?
No-it is called taking responsibility for your life. It is about as irresponsible as being a draft dodger.
No, taking responsibility means being able to ride out a few days without a full tank. Us Yankees take it for granted that we might have blizzards that will render us stuck without our cars for a few days. Keep enough non-perishables in the house at all times, and at worst, you'll have to go without fresh food for a few days.
If your response to an impending shortage is to rush out to the gas station, you've made some seriously wrong choices in life.
Of course it is, and selfish and self serving. There are plenty of posters to this board that would LOVE to induce a shortage to "prove" they are right.
Did you read Gail's story "Implications of a Ten Day Refinery Outage" tonight?
Seems strange you think that O.D. posters would be more likely or able to induce a shortage than the actual facts of the resources, refining capacity, and delivery systems. The hurricanes really did happen.
That really depends what you think other people's actions, particularly those who are more important to society than you think you are, will be.
If you think that in the event of severe shortages, most people will constrict their driving and when important groups like ambulances, emergency workers, on-call doctors, etc, exhaust their stockpiles then they'll be prioritised by gas stations then you're being a jerk by topping off.
If you think that almost everyone will be topping off all their tansk and that the gas stations will raise prices on what little remains and sell to the highest bidder, then topping off yourself looks like the best decision.
Unfortunately, society seems to be a dirty word these days.
I mean no disrespect, but isn't topping off everything extremely irresponsible as a way to respond to a gas shortage?
If I, as president or governor, had made this announcement to the public, then you are correct. But my first priority as a private citizen is for my family and friends to be prepared. You may presume others will act responsibly in a crisis. I don't, thus I use the information at my disposal to make sure the people I care about are prepared. I never intended to be in the same boat with everyone else, and I want to be as self-sufficient during any emergency as possible.
Is Venezuela a non-issue? I'm hearing nothing about it. Of course, we're busy talking Hurricane here in Texas, but it seems that Hugo inviting the Russians over to play would cause more of an uproar.
The spat with Venezuela would probably get more attention if it weren't for Ike. Even well away from Texas, the news is all Ike, all the time. With a little Obama, McCain, and Palin thrown in.
Thanks. I thought it was just me, blinded by the Ike.
An aspect of the whole South American situation being omitted by "western news" is put forth in this analysis. That the Venezuelan coup plotters were infiltrated, had their plans recorded by a hidden wire, and then broadcast on TV signals how these actions were anticipated and measures to counter them imposed. Brazil's alliance with Bolivia and Venezuela over these incidents is very important, which makes its ommission by US "news" media all the more glaring, and further proves that the "news media" is no more than a vast Propaganda and Indoctrination System.
It isn't about Venezuela, it's about Bolivia.
Chavez is supporting Morales that wants to steal the resources from those that produce them in the provinces to the south and east, to give it to a bunch of welfare indians. Morales was a Shining Path drug dealer.
If Morales doesn't watch out they will starve, as the same provinces in the low lands produce all the food. La Paz, the seat of governement, produces nothing but verbal BS, sort of like DC.
At $100 oil Venezuela is in a world of pain. Chavez is spending as if it were $150...I imagine those conversations with Russia have substance.
PdVsa has long term contracts with PetroCaribe for oil at about $75/bbl, and similar arrangements with his neighbors. The Venezuelan economy is booming primarily because capital is staying put and being recycled. Ther's also lots of investment coming from SinoPec to develop the Orinoco belt and to build refineries capable of greater volumes of its type of heavy crude.
So your assertion that "Venezuela is in a world of pain" is just that, an assrtion.
This is remarkable. Apparently, she should not have been picked for VP, but for the energy czar for a future administration, whether Republican or Democratic. Editors of the Oil Drum should certainly take advantage of this national treasure by inviting her to do a guest post. Perhaps her first post could be entitled, "Who needs Saudi Arabia when you've got Alaska?"
The Palin pick was cunning on so many levels. Critics are focusing on her obvious limitations, while basically ignoring the idiotic menace that is actually likely the next President. Classic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_This_Goes_On—
Well, as others have pointed out, in Heinliein's novel, Nehemiah Scudder was elected president in 2012, and no elections were held after 2016.
IMHO, Heinlein was nearly 100% prescient -- but I think he was wrong about elections.
There will always be elections. Even in the most repressive regimes there are nowadays usually elections -- sometimes people are actually forced to vote. It demonstrates the "freedom" the regime permits, and everyone is required to buy in.
"Democracy" seems to be collapsing rapidly into a "freedom of choice" -- choice of a preselected list of products, choice from a preselected panel of candidates.
True "freedom" isn't really there any more. Try to sell raw milk in the "free" market, or find someone to help you have a baby at home. Imagine an "election" that really was a choice about things that people cared about, rather than what the establishment tells us we must care about.
Check out Bertrand Gross' 1980 classic Friendly Fascism. Gross was probably a Marxist "anti-capitalist"-- but the same technique would work fine for any "enlightened" aristocracy. Neo-feudalism will work the same way, might even be the same thing.
.. As Heinlein also said in 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' .. "A managed democracy is great- for the managers.." Not too far a cry from Bush's "If this were a dictatorship it would be a lot easier, if I was the Dictator."
If we had Nacht, we could have "Nacht und Nebel", if we had Nebel.
Take Obama's teleprompter and handlers away, and he is the biggest retard ever to run for office. One of very dubious loyalty on top of that.
Palin might be an airhead, but side by side it makes above point very clear.
Since it looks like Obama is going to lose this thing, thanks largely to the return of the pro-life right, you're going to get an opportunity, along with the rest of us, to see what a really nasty future can bring, as in bring it on: more war, tax breaks for the rich, more bailouts for big-money speculators, more tax breaks for those who want to drill, and more truncating of our basic rights so we can be protected from the evil-doers. Enjoy.
I wouldn't call someone who graduated from Harvard at the top of his class a retard. Vote for right wing warmongers and you will soon get what you deserve.
I could care less if Obama gets elected, other then having to see the family in the White House it doesn't cost me a dime, and i can turn the TV off.
But the joke is on the majority of his constituency that vote for him because they think he is black as in african american. In reality his ancestry is arab and linked to the slave trade.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080830153732AAhRMGe
There is a pending lawsuit re his citizenship. Intrestingly the suit was brought by democrats.
It would be funny if the truth came out BEFORE the elections.
You really are an ass to be posting like this.
Thanks, sgage. The rest of us needed that...
"I could care less if Obama gets elected..."
It should be, "I could not care less if Obama gets elected..."
You called him a retard when you don't even have a good command of your own language.
Another unsubstantiated assertion; no doubt we should all believe you just because you say so. Do you have any evidence of this? Or are you just talking out your...uh...other orifice?
Couldn't possibly be. That one has been in office for 8 years. Worse than Taft.
Obama graduated at the top of his law school class at Harvard. McCain graduated in the bottom one percent of his class at Annapolis. (894th out of a class of 899.) Obama is probably the smartest person to run for president since John Kennedy. McCain is likely the dumbest ever to run for president.
Errr, correct that, the second dumbest. I completely forgot about Dubya.
I actually strongly disagree with that. Bush is a master at exploiting logical fallacies -especially strawmen, for political gain. It is really intelligence applied towards exploiting non-rational thinking, rather than a lack of intelligence.
Well, I strongly disagree with you. I think Bush Jr. is actually quite dumb. So we will have to agree to disagree on that one. But at least can we agree that McCain is really dumb, or at least far too dumb to be president? Surely you must agree he was far too dumb to be a navy pilot. I mean losing five planes as he did which at least two of them, and possibly a third, was entirely because of his incompetence. And graduating in the bottom one percent of his class should surely tell us something.
If every woman followed Pallin's lead, how many retards would there be?
factcheck.org asserts that your claim is a falsehood.
Did McCain crash five planes?
So he crashed a fifth aircraft through incompetence, but because it was not totaled, it does not count.
MANY teenage drivers will be relieved to discover this new policy.
Alan
Er....no. There was no fifth plane crash.
I never thought I'd see the day, but I find myself agreeing with Glenn Beck. There's plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize McCain and Palin (and Obama and Biden). Why lie about them? The truth is incriminating enough.
I was responded to the claim that the training accident did not count since it did not involve a loss of aircraft. If there was no training accident, then it is a mute point.
Alan
"Moot point", not "mute point", please.
Otherwise, you are correct, according to both meanings of "moot point"
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-moo1.htm
John McCain inspires the country with just three words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gwqEneBKUs
Please, oh please let America see Obama and Palin side by side.
.. and McCain saying she knows more about Energy than anyone in the US?
This is getting sicker by the minute. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid, musashi, and pay no attention to the men behind the curtain.
Take it from a long in the tooth and grey in the hair,
old TRUE conservative codger. Bush has expanded the gov
more then every preceding administration combined. Ran the worst budget deficit, escalated the largest national debt, had the weakest dollar, squandered international good will, managed two failing wars simaltaniously lasting longer then America was in WW2, weakened or eliminated more American citizens rights... eminent domain, posse comitatus, habeas corpus, divided the country more then any president since the civil war, generaly been the worst president in American history. I use a brief synopsis because broad band connection freeze should I attempt to list every failure of George W Bush.
For nearly 6 years, typing "Failure" or "Idiot" into google, produced GEORGE BUSH #1, today type "IDIOT" into google and GEORGE BUSH comes up 3rd 4th & 5th
only because he's a lame duck. Want to prove to me George isnt hated in America???...Take a video of yourself holding a cardboard sign "I LOVE GEORGE BUSH"
on any off ramp USA...or public place any where situate
USA....you might not get harmed being a fan of Charles Manson...But G W Bush???..try it and let me know how it werks fer ya k?
Don't worry-change is coming http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyuqDW7uBIA
McCain wants to cut taxes by overhauling social security. That may mean one may not get as much as one paid in to the fund as the government has been spending the surplus for years and causing inflation by excessive deficit spending. They bailed out Bear Stearns and the execs got gold parachutes. They took tax payer's money for no-bid contracts for Haliburton to build free energy projects for the Shiites in Iraq while U.S. energy corporations paid 40% and U.S. citizens could not get enough tax credits for energy projects. What will they do for the poor and middle class? They are likely to attempt to cut social security benefits as they have done in the past and give record breaking tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Real family income adjusted for inflation has been declining in America. Private defense contractor mercenaries got 100,000 dollar salaries and were lodged in expensive hotels. Once there was a call against tyranny. Once there was a call against a government that ignored the people and taxed them to quarter their mercenaries. That was today.
It appears that more than 50% of the voters want to be abused-just look upthread. The lower middle class and middle class have been supporting guys like McCain for the last 30 years and they keep doing it evidently. Tyranny isn't as useful as social engineering.
It that is what passes for a right wing talking point, the people listening to Rush and company are are even dumber than I gave them credit for.
Let me guess, Rush told you Obama could only talk when it was scripted right?
A very bizarre (and nonsensical) statement considering the mental powers of the current president.
Statement from the University Of Chicago
"UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
As parent of a child filling out college admission applications, I am quite sure that no "retards" are admitted to the University Of Chicago, let alone work as professors of constitutional law. Disagreeing with his policies is democracy in action, but calling people "retards" really only reflects on the person making the aspersion.
The EIA is still predicting a gain in Total non-OPEC liquids this year, from 49.02 mb/d in 2007 to 49.03 mb/d in 2008. That 10,000 barrels per day. Not much but an increase nevertheless. They obviously believe there will be a huge jump in NGLs and other liquids because C+C will be down by about 650 to 700 kb/d in 2008. Already January thru June non-OPEC C+C is down 432 kb/d verses the same six months of 2007. And all the outages in the Gulf of Mexico will likely drive that down another 200 kb/d or more.
We were already on a downward trend and even without the hurricanes non-OPEC production would, by the end of the year, have been down well over half a million barrels per day verses 2007. Non-OPEC production has been on a five year plateau and we are falling off that plateau this year.
It is interesting to note that the EIA is predicting an increase in non-OPEC liquids of 900,000 barrels per day in 2009 verses 2007. If you look at the downward trend of 2008 then this prediction looks absurd.
Ron Patterson
Ron,
I think the EIA is still predicting a very small gain for non OPEC liquids in 2008 over 2007 due to political pressure.
The chart below shows that for the EIA 2008 estimate of 49.03 mbd to occur would require 49.73 mbd in 4Q08. I don't believe that non OPEC can produce almost 1 mbd more in 4Q08 than in 3Q08. My estimate is for non OPEC to produce 49.04 mbd in 4Q08 giving 2008 average production of 48.86 mbd.
The EIA is relying on the following increases from 3Q08 to justify their 4Q08 production estimate: Canada, 0.07 mbd; USA, 0.29 mbd; UK, 0.14 mbd; Aerbaijan, 0.27 mbd; Kazakhstan, 0.11 mbd; and Egypt, 0.05 mbd.
Similarly, the IEA is relying on these increases: USA, 0.09 mbd; Mexico, 0.05 mbd; Canada, 0.20 mbd; UK, 0.16 mbd; Norway, 0.11 mbd; Australia, 0.06 mbd; Russia, 0.18 mbd; Azerbaijan/Kazakhstan, 0.54 mbd; Brazil, 0.10 mbd; processing gains, 0.04 mbd; and other biofuels, 0.06 mbd.
I don't believe the EIA or the IEA. Do you?
The IEA is overoptimistic in the ability of Non OPEC to increase their production to the extent that the IEA is forecasting a reduction in the call on OPEC crude from 31.8 mbd in 3Q08 down to 31.4 mbd in 4Q08.
OPEC data:
page 41 http://www.opec.org/library/OPEC%20Bulletin/2008/pdf/OB092008.pdf
IEA data:
pages 49,50 http://omrpublic.iea.org/omrarchive/12aug08full.pdf
EIA data:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/STEO_Query/steotables.cfm?periodType=Qua...
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/STEO_Query/steotables.cfm?periodType=Qua...
Ace, thanks for posting this. Unfortunately it was posted long after my bedtime in Pensacola, Florida. But I agree with you, both the EIA and IEA are out to lunch. Their estimates are highly political and way off base.
Ron Patterson
Does anyone here know what a ususal side effect of global warming might be?
How about denial? *Wink, nudge*
How about global cooling as an unusual side effect of global warming...
As Lovelock points out in Gaia's Revenge, the planet will likely flip from very overheated to very deep ice age over a period of relatively short geologic time. So, you have allies for your assertion, but not on the timeline you're likely implying.
I wasnt making an assertion , I was just being flippant.
but now I am not...
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1396
Hi Mudlogger:
I thought I would throw these into the mix and get your considered comments.
Debunking of CO2sceptics.com solar irradiance paper:
Here is a good general debunking of AGW-denier points:
Your sources for debunking the debunkers welcome.
We need a new level of debunking. We now need to debunk the debunking debunkers.
Call it the debunking race. (Mutually Assured Derision)
We cannot afford a Debunking Gap to develop. J
Every day there is a new Drum Beat. Every day, AGWarmists show up and ply their trade. Lots of people come here and it is important that they do not go away with the feeling that AGW is a given and that The science is over or that the debate has ended.
Far from it. The science is really just getting started and the debate is far from over.
And as for 'consensus' lets have a look at a few examples of consensus:
1. The earth is flat
2. Prestor John ruled a Christian kingdom in the east. And beyond him, the land was populated by men with heads in their stomachs.
3. The earth was the centre of the universe, the sun orbited the earth and the stars were merely little holes in the canopy
4. The world was created in 7 days.
5. The Atom is the smallest and irreducible particle of matter.
6. The sound barrier cannot be broken and trains travelling faster than 40 mph will kill the passengers.
‘Consensus’ is rather more often wrong than not. Though there are exceptions
It is important to point out to visitors to the site that there is no true consensus and the debate is not over. And that science is not about consensus except in the brave new political science of Climatism.
CO2 induced AGW ? - but discounting the impact of our nearest star? Try thinking about that for a minute. The only energetic source that affects us is a mere 8 minutes away and its variations don’t affect the planet?
One of the headings up above was the Wet Summer = Climate Change. Ok, so we have had a wet summer and this is presented as evidence of ‘Climate Change’.
Yet in the early 2000’s we were experiencing hot dry summers and this , at the time was proffered as ‘proof’ of Global Warming ( note the subtle change: It is hard to insist on Global Warming on a cooling planet)
Something for the curious but not yet convinced out there.
A bit more on the hockey stick: (pdf)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckto...
A bit more on an Inconvenient Truth: (.pdf)
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton...
And from a politician no less:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/wil...
excerpt:
>>’’ At the height of the floods recently, when those whose homes had been destroyed were trying to clean up the mess, the councils were trying to get emergency payments processed and departments were assessing what lessons could be learned from the events, all the Green Party could do was prattle on about climate change.
It seems that there is a branch of the environmental movement which almost rejoices in every environmental disaster be it local or international. The bigger the disaster the better because it helps reinforce their demands for more government regulation, restrictions on individual economic freedom and their anti-business agenda.
Their ire has been particularly directed at me because I refuse to blindly accept the new pseudo-religion that we must dramatically change our economy in order to stop climate change. The tactic used by the "green gang" is to label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase who denies scientific fact.
First of all can I make it clear I accept that we are experiencing climate change. Indeed climate change has been a feature of the history of our planet. The most modern history of the earth shows that these changes occur in regular cycles. From 200BC to 600AD we had what was known as the Roman warming when grapes grew in the open as far north as Scotland. The Dark Ages between 600 and 900AD was a cold period. Then came the Mediaeval warming period from 900 to 1300AD followed by the Little Ice Age between 1300 to 1850 AD when the Thames regularly froze over and fairs were held on the ice. From 1850 to 1940 we had another period of warming followed by a period of cooling from 1940 to 1975. When I was at school, scientists were confidently predicting that we were entering another ice age. From 1976 we have experienced gradual warming again. Significantly the most progressive and prosperous periods in world history were during the periods of global warming.
We have never clearly understood the causes of these changes and despite what some environmentalists say there is no scientific consensus around the causes. Some claim that recent climate change is due to CO2 production from industrialisation, our energy use, our love affair with the car and foreign holidays by jet airplane. The difficulty with this explanation is that climate change occurred even when we did not have the increase on CO2 emissions experience in the last 200 years. Another difficulty they have is that the increase in CO2 occurs after the increase in temperatures.
Other scientists have produced research based on analysis of ice cores, and study of changes in the sun's radiance which they claim proves that the changes in Earth's climate are primarily caused by solar activity. Readers may ask what the relevance of such a scientific debate is to them and given the esoteric nature of the subject may dismiss it as nothing to do with them. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact the reason why environmentalists have a fit of apoplexy when their claim that the scientific jury is still out on the cause of climate change is that there are massive implications for policy depending on which view you take.’’<<
You posted a link to an article positing that solar variance was the cause of global warming and I posted an article which purports to show that solar variance is not the cause of global warming
I was hoping that you would respond to the specific debunks, showing how these debunks of Wilde and Monckton are flawed. Please, let's stick to judging the flaws in the science, rather than political and ad hominem screeds.
So by all means, debunk the debunkers, but show some rigor. You were trained as a scientist; act like it.
There are never answers from the criminal denialists camp. Science is not their game. As the world already knows, the denialist movement is a bought-and-paid for propaganda program. They cannot and will not present science because there simply isn't any. Monckton? He's not evena a scientist: he's a journalist, if memory serves!
Cheers
Since I don't really know Mudlogger, I won't impugn his motives.
Working in the mining business, I know many people who believe as Mudlogger does and they hold those beliefs honestly. These people are not stupid or irresponsible. They are intelligent professionals; engineers, geologists, geophysicists, accountants, lawyers etc. In my experience, they have arrived at their opinions without scientific rigor - it is an emotional response. They have never read any of the significant papers which support AGW. Those professionals who take the time to do so, generally become convinced that AGW is a reality or admit that the case for AGW is much stronger than they thought.
There may well be criminal denialists with funding and well-oiled propaganda machine, but I have never encountered any of them.
Anyway, I think attacking people's beliefs only makes them hold to those beliefs with even more emotional vigor. Rational people, treated with respect and given reasoned arguments will at least consider them. Positions don't generally capitulate suddenly, but evolve and become more nuanced over time.
But like you, I have noticed a certain paucity of peer-reviewed papers contradicting AGW.
EDIT: The most recent on the hockey stick:
Climate 'hockey stick' is revived
OriginalPost
This:
cannot equal this:
Which makes this:
naught but wishful thinking.You have made my point perfectly. The propaganda machine, and it is well-documented, has been astonishingly effective. This takes us to my premise that Americans are freaking stupid (in general), which is supported by Diamond's observations on aboriginal cultures and innate intelligence vs. being "educated." (At least, i think it was diamond. Leanan can correct me, I believe, if wrong.) When you combine effective propaganda with a stupid/lazy electorate you get the last seven+ years.
In short, you are making excuses for people that should be applying their intelligence and aren't... which is stupid. (And round and round we go.....)
Add to this the FACT that the current administration has muzzled science and engaged in documented propaganda... and the fact that industry shills are known to be working the message boards/internet... anyone spouting crap that HAS been debunked and intentionally leaving out this simple fact PLUS intentionally leaving out new evidence that eviscerates their position? There is no more time for talk. This MUST get through the PC filter people have. Call a spade a spade and a propagandist a propagandist. We don't have time for anything else.
AND, if they really believe this stuff and are not plants (fat chance), they are not going to change their minds and need to be marginalized NOW. We have no time.
Cheers
DEAR ALL , THANKYOU FOR RESPONDING.
FIRST , MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT GETTING BACK WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME FRAME – SOMETIMES LIFE JUST GETS IN THE WAY:
-ITS NOT EVERY DAY THE WEATHER IS GOOD ENOUGH TO FINISH OFF RESTORING A 1980 IRISH RANGERS LAND ROVER WITH YOUR SON BEFORE HE CLEARS OFF TO UNIVERSITY TO READ PHYSICS.
SECOND, I AM NOT SHOUTING. – THE CAPS LOCK IS SO YOU CAN CLEARLY IDENTIFY MY RESPONSES
THIRD. LET ME MAKE MYSELF ABSOLUTLEY CLEAR: I WOULD BE THE FIRST TO RECOGNISE AND ACCEPT CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING (AND COOLING) I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT ANY SUCH CHANGE IS WHOLLY ANTHROPOGENIC.
FOURTH: A LONG TIME AGO ON TOD I STATED THAT CONTROL OF CO2 WOULD BE A WISE IDEA – AS PART OF GOOD SCIENCE – THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.
FIFTH: THIS WILL BE A LONG POST SO I HOPE LEANAN WILL BEAR WITH ME.
SIXTH: I WILL POST THIS ON THE ORIGINAL DRUM BEAT POSTING AND AGAIN ON TODAYS DRUM BEAT SO AT LEAST YOU CAN EASILY FIND IT.
BranT: You posted a link to an article positing that solar variance was the cause of global warming and I posted an article which purports to show that solar variance is not the cause of global warming
I was hoping that you would respond to the specific debunks, showing how these debunks of Wilde and Monckton are flawed. Please, let's stick to judging the flaws in the science, rather than political and ad hominem screeds.
So by all means, debunk the debunkers, but show some rigor. You were trained as a scientist; act like it.
SIR – WE COULD SPEND OUR LIVES OUT-DEBUNKING EACH OTHER – LIKE POLITICS – IT CAN BE NEVER ENDING. I ACCEPT THAT CO2 IS A GHG JUST AS WATER VAPOUR AND CH4 ARE GHG’S. WHY THEN IS CO2 SPECIFICALLY ITEMISED AS THE MAJOR CULPRIT? I ALSO ACCEPT THAT CO2 HAS RISEN IN MY LIFE TIME FROM 333 PPM (WHEN I USED TO MEASURE IT AS A STUDENT) TO ITS CURRENT LEVEL. ATMOSPHERIC CH4 HAS ALSO RISEN.
AS OCEANS AND THE ATMOSPHERE BECOME MORE ENERGISED, I WOULD ALSO EXPECT WATER VAPOUR CONTENT TO RISE – AND ALSO THE ALBEDO EFFECT OF CLOUD COVER.
CONCERNING THE SUN: IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THE SUN IS THE ONLY ENERGY SOURCE AVAILABLE FROM AN EXTERNAL SOURCE ON PLANET EARTH (INTERNAL HEAT IS NEGLIGABLE, OTHER STARS ARE WAY TOO DISTANT) IT IS THEREFORE FAIR TO SAY THAT THE SUN IS THE SOLE SOURCE OF USEFUL RADIATIVE ENERGY RECEIVED BY PLANET EARTH.
IRRC: THE SUN DELIVERS ABOUT 1365 WATTS PER SQ METER AND THIS IS MORE THAN SUFFICIENT FOR ALL OUR EARTHLY NEEDS.
DOES SOLAR OUTPUT VARY? – I THINK THERE IS EVIDENCE OF THIS.
IS IT FEASIBLE THAT VARIATIONS IN SOLAR ENERGY WILL AFFECT THE EARTHS CLIMATE? – I SEE NO REASON WHY IT SHOULD NOT AND I SEE NO REASON THAT IT HAS NOT OCCURRED IN THE HISTORICAL RECORD AND THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD.
DOES THIS MEAN THAT GHG’S CAN BE DISCOUNTED? – NO GHG’S WHICH BASICALLY TRAP SOLAR ENERGY IN THE ATMOSPHERE WILL CAUSE THE BIOSPHERE TO BECOME MORE ENERGISED AND OF COURSE, MORE GHG’S EQUALS MORE TRAPPING.
IS CO2 THE PRINCIPLE CULPRIT FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ? – I DOUBT IT – THERE ARE OTHER SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES AND THEY CHANGE WITH TIME – AND THIS INCLUDES OUTPUT FROM THE SUN
IS CO2 A SIGNIFICANT CULPRIT? – IT CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND SINCE WE HAVE CONTROL OVER THIS ONE GHG AND THE IMPACT OF THE CARBON PULSE , IT MAKES SENSE TO MODIFY OUR BEHAVIOUR IN THIS RESPECT . IN MY OPINION, PEAK OIL AND PEAK ANTHRACITE WILL CURE THIS PROBLEM BEFORE WE CREATE OUR OWN FINAL SOLUTION.
CCPO:There are never answers from the criminal denialists camp. Science is not their game. As the world already knows, the denialist movement is a bought-and-paid for propaganda program. They cannot and will not present science because there simply isn't any. Monckton? He's not evena a scientist: he's a journalist, if memory serves!
Cheers
CCPO: I WOULD PREFER IT IF YOU DID NOT TRY TO LABEL PEOPLE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF YOUR OWN WARPED WORLD VIEW
DENIALISTS DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY COME FROM THE CRIMINAL FRATERNITY
HOWEVER – IF LABELLING PEOPLE CRIMINAL DENIALISTS FLOATS YOUR BOAT, THEN WHO AM I TO STAND IN YOUR WAY?
MONCTON MAY NOT BE A SCIENTIST – BUT HE CAN CALL ON MORE THAN ADEQUATE RESERVES OF SCIENTIFIC OPINION.
AS FAR AS I AM AWARE, AL GORE IS NOT A SCIENTIST.,
NEITHER IS ZAC GOLDSMITH – THE DOYENNE DU JOUR OF THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS, THOUGH AT LEAST HAS RECOGNISED THAT PO MAY BE MORE IMMEDIATELY FATAL TO OUR WAY OF LIFE THAN AGW.
Since I don't really know Mudlogger, I won't impugn his motives.
Working in the mining business, I know many people who believe as Mudlogger does and they hold those beliefs honestly. These people are not stupid or irresponsible. They are intelligent professionals; engineers, geologists, geophysicists, accountants, lawyers etc. In my experience, they have arrived at their opinions without scientific rigor - it is an emotional response. They have never read any of the significant papers which support AGW. Those professionals who take the time to do so, generally become convinced that AGW is a reality or admit that the case for AGW is much stronger than they thought.
WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC RIGOUR?
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, AS A GEOLOGIST AND THEREFORE A MORE THAN PASSING INTEREST IN PLANET EARTH’S HISTORY I DO HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE OF PAST EVENTS, AND THESE INCLUDE EXTINCTION EVENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS CONCIEVABLE THAT CO2 GENERATED BY THE SIBERIAN TRAPS MAY BE A SMOKING GUN IN THE MASS FAUNAL EXTINCTION OF THE PERMIAN. IT COULD ALSO BE BAD LUCK THAT AT THE TIME THERE WAS A SUPER CONTINENT CALLED PANGEA THAT MUST HAVE HAD SUPER-CONTINENTAL CLIMATES IN ITS INTERIOR – THINK DEATH VALLEY WRIT LARGE
IT MUST HAVE BEEN HOTTER – YOU CANNOT GET MASSIVE HALITE DEPOSITS SUCH AS THE 6 ZECHSTEIN CYLES OCCURRING WITHOUT EXTREME LEVELS OF EVAPOURATION AND THE CRYSTALLISATION OF SALTS FROM AN INCREASINGLY INHOSPITABLE BRINE LIQUOR WITHOUT MASSIVE BIOSPHERE ENERGY LEVELS.
PINNING IT DOWN JUST TO ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS FLIMSY IN MY OPINION.
CO2 MAY BE A SMOKING GUN, THE SIBERIAN TRAPS MAY BE THE EVIDENCE OF PLANET EARTH NOT DODGING AN EXTRA TERRESTRIAL ANTI-PODAL BULLET.
There may well be criminal denialists with funding and well-oiled propaganda machine, but I have never encountered any of them.
NOR HAVE I. PERHAPS WE CAN ADD SOME MORE EPIPHETS TO ‘CRIMINAL DENIALISTS’?
- RUNNING DOGS OF CAPITALISM.
- COUNTER REVOLUTIONARIES
- RUMOUR MONGERS
- REACTIONARY CRIMINAL ELEMENTS
- TRAITORS!!!!!!
LIKE THE MAN SAID – ‘THEY (THE GREENS) BECOME APOPLECTIC’
AS FOR A WELL OILED PROPAGANDA MACHINE – OH IF ONLY IT WERE SO!
YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED AT JUST HOW INCOMPETENT THE OIL INDUSTRY IS AT PROPAGANDA.
NOT FOR NOTHING WAS THE OIL INDUSTRY DESCRIBED AS ‘THE LAST REFUGE OF THE INCOMPETENT’. – BY A SENIOR OIL INDUSTRY EXEC AT A A MAJOR IADC CONFERENCE
Anyway, I think attacking people's beliefs only makes them hold to those beliefs with even more emotional vigor. Rational people, treated with respect and given reasoned arguments will at least consider them. Positions don't generally capitulate suddenly, but evolve and become more nuanced over time.
There are never answers from the criminal denialists camp. Science is not their game.
But like you, I have noticed a certain paucity of peer-reviewed papers contradicting AGW.
EDIT: The most recent on the hockey stick:
Climate 'hockey stick' is revived
A new study by climate scientists behind the controversial 1998 "hockey stick" graph suggests their earlier analysis was broadly correct.
Michael Mann's team analysed data for the last 2,000 years, and concluded that Northern Hemisphere temperatures now are "anomalously warm".
Different analytical methods give the same result, they report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
...a 2006 report from the National Research Council (NRC), commissioned by the US Congress, broadly endorsed its conclusion that Northern Hemisphere temperatures in the late 20th Century were probably warmer than at any time in the previous 400 years, and perhaps at any time during the previous 1,000 years...
Since then, a number of research groups have produced new "proxy records" of temperatures from the centuries before thermometers were widely deployed.
Such proxies include the growth patterns of trees and coral, the contents of ice cores and sediments, and temperature fluctuations in boreholes.
...In their latest study, Dr Mann's group collated more than 1,200 proxy records - the majority from the Northern Hemisphere - and used different statistical methods to analyse their cumulative message.
..."Ten years ago, the availability of data became quite sparse by the time you got back to 1,000 AD, and what we had then was weighted towards tree-ring data; but now you can go back 1,300 years without using tree-ring data at all and still get a verifiable conclusion."
Both analytical methods produced graphs similar to the original hockey stick, though starting further back in time. The "shaft" now extends back to about 700 AD.
...Critics of the idea of man-made climate change argue that conditions 1,000 years ago were as warm as, if not warmer than, they are today.
The new paper adds to the evidence against that notion. One of the analytical methods used suggests that temperatures in the Mediaeval Warm Period could have been no higher than they were in about 1980; the other suggests they were no higher than those seen 100 years ago.
..."In any case, the paper still comes to the firm conclusion that the most recent decades are unusual."
IS THIS A NEW STUDY? OR IS THIS A NEW , NEW , NEW IMPROVED STUDY?
WHY HAS THE IPCC ERASED THE ORIGINAL GRAPH FROM THE EARLY 1990’S SHOWING BOTH THE MWP AND THE LIA?
WHAT HAS CHANGED?
WERE THE GRAPE GROWERS OF YORK LIARS?
WERE THE VINYARDS AROUND WAKEFIELD A FICTION?
WERE THE FROST FAIRS ON THE THAMES A FICTION?
WHY DID THEY FIND IT NECCASARY TO LIE IF THE SCIENCE WAS CLEAR AND MANIFEST?
WHO BENEFITS?
I know many people who believe as Mudlogger does and they hold those beliefs honestly. These people are not stupid or irresponsible. They are intelligent professionals; engineers, geologists, geophysicists, accountants, lawyers etc.
cannot equal this:
In my experience, they have arrived at their opinions without scientific rigor - it is an emotional response. They have never read any of the significant papers which support AGW.
Which makes this:
Anyway, I think attacking people's beliefs only makes them hold to those beliefs with even more emotional vigor. Rational people, treated with respect and given reasoned arguments will at least consider them.
naught but wishful thinking.You have made my point perfectly. The propaganda machine, and it is well-documented, has been astonishingly effective. This takes us to my premise that Americans are freaking stupid (in general), which is supported by Diamond's observations on aboriginal cultures and innate intelligence vs. being "educated." (At least, i think it was diamond. Leanan can correct me, I believe, if wrong.) When you combine effective propaganda with a stupid/lazy electorate you get the last seven+ years.
THE PROPAGANDA MACHINE? –
WELL I SUPPOSE AL GORE WAS LYING FOR OUR OWN GOOD (WE ARE SUCH CHILDREN AT THIS TIME, AND CANNOT BE TRUSTED WITH A REASONED DEBATE.)
In short, you are making excuses for people that should be applying their intelligence and aren't... which is stupid. (And round and round we go.....)
Add to this the FACT that the current administration has muzzled science and engaged in documented propaganda... and the fact that industry shills are known to be working the message boards/internet... anyone spouting crap that HAS been debunked and intentionally leaving out this simple fact PLUS intentionally leaving out new evidence that eviscerates their position? There is no more time for talk. This MUST get through the PC filter people have. Call a spade a spade and a propagandist a propagandist. We don't have time for anything else.
AND, if they really believe this stuff and are not plants (fat chance), they are not going to change their minds and need to be marginalized NOW. We have no time.
Cheers
WHATEVER FLOATS YER BOAT CCPO.
MUDLOGGER
Thanks for your courageous post.
Just for the record, I gave you an UP arrow (which seems to have been cancelled out).
I worked for many years with climate researchers forecasting ice conditions off the Canadian east coast and in the Arctic. Models are enormously complex and can give radically different results with fairly minor changes in assumptions - eg future degree of cloud cover, albedo of snow or clouds, or ocean salinity.
Like many people, I am concerned about climate change. Somebody once expressed it as - "We are doing a science experiment and we are in the test tube".
I do think that we have responsibility to limit GHG's *just in case* we are screwing things up beyond repair.
Computer models give educated guesses based on vastly simplified conditions - and they often turn out to be totally wrong. Nature is still a lot more complex than we can understand and I would be very hesitant to place too much confidence in any single climate prediction.
I don't think that climate change - or peak oil - are going to turn out in any easily predicted fashion.
I TOO THINK WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTROL GHG EMISSIONS – THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE SUGGESTS THIS TO BE THE WISE OPTION.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT CO2 ALONE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE .
I AM SAYING THAT THERE IS A LOT MORE TO IT THAN CO2.
BUT, IF PEOPLE FEEL IT IS REQUIRED, THEN CONTROLLING THE ONE THING WE CAN CONTROL IS CO2. WE CAN DO IT WITH WIND, TIDAL, WAVE, CARBON CAPTURE, SOLAR
AND OF COURSE, NUKES.
BUT GOING BACK TO ‘HOBBITON’ IS OUT OF THE QUESTION.
- WE WILL HAVE TO GO BY MORDOR FIRST…..
Courgeous? How so? In what strange world that you come from is it courageous to post lies and BS? Mud posted crap that has been debunked so thouroughly only someone paid to post such online would do so. Nobody else would have the temerity. That statement is in no way pejorative; it's a factual statement. The only other option is mental disease. To wit: he mentions the hockey stick just days after new research fully supporting the hockey stick findings are made public.
Where is the courage in lying? New data is published completely supporting the original research - which had itself already been validated - and the debunking dismissed, but Mud dishonestly ignores such, and you call it courageous? I call it criminal behavior suitable for the Hague.
Jeers
PS more when I get back to my own computer
- I LOOK FORWARD TO IT. PLEASE SPEND THE BEST DAYS OF YOUR LIFE TAPPING AWAY AT YOUR COMPUTER.
Mudlogger,
I look forward to your posts on oil as they are insightful and based on data, but your post on Global Warming made me cringe.
I personally don’t know how anyone with a background in data analysis and critical thinking can think that if we continue to pump fossil sourced carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that the global temperatures will NOT rise.
DID I ACTUALLY SAY THAT? OR DID I SAY CO2 IS A GHG. AS IS WATER VAPOUR AND CH4.
I DON’T THINK IT IS THE WHOLE STORY.
I THINK THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE IN THE HISTORICAL AND GEOLOGICAL RECORD THAT WARMING AND COOLING HAS OCCURRED IN THE PAST AND AT TIMES WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CO2 IS COMPLICIT. THEREFORE, TO PUT ALL ONES SCIENTIFIC EGGS IN ONE BASKET IS CLEARLY STUPID.
The consequences of the increase in temperature will be changes in water availability, due to changes in weather and reduction in glacier fed water, and an increase in sea levels. These have happened plenty of times before on the earth but have not happened before to modern civilisation. My expectation is that this will cause starvation from lack of water for crops and economic wealth destruction from relocating large populations. Neither will necessarily make the human race extinct, but both are likely to be catastrophic. The process is very slow, so the full impact may not be seen in our lifetimes, but just because we won’t be around to see the consequences does not mean that we should not take responsibility for our actions.
So my question to you is why do you deny that increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing the temperature of the world to warm?
I DON’T: A SIMPLE SCHOOLBOY EXPERIMENT OF A CLEAR GLASS CYLINDER FULL OF NORMAL ATMOSPHERE WITH A BUNSEN BURNER AT ONE END OF THE CYLINDER (BUT OUTSIDE IT) AND AN INFRA RED CAMERA AT THE OPPOSITE END WILL PROVE – IF CO2 IS INTRODUCED INTO THE CYLINDER, THAT CO2 ABSORBS ENERGY.
QUESTION IS BY HOW MUCH AND OVER WHAT TIME FRAME AND IS DOUBLING OF CO2 MORE THAN COMPENSATING FOR SOLAR VARIATION AND OTHER ASPECTS OF PLANETARY ACTIVITY?
Before you answer, do a thought experiment where you look at the evidence you produce and make the following substitutions:
1) For the theory that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increase global temperatures (AGW), substitute the theory that the amount of oil in the earth is finite and that the rate of oil extraction will reach a peak and then decline (Peak Oil).
2) For the theory that variation in solar radiance is responsible for the increase in global temperatures, substitute the theory that oil is produced adiabatically and there will be no peak oil.
Clearly the specifics of the arguments will be different, so you will need to look at the type of argument to see how this works. Some arguments will be based on fundamental principles and be predictive, while others will be hand waving with the objective of sowing doubt. I hope that the substitution will make it easier to distinguish between the two. E.g. your argument on debunking consensus would say that adiabatic oil theory should be believed because it debunks the consensus that the amount of oil in the earth is finite. Your argument that the medieval warming shows that we can’t make sensible predictions about future global temperatures would be equivalent to saying we can’t believe in peak oil because we don’t know the amount of oil in the Ghawar reservoir.
PEAK OIL IS EASY SCIENCE WITH FEW VARIABLES, VOLUMETRICS, POROSITY, PERMEABILITY, FLOW RATES, DEMAND
Then have a look at these two charts and say why the oil production chart is clear evidence that we have a problem with peak oil while the chart of global temperatures is evidence that we do NOT have a problem with global warming.
Global warming - No problem?
LOOKS IMPRESSIVE. LOOK AT THE MINISCULE TEMPERATURE RANGE
Peak Oil - Major problem?
This will probably sound patronising, but I really find it difficult to understand why people who spend a lot of time planning for a world with less oil use the same thinking process to deny that we have a problem with global warming. I think any insights you might have into why this is possible could help people understand why Peak Oil is ignored by so much of the population and may help change the way the issue is communicated.
I DON’T FIND IT PATRONISING. WHAT I AM CONFUSED BY IS YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT I DENY GLOBAL WARMING.
I DON’T.
SOMETIMES IT WARMS, SOME TIMES IT COOLS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE LIFESPAN OF THE EARTH, IT HAS COOLED AND WARMED MANY TIMES.
AFAIK WE ARE STILL CLIMBING OUT OF THE LAST GLACIATION. IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT MANKIND - A DE-FACTO CHILD OF THE PLIESTOCENE IS AROUND NOW AND HAS THE ABILITY TO DESCRIBE AND OBSERVE HIS SURROUNDINGS.
BUT ‘ONE SWALLOW – A SUMMER DOES NOT MAKE’.
Jeremy
And as for 'consensus' lets have a look at a few examples of consensus:
1. The earth is flat
And now we know that your knowledge of history is as poor as your knowledge of science.
I WILL SEE YOU AT THE NEXT PUB QUIZ
Dude. This is 9 pages long if printed out. May be time to get your own blog.
And do not post in all caps. It really makes things unreadable.
Also, do not post this in the new DrumBeat. Posting it once is more than enough. And remember - what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Do not bring old arguments into new DrumBeats.
Dudess:
The responses were long and required a response.
Caps were used to clearly identify me vs prior respondendents
I asked for your clemency on this one occassion.
However. I bow to your power , and your right.
try this one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/09/14/do...
Normally I keep it brutally short. My sincere apologies.
That's what the quote function is for.
Doh!
The car restoration sounds like fun!;-)
Is GW something to do with GW Bush?
it is an excellent way to while away your time:
Making something work with old parts and be useful without buying from new and introducing more carbon and new resources.
You see ,
Some walk the walk.
Others talk the talk
Or select data to produce the required fit! :-)
*cough*...Mann...*cough*.....
Careful Dave, they will put you on the 'list'.
“Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation ”
“Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.” ”
“The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.”
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
“The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.” ”
Here are but a few quotes from scientists in the Senate report:
Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.
Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”
I can't be arsed to argue about it, since the measures I would advocate such as nuclear power, renewables and conservation would in any case minimise any potential problems, and it is clear that the fossil fuels assumed to be burnt in many of the models may not in fact be extractable.
It is weird that a complex system subject to so many variables should be taken as such an article of faith though, with rather more certainty than Ignatius Loyola.
It's a waste of time trying to use logic to refute true believers though.
Personally, I don't know, and you can quote me on that.
I can't help noticing you posted a boatload of opinion but ZERO science. Why is this always the way with your ilk? Pray tell, what were the dates, for example, of the last two experts' comments?
Also, where is the link to this report?
Mysterious....
Hey,
cccp,
I dont see many links from you, just the usual rants and insults. In your own words 'why is this always the way with your ilk?
Do you think I made those quotes up then?
You wouldnt read the links anyway - your ilk never do.
Ah, Sir Liar responds. I have posted repeatedly on all the points raised and am not going to do so for the Nth time. You have been here, have seen them, and have either ignored them or read them. I care not which. I have shown you to be a liar with regard to this issue, and childish, to boot.
You have done nothing but repeat the same tired old "critiques" Bush and Exxon gave you. You have offered no science. I and others have. If you were interested, you'd have read it. You haven't,or don't give a damn about the truth.
Hockey stick WAS linked. That is your linchpin, and it is pulled out from under you. I have also posted on the problems with hydrates and permafrost recently. I have posted on the Arctic ice melt. I have posted on the solar effects. I have posted Spencer Weart's website. I have posted on EVERYTHING you claim. Be a man and go read it.
Now, since I already responded wrt your one and only link (no science therein) you are again proven a liar.
Jeers
Hi CCCP.
Lets see shall we?
http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf
Bit long I know, Bit 'sciencey' I know, but I trust your attention defecit syndrom wont kick in too soon.
You've moved from simply being dishonest (How many lies now with ZERO back-up for them?) to being a dishonest joke. The International Conference on Climate Change? Hmmm... think I'll go consult with the Wizard of Oz on Emeralds...
That "conference" was eviscerated on these boards long, long ago...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a...
Not BS, peer-reviewed science. Nothing at that conference was peer-reviewed science. But you were right: it is "sciency" (pig in lipstick-like, that is), but not science. At least you managed not to lie this time.
That doesn't matter to you, we know, but, FRICK, you could at least TRY.
Now, if you feel insulted by me calling you a liar for in fact, lying, I'm not surprised. That you have leveled a number of stupid, insipid, elementary school level barbs because of it? That is what the dishonest do. Deflect, deflect, deflect via character assassination.
Jeers
Have you read the new data or any reviews of it, Dave?
Thought not.
What a **cough**surprise.
Hi Mudlogger,
Thanks for responding. I realize you took considerable time to respond to everyone, but it was very confusing to be mixed in with ccpo et. al.. ccpo's opinions are his own, and I don't think people who are unconvinced of AGW are criminals or even misguided. Being in the minority does not make your scientific ideas necessarily wrong and sometimes generally rejected hypotheses are later confirmed. Of course, sometimes those rejected hypotheses get "dustbined" for good.
Please understand that my comments about the lack of scientific rigor were not aimed at you: the lack of rigor is something I see with my peers in the mining business. If I thought you were unwilling to be rigorous, I would not bother discussing this with you.
I would like to continue this discussion without the name-calling and public distraction. Please email me at bryant at icehouse dot net so we can do this at a more leisurely pace.
Geologically,
Bryant
A lie is a lie, my friend. That is not name-calling, it is observation. I happen to know people are still posting to message boards with agendas not based in science or belief, but $$.
When someone misrepresents every point he makes in his posts, there is only one conclusion.
Hi ccpo,
I believe I understand your points. Money, politics and the grave risk AGW poses make this more than a simple scientific dispute. And you are no doubt correct that there are people attempting to "muddy the waters" in order to slow down or derail action on limiting anthropogenic GHG. I too have seen XOM and Bush's Whitehouse working to deny AGW and stifle action.
Nevertheless, I don't know that Mudlogger is a shill and I can see few virtues in declaiming against him. I do know people who think as he does who are not paid shills...playing patsy to liars perhaps, or just not thinking critically and doing a little research. Most professionals in the extractive industries are so used to being the public enemy of the environmentalists, that they are "immunized" against any idea which seems like another "green" attack.
As to lies being lies, it is true; but if a person believes a lie, is he really lying when he repeats it to you? Or is he just mistaken? Sometimes it's ignorance rather than ill will. I know men who think their kids are special and their wife beautiful despite my observations to the contrary. I even know people who think, despite evidence to the contrary, that they live in the greatest country on earth.
In my professional life as a geologist, I hold several theories which are considered laughable to most other "hard rock" geologists...I'm a bit of a lateral secretionist. I know the preponderance of the data is against me, but I do have some good science to support my position and field observations as well. So I have some sympathy with arguing from a weakened position.
This is why I try to engage Mudlogger in a discussion about specific aspects of the case for AGW with reference to particular papers. Your summation of the research in your response to Mudlogger was exactly the points I wish to discuss with him. I have reviewed those same papers and taken the time to read and understand the science. I concluded that the evidence for AGW was very strong. The opposing research is sparse and usually answered within a year or three with new findings which seem to provide additional support to AGW.
A mud logger is someone who examines the cuttings and mud returned from the bit face during mud rotary drilling, usually big rigs drilling oil and gas wells. Assuming this is really what Mudlogger does, then he is just an industry geologist like me. We probably took similar courses in school and do similar work. I think he and I could have fruitful discussions about the science behind AGW and the published papers and considered opinions which contradict AGW. Are we likely to change each other's opinions? Probably not. Are we both likely to learn from each other? I think so.
If you are right and Mudlogger is a "climate troll" I doubt he will be interested in presenting and refuting specific data and papers with me. Anyway, the "marketplace of ideas" works for science as well as politics, and bystanders are more likely to learn from the debate than either of the participants.
That said, you will obviously chart your own path. I understand your passion and I even share it to some degree, but I am reminded of the scene in Silverado; after being rescued from the desert, Paden says to Emment: "I figure you should approach life like everybody's your friend, or nobody is".
Cheers friend.
And nobody has EVER said it is. Quit setting up straw men. I.e., stop misrepresenting the issues. I.e., stop lying.
This is an outright lie that belittles the practice of science. Anyone who understands science and looks at the huge, huge, huge preponderance of evidence and understands the nature of "consensus" in science would not dare utter the crap you do above. Science is NOT politics, though your ilk have attempted to make it so.
I will repeat for the foolish and ignorant: show me a SINGLE piece of legitimate science. You post outdated and ALREADY debunked crap on the hockey stick and pretend you are an honest broker on this issue. You are not.
Because, of the 1 percent or so of gases that are not essentially what makes up air and are relatively stable in their mix, CO2 makes up 40% of that 1%, THUS its power. Or are you pretending you have not read any of the links provided in the many discussions here on this issue? Go search in RealClimate.
Why pretend this is at issue? It's dishonest. Of course it does! And every scientist who studies the issue and every layperson that reads on it knows this. You are not being honest. What does not tend to have a large impact on long-term climate are the shorter cycles. It is these shorter cycles that you yahoos go on and on about despite them having been debunked over and over and over. There is ZERO credible research supporting this thesis.
Well! If you say so! Criminy... unfortunately far greater minds say where we are now may be too much and going to 450 is likely a deal breaker. But I'm glad *you* think all is A-OK! And that's not even including the *new* and *recent* reports of methane and CO2 escaping from the Arctic 100 years ahead of schedule. But, gosh, since you post here ALL THE TIME, I'm sure you missed all that news and just, gee, um... missed it.
Bull. You are not an honest actor in this debate.
NOBODY has EVER said this is the case. You, sir, are a liar of the first order.
Anybody can. We are all looking at the same info. But Moncton is doing lit review and making his own claims...based on a poor understanding of what he is reading. He has been slapped repeatedly for this. Your appeal to authority is DENIED.
Again, you lie. The interference of the oil industry, primarily via XOM and the WH is fully and utterly proven. Whether you are part of it is for you to claim. I say you are. I refuse to believe you could be as utterly, intentionally misrepresenting the science and status of this debate otherwise. You would have to be mentally ill.
Once again, you lie. Belittling new data which you ignore because it suits your purpose is utterly dishonest. It is lying of the first order. Adding in a supposed "gotcha!" on old documents that are no longer relevant is LYING. You refuse to read the science... what else do we need to know about you? You have no standing. You are a proven liar. You are a proven intellectually dishonest person on this issue.
Where did he lie? Come on, post it, you who has been proven a liar by your own posts here.
You *think* so? Brilliant.
Jeers
Mmmm....Apoplectic ranting from ccpo. Now there is something you dont see every day....
Just put me on your list of climate criminals for when the revolution comes...
Oh, yes, apoplectic. Every fact I stated above, none of which you even attempt to refute, *must* be refuted by your assertion of my apoplectic rant?
Idiocy.
MUDLOGGER
Thanks for your courageous post.
Just for the record, I gave you an UP arrow (which seems to have been cancelled out).
I worked for many years with climate researchers forecasting ice conditions off the Canadian east coast and in the Arctic. Models are enormously complex and can give radically different results with fairly minor changes in assumptions - eg future degree of cloud cover, albedo of snow or clouds, or ocean salinity.
Like many people, I am concerned about climate change. Somebody once expressed it as - "We are doing a science experiment and we are in the test tube".
I do think that we have responsibility to limit GHG's *just in case* we are screwing things up beyond repair.
Computer models give educated guesses based on vastly simplified conditions - and they often turn out to be totally wrong. Nature is still a lot more complex than we can understand and I would be very hesitant to place too much confidence in any single climate prediction.
I don't think that climate change - or peak oil - are going to turn out in any easily predicted fashion.
Courgeous? How so? In what strange world that you come from is it courageous to post lies and BS? Mud posted crap that has been debunked so thouroughly only someone paid to post such online would do so. Nobody else would have the temerity. That statement is in no way pejorative; it's a factual statement. The only other option is mental disease. To wit: he mentions the hockey stick just days after new research fully supporting the hockey stick findings are made public.
Where is the courage in lying? New data is published completely supporting the original research - which had itself already been validated - and the debunking dismissed, but Mud dishonestly ignores such, and you call it courageous? I call it criminal behavior suitable for the Hague.
Jeers
PS more when I get back to my own computer.
Mudlogger,
I look forward to your posts on oil as they are insightful and based on data, but your post on Global Warming made me cringe.
I personally don’t know how anyone with a background in data analysis and critical thinking can think that if we continue to pump fossil sourced carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that the global temperatures will NOT rise.
The consequences of the increase in temperature will be changes in water availability, due to changes in weather and reduction in glacier fed water, and an increase in sea levels. These have happened plenty of times before on the earth but have not happened before to modern civilisation. My expectation is that this will cause starvation from lack of water for crops and economic wealth destruction from relocating large populations. Neither will necessarily make the human race extinct, but both are likely to be catastrophic. The process is very slow, so the full impact may not be seen in our lifetimes, but just because we won’t be around to see the consequences does not mean that we should not take responsibility for our actions.
So my question to you is why do you deny that increasing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing the temperature of the world to warm?
Before you answer, do a thought experiment where you look at the evidence you produce and make the following substitutions:
1) For the theory that increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increase global temperatures (AGW), substitute the theory that the amount of oil in the earth is finite and that the rate of oil extraction will reach a peak and then decline (Peak Oil).
2) For the theory that variation in solar radiance is responsible for the increase in global temperatures, substitute the theory that oil is produced adiabatically and there will be no peak oil.
Clearly the specifics of the arguments will be different, so you will need to look at the type of argument to see how this works. Some arguments will be based on fundamental principles and be predictive, while others will be hand waving with the objective of sowing doubt. I hope that the substitution will make it easier to distinguish between the two. E.g. your argument on debunking consensus would say that adiabatic oil theory should be believed because it debunks the consensus that the amount of oil in the earth is finite. Your argument that the medieval warming shows that we can’t make sensible predictions about future global temperatures would be equivalent to saying we can’t believe in peak oil because we don’t know the amount of oil in the Ghawar reservoir.
Then have a look at these two charts and say why the oil production chart is clear evidence that we have a problem with peak oil while the chart of global temperatures is evidence that we do NOT have a problem with global warming.
Global warming - No problem?
Peak Oil - Major problem?
This will probably sound patronising, but I really find it difficult to understand why people who spend a lot of time planning for a world with less oil use the same thinking process to deny that we have a problem with global warming. I think any insights you might have into why this is possible could help people understand why Peak Oil is ignored by so much of the population and may help change the way the issue is communicated.
Jeremy
Why does Mann's plot tack on the instrumental data from the last 150 years on top of the proxy data for that period?
It makes it difficult to see what the proxy data is indicating for that period. Perhaps that is the point.
Blowing up the chart in the pdf of the article to 300%
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf
it is apparent the proxies underestimate the recent warming by a factor of at least two and in some cases a factor of five. How do we know they don't underestimate the temperature variation in the past?
Furthermore the data that isn't from past work (CPS and EIV) is absent (or should I say censored) from the plot after 1850 what's he hiding?
Why lie and then insinuate? The chart is not difficult to read or misleading. Each line appears to stop where it does, and blowing it up does not change that.
Or are you implying they made a chart to hide something THEN made it.... READABLE?
Christ on a stick...
Disgusting.
Really? Why don't you enlighten us? Given your bull crap above, I'm not waiting with bated breath.
And now we know that your knowledge of history is as poor as your knowledge of science.
I might be wrong, but my impression was Lovelock was talking about "hot rocks" as a likely stable point for the planet, that Gaia has been so disrupted she won't be able to recover. It's not clear, of course, that the ice age would be the last stage, but my recollection was he felt hot rocks would be. Probably it's not clearly predictable where we end up, only that the stability is lost.
cfm in Gray, ME
Usual side effects would be those that you would anticipate would be caused by local warming. Unusual ones, would be regions where locallized cooling, due to changes in atmospheric circulation occur. IIRC the antarctic annular mode (strong winds that circle the pole north of the continent), is strenghening as a result of climate change. This has the counter intuitive effect of bottling the cold air over antarctica, and allowing antarctic cooling. Of course as the antarctic is the air conditioner for the southern hemisphere, the fact that it is exporting less cool air is not actually a good thing.
Thanks. That post is actually what I hoped for.
Nigeria militants order oil workers to leave delta
Shell has been raping this country for over a half a century and they "don't comment on security matters". Bullshit! Shell depends on malleable puppet governments to do the dirty work for them. Who pays for and supplies the jet fighters and gun boats? I’m sure defense contractors line up to sell war machines to this tragic country.
The people of the Niger Delta have lobbied Shell for years to stop flaring their wells and poisoning their land. According to statistics the Niger Delta has suffered the equivalent of an Exxon Valdez spill every year for decades. The pollution is killing the land and the people. Rather than fix their mess Shell has instead taken the far cheaper option of arming the suppressors. Shell Oil needs to leave Nigeria for good! Where is the sense of shame?
“An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny." Edward Abbey
There's one honkin' great problem accepting that Edward Abbey quote: the MEND are armed, pretty liberal in their policy of who it's permissible to kill and they really aren't having much effect on the tyranny of Shell and the Nigerian government. So to all the gun fondling fantasists who build scenarios of how they'll rescue their part of the world from people they disagree with in a Rambo-style, why is the this best and final defense of an armed citizenry not working against the government helicopters, jets and gun boats?
An armed citzenry might have defended against tyranny back in the eighteenth century when the citizens were armed with almost the same weapons as the soldiers. With modern weapons in the hand of government you've actually got to get off your backside and think of a better solution rather than simply quote your favorite source.
embryonic - maybe you think some peaceful demonstrations might work or would an angry letter to their representative be advised? Here's a clue for you: The reason that they are even being heard is because they are so well armed and they're hitting them in the wallet and that is the only place that counts.
Small armed militias have a storied history of bringing down super-states. Tell the IRA that armed resistance doesn't work or better yet tell the Sunni's the Shia or the Taliban for that matter. They brought down the Soviets or did that slip your mind and they're currently kicking our ass in Afghanistan. Armed resistance works and all too often it is the only thing that does work.
So I think I'll send a healthy donation to MEND and while I'm at it I think I'll buy another assault rifle...What are you going to do about it embryonic?
Joe
I'm not thinking about peaceful demonstrations. I'm thinking about infiltrating the army and organising a military coup. I'm thinking about getting sanctions against arms manufacturers selling to Nigeria, and trying to get seizure of Shell's assets by whatever jurisdictions they're in. I'm thinking about industrial sabotage of shell facilities all over the world. I'm thinking about dragging in another foreign power with more tanks and jets. These things might have an actual effect. What I'm not thinking of is going for a bumper sticker that says "armed citizenry are effective against tyranny", let alone the best defence, because I don't see evidence of that.
The IRA wasn't/isn't (they're currently "disbanded" but are not beyond being reconstituted) the citizenry of Ireland, it's a paramilitary "army" structure which obtained ordnance like explosives from supportive foreign powers, and it was it's offensive (not resistance) blowing stuff up that had some effect on the NI and UK governments. Maybe you'd call possession of high explosives being "armed", that wasn't the meaning I took from your quote but maybe I was wrong.
Again, the Sunni's and the Shia in Iraq aren't what I'd call armed citizenry but armies being supplied (very possibly by foreign powers). With due respect, they aren't having much effect on America so far. They're killing far more American's than anyone would like, but I don't see any way in which American foreign policy has actually changed because of their insurrgence. What particular things would you point to as less tyranny the Iraqi's are enduring now because of their armed citizenship?
Ditto with the Taliban: when they forced out (not "bought down") the Soviets they weren't armed citizenship, they were an army being supplied with some pretty impressive military ordnance by a competing super-power. I imagine the only reason america didn't ship them tanks and jets was difficulty keeping them working in the terrain without trained technicians.
If you want to suggest that setting up an army supplied with the full range of modern weaponry might be useful against tyranny then I'll agree. If you maintain that an armed citizenry is actually remotely effective, let alone the best defence against government tyranny then I don't see any evidence of that assertion.
Really! Sounds fun. I already saw the movie. It's called Bananas, a 1971 comedy film written by Mickey Rose and Woody Allen. Maybe we can get Don Quixote to take down some of those oil derricks!
Should I tell my cousin Sean that he's not a citizen of Ireland and if it wasn't for all of those "supportive foreign powers" he'd still be rotting in prison?
I was responding to your enthusiastic quoting of Edward Abbey as the "best defence". I've looked at his longer quote that complains that stealth bombers aren't democratic like rifles are and ends with what you quoted. My reading is that by "armed citizenry" he means "arms continually in the hands of almost every citizen"; if you want to maintain he really means "some people who are citizens happen to have high level military ordnance at times they consider to be wars" then we'll have to agree to differ about what was meant.
The only questions relevant to this discussion for your cousin Sean are: does everyone in Ireland have their personal stock of high explosive, and on the eve of power sharing are you keeping personal high explosive for the rest of your life? If not then I'd question if the compound term "armed citizenry" applies to Ireland. That's not revealing my judgement on whether the IRA should or should not have received external support.
Given recent history of Thailand, Pakistan, Myanmar, etc, I'm still of the opinion that if you want to actually succeed getting military units to stage a coup is sometimes possible, although I'd imagine the success rate is very low. But it looks like a much better bet to be the one with the tanks and jets than sending small arms to all the citizens in Nigeria and expecting them to affect the government.
I've stated that I think that quote simply does not match how tyranny is affected in reality but plays into the hands of fantasists, and I'll leave it at that.
It depends which "IRA" you're talking about.
The "old" IRA - the one that participated in the Easter Rising in 1916 - was basically a guerrilla army, and their efforts had limited military success but substantial political success.
By contrast, the Provisional IRA - what most people now think of as "the IRA" - was the organization which participated in the Troubles in Northern Ireland. They split off from the (Original) IRA in 1969 when the IRA voted to recognize the parliaments of Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the UK; the main split was whether to use violent or political means to try to reunite the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Their military actions were originally relatively defensive, but quickly morphed into an offensive campaign (1971) and then terrorism (Bloody Friday in 1972). It's not clear they accomplished much of anything, other than making the lives of a significant number of (mostly Irish) people miserable and sometimes short.
So one needs to be clear which IRA one is talking about.
You must pick your battles, and never willingly fight a losing situation.
Make the storm troopers think twice before kicking in the door.
Make capital realize their is consequences for their actions.
Big oil is realizing the consequences of actions in the Delta.
Hello TODers: Its abundantly clear that certain skills will be usefull. Siphoning gas might be one of those skills. No need to worry about getting a mouth full of
petrol product should you find youre siphoning device of choice (hand held simple pump) is misplaced or damaged.
Any flexible tubing of sufficient length will work just fine. Insert flexible tubing into the container to be drained. Leave approx 1 1/2 yard (1 1/2 meter) extended out of opening and grasp with one hand using other hand to "twirl" rapidly in a circular motion the length of tubing. This "twirling" motion will cause a steady suction on the open end of the tubing (unlike sucking by mouth and stopping and restricting opening and then sucking again) and the liquid will begin to flow. Make sure you drain into a container thats lower in height then the one you siphon from.
Next lesson will be; "How to steal hubcaps and make solar ovens"
Fascinating: The article is about energy demand in China and future needs as coal usage moves to lower grades and oil depletes domestically requiring ever more imported oil. However, most of the comments thread is about the poor financial state of the World. Yet that might be for a good reason, because doesn't one lead to the other. As the price of energy goes up (due in part to ever lower eroei) then doesn't that put pressure on the financial system to maintain production of goods and services at a non-recessionary level? And at what reduced level of eroei is recession assured?
So we are heading off to the renaissance fair and I was dressing up as a common peasant but it felt too prophetic, Kunstleresque, and depressing so I am dressing up as Guy Fawkes
Complete with a small wood cask I have with a short length of rope hanging out the end.
We shall see if anyone gets it. Should open the door for interesting conversation. HaHa!
If you really want to have a Kunstler moment, go on a Disney cruise (tradition amongst my in-laws).
The ship's horn blows the seven notes of "When You Wish Upon A Star" and all I can think is "Saint James, pray for us."
Timing the Entitlements Crash
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=455
The gov't needs to get busy raiding 401K funds (uhhh, I mean "limiting their investment options for the common good", else they won't get to spend the money before a host of retiring boomers crashes their equity value due to a massive cash flow shift.
2012 seems about the right time for the raid, and 2015 for the crash.