Suzanne,

It was so disturbing to me when I first read it (The “official” false version of “Peak Oil”), that I began taking the steps to run for congress (again). I found out that the official version was as officially false as the official version of the events on 911.

If power isn’t abundant, and power is scarce instead, then employing power to make more powerful power producing products, it seems to me, is a good idea.

Example:



If that expense, or cost, can be measured against the cost of paying for power company electricity, then what happens?

A. Total amount of electricity produced by those Solar Panels (kilowatts consumed over the entire time the Solar Panels produce electricity for consumption by the investors)
B. Cost of paying for that amount of power if that amount of power was supplied by the power company instead of having that power supplied by Solar Panels

I can offer an average understanding of the numbers.

A. Average home consumption rate of electric power per year
B. Average lifetime of a Solar Panel

motherearthnews.com/Energy-Matters/Aver ... Bills.aspx

100 dollars per month

http://www.solarbuzz.com/Consumer/fastfacts.htm

Excess of 20 years, some manufacturers guarantee for 25 years

100 dollars per month for 25 years is: 30,000

If the cost is 50K and the benefit is 30K, then that example is unsustainable. Power produced must exceed power consumed for the venture to be sustainable.

Perhaps the people forking over 50K overpaid.

Perhaps they have more solar panels, and more power producing capacity than the power they consume, or they consume more than the average rate of consumption, and if they do make more power than they consume, they may not be capable of selling the surplus, or storing the surplus, so the surplus is waste.

Here is a bit of news that could open some eyes:

wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007 ... 7/02/72752



That is happening because the costs of Solar Panels are less than the costs of the power produced by Solar Panels, please understand that much, if nothing else.

The costs (power required) of Solar Panels are less that the total production (power produced) of Solar Panels.

Knowing exactly how much more power comes out compared to how much power is required (cost, or price) is tricky business.

People are now offering to install solar panels for a monthly payment that is guaranteed to be less than the current monthly electric bill – that is a sure fire measure of how much more power is produced by a Solar Panel compared to the cost of the Solar Panel.

Think in terms of such things as Hover Dam. The cost of it is enormous. How much will Hover Dam produce in its lifetime? If a loan was taken out, or if someone had the cash, to buy Hover Dam, or make a new dam somewhere else, how long before customers buying electricity pay for the expense, and then: how much more power is produced after the expense is paid off?

If this is true, if the power produced is more than the cost, then it is only a matter of time before power is abundant, because one Solar Panel can afford to reproduce itself. I can explain if that is confusing. A dam can only be placed where water and gravity power it.

If someone is working to convince people that “overpopulation” is a problem (rather than a failure to invest economically), then that person will work the angle of “exponential growth”, if you can see how that works, then apply that “exponential growth” calculation to Solar Panels and see what you find.

Here is a good visual tool:

cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/ ... panels.jpg

Stories of someone failing to economize the expense of Solar Panels compared to the benefit of solar panels may put someone else off to the true value of the investment. Solar Panels are already economically viable and costs are rapidly reducing while output power is rapidly increasing, making the economy of the investment even more viable as time marches on, and as Peak Oil fear mongering continues to do what it is designed to do – it seems to me.

Anyone,

I’m running out of time for this morning. I can address that quote above with this:

http://vertigro.com/profile.php

The idea behind linking that is to point out a few things; relevant to the discussion and the book.

Travel is required now, food transportation, for example, is required now. What happens if many, and then many more, and then almost everyone, begins making their own food at home, or someone on the block makes enough for the entire block, or the city begins making food, or the county, or the state, or the nation by way of MODULAR green houses.

The idea is to economize food production with modular green house units (also used to make algae fuel) by minimizing the expenses of water consumption and pesticide control, among other things.

Acres of farmland expose water to evaporation, that does not occur, or it is minimized, in self-contained greenhouses.

A modular unit is an economically viable single farm (costs are less than benefits, or power produced exceeds power consumed, or cost/benefit ratio is positive) and one modular unit can sit in a small backyard, or on an apartment roof in the city. Production of food per square foot of land area is much greater than conventional farming.

How about this:

http://www.physorg.com/news183361139.html

Conventional anything is quite possibly unproductive compared to actual future reality, the difference being current time is what it is, and what will be is not yet.

Why is so much focus being projected toward a pending doom day? Why is doom day a given?



How much of “Global Warming” is hype, fear mongering, power politics, falsehood? How much is natural occurring global warming?

Why make something that is questionable into a doom day scenario on purpose, what is the point?

Algae production (conventional, unconventional, even modular green house algea fuel production) consumes CO2 and the waste product is oxygen.

Why is that industry not currently being grown exponentially as fast, or faster, than the rate of Peak Oil doom day falsehood production?



Can the oil companies own news reports be trusted? I’m skeptical too.

Here:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/03/markets/oil/index.htm



How much does it cost to have a barrel of oil placed on the shelf for purchase?

Please answer accurately.

If you don’t know, then you don’t know something vital in this puzzle.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/432.html

That offers competitive data



atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/KJ09Cb ... 9Cb01.html



Before the argument turns toward coal burning electric power being more costly than petroleum burning electric power:

renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/artic ... cost-44457



Jobs?

nytimes.com/2009/11/17/business/energy- ... solar.html





If it turns out that the Peak Oil phenomenon is entirely false; who produced it, and why?

If it turns out that the Peak Oil phenomenon happened to cause power to flow to someone, some group; then doesn’t that offer a clue to the accurate answer to the previous question?

I don't have belief, per se, in peak oil, only an acknowledgement that it seems a plausible scenario given current and projected world energy consumption. Like global warming, I don't think we have enough data to come to any hard conclusions either way. I don't think it's reasonable to preach doom and death, nor do I think it's reasonable to conclude that technology will rescue us.

The guy on your video says the oil fields in Alaska are equal to or even surpass those in Saudi Arabia, enough to supply America with its energy needs for 200 years. This is highly speculative, but even if it's true, it would only mean we have another 200 years at best. It is far more likely that we will wean ourselves from oil way before Lindsay Williams' 200 years. I for one think that the world is quickly becoming a global entity and it's not entirely relevant to think solely in terms of the United States. Global population is expected to grow by another 3 billion souls within the next 30 or 40 years although this is speculative as well. Even so, nations like China are coming on line as mass consumers to actually increase our collective rate of energy consumption. Peak oil may very well be the least of our problems, but the concept illustrates that our planet's resources are limited. It cannot support growth indefinitely and unfortunately when you hit that ceiling of what the earth can support it's already too late. I don't know if that's what's going to happen or not. But you can look at population graphs in limited systems such as on island ecosystems and what you frequently see are crashes or boom-bust cycles. Globally, humans have enjoyed a steady rate of increase for thousands of years, but in the next 30 or 40 years world population growth is expected to level off and perhaps even decline sharply. (This presents very serious problems of its own). It's far from clear that we will make it that long if we face what has been described as the "perfect storm" of falling energy sources and food shortages which could lead to calamitous loss of life on a huge scale.

So, I think these scenarios are frightening without "believing" they will definitely happen. I do think that the world is changing at an incredibly fast rate and that we really can't imagine what things will be like in 30 or 40 years.

geo,

The word being used is superfluous to me, the goal is to accurately communicate, if I use the word “belief” or I use the word “assumption”, the meaning either conveys or it doesn’t convey accurately. Which word works best to communicate a perception leading to a conclusion that is based upon assumptions?

If someone began a fear mongering campaign concerning the PeaK Horse Food phenomenon back when the major fuel for transportation was horse food (grain I suppose, alfalfa, hay, grass, whatever), then where would the power flow as a result of such a fear mongering campaign? Where would the paper trail lead? Where does the “news” come from? Where would the funds go to, as a result of the fear mongering campaign? What would be the reality – looking back with 20-20 hindsight?

Ocean waves, and tidal forces can make power, cheap now. Sewage can be made into fuel cheap. Water can be made into fuel (or energy storage) cheap. I’ve woken up, you may want to also, or, of course, my view may be wrong; but I look, and have found only support for my view since I’ve started. The oil company criminals have seen it coming, of course they have, and their goose is cooked, they know it.

How much does it cost per barrel to get the barrel on the shelf for sale to the buyer? If you can’t answer that question then you won’t understand the reality of the situation.

Once you have that question there is yet another question that begs for an accurate answer, if the idea is to know the facts concerning this topic. How much will the buyers pay (what is the maximum selling price) of one barrel of oil?

Once you have that known, then know why oil has dominated in political economy and use math. X amount of cost was expended to produce a wild guess (realistic or educated guess) on the number of barrels of oil produced since 1860, and sold. The total number to find is the amount of power flowing from "customers" to oil business people. What is that measure of power - in dollars? Then it can be looked into as to what all that power has purchased once the oil business people gained control of all that power. How much power is invovled in this scenario?

How much power in dollars (oil has been sold mostly on a U.S. dollar standard) has moved from the buyers of oil to the producers of oil?

Get a good idea of what is being discussed here, rather than base less, or even false, assumptions.

I really need to get back to the book to see what is offered by the author on this topic. The “official” Peak Oil fear mongering campaign is false, as false as the “official” fear mongering Global Warming campaign, and as false as either the official “911” (inside job) campaign, or the official “Waco” campaign where "they are killing themselves" as tanks drive through a church (I talked personally with a survivor of that torturing mass murder campaign).

If someone’s knee is now suddenly jerking with an irresistible urge to shout out “conspiracy theorist”; then please, please, please, if that is you, stop for a few minutes, while you are so inclined and get in front of a mirror first, just to see yourself shouting such absurdities. Get real.



If “technology” had arms and legs, and a white horse, the horse would still need hay. I had a link to a device that used simple mechanical things like bearings, axles, pulleys, cables, and an electric generator attached to anchors and a floatation device. The assembled device makes electricity as long as the ocean makes waves. What is the concern here, really; what is the bottom line? Where is the fear coming from? What is the purpose of fear?

Who needs “technology” to grow a brain, and hands? People have brains, and hands, companies don’t, the state doesn’t, law has no brain, no hands, people think, and people act, or they don’t think and they go on and act anyway. Why?



Your version is to employ the word “highly” in front of “speculative” in reference to the data offered by Lindsay Williams, I prefer to allow Lindsay Williams to speak for himself, which he is fully capable of doing – he even wrote a book.

The point isn’t merely to point out that the Peak Oil fear mongering campaign is not without challenge, certainly not, rather that the Peal Oil fear mongering campaign is not only challenged by insiders in the oil business, the Peak Oil fear mongering campaign is also challenged on another front; which is the competitive supplies of more economical sources of power (call it energy if you prefer).

A. The Peak Oil (fear mongering campaign) is not a certainty according to people in the oil business (such as the author of the book being discussed and Lindsay Williams) - not even true.
B. The Peak Oil tm ("official" fear mongering campaign) may be irrelevant considering the rapid exponential increase in more economical forms of power

Why hold onto the fear mongering so dearly in the face of all the contrary evidence? A rhetorical question. What is so attractive about fear? In either case, Peak Oil doom day scenario, or not, the fact that more and more power producers are exponentially being made available each new day – and I can begin listing the one’s I now about, here, but that would take up a whole lot of space, in either case the progressive move of our species remains the same; which is to gain more productive power over and above the power consumed - just like every other living organism. To fail is to become extinct. Fear isn't very productive as far as powers go, unless, perhaps you are projecting fear unto your victims, then fear can incapacitate your victims and render them power-less. One man's treasure is another mans (or womans) fear?



The Sun is a limited resource of power; sure, what is the life expectancy of the sun? Gravity is a limited resource too, how long before gravity is no longer available? Why is fear so dear to the heart?



Is that an example of fear mongering? I’m asking, for lack of comprehension concerning that well constructed sentence in English. It is good English, don’t get me wrong. I can read it. I have read it. I’m not getting the point – not exactly. I’m guessing that the point is to warn other people. Do you know something and having that knowledge you are now communicating that knowledge as a warning to other people?

Is that a reference to “overpopulation”? Am I to picture in my mind something like a future cannibalistic social future dooms day, after reading that sentence? To me this “overpopulation” scare is absurd. I live in the Mojave Desert, having moved here in the 70s from New Jersey. The state of New Jersey can hide in the Mojave Desert for ever, it seems to me, who would ever stumble upon it, some prospector, a bike rider, who, who would wander into that vast and empty Desert?

A plane trip, big jet plane, small plane, doesn’t matter, from Los Angeles to Las Vegas opens my eyes to this “overpopulation” scare. Then flying onward to New Jersey, trying to imagine people feeding off each other for lack of earth space, or earth resources, is a patented absurdity.

I’ve studied this topic, consider reading Eric Fromm – please.

Here is a link:

amazon.co.uk/Anatomy-Human-Destructiven ... 0712674896

If you do not read it, you won’t know where my thinking has been, you will not have my background in this discussion. That is fine.

I’m not saying that concern for economy is absurd, that would be a mistake if that is what you get from my words.

How about finding the top 10 most destructive human beings on the planet and then avoiding the real possibility of becoming one of their next victims? Is that an example of reasonable economy?

Is it better to focus attention on an inevitable pending doom day?



I call that misplaced economy or malinvestment of scarce resources for someone, anyone to place “falling energy sources” above political wars for profit where the people in command of those forces have access to dooms day weapons, or placing that “falling energy sources” scenario above the certainty concerning the planet earth contacting a large or fast or large and fast meteor. All these concerns can be prioritized, economized, placed in some reasonable order as with triage.

“Food shortages” keeps rearing its ugly head. Why is there a food shortage? Some sea weeds are nutritious and plentiful, easy to grow, taste good (at least according to some people) and so that food source could easily be grown in abundance, at least while the supply of sea water and CO2 holds out. Have you adjusted your focus at all towards the Modular Green House farming business currently growing on this planet? Do you see the implications of such a move from central power control toward individual or “sovereign” control (or power) over food supplies?

Why is food scarce?

During the thing that became known as “The Great Depression”, I’ve been told by a survivor of it, the so called “government” ordered crops and livestock destroyed. Those so called “mistakes” (brain trust wisdom from another angle of view) continue; and for supposedly “good” reasons.

Why is fear mongering so attractive? I’m curious; I’d like to know the accurate answer.



Why are these scenarios produced, if not to cause fright? If someone does claim that they will definitely happen, does it matter much compared to someone saying that these frightening scenarios are likely to happen? What brings anyone to this viewpoint? Where is the data that supports this frightening scenario viewpoint? What is the cause of this frightening scenario viewpoint, or what is the cause of the possible, if not certain, frightening scenario? If it is true, get over the fear, and address the facts, yes or no? If it is "ambiguous", could it be ambiguos on purpose for some reason, for some self-interest, some profit, some leverage, some power?

1. Nuclear conflict beginning in Iran, soon, because the criminal Zionist leadership will attack and destroy people and property in Iran, as they have repeatedly declared to be there imminent intent.

2. Mass starvation resulting from depleted sources of power, food, water, etc.

Which targets are typically on the list of targets when legal criminals (Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney, to name but 4) target people in places they target for destruction?

1. Power stations
2. Hospitals
3. Bridges
4. Water processing plants
5. Baby food (milk) plants

“Oh, Joe, but the milk plant was “collateral damage”, and you are now obviously an anti-Semite and a conspiracy theorist so anything you say is meaningless.”

Why point people in a direction to fear “overpopulation” if such a wildly improbable scenario is hundreds of years away, if even a concern, and currently the most obvious threat to human survival, as a species, happens to be the same people offering the fear mongering campaigns?

“Global Warming is to be feared, and yes, we are still bombing the crap out of mid eastern civilizations, wiping them off the face of the earth, turning their rag head civilizations into parking lots, but they need democracy don’t you know, don’t mind such trivial matters – at all."

"Obey or be punished." Did I write that?

Let’s focus attention on things that really matter.

If oil is scarce, not abundant, then the political criminals are "over there" securing “national interests” which really means “oil” power.

This isn't NEWS, by the way.

If oil is abundant, and not scarce, then the political criminals are over there securing “national interests” which really mans “oil” power.

A. The scarce scenario requires that the monopoly power gains control of the remaining supplies of valuable resources
B. The abundant scenario requires the monopoly power to gain control of the abundant resources (or they will lose market share and no longer be a monopoly power).

Do you understand what constitutes a monopoly power? A power that can raise or lower production without significant loss of market share, and thereby control the price of the supply: is a monopoly power; or a consortium, or a cabal.

By any other name, it works the same way. It is power, not “energy”.

Joe

Oh come on! "He even wrote a book?" Yes, lets all take the good word from one book and believe it all. If you prefer to only consider the words and speculations from Lindsay Williams and choose to dismiss the comments and opinions of others, please stop your tirade.



Where did this come from? Please do not put words into the mouths of members. Your remark about anti-Semitism, and the implication that someone here has said this, or even thought it is truly offensive! If a member has said this to you I would like to know. If this is part of your tirade, it has to stop!

Whoa, I didn't mean to open up this can of worms. You just go on, friend. Be cool. I'm not nearly as emotionally invested in the peak oil idea as you are against it. So you win by sheer vehemence!

I just want to ask you something. Do you think the earth has any kind of carrying capacity or is my even asking this an act of fear-mongering? Do you think that we humans are living in a way that can be called sustainable? And if you add 3 billion people to our planet (twice the current population of China) does that change anything?

For the record, I think the earth has a carrying capacity. As for the other questions I don't know the answers, but I don't think in pondering them I am being a fear monger.

Also, what is this evidence that you speak of that renders the idea of peak oil so moot? Evidence. Actual evidence. I'd love to hear it. Please no more youtube videos of Lindsay Williams who I just googled, knowing that he must be a scientist or an expert of some kind. He must have some credibility to be on youtube, right? Well it turns out he's an ordained Baptist minister who went to Alaska in 1971 as a missionary. The book he wrote, The Energy Non-Crisis was written in the 1970s.

I’ll duck your metaphorical burst of machine-gun fire for the moment Joe, and comment on a couple of things.

The cost of producing a barrel of oil today is pretty cheap. If I have my numbers right, I think it is less than a case of my favorite brand of beer (I have expensive tastes). But that is not what we pay for.

Oil is speculated on in the market place. Futures contracts are sold that fix the price of batches of oil, based on what traders think will be the situation a few months or so down the road. This is done, economists tell us, to help assure supply. They are probably correct. If economists and traders around the world think there is a glut, the price should go down. If it seems it will become scarce, the reverse is likely. Information is what these guys use to get a jump on the competition, and I don’t doubt that they consume it voraciously.

Conspiracy is something people tend to enjoy. It is big out there in the media today, and I think it safe to say that a lot of people do conspire for their own gain in many ways. But the bigger the event, the harder it is to keep a lid on it. A handful of friends may keep a secret, but when thousands are involved, it’s another story. That’s because another favorite of human beings is divulging important secrets. What better buzz than to be able to phone a reporter and tell them that you have earth-shaking news that may change history? The boost to the ego is palpable. So when we are talking about an industry that employees millions around the world, many of them followed about by the media a great deal of the time, the chances of keeping history altering secrets very long seems to me remote.

When it comes to population, I have shared your feeling of looking down from an airplane and marveling at all the space. Here in BC, there is even more of it. But flying a little lower, or better yet pulling out a map showing resource use will tell another story.

We will never, ever get to the point where we run out of physical space for people. Long before that, we would all be dead, or reduced back to manageable levels. We don’t just need the space to stand up, but a heck of a lot more. We need the natural resources to provide input, and also recycle our wastes. Already today, we are playing fast and loose with things like nuclear waste and the emissions from coal plants. On the supply side, each person needs a lot of turf to grow the food, filter water, and produce the oxygen needed to live.

A quick look at BC might give the impression there is endless room for expansion. Four million people in an area about one and half times the size of Texas, and over half of them stuffed into the area around Vancouver. But practically all land is used for intensive resource extraction. Forests are being continuously logged, even in the most remote regions, hill country is used for ranching, the main river valleys for agriculture. In the northeast, coal and gas exploration is rampant, and there is little land without a claim on it. Even the mountains are important, as they provide the resource for hydropower, and the many dams in the province. It’s all being used, even if there are not many people around. You would have to go a long way to find a piece of “unused” land.

Suzanne (Moderator?),

That quote above is an example of what is known as “hyperbole”.

Here is a definition of that word:



I did not just fall off the tuna boat. My experience in forums has lasted over 10 years, including public forums while running for congress.

Hyperbole is on the list used by political hacks; people who use falsehood to gain power at the expense of their targeted victims. In on-line forums such people are accurately labeled as trolls.

Hyperbole, Straw-Man constructions, projection, transference, and Parthian Shots, to name a few, are on the same list.

Who ever claimed that someone, anyone, must “believe it all”? Where is this person who claims such absolute nonsense? Is this person you?

Has Suzanne the moderator claimed that because someone wrote a book, now, having read the book, the reader should “believe it all”, or is there an implication occurring here, where someone other than Suzanne the moderator is being accused of making such a claim; and if so who is the person being targeted with this supposed belief in absolute belief?

Is the target me?

Why am I the target? Is it something I wrote?

Did I write something that could cause someone else to believe that I have this absolute belief in what Lindsay Williams’s claims, and that everyone should have the same absolute belief according to me?

Why not ask me? Would that defeat the purpose of this Man of Straw?

Now I’m inspired to read on; but not for want of learning something new. That “belief” has vanished in this present effort.



Can I assume that the question is directed at me; since the quote above that question is authored by me? I am guilty of a “tirade” now.

Here is a definition of that inflammatory word:

Tirade


Well, I see why you might have made it to the position of moderator.

I’m being censored by you, as you inflame; to get me to shut up, or to get me to stoop to your level, and then have both of us thrown out?

What exactly have I written that is intemperate, vituperative, or an example of a tirade? I am curious, I’d like to know, and I prefer not to repeat such an error, please help me. Please help me, please.

Can I be more sincere? I can pay you to help me avoid repeating another example of a tirade. How much do you charge for such help, perhaps I can afford the cost of your price? I do want to avoid producing examples of “tirades”.

What is it costing me now, for your help?

Does the text above constitute a tirade - too? At what point does my writing require your approval? What exactly constitutes a tirade? How can I know what you want stopped?

Am I really “dismissing” what other people write, or am I challenging the text written by other's for accuracy, validity, meaning, understanding, etc. – according to you?

You quoted words of mine. Was it the reference to “collateral damage”; is that an example of a tirade? Can I show you pictures of “collateral damage”, is that more or less of a tirade? Is “tirade” an accurate word, or have you chosen a word that causes “collateral damage”?



That came from me. I wrote that, because I write things like that. That is what I write. That came from me. I didn’t quote anyone. I wrote it. That is where that came from. Why ask, isn’t the answer obvious? I wrote something published, not for pay, but it was published; on the origin of thought - is that what you mean to ask?



Who put words in the mouths of “members”? If a shoe doesn’t fit; why would anyone wear the shoe? If I don’t ask if the shoe fits anyone, I won’t know if anyone is wearing the shoe. If you prefer to have specific questions censored, never asked, ever, well then: please list them, and then we will both know exactly what you don’t want asked?



I didn’t invent the practice of creating imaginary dialogue, and I use that tool often in my work on forums. Sometimes I write arguments in dialogue that go on for 1000 words. My intent is not to place words onto anyone other than an imaginary, fictional, character. It isn’t a novel thing to do, it does covey meaning.

Is that an example of a “tirade” to you?

I need to know these things; since I am ignorant concerning what you think is a tirade. You may have chosen your word hastily?



What is “truly offensive”? Consider, please, the possibility that your lack of specifics leaves way to much room for error on my part concerning this specific point.

What is “truly offensive”?

I think that bombing, torturing, and mass murdering innocent men, women, children, babies, pregnant women, old people, teenagers, and honest productive, hard working, peaceful human beings – for profit - is truly offensive, so offensive that I can’t look at the pictures. Can you?

Are you associating me with the dirty deeds done by others for some reason? I am not torturing and mass murdering here, I’m writing text. Text worthy of exclamation points, apparently.



What?

This:



Is that an example of a tirade?

Which words exemplify a “tirade”?

I’ll stop when you can inform me of the boundaries here, perhaps I can submit my work to you and have you black out the parts that constitute a tirade?

The next thing that happens here, if things proceed in customary fashion, is that the person using hyperbole to construct a Straw-Man, targeting me as being someone I am not, someone who “believes everything” written by someone else, after being blamed for authoring “tirades”, the next step is to blame me for my defense, to claim that my defense (I didn’t, and don’t, condone absolute belief in words written by Lindsay Williams, and I have yet to know exactly what a “tirade” is according to my potential censor), the next step is to find me guilty of picking on the person attacking me with unjustified, false, and misleading text – aimed at me personally.

I am guilty of a very aggressive defense; which is something I have learned to sharpen over the years, because it nips trolling in the bud.

If the subject matter, oil, is divorced from the subject of such things as Zionism, then the whole picture won’t be whole, it will be missing specific pieces of the puzzle, according to my rational thought process.

If the forum rules state that the subject of Zionism must be kept off the tables; then I failed to read that rule.

If I can be helped, in my capacity as a forum member, is the use of falsehood against me going to help me?

I did not claim that Lindsay Williams can be, let alone should be, “believed” – absolutely.

I did not commit the tortures and murders that are so very offensive; so why blame me for them – if that is the intended inference here?

I didn’t intend to suggest that any specific person, any “member”, is capable of speaking the words spoken by my fictional characterizations; rather: people are capable of speaking those words, real people, in my experience, it is possible, and it is a very important part of the subject matter, which is power (oil power, and the power controlling it).

So now the “discussion” has opened up some; where will it go from here?

geo,

Exclamation point!

I’m not arguing, what would be the point – to win something? Did I forget to report how my first “official” exposure to Peak Oil sent me to run for congress again? The data produced by the fear mongers is scary, talk of wiping half the population of the Earth off it – etc.

If you were arguing, then I’m wondering who was on the other side. My question that you quote was a rhetorical question; I think I didn’t forget to announce that specifically.



Perhaps you missed the part where the question I asked was couched as a rhetorical question. Who would think that your question is an example of fear mongering? Who is this person who would think that your question is an “act of fear-mongering”? I would like to meet that person, he sounds like someone who might also wear a tin hat.

Am I reading you now, or am I reading too much in between the lines?

What is “carrying capacity”?

If the subject is food, and the subject of food is linked to the subject of fresh water; then the subject could include the subject of food grown with sea water, then the subject turns to the “carrying capacity” of sea water, and food grown with it.

If your question is too vague; what is the likely answer going to be?

If your question is a back-handed attack on me, do you really think I deserve it?

If so, then why do I deserve your back-handed attack?

My question concerning the fondness for fear-mongering was a rhetorical questions; perhaps I do not understand the meaning of that word: rhetorical.



Again, with the already mentioned caveat in mind, concerning ambiguity, lack of specifics, vagueness, the question can be turned around.

If overpopulation exists, doesn’t that prove sustainability? Unsustainable human existence is the opposite of over-population.

The current problem is certainly a scarcity of power, but I think that the scarcity isn’t a lack of physical power, such as oil, since the Sun, for one example, supplies a whole lot of power, night and day. Knowing how to use the power that is available is akin to moving from night to day.

So you get a vague answer, and it is OK to blame me, it is customary.



If that happens, the increase in numbers is a change, why ask questions that have self-contained answers? I don’t get it. If another Einstein or Newton, or Henry Ford, or Confucius is among the new arrivals, will that change anything, or will they be ignored, or censored, for lack of interest, or for whatever reason, a preference for doom day perhaps?



The exponential growth of competitive supplies of power, not limited to the following examples:

1. Solar Panels
2. Wind Generators
3. Thermal electric generators
4. Algae fuel
5. Lunar generators
6. Electric powered cars
7. Hydrogen from water generators (storage capacity and fuel)
8. Natural gas
9. Fusion generators
10. Human interconnectivity (removal of data transfer barriers)

The last on the list may prove to be the most powerful example.

I don’t offer those things. I offer text. The things exist in the real physical world, and I’ve been tracking and recording the growth rate, as the data becomes available to me, and the numbers report “exponential” growth. I have yet to find a comprehensive study, other than my own hodge/podge.

I can point you to my own forum, where I have kept the links I find, but that would be innapropriate to me, somewhat, and the list is too long for here. Search for Power-Independence if you are curious.



OK, yea, I’m reading you loud and clear, this is the good cop bad cop routine, or passive aggressive routine that you are using on me – yes or no? Am I reading you loud and clear! I’m curious. I want to know the truth here.

Because someone is on youtube, they must be credible, yes or no?

Why ask that question of me? Have I been ramming something down your throat, of course I have, and I have been doing this because “I” (not this Man of Straw you are constructing) “believe” that the mere fact that someone is on youtube proves, beyond any doubt, that what is reported is absolute fact, or so the suspicion suggests - which originates from where?

I think I get the point.

I will still ask, just in case.

What is the point?



He is who he is and he speaks well enough for himself, it seems to me.

Here is another good speaker, for the curious:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRE8ghD9Ee0

etudiant,

If wrote the above, sent it to you, what would you call it?



I’m pulling the trigger on my machine gun, so watch out.

Competition is a force.

Competition forces quality up.

Competition forces price down.

When competition is in force, price will be forced down to cost, and in some cases even below cost.

If the price of oil is not at cost, what happened to competition?



Who listens? How many “official” voices does it take for someone, anyone, to listen, to hear, to understand, to comprehend, and to know? Can I sell you a war with "Iraq" or "Iran" - how about Yemen - Bosnia?

Which conspiracy is in view, or specifically non-existent? Which one?



“We” is misdirection from my view. Who is “playing fast and loose” with, for example, turning nuclear waste into military projectiles and then spreading those things like democracy all over the Middle East?

Who is this “we” person, or people, I am curious enough about him, or her, or them, to want to know him or her or them better.



Is the news about Modular Green House Farming Units superfluous to this present focus, or am I missing something?

Such devices when used are capable of consuming CO2 and the waste product, to be exhausted out into the atmosphere, or bottled and sold, is oxygen.

Is that superfluous data, irrelevant, and a non-issue; while Global Warming dooms day is more attractive, or is it more attractive to merely ask questions, not actually looking for an answer?

A. Scarcity of fuel, food, water, space, oxygen, jobs, money, wisdom, and an overabundance of pollution, and CO2.

B. Compact food production, needing people to make the units, sell the units, use the units, maintain the units, ship the units, where the production of the food consumes less space, recycles the water, consume CO2, pollutes the atmosphere with oxygen, and can produce cheaper transportation fuel by burning more CO2, polluting more oxygen, when producing Algae, and the industry can grow even faster than the oil can run out.

Why focus on A and ignore B?

I don’t get it.



I need a reality check on that one, please, please, please, don’t leave that merely told, ambiguously told, and yet authoritatively told. What is the area in question, what boundaries are you talking about, how much of it is, or will be, used for intensive resource extraction, and how much of it isn’t. Please offer some data.



If the idea is to get an accurate picture of how much is used and how much is yet to be used, or never to be used, then percentages help.

X is the total land area
Y is the total land area used
Z is the percent of land used or unused

Pie charts, like looking at how much space is left on the hard drive, work well.



That is it? Case closed?



How about “claimed” or “owned” or “licensed” or “purchased” or “controlled” or “excluding all else” - why use the word “used” (“unused”)?

informationclearinghouse.info/article24 ... e24654.htm

Anyone,

That link is only relevant to this topic by way of introduction concerning much of my view on this topic, to answer a question such as: "What is that guy Joe thinking?" or "Where is that coming from?"

It is an audio file, it hammers out a lot of data, and it may not be easy to understand without some background in political economy. It is power, not oil power, but power none-the-less.

guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/13/ ... el-problem

The book is a source of data; so far it is accurate if not precisely telling the whole truth (something that isn't possible?); but I'm not done reading it yet.

Leaving things out, is inevitable, knowing what was left out can lend some knowledge as to the motives behind the decision maker.

Joe knows a lot about this topic, but possibly he is misusing the term "fear-mongering." When is forecasting the future based on current trends (which can themselves be disputable, granted) analysis, and when does it take on the emotional corruption that makes it fear-mongering? But isn't there a difference? Or should we not even look into the future of resources such as oil or of programs such as Social Security? It seems a little too easy to charge those with whom you disagree with fear-mongering.

DWill,

I’m right here.

The book on the table is, to me, an example of a source of data that is not typical “fear-mongering”.

If I am guilty of misusing the term “fear-mongering” I am open, willing, even asking, boarding on begging, for examples of this pre-meditated error on my part, so as to not repeat this error, please, pretty please, with sugar on top. Please illustrate an example of my misuse of “fear-mongering”.

To aid in defense against such charges of misusing the term “fear-mongering” I’m going to illustrate what I mean by fear-mongering and to do so I am going to conduct an experiment. I’m going to pretend to be someone who has just became aware of the term “Peak Oil” and this innocently ignorant human being searches for data on the subject.

This person may go to the library and pick up a book. This person may shop on-line for a book. This person may even shop on-line for free data, before choosing a book to get and then to read.

This person searches with Google; in this experiment.

I’m going to pick from the list, and choose a link based upon the word “Hubbert” and then I see the term “Princeton.edu” as those words look very official, my pretend ignorant fellow may have heard of Hubbert and Princeton.edu sounds like one of those upstanding education centers.

Next I’m going to pick an alarming looking link called “die off”. I may not have been very alarmed as yet, but that link sure does look alarming, so I’m concerned enough to look at it – first.

http://dieoff.org/

There, there is an example of “fear-mongering”, as I show anyone who may have any doubts as to what I consider to be “fear-mongering” – there it is.

If someone else thinks that I misuse the term “fear-mongering” then that person may not share my background in psychology, mass media manipulation, propaganda, false advertisement, and falsehood in general. I can point to many works, and one work that stands out is the Nobel Peace Prize Lecture by Solzhenitsyn; which I won’t quote, since the relevant message, the background I elude to, is in the whole message by that author, that person, that person who could be considered an expert on “fear-mongering” if ever one managed to survive “fear-mongering” and mass die offs.



There are among our species members who have answered that question with precision. They can be called propagandists, scientists, market analysts, or fear-mongerers, depending upon the goal in mind when the answer is produced by the specific people who have a vested interest in answering that question with the utmost precision.

If the product (text, audio, video: media) is scientifically tested for specific affects to people during exposure to the media, the data resulting from such tests measure the answer to the question asked.

This question:

If the question seeking an answer isn’t asking for motives other than “forecasting the future”, then the question seeking an answer does not pertain to communication media. An individual can forecast the future and once the forecast is done, the individual has a forecast. What is done with the forecast? Is the forecast broadcasted?

Is the thing on the table a question concerning mass media, or is the thing on the table merely an individual viewpoint (forecast)?

Why phrase the question in such a way as to remove the factor of motive during the effort to communicate the “forecast” to other people?

It seems to me that the question supplies the answer once it is assumed that the forecast moves from the forecaster to other people.



When forecasting the future based on current trends: when that becomes emotional corruption (fear-mongering) is exactly when that is the decision to do that, and then action is taken to do that, precisely that, how can that be otherwise?

If a study is done whereby two visual and audio media streams are presented to a subject audience, where the audience is hooked up to measuring devices, and filmed, and the media streams differ because one shows bodies loaded into trucks, skulls, skeletons, and images of the grim reaper, with appropriate sounds of pain, even torture, and the other media stream doesn’t have these specific sounds and images, what conclusion could be drawn from the data taken from the audience?

When I see current trends I see rapid and exponential growth rates of new power producing products. Algae fuel just happens to be one of the most promising because it happens to eat C02 and few people are frightened by a fear of running out of C02, for some reason.

Algae happens to produce oxygen, and few people are frightened about having too much oxygen polluting the Global Environment – for some strange reason.

A Global Environment with too much 02 and not enough C02 could be a very scary trend, taken to a very scary extreme, producing dead people everywhere as one spark ignites the entire surface of the planet in one last great bone fire – OH MY.



When encountering fear-mongering campaigns, as with encountering any mass media that is designed to cause a specific reaction from the audience, it is a good idea, to me, to measure yourself before and then after exposure to the mass media, to pretend that you are both observer and observed in a illustrative study; as if you are testing the mass media for its capacity to perform a specific task.

A. You feel as you feel before exposure the mass media.
B. You feel as you feel after exposure to the mass media.

Mass media design is a science; it has been for some time now. I first became aware of the science of Mass Media well into my adult life during a college course called: Statistics and Dynamics. It was one of my best exposures to mass media (school).

Psychological testing, even back then, in forms such as personally tests, just one illustrated example of mass media, has reached a capacity of statistical perfection, targeting human beings, so as to enable the employer of the tests to know if the test subject is lying, or answering falsely on purpose, proven statistically in all but a very few exceptions way out on the ends of the bell curve.



Please note how my name is the first word in this reply to this topic by this forum member. I am not addressed, the forum member authoring this reply does not address me, rather, the forum member addresses his reply at me - targeting me - speaking to other people, other than me, as I am doing now, speaking to the gallery.

“Joe knows…”

“but”



Ambiguity is to plausible deniability as oxygen is to fire.

Who in this vast universe is charging those whom he (or she) disagrees with: with the charge of fear-mongering?

Who does that?

I wonder.

If someone expends effort to focus attention toward something as fearful as massive human starvation, and then someone focuses attention toward either no solution whatsoever or a solution of their choosing – then it may be a good idea to do two things:

A. Note that no solution is offered, only the fearful thing is presented
B. Note the specific solution offered and inspect it.

What do I do – exactly?

Do I do the following?



I am asking for the precise and accurate answer, and I am not asking for the ambiguous answer, cause I’d like to know the truth and if I’m going to know the truth I need to see it. Where, if this is the case, where am I charging those with whom I disagree with, with fear-mongering?

If not, if I’m not doing that, then what is the point in pointing that out when the topic is a book that addresses the fear-mongering Peak Oil scare in (as far as I’ve read so far) a reasonable way where the author offers reasonable solutions to the supposed fears of mass starvation and such.

What is the point of pointing the finger at me and charging me, in this plausibly deniable way, of this offense, if that is what is being done now?

I’d really like to know the truth and avoid any further misunderstandings on my part.

dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/gaza-in-plai ... -language/

grist.org/article/2010-02-13-bill-gates ... s-nuclear/

Power is the connecting medium, like air, air is power, air connects all human beings. Barriers to air, barriers to power, extinguish human life. My next offering here will be specfic to the topic book, when I employ my power to accomplish that goal.