4 Years to Save Earth!

We hit $150 because of speculators, not because of Peak oil.

And the entire concept of Peak Oil is that demand outstrips supply. If the recession has reduced demand BELOW supply then we have not reached Peak Oil. You can't have it both ways.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Of course keep telling your self that.

The concept of peak oil stipulates the world will enter a depression to match decrease oil supply, ergo reality, be it though cause and effect are difficult to separate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh my. You think we are in a depression because of oil supply?!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think we are in a depression for many reasons, oil supply is a factor but minor compared to our own fuck ups.

 

Oil supply played no part in the current recession. None. The only bottleneck in the chain at the height of our usage was the refining stage. When oil was trading for $150 a barrel there were tankers full of oil in queue to offload to refiners. So your theory has every fact going against it. I believe it is your bias that has you attributing the recession to oil supply. What you need now is some evidence, or at the very least some way of rationalizing the evidence which disproves your theory.

Oil prices were a bubble of speculation based on the theory of Peak Oil. The fact that the bubble popped says something about the theory, doesn't it?

Another comforting thought: The real reason for the recession is that we had an unhealthy, runaway economic boom prior to the recession fueled by interest rates being forced lower than they should have been. The cheap money created an unsustainable boom, one that needed a correction. This false economy was going through oil faster than it should have been, and yet these consumption numbers are the ones still used by Peak Oil theorists.

It would be like using the value of dot com startups in 1998 to determine their projected worth today.

 

Oh well, everything has an ending, no matter what it is.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

James Lovelock has an interesting perspective on global warming in the recent issue of New Scientist:

Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning.

So are we doomed?

There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

Do you think we will survive?

I think it's wrong to assume we'll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. The reason is we would not find enough food, unless we synthesised it. Because of this, the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less. It has happened before: between the ice ages there were bottlenecks when there were only 2000 people left. It's happening again.

I don't think humans react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what's coming up.

One last chance to save mankind

 

'Nuf said. The dude is a human-hater. All of his bullshit can be tossed in a pile and burned into carbon and smoke.

More from the eco-cultist who wish all humans would hurry up and croak:

http://www.the-thinking-man.com/environmentalism.html

More evil than organized religion? Hell, I don't see the difference between the two sides of fanaticism.

 

I disagree. Furthermore, none of those people are James Lovelock. He didn't say humanity shouldn't survive, he says global warming makes it unlikely when comparing it to equivalent climate changes of the past. He does propose a solution, to turn agricultural waste into charcoal and bury it. Some of this can be converted into liquid fuel, providing a financial incentive to do so. This seems like a reasonable approach to a significant problem. In this interview, he also acknowledges an anti-environmentalist idea- that some approaches to solving climate change could be devastating of themselves.

 

More from human-hater James Lovelock, the whacko who thinks Earth is one giant, living organism:

And lest there be ANY DOUBT where this psychotic human-hater lies:

So. Why take anything this monster says seriously? His predictions are psychotic human-hating bullshit.


Edit: (Sorry, Spidergoat, I was putting this together while you were pointing out that there is more than one member of this cult. This post was to augment my previous one and not meant as a direct reply to your astute observation that the entire environmental movement is full of human-hating monsters)

 

He's right on every point. Nothing about what he said means he hates people.

 

The guy started a religion that worships the Earth. Then he says that his god would breathe a sigh of relief if humans wiped themselves out. Does your lack of shock mean you belong to this cult?

 

The Gaia Hypothesis is not a religion or a cult. I think it is likely that the Earth (at least in the past) contains interlocking systems that create metastability, probably for the good of each participant (ala-the selfish gene). I wouldn't say this amounts to a consciousness, but what is consciousness anyway but an interconnected feedback mechanism?

It is a fact that humans are overpopulated to a degree that threatens almost every other life form on Earth, as well as themselves.

 

Some will survive, some will not survive. the time line is most certainly NOT 4 years.

Almost as arrogant as believing we have no effect on the environment is believing that we can destroy everything on earth with just pollution. The Earth has done FAR more damage to itself(or had done to it from the cosmos) in the past than we could do with every nuclear weapon everyone has.

The strong will survive, the only law of this planet and of this universe. A hard law to be sure and we have done our best to ignore it in these relatively peaceful times...but that's just the way it is.

Will humanity conspire together for strength and overcome our wants to provide our needs? I do not think we will pass this test. Perhaps a few thousand millennia from now some advanced civilization will dig us up and go "hmmm the plastic people..."

 

A member, then. Good to know.

 

A fool then. Good to know.

 

Hey, if you hate all humans, what difference does one more make? :bugeye:

 

Stop putting words in my mouth. Predicting the humans will have a hard time surviving environmental changes is not the same as hating humans and wishing them all dead.

 

Oh. You didn't seem to want to distance yourself with the dude that thinks it would be great if all humans were wiped out. You seemed to support him and his idea that a warring planet of organisms that do everything they can to eat and destroy one another create an inter-connected organism capable of rational thought.

You can see where I would have gotten mixed up, right?