Apocalypse Soon?

[billvon]

Let's say you had a shipping company, like you just mentioned, for example. If you want to ship any actual stuff (and make some actual money), what do you need besides some trucks and some drivers? Here is a hint: The obvious answer is energy, in this case diesel fuel. Without it, your shipping company cannot move the weight of goods to be shipped. And if the cost of diesel fuel is too high, your shipping company will not make a profit. Period.

OK. That's a very naive (and ultimately flawed) take on the economy of shipping but let's go with that.

What happens then? (Hint---the oil price will crash, just like it did starting in June of 2014.)

And your trucking company makes billions, allowing more people to move more goods for less money and stimulating the economy, thus causing increased oil demand, which in return causes oil prices to recover. Problem solved.

That is a very close relationship, isn't it? That is because the relationship is based on the physics of energy. If the relationship between oil use and GDP has nothing to do with physics, how do you explain the close correspondence between world oil production and world GDP? Please answer this important point.

Correlation does not equal causation. A common flaw in reasoning. The number of pirates may inversely correlate to the degree of global warming, but that does not mean that one has anything to do with the other. The most common example is Leonard Koppett's observation that the winner of the Super Bowl has accurately "predicted" the strength of the economy - it had a 95% success rate through 1998.

Another fun example:

If Maine divorces and the consumption of margarine has nothing to do with each other, how do you explain the almost perfect correspondence between divorce rate in Maine and US per capita margarine consumption? Please answer this important point.

 

[Futilitist]

billvon,

You are claiming that energy use and GDP are not related in order to further the claim that the physics of energy use has nothing to do with the economy. That is obviously completely false. GDP is directly related to, and highly dependent on, energy use. Period. That is physics. In this case correlation is, in fact, causation.

Your graph of margarine and divorces is stupid and has nothing to do with what we are talking about. While you might be trivially correct to note that correlation is not necessarily causation, correlation very often actually is causation. That is why scientists study correlations. You are obviously making a stupid argument on purpose just to distract from the fact that you don't have any logical argument. Your stupid argument is completely without merit, and therefore invalid.

I am being sincere in this debate, while you are clearly not being sincere. Don't you care about the truth at all?

If I am so wildly off base, why not just win the debate by saying something serious?

The correlation between GDP and oil production is very clear in the chart above.

A 99.5% correlation is not a coincidence! If the relationship between oil use and GDP has nothing to do with physics, how do you explain the close correlation between world oil production and world GDP?

Since the relationship shown in the graph above is obviously not a coincidence, how do you explain it? Please try to come up with a better answer than "correlation isn't necessarily causation". If that is the best you can do, then the readers should definitely note how weak your position really is.



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

"And your trucking company makes billions..."
~billvon


Your posts are particularly irritating because you are always playing stupid word games. Never a serious or direct response. Just intentional misquoting or misunderstanding, while pretending a serious response is somehow not necessary in order to validly rebut anything I say. Keep up the good work, troll.



---Futilitist

 

[Futilitist]

Hi danshawen.

Extracting nutrients from the environment to survive and reproduce and not paying for or trying to conserve them is pretty much the description of a parasite, isn't it?

Loosely speaking, yes, of course. But even parasites have a purpose, just like all life on earth: To increase entropy.

More free energy shines down from the sky than we can possibly use...

This is very true. There is just no practical way to capture enough of it. It is too diffuse.

...yet all our cars seem to be powered by recycled dinosaurs. Whose design is that?

It is Nature's design. Energy bang for the buck combined with human greed.

Basically it comes down to the physics of energy meets the principles of biological evolution in the ecological perspective, as it specifically applies to the human species. It's really just reproductive maximization by clever monkeys using the best source of power available on earth. It was bound to happen sooner or later. Apocalypse (the collapse of industrial civilization, and rapid human die-off) will be the inevitable result of the human species losing it's primary power source. How could it be otherwise?


---Futilitist

 

[Beer w/Straw]

That might be the smartest thing you have said so far.


---Futilitist

You sweet talker you.


No but really, what is this thread about?

 

[exchemist]

You sweet talker you.


No but really, what is this thread about?

Fatuitist's simple message is this:

 

[Billy T]

... Basically it comes down to the physics of energy meets the principles of biological evolution in the ecological perspective, as it specifically applies to the human species. It's really just reproductive maximization by clever monkeys using the best source of power available on earth. ... ---Futilitist

FALSE
If that were true, then your liquid fuel car would be powered by renewable, cheaper per mile driven, slightly net CO2 release negative * alcohol from sugar cane; but it is not because that is very diversified, local collection and storage of solar energy, that the very wealthy "big oil" interests can not monopize and control.

This has nothing to do with the entropy increasing which is always true of ALL energy systems. It has every thing to do with the greed of the rich and powerful, whose lobbyists control how the laws relating to energy supplies get made. "Oil depletion" tax refunds, prohibition of the import of sugar cane alcohol, etc.

* Compared to the displacement / decrease in/ gasoline burnt, that is an insignificant, basically one time capture of CO2 from the air and storing the captured carbon of it in the growing cane, its roots plus the huge volume of alcohol always in the distribution system. Every thing from hundreds of millions of car fuel tanks, to the larger buried tanks where owner buys fuel, to the much larger storage tanks at port terminals (both at exporting and importing ports) to the very gigantic tanks we call "ocean tanker ships."

ALL that storage of carbon is less carbon in permanent storage than the amount now released each and every day by the exhaust pipes of cars.

Also relatively unimportant is the lower car repair bill when a clean burning fuel is used.
However of considerable importance is the millions of low skill jobs (cutting and planting cane) that would be created for those in the "3d world" who live out-side the "cash economy." - They would become buyers for 1st world production - a win/win energy system change for all but "big oil."

By falsely suggesting laws of physics require liquid fuel cars must use gasoline, trucks diesel, you are not only wrong, but worse: An ignorant stooge for "big oil"

 

[billvon]

You are claiming that energy use and GDP are not related in order to further the claim that the physics of energy use has nothing to do with the economy. That is obviously completely false. GDP is directly related to, and highly dependent on, energy use. Period. That is physics.

No, it's not. Physics says nothing about economy. You can have an economy based on trading rocks by hand and physics doesn't contraindicate that.

]Your graph of margarine and divorces is stupid and has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

You are starting to get it! Just because two datasets show correlation does not mean they show causation.

While you might be trivially correct to note that correlation is not necessarily causation, correlation very often actually is causation.

Again, you have made committed one of the most classic of logical fallacies. From Wikipedia:
================
Correlation does not imply causation is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that a correlation between two variables does not necessarily imply that one causes the other.[1][2] Many statistical tests calculate correlation between variables. A few go further and calculate the likelihood of a true causal relationship; examples are the Granger causality test and convergent cross mapping.

The counter assumption, that correlation proves causation, is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "with this, therefore because of this", and "false cause". A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "after this, therefore because of this").

For example, in a widely studied case, numerous epidemiological studies showed that women who were taking combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) also had a lower-than-average incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), leading doctors to propose that HRT was protective against CHD. But randomized controlled trials showed that HRT caused a small but statistically significant increase in risk of CHD. Re-analysis of the data from the epidemiological studies showed that women undertaking HRT were more likely to be from higher socio-economic groups (ABC1), with better-than-average diet and exercise regimens. The use of HRT and decreased incidence of coronary heart disease were coincident effects of a common cause (i.e. the benefits associated with a higher socioeconomic status), rather than cause and effect, as had been supposed.[3]
====================

That is why scientists study correlations. You are obviously making a stupid argument on purpose just to distract from the fact that you don't have any logical argument.

My arguments are quite simple.

Oil is not our only source of energy. Thus the parts of our economy that rely on energy are not required to rely on oil, although some now do.
We can afford expensive oil. We have seen cases where oil cost $120 a barrel and our economy continued to grow.
There is no PHYSICS based reason that we must have cheap oil to grow an economy.
Oil will continue to be used as long as its EROEI is lower than alternatives. Once its EROEI is higher, then people will switch to alternatives (as we have already seen happen.)

Your stupid argument is completely without merit, and therefore invalid. I am being sincere in this debate, while you are clearly not being sincere.

Tell you what. I will continue to post facts, and you can continue to post insults, conspiracy theories, failed predictions of Armageddon and little pot emoticons. I am not worried that a third party will decide that you are being sincere and I am not.

The correlation between GDP and oil production is very clear in the chart above.

Precisely! The causation has not been demonstrated. Indeed, the events of the past 5 years indicate that there is no 1:1 correlation, although there is surely a weak correlation (since cheap oil enables some business.)

A 99.5% correlation is not a coincidence!

I have given several examples of where very close correlations are, in fact, coincidences (see above for the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy.)

Since the relationship shown in the graph above is obviously not a coincidence, how do you explain it?

The same way you can explain the strong correlation between margarine and divorce in Maine.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

And not only can we grow marijuana for fuel...

 

[Futilitist]

billvon,

The correlation between GDP and oil production is very clear.

Precisely! The causation has not been demonstrated. Indeed, the events of the past 5 years indicate that there is no 1:1 correlation, although there is surely a weak correlation (since cheap oil enables some business.)

A 99.5% correlation is not a weak correlation!

I have given several examples of where very close correlations are, in fact, coincidences (see above for the "correlation does not imply causation" fallacy.)

Your hormone replacement example does not have anywhere near a 99.5% correlation. It is a terrible example.

Since the relationship shown in the graph above is obviously not a coincidence, how do you explain it?

The same way you can explain the strong correlation between margarine and divorce in Maine.

So, you are saying that the correlation between GDP and oil is a coincidence! Wow. I don't think you are being sincere. I think readers should note this.

I am not worried that a third party will decide that you are being sincere and I am not.

Yes, it is obvious you don't give a shit.



---Futilitist

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Have you notified your public officials of the impending doom?

 

[Kondratieff]

The efficiency argument (I recommend you to read the new Steve's Ludlum post, btw):

Selling below cost does not work with petroleum because consumers destroy it, what they gain in return is generally worthless. In this way, fuel users turn their asset into a compounding liability. Unlike gold, the petroleum scarcity premium doesn’t benefit anyone either holders (drillers or distributors) or customers, scarcity takes the form of a disruptive tax … that is ultimately uncollectible from the firms’ tapped-out customers.

Denial creates its own perverse dynamic: when low prices do not provoke the needed ‘lifestyle adjustments’ they decline further until they do. Conservation is the necessary adjustment, yet low prices are an incentive to waste more. When customers conserve there is the appearance of a ‘glut’, this in turn leads to lower prices. The outcome is a price signal that is hard to interpret, confusion rather than clarity because the consumer response to the ‘false glut’ and a real one is the same.

Real price increases can only occur when customers become wealthier relative to the drillers … when they become able- willing to borrow more; when repayment obligations can be shifted onto others. None of this is happening right now, instead customers are bankrupted by their own energy waste. Because fuel use does not produce anything; industries can only offer improved efficiency, that is, the exhaustion of what remains of our non-renewable capital at a slightly slower pace. The same efficiency means losses that must be made up with volume => diminished (non-existent) collateral for loans => less ‘growth’ and lower prices including interest cost of money. Increased efficiency means more unsecured lending, more finance industry risk along with diminished ability to properly price it; along with customer bankruptcy, these are forms the petroleum scarcity premium assumes.

http://www.economic-undertow.com/2015/04/26/fantasy-islanders/#comments

 

[billvon]

A 99.5% correlation is not a weak correlation!

Neither is the margarine-divorce link. They, however, are uncorrelated as well.

Since the relationship shown in the graph above is obviously not a coincidence, how do you explain it?

Asked and answered.

Yes, it is obvious you don't give a shit.

I certainly don't give a shit about your opinion of me. You have made it clear that you prefer emotional arguments to rational ones, prefer sensationalist claims to "boring" data, and prefer personal attacks to reason. Given that, no big loss.

In fact, having you disagree with me is akin to having a climate change denier taking issue with a post of mine. It means I'm doing something right.

 

[Futilitist]

Hi billvon.

Neither is the margarine-divorce link. They, however, are uncorrelated as well.

Your statement above is false and very silly, IMHO. GDP is highly dependent on oil use, but the "margarine-divorce link" is just something you made up. Do you have any supporting evidence? What is the actual correlation coefficient for the "margarine-divorce link"?

Asked and answered.

Yes. You are clearly saying that the 99.5% correlation between GDP and oil use is a coincidence!:

You are obviously factually incorrect. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. I won't call it stupid, since that might be against the rules. The readers can judge for themselves.

In fact, having you disagree with me is akin to having a climate change denier taking issue with a post of mine. It means I'm doing something right.

Since you are a self confessed hard core peak oil denier, the fact that you disagree with me means I am doing something right, too. But this makes no sense. How is it possible for both of us to be right? I think you must be wrong. Your refusal to admit that GDP and oil use are related is very strong evidence that you are the one who is wrong. Sorry.

I certainly don't give a shit about your opinion of me. You have made it clear that you prefer emotional arguments to rational ones, prefer sensationalist claims to "boring" data, and prefer personal attacks to reason.

This current post of mine contains relevant data. It contains no emotional arguments or personal attacks. Please try to seriously refute my argument, please. Thank you.


---Futilitist

 

[billvon]

GDP is highly dependent on oil use

Correlation does not imply causation.

but the "margarine-divorce link" is just something you made up. Do you have any supporting evidence? What is the actual correlation coefficient for the "margarine-divorce link"?

99.3%. How do you explain that correlation? A 99.3% correlation is not a weak correlation!
https://www.tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=1703

But in any case, let's revisit your chart once you update it through 2014. Let's see what the correlation is then.

Since you are a self confessed hard core peak oil denier

Either post the text that shows me "confessing" that or admit that you are lying. I will give you 24 hours.

How is it possible for both of us to be right? I think you must be wrong.

Given that you have been proven wrong in your previous predictions, I am not too worried; I suspect you will be proven wrong once again.

 

[Futilitist]

Correlation does not imply causation.

A 99.5% correlation certainly does imply causation. Especially in the case of something so obvious and uncontroversial. The burden of proof that this 99.5% correlation does not imply causation is completely on you.

Either post the text that shows me "confessing" that or admit that you are lying. I will give you 24 hours.

Woops, you got me on that one billvon. I sincerely apologize. I had you confused with someone else. But it was absolutely not a lie or an attempt at one. It was an honest, and under the circumstances*, an understandable mistake. Please accept me at my word on this. That is only fair.



---Futilitist

* It was quite natural for me to confuse you with Russ Watters on this, since you took up his argument, and he has mysteriously vanished since Friday, according to the time stamps on my threads, at least.

So, once again, I acknowledge that my comment to you was factually incorrect. I am so sorry to have caused you any distress. Please accept my honorable explanation as well as my humble apology. Thank you.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Maybe you should see a psychiatrist. You know, to prescribe medication.

If you believed in stuff you spout you would have done more. But no, you're a "Futilitist" and want to watch the world get colder. Misery loves company eh? And you want us to believe we are all doomed. That's quite attractive.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Maybe you should see a psychiatrist. You know, to prescribe medication. If you believed in stuff you spout you would have done more. But no, you're a "Futilitist" and want to watch the world get colder. Misery loves company eh? And you want us to believe we are all doomed. That's quite attractive.

NOTE FROM A MODERATOR:

Please avoid personal comments. Stick to the topic.

If you believe that another member is spouting un- or anti-scientific nonsense, then please notify the moderators. We can't review every post.

Thanks,

Fraggle Rocker
Moderator
Linguistics

 

[Beer w/Straw]

There are various arguments I could make for my post, but who cares.

All in all, this thread should be in Alternative Theories or something.

 

[billvon]

A 99.5% correlation certainly does imply causation.

OK, so if that degree of correlation certainly imply causation, does the 99.3% correlation of margarine vs divorce certainly imply causation?

Woops, you got me on that one billvon. I sincerely apologize. I had you confused with someone else. But it was absolutely not a lie or an attempt at one. It was an honest, and under the circumstances*, an understandable mistake. Please accept me at my word on this. That is only fair.

Fair enough. No worries.