Guest Post: Energy Independence - The Big Lie

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
WonderDawg's picture

A good book to start with, if you want to understand the big picture, is Crossing the Rubicon. I would also add The Creature From Jekyll Island. Those two books will help you understand the big picture.

Nothing To See Here's picture

I've read Jekyll Island. How does that evidence your point that oil = power?

WonderDawg's picture

Crossing the Rubicon provides the evidence. Reading that book should keep you warm and comfy through the winter.

trav7777's picture

are you a COMPLETE retard?  Oil IS power.  The combustion of it does work at a specific rate which is the motherfucking DEFINITION of power

tmosley's picture

The Creature from Jekyll Island, therefore oil=power.  This is the argument of the grandparent.  You present a different logical equivilency, then call the parent an idiot.

You are so mad you can't think straight.  Amusing. 

Nothing To See Here's picture

I actually thought he made a funny reply. Not addressing the point of course, but funny.

American Sucker's picture

I wasn't aware Al Gore was now the Republican Governor of New Jersey:


"I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of drilling off the coast of New Jersey," [Christie] said. "New Jersey's coast is one of its economic engines, and I would have to really be convinced of both the economic viability of having to do it and the environmental safety. And at this point, I'm not convinced of either."


Nothing To See Here's picture

And what is your point? That Al Gore should be the only green politician?

AGuy's picture

Al Gore isn't green, just another snake oil salesman. Gore made over a billion, but drives gas guzzlers, and travels in private jets with really crappy fuel economy (never bother to upgrade his plane or buy a more fuel efficent model). He Profiting handsomely selling green to the masses. Nothing but a two-bit con artist.



blu's picture

There is no credible green movement in the US. The save-the-earth movement in the US is just a fund raising vehicle aimed at single women having a lot of cats (no really, that is an actual target demographic). None of the money raised does anything of significance, certainly it never bought a single paragraph of legislation.

I think you were confusing us with the Germans.

Oh, I once wrote a short story on the topic, based on some personal experiences:

No I'm not in the story (ok my avatar is) but I know a few people I would like to catch sitting on the nervous-side of the dinner table.

Fukushima Sam's picture

Oxygen is also vital for animal life, but in pure form it is extremely flammable.

Too much of anything is usually a bad thing.  Your argument is senseless.  I'm not saying the EPA move is not without political cause, but it does have merit if indeed high atmospheric CO2 causes climate change.

Nothing To See Here's picture

Ok but you then need to examine why CO2 was classified as a pollutant. I'll be glad to discuss with you. Only sayin here that it is based on the IPCC's work, which is based on mathematical climate models, which are built after economic models.

If you do trust economic models to be reliable tools, then we're just not on the same page...

Flakmeister's picture

Ahh... no Peak oil and no Global warming...a standard blow hard denier....

So AGW is a hoax, eh?

Nothing To See Here's picture

Ah yes, that famous "denier" accusation. Good argument full of substance.

Wait, I'm a denier both ways, I also think that the Federal Reserve is a hoax, how crazy. Someone arrest me...

Flakmeister's picture

Quit squirming...

You state that peak oil is a sham.... the onus is on you to demonstrate the validity of your hypothesis...

In other words,  if you cannot back up what you say, STFU...

Nothing To See Here's picture

Oh yes, the onus would not be on you to prove that peak oil theory is real.... After all, peak oil theory is not a theory, it's a fact aint it?

Flakmeister's picture

Cute... I'll cite the above article, refute it, if you can....

How about this:

The world is finite, therefore the oil contained in the world is finite. Since the amount of oil, Q, at any time is finite, the rate at which oil is extracted, dQ/dt, must necessarily have a local or global maximum at some time. 

Surprise me  you beggar....

Nothing To See Here's picture

I like how quickly you fall into name calling.

Explain to me how your stuff is not Malthusian and why I should thus pay any more attention to your worthless babiage.

In case you did not know :

Nothing To See Here's picture

And just in case that you would be genuinely interested to challenge your beliefs :

Make sure to check Chapter 2 (Why Are Material-Technical Resource Forecasts So Often Wrong?).

Flakmeister's picture

You still have not refuted my statement of Peak Oil....

Julian Simon won his bet purely because of the timing... You may want to revisit things and see what the outcome would be today....

I'll raise you one Daniel Yergin who has gotten every forecast about oil supply and price wrong for 10 years...

Quit squirming and come up with some real evidence that we are not at peak oil.... Otherwise admit defeat....

Nothing To See Here's picture

Julian Simon won his bet because he's not Malthusian. I'll side with non-Malthusians, you stick with your bull. And how's that global warming going at where you live?

Flakmeister's picture

Quit hopping around like a ADD afflicted flea and disprove my statement about peak oil...

You were pwned, get over it.

Nothing To See Here's picture

Are you slow or what? Your statement is a red herring because it can only be disproved by time, and it will be, like all forecasts of such things like the economy or resources. Malthusian maths have never worked but you assume now they will.

"Insanity : doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results " - A. Einstein

Flakmeister's picture

Classic denier.... An exhibition of Normalcy Bias at its finest...

Do you even know how Hubbert came up with his estimates? In particular what the cultural implications of peak oil were? 

Try digesting this

Nothing To See Here's picture

Classic Malthusian/global warmist, unable to escape the tunnel of writings that fits his thinking, and especially unable to recognize the epistemological problems of the methodology followed by his mentors.

Instead of discarding Simon because he was right on a bet, try understanding why he was right on his bet. The answer is similar to why economists are wrong on their forecasts. I gave you the links. I will say no more.

trav7777's picture

are you a fucking idiot?

54 of the top 65 oil producing nations have peaked and are in supply decline.

Do you live in a fucking CAVE?

Nothing To See Here's picture

And if you let it, the market will adjust the price of oil according to supply and demand, and once the price goes up enough, now there will be enough incentives to develop private, efficient alternatives. You guys should learn real economics, you know, before Keynes and Samuelsson.

Flakmeister's picture

Yeah the market will sort it out... And you accuse me of believing in fairy tales...

Part of the problem is that the market cannot discount the 30-50 years required to transform our transportation system and the form of energy it relies on....

You really should read the following,

After all, it is only written by a physics professor at UCSD.....


Nothing To See Here's picture

Hi Malthus.

A physics professor at UCSD? Is that like an economics professor at Harvard? Or Michael Mann at the climate department of Penn State?

Flakmeister's picture

You truly are a fucking idiot,  probably incapable of comprehending what the guy wrote....

Based on what you have wrote, you are clearly a Koch-sucker....

Nothing To See Here's picture

Ok. Name-calling is obviously your stronger ground. If you really had any mental ability, you'd know by now that I'm anti-Koch.

Flakmeister's picture

Come up with a well reasoned argument and maybe then we can discuss things... if you cannot then STFU. Very simple, eh?

tmosley's picture

You say that, but you still tell people presenting well reasoned arguments to shut up as well.

FYI, name calling indicates (inconclusively) insecurity on your part.  Ever increasing amounts of such childish debate tactics, however, are conclusive.

Flakmeister's picture

Your idea of a well reasoned arguement is very different from mine....Well reasoned does not include parroting rightwing talk radio mouthpieces... 

I never know you had such a soft spot for ignorance.... quite touching and rather newly found it would appear.


Nothing To See Here's picture

Some people are still stuck in that right wing / left wing paradigm it seems. Same old, same old...

Ok, I am pro-life, a pacifist and I hate the GOP as much as the Dems, although I know that global warming is a hoax. At what speed is your head spinning now?

DaveyJones's picture

you do realize your response embraced the concept?

moldygoat's picture

I can tell you first that the amount of development in Alberta Tar Sands is growing and growing quickly. At $60 a barrel, using 3-7 barrels of water to extract, there must be a reason its ramping up. Iraq, Libya, Iran(soon). Somebody is desperate.

samsara's picture

Get real,  Big Oil would drill in your back yard if they wanted to and legally run you off your property.  With a Court order...

If they ain't there,  it ONLY because Oil ain't there.  Period.

Green Movement.  That only exists in Rush Limburger's head.

Nothing To See Here's picture

"Green Movement.  That only exists in Rush Limburger's head."

So funny. You talk me about it when the EPA has come to seize your car, forced you to spend 2 hours a day sorting out your garbage, issued you electricity quotas, and determined that you should live in a 400 sq ft appartment downtown with a water recuperation system on the roof.

Guess you'll look just like that deer in the headlights when you wake up, only it'll be too late and your freedom is gone.

ian807's picture

The government will force little. It will, frankly, not have the means to. There will be electricity quotas as power will be on for a limited time each day. When it is on, you'll use it sparingly, because it's so expensive. Gas will be rationed for a while, until high prices make it unnecessary.

Forget the tyranny of the government. The tyranny of the market is coming to you courtesy of the laws of physics and economics. You have about 20 years of gradually decreasing comfort after which the supply chains start breaking down in earnest. I suggest you enjoy those years until then.

Nothing To See Here's picture

Gee, sounds like Malthus 2012.

There are no shortages of coal or other fossil fuels but those created by the government and its agencies. All the rest follows.

I'm waiting for your "Coal, are you crazy? Did you think about global warming climate change?!?"

Flakmeister's picture

Yep, those damn Commie Vegans caused the Texas to peak back in 1970....

You are pathetic.... bring some real facts to the table, not the waves of  bullshit that you have up to now....

samsara's picture

As we both know Flak,   "Some Minds are like Cement,  All mixed up and Permantly set"


ian807's picture

I suggest you review the information in the book referred to at this site:

It has numbers. Try.

DaveyJones's picture

In your world, do all natural resources last forever? Is the population irrelvant? Does the government control and create all assets? Is Easter Island a head fake?

samsara's picture

"Forget the tyranny of the government. "

I agree completely.

I like Kunstler's comment,   "The Gov.  will be lucky just to be able to answer the phones...."

aerojet's picture

Just out of curiousity, how many additional years could we buy if everyone 40 and under ran out, right now, and killed a Baby Boomer? 

WonderDawg's picture

That's a great idea. Come on over, I'll be waiting on the front porch.