I am not ashamed to say that I indeed did get that visual, sir.

It's scary to think that if we can't find a viable replacement/supplement to oil, the market will adjust, but that adjustment may involve bringing world population back down closer to it's median historical level, which would imply a few billion people are toast.

Noe noe, when the market adjusts it only does so in entirely positive ways, like star trek matter transporters, which are only made much more likely to happen much much sooner thanks to peak oil.

ya it definitely raises an interesting question. Especially given just how crucially dependent our food production is on oil

But it doesn't have to be so dependent on oil. You can make nitrogen fertilizers in a number of different ways that use no oil.

Yeah, I'm the one who's propping up strawmen.

I think when you being obviously and blatently sarcastic it does not count as a strawman.

You're saying that "the market adjusts in only positive ways," is my position and that it is a dumb position. It is a dumb position, but it's also not mine.

mjkidd leveling himself ITT

?

Aren't a ton of our politics threads started by simply linking something and taking an excerpt and saying let's discuss? Perhaps you would have preferred another pretend thread? Those are my favorites too...."pretend this happened in a pretend land that doesn't exist." Oh wait, I'm not 5 anymore.

You can also kick a 60-yard field goal during a tie game, but who wants to try?

Adjusted price and market 'corrections' will not save the day. Not before there is great suffering and upheaval, and more than likely, resource war.

Those who cashed out during the last 15 years of pump and dump mania, however, will be far better off than the rest of us left behind.

The forum rules used to prohibit one line OP's that just linked or quoted from a link.

just look at the lengths they go... wow.

Chevron hires twelve public relations firms to discredit indigenous Indians in Ecuador


http://www.naturalnews.com/028108_Chevron_Ecuador.html

(NaturalNews) In response to an environmental lawsuit filed against the oil giant, Chevron has fortified its defenses with at least twelve different public relations firms whose purpose is to debunk the claims made against the company by indigenous people living in the Amazon forests of Ecuador. According to them, Chevron dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste in the Amazon between 1964 and 1990, causing damages assessed at more than $27 billion.

The company is being criticized by people and organizations from across the social and political spectrum for its unethical behavior in regards to the case. Originally filed in U.S. federal district court back in 1993, the lawsuit was eventually moved to courts in Ecuador at Chevron's behest. Having initially lauded Ecuador's legal system in an effort to have the case moved there, Chevron later changed its mind and began attacking the system when that system found the company liable for damages.

Shareholders are also upset with Chevron for its gross mismanagement of the case in which it has sidestepped the rule of law and employed guerilla-style tactics in a last ditch effort to fend off an unfavorable ruling. Part of this includes hiring Hill & Knowlton, the same firm that represented the tobacco industry during its indictment over tobacco causing cancer, to perform the same task concerning toxic oil contaminants.

(continued)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3ZOKDmorj0

So, high oil prices would be catastrophic but we'd be better off with higher oil prices?

Cmon you know this is a strawman.

He said we'd be "much better off today" if prices had not "dipped below $100." Not sure how else to take that.

Wed be better of today without the over consumption and ineffecient pricing (which lead to under investment in alternatives) of two summers ago. He can take it from here as I am only giving what I think is the obvious meaning of the above.

the poster was talking about $300 oil and $7-10 gasoline (page 3 and 4). ... that's a far cry from $100 oil and $3.50 gas amid $50-80 demand. ... please follow along, and don't get "Fox News" with my message.

if you followed the exchange, the distinction was clear. ... what i said was, as gas prices tumbled from $143, they should have settled at $100, regardless of how low demand sunk, and every extra penny poured into alternative technology investment.

that's the only way. ... we should have moderately expensive gas prices. ... but anything $4 and above would be very stressful for the middle class and small business. ... as Matthew Simmons has said, $100 oil is about right ... for matters of honest investment capital elsewhere.

How did you determine the price gas "should" settle at?

I listen to and read from very, very smart people involved in energy markets and energy analysis. Give it a whirl.

Matt Simmons (Bloomberg): Peak Oil Now, Oil Perhaps to $300

Oil Firms 'In Liquidation,' Says Simmons

Colin Campbell predicts credit crunch due to peak oil 2005

Simmons actually believes oil SHOULD be much higher than $100/bl, but agreed that $100 is about as high as blue collar America would accept.

I actually believe that my house SHOULD be much higher than $1,000,000. But I agree that most americans would not accept even half of that.

your house appraisal, or $100 oil?

people certainly are accepting $72 oil right now

It seems to me that one of the main problems with oil over the last few decades is that the oil companies have been very successful in externalizing costs of procurement and stabilization. It costs a fortune fighting all these wars in the middle east, not to mention things like the cia working to ensure regimes that are friendly to our interests stay in power, so that ones that aren't don't form and nationalize western developed oil fields and so on.

So even if a reasonable amount of all of this was made to be paid for via a petroleum tax, instead of completely externalized to military budgets- borrowing, printing ect. Then the result would have been that oil and all its products would have gone up long ago, making the development of alternatives much smoother. So basically oils been kept artificially low for decades, because the true costs have been hidden.

Jiggs, what did you think the of the documentary Crude Awakening? It's on netflix on demand, and I liked it better than the collapse one.