Jiggs' mindset is clearly significantly more than "concern about economic recovery", so the basic gist of my post stands imo.

Hell, I'm now concerned about the effect of oil prices on economic recovery. I'm still not remotely close to being a peeker (sounds kinda dirty).

I'm glad. Do nothing with your money. Leave it all right where it is. Please.

Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq

Tuesday, 19 April 2011

please, take it to the conspiracy thread you wacky kook!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-...e-we-ta,11530/

Is there anyone who still pretends Iraq somehow wasn't about maintaining world oil flow rates? When we encounter these kinds of people, with everything we now know all these years later, we are dealing with a case study in willful denial.

It will get worse. And more laughable to deny. Because the bottom line, from Ecuador to the Caspian Basin, is that the global empire will do whatever it has to do in order to make sure the beast is kept fed.

The word that comes to mind is rapacious.

Obama says new task force will examine gas prices

Phew, i was getting worried there for a second.

Considering Obama is clearly aware of "finite energy," and by default must be well aware of why prices are rising, this move seems like the ILLUSION of due diligence.

They'll probably instead meet to discuss how to maintain the story without actually saying the words "demand has outstripped supply."

Sounds like a good bet.

Yeah, it's perfect for the conspiritards (given three of the last posters ITT, seems like this may have become an unofficial conspiracy thread).

Anyway, I'm sure the commission or whatever it is will do nothing. The conspiracy theorists can spin that into 'see, he didn't say peeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaak oil', therefore peeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaak oil is true. Or something like that.

So stupid. Of course peak anything finite is real given enough exponential growth over a long period of time, the question is when? and how successful will we be at finding alternatives.

I don't see anyone really arguing that annual oil production can grow exponentially forever and never peak, are you? So eventually production will peak right? Then it will go down, right?

I mean i get disagreeing with jiggs about how it will play out, but to act like peak oil production in and of itself is crazy conspiracy talk and will never happen is just... silly.

Way to twist my words around into an argument you can win! Congrats for winning against your own construction!

Your post had no content other then going blah blah conspiritards blah blah spin whatever obama says into peeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaak oil is true.

Just for clarity, you don't disagree with the notion that world peak oil production will eventually happen someday?

Sorry, just paraphrasing Jiggs there. And adding in a bit of the other logic i've seen conspiritards use in the past.

Why would you need to clarify that? I was just laughing at the conspiritard's (lack of) logic.

It is a shame the conspiracy theorists have taken over this thread. Well, since Jiggs started it, the thread never had a chance of being a coherent discussion.

Because from your post and from others regarding the issue of world peak oil production, it often seems like the notion being offered is that considering and discussing it at all is pure conspiracy theory, which doesn't seem logical to me.

It seems from such a perspective it would be more accurate to label jiggs a doom and gloomer than a conspiracy theorist, as far as this issue is concerned.

It seems from such a perspective it would be more accurate to label jiggs a doom and gloomer than a conspiracy theorist, as far as this issue is concerned.

Talk about bs. Show your work, what conspiracy theories or other thoughtcrimes are being presented itt?

I wouldn't say that. I think what turns it into that are the scenarios that Jiggs has put forth (sort of as you point out below). So yeah, maybe doom and gloomer is the good label for Jiggs re: this.

However, there does seem to be a similarity between this topic (which, as you point out, I would agree is likely to happen. When is another question), peak food (as appeared in that Food crisis 2010 for dummies, or maybe Food gets slightly more costly in 2011?) which isn't nearly as likely to happen, and the 9/11 BS. And that is the convolution of logic that a lot of people use.

Posts 2, 3, and 5. (Jiggs' posted #4 overall).

Those posts just show that the thread was bound to go almost nowhere.

You suck at paraphrasing. Get better.

What's amusingly ironic is that the only "conspiracy" angle regarding peak oil ultimately comes from you all in the denial/nothing-to-see-here camp. Any theory other than basic supply < demand in explaining oil price volatility is, by definition, conspiratorial.

There is nothing "incoherent" about this discussion, no matter how many times you try to pretend so. Anything you're somehow confused about, feel free to ask for specifics.

I wish I was like you, easily amused.

By the way, I'm not going to ask anyone who would write something like supply < demand for any economic explanation of anything (well, unless I wanted to get insight on why people aren't good at economics and make that mistake). Or anything that could involve economics.

I was specifically referring to (and quoted) your post about how conspiracy theories/theorists have taken over this thread, I don't see that in those posts. I see people arguing over whether the op was of high enough standard for the start a thread rules here...

You also quoted this: "Well, since Jiggs started it, the thread never had a chance of being a coherent discussion."

Posts #2, 3 and 5 I think show why. Thus, what I wrote was an actual answer to your question.

Behold, the sound of the denialist coming to grips with his own hypocrisy.

Oh wait, I should call you "conspiratard?"

Gosh, who's inflating prices, and where did they meet to get their story straight?

In your arrogant mockery, if you're somehow asserting that demand hasn't outstripped supply, or that rising oil prices aren't ultimately a result of supply problems, flesh out your point.

Otherwise, you're the one not forming any coherent discussion at all. More irony. And, in fact, if you lack the capacity to actually engage the specifics of the debate at all, and exist only to squawk "conspiratard" over and over again, how is that not the forum definition of a word that rhymes with droll?

Text book example being post No. 536. Good work.

You enter the fray and straw man something as empty as: " 'see, he didn't say peeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaak oil', therefore peeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaak oil is true. Or something like that."

Wow. Dishonest much?

Peak is not true because of what Obama omits, cool guy. Peak is true for a hundred other reasons presented throughout the thread that you don't have the stones to acknowledge, let alone counter. Get it yet?

LOL.

No, 'in my arrogant mockery', what I am saying is that anyone who uses the phrases 'demand hasn't outstripped supply' is at best thinking about economics very sloppily, and possibly doesn't understand it at all. That's simply not someone I would ask about economics or problems having an economic basis. Sorry.