PDA

View Full Version : Re: Peak Oil goes mainstream on CNN


Matthew Russotto
October 19th 04, 09:10 PM
In article <45edd.278024$D%[email protected]_s51>,
Jack Dingler > wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>>I am saying that the possibility that the problem (if it exists) may
>>be unsolvable is best ignored.
>
>This is why I believe it is unsolvable. It would first require that many
>people like yourself, admit we have a problem. That won't happen unless
>the problem becomes severe and unavoidable. Then it's too late. We're
>not the kind of creatures that worked to prevent disasters unless we've
>already experienced one just like it.

Heard of something called "The Y2K Bug"? While people certainly do
behave as you describe quite often, it's not universal. Of course,
usually when disaster is averted without some spectacular event
precipitating the precautions, it's neither newsworthy nor memorable;
the Y2K bug is an exception.

>The fact that people like you can't understand or accept there is a
>problem, much less garner the will and determination to learn more about
>it and work to head it off, means that it will take a disaster to bring
>folks around. As this fossil fueled civilization is a one shot deal, the
>learning curve on this one is going to hurt. It's because of intentional
>ignorance.

Work to head it off? You've said it's unsolvable. If that's so, I
can't head it off.

>>>For a time, I wondered how an engineer like yourself, could ignore
>>>failure modes and design thing with the attitude that you never plan to
>>>avoid the worst case
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm not an engineer. However, I note that there is a maxim in system
>>programming that one should never test for an error condition that you
>>don't know how to handle.
>>
>
>That is the stupidest programming maxim I have ever heard of. That
>behavior guarantees disaster.

OK... so once you've detected the error condition you don't know how
to handle, what do you do about it?

Jack Dingler
October 19th 04, 09:41 PM
Matthew Russotto wrote:

>In article <45edd.278024$D%[email protected]_s51>,
>Jack Dingler > wrote:
>
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I am saying that the possibility that the problem (if it exists) may
>>>be unsolvable is best ignored.
>>>
>>>
>>This is why I believe it is unsolvable. It would first require that many
>>people like yourself, admit we have a problem. That won't happen unless
>>the problem becomes severe and unavoidable. Then it's too late. We're
>>not the kind of creatures that worked to prevent disasters unless we've
>>already experienced one just like it.
>>
>>
>
>Heard of something called "The Y2K Bug"? While people certainly do
>behave as you describe quite often, it's not universal. Of course,
>usually when disaster is averted without some spectacular event
>precipitating the precautions, it's neither newsworthy nor memorable;
>the Y2K bug is an exception.
>
>
Actually, that was provable and repeatable. Engineers proved their was a
problem by setting the clocks ahead on the computers. They were able to
repeat the experiment and make the results past tense. You can't do that
with civilizations.

>>The fact that people like you can't understand or accept there is a
>>problem, much less garner the will and determination to learn more about
>>it and work to head it off, means that it will take a disaster to bring
>>folks around. As this fossil fueled civilization is a one shot deal, the
>>learning curve on this one is going to hurt. It's because of intentional
>>ignorance.
>>
>>
>
>Work to head it off? You've said it's unsolvable. If that's so, I
>can't head it off.
>
>

Exactly, you wouldn't bother if you could. Neither will billions of
other people. There's no heading it off, but setting up circumstances to
deal with it. And we're probably a couple of decades late in making any
serious changes. Enjoy the show.

>>>>For a time, I wondered how an engineer like yourself, could ignore
>>>>failure modes and design thing with the attitude that you never plan to
>>>>avoid the worst case
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I'm not an engineer. However, I note that there is a maxim in system
>>>programming that one should never test for an error condition that you
>>>don't know how to handle.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>That is the stupidest programming maxim I have ever heard of. That
>>behavior guarantees disaster.
>>
>>
>
>OK... so once you've detected the error condition you don't know how
>to handle, what do you do about it?
>

You learn how to handle it and you fix it. But your solution, the lazy
and expensive one, is one that I've been paid to repair many times. And
it's the solution preferred when running civilizations.

Jack Dingler

Matthew Russotto
October 19th 04, 10:00 PM
In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:29:04 GMT, Jack Dingler >
>wrote:
>
>>And that's really the crux of the matter. We are addicted to petroleum
>>and there is no other reality that the population at large can accept,
>>so we whistle and dream that someone out there, maybe God, will change
>>the rules, so that we don't have to change ourselves.
>
>This completely ignores the research being done into alternative
>energy sources.
>You've heard of them, haven't you? Solar? Wind? Tides? Fusion? to name
>a few.
>If not, you *really* need to educate yourself if you're going to make
>yourself heard in such a discussion.
>If you have heard of them, why do you ignore them, and instead make up
>such fantastic scenarios?

At one point Jack opined that even if we were to build the
alternatives as fast as we could, we don't have enough oil left to
provide the energy to build sufficient alternatives. So it's not
clear what he's suggesting we DO do, aside from lay down and die.

Jack Dingler
October 19th 04, 10:44 PM
Matthew Russotto wrote:

>At one point Jack opined that even if we were to build the
>alternatives as fast as we could, we don't have enough oil left to
>provide the energy to build sufficient alternatives. So it's not
>clear what he's suggesting we DO do, aside from lay down and die.
>
>
>

The only alternatives would come from an acceptance of what e have to
deal with.

It's the faith in the mythology of oil that is in fact the single
biggest impediment to planning a course to mitigate the worst effects.

And it's the myths that I'm arguing against here. You Matthew have
admitted that you really don't know anything about the energy crisis.
You don't know the numbers, you don't know what anyone's projections
are. You have instead a faith that you view is the correct one. And you
share this mythos when billions of other people. It comes from stories
repeated back and forth, without question. Stories and tales told by
friends, relatives, folks at the gas station, on the news media, in the
movies and reiterated by politicians that believe the same myths.

Not one of you from what I can tell has the capacity to actually
research and understand any of the public data available to prove or
disprove my assertions. I've posted links pointing to some real world
events that bolster my points and they go ignored. Until you folks
cultivate the capability educate youselves on this issue, your left
doing nothing but arguing a religious belief system that has oil at it's
center. And it will remain a faith issue, likely well into the downturn,
as you can always blame Satan for not letting the US have the infinite
oil supplies in Saudi Arabia.

What's sad is that the biggest crisis of modern times is making it's
presence felt now, and all you folks can do is play ostrich.

The short term solution of killing people and stealing their oil will
keep SUVs running for a while, but as it continues, unemployment must
keep rising, as oil can only support so many jobs. If you want to keep
it a religious and faith based argument, then watch for the signs. An
economic downturn in 2005, more jobs lost, acceleration of events in the
Mid-East...

Keep the faith, maybe God will refill the Saudi Arabian oil fields and
give the US a mandate to kill Arabs and take the fields. It might happen!

Jack Dingler

Brent P
October 19th 04, 10:54 PM
In article <[email protected]_s54>, Jack Dingler wrote:

> then watch for the signs. An
> economic downturn in 2005, more jobs lost, acceleration of events in the
> Mid-East...

Even with infinite oil supplies both of these are likely. The first
because jobs will continue to move from the USA to china,india,et al. The
second because that's where the oil is, infinite in supply or not.

Jack Dingler
October 19th 04, 11:41 PM
Brent P wrote:

>In article <[email protected]_s54>, Jack Dingler wrote:
>
>
>
>>then watch for the signs. An
>>economic downturn in 2005, more jobs lost, acceleration of events in the
>>Mid-East...
>>
>>
>
>Even with infinite oil supplies both of these are likely. The first
>because jobs will continue to move from the USA to china,india,et al. The
>second because that's where the oil is, infinite in supply or not.
>
>
>
What's pushing the job flight?

For manufacturing, the increasing costs of natural gas appear to be the
number one reason. Mathew Simmons, and advisor to the White House is
going around giving lectures, advising businesses to move before it runs
out of the US.

Do you think there's a different reason?

Jack Dingler

Jack Dingler
October 20th 04, 12:32 AM
I hope you guys are right. I can't find any evidence you are, and you
haven't made a case for your beliefs. All the evidence I've researched
over the last five years, just keeps looking more and more pessimistic.

So let's just hope you are. I think the next ten years will tell.

Good luck.

Jack Dingler

Brent P
October 20th 04, 01:19 AM
In article <[email protected]_s03>, Jack Dingler wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]_s54>, Jack Dingler wrote:

>>>then watch for the signs. An
>>>economic downturn in 2005, more jobs lost, acceleration of events in the
>>>Mid-East...

>>Even with infinite oil supplies both of these are likely. The first
>>because jobs will continue to move from the USA to china,india,et al. The
>>second because that's where the oil is, infinite in supply or not.

> What's pushing the job flight?

Those that fund democrats and republicans.

> For manufacturing, the increasing costs of natural gas appear to be the
> number one reason.

Labor rates.

> Mathew Simmons, and advisor to the White House is
> going around giving lectures, advising businesses to move before it runs
> out of the US.

> Do you think there's a different reason?

Labor rates. Let's see pay an engineer 70K+ before benefits in the USA
or $300 a month in China with no benefits? It's even worse for people on
the factory floor without an education. Labor rates are the big savings.

Natural gas savings is only applicable to some industries. For others it
just doesn't matter much if at all and those are going to china et al too.

Brent P
October 20th 04, 01:24 AM
In article <[email protected]_s04>, Jack Dingler wrote:
> I hope you guys are right. I can't find any evidence you are, and you
> haven't made a case for your beliefs. All the evidence I've researched
> over the last five years, just keeps looking more and more pessimistic.
>
> So let's just hope you are. I think the next ten years will tell.

Is this an appendix to your reply to me? I didn't say one thing or the
other, only that you picked two things that are likely to happen
regardless of how much oil there is and stated that if they happen it
proves you're right about oil supply. But since both events could happen
regardless of the remaining oil supply, it's hardly proof.

Matthew Russotto
October 20th 04, 02:47 PM
In article <[email protected]_s54>,
Jack Dingler > wrote:
>
>
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>>At one point Jack opined that even if we were to build the
>>alternatives as fast as we could, we don't have enough oil left to
>>provide the energy to build sufficient alternatives. So it's not
>>clear what he's suggesting we DO do, aside from lay down and die.
>>
>
>The only alternatives would come from an acceptance of what e have to
>deal with.

Which is what? We're soon going to run out of fossil energy and have to
make do with what we can get from wind, water, and animal power?

>It's the faith in the mythology of oil that is in fact the single
>biggest impediment to planning a course to mitigate the worst effects.

Such an occurence would be an unmitigatable disaster.

>And it's the myths that I'm arguing against here. You Matthew have
>admitted that you really don't know anything about the energy crisis.

You seem more interested in attacking me than demonstrating your case.

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home