# How do doomsayers cope **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [June 17, 2011, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822 "2011-06-17T12:49:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/21 "2011-06-29T19:03:15Z")
No, Camping, no matter how wrong he was, did not predict May 21 for the end of the world. For many years, his date for that has been October 21. What he claimed about May 21 was that, on that day, the good Christians would be taken straight up into Heaven so that they would be spared the Hell-on-Earth scheduled to run from May 22 to October 20. It is true that he has changed his story since then, but that is what it was. One might add that this entire “rapture” business is only about a hundred fifty years old, and is regarded by most Christians as downright flaky. Moreover, Camping’s calculations to arrive at his dates are out-and-out fortune-telling “magick”; even to call it heretical would be unfair to honest Christian heretics. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2011, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/22 "2011-06-29T22:15:27Z")
Whoa. I was just today reading about Festinger’s analysis of the “planet Clarion” cult (as mentioned in Michael Wolraich’s _Blowing Smoke_). I also thought that the process described fit the rise of Christianity suspiciously well, whether because Festinger meant it to do or because he was correct. ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/23 "2011-06-30T03:13:59Z")
> [@John\_W.Kennedy](#): > > No, Camping, no matter how wrong he was, did not predict May 21 for the end of the world. For many years, his date for that has been October 21. What he claimed about May 21 was that, on that day, the good Christians would be taken straight up into Heaven so that they would be spared the Hell-on-Earth scheduled to run from May 22 to October 20. It is true that he has changed his story since then, but that is what it was. The question in the column wasn’t when the world would cease to exist, but rather when Life as We Know It would end. The headline in an [ad Camping’s people placed in USA Today on May 13](http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/05/the_may_21_people_placed_this.html) read, “Judgment Day begins with a worldwide earthquake on May 21, 2011.” [In an interview](http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/05/a_conversation_with_harold_cam.html), Camping was quoted as saying, “when we get to May 21 on the calendar in any city or country in the world … there’s going to be this tremendous earthquake that’s going to make the last earthquake in Japan seem like nothing in comparison. And the whole world will be alerted that Judgment Day has begun… Judgment Day is the end of the world… [M]illions will die.” Yes, the world would stumble on for some months after May 21. But Camping was quite clear that Life as We Know It would cease on that date. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/24 "2011-06-30T05:31:49Z")
> [@snugglez](#): > > James Howard Kunstler, for all his hyperbole, points out a very fundamental fact that most economists miss: > > An economy, any economy, can only grow when it’s available energy inputs grow Really? So if we switch to 40MPG cars, the economy will inevitably decline with it? And we can’t substitute natural gas or (with sufficient research) cellulose biofuels for “Peak Oil”? Huh. Who knew? Anyway, this table proves the Kunstler hypothesis wrong: there were years where US GDP increased while US energy consumption declined. [http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/txt/ptb0101.html](http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/txt/ptb0101.html) Price increases can prompt that. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/25 "2011-06-30T15:10:10Z")
He didn’t say energy _consumption_, he said energy _inputs_. You need more energy to spend. Efficiency (like higher mpg cars) provides a virtual energy input. You spend less to do the same amount of work means you can do more for the same amount of energy. Substituting natural gas and biofuels for petroleum is adding energy source. I’m not saying his premise is correct, but your rebuttal seems to be misdirected. ---
**Author:** ![snugglez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac91a4/32.png) [@snugglez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snugglez)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/26 "2011-06-30T15:57:22Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Really? So if we switch to 40MPG cars, the economy will inevitably decline with it? No. Being more efficient does not produce long-term growth. Only additional energy into the system can produce growth. Basic law of thermodynamics. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > And we can’t substitute natural gas or (with sufficient research) cellulose biofuels for “Peak Oil”? Maybe, but if you are taking away those resources from some other use (food, heat, electricity production, etc), then you are not growing the economy, merely re-allocating energy from one purpose to another. Still no growth. > [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Huh. Who knew? > > Anyway, this table proves the Kunstler hypothesis wrong: there were years where US GDP increased while US energy consumption declined. [http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/txt/ptb0101.html](http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/txt/ptb0101.html) Price increases can prompt that. 1. All systems have periods of overshoot, which is all those years could be. 2. Real Growth = (accumulated capital + energy added - entropy created)/accumulated capital. Since GDP doesn’t account for entropy created by waste such as pollution, it can’t reflect actual growth. Look, I _hope and assume_ Kunstler is wrong on his overall judgement: that total energy production has or is about to peak _forever_. But his analysis of the results of that (presumed) peak on economic growth is exactly right. We simply must find a replacement for oil that doesn’t involve taking energy from some other existing pool of energy we are already using. Right now, that is proving exceedingly difficult. He thinks it’s impossible, I hope he’s wrong. ---
**Author:** ![snugglez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ac91a4/32.png) [@snugglez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/snugglez)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2011, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/27 "2011-06-30T15:58:39Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > He didn’t say energy _consumption_, he said energy _inputs_. You need more energy to spend. > > Efficiency (like higher mpg cars) provides a virtual energy input. You spend less to do the same amount of work means you can do more for the same amount of energy. > > Substituting natural gas and biofuels for petroleum is adding energy source. > > I’m not saying his premise is correct, but your rebuttal seems to be misdirected. Woops, missed your post. Well said. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/28 "2011-07-01T06:08:10Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > He didn’t say energy _consumption_, he said energy _inputs_. You need more energy to spend. If you take a closer look at the table, “Consumption” includes both energy production and energy imports. That is, inputs to the production process are included. (It’s not like they separated out household electric consumption from business electric consumption). Your guess wasn’t unreasonable, but that’s not what they meant. > [@snugglez](#): > > No. Being more efficient does not produce long-term growth. Only additional energy into the system can produce growth. Basic law of thermodynamics. If that were the case, we would measure GDP by weight or volume. Instead our metric is _dollar value_. Like I said, when energy prices rise during good times, US energy usage falls even as US output rises. My 2008 laptop weighs a lot less than my old 1988 desktop did, but I assure you it has greater use-value. That’s economic growth at work. If you are representing Kunstler’s view correctly, he is seriously confused. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2011, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/29 "2011-07-01T20:10:33Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > If you take a closer look at the table, “Consumption” includes both energy production and energy imports. That is, inputs to the production process are included. (It’s not like they separated out household electric consumption from business electric consumption). Your guess wasn’t unreasonable, but that’s not what they meant. I’m not following you. I don’t see GDP on that table, so I don’t know what you are comparing. “Consumption” on that table includes Fossil Fuels, Nuclear electric, and Renewable, which sums to the Consumption Total. “Production” includes the same three categories and a Total Production. “Trade” includes imports and exports and a net trade column. Then there is the “Stock Change and Other”. If you take Total Production, add Net Imports, and subtract Total Consumption, you get Stock Change. This makes sense. Stock change is the reserve or “stuff in barrels” or whatever, basically inventory in stock as opposed to what was bought and what was sold. If we were doing a balance sheet (profit and loss), Consumption should be negative numbers. ---
**Author:** ![Spiff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spiff/32/9852_2.png) [@Spiff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiff)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/30 "2011-07-08T14:25:31Z")
> [@Patrick\_Bowman](#): > > And by posting this I am guaranteeing I can never be elected to public office in the United States. Well, you’ve got my vote. Bowman in 2012! ---
**Author:** ![Coralee\_s\_Papa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Coralee\_s\_Papa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coralee_s_Papa)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/31 "2011-07-08T19:26:17Z")
I am amused no end to see that the advertisements that have appeared around this discussion on my browser are for a Christian University and interpretations of Biblical prophecy. Those guys should ask for their money back. ---
**Author:** ![John\_W.Kennedy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_w.kennedy/32/1031_2.png) [@John\_W.Kennedy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_W.Kennedy)\ **Post date:** [July 8, 2011, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/32 "2011-07-08T21:15:35Z")
Ad-salting seems, in my observation, to be based on one word only, so if you say "Quince-Os taste like furniture polish!” you may see an ad turn up for Quince-Os. Also ads for Ikea and for Polskie Linie Lotnicze. But they usually don’t pay unless someone clicks, so it doesn’t matter. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2011, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/33 "2011-07-09T03:02:38Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > He didn’t say energy _consumption_, he said energy _inputs_. You need more energy to spend. > > Efficiency (like higher mpg cars) provides a virtual energy input. You spend less to do the same amount of work means you can do more for the same amount of energy. That seems to be an unusual definition of “Input”. > [@](#): > > Substituting natural gas and biofuels for petroleum is adding energy source. Burning less oil is lowering energy inputs. Burning more natural gas is increasing energy inputs. Substituting a natural gas BTU for an oil BTU leaves energy inputs unchanged. Admittedly, when I wandered over to Kunstler’s wiki entry, I didn’t find any evidence of claims like this. I honestly don’t know what terminology he uses or even whether he’s been misrepresented somewhat in this thread. However, I stand by the claim that (GDP/conventional energy usage) isn’t a constant: the numerator can grow while the denominator stays constant or even declines. And there’s a lot of scope for natural gas expanding while coal and oil decline. ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2011, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/34 "2011-07-09T03:47:07Z")
> [@Anthony\_Kaye](#): > > Peter Cooke and Dudley Moore coped very well with failure in their doomsday sketch in “Beyond the Fringe”. Firstly they realised they hadn’t allowed for the hour on in summer time, and when that didn’t work, they said “same time tomorrow lads?”. > It’s a very funny sketch, and I think it’s on Wiki somewhere. > Anthony Kaye > Bristol, U.K. Re-creation (without Moore) from “The Secret Policeman’s Ball” 1979 benefit for Amnesty International. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hJQ18S6aag](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hJQ18S6aag) ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2011, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822/35 "2011-07-11T19:54:46Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Burning less oil is lowering energy inputs. Burning more natural gas is increasing energy inputs. Substituting a natural gas BTU for an oil BTU leaves energy inputs unchanged. Well, that’s true, but the meaning I think he intended was that the oil inputs would be declining anyway, so adding natural gas to make up the difference is a positive over where it would have been. But then you point out his message seems to be an actual increase in output rather than just “more productive output”, so there may be a valid point there. > [@](#): > > However, I stand by the claim that (GDP/conventional energy usage) isn’t a constant: the numerator can grow while the denominator stays constant or even declines. And there’s a lot of scope for natural gas expanding while coal and oil decline. I certainly am not trying to defend that idea. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-do-doomsayers-cope/585822.md?page=1)