Damn, but I hated that book. I actually stopped reading it. Stirling deserves a good swift kick in the balls for merely conceiving it.
On the OP. I agree that it’s ALWAYS the end of times for someone. There’s real money to be made in doomsaying, make no mistake about it.
Blake,
Peak oil first. The problem right now is how those predictions are being made. Again, I’m no oil expert. My source is this recent NYTimes Magazine article which seemed quite well researched to me. It includes ome reputable sources …
I’d be interested in your comments on the whole article.
As to global warming, to argue that there is rasoned debate because you can find a few partisan hacks shilling is exactly like arguing that there is a reasoned debate in biology circles about whether or not evolution exists. Consensus is near uniform. Here is an article from Science regarding the latest consensus views and which direction dissenting views are generally going.
And as to the comments about hurricanes … I specifically did not say more, I said worse. Simple facts: hurricanes really are becoming more severe consistent with global warming models. Also from Science
Of course there is always uncertainty. We do not know how bad global warming will be, just probabilities of how bad it will be. We do not exactly when peak oil will hit or what the global consequences will be. Ten, thirty, longer? We did not know when a Cat 3 or higher hurricane would hit N.O.s either. But in retrospect the monies to have upgraded the levees sure seem like a bargain now. We do now that the risk of peak oil is increasing dramatically and that the reassurances otherwise seem to based on little actual data and given by those who are well motivated to reassure us. We do know that global warming is occurring and that the consequence is mor likely devasting than inconsequential if left unchecked.
If you want to refer to children’s stories I think that Chicken Little is less apt than the ant and the grasshopper. Prepare now.
Am I doing something? I walk where I want to go. If it is too far to walk, I take public transportation. That is about all I can do as far as oil useage. I haven’t started any nuclear wars lately, or melted any ice shelfs, so I guess that counts too. If instead the question “are you” means am I worrying, then the answer is “No”.
My point in bringing up past historical cries of “We’re all gonna die” was that every age has had their prophets of doom. So far, they’ve been wrong, no matter what the “method of destruction” was.
My comments are the same as those given by Sir James Foots 30 years again the speech I quoted form above. The article refers exclusively to reserves, it never mentions resources nor does it make any attempt to take into account changing technology or the impact of rising prices on infrastructure.
In short this isn’t a new argument, it’s precisely the same argument that we’ve seen from doomsayers since the 1920s, with all the same flaws. I can justifiably call it Chicken Little stuff because the same predictions have been made and failed every year for the last 70 years for the same reason.
Dude that’s just a blatant ad hominem. These people are not partisan hacks, they are highly reputable scientists published in highly regarded peer-reviewed journals. This issue is still the subject of considerable scientific debate, that is a fact and I have provided references to prove it.
To ad to the list of fallacies you combine the ad hominem attack in these scientists with a sloppy analogy. When you can show me an article by reputable scientists in highly regarded peer-reviewed journals about whether evolution exists your analogy will have some merit.
Until then this entire line of reasoning is clearly based on an erroneous belief that scientists are no longer debating this issue in journals. I have proven that this is not the case and unless you can do better than ad hominem attacks on scientists/entire journals that disagree with you and sloppy analogies with no basis I think we can leave it there
Firstly we are discussing science. Science is not done by consensus. Or to quote Cecil Adams, we don’t take votes on the facts.
100 years ago consensus was near uniform that special creation had occurred. 50 years ago consensus was near uniform hat continental drift didn’t occur. 10 years ago consensus was near uniform that gastric ulcers weren’t microbial in origin. Near uniform consensus in science is meaningless. Science is useful only because an argumentum ad populum has no standing.
Secondly consensus is not near uniform. You provided a reference that suggested that of those scientists who endorse global warming some middle ground is being approached. Similarly of those scientists who believe in string theory much middle ground has been reached. But neither of those things has any where near uniform consensus. Note the difference between supporters of a theory reaching consensus and the theory itself having achieved consensus.
What you actually said was “Get used to Katrina intensity storms”. That means that they will become more common and thus will need to be accepted, ie. Gotten used to. So yeah, you did say there would be more of them.
Unless of course you are trying to argue that “get used to it’ doesn’t mean “this will be commonplace/standard” where you come from. In which case “Cite!”
No we do not know that at all. We know that it is increasing as it must over time. But to declare that we know that it is increasing dramatically is just balderdash.
No, we don’t know that. A great many scientists and economist have said that the consequences are far more likely benign or neutral than devastating.
You do this repeatedly. You state that something is ‘known’ and ‘settled’ when in fact it is not known and is the subject of massive and heated debate. Can you actually provide a reference that any of these things is known as you claim them to be? I won’t be too tough on you here, known to the standard scientific significance of 95% is all that I require.
Cite!
No, when people make the same dire warnings based on the same evidence for 70 years and the warning is proven false then that is chicken little.
I’m not kidding here, these warnings of oil being depleted within 30 years have been around since the 1920s. That’s a genuine 1975 speech I quoted up there. This is Chicken Little. The sky is always falling and the reasons why it is falling haven’t changed.
That is right, there is no voting in of the facts. They either are, or are not. We can’t bring gravity up to a vote and repeal it.
Some artificially derived middle ground has no place in science, any more than concensus does. Something either is, or isn’t. There may be a middle ground in a theory or hypothesis, but these imply “this explanation will work until something better comes along”.
I like the lines from Men In Black, which are pretty “heavy” if you pay attention…
“People knew the earth was flat. Yesterday you knew were alone on this planet. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.”
That last sentence proves that there is beauty in elegant simplicity. Imagine what you’ll know tomorrow.
We’ve always been doomed, one way or another. The prophets of doom have always been wrong.
Blake, did you even read what I put in the quote box, let alone the actual article? Because resources are specifically discussed. Again, I’m no expert on oil, but when people as informed and as connected as Sadad al-Husseini and Nawaf Obaid tell us that producing more than 15 million a year is “not sustainable” even if the infrastructure was present, then I think we would be foolish to call “Chicken Little” and just go on with business as usual.
Just before Katrina hit I remember hearing interviews of people staying put, saying essentially, “Ach, I’ve lived through hurricanes before and they told us before that the safest thing to do would be to leave then. Chicken Littles. I’ll be fine this time too.” Always a good tactic that.
Global warming. Even Bush concedes global warming is a reality by this point. He has couched his position as trying to find a better way to deal with it that does not require any actual sacrifice or hard work. The National Academy of Science has concluded global warming is real and likely to be a significant danger. Multiple types of models and predictions based on past records all conclude that more greenhouse gases will cause more increases in temperature and climate instability (articles like the one you cited by Loehle) merely question if we can prove that the currrent global warming that has already occurred is provably directly attributable to human sources, not whether or not further increases in greenhouse gases will exacerbate the natural trend, and cause even more significant temperature increases and climate volatility in the future. There is uncertainty because of the nature of data that is less than perfect, but the uncertainty centers around how bad it is going to be, not whether it is going to be bad.
And as to the philosophy of science … unless each of us want to become an expert on each subject and review all the data available on every subject then the consensus of the community of scientific experts is what we have to go on. There clearly is a vast consensus about global warming. Look hard and you’ll find the one or two with a minority view you like. Make yourself comfortable and do just that.
BTW, Katrina and Rita are not abberations. There have been and likely will be more intense hurricanes than before (not more hurricanes per se, more intense ones). Cite? Do you read posts you respond to? I provided the cite already.
Dseid you are moving the goalposts. The issue is not whether it is sensible to accept majority opinion on scientific issues outside our fields of expertise, that’s a red herring.
The issue is whether you were talking nonsense when you said that there is no debate on this issue in the scientific community. I’ve provided references proving that there is indeed debate on this issue in the scientific community. It appears that your only response is that any scientist who publishes in areputab;e journal is a fringe lunatic if they disagree with you.
This might be a nice time for you to concede that the issue is being debated by scientists and that your repeated assertions to the contrary are incorrect. Until you can do that we really don’t have much to discuss since you are apparently happy to ignore the facts and pretend that you were in fact simply saying that you believed majority opinion. You didn’t say that, you said that this issue was settled amongst scientist and not open to debate.
I calls bullshit. I await either a retraction or some evidence to support your claim and show that the scientists I know of are not in fact scientists or aranotin fact debating the issue.
I have similarly asked for supporting evidence for your claim that we ‘know’ global warming is occurring and we know it is most likely to be devastating in effect.
You similarly claimed that powerful hurricanes will become more common, then claimed that you didn’t say any such thing. I have shown that you did make this claim. Please respond to that as well.
Until you respond to those requests at the very least we can not engage in debate. You are simply throwing out statements of the absolute with no evidence at all and refusing to ever retract the, That isn’t a debate, it’s simply you arguing form assertion. Unless you can provide evidence then there is no way of knowing whether any of what you say is true.
Blake you provided one cite of one article that only stated that the global warming that is occurring has some possibility of not having been caused by human activity. Not any cites about whether or not our increasing levels of human induced greeenhouse gases will cause more global warming. Or if you did I missed it. Find me a large body of scientists who debate whether or not our increasing levels of greenhouse gases are likely going to raise temperatures significantly. “No debate” may have been an overstatement, no significant debate I will stand by. For the vast vast majority of the scientific community involved in global modelling and trends, the presence of global warming and potential dangers of continued increases in greenhouse gases are established items. The probabilities of how bad are still open to debate with the most recent most powerful models leaving more potential for the worst outcomes.
Hurricanes, the quote you took offense to was “Get used to Katrina intensity storms. Surface water temperatures drive hurricane intensity.” and I then backed it up at your challenge with a quote from my source, an article which documented “global data indicate a 30-year trend toward more frequent and intense hurricanes, corroborated by the results of the recent regional assessment (29). This trend is not inconsistent with recent climate model simulations that a doubling of CO2 may increase the frequency of the most intense cyclones.” This a long term trend that has been documented. Hurricanes are becoming more severe.
Questions?
Well, we’re way overdue for a major impact event probably leading to mass (or even total) extinction. You can zig or zag as much as you want if one of those happens, and there won’t be a damn thing you can do. Some 20km diameter rock could be heading our way right now, and we probably wouldn’t know until a couple of seconds before being vaporized.
So you see, there’s no reason to worry about peak oil, another ice age, or the avian flu. Just trying to cheer you up. 
Anyway Blake, I’d prefer to focus on where we generally agree. Methodical preparation is prudent. Peak oil is a bit of an unknown since only the Saudis know what the data really is and they are not sharing it. Again I take well informed and well conected experts warnings seriously. Global warming is well established as occurring and anthrogenic sources ae modelled by multiple sorts of models in multiple hands as likely contributing to very significant future consequences. We will be unable to say that no one expected the levees to break. There will be no excuses for our being unprepared. The sky is not falling but a storm is afoot. Me, I think we should invest in few umbrellas, or not complain when we get wet.
Too bad. Just think – if we could repeal the law of gravity, say just over a small part of Florida, it would make rocketships a lot easier to launch.
that would be a cool idea - we’d save a bundle just on fuel.
Indeed. My third grade science book contained the solemn prediction that we were going to use up our oil supply in twenty to thirty years. Here it is twenty years later and the same thing is still being said today. If it’s not Chicken Little, it’s sure The Boy Who Cried Wolf.
I suspect that the discovery of additional sources of oil is the primary reason the prediction is “revised” to sound exactly like the older ones, but you rarely see the addendum “if no additional oil reserves are discovered” on these warnings, which would give them more credibility. I guess credible gets less play than controversial…
What sells more newspapers, or gets higher TV ratings? “Everything is great, we’re doing fine”, or “Total chaos! We’re all screwed!”?
Sooner or later, we probably will have to start using something other than oil. It is a finite resource. We already have coal, nuclear power, solar power, wind power, hydroelectric, etc. It seems to be a matter of economics and the desire to do it, more than technology. There are huge deposits of shale oil. We don’t use it because of the cost involved, but it’s there. Economics.
I’d like to poke my nose in here for a moment and point out that there is a lot more going on with oil than just getting you to work everyday. For example, the farming industry is absurdly dependant on cheap energy. From fertilizers to how they move their machines out on the feild to irrigation methods. In addition, food is shipped for minimal costs to your local stores.
I make no claims that the sky is falling. However, I would like you to ask yourself what our means to produce food for 7 billion people are without cheap energy.
About the “Energy Crisis” i’m not worried. As long is there is money to be made off energy I have confidence that human greed will motivate someone to provide a solution. Ahh, good ol’ human nature!
[Michael Douglas] Greed is GOOD![Michael douglas] 
Peak Oil -
From my limited perspective on the subject, my understanding of the Peak Oil issue isn’t so much we are reaching the point where we’ve used up 50% of the world’s oil; but rather we’ve reached the point where the cost of extracting it has reached it’s limit in terms of diminished returns. In other words, the days of relatively cheap oil are over - based on current capacity to extract/refine it coupled with continued rising demand for it.
Not necessarily a doomsday scenario, but given our (US) reliance on relatively cheap oil and it’s importance to the economy it will become increasing problematic if we aren’t ready and willing to adjust to higher oil prices. Yes, I am fully aware that increased oil prices will spur development and use of alternative energy sources; but if the increase in oil prices is rapid and dramatic over a short period of time, then it can have major economic implications.
In regards to the article…
Saudi Arabia has 80 known oil fields… and produces on only nine of them. In 1944, proven Saudi reserves were 16 billion and another 5 billion probable. In 1975, after 42 billion barrels produced, there were 74 billion proven reserves. 14 years later, proven reserves in the same region were increased by 199 billion to the current 261 billion in proven Saudi reserves. This number has not be refined downward even though Saudi oil production has happily percolated along at the rate of 9,000,000 barrels per day, 3.2 billion per year, 52.6 billion barrels since they last revised their proven reserve estimates.
Saudi Arabia can “easily” go to 20,000,000 barrels a day. They don’t want to because they fear it will flood the world petroleum market because oil fears and panics are an OPEC marketing tool.
In 2005, a single province in Canada increased it’s proven reserves figure by 175 billion (equal to Iraq’s current proven reserves) barrels as new, cheaper means of extracting oil from shale came online. This is usable oil, not “if they get the technology to use it” oil, but oil that is currently being sold on the world markets. This 175 billion in oil represents only 11% of the oil that lies in Alberta (over 1 trillion barrels), but that oil is either too hard or too expensive to develop with current technology. Also, these estimates were made when petroleum was in the mid-thirties per barrel. Now that it’s in the mid-sixties, the proven column actually increases, meaning that at current market rates far more of the oil is recoverable, not just 11%.
That report that was “debunked” in the article? Mentions nothing of the fact that Albertan oil will produce 2 million bbd within the decade, and it actually has Canadian production dropping by 25% (to 1.6 million bbd) over the next 20 years! (I know 'cause I have it in my lap. (The International Energy Outlook is available here for free.) So if it errs, it errs on the side of caution as it only focuses on proven reserves, i.e., those reserves that can be extracted at current market and technological rates, not the actual amount of extractable oil in the world, which easily runs into the trillions of barrels. Even the “proven” reserves figure bandied about so casually adds up to over 1 trillion barrels.
Cites: The Oil Reserve Fallacy: Proven reserves are not a measure of future supply, Bill Kovarik.
The Real Oil Problem, M. A. Adelman
“Has not been revised” … “refined” :rolleyes: 
Ugh. Sometimes I just hate it when you can’t edit. 