leftie wrote:
I was being sarcastic. As you said, it's a very old joke. And it wasn't that clever or funny to begin with and has been used with just about every left-of-center city in America by those with nothing else to say.
I apologize. It's difficult to know if someone is completely ignorant or being sarcastic in this medium of communication.
leftie wrote:
CO-Runner wrote:People's Republic of BoulderSide-track, but I just wanted to congratulate you for your originality and funniness with this joke. Way to go!
Yeah, Boulder should strive to be more like the great "red" places in the country, like say South Carolina.
Californian wrote:
reality really wrote:Oil man and geologist:
Unfortunately, your boy Ken Deffeyes has made about four different predictions in the last five years as to when global oil production will peak. He keeps changing his mind and pushing the date back. First he said global oil production had already peaked in 2000. Then he said it would peak in 2003 in his book (published in '01). Then he said in an article that he was 99% certain that peak global production would peak in 2004. Then he changed it to late '05. Sorry - not much credibility there.
I think you're confusing the good professor with Colin Campbell. At any rate, he doesn't take his own Hubbert extrapolative peak date all that seriously. He's merely sounding the trumpet that the SEASON of peak production is upon us. The price of oil only confirms the obvious to those in the know. All the other conspiracy theories of rigged price inflation are the stuff of urban legend and or scietific quackery.
Flagpole Willy wrote:
5) Alternative sources of fuel is really the best way to achieve things for everyone in the western world. Stick it to the Middle East by not having to rely on their oil anymore, and then just let them destroy themselves. conservatives and liberals alike should be pleased.
There is no alternative source of energy that exists now or in the forseeable future that can keep 6.5 billion people fed. More than half the world's population toils in abject poverty. The abundant oil age brought us about triple the amount of world population as there was 60 years before. Peak oil will most likely cull out all those gains in less than half the time.
Technolgy does not equal a successful replacement for oil, which happened to be the greatest single engine to growth ever conceived. Sadly it's given us population overshoot. Julian Simon eat your heart out.
Pray for cold fusion.
Why doesn't OPEC just open the spigot? CAUSE THEY CAN'T!!
$69 a barrel in the middle of freakin April dubunks the debunkers.
But there's no law against being a debunker any more than there's a law against movin about with head shoved way up one's own arse.
About 1000 million barrels have been pumped in the last 100 years. Half of that was burned up in the last 20. Demand is expected to increase by 50% in the next twenty. It ain't gonna last, and even it did it wouldn't be prudent to put it all in the atmosphere.
djaveln wrote:
About 1000 million barrels have been pumped in the last 100 years. Half of that was burned up in the last 20. Demand is expected to increase by 50% in the next twenty. It ain't gonna last, and even it did it wouldn't be prudent to put it all in the atmosphere.
I think you mean 1000 billion barrels.
Actually, our Mother Earth has more oil resources than we or the next several generations will ever scratch. Yes.....somewhere many many years from now, it will run dry.....but it is nothing to be alarmed that will happen in the next 30 or so......we are talking 300 or more years. By then, surely we will have perfected hydro-technology.
djaveln wrote:
About 1000 million barrels have been pumped in the last 100 years. Half of that was burned up in the last 20. Demand is expected to increase by 50% in the next twenty. It ain't gonna last, and even it did it wouldn't be prudent to put it all in the atmosphere.
The Truth! wrote:
Actually, our Mother Earth has more oil resources than we or the next several generations will ever scratch. Yes.....somewhere many many years from now, it will run dry.....but it is nothing to be alarmed that will happen in the next 30 or so......we are talking 300 or more years. By then, surely we will have perfected hydro-technology.
And you'll be leaving cookies and milk for Santa on the 24th.
Oily wrote:
Just to add to your point, it's imperative that more of the car manufacturers start making future models FFVs -- flexible fuel vehicles. Most aren't, but some (Ford?) are headed in that direction. All the E85 in the world won't help if your car can't burn it.
GM has a lineup of "FFV's". I'd like to see more 4 cylinders & V6's with the technology also. Dodge & Chevy also have the Multiple Displacement Motors (switches back & forth between using 4 or 8 cylinders), but I wonder if they will use the technology on their 6 cylinders (the V8's with the technology get the same mpg as the V6's without). Anyways, I'm considering getting a car that can use E85. Some corn farmers I'm sure could use some extra money.
http://www.e85fuel.com/index.phpActually you both are far off......we have nearly 1000 years of untapped reserves in the ground....as technology improves...so will production
hehehehehe wrote:
And you'll be leaving cookies and milk for Santa on the 24th.
Regular unleaded, $2.85/gallon today in Indianapolis. That's up at least $.20/gallon in two weeks.
$3 gallon by summer? Forget it...at this rate, we'll be lucky to have $3.29!
Wyco Loco wrote:
GM has a lineup of "FFV's". I'd like to see more 4 cylinders & V6's with the technology also. Dodge & Chevy also have the Multiple Displacement Motors (switches back & forth between using 4 or 8 cylinders), but I wonder if they will use the technology on their 6 cylinders (the V8's with the technology get the same mpg as the V6's without). Anyways, I'm considering getting a car that can use E85. Some corn farmers I'm sure could use some extra money.
http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php
I thought one gallon of Ethanol used about 6 gallons of gas to produce. Why the heck would we want more of that?
Ah, the e85 FAQ has debunked my 6-to-1 myth. It is actually a ratio of 1:1.38. Not bad, but probably not going to solve our dependence on oil unless we cover the Earth in corn, don't eat it, and convert it all to Ethanol.
... used to be "under the rainbow" - not so much anymore.
KnowItAll wrote:
CO-Runner wrote:People's Republic of Boulderleftie wrote:Side-track, but I just wanted to congratulate you for your originality and funniness with this joke. Way to go!
It's not original. That's a common term that's been used for Boulder for as long as I can remember. The other one is The Bubble.
Jarrod wrote:
Actually you both are far off......we have nearly 1000 years of untapped reserves in the ground....as technology improves...so will production
I hope you're kidding, but I don't think the poster who claimed we have 300 years left was. Beyond Oil is a great book, as is Out Of Gas by David Goodstein. I actually heard him speak last year when he came to our university. The evidence is pretty clear. I have no doubt in my mind that before the end of the lives of those in my generation that we will be "out of gas"
Americans ought to regard the word ‘growth’ because of supposed endless oil reserves with trepidation,” warns James Kunstler.
“When invoked by presidents and economists, it is meant to imply ideas like ‘more’ or ‘better.’ It's a habit of thinking left over from the exuberant phase of the industrial age, when there was always more of everything to get. Nowadays, though, as we enter the terminal years of cheap energy, the word ‘growth’ invokes a new set of ideas.
“For instance, ‘impossible.’ With the price of oil edging toward $70-a-barrel now, and likely to flirt with $100 by the end of the year, the effect will be higher costs for virtually all products and services, and tremendous stress on every socioeconomic organism from the family to government at all levels to the Ford Motor Car Corporation. The only ‘growth’ we might expect under these conditions is the growth in our exertions to stay where we are, and the truth is that many of the weak will simply fall behind.
“Another idea that ‘growth’ might invoke would be a fear of an unstoppable rising population competing for scarcer resources: incomes, energy, food, shelter. Surely this is one of the specters behind the illegal immigration issue, a dawning recognition that the American cornucopia is becoming an emptier basket, with fewer fruits, less energy, and not many gold nuggets left in it.
“The cheap energy era led us into a climax of surpluses, and these surpluses represented the general ‘more-ness’ and ‘better-ness’ of late industrial society. In a post cheap energy world, accumulated surpluses will be meager to nonexistent. There is bound to be a scramble for whatever is left. Geopolitically, this means a contest for the world's remaining oil, which tends to be concentrated in just a few places. In each nation, there is likely to be a parallel scramble for whatever fruits, gold nuggets, and therms are still to be had, throwing off a lot of red-hot political sparks that will burn people. A lot of the remaining energy worldwide will be devoted to these scrambles, and thus essentially wasted.
“There are many ways of viewing this ‘growth’ predicament, and some strategies we can turn to in the face of it. An obvious one is to change our behavior, to stop acting as though our destructive, terminal, and futile activities were beneficial or indispensable. For instance, we could yield to the reality that the age of mass motoring will have to end. Instead of desperately seeking ‘alternative fuels’ to run our 100 million cars, we could make an effort to restore our railroads. Instead of a million McHousing starts out in the meadows and cornfields, we could repair our existing towns and cities. There is no reason why they cannot be rewarding, beautiful places. There may well be greater benefit in walking more and driving less. The well-off Americans who have visited Europe over the past several decades invariably notice this.
“Anyway, we are going to need every meadow, cornfield, and pasture that we have, because as cheap energy wanes, we are going to be desperate to grow enough food to feed ourselves - another reason to be wary of alt.fuel fantasies based on growing crops dedicated to gasoline substitutes.”
Gotta love these posters who have mastered the art of cut'n pasting other people's work, but fail to provide their source.
April 3 post: