If I sounded condescending in my first reply, my apologies. However, who am I telling?! I don't have a say where our oil gets shipped, do you? Oil is a finite supply (fact) and it takes thousands and millions of years to produce more, so why are we not being more conservative with it? I have nothing wrong with global markets, but I just have a problem with money being the only way to acquire the natural resources that come from the country I am a citizen of.
It is so useless trying to argue with people on this issue. Just like Tobacco companies used to claim cigarettes weren't harmful and people just couldn't believe they would lie to us. Only when those same people got lung cancer did they finally believe. Same is true of oil. Most deniers of this type of thing won't admit they are wrong until it is too late.
Stop wasting oil. Live your personal life more sustainably. Be a good example. Relocalize food production and the rest of the changes we need will follow.
@MMGWsceptic I agree it is hard to tell whether oil price increases are due to supply shortages or simply inflation. What we do know with certainty it is now 2011 and we still haven't hit the 2006 barrels per day peak. Regarding Shale gas: the world currently uses about 84 million barrels of oil per day - shale oil currently contributes less than 1 mbpd. The Alberta tar sands and the Bakken play can probably scale at best to 10 mbpd. Where will the other 74 mbpd come from?
While I consider Chomski's comment about meteorologists uninformed (they do more than just present the weather, thank you), this is a fascinating-and terrifying-documentary.
People forget (or aren't aware of) the principles of free market. Once oil becomes more expensive than alternative energy sources to use, the market will automatically transform and so will the investments in the new techology. This will happen gradually and has already began. A sitiuation where oil suddenly "runs out" and everybody are screwed is just absurd.
The real problem are the costs for unconventional oil production. There is still more unconventional oil today than conventional oil have ever been. We never had a oil-shortage that wasn't political. The oil will be more expensive and this will lead to more use of gas, coal, nuclear and renewable energy. Renewables could provide the energy needed to extract oil sands e.g., but oil multis don't want that yet. Here in Europe 7,50-8$/gal is normal today, Americans should prepare for such prices...
@villel80 It's good to know that there is someone else out there who knows how free markets work. In the context of energy production, the phenomenon you speak of is called "grid parity." Places like Hawaii are already close to reaching parity because shipping petroleum there is so expensive (though subsidies cloud the picture a bit). The rest of the country will likely follow suit within a decade if we really are at or past peak oil--no regulation required.
@VangelVe That's not the point at all. You've consistently only mentioned a handful of places, and I don't believe that there was any cherry picking. Is it cherry picking to take an average of something?
How about if you try to make an effective counter point using facts and figures without the personal insults and ad hominem remarks. Just give it a try as a mental exercise.
I know global warming is happening, but I have never seen evidence suggesting it could lead to human's extinction. Humans should never underestimate mother Earth. It has slayed well over 90% of the species that have called it's lands and seas home. I would wager their are things us humans don't even understand yet about how this place functions.
I saw that same Scientific American paper about peak oil around 2000. I thought, "Oh, that's decades off", but apparently it's happening now - production has been flat since 2006, and economies aren't dealing with it too good.
The I look at peak oil, the more I see that the technologies needed to phase out oil are things we've already had for decades. Electrified rail, nuclear powered container-ships, electric street cars, heat pumps, solar water heaters, electric mining equipment(drag lines, crushers, pumps, pipelines all have electrified models), in-situ leaching; the list is long. Only 7% of oil is used to produce chemicals and farming is similarly insignificant; most oil is pissed away in passenger cars.
@Paladiea "no one denies that there are other factors affecting climate...." The IPCC certainly minimized other factors. It ignored or minimized the effect of solar changes, the UHI effect's impact on the data, land use changes, the impact of soot on Arctic temperatures, the various ocean oscillations, and even ENSO conditions. Now that the climate is clearly not cooperating the IPCC is using those factors to explain why the expected warming is not being observed.
EROEI is irrelevant as it pertains to oil production, so long as the energy invested (the energy input) isn't oil. The only thing that changes when EROEI goes negative, is the oil is no longer a SOURCE of energy, the input energy is the source. When they say our EROEI is 10 barrels of oil for every 1 barrel of oil invested, they really mean 1 barrel of oil equivalent invested (that is, the amount of energy contained in a barrel of oil, but from a different source).
@Paladiea "For instance that one shows that there was warmer temperatures and that CO2 was high then as well.." The links don't work so I can't see what you are referencing. I also prefer to know which papers you are referring to because I made no point about the Carboniferous. But it is good that you brought up high CO2 levels because we had iceball earth conditions when CO2 levels were ten times higher than today. That does not fit the AGW theory or models.
It's time to adjust to a life with less fossil fuels. This means that many aspects of our lives (namely, food production) need to be re-localized. Even if there are still a few years of cheap oil left, WHY should we deflect this problem onto future generations? Doesn't anybody care about their children/grandchildren anymore?
@Paladiea @Paladiea Really? What temperature graph do you have that shows the raw data trend? The USHCN raw data shows no warming. Neither does the NZ data, the Australian data, the Scandinavian data, the Greenland data or the Pacific Basin data. Look them up in google images. For some reason I can't get the links to take.
@VangelVe Or any other isolated areas. What about the arctic? Canada? Northern Europe? It's easy to look at an isolated spot and say "ha! No warming" when the trend for the planet clearly shows one.
compared to peak oil, climate change is a moot point. Climate Change is popular with politicians because its a less alarming way to prepare the public for rationing
@adowns87 Peak oil is not complicated. It just means that oil is finite and one day we'll reach the limit of how much we can pump out of the earth. That is not by any means a wild statement. The debate surrounding peak oil is: 1. When will oil peak? 2. Can we smoothly transition to other forms of energy? So far the data suggests that the peak was in 2006 at around 79 million barrels of oil per day of conventional crude oil. And 2008 taught us that high oil prices can devastate the economy.
@Paladiea "That paper shows that during the last ice age, there were other forcing factors before CO2 kicked in..." I cited several papers. When you can have natural factors increase temperatures to much higher levels without CO2 emissions we do not need CO2 emissions to explain the changes. The weak spot for the warmers was the MWP, which is why they tried to kill it. But there is too much research showing that it was as warm or warmer so the effort failed. Try reading the papers.
You are quite right, and very well put. There is a great deal of easy oil to be had for probably hundreds of years. You can be sure that the environmentalists will change their arguments as they have from " global warming" to " climate change ". We should actually all be very happy that peak oil was a myth, because a shortage of energy would be a disaster for mankind. I hope the peak oil myth will be a good lesson to anyone thinking of signing up to the environmentalists' cult.
@mojwnun I completely agree. I compare it to a heartrate. My heartrate is changing and will always do so. Does that mean I should ignore it when it accelerates to never seen before levels? Of course not.
You have to love how this video brings out all the true believers in almighty oil and capitalism....go read the bible and keep your head in the sand please.
You underestimate exponential growth. "Someday" is sooner than you think. As demand grows each year if inevitably doubles. Each doubling occurs faster than the last doubling. If we've taken 1/2 of the oil out of the ground (1 of an estimated 2 trillion bbl), then the next half is the next doubling. That next doubling due to the nature of the increasing cost of extraction will destroy the global economy and the wars you see are the anticipatory response to the "energy starvation" that's coming.
The only problem is that in the world of economical growth conservation of 50% means you can produce twice as much at higher profit. Google about Jevons paradox. The only way to have true conservation is by reduced growth. But yes you are right that there are a zillion ways humans can conserve energy, dont travel so much, dont each so much, do not have so many children. Question is, are people willing to give it away before they are forced to? We need sustainable alternatives to market economy.
@Paladiea Well those did not work. Let us go over it again. Go to Google. Type "us raw temperature". Choose the Images option. Click on the graph showing raw and adjusted temperatures. You wills see no material warming since the 1930s. After you have done that change 'US' to 'New Zealand' and look at the raw temperature data. It shows no warming. Do the same and replace 'New Zealand' with 'Scandinavian'. You will see that the raw temperature measurement graphs show no warming.
@MrEnergyCzar I also believe that many of the people born during the oil glut will become expendable if they haven't the resources to survive till the planet stabilizes with new energy for electricity & transportation. I am working toward those goals.
@mphello That's exactly the problem--there aren't tests that exist that test for every nutrient possible nor do they test if you're getting and optimal ratio. Supplements do not absorb as well and are inferior in every way. If I could eat eggs (I'm allergic), I would be a vegetarian surviving on raw goat's milk and raw eggs for my animal nutrients. I always suggest vegans revert to vegetarian and consume these. I think of it as a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship between species.
@Paladiea "Isn't Alaska folded in with the US? Moot. What about the 75% of planet that are represented by the oceans?" Alaska is folded into the US but it also represents the Arctic environment. And as I pointed out, the ARGO system, which went operational in 2003 shows no accumulation of heat in the oceans. By doing so it falsifies the CO2 emission driven radiative imbalance claims made by the warmers.
@bogusnachos Rational steps to conserve energy can eliminate the need for still more energy from nuclear or fossil fuel sources. Conservation reduces costs, which is good for business, conservation reduces expenses, which is good for consumers, conservation reduces emissions and reduces the need for mining, processing, transportation and storage of nuclear materials. Conservation (i.e. the low hanging and free fruit) first.
I really am not so saddened by this peak oil though, I see it as an opportunity to be more kind to and appreciate nature. We will always have energy, last resort atomic energy. And metals like copper will always exist to transmit the energy. Was the food and housing so bad before the industrial age? We will always have global trade though, we will probably appreciate and respect certain things alot more. By the way oils will still be around to make plastic which we would hopefully learntorecycle
@Paladiea "preferably from one that's been peer reviewed..." Since this thing gives me an error if I try to link something I will reference papers by author, journal and issue. Go to the International Journal of Geosciences, Vol.1 No.3, 2010 and look at the article by Paulo Cesar Soares. The paper shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Or try, Oxygen-isotope (δ18O) evidence of Holocene hydrological changes at Signy Island, maritime Antarctica, The Holocene 13: 251-263
@Paladiea "Let's just say that I warned you about conflating global temperatures with US temperatures." And as I wrote, most of the raw data shows no material warming since the 1930s. The warming comes from the signal that is added to the actual measurements by computer algorithms that have not been made available for independent assessment. Without replication it is not science, no matter how many UN bureaucrats say otherwise.
I couldn't help but think when that Chomsky might be projecting when he talked about institutional traps and inevitability. Universities generally have a stake in public views about global warming. The more concern the public has, the more funding they will get for research. It is political anathema to be skeptical about AGW in an academic environment because, well, "that's my funding you are talking about brother!" Also, death knell for humans? That might be hyperbole. Just saying.
Hartmann: "Hi, I'm Thom Hartmann. Join me in listening to various experts discuss fossil fuel depletion and global warming." Funny thing though; for the last year or so Thom Hartmann himself WONT TALK ABOUT PEAK OIL. Anyone know why?
I'm not so sure that a handful of journalists, radio hosts, bloggers, and washed up linguists really count as "experts" on peak oil--an economic issue--or climate change--a scientific issue. These are professional secondhand dealers in ideas, and nothing more.
At current growth of consumption, we only have like 50 years before everything is used up, so won't that solve global warming? when we stop producing and burning anything?
One person or another has said this is the year of peak oil, for the last 100 years. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but these guys are not right once a century. The smart thing to do is use oil until it is too expensive. The dumb thing to do is worry that the world is running out of oil. No one is that stupid? ........ Watch the video.
The worldwide production of oil maxed out in 2005. The frenzy of drilling, tracking, and mining tar sands has managed to keep us at that level for about ten years. But it won't last much longer.
+kim weaver only another 1500 years, but it will be left in the ground long before that, no one has a clue what Society will be like even in 100 years. But we will have fusion.
Fusion = pipe dream. IT's always "Free Beer Tomorrow!" All the net energy from all the fusion experiments ever done (costing tens of BILLIONS of dollars) wouldn't charge the average cell phone battery. Check out Professor Albert Bartlett's TH-cam talks on oiil, population, and arithmetic. There is MOST DEFINITELY NOT 1500 years of oil. We might be able to count on oil for 20 years or so before the delivery rate drops below the level where it matters as an energy source. You need to catch up, Spanky.
I recognize the phenomenon of global warming but to be honest, I am not willing to take the consequences into account. It will cost me too much. I am not willing to freely give away my current lifestyle to preserve the planet for future generations. I know I sound cruel, but think about it for a second. I am just saying what everybody really means, but noone dares to say openly.
Look at the more recent videos and articles about "Peak Oil" Right now, more and more highly regarded skeptics are now agreeing. Simply put, we are running out of cheap oil. We could drill all day but even still, we will use 2 barrels of oil to find and create just 1 barrel. Eventually any reserve will run dry. Google "peak oil" Educate yourself. Let's think "sustainability". Let's be active in our free market society and create more competition for oil. Let's think about generations.
So we leave it to our grandchildren? Maybe Great Grandchildren? Let's be the society in history that did something BEFORE there was a problem. Like War is a response to a threat, just think of what could be avoided by being proactive.
Industrialisation is based on division. It divided thinking, production to such a point that nobody can understand or know the impact of his own input. This is not a market problem. In the soviet times irresponsibility and ignorance was paramount. Industrialisation is here to suppress intelligence and thinking because it feeds on automation and create authority. Social positions (CEO, professors) are based on this principle and can be questionned. If we do not use our hand we use oil or slaves.
@Paladiea "What about the arctic? Canada? Northern Europe?" The Scandinavian data shows no material warming since the 1930s. Neither do the isolated stations in Greenland or Alaska. Go into Google Images and search for "Alaska temperatures". You see the big rise in the 1930s then a decline until the PDO went positive in the mid 1970s. Since then temperatures rose but to previous levels. And note the 'hot' readings last year were imputed, not measured by any instrument.
@iooo007 Thats not right... they already consume as much oil per capita like germany for example... venezuela consumes over 700.000 barrels, I think almost 800.000... population is estimated a bit over 27 million. Germany has 82 million people and consumes 2,4 (a bit less because falling demand in whole western europe since years), most of that countrys I mentioned offer very cheap gasoline to their people... Venezuela I think 14 US-$/10€-Cent per litre. Sometimes its rationed but...
@Paladiea For some reason I can't post links. Let us try this again. Cut this and paste it in your browser and you will see both the raw and 'adjusted' trend for the US. climate-skeptic.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54eeb9dc18834010535ef5d49970b-800wi
I believe oil is the clay feet talked about in the bible And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
@VangelVe no one denies that there are other factors affecting climate. But contrary to your belief, there is no massive conspiracy to peddle climate change. Regardless, you can't reason with the unreasonable. The global avg temperature is rising. This is an undisputed fact. You can try and cut it down piecemeal but it's dodging the point.
@Paladiea "Ok so he was incorrect in his predictions. So? How does that disprove climate change in general? Again, the US is not the world." The point is that the best data shows no material warming in many places of the world. The reported warming comes from adjusting the data by methods that have not been allowed to be independently evaluated. That is a huge problem for the integrity of the movement because cherry picking and lack of transparency are not science.
LOL another simple answer, this time LFTR, good one, i didn't heard this one before ;) Where are LFTRs ? How many is opereting right now ? How much percentage of energy we get from LFTRs now? How long it to take to build ONE - LFTR ? How much oil and other fossil fuels you need to build LFTR ? This is just another techno-utopia. Something like we will fly in cosmos for more fuel or we will have solar panels able to power cars not calcs ;)
@Paladiea "The US is not the world. When people say there's warming they mean GLOBAL average temperature. Hence the term global warming...." I agree that the US is not the world. But as I pointed out, data from Australia, New Zealand, Greenland, and the Scandinavian countries shows no warming. All of the warming comes from the 'adjusted' value-added sets that cannot be replicated independently because the code, metadata AND raw data have not been made available.
I think they will change this subventions of cheap gasoline, as Iran did, they reduced the amount. But the fact that countrys like Saudi-Arabia waste over 2.1 million bbl with 27-28 mio population (even more worse than american waste) but libya got higher per capita consumption than western europe too.If the oil will get short they would/will stop this, like americans will consume less if they pay european prices. Today up to 8,1$/gal, and it will increase as rising oil price shows.
@warpigsinfin 'Relocalize food production and the rest of the changes we need will follow.' This is a myth. Energy used in transport is a minor part of all of the energy needed to grow food. It is more efficient to grow some fruits in South America and ship them to North America than to grow them locally.
@villel80 You might ask yourself," where will the oil come from to build these technologies? Do you think that the oil needed for the plastics, composites, etc., the energy needed to extract, transport, manufacture, then distribute such techno salvation will be cheap, available, and not destined to heat homes, drive folks to work, farm the land to feed the people? Think carefully. How will technology save the millions who feel they are owed the "good life"?
THIS is the danger. I think Opec got more than 66% of the worlds reserves, especially if you include venezuelas unconv. reserves. Except Russia maybe other countries will join OPEC (Kazakhstan?Azerbaijan?). Brazil already told it wants into OPEC if the deep-sea-fields go into production (that will boost brazils reserves to at least 30, maybe 50 or more billion bbl). There could be wars for the last easy-to-produce-fields in OPEC-Countries if the OPEC does not cooperate with "us".
@Paladiea "Great and none of the papers you reference dispute AGW in any way..." You don't read well. The papers do not claim that we have not warmed since the last ice age termination or since the LIA 150 ended years ago. They refute the ANTHROPOGENIC part of AGW. We expect temperatures to go up once the Little Ice Age ended. Otherwise we would still be in the LIA. The warming from the depths of the LIA began more than 300 years ago, before atmospheric CO2 levels began to go up.
If you want to do something about climate change, that's not really all that difficult either. You can piss away decade after decade hoping that wind and solar will some day amount to more than a rounding error; but the mature technology that can replace coal right today is nuclear fission. Yellowcake uranium costs about a dollar per barrel of oil equivalent if used in a once-through cycle(e.g. LWR); eventually we'll need to start building breeders, but there's no rush.
@MixedSpecieMixedRace Not a myth genius. The US hit peak oil in the 1970's. We are arguably in global peak oil right now. Production may have increased the last 30 years, but look at what happens from last year on out from hear. Oil is a precious resource that is gone once you use it. So you think there is an unlimited supply??!!
The other point I make in my logic thread is how idiotic the individuals in this video look now. We go from peak oil and no oil in USA to export to "surplus" oil in the USA so that we can export. That happened bc individuals particularly in this country looking out for their own interests figured out an amazing new way to get oil out of the ground. These so smart idiots in this video completely discounted people who were far more creative and out of the box thinkers than they were!!! Amazing
Thom Hartmann himself has apparently sold out - to Russia. Hartmann, author of a book on peak oil, started broadcasting his "The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann" TV show from RT (Russia Today) America studios in October 2010, using RT facilities. From January 2012, RT's English-language channel started broadcasting his TV show in over 100 countries. Russia is as big an oil producer as Saudi Arabia. Hartmann is now silent on peak oil. Thom Hartmann has zero credibility.
Yeah that's exactly what defines peak oil jbfrodsham, cost of extraction becomes higher and higher as supply declines, not to mention demand still rising. I guess you just like to disagree with people even when you hold the same view. It's just elementary statistical analysis. More to the point we DO NOT have the carbon budget to be buring those tars sands all all the coal left in the worlds known reserves, let alone any unknown reserves. Climate is already plummeting to wildly unsafe state.
We were just a year or two away from peak oil, rapid decline and society ending disaster every year since I started paying attention. That's 20+ years of failed peak oil predictions and continuous chanting of THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!111 ANY MINUTE NOW!!! THE SKY IS FALLING.
@mphello Although one can survive on a vegan diet and do better than those eating the SAD, grass-fed and wild game meats are necessary for optimal human health as they contain the proper ratio of fat, fatty acids, proteins, and fat soluble vitamins. Cholesterol, Vitamin B12, and Vitamin K2 MK4 are deficient in the vegan diet and all vegans do not get the proper ratio of nutrients. I'm a former vegan.
Well this didn’t seem to age well. I spent years in anxious panic about peak oil. The worst case scenario people seem to have been wrong about the technology making more oil available? Writing from 2022, 12 years after they said the world peaked in this video...
@KilonBerlin When will the earth be unable to offset the CO2 rise & the temperature will be intolerable & the oceans unable to sustain fish as we know it ? Do you really think that we can burn it all ? WHEN ?
@chonus4497 I made no ad hominem. At 0:10 the video refers to these people as "experts," and I was arguing that this collection of people in no way fits any reasonable definition of the term "expert" for these issues. Would you care to defend the claim that these people are experts, or are straw men all ya got?
to have any hope we will stop the dive to extinction, you'll be thankful for folks like me, His son's and daughters, whom will prophecy these things. j
If I sounded condescending in my first reply, my apologies. However, who am I telling?! I don't have a say where our oil gets shipped, do you? Oil is a finite supply (fact) and it takes thousands and millions of years to produce more, so why are we not being more conservative with it? I have nothing wrong with global markets, but I just have a problem with money being the only way to acquire the natural resources that come from the country I am a citizen of.
It is so useless trying to argue with people on this issue. Just like Tobacco companies used to claim cigarettes weren't harmful and people just couldn't believe they would lie to us. Only when those same people got lung cancer did they finally believe. Same is true of oil. Most deniers of this type of thing won't admit they are wrong until it is too late.
One billion barrels burned every 12 days...when they say they found a new oil reserve of 10 billion barrels it means nothing...gone in 1/3 of a year
Man, this was 10 years ago. God help us.
Stop wasting oil. Live your personal life more sustainably. Be a good example. Relocalize food production and the rest of the changes we need will follow.
Everything Chompsky said was incredibly wise and true. Calling him a nutjob is an insult to your own intelligence.
great come back dude! i would expect a response like that for a 9 year.
Why doesn't he mention the tons of oil that it takes to make an EV?
another great come back! you are really impressing me with your intellect
@MMGWsceptic I agree it is hard to tell whether oil price increases are due to supply shortages or simply inflation. What we do know with certainty it is now 2011 and we still haven't hit the 2006 barrels per day peak.
Regarding Shale gas: the world currently uses about 84 million barrels of oil per day - shale oil currently contributes less than 1 mbpd. The Alberta tar sands and the Bakken play can probably scale at best to 10 mbpd. Where will the other 74 mbpd come from?
While I consider Chomski's comment about meteorologists uninformed (they do more than just present the weather, thank you), this is a fascinating-and terrifying-documentary.
People forget (or aren't aware of) the principles of free market. Once oil becomes more expensive than alternative energy sources to use, the market will automatically transform and so will the investments in the new techology. This will happen gradually and has already began. A sitiuation where oil suddenly "runs out" and everybody are screwed is just absurd.
The real problem are the costs for unconventional oil production. There is still more unconventional oil today than conventional oil have ever been. We never had a oil-shortage that wasn't political. The oil will be more expensive and this will lead to more use of gas, coal, nuclear and renewable energy. Renewables could provide the energy needed to extract oil sands e.g., but oil multis don't want that yet. Here in Europe 7,50-8$/gal is normal today, Americans should prepare for such prices...
@villel80 It's good to know that there is someone else out there who knows how free markets work. In the context of energy production, the phenomenon you speak of is called "grid parity." Places like Hawaii are already close to reaching parity because shipping petroleum there is so expensive (though subsidies cloud the picture a bit). The rest of the country will likely follow suit within a decade if we really are at or past peak oil--no regulation required.
@VangelVe That's not the point at all. You've consistently only mentioned a handful of places, and I don't believe that there was any cherry picking. Is it cherry picking to take an average of something?
How about if you try to make an effective counter point using facts and figures without the personal insults and ad hominem remarks. Just give it a try as a mental exercise.
I know global warming is happening, but I have never seen evidence suggesting it could lead to human's extinction.
Humans should never underestimate mother Earth. It has slayed well over 90% of the species that have called it's lands and seas home. I would wager their are things us humans don't even understand yet about how this place functions.
I saw that same Scientific American paper about peak oil around 2000. I thought, "Oh, that's decades off", but apparently it's happening now - production has been flat since 2006, and economies aren't dealing with it too good.
You had no idea how right you were
The I look at peak oil, the more I see that the technologies needed to phase out oil are things we've already had for decades.
Electrified rail, nuclear powered container-ships, electric street cars, heat pumps, solar water heaters, electric mining equipment(drag lines, crushers, pumps, pipelines all have electrified models), in-situ leaching; the list is long.
Only 7% of oil is used to produce chemicals and farming is similarly insignificant; most oil is pissed away in passenger cars.
@Paladiea "no one denies that there are other factors affecting climate...."
The IPCC certainly minimized other factors. It ignored or minimized the effect of solar changes, the UHI effect's impact on the data, land use changes, the impact of soot on Arctic temperatures, the various ocean oscillations, and even ENSO conditions. Now that the climate is clearly not cooperating the IPCC is using those factors to explain why the expected warming is not being observed.
EROEI is irrelevant as it pertains to oil production, so long as the energy invested (the energy input) isn't oil. The only thing that changes when EROEI goes negative, is the oil is no longer a SOURCE of energy, the input energy is the source. When they say our EROEI is 10 barrels of oil for every 1 barrel of oil invested, they really mean 1 barrel of oil equivalent invested (that is, the amount of energy contained in a barrel of oil, but from a different source).
@Paladiea "For instance that one shows that there was warmer temperatures and that CO2 was high then as well.."
The links don't work so I can't see what you are referencing. I also prefer to know which papers you are referring to because I made no point about the Carboniferous. But it is good that you brought up high CO2 levels because we had iceball earth conditions when CO2 levels were ten times higher than today. That does not fit the AGW theory or models.
It's time to adjust to a life with less fossil fuels. This means that many aspects of our lives (namely, food production) need to be re-localized. Even if there are still a few years of cheap oil left, WHY should we deflect this problem onto future generations? Doesn't anybody care about their children/grandchildren anymore?
@Paladiea @Paladiea Really? What temperature graph do you have that shows the raw data trend?
The USHCN raw data shows no warming. Neither does the NZ data, the Australian data, the Scandinavian data, the Greenland data or the Pacific Basin data. Look them up in google images. For some reason I can't get the links to take.
@VangelVe Or any other isolated areas. What about the arctic? Canada? Northern Europe? It's easy to look at an isolated spot and say "ha! No warming" when the trend for the planet clearly shows one.
compared to peak oil, climate change is a moot point. Climate Change is popular with politicians because its a less alarming way to prepare the public for rationing
@adowns87 Peak oil is not complicated. It just means that oil is finite and one day we'll reach the limit of how much we can pump out of the earth. That is not by any means a wild statement.
The debate surrounding peak oil is:
1. When will oil peak?
2. Can we smoothly transition to other forms of energy?
So far the data suggests that the peak was in 2006 at around 79 million barrels of oil per day of conventional crude oil. And 2008 taught us that high oil prices can devastate the economy.
@Paladiea "That paper shows that during the last ice age, there were other forcing factors before CO2 kicked in..."
I cited several papers. When you can have natural factors increase temperatures to much higher levels without CO2 emissions we do not need CO2 emissions to explain the changes. The weak spot for the warmers was the MWP, which is why they tried to kill it. But there is too much research showing that it was as warm or warmer so the effort failed. Try reading the papers.
You are quite right, and very well put. There is a great deal of easy oil to be had for probably hundreds of years. You can be sure that the environmentalists will change their arguments as they have from " global warming" to " climate change ". We should actually all be very happy that peak oil was a myth, because a shortage of energy would be a disaster for mankind. I hope the peak oil myth will be a good lesson to anyone thinking of signing up to the environmentalists' cult.
@mojwnun I completely agree. I compare it to a heartrate. My heartrate is changing and will always do so. Does that mean I should ignore it when it accelerates to never seen before levels? Of course not.
@VangelVe Great and none of the papers you reference dispute AGW in any way.
Can you cite exactly where the refutation was if there was one?
You have to love how this video brings out all the true believers in almighty oil and capitalism....go read the bible and keep your head in the sand please.
great video - until it got off topic with Chomsky pushing the global warming stuff
You underestimate exponential growth. "Someday" is sooner than you think. As demand grows each year if inevitably doubles. Each doubling occurs faster than the last doubling. If we've taken 1/2 of the oil out of the ground (1 of an estimated 2 trillion bbl), then the next half is the next doubling. That next doubling due to the nature of the increasing cost of extraction will destroy the global economy and the wars you see are the anticipatory response to the "energy starvation" that's coming.
The only problem is that in the world of economical growth conservation of 50% means you can produce twice as much at higher profit. Google about Jevons paradox. The only way to have true conservation is by reduced growth. But yes you are right that there are a zillion ways humans can conserve energy, dont travel so much, dont each so much, do not have so many children. Question is, are people willing to give it away before they are forced to? We need sustainable alternatives to market economy.
@Paladiea Well those did not work. Let us go over it again.
Go to Google. Type "us raw temperature". Choose the Images option. Click on the graph showing raw and adjusted temperatures. You wills see no material warming since the 1930s.
After you have done that change 'US' to 'New Zealand' and look at the raw temperature data. It shows no warming. Do the same and replace 'New Zealand' with 'Scandinavian'. You will see that the raw temperature measurement graphs show no warming.
@MrEnergyCzar I also believe that many of the people born during the oil glut will become expendable if they haven't the resources to survive till the planet stabilizes with new energy for electricity & transportation. I am working toward those goals.
@mphello That's exactly the problem--there aren't tests that exist that test for every nutrient possible nor do they test if you're getting and optimal ratio. Supplements do not absorb as well and are inferior in every way.
If I could eat eggs (I'm allergic), I would be a vegetarian surviving on raw goat's milk and raw eggs for my animal nutrients. I always suggest vegans revert to vegetarian and consume these. I think of it as a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship between species.
@Paladiea "Isn't Alaska folded in with the US? Moot. What about the 75% of planet that are represented by the oceans?"
Alaska is folded into the US but it also represents the Arctic environment. And as I pointed out, the ARGO system, which went operational in 2003 shows no accumulation of heat in the oceans. By doing so it falsifies the CO2 emission driven radiative imbalance claims made by the warmers.
@bogusnachos Rational steps to conserve energy can eliminate the need for still more energy from nuclear or fossil fuel sources. Conservation reduces costs, which is good for business, conservation reduces expenses, which is good for consumers, conservation reduces emissions and reduces the need for mining, processing, transportation and storage of nuclear materials. Conservation (i.e. the low hanging and free fruit) first.
I really am not so saddened by this peak oil though, I see it as an opportunity to be more kind to and appreciate nature. We will always have energy, last resort atomic energy. And metals like copper will always exist to transmit the energy. Was the food and housing so bad before the industrial age? We will always have global trade though, we will probably appreciate and respect certain things alot more. By the way oils will still be around to make plastic which we would hopefully learntorecycle
@Paladiea "preferably from one that's been peer reviewed..."
Since this thing gives me an error if I try to link something I will reference papers by author, journal and issue.
Go to the International Journal of Geosciences, Vol.1 No.3, 2010 and look at the article by Paulo Cesar Soares. The paper shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
Or try, Oxygen-isotope (δ18O) evidence of Holocene hydrological changes at Signy Island, maritime Antarctica, The Holocene 13: 251-263
@Paladiea "Let's just say that I warned you about conflating global temperatures with US temperatures."
And as I wrote, most of the raw data shows no material warming since the 1930s. The warming comes from the signal that is added to the actual measurements by computer algorithms that have not been made available for independent assessment. Without replication it is not science, no matter how many UN bureaucrats say otherwise.
I couldn't help but think when that Chomsky might be projecting when he talked about institutional traps and inevitability. Universities generally have a stake in public views about global warming. The more concern the public has, the more funding they will get for research. It is political anathema to be skeptical about AGW in an academic environment because, well, "that's my funding you are talking about brother!" Also, death knell for humans? That might be hyperbole. Just saying.
Look skeptically at the opinions of doomsday academic experts. Look to innovators, working in the real world, to meet our challenges.
@VangelVe Isn't Alaska folded in with the US? Moot. What about the 75% of planet that are represented by the oceans?
Hartmann: "Hi, I'm Thom Hartmann. Join me in listening to various experts discuss fossil fuel depletion and global warming."
Funny thing though; for the last year or so Thom Hartmann himself WONT TALK ABOUT PEAK OIL. Anyone know why?
I'm not so sure that a handful of journalists, radio hosts, bloggers, and washed up linguists really count as "experts" on peak oil--an economic issue--or climate change--a scientific issue. These are professional secondhand dealers in ideas, and nothing more.
@Baadger Um...great reply. Thanks for that.
At current growth of consumption, we only have like 50 years before everything is used up, so won't that solve global warming? when we stop producing and burning anything?
One person or another has said this is the year of peak oil, for the last 100 years.
A stopped clock is right twice a day, but these guys are not right once a century.
The smart thing to do is use oil until it is too expensive.
The dumb thing to do is worry that the world is running out of oil.
No one is that stupid? ........ Watch the video.
The worldwide production of oil maxed out in 2005. The frenzy of drilling, tracking, and mining tar sands has managed to keep us at that level for about ten years. But it won't last much longer.
+kim weaver only another 1500 years, but it will be left in the ground long before that, no one has a clue what Society will be like even in 100 years. But we will have fusion.
Fusion = pipe dream. IT's always "Free Beer Tomorrow!" All the net energy from all the fusion experiments ever done (costing tens of BILLIONS of dollars) wouldn't charge the average cell phone battery.
Check out Professor Albert Bartlett's TH-cam talks on oiil, population, and arithmetic. There is MOST DEFINITELY NOT 1500 years of oil. We might be able to count on oil for 20 years or so before the delivery rate drops below the level where it matters as an energy source. You need to catch up, Spanky.
I recognize the phenomenon of global warming but to be honest, I am not willing to take the consequences into account. It will cost me too much. I am not willing to freely give away my current lifestyle to preserve the planet for future generations. I know I sound cruel, but think about it for a second. I am just saying what everybody really means, but noone dares to say openly.
Look at the more recent videos and articles about "Peak Oil"
Right now, more and more highly regarded skeptics are now agreeing. Simply put, we are running out of cheap oil. We could drill all day but even still, we will use 2 barrels of oil to find and create just 1 barrel. Eventually any reserve will run dry.
Google "peak oil"
Educate yourself.
Let's think "sustainability". Let's be active in our free market society and create more competition for oil.
Let's think about generations.
It's not global warming its Geo engineering.
"where is our tumbling where is our sacred cowboy now
Where is the Indian on the hill, There is no Indians left to kill"
Bruce Dickinson
noam chomsky's plants look horrible.
Just like him
So we leave it to our grandchildren? Maybe Great Grandchildren?
Let's be the society in history that did something BEFORE there was a problem.
Like War is a response to a threat, just think of what could be avoided by being proactive.
Industrialisation is based on division. It divided thinking, production to such a point that nobody can understand or know the impact of his own input. This is not a market problem. In the soviet times irresponsibility and ignorance was paramount. Industrialisation is here to suppress intelligence and thinking because it feeds on automation and create authority. Social positions (CEO, professors) are based on this principle and can be questionned. If we do not use our hand we use oil or slaves.
@Paladiea "What about the arctic? Canada? Northern Europe?"
The Scandinavian data shows no material warming since the 1930s. Neither do the isolated stations in Greenland or Alaska.
Go into Google Images and search for "Alaska temperatures". You see the big rise in the 1930s then a decline until the PDO went positive in the mid 1970s. Since then temperatures rose but to previous levels. And note the 'hot' readings last year were imputed, not measured by any instrument.
@iooo007 Thats not right... they already consume as much oil per capita like germany for example... venezuela consumes over 700.000 barrels, I think almost 800.000... population is estimated a bit over 27 million. Germany has 82 million people and consumes 2,4 (a bit less because falling demand in whole western europe since years), most of that countrys I mentioned offer very cheap gasoline to their people... Venezuela I think 14 US-$/10€-Cent per litre. Sometimes its rationed but...
Fabulous
@Paladiea For some reason I can't post links. Let us try this again. Cut this and paste it in your browser and you will see both the raw and 'adjusted' trend for the US.
climate-skeptic.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54eeb9dc18834010535ef5d49970b-800wi
I believe oil is the clay feet talked about in the bible
And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.
@VangelVe no one denies that there are other factors affecting climate. But contrary to your belief, there is no massive conspiracy to peddle climate change.
Regardless, you can't reason with the unreasonable. The global avg temperature is rising. This is an undisputed fact. You can try and cut it down piecemeal but it's dodging the point.
@Paladiea "Ok so he was incorrect in his predictions. So? How does that disprove climate change in general? Again, the US is not the world."
The point is that the best data shows no material warming in many places of the world. The reported warming comes from adjusting the data by methods that have not been allowed to be independently evaluated. That is a huge problem for the integrity of the movement because cherry picking and lack of transparency are not science.
Yeah you're right there's no problem. Everything's fine. Can't you tell?
inventing new tech is what man
is all bout son
LOL another simple answer, this time LFTR, good one, i didn't heard this one before ;)
Where are LFTRs ?
How many is opereting right now ?
How much percentage of energy we get from LFTRs now?
How long it to take to build ONE - LFTR ?
How much oil and other fossil fuels you need to build LFTR ?
This is just another techno-utopia.
Something like we will fly in cosmos for more fuel or we will have solar panels able to power cars not calcs ;)
Or, government can raise prices on oil which causes the free market to find a new means of production.
its sad that people actually believe in revelations
@Paladiea "The US is not the world. When people say there's warming they mean GLOBAL average temperature. Hence the term global warming...."
I agree that the US is not the world. But as I pointed out, data from Australia, New Zealand, Greenland, and the Scandinavian countries shows no warming. All of the warming comes from the 'adjusted' value-added sets that cannot be replicated independently because the code, metadata AND raw data have not been made available.
I feel like doing some research on the Chicken Little story.
@MrTadblack This is the bitter truth & there is little evidence to support any other outcome. Thak you.
I think they will change this subventions of cheap gasoline, as Iran did, they reduced the amount. But the fact that countrys like Saudi-Arabia waste over 2.1 million bbl with 27-28 mio population (even more worse than american waste) but libya got higher per capita consumption than western europe too.If the oil will get short they would/will stop this, like americans will consume less if they pay european prices. Today up to 8,1$/gal, and it will increase as rising oil price shows.
lol so how about that peak oil
2016
@warpigsinfin 'Relocalize food production and the rest of the changes we need will follow.'
This is a myth. Energy used in transport is a minor part of all of the energy needed to grow food. It is more efficient to grow some fruits in South America and ship them to North America than to grow them locally.
@villel80 You might ask yourself," where will the oil come from to build these technologies? Do you think that the oil needed for the plastics, composites, etc., the energy needed to extract, transport, manufacture, then distribute such techno salvation will be cheap, available, and not destined to heat homes, drive folks to work, farm the land to feed the people? Think carefully. How will technology save the millions who feel they are owed the "good life"?
THIS is the danger. I think Opec got more than 66% of the worlds reserves, especially if you include venezuelas unconv. reserves. Except Russia maybe other countries will join OPEC (Kazakhstan?Azerbaijan?). Brazil already told it wants into OPEC if the deep-sea-fields go into production (that will boost brazils reserves to at least 30, maybe 50 or more billion bbl). There could be wars for the last easy-to-produce-fields in OPEC-Countries if the OPEC does not cooperate with "us".
@Paladiea "Great and none of the papers you reference dispute AGW in any way..."
You don't read well. The papers do not claim that we have not warmed since the last ice age termination or since the LIA 150 ended years ago. They refute the ANTHROPOGENIC part of AGW. We expect temperatures to go up once the Little Ice Age ended. Otherwise we would still be in the LIA. The warming from the depths of the LIA began more than 300 years ago, before atmospheric CO2 levels began to go up.
Well shit, this was a botched assumption of the academic elite. I guess they don't know everything. 🤭
If you want to do something about climate change, that's not really all that difficult either. You can piss away decade after decade hoping that wind and solar will some day amount to more than a rounding error; but the mature technology that can replace coal right today is nuclear fission.
Yellowcake uranium costs about a dollar per barrel of oil equivalent if used in a once-through cycle(e.g. LWR); eventually we'll need to start building breeders, but there's no rush.
@MixedSpecieMixedRace Not a myth genius. The US hit peak oil in the 1970's. We are arguably in global peak oil right now. Production may have increased the last 30 years, but look at what happens from last year on out from hear. Oil is a precious resource that is gone once you use it. So you think there is an unlimited supply??!!
"herd" How apt.
The other point I make in my logic thread is how idiotic the individuals in this video look now. We go from peak oil and no oil in USA to export to "surplus" oil in the USA so that we can export. That happened bc individuals particularly in this country looking out for their own interests figured out an amazing new way to get oil out of the ground. These so smart idiots in this video completely discounted people who were far more creative and out of the box thinkers than they were!!! Amazing
Thom Hartmann himself has apparently sold out - to Russia.
Hartmann, author of a book on peak oil, started broadcasting his "The Big Picture With Thom Hartmann" TV show from RT (Russia Today) America studios in October 2010, using RT facilities. From January 2012, RT's English-language channel started broadcasting his TV show in over 100 countries.
Russia is as big an oil producer as Saudi Arabia. Hartmann is now silent on peak oil.
Thom Hartmann has zero credibility.
@VangelVe Yes I got the link in my email. Let's just say that I warned you about conflating global temperatures with US temperatures.
@Seedofwinter
Human extinction is not synonymous with extinction of the earth!
@SuperNolimetangere You obviously have not been paying attention to the news.
It literally will run out, there is literally a finite supply....
sure we can, through energy efficiency we can have rising GDP
@VangelVe
I did, and all the graphs show an increase. Lying again I see. Care to provide a link to a graph that doesn't show an increase?
Yeah that's exactly what defines peak oil jbfrodsham, cost of extraction becomes higher and higher as supply declines, not to mention demand still rising. I guess you just like to disagree with people even when you hold the same view. It's just elementary statistical analysis. More to the point we DO NOT have the carbon budget to be buring those tars sands all all the coal left in the worlds known reserves, let alone any unknown reserves. Climate is already plummeting to wildly unsafe state.
We were just a year or two away from peak oil, rapid decline and society ending disaster every year since I started paying attention. That's 20+ years of failed peak oil predictions and continuous chanting of THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!111 ANY MINUTE NOW!!! THE SKY IS FALLING.
@mphello Although one can survive on a vegan diet and do better than those eating the SAD, grass-fed and wild game meats are necessary for optimal human health as they contain the proper ratio of fat, fatty acids, proteins, and fat soluble vitamins. Cholesterol, Vitamin B12, and Vitamin K2 MK4 are deficient in the vegan diet and all vegans do not get the proper ratio of nutrients. I'm a former vegan.
Well this didn’t seem to age well. I spent years in anxious panic about peak oil. The worst case scenario people seem to have been wrong about the technology making more oil available?
Writing from 2022, 12 years after they said the world peaked in this video...
@KilonBerlin When will the earth be unable to offset the CO2 rise & the temperature will be intolerable & the oceans unable to sustain fish as we know it ? Do you really think that we can burn it all ? WHEN ?
alot of people think that peak oil is nonsense. not sure myself.
@MrEnergyCzar We can't have a continually rising GDP in a reality constrained world.
@chonus4497 I made no ad hominem. At 0:10 the video refers to these people as "experts," and I was arguing that this collection of people in no way fits any reasonable definition of the term "expert" for these issues. Would you care to defend the claim that these people are experts, or are straw men all ya got?
to have any hope we will stop the dive to extinction, you'll be thankful for folks like me, His son's and daughters, whom will prophecy these things.
j