Tuesday, March 31, 2015

PEAKOILBARREL COVER UP !!!


Ron Patterson Censors Like A Madman

I have now been banned from peakoilbarrel.com.  What follows is an attempt by me to dig up the MEMORY HOLE created by Ron Patterson's very heavy handed censorship leading up to my banning.  Here, I replace some of the comments that Ron deleted.  This is the best reconstruction possible, created from my own extensive database.  Many of my comments have been lost forever.  The final product of the censor's craft can be seen at:  

http://peakoilbarrel.com/the-problem-of-the-human-population/

None of the other links on this page are active.

It should be obvious to anyone who reads this, that Ron Patterson and company are seriously stonewalling both the Etp model and the Futilitist Collapse Challenge.  They do not want to admit that oil prices are going to keep falling.  And Ron was not real happy with me when I decided to challenge the fraud, Javier, by asking for his CV.  But it was making light of his oh so scary "And then we will eat the birds out of the treesbullshit that really pissed him off.  That was the final straw. 

We begin as WebHubTelescope answers one of Petro's spastic comments with this little gem: 


WebHubTelescope says:
MARCH 26, 2015 AT 11:10 PM


-In reality, a very steep mountain down-slope, or what is called a “shark-fin” type of collapse is far more likely.
I always had a problem with calling it a shark fin profile. The down slope on the trailing edge of a real shark fin typically bends backwards, making it an unphysical representation. In other words, It would mean that time would go backwards and people would scratch their heads over this. The accusation is that Peak Oilers are always exaggerating and this doesn’t help counter that view.

Petro says:
-Hah…
…fair enough!
Be well,
Petro

Futilitist says:
Hi WebHubTelescope.
“The accusation is that Peak Oilers are always exaggerating and this doesn’t help counter that view.”
‘Peak oilers’ is a Madison Avenue invented term. There is no peak oilers club or movement. Most websites that concern themselves with the peak oil issue are either outright denial sites, or sites which sidle up and try to soft pedal the issue, like this one.
There is no ‘we’ that is always exaggerating the peak oil issue. ‘We’ have nothing to be ashamed of. ‘We’ don’t need to get together to counter a false meme. The idea that ‘we’ need do so is itself a false meme.
The shark fin is a good analogy for a Seneca Cliff, which is a good analogy for fast collapse. There is no reason to soften the analogies. It does no good to soften the truth for the squeamish. If anything, ‘we’ should be more forceful if ‘we’ want to be heard.

Most websites that concern themselves with the peak oil issue are either outright denial sites, or sites which sidle up and try to soft pedal the issue, like this one.
That’s a load of horseshit if one ever existed. I don’t soft pedal anything here.
But they will all decline, taper off until none is economically recoverable any more. The first to go will be crude oil, then natural gas and finally coal. Crude oil will peak in this decade and be almost completely gone by the end of the first half of this century. Then natural gas and coal will go in the second half.
We will not hear warnings of impending disaster and act. We will wait until the disaster is upon us then react. It is simply in our nature to behave in such a manner. And then we will eat the birds out of the trees.
Ron Patterson, Of Fossil Fuels and Human Destiny

Futilitist says:
Hi Ron.
The birds in the trees thing sounds real scary and all, but there is no time frame given. That is soft pedaling. When something comes along that might impose a short timeline, like the Etp model, it is rejected out of hand (like most people treat the Korowicz paper). When you refuse to comment on the Etp model, it is stonewalling.
Why did you give a tireless climate change denier, like Javier, a guest posting at the top of your site? It does not reflect well on your judgement.

Monsta666 says:
MARCH 29, 2015 AT 4:51 AM
Ron does offer time-lines in regards to when oil production will terminally decline and it is 2015/2016. Furthermore he has stated that initially the decline will be slow but will then accelerate as we reach the end of the decade so time-frames are provided.
As to the nature of collapse, I believe (correct me if I am wrong Ron) he thinks collapse will be more rapid than slow. I think the issue of giving precise dates is not so much about soft pedalling but one of unpredictability. At the end of the day we live in a world of complex systems so while general trends and long-term changes can be anticipated naming a precise date for these changes in system behaviour is exceedingly difficult.
Saying all that personally I find it hard to believe the financial system and by extension the global economy can hold itself together if the world experiences declines in oil production for 10 straight years. Collapse will likely happen within that time frame and if that occurs global trade will be cut off and you will get a major problem with unemployment. It is at this juncture where things could go anywhere. How people and society react at the realisation that business as usual cannot continue will play a decisive role in whether we get a fast or slow collapse. It is at this point of chaos when it becomes even harder to predict how people will react and this will only be compounded by the fact there is likely to be a number of black swan events taking place that cannot be predicted at this time but will likely be very relevant to the situation then.
If there is any guide on how things can work out it will be through history although like all guides we must not lean on them too much and acknowledge their shortcomings. The most obvious analogy would be the collapse of the Roman empire (and the underlying system of debt servitude/slavery). After the collapse of the empire the economy of the region shifted to a more localised/self-sufficient feudal system. The physical monetary system largely disappeared as did outright slavery but then people were never really freed as they were bound to the land and their position in life. Perhaps a neo-feudalism type society could be our future. However a degree of caution should be exercised in this as today (unlike the time of the Roman empire) the whole world will be in a state of overshoot and there needs to be a correction in population to match the renewable resources of the planet. The collapse of the Roman empire did not need such a large population correction in relative or absolute terms so the outcomes will be different.

Javier says:
Hi monsta666,
That is a great description and exactly my thoughts. I subscribe everything you say.
For the same reasons I’ve done my own research of the Roman collapse and I have produced the following graph from the best available bibliographic sources.
There is a lot of info in that graph that basically allows to follow the Roman descent into the Dark Ages. But the main info can also be extracted from Meadows’ Limits o Growth. Collapse is a complex issue involving many factors and many peaks, that takes time. Something that simple-minded people like Futilitist cannot grasp and so they will always be wrong.
My view of our impending collapse is similar to that graph except that very much compressed in time. We are already seeing our own commerce peak and about to see industrial production peak. What it is not seen in the graph is the political shift at the critical point from Republic to Empire, that was probably a reaction to the situation. We are already close to our own political shift, as political events in Europe indicate.
Other things that can be seen from the Roman example are that economic collapse was the fastest and most thorough, and that epochs of partial recovery, like the fourth century are possible.
Livestock can be seen as a proxy for agricultural surplus. The Russian example agrees that when things get rough we get rid of livestock to reduce the impact on human carrying capacity.

Futilitist says:
Coordinated blocking maneuver.
Hi Monsta666. You should let Ron speak for himself.
Hi Javier. Please post your CV. Thanks.
Hi Ron. Please answer my post:

The birds in the trees thing sounds real scary and all, but there is no time frame given. That is soft pedaling.
And that is pure bullshit. Only a fool gives exact dates for future unknown events.
Why did you give a tireless climate change denier, like Javier, a guest posting at the top of your site? It does not reflect well on your judgement.
Several people have emailed me questioning my judgement as to why I let such a bullshitter like yourself continue to post on this site. I am beginning to see their point.

-----NOTE: THERE IS A MISSING FUTILITIST COMMENT HERE.  THIS IS RON’S FIRST OVERT EDIT.  I DO NOT HAVE ANY COPY OF THE COMMENT THAT RON THREW AWAY.  WHEN I NOTICED MY COMMENT WAS MISSING, I POSTED THE FOLLOWING: 

Futilitist says:
Hi Ron.
“I don’t soft pedal anything here.”
Why did you post Javier’s article without checking his qualifications?
Please don’t throw this in the trash like you did last time.
This place is like a three ring circus.

-----NOTE:  WHEN RON SEE’S THAT I HAVE BASICALLY REPOSTED THE OFFENSIVE QUESTION, HE BEGINS EDITING LIKE A MADMAN.  THE COMMENT ABOVE DISAPPEARS ALSO.  THIS PROMPTS ME TO BEGIN POSTING LIKE A MADMAN.  I POST ABOUT 22 NOTES ASKING FOR JAVIER TO PRODUCE A CV, 16 OF WHICH STILL SURVIVE.  AND I ALSO POST THE FOLLOWING, WHICH IS ALSO DESTINED FOR THE TRASH:

Futilitist says:
!!!!!!MEMORY HOLE ALERT!!!!!!!
Ron has edited this thread. This is now a cover up, folks!
He has taken comments out of this section to avoid my question to him. My comments had been up for more than a day and I’m sure many have read what I said. Two people had even responded and their comments are now sitting, disconnected from anything, at the bottom of this page.
This is what propaganda looks like.
I’ll bet this comment also ends up in the memory hole.

-----NOTE:  THE FOLLOWING POST WAS PLACED AS CLOSE TO THE TOP OF THE PAGE AS POSSIBLE FOR MAXIMUM VISIBILITY.  IT IS TO REPLACE A MUCH BETTER WRITTEN ONE THAT RON REMOVED IN HIS CENSORSHIP FRENZY.  THIS ONE ALSO ENDS UP IN THE TRASH:

Futilitist says:
From the article by Javier.
Javier holds a PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and has been a scientist for 30 years in molecular genetics and neurobiology.
Ha ha. I find this very hard to believe.
I think it is high time that Javier post his CV, and links to peer reviewed, published scientific articles.
Ron should have checked Javier’s qualifications before subjecting everyone to this crap.

-----NOTE:  THE FOLLOWING IS A VERY INTERESTING EXCHANGE INVOLVING A NEW MEMBER NAMED CYTOCHROME C.  HE SEEMS TO GENERALLY SUPPORT MY EFFORTS.  THIS AROUSES SOME SUSPICION.  CHECK OUT WHO CHALLENGES HIS AUTHENTICITY:

Petro says:
Ron and everybody:
Perhaps devoting LESS attention to what Futilistit (and/or the other name(s) he/she goes with) might help everyone see things calmer and clearer…
All know, irritating, attention seeking, egocentric individuals (there is a better term to describe than “individuals: regarding this specific case, but I am not going to use it this time…) function on exactly that: Attention.
Less of it – better for everybody and for this respectable forum!!!
Just a thought…just a thought.
Be well,
Petro

Futilitist says:
Whatever.

robert wilson says:
Ron, please get rid of futiliist. Who needs a psychotic blog?

cytochrome C says:
I find him a refreshing beacon of reason.
But it is up to you——

Caelan MacIntyre says:
I second cytochrome C’s contention, along with the idea of diversity versus monoculture. This is nevertheless with the qualification that Futilitist is not somehow working toward an answer as to how far the blog atmosphere can be ‘tweaked’, for example, before it gives (up Futilitist), (in which case it may then not matter either way would it?).
I find him a refreshing beacon of bacon. Kosher bacon.

Futilitist says:
Everyone is afraid of me. ha ha.

cytochrome C says:
I’m baffled also.
Ron has launched my go to site on energy and oil, and has great traffic, a good and very literate group that I learn from daily, and Ron is science centric and uses equanimity.
Imagine a first time visitor enchountering Javier as a lead presented on a topic?
They would run in horror from that ideological simpleton.

robert wilson says:
Would this first time visiter be more impressed by a dogmatic poster stating I will countenance no belief other than my own?

cytochrome C says:
If it was no belief but my own.
However, that is not the case, by simple observation.
Postmodernism is so in the rear view mirror.

Caelan MacIntyre says:
cytochrome C, are you Futilitist?

cytochrome C says:
I haven’t a clue.
I have so many avatars, I often get confused who I am.
But it doesn’t ring a bell.
Last time I checked, I was a small hemeprotein found loosely associated with the inner membrane of the mitochondrion.

-----NOTE:  FOR SOME REASON, RON SPOTTED THE FOLOWING COMMENT, AND REMOVED IT, SAVING CAELAN FROM A TRICKY HANGING QUESTION.  THE LINK IS TO THE FIRST JAVIER CV COMMENT WHICH WAS TRASHED:

Futilitist says:
Hi Caelan.
“cytochrome C, are you Futilitist?”
Why in the world would you ask a ridiculous question like that?
And Ron is now editing my comments off the page, even though they had been up for more than a day and people had even responded to them. What do you think of this?
Also, several of my requests to get Javier to post his CV have been removed.
This is a cover up.

-----NOTE:  MY POST ABOVE WAS A DIRECT RESPONSE TO CAELAN, SO, NOW THAT IT IS GONE, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WAS NEVER THERE, AND CAELAN CARRIES ON THE EXCHANGE WITH CYTOCHROME C LIKE NOTHING EVER HAPPENED:

Caelan MacIntyre says:
Fair enough. I seem to recall Futilitist mentioning some sort of educational background in biology.

cytochrome C says:
Although I have taught biology, environmental education and ecology, my main work is with history and politics.
Energy is consuming more time, but I’m a neophyte.
Climate takes a bit of my time.
The illiteracy on that subject is astounding.

Caelan MacIntyre says:
As one who is not specialist in some fields I want to get a better picture of, it can be frustrating to get a clearer picture sometimes. I realize that is not always possible, but still.

-----NOTE:  THE FOLLOWING MISSING POST CONTAINS A LINK TO THE MEMORY HOLE POST WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY ALSO MISSING:

Futilitist says:
Ron Patterson says:
MARCH 29, 2015 AT 11:22 AM
The birds in the trees thing sounds real scary and all, but there is no time frame given. That is soft pedaling.
And that is pure bullshit. Only a fool gives exact dates for future unknown events.
Why did you give a tireless climate change denier, like Javier, a guest posting at the top of your site? It does not reflect well on your judgement.
Several people have emailed me questioning my judgement as to why I let such a bullshitter like yourself continue to post on this site. I am beginning to see their point.
——
And the cover up begins. Who are you talking to?
This used to be a working link:
Where is it now?
Ron is editing like a madman.

-----NOTE:  IN THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE, RON ANNOUNCES THAT FUTILITIST IS DEAD.  IT IS VERY INTERESTING TO NOTICE WHO PILES ON AT THIS POINT:

Futilitist is gone. He won’t be back.

wimbi says:
Thanks much Ron. I was starting to despair.

Lloyd says:
Thanks Ron. He who shall not be named’s badgering was making the blog unreadable. While we agreed on some points, the BWHill stuff and trying to force people to comment on it was truly irritating.
-Lloyd

Enno says:
Thanks Ron, that was really due.

Boomer II says:
I wanted to say something, but I was afraid I, too, would become the subject of harassment. So I ignored him.
However, when he started to get so insistent wanting feedback about his oil theories, I thought he might be having some sort of manic episode. He sounded like people not quite right in the head who think they have figured out the world.
Then when it was suggested that he was working on a Ph.D., I wondered if we were being subjected to some sort of ill-conceived social experiment.
At any rate, the guy was out of control and I am glad he is gone.

People, the comments are now all screwed up. I was deleting a bunch of Futilitist’s posts and apparently I deleted one that had a reply to it without being aware of the reply. When that happens that screws up the all comments and makes them appear as if it was an original comment instead of a reply.
That’s the bad news. The good news is Futilitist is gone forever. I just got tired of his shit and banned him.
I will have another post later today. It will be a short post because there is not much data to post about. But that will fix the comments problem.

Doug Leighton says:
Hi Ron,
EIA data is out for January showing large drop in North Slope: 524,000 down to 486,000 bbl/day YOY. Clearly, only one month but possibly significant. I’m now willing to bet (almost) the North Slope never sees 500,000 bbl/day produced again, ever.

Jeffrey J. Brown says:
2014 annual production was down to 479,000 bpd:
The 1988 to 2014 rate of decline was 5.4%/year.

Ronald Walter says:
I can think of all sorts of thoughts to write into words, but, for the most part, they pertain to the subject matter of oil, its supply, where it comes from, where it goes and the reasons to use it. I raise a raucous now and then to attempt some humor, not to interrupt anything, just for humorous aspects. If you can’t laugh, it’s a sad sitseeation. And, sometimes, it is peakbullshit, but not too much hyperbole. Sorry if it is too much at times.
The number one reason to use oil is agriculture, farmers prefer oil to fuel tractors than they prefer to breed workhorses that consume land to remain alive to do the work of a horse. 400 horsepower is better than two or a twenty mule team, takes much less manpower and work, believe it.
Whether or not humans should farm is downright insane, if you don’t have anything to eat and there is no immediate means to fill your stomach, you’ll go hunting for something that will fill the void, it’ll be a true gut feeling. You’ll make a bee line for the nearest farm, no other reason than to find something to eat.
The manufacturing industries will meet the demands of farmers, they’ll have tractors, combines, implements, everything.
The second reason is for transportation, some for leisure, most for economic reasons, move those goods, which includes a defense, the military.
Redacting is part of editing, censorship, it is Ron Patterson’s blog, not yours.
If the choice is to censor some content, there is probably good reason for such action.
Which, from time to time, is necessary, not all may agree, but that’s just too bad.
It’s pealoilbarrel.com, not peakfullofshituptoyourears.com.

-----NOTE:  THE FOLLOWING COMMENT REALLY TOOK ME BY SURPRISE!  MY OLD FRIEND JOHN MICHAEL GREER SEEMS very PLEASED WITH THE WAY THINGS TURNED OUT.  HE MUST HAVE FELT PRETTY GOOD, BECAUSE HE IS NOT USUALLY AT SUCH A LOSS FOR WORDS:

John Michael Greer says:
MARCH 30, 2015 AT 8:09 AM



-----note:  And finally, The following post was left in place but the artwork was censored off the page.  I guess There's just no accounting for taste:
Futilitist says:

Nothing can go wrong…..go wrong……go wrong……….