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 trees" bullshit 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!
…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.
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:
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
——
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:
Nothing can go wrong…..go wrong……go wrong……….
