Mike Doyle - 20 May 2008 05:16 PM

if it hadn’t rained.

er...indeed.

The end is nigh.

“It’s funny because it’s true”

—Homer J. Simpson

deleted because I hated this entry

@ Gordon, the rain was connected to La Nina… and La Nina was connected to the - climate change… and the climate change makes a worse - El Nino, so we shake them rains about, yeah, shake them rains about....

God promised there would always be rain… but the bible doesn’t spell out when, where, or how frequently it will rain, does it? There comes a point where “militant agnosticism” is just trotting out straw-men and is not what you claim it is.

@ Mike,
The end of what though Mike?

I’m not talking about “THE” end — that’s God’s bit. But the starvation of millions of humans, we’re quite capable of doing that to ourselves. This is not “THE” apocalypse — just potentially “an” apocalypse… and I don’t know why that is so alien to Christians who have free access to Revelation. When one looks at the history of humanity misusing its resources, such as the Irish potato famine and Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”, these terrible events of mass starvation should leap out as self-induced mini-apocalypses… for after all, how are we to use that word if not to describe these events?

I don’t know which of our modern environmental crisis are the most serious… global warming or peak oil, toxic build up in the global food chain (so that mines in China could have given my son cancer in here Sydney), or many others I could go on about such as global fisheries collapse and the freshwater crisis.

But I have a hunch which crisis will get people really talking about “limits to growth” first ... check out this Financial Times.

But with the oil price at a record $126 a barrel, more than 1,000 per cent higher than a decade ago, fears of the end of the hydrocarbon age have seeped into the mainstream. Many in the industry itself now accept that supply constraints are shaping the price as much as rampant demand.

... So are the peak oilists right? A series of recent events certainly appears to lend credence to those who argue that the world’s ageing oilfields are being sucked dry amid China’s and India’s determination to lift themselves out of poverty and the west’s reluctance to give up the luxuries of modern oil-dependent life.

Dave Lankshear - 21 May 2008 10:49 AM

[b
But with the oil price at a record $126 a barrel, more than 1,000 per cent higher than a decade ago, fears of the end of the hydrocarbon age have seeped into the mainstream.

Dave,

Price is a funny thing.

Yes, crude oil prices are 10 times what they were in 1998.

In 1998 from what I can tell it was $13 per barrel.

But price is a funy thing. The 1990’s were a period of generational-low oil prices, between the First Gulf War and September 11. Oil was $13 a barrel in 1986 and 1976 too, so you can also say Oil has increased in price tenfold since the mid 1970’s.

This illistrates the point that $13 in 2008 isn’t the same as $13 in 1998, 1986 or 1976.

Adjusting for CPI the 1998 $13 is more like $20 today.

BUT we are talking US dollars, Greenbacks being the world’s currency.

The little battler Aussie dollar spent most of 1998 at 60c US. Today it is at 95c US and is moving towards parity.

That adjusts the $20 to 2008 AUS $32.

A fourfold increase in real terms is significant over a decade. Using the same maths, however, shows 1986 adjusted is about $42, making a threefold increase over two decades.

As I said, price is a funny thing.

As an aside, the futures markets have oil coming back a few percent over the next two months.

Cheers,

James

Isn’t there a difference between a prophetic prediction that fails (requiring stoning),

I frequently hear words of prophesy from clients… mind you, most of em are “pre-stoned”.

Good one Owen! LOL!

SA reply

@ James: first I just don’t accept that the price is as low in adjusted terms as you say it is. Check this wiki.

(shortened)

Second: price is also affected by supply and that’s where the geologists come in. They add all the oil they have found through history against the oil we’ve already used, do some figures, look at production rates and new projects, and come up with a rough year that production will max out.

So… how is world discovery doing? How long since a really big discovery? Have discovery trends increased or decreased over the last decade/s? Are we finding more oil than we use, or using more oil than we find? Which way around is this trend, and how far along it are we? How good or bad is the ratio of discovery to consumption?

(There… sorry about the yawn factor).

Sorry for the double post, but James if you want answers to just some of the questions above, see my latest blog post

Alan Kholer for President of the world because this is about the third time Alan Kholer has announced the beginning of the end of the oil age (for those who were looking) in prime time ABC financial news.

James, Pull out.

PULL OUT NOW.

You heard it here first.

yawn

Gordon Cheng - 21 May 2008 11:50 PM

James, Pull out.

PULL OUT NOW.

You heard it here first.

Why? He’s an economist, and should win this round. Shouldn’t he?

I’m sorry about Luke’s yawn, and will shorten my previous post.

Sorry if I bored you all… I was just exercising my “right of reply” and discussing my hobby.  Human ecology fascinates me. I can see all sorts of risks ahead and many things unfolding now just as a number of our peaknik scenario’s predicted, but history could go any which way. We’ll see.

No hard feelings — I hope the UN, EU, USA, G8 and other big players can sort this out in a compassionate and peaceful way. We’ll see. It’s time to pray about it.

See ya.

Here’s what the future will look like for climate change denialists.

It’s sobering stuff. Read, mark, learn and inwardly repent.