Limited Resources

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

The conditions necessary for scientists at campus labs to know better than the people actually bringing out the oil?

I don't know if there are actual estimates from the people bringing out the oil. Anyway, if I was in a business that had 35-50 more years to go, I wouldn't be all that concerned! Maybe YOU can investigate this issue since I have already provided some data. Are there actually companies who have done such studies and made the research results available? I don't know.

If the government wasn't involved in funding science, do you think there would be nearly as much funding for anything that wasn't either directly or indirectly geared toward making money as there is today? Secondly, would you see that as a trajedy and why or why not?

There is absolutely no monetary value in my research (which is govt. funded). I don't doubt for a second that someday - hopefully sooner rather than later - it will benefit human life in some way. Moving on to private funding, I know that there are rich individuals who are willing to invest $$ in the kind of biodiversity research I do, rather like philanthropists, but not because they can make $$ off the product. I don't see anything wrong in this, because there is really no way that all of this information could be productively used in our lifetimes.

I tend to think much more long term, since we are just discovering the usefulness of species today that were described several hundred years ago.... So, I would see the lack of basic research as a tragedy because it is the foundation for applied research. I am not so sure that a decrease in public funding and an increase in private funding, however, would reduce basic research. I think there are far more people that care about what goes on here on Earth than there are that care about what goes on up in space, rocket man. But that is gross speculation, of course.

Edited October 18, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[DavidOdden]

Okay, so you are rejecting my argument based on the fact that these arguments have been wrong in the past. Let me ask you this: If a boy cries wolf three times and is wrong, he will necessarily be wrong in the future?

Another way to put this is, if a boy cries wolf three times and is wrong, is he necessarily right the next time? Is it probable that he will be right the next time? As a villager, why should you assume that he is right this time? Or, what would you want to know in order to distinguish between his past errors and his present truth -- has there been an unprecedented improvement in the method used for calculating these answers?

The article doesn't take on the question of how oil reserves are computed for known oil fields (that's not its purpose); so the question is, how much oil is there in the state of Alaska alone? How about in Cabinda and offshore? Or, the mid-Atlantic? I'm just saying, suppose there are 80 trillion barrels of extractable reserves. Then the end is nowhere near in sight.

[Inspector]

David summed up pretty well what I was getting at. I'd like to add a clarification: I have heard it said from people in the science community such statements as "fact must take a back seat to ideology." When I hear this sort of thing coming from environmentalist "scientists" and on the other hand read the kinds of things like in Thomas Sowell's book, or in The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, or numerous articles from the ARI, I simply don't listen to cries of "wolf" anymore.

As to Liro's disbelief in the "conspiracy," (i.e. "riiiiiiiight") I shrug my shoulders. There is in fact a conspiracy of environmentalist-ideology-before-fact scientists who have been pushing phony theories for something like 50 years now. That's pretty much common knowledge in my circles, but I only wish it were generally known. If I come across any useful links I will post up.

[Felix]

If I had been Paul Tillich, I would have started a company that builds solar cells or wind turbines or nuclear plants, anything like this. A bet for 1000$, this is really weak. He didn't have much confidence in his own beliefs, did he?

Another thing. I am certain that resources like oil will run out in the future. I don't know when and I am honest about this. I don't say that we can't find new oil and I also don't say that we can. I just don't know. The only thing I know is that at some point in time the oil will become very very scarce. The real problem here is brilliantly explained by Thomas Sowell: it's too expensive to know. This leads to an interesting problem. Knowing if there is going to be enough oil in the near future can't be known at a reasonable price, so you can't just invest in studies to be certain. Searching for oil to drill after is expensive, so if you failed to find any, you are broke. But predicting that there is no oil to be found is way more expensive, so expensive that nobody tries. But this would lead to the solution of the problem. Finding out exactly how much oil we have left and live accordingly. This way we can plan when oil reserves will be deplenished and develop other technologies right on time. Today we live in the horrible situation of ultimate uncertainty. It could be that we find no more oil, it could also be that we find a lot. Nobody knows, so nobody invests a lot of money in new technologies because he doesn't know if he even gets it back in his lifetime thereby short-circuiting the free market process of adapting to the known facts. How much oil we have is not a known fact. This is the core of the problem. Lack of clear knowledge. That's why every idiot can claim that there will be an oil shortage in the near future and all you can say is: Don't worry, son, we'll find some, we always did.

Then he answers: But what if not? and you have no answer to give him. Because IF this happens THEN there will be a crisis. And THAT'S the problem.

The current rise in oil prices, however, is a bubble. There is oil in Africa (which I saw on TV) and in Vietnam (which a friend told me). I'll have to buy some of those Brent-oil puts.

[Inspector]

Felix, you're still not looking at this correctly. If even the total known but untapped supply were included in those calculations, there would be more than enough oil to last well beyond this century. Manipulative 'viros purposefully disinclude that from their calculations, much less the UNKNOWN reserves. Given that known oil has DOUBLED every couple decades, why would you speak in such pessimistic terms?

The simple fact is that there is more than enough oil and the commie/hippie/druid/anti-man freaks need to drink a steaming hot cup of shut the hell up.

[AisA]

Another thing. I am certain that resources like oil will run out in the future. I don't know when and I am honest about this. I don't say that we can't find new oil and I also don't say that we can. I just don't know. The only thing I know is that at some point in time the oil will become very very scarce.

All such predictions are based on the assumption that there is a static, fixed supply of oil. As far as I can tell, no one knows for sure how oil is formed. For all we know, oil is STILL being formed and at a rate that is many times the current rate of consumption. Thus, the total amount of oil on earth may actually be increasing even as our consumption of it is increasing.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Another way to put this is, if a boy cries wolf three times and is wrong, is he necessarily right the next time? Is it probable that he will be right the next time? As a villager, why should you assume that he is right this time? Or, what would you want to know in order to distinguish between his past errors and his present truth -- has there been an unprecedented improvement in the method used for calculating these answers?

These are good questions - and in his article in Nature (a diff. article) pretty much admits that past estimates by others have been wildly wrong, and that this does not include estimates of what can be extracted from shale. So obviously, not all of these environmental scientists are hiding behind ideology, which is as much a blanket claim on people doing perfectly good science as it is to say that all peopel who study evolution are motivated to point people away from God (they could probably care less, they are just interested in the topic!)

I know nothing of Thomas Sowell, never heard of him so I cannot comment.

But what exactly do you mean by "environmentalist ideology?"

I know what objectivism's definition is, but my definition is that of a person who wants to preserve the environment both for man's benefit: either for economic or aesthetic benefit, but mostly, because we literally can't live without it at the present time. I would class myself in this category.

I personally don't know anyone who wants to return to a state of digging with bare hands in the soil and wondering where our next meal will come from. I am sure there may be such people who claim it: if so, their errors should be pointed out and they should be told that they proof is in the pudding, to put their money where their mouth is.

[HaloNoble6]

I'm going to comment on the Hallock paper in the "Peak Oil" thread.

Here it is.

[Inspector]

I know what objectivism's definition is, but my definition is that of a person who wants to preserve the environment both for man's benefit: either for economic or aesthetic benefit, but mostly, because we literally can't live without it at the present time. I would class myself in this category.

Then you need to stop calling yourself an "environmentalist" AND FAST. The Environmentalist movement is, at its core, driven by an intense hatred for man. Read especially what has been written by Ayn Rand and the ARI on this subject. A good place to start would be The New Left, as I had mentioned. Also try www.earth4man.com and do a search on the topic on capitalism magazine. (capmag.com)

Also try www.consumerfreedom.com to read especially about PETA and what motivates them. Also http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...EDGLUC816J1.DTL Also Michael Crichton's speech on it: http://www.perc.org/publications/articles/Crichtonspeech.php

I really would like to be able to help you better and offer more links, but I do not have them organized or catalogued at this time.

[Felix]

All such predictions are based on the assumption that there is a static, fixed supply of oil. As far as I can tell, no one knows for sure how oil is formed. For all we know, oil is STILL being formed and at a rate that is many times the current rate of consumption. Thus, the total amount of oil on earth may actually be increasing even as our consumption of it is increasing.

I did never hear that. I know that oil can be formed again, but this is a process taking a hell of a lot of time. How do you know that there is more new oil generated than consumed? Where do you have this from? This is really interesting. If this is true, then all the fuss is nonsense and I was wrong in my above statement. Please tell me more about this.

But if this is not the case, inspector, then my statement above still is true. Even if we have enough oil for a next millenium, one day there will be a lack of oil.

You can't deny this if oil is consumed faster than it grows back. Any child can calculate this. Finding it doesn't equal making it. Due to the earth being finite, one day we won't find enough to meet our needs. It will be a major blow but it won't be the end of the world.

Can anyone give me figures about this. I would really appreciate this.

Something like: This is the estimated oil reserve (and how it changed over the years), this is how much oil we use per year, etc. I would really like to see the figures. I just argumented based on principles.

[Inspector]

But if this is not the case, inspector, then my statement above still is true. Even if we have enough oil for a next millenium, one day there will be a lack of oil.

You can't deny this if oil is consumed faster than it grows back. Any child can calculate this. Finding it doesn't equal making it. Due to the earth being finite, one day we won't find enough to meet our needs. It will be a major blow but it won't be the end of the world.

You're still thinking about this all wrong.

If we have enough to last into the next millenium, what makes you think that by then oil will even be something that people care about? How many folks these days are concerned about the lack of industrial whale oil? It won't necessarily hurt if/when we run out. And that is "if." What makes you think it can't be synthesized? Or what about the fact that nobody knows how much oil is created daily by the process which created all naturally occuring oil?

No, sorry, but there will be no "doomsday;" not even a little baby one.

[Felix]

You're still thinking about this all wrong.

If we have enough to last into the next millenium, what makes you think that by then oil will even be something that people care about? How many folks these days are concerned about the lack of industrial whale oil? It won't necessarily hurt if/when we run out. And that is "if." What makes you think it can't be synthesized? Or what about the fact that nobody knows how much oil is created daily by the process which created all naturally occuring oil?

No, sorry, but there will be no "doomsday;" not even a little baby one.

Why are you so damn sure about that?

If you synthesise oil, then you would need more energy for synthesising than you get out of the oil due to the laws of thermodynamics. Where would that come from? This is nonsense.

But yes, it could be that, given time, man would invent something better for energy generation than oil. But it could also not happen. Simon lost his second bet.

[Inspector]

Why are you so damn sure about that?

Why wouldn't I be? Known reserves have doubled every few decades DESPITE consumption, and nobody is even including sand or shale oil. There are scores of sites that aren't being drilled simply due to regulations, and that's just within the USA. By the time it even comes CLOSE to being a "shortage," we will have been long finished with oil as a society. Look at our economy a century ago, then look at it today. If the oil is enough to last for another hundred years, then you need not concern yourself beyond that.

The only thing that worries me is that political screwballs and concerned "scientists" will do some lamebrained thing to screw it all up. Just like the morons who prevent drilling in ANWR and have prevented any domestic refineries from being built since the 1970's. Now THAT is worth worrying about.

[Felix]

Why wouldn't I be? Known reserves have doubled every few decades DESPITE consumption, and nobody is even including sand or shale oil. There are scores of sites that aren't being drilled simply due to regulations, and that's just within the USA. By the time it even comes CLOSE to being a "shortage," we will have been long finished with oil as a society. Look at our economy a century ago, then look at it today. If the oil is enough to last for another hundred years, then you need not concern yourself beyond that.

The only thing that worries me is that political screwballs and concerned "scientists" will do some lamebrained thing to screw it all up. Just like the morons who prevent drilling in ANWR and have prevented any domestic refineries from being built since the 1970's. Now THAT is worth worrying about.

Hm. Interesting. Can you please give me references. These are good arguments. Thanks. Is there a good book about this? I would like to read it.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

PETA and what motivates them.

I really would like to be able to help you better and offer more links, but I do not have them organized or catalogued at this time.

God, I know abut PETA, ELF, Sierra Club, and all the others. I don't ally myself with these groups, no self-respecting ecologist would.

[Inspector]

Hm. Interesting. Can you please give me references. These are good arguments. Thanks. Is there a good book about this? I would like to read it.

Thomas Sowell's Vision of the Annointed is a good source for the economic data/statistics (though not exactly for philosophy) There are plenty of other sources for this stuff, though I don't have too many of them on me. I'll post up if/when I come across them. CapMag is a great source.

God, I know abut PETA, ELF, Sierra Club, and all the others. I don't ally myself with these groups, no self-respecting ecologist would.

Yeah they're a big ol bag of nuts. I'm really not sure if there's a term out there that means "I like clean air and water and such but I'm not one of those man-hating neo-druids that wants to wipe out industy and also mankind itself." Maybe you should come up with one!

[DavidOdden]

But what exactly do you mean by "environmentalist ideology?"

A good question. I don't recall having used the expression myself in a while, and I sort of suspect that you had me confused with someone else. But that gives me the right to exploit that mistake, bwaahahaha. It would mean the ideology that man's existence on planet earth would not have a significant impact on the total physical nature of the planet. That would mean, for example, that the total amount of forested area would remain the same (modulo fluctuations that happen anyhow), CO2 levels would not change, temperature would not change, no chemicals would be found in the air, water or soil which would not have existed had man not evolved, and of course no plant or animal species would be created or eliminated because of man. Obviously there is some room for doubt, for example the fate of the dodo which might well have croaked anyhow, or if the coelacanth finally cocks up its plug-ugly fins and goes the way of the trilobite, well, I don't think we can blame man for the extinction of trilobites or dinosaurs, and therefore it's not automatic that any dead animals are the fault of man. I think it is dead sure that man wiped out the passenger pigeon, and if the rhinoceros disappears, it will also because it was hunted out of existence. There is, of course, the question why anyone should care.

I am all in favor of lots of cool stuff in the wild, within reason. I don't care if there's an obscure fish species that lives in this one little pond and is threatened with extinction. I'd be concerned at there being no fish, because that ruins the pleasure of going fishing on Goat Lake (not that I've had much luck there). The environmentalist ideology sees man as an intrusion on the planet, a disruption of "the natural order". I see Mother Nature as our fodder, just as lions see gazelles as fodder.

[Felix]

Thomas Sowell's Vision of the Annointed is a good source for the economic data/statistics (though not exactly for philosophy) There are plenty of other sources for this stuff, though I don't have too many of them on me. I'll post up if/when I come across them. CapMag is a great source.

Thanks. I'll check it out.

Yeah they're a big ol bag of nuts. I'm really not sure if there's a term out there that means "I like clean air and water and such but I'm not one of those man-hating neo-druids that wants to wipe out industy and also mankind itself." Maybe you should come up with one!

I always believed that 'liking clean air and water and such' was environmentalism and that the PETA-crap was just socialism in disguise, lip-service to loving nature with the actual goal of destroying capitalism.

Therefore I think it's okay to call yourself an environmentalist. But I just came up with a name for a PETA-guy: environmentalcase.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

David,

Nah - 99% of the species that ever existed have gone extinct. Anyway, they are wrong: the atmosphere, temperature, and amount of forest cover - all of these things have changed drastically due to geologic and biotic factors. Temperature used to be much hotter than it is now.

But we should care about species loss, because, as you know, these species could be of value to us. After all, there are lots of species that are useful! They could be of direct economic use, aesthetic value, or most importantly, IMO, play some role in ecosystem function, which our lives depend on. There are studies that have examined the usefulness of microorganisms to ecosystems when have very similar niches, and have concluded that ecosystem function can be maintained even with species loss, because there's a functional redundancy there.

But unfortunately, the discovery of species does not coincide with the discovery of what is useful about them. We can't proceed that fast.

Funny enough, though - the species which actually ARE useful (microogranisms), are not cause for conservation concern among so-called conservation biologists. It's all the cuddly stuff like owls, eagles, and the like that get all the attention. Which is totally ridiculous to me. Things at the top of the food chain (tertiary consumers like birds that eat animals that eat other animals) have very little use in maintaining a functioning ecosystem. They're simply pretty, and that's why people get all out of whack about them.

I think it's okay to call yourself an environmentalist.

yeah, me too. Why let these freaks monopolize the word??

Edited October 18, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[Inspector]

Thanks. I'll check it out.

I always believed that 'liking clean air and water and such' was environmentalism and that the PETA-crap was just socialism in disguise, lip-service to loving nature with the actual goal of destroying capitalism.

Therefore I think it's okay to call yourself an environmentalist. But I just came up with a name for a PETA-guy: environmentalcase.

Read those sources, as well as The New Left, and THEN tell me if you still think the term "environmentalist" is "safe."

[Felix]

I found a very good argument for 'what do we know about the world in 2100' in an article by Michael Crichton. I just ordered his book. It got some bad reviews on style, but so what.

Here's the quote:

Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.

If you want to read the article, here it is:

Aliens cause Global Warming

I'll check out the other articles this weekend, but the arguments this guy has are interesting. Hard to hear stuff like this in Germany.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Yaaaargh! Shiver me timbers! Avast, ye scarvy scum! There be treasure in them thar hills! hahahahahha

[Felix]

Yaaaargh! Shiver me timbers! Avast, ye scarvy scum! There be treasure in them thar hills! hahahahahha

Good lord! Stop it! You guys are killing me.

[AisA]

I did never hear that. I know that oil can be formed again, but this is a process taking a hell of a lot of time. How do you know that there is more new oil generated than consumed?

I don't know it. I say only that until there is decisive evidence one way or another, the notion that the oil supply is static and fixed is an assumption, one that is pushed by the "malevolent universe" crowd that includes many environmentalists and statists of all forms.

Where do you have this from? This is really interesting. If this is true, then all the fuss is nonsense and I was wrong in my above statement. Please tell me more about this.

Try googling the terms abiogenic oil formation. You will learn that there is a lively debate about the formation of oil. And even if it is true that all crude oil forms from biological sources, there is not, as far as I know, any information on whether or not this process has stopped. Given the enormity of the planet, I do not know how one could conclude that the process has stopped.

But if this is not the case, inspector, then my statement above still is true. Even if we have enough oil for a next millenium, one day there will be a lack of oil.

You can't deny this if oil is consumed faster than it grows back. Any child can calculate this. Finding it doesn't equal making it. Due to the earth being finite, one day we won't find enough to meet our needs. It will be a major blow but it won't be the end of the world.

There is also a finite supply of oxygen. And the consumption of oxygen has increased enormously in the past 200 years or so, especially in the last 50 years. Yet, the percentage of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has not changed over that period.

[Felix]

There is also a finite supply of oxygen. And the consumption of oxygen has increased enormously in the past 200 years or so, especially in the last 50 years. Yet, the percentage of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere has not changed over that period.

That's because there is no finite supply of oxygen. It is constantly regenerated by plants and these plants grow more when there is more CO2 in the air, therefore the supply adapts to demand.

I don't think plants die faster so that we can use more oil.