Why political correctness fails – Why what we know ‘for sure’ is wrong (Ex Religion)

Most of us are familiar with the Politically Correct (PC) World View. William Deresiewicz describes the view, which he calls the “religion of success,” as follows:

There is a right way to think and a right way to talk, and also a right set of things to think and talk about. Secularism is taken for granted. Environmentalism is a sacred cause. Issues of identity—principally the holy trinity of race, gender, and sexuality—occupy the center of concern.

There are other beliefs that go with this religion of success:

  • Wind and solar will save us.
  • Electric cars will make transportation possible indefinitely.
  • Our world leaders are all powerful.
  • Science has all of the answers.

To me, this story is pretty much equivalent to the article, “Earth Is Flat and Infinite, According to Paid Experts,” by Chris Hume in Funny Times. While the story is popular, it is just plain silly.

In this post, I explain why many popular understandings are just plain wrong. I cover several controversial topics, including environmentalism, peer-reviewed literature, and climate change models. This post pretty much excludes religion. It was added for people who find it hard to believe that a scientific article could also touch upon religion. If you want the complete discussion, as the post was originally written, please see this post

Myth 1: If there is a problem with the lack of any resource, including oil, it will manifest itself with high prices.

As we reach limits of oil or any finite resource, the problem we encounter is an allocation problem. 

What happens if economy stops growing

Figure 1. Two views of future economic growth. Created by author.

As long as the quantity of resources we can extract from the ground keeps rising faster than population, there is no problem with limits. The tiny wedge that each person might get from these growing resources represents more of that resource, on average. Citizens can reasonably expect that future pension promises will be paid from the growing resources. They can also expect that, in the future, the shares of stock and the bonds that they own can be redeemed for actual goods and services.

If the quantity of resources starts to shrink, the problem we have is almost a “musical chairs” type of problem.

Figure 2. Circle of chairs arranged for game of musical chairs. Source

In each round of a musical chairs game, one chair is removed from the circle. The players in the game must walk around the outside of the circle. When the music stops, all of the players scramble for the remaining chairs. Someone gets left out.

The players in today’s economic system include

  • High paid (or elite) workers
  • Low paid (or non-elite) workers
  • Businesses
  • Governments
  • Owners of assets (such as stocks, bonds, land, buildings) who want to sell them and exchange them for today’s goods and services

If there is a shortage of a resource, the standard belief is that prices will rise and either more of the resource will be found, or substitution will take place. Substitution only works in some cases: it is hard to think of a substitute for fresh water. It is often possible to substitute one energy product for another. Overall, however, there is no substitute for energy. If we want to heat a substance to produce a chemical reaction, we need energy. If we want to move an object from place to place, we need energy. If we want to desalinate water to produce more fresh water, this also takes energy.

The world economy is a self-organized networked system. The networked system includes businesses, governments, and workers, plus many types of energy, including human energy. Workers play a double role because they are also consumers. The way goods and services are allocated is determined by “market forces.” In fact, the way these market forces act is determined by the laws of physics. These market forces determine which of the players will get squeezed out if there is not enough to go around.

Non-elite workers play a pivotal role in this system because their number is so large. These people are the chief customers for goods, such as homes, food, clothing, and transportation services. They also play a major role in paying taxes, and in receiving government services.

History says that if there are not enough resources to go around, we can expect increasing wage and wealth disparity. This happens because increased use of technology and more specialization are workarounds for many kinds of problems. As an economy increasingly relies on technology, the owners and managers of the technology start receiving higher wages, leaving less for the workers without special skills. The owners and managers also tend to receive income from other sources, such as interest, dividends, capital gains, and rents.

When there are not enough resources to go around, the temptation is to use technology to replace workers, because this reduces costs. Of course, a robot does not need to buy food or a car. Such an approach tends to push commodity prices down, rather than up. This happens because fewer workers are employed; in total they can afford fewer goods. A similar downward push on commodity prices occurs if wages of non-elite workers stagnate or fall.

If wages of non-elite workers are lower, governments find themselves in increasing difficulty because they cannot collect enough taxes for all of the services that they are asked to provide. History shows that governments often collapse in such situations. Major defaults on debt are another likely outcome (Figure 3). Pension holders are another category of recipients who are likely to be “left out” when the game of musical chairs stops.

Figure 3 – Created by Author.

The laws of physics strongly suggest that if we are reaching limits of this type, the economy will collapse. We know that this happened to many early economies. More recently, we have witnessed partial collapses, such as the Depression of the 1930s. The Depression occurred when the price of food dropped because mechanization eliminated a significant share of human hand-labor. While this change reduced the price of food, it also had an adverse impact on the buying-power of those whose jobs were eliminated.

The collapse of the Soviet Union is another example of a partial collapse. This collapse occurred as a follow-on to the low oil prices of the 1980s. The Soviet Union was an oil exporter that was affected by low oil prices. It could continue to produce for a while, but eventually (1991) financial problems caught up with it, and the central government collapsed.

Figure 4. Oil consumption, production, and inflation-adjusted price, all from BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2015.

Low prices are often a sign of lack of affordability. Today’s oil, coal, and natural gas prices tend to be too low for today’s producers. Low energy prices are deceptive because their initial impact on the economy seems to be favorable. The catch is that after a time, the shortfall in funds for reinvestment catches up, and production collapses. The resulting collapse of the economy may look like a financial collapse or a governmental collapse.

Oil prices have been low since late 2014. We do not know how long low prices can continue before collapse. The length of time since oil prices have collapsed is now three years; we should be concerned.

Myth 2. (Related to Myth 1) If we wait long enough, renewables will become affordable.

The fact that wage disparity grows as we approach limits means that prices can’t be expected to rise as we approach limits. Instead, prices tend to fall as an increasing number of would-be buyers are frozen out of the market. If in fact energy prices could rise much higher, there would be huge amounts of oil, coal and gas that could be extracted.

Figure 5. IEA Figure 1.4 from its World Energy Outlook 2015, showing how much oil can be produced at various price levels, according to IEA models.

There seems to be a maximum affordable price for any commodity. This maximum affordable price depends to a significant extent on the wages of non-elite workers. If the wages of non-elite workers fall (for example, because of mechanization or globalization), the maximum affordable price may even fall.

Myth 3. (Related to Myths 1 and 2) A glut of oil indicates that oil limits are far away. 

A glut of oil means that too many people around the world are being “frozen out” of buying goods and services that depend on oil, because of low wages or a lack of job. It is a physics problem, related to ice being formed when the temperature is too cold. We know that this kind of thing regularly happens in collapses and partial collapses. During the Depression of the 1930s, food was being destroyed for lack of buyers. It is not an indication that limits are far away; it is an indication that limits are close at hand. The system can no longer balance itself correctly.

Myth 4: Wind and solar can save us.

The amount of energy (other than direct food intake) that humans require is vastly higher than most people suppose. Other animals and plants can live on the food that they eat or the energy that they produce using sunlight and water. Humans deviated from this simple pattern long ago–over 1 million years ago.

Unfortunately, our bodies are now adapted to the use of supplemental energy in addition to food. The use of fire allowed humans to develop differently than other primates. Using fire to cook some of our food helped in many ways. It freed up time that would otherwise be spent chewing, providing time that could be used for tool making and other crafts. It allowed teeth, jaws and digestive systems to be smaller. The reduced energy needed for maintaining the digestive system allowed the brain to become bigger. It allowed humans to live in parts of the world where they are not physically adapted to living.

In fact, back at the time of hunter-gatherers, humans already seemed to need three times as much energy total as a correspondingly sized primate, if we count burned biomass in addition to direct food energy.

Figure 6 – Created by author.

“Watts per Capita” is a measure of the rate at which energy is consumed. Even back in hunter-gatherer days, humans behaved differently than similar-sized primates would be expected to behave. Without considering supplemental energy, an animal-like human is like an always-on 100-watt bulb. With the use of supplemental energy from burned biomass and other sources, even in hunter-gatherer times, the energy used was equivalent to that of an always-on 300-watt bulb.

How does the amount of energy produced by today’s wind turbines and solar panels compare to the energy used by hunter-gatherers? Let’s compare today’s wind and solar output to the 200 watts of supplemental energy needed to maintain our human existence back in hunter-gatherer times (difference between 300 watts per capita and 100 watts per capita). This assumes that if we were to go back to hunting and gathering, we could somehow collect food for everyone, to cover the first 100 watts per capita. All we would need to do is provide enough supplemental energy for cooking, heating, and other very basic needs, so we would not have to deforest the land.

Conveniently, BP gives the production of wind and solar in “terawatt hours.” If we take today’s world population of 7.5 billion, and multiply it by 24 hours a day, 365.25 days per year, and 200 watts, we come to needed energy of 13,149 terawatt hours per year. In 2016, the output of wind was 959.5 terawatt hours; the output of solar was 333.1 terawatt hours, or a total of 1,293 terawatt hours. Comparing the actual provided energy (1,293 tWh) to the required energy of 13,149 tWh, today’s wind and solar would provide only 9.8% of the supplemental energy needed to maintain a hunter-gatherer level of existence for today’s population. 

Of course, this is without considering how we would continue to create wind and solar electricity as hunter-gatherers, and how we would distribute such electricity. Needless to say, we would be nowhere near reproducing an agricultural level of existence for any large number of people, using only wind and solar. Even adding water power, the amount comes to only 40.4% of the added energy required for existence as hunter gatherers for today’s population.

Many people believe that wind and solar are ramping up rapidly. Starting from a base of zero, the annual percentage increases do appear to be large. But relative to the end point required to maintain any reasonable level of population, we are very far away. A recent lecture by Energy Professor Vaclav Smil is titled, “The Energy Revolution? More Like a Crawl.”

Myth 5. Evaluation methods such as “Energy Returned on Energy Invested” (EROI) and “Life Cycle Analyses (LCA)” indicate that wind and solar should be acceptable solutions. 

These approaches are concerned about how the energy used in creating a given device compares to the output of the device. The problem with these analyses is that, while we can measure “energy out” fairly well, we have a hard time determining total “energy in.” A large share of energy use comes from indirect sources, such as roads that are shared by many different users.

A particular problem occurs with intermittent resources, such as wind and solar. The EROI analyses available for wind and solar are based on analyses of these devices as stand-alone units (perhaps powering a desalination plant, on an intermittent basis). On this basis, they appear to be reasonably good choices as transition devices away from fossil fuels.

EROI analyses don’t handle the situation well when there is a need to add expensive infrastructure to compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar. This situation tends to happen when electricity is added to the grid in more than small quantities. One workaround for intermittency is adding batteries; another is overbuilding the intermittent devices, and using only the portion of intermittent electricity that comes at the time of day and time of year when it is needed. Another approach involves paying fossil fuel providers for maintaining extra capacity (needed both for rapid ramping and for the times of year when intermittent resources are inadequate).

Any of these workarounds is expensive and becomes more expensive, the larger the percentage of intermittent electricity that is added. Euan Mearns recently estimated that for a particular offshore wind farm, the cost would be six times as high, if battery backup sufficient to even out wind fluctuations in a single month were added. If the goal were to even out longer term fluctuations, the cost would no doubt be higher. It is difficult to model what workarounds would be needed for a truly 100% renewable system. The cost would no doubt be astronomical.

When an analysis such as EROI is prepared, there is a tendency to leave out any cost that varies with the application, because such a cost is difficult to estimate. My background is in actuarial work. In such a setting, the emphasis is always on completeness because after the fact, it will become very clear if the analyst left out any important insurance-related cost. In EROI and similar analyses, there is much less of a tieback to the real world, so an omission may never be noticed. In theory, EROIs are for multiple purposes, including ones where intermittency is not a problem. The EROI modeler is not expected to consider all cases.

Another way of viewing the issue is as a “quality” issue. EROI theory generally treats all types of energy as equivalent (including coal, oil, natural gas, intermittent electricity, and grid-quality electricity). From this perspective, there is no need to correct for differences in types of energy output. Thus, it makes perfect sense to publish EROI and LCA analyses that seem to indicate that wind and solar are great solutions, without any explanation regarding the likely high real-world cost associated with using them on the electric grid.

Myth 6. Peer reviewed articles give correct findings.

The real story is that peer reviewed articles need to be reviewed carefully by those who use them. There is a very significant chance that errors may have crept in. This can happen because of misinterpretation of prior peer reviewed articles, or because prior peer reviewed articles were based on “thinking of the day,” which was not quite correct, given what has been learned since the article was written. Or, as indicated by the example in Myth 5, the results of peer reviewed articles may be confusing to those who read them, in part because they are not written for any particular audience.

The way university research is divided up, researchers usually have a high level of specialized knowledge about one particular subject area. The real world situation with the world economy, as I mentioned in my discussion of Myth 1, is that the economy is a self-organized networked system. Everything affects everything else. The researcher, with his narrow background, doesn’t understand these interconnections. For example, energy researchers don’t generally understand economic feedback loops, so they tend to leave them out. Peer reviewers, who are looking for errors within the paper itself, are likely to miss important feedback loops as well.

To make matters worse, the publication process tends to favor results that suggest that there is no energy problem ahead. This bias can come through the peer review process. One author explained to me that he left out a certain point from a paper because he expected that some of his peer reviewers would come from the Green Community; he didn’t want to say anything that might offend such a reviewer.

This bias can also come directly from the publisher of academic books and articles. The publisher is in the business of selling books and journal articles; it does not want to upset potential buyers of its products. One publisher made it clear to me that its organization did not want any mention of problems that seem to be without a solution. The reader should be left with the impression that while there may be issues ahead, solutions are likely to be found.

In my opinion, any published research needs to be looked at very carefully. It is very difficult for an author to move much beyond the general level of understanding of his audience and of likely reviewers. There are financial incentives for authors to produce PC reports, and for publishers to publish them. In many cases, articles from blogs may be better resources than academic articles because blog authors are under less pressure to write PC reports.

Myth 7. Climate models give a good estimate of what we can expect in the future.

There is no doubt that climate is changing. But is all of the hysteria about climate change really the correct story?

Our economy, and in fact the Earth and all of its ecosystems, are self-organized networked systems. We are reaching limits in many areas at once, including energy, fresh water, the number of fish that can be extracted each year from oceans, and metal ore extraction. Physical limits are likely to lead to financial problems, as indicated in Figure 3. The climate change modelers have chosen to leave all of these issues out of their models, instead assuming that the economy can continue to grow as usual until 2100. Leaving out these other issues clearly can be expected to overstate the impact of climate change.

The International Energy Agency is very influential with respect to which energy issues are considered. Between 1998 and 2000, it did a major flip-flop in the importance of energy limits. The IEA’s 1998 World Energy Outlook devotes many pages to discussing the possibility of inadequate oil supplies in the future. In fact, near the beginning, the report says,

Our analysis of the current evidence suggests that world oil production from conventional sources could peak during the period 2010 to 2020.

The same report also mentions Climate Change considerations, but devotes many fewer pages to these concerns. The Kyoto Conference had taken place in 1997, and the topic was becoming more widely discussed.

In 1999, the IEA did not publish World Energy Outlook. When the IEA published the World Energy Outlook for 2000, the report suddenly focused only on Climate Change, with no mention of Peak Oil. The USGS World Petroleum Assessment 2000 had recently been published. It could be used to justify at least somewhat higher future oil production.

I will be the first to admit that the “Peak Oil” story is not really right. It is a halfway story, based on a partial understanding of the role physics plays in energy limits. Oil supply does not “run out.” Peak Oilers also did not understand that physics governs how markets work–whether prices rise or fall, or oscillate. If there is not enough to go around, some of the would-be buyers will be frozen out. But Climate Change, as our sole problem, or even as our major problem, is not the right story, either. It is another halfway story.

One point that both Peak Oilers and the IEA missed is that the world economy doesn’t really have the ability to cut back on the use of fossil fuels significantly, without the world economy collapsing. Thus, the IEA’s recommendations regarding moving away from fossil fuels cannot work. (Shifting energy use among countries is fairly easy, however, making individual country CO2 reductions appear more beneficial than they really are.) The IEA would be better off talking about non-fuel changes that might reduce CO2, such as eating vegetarian food, eliminating flooded rice paddies, and having smaller families. Of course, these are not really issues that the International Energy Association is concerned about.

The unfortunate truth is that on any difficult, interdisciplinary subject, we really don’t have a way of making a leap from lack of knowledge of a subject, to full knowledge of a subject, without a number of separate, partially wrong, steps. The IPCC climate studies and EROI analyses both fall in this category, as do Peak Oil reports.

The progress I have made on figuring out the energy limits story would not have been possible without the work of many other people, including those doing work on studying Peak Oil and those studying EROI. I have also received a lot of “tips” from readers of OurFiniteWorld.com regarding additional topics I should investigate. Even with all of this help, I am sure that my version of the truth is not quite right. We all keep learning as we go along.

There may indeed be details of this particular climate model that are not correct, although this is out of my area of expertise. For example, the historical temperatures used by researchers seem to need a lot of adjustment to be usable. Some people argue that the historical record has been adjusted to make the historical record fit the particular model used.

There is also the issue of truing up the indications to where we are now. I mentioned the problem earlier of EROI indications not having any real world tie; climate model indications are not quite as bad, but they also seem not to be well tied to what is actually happening.

Myth 8. Our leaders are all knowing and all powerful.

We are fighting a battle against the laws of physics. Expecting our leaders to win in the battle against the laws of physics is expecting a huge amount. Some of the actions of our leaders seem extraordinarily stupid. For example, if falling interest rates have postponed peak oil, then proposing to raise interest rates, when we have not fixed the underlying oil depletion problem, seems very ill-advised.

It is the Laws of Physics that govern the world economy. The Laws of Physics affect the world economy in many ways. The economy is a dissipative structure. Energy inputs allow the economy to remain in an “out of equilibrium state” (that is, in a growing state), for a very long period.

Eventually the ability of any economy to grow must come to an end. The problem is that it requires increasing amounts of energy to fight the growing “entropy” (higher energy cost of extraction, need for growing debt, and rising pollution levels) of the system. The economy must come to an end, just as the lives of individual plants and animals (which are also dissipative structures) must come to an end.


We are facing a battle against the laws of physics which we are unlikely to win. Our leaders would like us to think that it can be won quite easily, but it cannot be.  Climate change is presented as our only and most important problem, but this is not really the case. Our problem is that the financial system and energy systems are tightly connected. We are likely to have serious financial problems as we hit limits of many kinds, at more or less the same time.

Our leaders are not really as powerful as we would like. Even our scientific findings practically never come in perfect form. Our knowledge generally comes in a series of steps, which includes revisions to early ideas. At this time, it doesn’t look as though we have figured out a way to work around our rising need for energy and the problem with rising entropy.


About Gail Tverberg

My name is Gail Tverberg. I am an actuary interested in finite world issues - oil depletion, natural gas depletion, water shortages, and climate change. Oil limits look very different from what most expect, with high prices leading to recession, and low prices leading to financial problems for oil producers and for oil exporting countries. We are really dealing with a physics problem that affects many parts of the economy at once, including wages and the financial system. I try to look at the overall problem.
This entry was posted in Financial Implications and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1,453 Responses to Why political correctness fails – Why what we know ‘for sure’ is wrong (Ex Religion)

  1. philipkchapman says:

    This analysis fails because of a deplorable lack of imagination, especially the delusions that we are limited to current energy sources and confined to this small planet. Solar power satellites in geosynchronous orbit are feasible right now, and they can supply virtually unlimited energy 24/7, with no need for energy storage, anywhere on Earth that it is needed, at prices quite competitive with fossil fuels and low enough for desalination on whatever scale we need. Moreover, research is well under way on aneutronic proton-boron 11 fusion, which can provide the power for a city in a plant that would fit on the back of a truck, or for a launch vehicle that can make access to Earth orbit cheaper than crossing the Atlantic by air.

    The real future lies in space. The single asteroid 16 Psyche contains enough steel (not just iron) to meet current world consumption for the next 10,000,000 years, or to build luxurious O’Neill space colonies for 10,000 times the current world population. We will populate the solar system, and then we will cross the gulf between the stars (we already know how to do it). We know now (as we did not 10 years ago) that there are 100 billion planets in our galaxy; 11 billion of them are in Goldilock orbits (where the temperature allows liquid water) about G-type stars like ours.

    We also know now that there are 2 trillion galaxies in the universe. If they all have as many planets as our galaxy does, the total number of planets is thousands of times more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth. It is utterly inconceivable that life has arisen only on this one planet out of all those candidates. We are not alone, and sooner or later we will meet (or at least hear from) the others, for good or ill.

    The “non-elite workers” Gail talks about are really just like the people who only knew how to make buggy whips, or to drive oxen pulling a wooden plow, when cars and agricultural technology had left them behind. The challenges we face are not at all related to resource exhaustion, nor to keeping wages high for menial work, but to the lack of imagination Gail displays, and to our failure to take seriously the need to educate people all over the world for the jobs of the future, not for those that are now or soon will be obsolete.

    I do know whereof I speak. I was a NASA scientist astronaut during Apollo, and I was in Mission Control when Neil and Buzz set foot on the Moon. I have been working on related issues ever since.

      • Davidin100millionbilliontrillionzillionyears says:

        WE’RE GOING TO THE STARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





        • Davidin100millionbilliontrillionzillionyears says:

          hi Philip…

          your slide rule doesn’t come equipped with built in logic.

          and lacks knowledge of the economics of resource decline.

          tonight: BAU.

          tomorrow: we are going to the stars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • Davidin100millionbilliontrillionzillionyears says:


            “we” have had the knowledge of how to build moon colonies for decades.

            and also the technology to build them.

            so where are they now?

            or do they exist in the future?

            • Davidin100millionbilliontrillionzillionyears says:

              Philip says “This analysis fails because of a deplorable lack of imagination…”


              it has ALL been imagined!

              fusion reactors!

              moon colonies!

              travel to Mars!

              so what’s the problem?

              where are they?

              or are they merely a few decades away?

              always a few decades away.

              just wait and see!

            • Davidin100millionbilliontrillionzillionyears says:

              Philip says “… our failure to take seriously the need to educate people all over the world for the jobs of the future…”

              after the severe decline in fossil fuels in the next few decades…

              the main “jobs of the future” will be “farmers”.

            • not a matter of having the knowledge to build moon colonies—obviously we do

              it’s having the necessary purpose for doing so.

              if there had been anything of value on the moon, there would have been commercial colonies there decades ago—but there is nothing there of value, so there isn’t.

              we obtain value from materials by converting them into artifacts we can use.—thus oil can be converted into tv’s or toothbrushes—and so on

              think about that—the moon has nothing that can be converted into anything useful in earth-commercial terms.

              so on moon expeditions —you return with photographs and souvenirs, which neatly describes vacations

            • Fast Eddy says:

              What about hacking off chunks of moon rock …. and then selling it to be used very expensive landscaping features?

              Oh honey — did you see that Bob Jones has a massive piece of moon rock in his front garden? Ya that must of cost him a tonne. We should take out a second mortgage and get a bigger piece of moon rock.

              I am surprised that LVMH has not created a landscaping division….

            • We have built a network of underground bases on the dark side of the moon over the past fifty years. Wheredyathink all that money went?

              And the moon is actually made of cheese. No need to bring food we’ve got it covered.

              Elon is a mook, he totally shunned our moon colony tourism project to build his own toys on that other planet. Huh… who needs him anyway, we’ve cut a deal with the original Mr Fantastic himself… SIR Richard Branson with his Virgin whateverhecallsitnow space tourism startup which is ready for primetime in 2018 after a few minor explo… I mean hiccups. All is well and good in the superduper rocket owner club coming to a spaceport near you very very very soon. Buy your tickets now before it’s too late.

        • doomphd says:

          well, there’s a lot of helium-3 in the moon’s regolith, so mineable, i guess. this assumes we have working fusion reactors and the 3He fusion reaction worked out (no neutrons produced, so a good one). not yet, unfortunately.

    • psile says:

      I mean, mate – we’ve never seen or discussed this sort of “groundbreaking” stuff here before. Gail may as well shut down her blog now….thanks for giving us the prescription to the predicament of too much growth.

      More growth! F7ck me…

    • Kurt says:

      Now you’ve done it. Here comes FE.

    • I am afraid we are not really that far along on space solar. In fact, with low energy prices it becomes hard to get anyone to want to spend money on space solar.

      • Jesse James says:

        The first serious proposals and consideration for a solar power satellite was in the late 1970s. This was at or near our energy peak. One very serious problem with the approach back then was the millions of half wave dipole receivers that would have to be deployed over a very large area of land. And then each had to be tuned. The problems were insurmountable. NASA and the aerospace companies have never let go of this wet dream.

        • There’s a guy in the comments over on Next Big Future that keeps banging on about MOON based solar which is way way better according to him and O’Neill – you know… this guy


          The O’Neill cylinder (also called an O’Neill colony) is a space settlement design proposed by American physicist Gerard K. O’Neill in his 1976 book The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space.[1] O’Neill proposed the colonization of space for the 21st century, using materials extracted from the Moon and later from asteroids.[2]

          There are two places I go online for futuristic opium and entertainment. These are Next Big Future which allows comments from fairly savvy engineering types and russian trolls and Futurism which is a kindof spinoff of Singularity University types that don’t allow comments because they are essentially pushing hopium propaganda which doesn’t require feedback of any sort. It is to be consumed by the faithful as is with lashings of Gooblie Wooblie material thrown in for good measure.

          What surprises me when I scan such comment sections for evidence of doom is the total lack of any. These are smart people that can talk anyone under the table on energy topics, weapons systems, lots of phyiscs and engineering that boggles the mind yet they don’t seem to pay attention to the world of economics or the idea of reaching limits. Of course, if they did then they would have to close shop as a lot of what they chatter about would be immediately rendered obsolete. Their fantasy would very quickly be replaced with harsh reality. But this goes for everyone else too. And if that happened, the banks would be emptied in a blink of an all seeing eye and of course that would be impossible too as there actually isn’t any real money to go around in said banks. Cue the Hunger Games.

    • JMS says:

      Wow. Sheer genius. To think that it was so simple after all – we only need to harness the potencial energy of imagination. The future wil be moved by imagination! How come no one ever thought of that? Awesome. You should get a Ted-talk or two.

    • J. H. Wyoming says:

      “I do know whereof I speak. I was a NASA scientist astronaut during Apollo, and I was in Mission Control when Neil and Buzz set foot on the Moon. I have been working on related issues ever since.”

      Ok, time to float back down to reality – easy now – take your bipolar meds to reduce the manic highs that generate wild ideas – get some sleep – it’s gonna be ok.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        Too much…

        Leads to delusional thoughts….

      • Greg Machala says:

        To me he lost all credibility at ” I was a NASA scientist”……

        • Fast Eddy says:

          Some years ago I as having a beer at a bar in Ubud Bali …. and this burned out stinky hippy-type was telling me and my buddy that he was a architect … and before that he was the drummer for the Scorpions…..

          He’s probably reinvented himself as an astronaut or a NASA scientist now….

          Be all that you can be.

          • Greg Machala says:

            If philipkchapman is a NASA scientist, he still has less credibility to me than anyone on this blog.. Why would I think that? Well, NASA is a government agency. And, we all know government agencies have agendas. Agendas trump logic and facts just as philipkchapman’s post trumps logic and facts. .

    • jupiviv says:

      As for ‘satellite solar power’, please google ‘Tsiolkovsky equation’ and come back to us with a viable way to transport that much mass + (equipment + manpower required to maintain it) to orbit. Not to mention the process whereby we will produce them or the power stations that harness and store the power they will (intermittently) generate.

      BTW the aforementioned equation is why 99% of SF is total bollocks. Any civilisation that possesses enough power to travel the galaxy would have no reason to expend it on space exploration to get even *more*. It would be like selling one’s house to buy a Ferrari.

    • jazIntico says:

      Well, I’m afraid the moon is occupied and we Earthlings have been warned off and are not allowed back:

      Discretion required! 🙂

      Furthermore, the moon is thought to be hollow and an artificial object. What does science-inclined Tim think of such theories? There are also videos of ex-NASA astronauts claiming to have witnessed inexplicable UFOs in space, i.e. unknown craft that appeared to be intelligently guided.

    • xabier says:

      Our future lies in 6ft of earth, I’m afraid. Not the stars. And that will be poisoned, sterile earth.

      We haven’t been able to manage well even the one planet which has come under our hands.

  2. Fast Eddy says:

    Beyond Disneyland

    Human society exists in a cultural goldfish bowl made
    entirely of mirrors. Inside the bowl all we see is a multitude
    of reflections, mostly of ourselves, and so we tend to think
    that all life revolves around our spectacularly inventive species.
    And according to some, so too does the universe.

    In short, our lives are essentially fiction based. We read fiction
    novels and prefer to watch fictional dramas on stage and
    screen; we readily believe advertising and political propaganda,
    and most people place implicit faith in some form of
    religious, economic or political creed. So culture serves as
    humanity’s Disneyland, a gaudy fantasy world that is specifically
    designed to keep us ignorant of the fact that it is our
    genes that call the shots, not our cortical neurons.

    ‘The ascent of man’, traditionally acclaimed as a long, hard
    climb out of bestial ignorance, has in reality been a long, slow
    descent into energy debt. But bedazzled by our cultural Disneyland
    we have remained generally oblivious to this aspect of
    our existence. However, a quick glance at our population graph
    for the past 12,000 years reveals a typical mammalian plague
    spike. Judging by UN population data our plague peaked in
    1967 and we are now racing towards a typically catastrophic
    plague collapse.

    Yet we have little cause for serious complaint. We have had the
    very best of it. Our species’ comet-like trajectory through the
    past 200,000 years launched us to unrivalled dominance of the
    planet’s crust, carried us deep into space, and placed our shaky
    hands on the levers of life itself. It wasindeed a dazzling ascent;
    and our return to earthy reality will be no less comet-like—fast,
    rough, and fiery. Surely a fitting end for such a spectacular ape. ®


    • Davidin100millionbilliontrillionzillionyears says:

      “Yet we have little cause for serious complaint. We have had the
      very best of it.”


      especially the 7 or so decades since the end of WW2.

      the 2020’s will be the first full decade of decline.

      but BAU tonight, baby!

  3. adonis says:

    its good to see educated delusistanis tell us what they believe it helps solidify why the masses and the elders may all have one thing in common they actually know nothing about how this planet operates they actually believe in infinite growth and that is why i believe the elders will take us into hyperinflation before the end

    • xabier says:

      Most ‘leaders’ at best have degrees in law, economics and politics.

      Not theoretical and applied sciences – and even those communities are prone to delusion.

      The likely future leader of Britain, Corbyn, even dropped out of a degree in ‘Trades Union Studies’ if I rightly recall.

      I suspect a bright archaeologist or historian might have a much better idea of how civilisations collapse than lawyers and economists, those two-a-penny frauds and grafters.

      • Greg Machala says:

        This is why I feel modern society will collapse really fast. As more and more frauds position themselves into positions of power and authority, when real problems arise they will be powerless to stop them and will jump like rats off a sinking ship.

      • Possibly a system engineer or two but even then if you don’t factor in the overall big picture and allow all the elements to stew for a while dishonest thinkers incapable of objective analysis will quickly revert to delusional conclusions as surely as a rabbit does a 180 and runs away when confronted with a pack of rabid dogs.

  4. Niko says:

    FE, the notion of GW was around back in the 80’s. We were talking about it at Uni in 1995 when I was doing a BSc in Ecology. Your rants about CC being a recent MSM lie is a little off the mark.
    People still won’t do anything about it and yes there are massive amounts of false info but none the less it does not mean it is not occurring. I believe however that resource extraction limits will crush us way before CC. Think of it as the cleaners coming in to mop up after the party is dead (which probably includes alot of party-goers.

    • Fast Eddy says:

      Funny… I was in high school in the 80’s… and I don’t remember any mention of this issue….

      Were you at Koombaya U?

      Maybe they called it something different back then…. like pollution … or smog?

      And btw — catastrophe has been predicted for years… and years … and years… and years…

      Yet I see no catastrophe… in fact I see twenty years of no w arming at all


      • Niko says:

        don’t be a deadbeat FE. If you give such pathetic replies then your other arguments regarding BAU will just start sounding as ill-considered. Personally I think that you are full of it. I don’t think that you are living ilfe to the full before the end, if you were you woundn’t be commenting here every 20 seconds. You just come across as a troll sitting in a dark shipping container raging at the world.

        • J. H. Wyoming says:

          “don’t be a deadbeat FE. If you give such pathetic replies then your other arguments regarding BAU will just start sounding as ill-considered. Personally I think that you are full of it.”

          That’s it in a nutshell, Niko. Everybody sooner or later seems to come to the same conclusion.

          • Davidin100millionbilliontrillionzillionyears says:

            what is this Glowworm Bowling and how do we stop it?

            I still like the in your face attitude that persons who “believe” in Glowworm Bowling should STOP using all fossil fuels immediately.

            and that goes for ALL colleges and universities also.

            I don’t recall ever hearing of anyone doing that.

            BAU today, baby!

          • Fast Eddy says:

            Yes I can imagine that’s what the main subject is when DelusiSTANIS get together…. it’s Fast Eddy said this … Fast Eddy said that……. then laughter….

        • alex says:

          Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) was a Swedish scientist that was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. He proposed a relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature. He found that the average surface temperature of the earth is about 15oC because of the infrared absorption capacity of water vapor and carbon dioxide. This is called the natural greenhouse effect. Arrhenius suggested a doubling of the CO2 concentration would lead to a 5oC temperature rise.

          • Fast Eddy says:

            The world has already burned half the fossil fuels necessary to bring about a catastrophic 2C rise in average glob al temp erature, scientists revealed today.

            The experts say about half a trillion tonnes of carbon have been consumed since the industrial revolution. To prevent a 2C rise, they say, the total burnt must be kept to below a trillion tonnes. On current rates, that figure will be reached in 40 years.



            We are saved we are saved!!!! WE … ARE …. SAVED!!!!

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Because even a De lusiS TA N I would acknowle dge…. that there is no way we are going to b urn another ha lf a trill ion ton nes of fo ssil fu els…..

              That is im possible — because we don’t have half a trilli on tonn es of econo mically viable fossil fuels rem aining to b urn — and we have stop ped looking for more….

              HSBC: 8 0% of the world’s oil has pe aked, and the resul ting oil cru nch will flat ten the economy

              https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/brace-for-the-fina ncial-cr ash-of-2018-b2f81f85686b#.z9uwvj2gd

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Because even a DelusiS TA NI would acknowle dge…. that there is no way we are going to burn another half a trill ion ton nes of fo ssil fu els…..

              That is impossible — because we don’t have half a trilli on tonn es of econo mically viable fossil fuels rem aining to b urn — and we have stop ped looking for more….

              HSBC: 8 0% of the world’s oil has pe aked, and the resul ting oil cru nch will flat ten the economy

            • Fast Eddy says:

              HONK if you love Fast Eddy. Honk honk honk.

              Breaking News: The entity known as Fast Eddy today released logic and facts that confirm that no matter what your position on GGGG wWWWW — it does NOT matter….. because there is no possible way we will burn enough fossil fuels to boil the planet.

              Ticker Tape parades in the world’s capitals are being organized – Fast Eddy will be flying to select cities in a private jet to attend the festivities (and to service the hot Koombaya Green Grooopie chicks).

              We are saved we are saved!!!

              We are almost out of fossil fuels so we will stop burning carbon — WE ARE SAVED!!!!!

              Hallelujah … Hallelujah…. Hallelujah Hallelujah —– hall a lu … jah!!!


            • Fast Eddy says:

              Apologies for the custerf789 …. the censor is being difficult when I try to post that in one comment

              Celebration time – no?

              Come on you glum faced Gooobal Wooormers ….. smile ….. and let’s get down with Kook and the Gang….

              Sorry Al…. your gig is blown…

          • Fast Eddy says:

            Look at this Alex…… we are not even close to a trillion …. we’ll never get there…

            If you are happy and you know it … clap your hands!!!!

        • Fast Eddy says:

          Very amusing Niko….

          Am I correct in assuming that you do value my comments on all other issues except GGG wWWWW… because they are laced with facts and logic and common sense…

          But that when it comes to my take on GGGGG wwwwwWWW …. I have that wrong….

          If you examined my positions on other issues — and you compared these positions with those espoused by the MSM (otherwise known as the Lies) you would find that I am consistently if not always — diametrically opposed to what the Lies spews.

          Correct me if I a wrong — you are saying that I am always right … except on this one issue …. and that the MSM always lies — except on this one issue.

          Can you see that there is a slight problem with the ‘logic’ you are using to make your point?

          And if it makes you feel better — no I do not work 14 hour days overseeing my tiny empire from a laptop…. rather this is my life :

          Inside the container:

          And this is Madame Fast

      • Yorchichan says:

        I went to a lecture on GW at York University with my sixth form physics class, so sometime between 1981 and 1983. It was being talked about then, though not to the extent it is now. Guess no one had figured out how to make any money out of it at that time.

        • xabier says:

          I seem to recall the 1980’s was more about global hunger.

          Silly sponsored charity swims at school to feed the world, etc. (I used to think ‘Why the circus? Just write a cheque’!)

          The 1970’s, looking at memoirs of the time, was when over-population and the poisoning of nature through industrial farming -pesticides – first came to prominence.

          • Yorchichan says:

            I remember when in the late 70s my school was doing its latest sponsored charity event to feed the starving of the third world, one classmate said “If we feed them then they’ll grow up and have more children and make the problem worse”. Can’t fault that logic.

          • Fast Eddy says:

            We Are the World.

            More spin… to keep the masses positive…

            Yes the world has some big problems but if we join hands together and sing — and donate the spare change from our pockets — we can fix the world.

            Meanwhile in the real world — we continue to rape and pillage Africa — and other weaklings… because we either pillage – or someone else will — and then we will be weak and we will be the pillagees. We will be the Somalians… the Ethiopians.

            It’s a good thing our leaders don’t believe in Koombaya. Imagine where we would be!

          • The seventies was seriously into gwaaabal cooling man. But it’s all change to me. Chchchchchaaanges.

            Oh and there was AIDS which is making a comeback in the charts so I hear. Or is it hepatitis A? So hard to keep track.

        • Good point about making money.

          • Harry Gibbs says:

            I recall that in the late eighties the hole in the ozone layer was very much the concern of the day. Ozone-depletion is still a problem but the fact that we managed to ban CFC’s and reverse some of the damage has given some in environmental circles false hope that collective action to mitigate g w is a realistic possibility. Of course it isn’t, hydrocarbons being indispensable to our very existence. CFC’s less so.

      • Mick says:

        This from a BBC report on the latest wildfires in California
        “It is not yet known how the fires started.”
        Wasn’t it Fast Eddie who mused on fires being weaponised? The devastation is
        certainly awful and the clean up will cost plenty. Makes you think or perhaps best
        not to.

        • Ecosystems expect many small fires and some larger ones. We have been busy snuffing out small ones, making large fires more likely.

          • J. H. Wyoming says:

            Generally that’s true, Gail, however these fires here in CA are the work of arsonist/s. It’s just not talked about because those type of investigations don’t want the arsonist to know they are trying to track them down. They are all starting at the edge of roads and the sheer numbers of fires statistically points to arson. There wasn’t any lightening, so what other ignition source could there be? One or two accidental fires from barbecues or faulty exhaust is possible but we are talking about at least a dozen all started in the same week. That’s arson. Also the timing of the fires – in conjunction with high winds, which an arsonist would know helps a fire spread. The same thing happened in the Valley fire in CA that burned 1950 structures – a very windy, hot day and it turned out it was an arsonist that started that fire. The human brain can be used for good things or bad – this is bad, very bad. Entire neighborhoods of people are going to have to start over from scratch.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Interesting … a google search of terrorism and fire…. brings up next to nothing….. but there was this:

              The U.S. Forest Service’s Deputy Director of Fire and Aviation Management spoke about pyroterrorism in a keynote address at the Firehouse World conference in San Diego this week.

              After serving in the Marine Corps for 25 years, mostly as a planner, Mr. Baird was appointed to his position in the Forest Service in November of 2011. While attending Marine Corps University he wrote a paper titled Pyroterrorism: The Threat of Arson Induced Forest Fires as a Terrorist Weapon, and an article on the same subject, Profiles in Pyroterrorism: Convergence of crime, terrorism and wildfire unleash as a weapon on population.

              At the conference this week, according to Firehouse, Mr. Baird mentioned several incidents that could be classified as pyroterrorism, including the Japanese fire balloons during the second World War, the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, and the arson fires set by Raymond Lee Oyler, one of them being the Esperanza Fire that killed a 5-person USFS engine crew. He also referred to an article in an al Qaeda magazine that called for Western Muslims to wage war within the United States, urging them to engage in lone wolf attacks, including setting forest fires.

              Below is an excerpt from the Firehouse article:

              In 2004, the FBI came upon intelligence and issued an alert to the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) suggesting that Al Queda had plans to start wildland fires in Montana, Wyoming, Utah and Colorado, Baird said, noting that all the material he was presenting was unclassified information and his interpretations and analysis were his own.

              “I am not going to be some suit out of Washington, D.C., coming out here and telling you how to fight wildland fires,” said Baird, who added that his family in California was evacuated during the Camp Pendleton fire.


        • jazIntico says:

          “Wasn’t it Fast Eddie who mused on fires being weaponised?”

          Yes, let’s tell Trump that North Korea is behind the fires, and see how he responds. 🙂

        • Fast Eddy says:

          If the bad guys are involved… we will never be told…. because that would truly terrorize the people….

          If the bad guys were to use this tactic… it would be very difficult to stop them …. you’d need to roll out some form of martial law lite….

          But that would damage confidence… and no doubt impact the economy negatively.

      • DJ says:

        Swedish elementary school taught greenhouse effect in 80s, don’t remember what the solutions was supposed to be.

        • me says:

          Of course they did, it was a Swede, Svante Arrhenius, who made the discovery that CO2 produces a greenhouse effect, and therefore G W. You don’t remember the solution, because short of stopping any human activity, there was none. And now, not even stopping civilization will do it, it would accelerate it. Who’s gonna teach that to elementary school kids?

          • Fast Eddy says:

            It’s not a discovery… it’s a theory….. and the theory is like many theories that people believe — it is wrong.

            We have burned absolutely insane amounts of carbon —- in fact close to 100% of all the carbon that is every going to be burned — has already been burned (because we are going to a carbon free planet very soon…)

            And is anyone in fear of dying from frying?

            Well maybe a few extremists are — people like Guy Macpherson….. but seriously – does anyone think the planet is about to boil us to death?

            It ain’t gonna happen. The theory is wrong.

            We have burned billions if not trillions of tonnes of fossil fuels — with no horrific effects.

          • DJ says:

            They still teach global warming, but now they have a solution: we’re going to Mars. (but I believe that is one teachers interpretation, not official curriculum)

            • HideAway says:

              FE, I was teaching GW in 1981 to senior students.
              Where I live in Victoria in southern Australia, we have approx 480b tonnes of lignite (brown coal), there is plenty of fuel to cook the planet and we have already ignited a lot of it.
              You are just plain wrong!!

            • The problem is making the whole world economy work on the relatively poor resources left. Lignite is low quality coal. It has to be shipped long distances, and then used for increasingly unproductive purposes. The issue is that we can expect the price to drop too low, to make its extraction economically worthwhile. Extraction fails, not because it is not available, but because the price cannot rise high enough.

              I suppose without electricity and international trade, a few people could live around the lignite fields, and pick up the lignite with their hands. They might use the lignite to fuel camp fires. But how much would they really use? How much area nearby is good for growing the crops needed to sustain a community? Is there enough fresh water? How about fields for animals? This will put an upper bound on population of the area. If there are not good rivers for shipping the lignite, it will not be shipped, in the absence of modern systems.

            • that’s almost desribing the peat-dwellers, in uk and ireland, until very recent times


              this was a peat power station–no idea of its long term viability though–this was 20 years ago.
              the c02 thing was enormous apparently

              peat is one stage up from lignite

            • Peat is another resource we are using faster than it replenishes.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              How much lignite is above ground?

              If little or none you run into the problem of pumping water out of the way to get at the fuel….

            • Fast Eddy says:

              FYI: It’s the GGG WWWW scientists who are the one’s making the claim that we are just past the half way point in the Rubicon… half way to burning the trillions tonnes of carbon required to raise the temps 2 degrees…. that we MUST do something now … OR ELSE….

              Nevermind that there is nothing we can do even if there was a reason too — other than go for a romp with good time gal TINA…..

              Where I am right – where Gail is right — is that there is NO F789ING way we are ever going to burn nearly half as much fossil fuels as we have burned so far….

              Because there is nowhere near that amount of fossil fuels that are economically viable to extract and burn…

              In case you had not noticed… the industrial revolution is just about done… the collapse is looming…

              Even if I were to agree with the scientists that if we do burn a trillion tonnes of carbon we will broil (I do not believe that) so what? It ain’t gonna happen. It ain’t gonna happen. It ain’t gonna happen.

              80% of the world’s oil has peaked, and the resulting oil crunch will flatten the economy

              View story at Medium.com

              What is it you do not understand?

        • Fast Eddy says:

          Remember the tiny newspaper article Tim posted that stated this was an issue 100 or so years ago?

          That the ice caps were in da nger of imm inently melt ing?

          This th eory has been around a very long time…. and yet it was a th eory nothing more … that most people did not know about …. did not care about…. it’s been around for as long as man has been poll uting the planet…..

          Yet we are still here…. the Klli mate changes… like it always has…

          What is different is that the same year the conventional oil pea ked — Al G re magic ally appeared from his giant c oal su cking c astle …. and made a very popular Hor ror Mo vie ….

          And the MSM rolled out the red carpet. And continues to do so….

          Meanwhile…. we are not ro asting…. yet everyone is urging leaders to do something!!! – m ore renewa ble NOW – more E Vs NOW! — and the leaders are doing something — they give the masses Te sla — cars and batteries — they are outlawin g I C vehicles — see – we are ALM OST THERE!!!

          And in the background …. we are finding almost no new economi cally via ble sources of o il – heck we have pretty much stopped lookin g … and every month … every day … every minute… every second… we are depleting the remaining reserves…

          And nobody has the slightest f 789 ing clue about this …

          Because they are focused on shr ieking ‘we are about to ro ast — DO SOMET HING N OW!!!! – do MO RE – hurry up!!!!’

      • me says:

        You see only what you want to see.

        • Fast Eddy says:

          I saw the issue from one side of the fence.

          Then later I looked at it from the other side of the fence.

          And I decided the view from the other side of the fence was more logical.

      • i1 says:

        Here’s an old geeble stuffing movie from the stone age-

  5. Ed says:

    For space solar power the surface of the moon is the ideal location. No transport of materials needed. Just beam microwaves back to earth. With AI miners and construction workers on the moon we are all set.

  6. Rob Bell says:

    At least 6 Billion dumbshits will die in The Oil Apocalypse.

    • Davidin100millionbilliontrillionzillionyears says:

      not us, though!

      (we likely will die, but we’re not dummies. right? yes, I see that everyone agrees.)

      and that’s easy for you to say.

      the real question that is perpetually batted back and forth:


      • adonis says:

        according to marion king hubbert the oil runs out in the year 2020

      • I honestly don’t know.

        Fast Eddy told us we wouldn’t be tucking into our christmas turkey one year… a few years ago.

        Well… I waited and it didn’t happen. I ate my chicken with extra gravy ( I don’t like turkey) and thanked my lucky stars that the almighty (FE) granted us at least one more year. But then another year went by… and FE has been wrong about a whole lot of things his whole life. He admits as much. He even seems really proud of his ability to accept how wrong he is all the time and continues to bang his drum more loudly than ever. Facts and logic you know. Gotta hand it to him… he’s persistant in chasing his dream of being right at least once in his life. A bit like winning the lottery and then it all goes to shite.

  7. Fast Eddy says:

    Now if I was a truly vindictive person …. I’d be looking at this and thinking… dry conditions … high winds…. I gotta get my Bic and get out there…. running a drug into a crowd is so not scaleable… and it means death or jail….

    No no no … this is much grander….


    • jazIntico says:

      So you might, but you have no evidence that this is what somebody did. You are just exchanging one kons pirasie thee orie for another.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        What I am saying that ‘the terrorists’ can work out how to take town the twin towers….

        But they can’t work out that they could cause far more mayhem and economic damage and terror by supplying a dozen men with Bic lighters and motorcycles….

        But because you are operating on a very limited intellectual capacity …. the implications of what I am saying …. would not have occurred to you.

        But then the MSM tells you what to think and know … and they won’t tell you this.

        • jazIntico says:

          “operating on a very limited intellectual capacity” – wrong, that is just a petty assumption of yours, because you lacked the ability to put your point across properly.

          “What I am saying that ‘the terrorists’ can work out how to take town the twin towers….But they can’t work out that they could cause far more mayhem and economic damage and terror by supplying a dozen men with Bic lighters and motorcycles….”

          But you didn’t write that at first, you see. If that is what you meant to say, then you expressed it very poorly. You’ve already been taken to task for your tabloid writing style, of course. 😉 It’s an interesting theory, though, and probably not yours, since you’re not noted for original insights. I still await proof – preferably from non-MSM sources.

          • Fast Eddy says:

            I must admit … I do have this weakness…

            Sometimes I write stuff working off the assumption people are working with a decent amount of horsepower under the bonnet… that they understand, recognize and value logic… and facts… they understand the implications of what I post – without me having to give them a paint by numbers version

            But inevitably I am disappointed… there is a Core of people who do ‘get it’ but they are in the minority …

            Now I could explain things as if I was dealing with 7 year olds — but I am still not certain if people would ‘get it’…. because they are not capable of getting it. Sometimes they don’t want to get it

            There is that pernicious problem with the MSM and people believing what the MSM tells them to believe – to think…. no matter how simply I explain something – no matter what the facts and logic are…

            They won’t get it. They will refuse to get it. They dont want to get it.

            They will go on and on and on repeating (like human/parrots) what they read on the bloomberg or on the new york times or what they heard on the cnn….

            Martha didja hear that — the Boomberg said there’s a ticking Kllllimate Time Bomb Under Our Feet! Holy mother of Jesus Zeke — you don’t say — I’s knew I felt that heat comin right up through ma shoes….. and remember last week it was really hot —- yep we’s all goin to boil Martha – yep Zeke …. there’s no doubt about that!

            • Kurt says:

              Right. I mean, it’s the elders, or Elon, or like, you know, some kind of strange crazy thing, or it’s really ….

              Back to the storage container please.

            • Greg Machala says:

              There is something uniquely powerful to the human psyche about the word: “officiall”. If it is “official” news then, it is the one that is believed and registered in the human brain as the correct version (regardless of how ridiculous). If the “official” word is we have 100 years of coal left then, that is unquestionable. If the “official” word is we are going to Mars in 2030 then, we are. If the “official” words of the economist say that infinite growth in a finite world is possible – it must be so. Smarter than yeast? I think not.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              Dumber than yeast.

            • Greg

              It was all worked out a long time ago. It was the original magic that kept high priests and shamans in gainful employ. Mind control is basic psychology. The good looking, well dressed, very well paid man or woman staring directly at you from the other side of that brightly lit screen reading a carefully composed script off a telepromter is on your side and has your best interests at heart.

              To question the veracity of the hypnotist would be to question the very nature of reality and that cannot be allowed to happen. The fabric of industrial civilisation would be at stake if everyone just did what they wanted with no guidance from the established authorities.

              The same goes for fancy dress and props. Put on a big hat and hold a funny looking staff in one hand while making gestures with the other and the rabble automagically genuflects and hands over their gold. It’s amazing. Combine these two very simple techniques and you’re onto a winner. Works in all cultures around the world. Must be something in the source code. An exploit or whatever you call it. Hackable humans – who would of thunk it.

        • Jesse James says:

          FE, we are told by the government and MSM that there are terrorists. Now, two decades ago, I am not so sure there were any. But after nation destruction and bombing for 17 yrs….yea, there might be some real ones now.

          • Fast Eddy says:

            There are definitely real live terrorists out there….

            But it seems those guys never do much damage… a truck into a crowd here…. a bomb or a shooting there…

            If I am a serious revenge seeker…. I am liking the use of fire…

            I’ve posted this before — how many ‘terrorists’ were guided by their minders to carry out the false flag known as 911 – 19 hijackers that we know of — they know doubt had some support that escaped…

            So let’s call it 25.

            25 men – each takes a lease on a lower floor apartment in let’s say 5 buildings (could easily do 25 each…) so that is 125 buildings in say – New York city.

            Each day they stop by each apartment bringing in a little bit of what is needed to carry out the deed.

            Then on D Day — they all set the timers …. and down come 125 buildings.

            And make sure to set the timer so all the boys have already flown the coop back to the ME.

            Now that would some serious bit of terror.

            It does not take a genius to come up with this…. nor would it take a genius to work out that mass-arson across the country would be far more effective than running a truck into a crowd.

            So what I am wondering is – why we don’t see these mass incidents?

            Perhaps they are planned yet thwarted and we are not told?

            • xabier says:

              In retirement, the former socialist leader in Spain ,Felipe Gonzalez, revealed that the intelligence services one day came to him with an offer to liquidate en masse the entire leadership of ETA, who were all gathered in one location.

              They would never have been able to recover. He turned the offer down, leading to another 20 years of killings and extortion by the group.

              Terrorist groups serve the purposes of many actors in the game.

            • Jesse James says:

              Deductive logic would tell us there are not really many terrorists.

            • name says:

              If terrorists had any brains they would just start shooting transformers.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              This leads me to believe the The Universe (TM) is a computer game …. and that the programmers of the game decided not to have ‘the terrorist’ avatars engage in these extremely destructive behaviours ….

              Because to do so would ruin the game.

              All games need rules.

              This would appear to be one of them – terror is allowed but not terror that threatens to end the game completely. You cannot just have terrorists burning down cities — and forests and shooting down airliners with readily available should fired missiles…. can’t have them tossing grenades into restaurants and other public places…. and so on …

              Because the end of cheap oil is what is programmed in as the game ender.

            • Jesse James says:

              Perhaps the terror attacks we see are gov sponsored terror attacks, but the attacks we are not seeing are the result of the non-existent terrorists. Sometimes there are known terrorists, and then there are unknown terrorists, but then there are the known terrorists that do not know they are terrorists, and there are the unknown terrorists that know they are terrorists. Well, you get the idea? Rumsfeld…help!

            • Fast Eddy says:

              To be honest…. for the most part…. I really have no idea what is real and what is a false flag… other than 911 — which I am quite certain was a false flag…..

              It is also important to keep in mind that the CIA has teamed up with terrorists on many occasions — see Afghanistan vs Russia … and of course ISIS or ISIL or whatever name the CIA calls their attack dogs in Syria this week

            • That’s all cool and all but…

              911 was an insurance job if anything else. Two extremely tall aging buildings stuffed to the brim with asbestos. The buildings could not be demolished so… total nightmare and extremely costly operation required to dismantle the buildings by hand. What to do… what to do… so Lucky Larry insures the buildings for exactly the event that eventually happened. He claims the insurance on the twin towers – enough to build that shiny new one. The .gov guys get their excuse to unleash operation global freedom. The DHS gets alll the power at home. The 99% have to undress and kids get a pat down every time they want to board a plane – prisoner training perfected.

              So…what’s not to like. Everyone in the special club got what they wanted and everyone else got royally screwed.

              And yes it would be exceptionally easy to carry out real terrorist acts almost all the time and yet we don’t really see that many. The ones we see are scripted to achieve a specific goal – subduing the public / accepting further police state – otherwise we would be seeing a lot more generic sabotage that doesn’t require fancy equipment training or funding… or guns. I guess box cutters and trucks are not sophisticated but the planning and execution of 911 alone is beyond comprehension without help from state operators.

          • Greg Machala says:

            JJ, this is another example how easy it is to fool people. It is a trick the Three Stooges played – look Curly, over there. Where Moe? There! (Moe whacks Curly over the head while he is distracted looking at something that isn’t there). And, some people never learn. They keep on believing “official” sources and keep getting whacked in the head looking for things that are not real.

            Here is an example:

            And people keep on wanting to believe the “official” sources.

  8. Fast Eddy says:

    “Regardless, the market is currently ignoring such realities as the belief ‘this time is different’ has become overwhelming pervasive.”


    This is the only time ever that this truly is different…

    What is different is that markets will go higher supported by CB policy — and then they will collapse completely and then everyone dies.

    So the right play is to go long the market….

    Alternatively if you want to gamble that the end game is sooner than later — take the Fast Eddy Investment Advice — piss your cash away hand over fist — but keep something in the tank just in case the CBs are able to hold out longer than you expect.

    Ideally you still have a source of income through all of this… hate to be left completely high and dry

  9. adonis says:

    this movie claims that there is a conspiracy about man made climate change that it is a plan to reduce population perpetrated by some of the richest families in the world https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wlNey9t7hQ

    • adonis says:

      i think the whole subject of climate change is a matter of data has there been any huge sea level rise no there has not so we should not waste any more time butting heads over who is right or who is wrong but instead focus on the real deal i think our finite world should blackban any mention of climate change. we could all vote make it fair lets ban any talk of climate change

      • I have let climate change discussion through on this post because I discussed the topic. It probably should be moved off the agenda again.

      • Fast Eddy says:

        If I were to start eating 10,000 calories per day I eventually I would end up a right fat bastard….

        But I won’t do that ….

        So no point in discussing that. Any more than……

      • Artleads says:

        Sea level rise is a problem for Tropical islands at the present time, and a particularly big problem for south Asian islands. Cuba is taking aggressive action to prepare their shoreline for growing SLR, while other islands are going more slowly. Places like Barbuda are deeply affected too, as are others in the major trajectory of recent hurricanes. But I agree, SLR is not seen as a pressing emergency, for the most part.

        • Islands generally have a huge problem with affordable electricity. This problem, by itself, tends to make the islands non-competitive in the world economy. This is why Puerto Rico recently went bankrupt, and why Cuba has huge financial problems. Given how enormous this issue is, I can see why few would worry about the possibility of sea level rise.

    • psile says:

      Stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. How would these idiots continue to make lots of money, or massage their egos with even more power, if all their minions were dead?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s