32 Replies to “Colin Campbell”

  1. Is that Guiness for moi? Why, thank you Colin! I really must visit your home town and get some more!

  2. fuck off doom. just click on of of those little pictures on the bottom. just like fuckin’ your wife’s sweet ass. you know.

  3. I did what you said to do, now it sez: “An error occurred, please try again later”!

    That sounds like my wife, snort snort—

  4. Lurker spore.

    Walter Cronkite gravely ill at 92. Reports grossly exaggerated.

    Worlds oldest man 113, British WWI vet, credits booze, cigarettes, and wild women for longevity.

    Berlusconi, 72, in all kinds of trouble for being friends with (fucking) all kinds of young women.

    Colin probably has time, but then again

    Pilot, 60 years old, dies in flight of natural causes.

  5. We like took a lot of their stuff, man, like California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and most of Colorado (nobody wanted Utah and Nevada). So, like, some of them took it kinda hard, and even sent an army up to Texas to kick some ass. They did too, and they killed our heros Davy Crockett and William Bowey and made a mess out of the Alamo. And then they had this Pancho Villa character robbing all the banks, and they gave shelter to all the nasty “insurgents” aka Native Americans who didn’t geeve a shit about our freedumbs, and didn’t cotton to living on reservations.

    Hey, aren’t you supposed to be on vakay?

  6. For the busy doomer reader, a condensed Orlov: $200 oil, end of world as we knew it by 2012. Maya were right.

  7. Doom,

    I have a friend of mine in the oil business and I sent him the Orlov link. His take in a word – rubbish.

    He did however also express similar concerns as Bunn (IIRC) regarding oil/energy word usage, among other things, such as GDP and oil/energy.

    My take is that this isn’t one of his best presentations and I think there are some interesting ideas trying to get out, such as GDP and energy usage and is it really an indicator? And is cost of energy as a percentage of GDP really such a harbinger? How does it account for other efficiencies in GDP?

  8. Thanks Donovan, I’ll check it. If you haven’t already seen it, check out this old Ken Deffeyes comment, link here: http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events-08-05.html

    Ken I think was the first to publish on the relation between oil and GDP. Because oil is so dern useful, it wraps itself around all things modern, including coal mining, natural gas drilling, and food production/processing/transportation/storage.

    I read Ken’s comments like Moses used to read the stone tablets.

  9. The dust up seems to be over the oil/energy price as percentage of GDP, Orlov originally said 6%, then corrected the math to 25%. Deffeyes has guessed 15% of global GDP as the tipping point ($300/barrel oil). I believe Orlov is talking about US GDP.

    I agree with Dmitry’s latest comment. Think of a large puppy dog or small child trying to stand up under the coffee table—every time they attempt to upright themselves, one hears a thud, followed by a period of quiet whimpering.

  10. haha, the connection between oil, gdp and money is rubbish? that’s just about the silliest thing i’ve ever heard, really. ask your friend one question, maybe 2: how does money, at least in a global economy derive value?; and, what measures gdp, aside from money?

  11. here’s a hint: gdp is measured in money. but nothing happens, nothing, without energy. which is simply a potential, supplied largly by oil, but, essentially, exclusively, by fossil fuels. donovan, i’d like to talk to your “friend”; if you really have one that is.

  12. the way i read orlov: at some piont on the resource/money scale the system goes baluey. 25% is just number. i’ve been saying this for years.

  13. the real number you want to focus on, if you want to focus on a number, is duncan’s “e”, available energy per capita. it’s on it’s way down right now. in my mind that means the either the number of capita has to decline or the available energy needs to increase. this is exactly what orlov says, but with different words.

  14. and, you must remeber we’re talking about the industrial system, not the “natural’ system. which works on “flows”, not “stores”. words suck when you don’t have anything else to work with.

  15. ya, like orlov, the “arithamatics”. i have called it the “pit the elder sydrome”, or just plain old fucking retards.

  16. Well dave, I don’t have problem with what Orlov is saying and basically I agree. And given American tendancy to denial, it’s a likely scenario sooner than later.

    I rereading my friends email, he cites Orlov’s flawed logic of “oil production going down, so will global GDP”. Substituting energy for oil, as he did and subsequently so did Orlov in his errata, my friend points to the market (supply and demand) and, wait for it, other forms of energy filling in the role of oil.

    Given the EROEI of oil vs. alternatives, the abundant oil infrastructure, blah, blah, blah, it seems to me that any energy source other than oil would hasten the tipping point rather than remedy it.

    In my response to my friend, to illustrate my perspective on my issue with Orlov’s blanket statement (in either form, oil or energy) is that my household GDP (household income from all sources) has not fallen, but has risen even though there has been a signifcant decrease in overall energy usage of all types (fuel for client visits, electricity for equipment, cooling, lighting). I also acknowledged that it is likely short term as energy costs will escalate inevitably, which I attributed more to infrastructure/delivery costs. I also acknowleged in my response the scalability problem of my example and even Orlov states “Efficiency, conservation, renewable sources of energy all might have some effect, but will not materially alter this relationship.” Fundamentally, I think it is true, but there a tremendous number of variables in there that can and will greatly effect the timeline – which may or may not be a good thing depending on your perspective.


  17. so, does that mean it’s not “rubbish”?

    this is exactly why i like to focus on “e”. global gdp, in any sort of real terms, i.e., goods produced, must, yes must, go down as available energy declines. less energy available means less activity. it’s as simple as that.

    none of this means that gdp in economic terms won’t rise, i expect it to. i’m still in the inflation camp. as more money goes into circulation, the gdp rises. it’s a con.

  18. no, i’m no where near a genius. but, true story; a psychologist once actually diagnosed me as a “stark realist”. he said that i have a problem because i can’t help but see the world as it really is. whereas everybody around me was participating in the social fantacy. he then made me sit down and read back issues of the ny times for 3 weeks straight; it didn’t help.

  19. i’ve also had a lot of problems with minding my manners in public; but that’s another story.

  20. so, anyhoo, the moral, imo, is something like: play along with the dominant fantasy; but position yourself on the side of reality. easier said than done of course.

Comments are closed.