@Curmudgeon: I'm glad you recalled my point about Freudian psychology. It is an excellent example of just far off the rails the scientific debate can go

Actually, it's not. Freud was not a scientist. In fact Freud was so of those who drove Karl Popper to write his essay on Science as Falsification http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html . Quoting:

"Among the theories which interested me Einstein's theory of relativity was no doubt by far the most important. The three others were Marx's theory of history, Freud's psycho-analysis, and Alfred Adler's so-called "individual psychology."

@Curmudgeon: In reference to your first link, the German military analysts must have entirely overlooked a complete revolution in the energy sector.

Well, its nice to see you have got past your "new oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico are the biggest the world has even seen" delusion you used to spout as an answer.

But no, those Germans didn't forget anything. Unlike you, they realise methane is not dense enough to use for we put 70% of petroleum to: transport. Gas to liquids conversion is its only hope, but it is only 50% efficient and the plant cost is huge - roughly $30k/barrel/day. Australia consumes roughly 1M barrels/day, so that is $30 billion to cover just our local consumption. Those figures are suspect because they come from a paper that claims they can produce synthetic crude at $40/barrel. If that was true the GtL plants would be popping up like weeds right about now.

But if AGW doesn't concern you (and clearly it doesn't) then it might be a solution to transport in a decade or so's time.

@Curmudgeon: Where has this guy been? You did know that farm land is falling out of production in Aus and the US at least?

Err, looking at population growth figures perhaps? He did say the US should be OK, and obviously food isn't a problem for us. So my guess is he looking with some concern at what will happening beyond his own back yard. Starving people don't always go quietly, and wars can be dammed expensive things.

You'd be hard pressed to find a more smug, smarmy, sarcastic, conceited, pompous and self-righteous bunch of people anywhere. Maybe a fundamentalist compound in Utah?

There's a pattern at the environment forum of OO. Any article that strays outside a certain cliques conservative dogma is automatically swamped with comments that are extraneous to the topic and are usually ad hominem attacks on the author. Is that a natural human response when someone is confronted with realities that challenge their ideological notions? Or is it a state of denial that is cultivated, a la Monckton variety?

It's obvious that these personal attacks occur because the mountain of empirical evidence is pretty hard to argue with.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3249394.htm

Behind the sophistry are infantile tantrums. When your opposition to a thesis is backed up with solid science you may gain some credibility. I personally find it tedious wading through the dross to find counterpoints worthy of consideration. That's time I'll never get back from petty thieves.

Your self congratulatory tone in attacking a young woman reveals your truly pathetic nature. What brave culture warriors you are!

Curmy, you must already be aware that the majority of Australia's cropping land is of low fertility and relies quite heavily on inputs of fertiliser to maintain productivity. One of the problems with that is a developing shortage of the world's supplies of the raw materials from which these fertilisers are produced, the consequences which will inevitably be a decrease in output.

Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

David

sardine shows us the way "comments that are extraneous to the topic and are usually ad hominem attacks"

with .. "smug, smarmy, sarcastic, conceited, pompous and self-righteous bunch of people anywhere. Maybe a fundamentalist compound in Utah?"

"petty thieves"

I didn't realise we were all merely posting to gain merit from your holiness, oh great sardine .. thank goodness you don't lower yourself to insulting personal attacks .. oh wait, you do.

you sound "smug, smarmy, sarcastic, conceited, pompous and self-righteous"

You added absolutely nothing to the discussion except to have a tantrum and rant at other posters, did you consider any of the questions or points raised by other posters?

Your self congratulatory tone in attacking "other posters" reveals your truly pathetic nature.

There you go, fixed.

Thanks for confirming the critique rpg.

Well done Anne. I would add to your reference list John Michael Greer's theory of catabolic collapse which explains why collapse is a process which occurs over an extended timeframe and also not as apocalyptic as some would argue.

I also think that defining collapse is important. I prefer Tainters definition of a rapid reduction in socio-economic complexity.

Curmudgeon, I would recommend reading David Hughes paper for the Post carbon institute on fracking - its hardly the panacea you make it out to be.