“The era of cheap & abundant energy is long gone. Money supply & debt have grown faster than real economy. Debt saturation is now a real risk, requiring a global scale reset.”"We are now in new era of expensive unconventional energy

[Rob Kramer + 696]

I also enjoyed reading it ... but I'd have to say Value is an idea Real things are absolute. Getting a little to liberal when we can wish/beileve things to reality. But I think you were talking about values. So your essentially saying our world is a bunch of belief systems assigning value from the tops. 

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

20 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

I also enjoyed reading it ... but I'd have to say Value is an idea Real things are absolute. Getting a little to liberal when we can wish/beileve things to reality. But I think you were talking about values. So your essentially saying our world is a bunch of belief systems assigning value from the tops. 

No... and these aren't my opinions... they are based on the book "Sapiens - a Brief History of Humankind" by Yuvan Harari. What makes Homosapiens-sapiens (modern humans) different from not only all other animals but also from other "humans" (Homo-erectus, Homo-habilis) is our ability to imagine a reality and then ACCEPT that imagination as real. It's not about wishing.  This isn't "Think and Grow Rich" by Napoeon Hill. It's not a "personal" belief.  It's a "societal" belief that makes all human structures and realities. 

So what's really, really real?  Natural laws.  Entropy. If you don't generate 98.6 degrees at the same rate that the environment evaporates heat from your body then you will die. That's real. Work is real. It takes a certain amount of FORCE to push a 2,000 lb car 1 mile. 

F=mg(h/h2+d2−√) or something like that.

Those are real. Really really real. 

Humanity is not based on THAT. Monkeys are based on that, ants are based on that. Yes, monkeys have troops but their troops are based on family relations. Once you get past direct family relations you have to depend on imaginary structures. 

Humanity is based on the acceptance of imaginary structures. Tribe was a big one.... but how do you get past tribe?  The first way was God. Different tribes believe in the same GOD which binds them together. A variation is KING. But most Kings established their right to be King by invoking Divine Right.. .which brings us back to GOD.  

You can say we are a nation of LAWS, but laws are just an extension of the acceptance of imaginary Kings and Rulers who were put in place by an imaginary God.  The first written law was the Hammurabi Code.  It opens with him explaining how GOD made him king and how GOD gave him the laws... Moses is no different. He didn't come form the mountain top and say "Hey guys, I made up 10 rules!" no they were "Commandments from God." 

As an aside the SIZE of the human structure (empires and whatnot) is based on the ability to make larger and larger numbers of people believe in the shared delusion.  WRITING was a Giant leap in the size of human structures. Hence Hamurabi's Code was the first WRITTEN laws and it's closely associated with one of the first real empires. As writing expanded so did empires.  We now use TV and the Internet to spread imaginary ideas. 

That becomes "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." ... "All men are CREATED equal." 

Who says all men are created equal? That wasn't true for 70,000 years. All men were not created equal... and ALL men were created WAY MORE equal than any woman."  So, humanity does not require equality. Equality is an evolving group construct that is accepted as reality. Humanity got along swimmingly with Kings, slaves, etc.  Rome was amazing!  Greece was incredible!  The Chin dynasty was spectacular!

That is the basis of ALL human endeavors - Leaders and Rules established by God.  Democracy, which is super-duper recent, is an extension of the replacement of God by Humans... it's an extension of "The Enlightenment." So ONE person cannot replace God... it takes ALL the humans to replace God.. or at least a majority of the good ones (male land owners) which over time (just because people decided to do it) becomes non land owners too, then women, and then minorities... but not children... Children are still slaves. They are still "owned" by their parents. They are incapable of making decisions.  So that's where the line is currently... 18 years old you're human... 17 years old you're a slave to your parents... No they can't BEAT you or KILL you, but even Hammurabi had rules about how slaves should be treated. The bad ones (criminals) are not "equal." The dumb ones (children) are not equal. The unestablished ones (illegal immigrants) are not equal.

So, the reality now is that all men and women (of all races and all sexual orientation) are created equal, but MORE equal than all humans under the age of 18 unless they have a felony or do not have legal status.... and they have to register in a certain way with these types of proofs of identity... if you do that then you're "equal." 

So, a man ... Henry Ford... starts a company.  Does he Declare It?  No, he files paperwork with the people who God allows to accept such paperwork.. in this case the courts. In the past it was the temple. Now that entity exists.  If Henry Ford dies does the entity die?  No. If Henry Ford fires everyone does the entity stop existing? No. It still exists. If all the cars ever made by Ford are destroyed Ford still exists.  Why? Because WE ALL ACCEPT that it is so. What is the literal difference between Ford Motor Company Existing or NOT?  It's a piece of paper. Did that piece of paper make FORD?  Nope.  It didn't make a single car. If I make a car does that make me Ford? Nope.  I can't BE Ford because they have the piece of paper.  If I try to file a piece of paper that says I'm FORD the priests at the courthouse will say NO. 

If I argue with you and say "I'm Ford." you will say "No you aren't." How do you know?  Ford is a Conjured Entity. 

When The United Nations passes Sanctions to stop the Banking Rights or Embargo Libya due to Gaddafi's violation of Human Rights... Every single aspect of that sentence is entirely made up. The UN is an imaginary entity, Sanctions are a made up thing, Banking and Money are human inventions, and embargo is nothing more than people agreeing not to trade with someone (up to the point where a Missile blows up your ship... but that brings us back to natural laws - explosives plus human flesh equals shark chum). Because a nation (Libya) completely made up, run by a ruler (Gaddafi made up) is violating "human rights" which is a construct. Humans have no rights. If I walk up to you and try to stab you in the eye, there is no "human right" that will stop it from happening... There might be a HUMAN that stops it from happening YOU. But there is no Right.

I can't kill you... that's you're HUMAN right?  

Can I lethal inject you?  You darn right I can!  We lethal inject people all the time. Did we lethal inject a HUMAN?  Now we get back to shared delusions... at what point do you lose your HUMAN RIGHT to be alive?  After a trial by your peers?  That's made up. You also lose your HUMAN RIGHT to live after your imaginary leader says something that another country's imaginary leader(s) don't like.  So our imaginary country sends a "Patriot" (are are patriots are we not?) missile to blow up your dirt hut and everyone inside it. Because they no longer have "human" rights. 

So, it's all fungible. Who gets to determine when you no longer have HUMAN rights?  A judge? A jury? A President? or a Captain in a Command Center operating on standing orders based on the "rules of warfare." 

You break everything down bigger than the laws of physics, thermodynamics, biology and and animal evolution and you'll find Imaginary systems invented by humans to justify what they want to accomplish - good, bad or indifferent. 

Which returns me to my original point... If you (or I) think we are anything other than surfs by some other name just try no participating in the shared delusions of our group... money, laws, work... If you do so the laws of thermodynamics will quickly catch up with you.

So yea, let's vote for Donald Trump (add all the imaginary adjectives you want here) or Bernie Sanders (add all the imaginary adjective you want here). 

P.S. according to Joiquin Phoenix Academy Award Speech we are now extending God given rights to other species. This has already been happening for a while with dogs in America at least, now we are extending it animals that we eat. We aren't extending it to ants yet.  Now you may disagree with that idea and I might disagree with that idea.  Right now the vast majority of people disagree with that idea.  But when that idea becomes the Shared Delusion then it will be just as real as "All Men are Created Equal," America, and the using a Visa Card to buy Groceries.

So, if you want to determine what is "real" vs what is "Made UP" then you just have to ask yourself... is if Fungible? If you can have a god that is different from my god, and what level of god there can occur then "god" is fungible. Therefore it's not real. All fungible things are human constructs. If it is not fungible... Entropy 98.6 degrees is not fungible.  All humans are THAT. If you stop being THAT for too long then you stop BEING. That's real. 

Work is real, if you don't apply this much force to that mass of a rocket then it isn't making it into orbit.  No matter what!  You can do it with solar power, use the most advanced calculus and broadcast it all over the world... not fungible. Work can be done by slaves, surfs, share croppers, employees, oil and gas, solar panels, water falling from a height... but it has to be done by something.  Why don't we have slaves anymore? Because we have oil and natural gas and coal. When the day comes that those things no longer exist slavery will come back in a big way. Now we trade our REAL work (ah hem) for Imaginary money. So, it's really no different than slavery from the ruler's perspective (free work). But the fact of the matter is that fossil energy does all our work.  We just crawl around, eat, poop, make babies and die while fossil fuels keep our body temp at 98.6.

 

WHAT THE HECK does this have to do with the original post?  

The original post has to do with DEBT and its effect on Energy. My point is that debt and the commitment of a society to accomplish ANYTHING is fungible. Money is Fungible.  What's not Fungible? The requirement for ENERGY to accomplish WORK.  Either humans do it, animals do it or energy sources do it. Right now we have a competition between the requirement for energy and the shared delusion of society that it can be accomplished without oil and natural gas and coal.  Which will win?  If Gas and Oil win then heaven and earth will be moved to keep getting it out of the ground - wars, changing the entire banking structure, nationalizing the field... whatever it takes.  If, on the other hand, shared delusions change the acceptance of the society to spend their effort on these types of energy then it will be abandoned.  Energy will come from elsewhere (solar, wind, nuclear,) and society will change to meet the energy availability (cars, population, air conditioning, industry).  Both are just as possible, and some combination will continue for ever. As energy goes away so will population, but it will happen slowly enough that no one will notice.  That's a whole new rant. 

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Anthony Okrongly

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 2/9/2020 at 11:54 PM, ronwagn said:

I said a hundred years from now, and that gasoline or diesel can be made from coal or natural gas also. There are many technological options and resources that can be used interchangeably. Natural gas is my favorite, it can come from biogas, methane hydrates, coal processing etc. There is enough to last several hundred years if you include all the options. I assume that renewables can make an increasing dent in the basic need for fossil fuel and I am for that as long as the price to the consumer is comparable or just a little more. Right now Europe is paying two to three times as much for fuel as America does. Only Denmark has lower pollution than America, and it is a tiny country with high energy prices. We are the best by replacing coal with natural gas.  

Opposing natural gas because one wants cleaner air is a really stupid idea IMHO. 

Perhaps you should rephrase as liquid hydrocarbon fuel.

There are indeed conveniences for it that may not be replaceable by batteries and NG or H2.

But ICEVs are all inherently complex devices full of parts that are different from each other. The drive train is 2000 parts and up for even a small 4 cylinder car. EVs have a much simpler drive train that is not trying to shake the vehicle apart. The battery is composed of multitude of identical cells so that parts count is not economically substantial. The simple drive train of EVs gives you a much better ride so that you don't have to damp the car so heavily to produce a high end experience. Torque is terrific even at low cost.

So I don't see liquid HC fuel being around in 50 years, not to speak of 100. Not because of any problem with the fuel, as it can be renewably sourced as well, but because of the ICE devices you need to use it being as cumbersome complex and requiring large number of ancillaries to make them practical.

Absolutely right about NG/LNG displacing oil and coal first. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 2/11/2020 at 12:45 PM, Anthony Okrongly said:

F=mg(h/h2+d2−√) or something like that.

Not that though...

[wrs + 893]

4 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

Perhaps you should rephrase as liquid hydrocarbon fuel.

There are indeed conveniences for it that may not be replaceable by batteries and NG or H2.

But ICEVs are all inherently complex devices full of parts that are different from each other. The drive train is 2000 parts and up for even a small 4 cylinder car. EVs have a much simpler drive train that is not trying to shake the vehicle apart. The battery is composed of multitude of identical cells so that parts count is not economically substantial. The simple drive train of EVs gives you a much better ride so that you don't have to damp the car so heavily to produce a high end experience. Torque is terrific even at low cost.

So I don't see liquid HC fuel being around in 50 years, not to speak of 100. Not because of any problem with the fuel, as it can be renewably sourced as well, but because of the ICE devices you need to use it being as cumbersome complex and requiring large number of ancillaries to make them practical.

Absolutely right about NG/LNG displacing oil and coal first. 

EVs aren't near as fun, they don't rev to 8500rpm and have 800hp.

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

Perhaps you should rephrase as liquid hydrocarbon fuel.

There are indeed conveniences for it that may not be replaceable by batteries and NG or H2.

But ICEVs are all inherently complex devices full of parts that are different from each other. The drive train is 2000 parts and up for even a small 4 cylinder car. EVs have a much simpler drive train that is not trying to shake the vehicle apart. The battery is composed of multitude of identical cells so that parts count is not economically substantial. The simple drive train of EVs gives you a much better ride so that you don't have to damp the car so heavily to produce a high end experience. Torque is terrific even at low cost.

So I don't see liquid HC fuel being around in 50 years, not to speak of 100. Not because of any problem with the fuel, as it can be renewably sourced as well, but because of the ICE devices you need to use it being as cumbersome complex and requiring large number of ancillaries to make them practical.

Absolutely right about NG/LNG displacing oil and coal first. 

I have to defer to you and others to criticize ICE engines. I am not qualified but will go on the prices, durability, longevity, capacity etc. I have no problem with using the natural gas to produce electricity for electric vehicles. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

6 minutes ago, wrs said:

EVs aren't near as fun, they don't rev to 8500rpm and have 800hp.

 

I only care about big engines in trucks. To each their own though. Have fun. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 2/11/2020 at 12:45 PM, Anthony Okrongly said:

Right now we have a competition between the requirement for energy and the shared delusion of society that it can be accomplished without oil and natural gas and coal.  Which will win?  If Gas and Oil win then heaven and earth will be moved to keep getting it out of the ground - wars, changing the entire banking structure, nationalizing the field... whatever it takes.  If, on the other hand, shared delusions change the acceptance of the society to spend their effort on these types of energy then it will be abandoned.  Energy will come from elsewhere (solar, wind, nuclear,) and society will change to meet the energy availability (cars, population, air conditioning, industry).  Both are just as possible, and some combination will continue for ever. As energy goes away so will population, but it will happen slowly enough that no one will notice.  That's a whole new rant. 

The preceding content and prior posts on the general philosophy are great thinking. 

The point to make on this particular section is that the population decision has already been made by people, particularly Women, at the individual level to have on average less than 2 kids. Far less, if you take current trends in fertility. See "Empty Planet". The energy demand has to fall off in general. Particularly for OECD+China that are demographically in an upside down pyramid. That means that infrastructure expansion is no longer necessary there, improvement, yes, filling in holes, yes - large scale projects that don't cut costs - NO. That means that real global interest rates will remain low or negative for the foreseeable future regardless of central bank actions or the criticism of them.  

And please fix "surf" into serf.

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

On 2/12/2020 at 2:59 PM, 0R0 said:

The preceding content and prior posts on the general philosophy are great thinking. 

The point to make on this particular section is that the population decision has already been made by people, particularly Women, at the individual level to have on average less than 2 kids. Far less, if you take current trends in fertility. See "Empty Planet". The energy demand has to fall off in general. Particularly for OECD+China that are demographically in an upside down pyramid. That means that infrastructure expansion is no longer necessary there, improvement, yes, filling in holes, yes - large scale projects that don't cut costs - NO. That means that real global interest rates will remain low or negative for the foreseeable future regardless of central bank actions or the criticism of them.  

And please fix "surf" into serf.

Serf. (thanks)

Regarding Expansion - "The Collapse of Complex Societies" by Joseph Tainter postulates that it IS the infrastructure that Causes a big problem in complex societies.  Case in point - When America was electrified it transformed society. The benefits of electrification were huge. It extended the day for work, it added machines to the homes, etc. But, when the electricity system needs to be replaced there is actually a higher real cost than the original installation (for many reason I won't go into)... but assuming the same costs to replace as there was to install... there is NO NEW benefit. So, it's an expense that doesn't bring any new positives to the economy.  That same thing is true of roads and bridges. So, while expansion may not be necessary, replacement is. Can concrete be recycled? I don't know. Or do we have to make new concrete (high energy) to replace existing infrastructure without any new benefit?  

I get your point... but Tainter would say the replacement costs are MORE expensive to a complex society than the original implementation costs. As a matter of fact the point of his book is that the maintenance of legacy system (territory, infrastructure, complex education systems, specializations, etc.) actually CAUSE the collapse of complex civilizations - which are then either broken up (Soviet Union) and devolve into a lower energy state (which has been the case) or they are absorbed into a larger society that is in an earlier stage of development (think China). 

The argument is that America is not an "empire" because we don't "conquer" and "occupy" other nations.  But as pointed out before one soldier can only control 100 people.  One banker can control 10,000.  As long as they use our SWIFT banking system, borrow money from us, feed into our economy economically, etc. they are conquered and we are an "empire" with all the associated costs.  Do you think Rome built those roads and conquered those people for glory?  No it was for resources, manpower, energy (slaves), etc.

The biggest "complex society" cost America has is our military. Like Rome did, we have a global empire that feeds our entire, particularly our financial system, by enforcing American economic hegemony. As stated earlier, this is great when we reap the spoils (new markets of low cost labor and consumption) but once that resource has been integrated we are still spending the same amount every year with no new benefit. Once others start to see cracks then they challenge us (terrorism at this point) and the actual costs of maintaining legacy systems (war) increase dramatically.

I've read "Empty Planet" and really enjoyed it.  Eye opening, particularly regarding Brazil and India, and how immigrants pretty much immediately adopt the fertility rate of their new home country. I have it on Audible so I cant immediately access the charts, but I think he says we will get to 9 billion in 2050 and then decline on a straight line to 7.5 billion in 2100. So we still have 30 years of growth. So we still have an entire generation and about 20% more population to grow. (7.5 billion to 9 billion).

That decline rate can increase in Western nations based on economics. The Top causes of death in failing Western economies (or at least the fastest growing causes) are suicide, alcoholism, and drug overdose. When the Soviet Union collapsed those numbers went through the roof. Those numbers are rising in the U.S. These, in my opinion, are what I would term "failing economic opportunity" deaths. When you're 25 years old your economy is basically improving no matter what you do.  At 50 it takes a good and truly growing economy to keep real optimism. 10,000 new fast food jobs don't help a 50 year old man who just got laid off from a mid-career job.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/11/29/us-life-expectancy-suicide-50-year-peak-and-drugs-cause-death/2146829002/

The real questions I have are:

1. How much of energy growth over the next 50 years will come from population growth and how much will come from rising standards of living in the existing population.  Even the "extremist" view of declining global population has a 20% increase before any decline.Obviously where the increase occurs has a big impact on the accompanying energy growth. The population can shrink and still have rising energy use due to rising standards of living.  Disaster-case is that we have both rising population and rising global energy standards of living over the next 30 years. 

 - 2nd part - is the U.S. an island to global energy demand growth?  So far we have been, but China and Russia have taken a much bigger footprint as both consumers and protectors of Middle Eastern Oil. We have hitched our proverbial star to Western Hemisphere energy for good or for ill.

2.  If the African continent's average standard of living rose to include cars that would obviously explode energy demand beyond all ability to produce. The chance of that happening (I think) is pretty low. But what is the reasonable scenario regarding rising energy use in 2nd/3rd world nations for cooking, heating, air conditioning, transportation and manufacturing?  

3. When is peak shale? A recent article on oilprice said peak shale in North Dakota is 5 years away. It won't be 2020, no matter what anyone says. But it will probably be earlier than 2030... agree or disagree?  A 10 year window on a peak of what is the "game changing" oil producer for the world really means the game has already changed, does it not. Isn't guessing the exact year just arranging deck chairs on the Titanic?

4. Is tight oil the last hurrah? I'm a fan of the efficient markets model regarding energy in particular - meaning that the energy players KNOW what's available and they are exploiting the least expensive new oil now (onshore tight oil), so any new exploitation will be more expensive by default. 

5. When is actual "Twilight" in the desert when it comes to the Middle East?

6. As previously discussed, does "money" really matter when it comes to oil?  Case in point, we learned that money doesn't actually matter when it comes to the big banks. 2008 was basically the collapse of western capitalism. If capitalism had been allowed to operate then the entire system would have failed. The global credit markets (in case you forgot) completely froze. Money was not going to move at all.  Without money flow All the banks were toast. Add to the the fact that the actual costs of derivatives exceeded the capital capacity of all the banks in question... and you get a total collapse. But that was not "allowed" to happen. The U.S. government simply rewrote the rules of what the government and the fed were allowed to do, and they printed the solution. In the case of a real oil production collapse do they do that again. Is oil production "too big to fail?" The U.S. government could simply choose to do "monetary easing" via oil production.  It won't be popular... but how popular is bailing out the big banks.  When the spit hits the SPAM "the will of the people" is completely ignored for the "good of the system." So, is there a scenario where shale production continues at ANY price? Because it is possible to flood the shale fields with money that requires no return and get everyone pumping everything.

I think we learned that wars don't make MORE oil production, so I don't think war will be a viable answer.  We might do it, but I don't see it increasing global oil production.

7. When... in your opinion... do we cross the Rubicon when it comes to oil demand outstripping oil production globally?

8. Does "demand destruction" in the West from a few electric cars and a few wind turbines really happen fast enough that we don't cross the line? I think politics can make the shortage happen faster (outlaw flaring, don't build pipelines, etc.) but I don't think regulation is set to INCREASE production at all above current estimates. 

MY GUESS:

My guess - going from the last question up... is

- The government monetizes Alternative Energy production... so that demand destruction happens in spite of the costs associated.. You've already seen this in Germany where they have massive excess alt-energy capacity that serve no purpose. They still need the game changing technology which is energy storage (liquid metal batteries coming to a utility near you. - See a company called Ambri - taken from the word Cambridge which is where it was developed at MIT)

- It won't happen fast enough and demand will outstrip supply in a surging manner starting in the 2020's, Prices will surge causing recessions which destroy demand which causes prices to collapse which causes growth etc.  

- Twilight in the Desert is here to match Twilight in West Texas soon arriving. I think we have seen Saudi Peak production.  Right now they have some slack, but 10, 10.5 mbd feels like their limit... and they are using more as they grow which limits exports.

- I think peak shale happens in this decade and it's a slow decline from there. Energy growth will occur in the East - China/India and Africa and we will become more and more "Island Americas (north and south)" regarding energy.  We will stop fighting wars in the Middle East and we will also stop Chinese development of South American oil  (Monroe Doctrine 2030).Aka - "What's a girl to do with that big, shiny NAVY?"

- Once we get to true declining population all bets are off... lots of books will need to be written... but the world has never experienced it, so "I dunno." Those are questions that will be addressed by your grandkids and their kids. 

Edited February 14, 2020 by Anthony Okrongly

[0R0 + 6,251]

5 hours ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

6. As previously discussed, does "money" really matter when it comes to oil?  Case in point, we learned that money doesn't actually matter when it comes to the big banks. 2008 was basically the collapse of western capitalism. If capitalism had been allowed to operate then the entire system would have failed. The global credit markets (in case you forgot) completely froze. Money was not going to move at all.  Without money flow All the banks were toast. Add to the the fact that the actual costs of derivatives exceeded the capital capacity of all the banks in question... and you get a total collapse. But that was not "allowed" to happen. The U.S. government simply rewrote the rules of what the government and the fed were allowed to do, and they printed the solution. In the case of a real oil production collapse do they do that again. Is oil production "too big to fail?" The U.S. government could simply choose to do "monetary easing" via oil production.  It won't be popular... but how popular is bailing out the big banks.  When the spit hits the SPAM "the will of the people" is completely ignored for the "good of the system." So, is there a scenario where shale production continues at ANY price? Because it is possible to flood the shale fields with money that requires no return and get everyone pumping everything.

Lets start with this.

The system that blew up was the Eurodollar system. You should look up Jeff Snider's presentations and interviews on that. It blew up because of over-leverage that made it susceptible to shocks, and China's bubble that was uniquely responsible for the credit expansion due to the way it externalized its monetary expansion and how it translated into margin compression in the industries of the rest of the planet as Chinese credit expansion was expressed in a commodities (oil) bubble. It could not have happened without China's input. As I detailed in a post some weeks ago. And as I have shown from an internal China perspective in several posts in the China focused threads. You should look for them. 

The 2000 peak would have been it had it not been for China. OECD in 2000 had the demographic of China in 2020. I.e. a terminal demographic. The US is the only one of OECD+China that has a larger millennial population as a prominent demographic. So the US had the potential for recovery, and it did, and a bit earlier than demographics would have predicted because of the sudden drop of energy costs in the US and its energy independence. 

So what happened is easy to see in those posts. There was a dreadful regulatory push out of Basel III to constrain credit growth. It was the driving force for the financial collapse till the worst of it, the "mark to market" rules were turned off. The entire thing still hangs on the financial system like a mill stone. The second issue is the collapse of the CDS system of hedging risk of low quality debt, as it turned out that the capital pool that wrote those was not large enough to actually back them up. It was a collapse of the asset pricing mathematical models that has left the financial industry in fear and froze balance sheets. The economics were unhappy but not outright bad. 

There was no collapse of capitalism, there was a collapse in the West's ability to absorb China's growth (exports) via distorted financial signals managed by the CCP. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

6 hours ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

1. How much of energy growth over the next 50 years will come from population growth and how much will come from rising standards of living in the existing population.  Even the "extremist" view of declining global population has a 20% increase before any decline.Obviously where the increase occurs has a big impact on the accompanying energy growth. The population can shrink and still have rising energy use due to rising standards of living.  Disaster-case is that we have both rising population and rising global energy standards of living over the next 30 years. 

 - 2nd part - is the U.S. an island to global energy demand growth?  So far we have been, but China and Russia have taken a much bigger footprint as both consumers and protectors of Middle Eastern Oil. We have hitched our proverbial star to Western Hemisphere energy for good or for ill.

If your population growth shifts to the numbers of 60 year olds growing every year while the number of 20 year olds is stable and then shrinking, then your consumption levels drop long before the population peak. Because mature and becoming elderly China and the still isolated young Indian economy (not to speak of young African economies), the GDP weighted demographics are old and the economically active population is peaking right now. Demand is going to fall. 

Oil demand in particular will be challenged by NG/LNG competition before demographics would have put a gravestone doji on oil consumption charts. 

Living standards expansion is indeed possible, and we are all rooting for it, but that will be after infrastructure buildouts and replacements by renewable energy infrastructure is in place. We will increase living standards by putting fewer resources into infrastructure. As indicated in the China focused threads, China is already overbuilt for housing and once ongoing projects are completed for high speed rail, China will have been far overbuilt. Its increase in Debt/GDP from <400% to above 600% is precisely reflecting an ovetbuilding of infrastructure and housing to the point of them producing less economic activity growth than the value of the resources put into that fixed capital.  

[0R0 + 6,251]

6 hours ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

4. Is tight oil the last hurrah? I'm a fan of the efficient markets model regarding energy in particular - meaning that the energy players KNOW what's available and they are exploiting the least expensive new oil now (onshore tight oil), so any new exploitation will be more expensive by default. 

The cheapest source is Canadian tar sands. They get $25/Bbl Now that pipelines will be completed, it will matter. 

Permian production will continue getting cheaper to produce for at least a short while longer, and reserves will be delineated further, there is plenty of geological resource space to fill in. Some areas of the permian have multiple layers that are worth producing at varying price points. Argentine shale will continue to build out and once pipelines are there to bring it out to the coast then it will be a big deal. 

But that is not it. It is NG/LNG that are important and will cap oil demand before anything else does.

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

7 hours ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

MY GUESS:

My guess - going from the last question up... is

- The government monetizes Alternative Energy production... so that demand destruction happens in spite of the costs associated.. You've already seen this in Germany where they have massive excess alt-energy capacity that serve no purpose. They still need the game changing technology which is energy storage (liquid metal batteries coming to a utility near you. - See a company called Ambri - taken from the word Cambridge which is where it was developed at MIT)

- It won't happen fast enough and demand will outstrip supply in a surging manner starting in the 2020's, Prices will surge causing recessions which destroy demand which causes prices to collapse which causes growth etc.  

- Twilight in the Desert is here to match Twilight in West Texas soon arriving. I think we have seen Saudi Peak production.  Right now they have some slack, but 10, 10.5 mbd feels like their limit... and they are using more as they grow which limits exports.

- I think peak shale happens in this decade and it's a slow decline from there. Energy growth will occur in the East - China/India and Africa and we will become more and more "Island Americas (north and south)" regarding energy.  We will stop fighting wars in the Middle East and we will also stop Chinese development of South American oil  (Monroe Doctrine 2030).Aka - "What's a girl to do with that big, shiny NAVY?"

- Once we get to true declining population all bets are off... lots of books will need to be written... but the world has never experienced it, so "I dunno." Those are questions that will be addressed by your grandkids and their kids. 

I am all for the liquid metal or whatever else ends up being useful for renewables storage. When they are sufficiently cheap to apply. Will the monetary authorities monetize that? probably not directly. The big deal is that for wind in the North and solar in the South, energy will be dirt cheap when operating. If rational decisions are made for storage, then it will be cheap all the time. Nothing could be better than cheap energy for an economy. Unfortunately, that is true for everyone but for Germany, where even at NIRP it is just marginal for domestic electricity. BTW the first time in modern history that S. Europe has an actual natural economic advantage over the North with domestic cheap energy. 

Do not lump China with India and Africa. China is a developed economy well into its aging phase. Nothing at all like India or Africa. There is no similarity.

We are at the verge of declining economically active populations where GDP is substantial. In 5 years it will be clearly visible. You need to think it through NOW. 

NG/LNG displacement of heavy fuel in marine transport, trains and chemical feedstocks are 25% or more of oil consumption and where 85% of EIA oil demand growth projections come from. It will happen rapidly as you just need to rebuild the engines and fuel storage, and not that much change in petrochemical plants.

I am not going to comment on Venezuellan oil development by. outsiders, I expect this act of desperation is calling for the highest bids, they are unlikely to be from China nor Russia. Russia doesn't need it, China can't rely on it in a tense global situation with the US. It is dead money for them. I think they are realizing that they can't afford these kinds of adventures. 

Oil prices will remain volatile as they must be because of a lack of monopoly to enforce stability. LTO is the fastest responder to the price fluctuations in new production, so it will have a zig zag growth projection till it hits peak, possibly at 2030, not so much because it runs out, but because pricing will be capped by declining demand well before then, so shortage periods will not generate the high prices that allow profit + capital cost + cash costs to be covered. . 

[0R0 + 6,251]

Higher living standards occur when you no longer need to increase infrastructure so resources and labor are released from building it. China should have been there already, but insists on avoiding the social and financial consequences of this kind of transition (see 1930s USA), so continues to expand infrastructure and housing relentlessly while piling up abominable levels of debt. The renewables infrastructure buildout will continue to pull down increases in living standards (real incomes) where it is pushed beyond what is economically useful. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

8 hours ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

Regarding Expansion - "The Collapse of Complex Societies" by Joseph Tainter postulates that it IS the infrastructure that Causes a big problem in complex societies.  Case in point - When America was electrified it transformed society. The benefits of electrification were huge. It extended the day for work, it added machines to the homes, etc. But, when the electricity system needs to be replaced there is actually a higher real cost than the original installation (for many reason I won't go into)... but assuming the same costs to replace as there was to install... there is NO NEW benefit. So, it's an expense that doesn't bring any new positives to the economy.  That same thing is true of roads and bridges. So, while expansion may not be necessary, replacement is. Can concrete be recycled? I don't know. Or do we have to make new concrete (high energy) to replace existing infrastructure without any new benefit?  

I get your point... but Tainter would say the replacement costs are MORE expensive to a complex society than the original implementation costs. As a matter of fact the point of his book is that the maintenance of legacy system (territory, infrastructure, complex education systems, specializations, etc.) actually CAUSE the collapse of complex civilizations - which are then either broken up (Soviet Union) and devolve into a lower energy state (which has been the case) or they are absorbed into a larger society that is in an earlier stage of development (think China). 

The argument is that America is not an "empire" because we don't "conquer" and "occupy" other nations.  But as pointed out before one soldier can only control 100 people.  One banker can control 10,000.  As long as they use our SWIFT banking system, borrow money from us, feed into our economy economically, etc. they are conquered and we are an "empire" with all the associated costs.  Do you think Rome built those roads and conquered those people for glory?  No it was for resources, manpower, energy (slaves), etc.

The biggest "complex society" cost America has is our military. Like Rome did, we have a global empire that feeds our entire, particularly our financial system, by enforcing American economic hegemony. As stated earlier, this is great when we reap the spoils (new markets of low cost labor and consumption) but once that resource has been integrated we are still spending the same amount every year with no new benefit. Once others start to see cracks then they challenge us (terrorism at this point) and the actual costs of maintaining legacy systems (war) increase dramatically.

First of all, the China being "new" and "rising" is over. It has already happened. They can do more, but not with the CCP calling the shots, it contributed nothing at all to China's ascension but for taking its boot off of Chinese entrepreneur's necks. They don't get an iota of credit for building up the infrastructure, because anyone could have done so if it were important to them and resources were available, as they were in China. The political ability to knock down villages of subsistence farmers to build infrastructure and sell land to city developers is available everywhere urbanization can occur. It can't happen in the developed world because it already urbanized a century or more before. 

I get the gist of the idea you are presenting of Tainter, though I have not read him. The complexity is outside the US where integrated supply chains are broad and huge and depend on riskless shipping. The US provides the risk control for everyone including China, What Trump changed, and it was long overdue, is that the US does not want to play that role without a mercantile advantage. The N. American supply chain can substitute for all but a small portion of its inputs in technology from SE Asia and N Europe and some strategic rare minerals. The US is integrated much LESS than anyone else into the complexity. I am sure you noticed that as the US slid down the educational ranks despite still having the best universities. 

China is on the same boat of complexity as everyone else is. The US never made it to the boat. If the US withdraws, it will do fine. Eurasia and Africa will be chock full of  failed states. Without huge exports, aged populations have no means of maintaining growth.

This will be true eveywhere. Look at 2030 Europe and China, where do they sell all the stuff their high productivity middle aged workforces are producing? Without exports, these are 25%-35% unemployment countries. And doubly so with a huge retired population in China just coming up on the horizon.  

Perhaps they sell to demand rich N. America, where there are incomes?

Or perhaps to India, if it ever opens up sufficiently to allow capital in to build infrastructure so there would actually be substantial income there?

Note that NOBODY has a sharp growthy pyramid structure. Everyone in the industrialized world is scrambling for demand. China is no longer a growing source of demand that it used to be just a decade ago, or two decades ago. 

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Love it when big picture long term projection thinking is shared by guys like you on Oil Price like this.  It is probably THE biggest reason why this is the only site I follow and participate in.  When this level of discussion takes place, I can better see the realities for my own industry (aviation) and indeed what the financial future may actually hold for myself and those I care for.  I appreciate the opportunity to get away from all the emotional scare mongering in the "news".  

Thanks guys.  Sincerely, thanks.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

2 hours ago, 0R0 said:

It is NG/LNG that are important and will cap oil demand before anything else does.

Bingo!

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

On 2/14/2020 at 4:17 PM, 0R0 said:

Higher living standards occur when you no longer need to increase infrastructure so resources and labor are released from building it. China should have been there already, but insists on avoiding the social and financial consequences of this kind of transition (see 1930s USA), so continues to expand infrastructure and housing relentlessly while piling up abominable levels of debt. The renewables infrastructure buildout will continue to pull down increases in living standards (real incomes) where it is pushed beyond what is economically useful. 

Chinese are high savers and from what I hear they typically invest in real estate. 

 

On 2/14/2020 at 5:03 PM, 0R0 said:

First of all, the China being "new" and "rising" is over. It has already happened. They can do more, but not with the CCP calling the shots, it contributed nothing at all to China's ascension but for taking its boot off of Chinese entrepreneur's necks. They don't get an iota of credit for building up the infrastructure, because anyone could have done so if it were important to them and resources were available, as they were in China. The political ability to knock down villages of subsistence farmers to build infrastructure and sell land to city developers is available everywhere urbanization can occur. It can't happen in the developed world because it already urbanized a century or more before. 

I get the gist of the idea you are presenting of Tainter, though I have not read him. The complexity is outside the US where integrated supply chains are broad and huge and depend on riskless shipping. The US provides the risk control for everyone including China, What Trump changed, and it was long overdue, is that the US does not want to play that role without a mercantile advantage. The N. American supply chain can substitute for all but a small portion of its inputs in technology from SE Asia and N Europe and some strategic rare minerals. The US is integrated much LESS than anyone else into the complexity. I am sure you noticed that as the US slid down the educational ranks despite still having the best universities. 

China is on the same boat of complexity as everyone else is. The US never made it to the boat. If the US withdraws, it will do fine. Eurasia and Africa will be chock full of  failed states. Without huge exports, aged populations have no means of maintaining growth.

This will be true eveywhere. Look at 2030 Europe and China, where do they sell all the stuff their high productivity middle aged workforces are producing? Without exports, these are 25%-35% unemployment countries. And doubly so with a huge retired population in China just coming up on the horizon.  

Perhaps they sell to demand rich N. America, where there are incomes?

Or perhaps to India, if it ever opens up sufficiently to allow capital in to build infrastructure so there would actually be substantial income there?

Note that NOBODY has a sharp growthy pyramid structure. Everyone in the industrialized world is scrambling for demand. China is no longer a growing source of demand that it used to be just a decade ago, or two decades ago. 

 

All excellent points. A couple comments.

1. Legacy Costs catch up with everyone eventually. In a no growth environment they catch up very quickly. That's true for companies and countries. I think your argument is valid that the U.S. is lagging Europe regarding the impact of those costs. But, it seems clear we are on the same road, particularly economically and governmentally. I think Trump will turn out to be a bump in that trend, but the overwhelming trend is toward rising regulation, rising regulatory costs (particularly environmental regulation), and growing central control (Healthcare, Financial intervention, education costs). Trends can be tracked through words... If you look at how much of the discussion centers around "the government," "regulation" etc now compared to 30 or 50 years ago it's obvious that the trend has gone to a governmentally centered U.S. 

2. All bets are off when we hit a demographic negative growth environment. It has never happened. I'm trying to think of a real example of population collapse and the only one that comes to mind is the Black Death in Europe, but it was followed by another population explosion, so that's not a good analogy. "Empty Planet" and the chart below show that. There is no expectations that fertility rates in the West will ever turn positive again. That means a permanently declining population. What is the economic model for that?

3. "Without huge exports aged populations have no way of maintaining growth." OK... so where does that leave the U.S.?  You have a couple conflicting arguments.  One is that China cannot live on growing internal consumption (due to rising standards of living) alone. And the other is that the U.S. is fine because we are an advanced "consumer" (80%) economy. We don't export much of anything. Energy exports are rising but that has a time limit. What does that leave?  So China cannot exist without exporting to us, but somehow we can exist without exporting to anyone?  What we are currently exporting in mass is U.S. Dollars. That's our export. We have incomes based on no production. We have debt. If the pattern holds then China can do fine switching to an import/consumer economy exploiting cheaper labor forces than itself for production (Africa for certain. Vietnam? North Korea is a ready source of slave labor).

4. You left out the population chart for the US.  The website is ironically called "Population PYRAMID" not "population worm." 

The only defense for the future of the U.S. is that "we've done OK so far" so the debt will never catch up with us. The demographic shift will never catch up with us. The legacy costs will never catch up with us. We will Invent our way out of it. The last 30 years all of our inventions (other than the internet and iPhone) have been in FIRE (Finance, Insurance and Real Estate).Financial assets and real estate go up because?? "America!" I'm trying to figure this out.

This feels like the last days of Caligula to me. I'm watching mid-career professionals getting laid off left and right... AFTER going from an actual job to being a "contractor." But there is money everywhere. I truly don't understand it. I train dogs.  I had someone call me yesterday and say... "I just got divorced and lost my job and I'm moving.... please let me pay you $1,200 to take my dog for 2 weeks and train it because he is anxious." Phone calls like that cause my brain to hurt.  In the end I booked the dog but I simply don't understand this economy. 50 year olds are moving back in with their parents at an unprecedented rate. They say it's so they can "take care of them" but they seem to get the idea to take care of their parents with 30 days of losing their job or getting divorced, or both.

I know almost nobody. I'm not social.  Yet of the people I know...

- A college professor whose husband is also a college professor.  Her husband cashed in his retirement (in his 50's) to become a day trader. 3 months later he was back to teaching part time (no with no retirement savings) but the house is paid off and he put half of his savings into paying college tuition for his kids. They are in their 50's.

- A 56 year old PLC programmer who was a long term (10 year) contractor with T.I. laid off last month, moved in with his parents to "take care of them." Recently broke up with his 50's professional girlfriend who quit her job and "moved back to Denver to take care of her mother." 

- A very successful transportation company owner who sold one transportation business (a real one) and started a 2nd where he basically just coordinates special shipments out of his house... He's in his late 50's. Lives on a golf course in a guarded community. I said, "I thought you were going to retire." He said, "I'll work until the day I die." He RENTS his house, has 3 kids in college.. pays $250,000 per year out of pocket for them. 2 of them are getting useless degrees. Has a wife who is under constant medical care that he pays for. How do I know them? They pay me (on average) $5,000 per year to watch their dog. Which is nothing compared to how much he pays others to board his daughter's horses - who is getting a degree in "photo-journalism." In the day of iPhone and Twitter she is getting a degree in photo journalism. Good luck. What happens when he has a heart attack? They have nothing but expenses.

And these are the SUCCESSFUL people I know with advanced college degrees and a history of high income responsibility. 

Anyway, as long as people keep getting dogs and credit cards I'll be fine... But I owe no debt. I paid my farm off in my 40's. I could live on $1,200 per month and be perfectly happy. The funny thing is that I can watch the economy shift by seeing who is calling me.  They all live in the same neighborhoods, but they are different people every 5 years. A new group gets "in the money" for a while a buys a new big house and gets an expensive idiot dog. Right now it seems to be a lot of people who sold their house in California, Colorado and the East Coast and moved to Austin or Dallas. They feel like kings for the moment. 

I'm sure I just don't get it.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

6 minutes ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

I'm trying to think of a real example of population collapse and the only one that comes to mind is the Black Death in Europe

Read Jared Diamond's Collapse, a latter-day sequel to Guns, Germs and Steel.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

On 2/14/2020 at 6:49 PM, Dan Warnick said:

I appreciate the opportunity to get away from all the emotional scare mongering in the "news".  

“My daughter can see CO2 with the naked eye”

According to her mother Malena Ernman (48), 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg can see CO2 with the naked eye. She writes that in the book ‘Scenes from the heart. Our life for the climate’, which she wrote with her family.

Greta Thunberg was diagnosed as a child with obsessive-compulsive disorder and Asperger’s syndrome, just like her younger sister Beata. The activist also has a photographic memory. She knows all the capitals by heart and can list all the chemical elements of the periodic table within one minute.

In addition, she has another gift according to her mother. “Greta is able to see what other people cannot see,” writes Malena Ernman in the book. “She can see carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She sees how it flows out of chimneys and changes the atmosphere in a landfill.”

Learning about climate change at a young age caused a landslide in Greta’s environment. She was eight years old when she first saw photos and images about the plastics in the oceans on television and at school and heard that global warming is caused by human activity.   ...

 

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

31 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

“My daughter can see CO2 with the naked eye”

According to her mother Malena Ernman (48), 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg can see CO2 with the naked eye. She writes that in the book ‘Scenes from the heart. Our life for the climate’, which she wrote with her family.

Greta Thunberg was diagnosed as a child with obsessive-compulsive disorder and Asperger’s syndrome, just like her younger sister Beata. The activist also has a photographic memory. She knows all the capitals by heart and can list all the chemical elements of the periodic table within one minute.

In addition, she has another gift according to her mother. “Greta is able to see what other people cannot see,” writes Malena Ernman in the book. “She can see carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She sees how it flows out of chimneys and changes the atmosphere in a landfill.”

Learning about climate change at a young age caused a landslide in Greta’s environment. She was eight years old when she first saw photos and images about the plastics in the oceans on television and at school and heard that global warming is caused by human activity.   ...

 

This is a common and recurring manifestation of the a type of psychological disorder that is heavily influenced by environment (people, not air). In Medieval times it was religious in nature leading up to real people having 100% belief and taking real world action regarding witches in Salem and many other places. But it's the creation of a physical manifestation to focus on.  Devil, Evil, Witches became Blacks, European Immigrants (uncleanness), turned to Environmentalism Version 1.0 in the 1970 (population, food shortages), turned to Alien Abductions in the 1980's, turned into Black Helicopters in the 1990's... these are all projections of dread onto the common ideas - often large institutions. 

It's clear that Greta has a mental disorder... (or whatever you want to nicely call it)... lots of world leaders were mentally deranged and it didn't stop them.  Trump has serious mental issues. It doesn't stop people from following them. Greta will be a leader of your grandchildren.  What she says they will take literally.  And before long a large portion of the population her age will be able to SEE the same things she sees. Every day people "see" miracles and the hand of "God." Every day.  Why? Because they were taught to SEE them by their parents. (Hint, there is no God. Feel free to argue but you'll just prove my point.)

The title of this Guardian article is the ONLY UNCERTAINTY is how long we will last. That's the only one.  There is no other uncertainty. Then it goes on to create the same visions of doom created by every other trend before it... whether it's "Trump will destroy democracy," "Peak Oil", "Agricultural Collapse in the 1970's" "Nuclear War and Communism" etc. 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/15/worst-case-scenario-2050-climate-crisis-future-we-choose-christiana-figueres-tom-rivett-carnac

This reality will contribute to the transition from oil but it is NOT the cause for it. The cause is that we are running out and it's getting prohibitively expensive. (at least that's my mental disorder)

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

2 minutes ago, Anthony Okrongly said:

It's clear that Greta has a mental disorder... (or whatever you want to nicely call it)... lots of world leaders were mentally deranged and it didn't stop them.  Trump has serious mental issues. It doesn't stop people from following them. Greta will be a leader of your grandchildren.  What she says they will take literally.  And before long a large portion of the population her age will be able to SEE the same things she sees. Every day people "see" miracles and the hand of "God." Every day.  Why? Because they were taught to SEE them by their parents. (Hint, there is no God. Feel free to argue but you'll just prove my point.)

So ... Joan of CO2 ?

[Anthony Okrongly + 114]

28 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

So ... Joan of CO2 ?

To her generation. Things don't change because old men change their minds.  Things change because old men die are replaced by young people who started with a different idea in the first place. Racism against blacks was rampant just a generation ago.  Now it's not rampant. It's subdued. The next generation will outlaw all forms of "meanness" except for Righteous Indignation against people who don't agree with them of course. That's OK.

San Francisco is the most tolerant city in America.  Move there with a car that has NRA stickers on it and see how tolerant they are. The only acceptable intolerance is intolerance of intolerance. Then it can be militant intolerance. 

It works in regard to social changes.  Social changes are easy.  It won't work when it comes to CO2 or energy use. The fact is that no one will change their personal behavior.  Everyone wants a job. Everyone wants a car. Everyone wants AC. Everyone wants to drive on a road that is smooth with asphalt. Everyone wants their child to have economic growth.  So no ONE will change, so no society will change.  It will be piddling around the edges regarding electricity mainly as we burn every drop of oil and wisp of gas we can extract.

On an unrelated note, do you know where the least Climate Impactful people live? The place where each person makes the least impact on the climate?  The answer is New York City.  High density, high rise, mass transit are very very GREEN. The worst place to live (for the environment), in the country. Ironic.

Moving on...

I don't buy this chart. I know it's showing something but I don't think there is any way to know what it's showing.  It could be showing that the terminal phase of society is the "consumption" phase. It's selective in what it shows.  And how did China have higher consumption than the U.S. in the 1960's.  I don't think anything significant can be read from this chart.  What I read is that Japan is a terminal demographic society and it has the 2nd highest consumption. Does that mean we are going terminal faster?  Probably not. Therefore I don't buy this chart.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Anthony Okrongly

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

Sigh...

CO2 models postulate higher warming at mid altitudes~10,000m than on the ground... what do we observe in reality?  LOWER.  Should have ended the CO2 scare mongering immediately in the late 80's, early 90's.  It didn't. 

We pulled ice cores from Greenland/Antarctica and CO2 always lags Warming in all cases. Should have eliminated the CO2 warming lies immediately. It didn't.

Early 2000's we learned that climate is based on the sun(Gasp!) and its solar wind(sunspots) which limits cosmic rays which create high altitude clouds the #1 driver of our climate here on earth.  This should have eliminated the CO2 argument. It didn't

NASA etc now are using 50% fake temperature data fill in yet the number of REAL weather stations they use keeps dropping every year even though the old weather stations are still present and still reporting, yet they keep many inside of cities creating massive heat island warming bias in their data.  This should have eliminated the CO2 ideologues, as it shows abject FRAUD and their REFUSAL to use RAW data. 

CO2 global warming is not science.  This is a religion against empiricism. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

6 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

CO2 global warming is not science.  This is a religion against empiricism. 

^