Meltdown

[Todd]

I think what I like best about the whole NSA thing is how many lefties/liberals/Progressives on the interwebs have basically resorted to a fall-back position of "Bush did it first."  You know, the Patriot Act, FISA (though that's from the Carter era), etc.  And here I thought Barry would change all that.  I mean, didn't he campaign on it?

[snyprrr]

I think what I like best about the whole NSA thing is how many lefties/liberals/Progressives on the interwebs have basically resorted to a fall-back position of "Bush did it first."  You know, the Patriot Act, FISA (though that's from the Carter era), etc.  And here I thought Barry would change all that.  I mean, didn't he campaign on it?

I mean... really... 'most transparent ever'...mm hmm... yawn...

Seriously, did you watch his facial expressions as he was continuing? Was that unscripted? It seemed like he said too much?


"Ve vill find that 'intent' ve arr searching for... I'm sure it's deep inside your rectum."

[Todd]

Seriously, did you watch his facial expressions as he was continuing? Was that unscripted? It seemed like he said too much?

Haven't seen the footage yet.  Will watch it tonight.  I need a chuckle.

[snyprrr]

Haven't seen the footage yet.  Will watch it tonight.  I need a chuckle.

Didya didya??

"No one's reading your emails!"

It all depends on the definition of 'your', doesn't it?

[Todd]

Didya didya??

Yeah, and I can sum up his response up in eight words: Tough shit, we're going to keep doing it.

I did notice that China's purportedly aggressive hacking ended up not being a big focus of the summit.  I've also noticed a difference in how this topic has been covered by US vs non-US press outlets online.

The George W Obama, four term president, Facebook page has popped up in a few searches.

[snyprrr]

Yeah, and I can sum up his response up in eight words: Tough shit, we're going to keep doing it.

The George W Obama, four term president, Facebook page has popped up in a few searches.

1) mmm

2) mm hmm


Actually, one needs to compare with Bush, Sr. Barry's no W!!

And yea, he did say FU. Go back to comm. college Barry, go back.


btw- Snowden??? fake??? funny tho,... Iceland WILL take him (the one country that kicked the bankers out).

[Todd]

I think Hong Kong is a good choice for Mr Snowden.  It offers the chance for some great power positioning and jaw-boning.  Will the Chinese cave to American pressure?

But really, I think it is time to come up with various conspiracy scenarios here.  Just who is Eddie Snowden?  And who is footing the bill for his stay in Hong Kong?

Option 1 – He is Republican/Right Wing plant/patsy, granted access to top secret files with the express intention of derailing Obama's second term. 

Option 2 – He is a Chinese spy.

Option 3 – He is a Russian spy.

Option 4 – He is an Iranian spy.

Option 5 – He is a North Korean spy.

Option 6 – He is a corporate spy, planted to muck up Booz Allen's next bid.

Option 7 – He is a tool of the international banking cartel set on ruling the world.  I mean, come on, Booz Allen is majority owned by the Carlyle Group, and we all know that various luminaries have sat on the board of this private equity firm in the past.


But this is not my area of expertise.  Back to you snyprrr, as this is your area of expertise.  Perhaps Sean can weigh in, as well.

[Gurn Blanston]

I think Hong Kong is a good choice for Mr Snowden.  It offers the chance for some great power positioning and jaw-boning.  Will the Chinese cave to American pressure?

But really, I think it is time to come up with various conspiracy scenarios here.  Just who is Eddie Snowden?  And who is footing the bill for his stay in Hong Kong?

Option 1 – He is Republican/Right Wing plant/patsy, granted access to top secret files with the express intention of derailing Obama's second term. 

Option 2 – He is a Chinese spy.

Option 3 – He is a Russian spy.

Option 4 – He is an Iranian spy.

Option 5 – He is a North Korean spy.

Option 6 – He is a corporate spy, planted to muck up Booz Allen's next bid.

Option 7 – He is a tool of the international banking cartel set on ruling the world.  I mean, come on, Booz Allen is majority owned by the Carlyle Group, and we all know that various luminaries have sat on the board of this private equity firm in the past.


But this is not my area of expertise.  Back to you snyprrr, as this is your area of expertise.  Perhaps Sean can weigh in, as well.

Maybe, just maybe, he's an American Spy *gasp/choke*   

I haven't made up my mind yet what I think of all this. Am I the last person on Earth again!

[Todd]

Maybe, just maybe, he's an American Spy *gasp/choke*

He is not.  We do not have spies.  We are the good guys.

[Karl Henning]

He was issued a SSN under the name John Smallberries

[Gurn Blanston]

He is not.  We do not have spies.  We are the good guys.

Oh, dopey me, how in hell did I forget that?? Gotta be the Oldtimers Syndrome kickin' in.

[Florestan]

Ever since the beginning of recorded history governments have been always constituted not of the people, sometimes without the people and oftentimes against the people --- can we move on? 

[Gurn Blanston]

Ever since the beginning of recorded history governments have been always constituted not of the people, sometimes without the people and oftentimes against the people --- can we move on? 

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that this is the very essence of the different way that insiders and outsiders are taking this whole thing. It concerns me that I am more like an outsider. Can I be getting overcome by Sny-p-aranoia? Acckkk!     

[Todd]

It concerns me that I am more like an outsider.

There are possibilities that could put your mind at rest.  Echelon has been known about for a long time, as has FISA, and the Patriot Act, with its various ins and outs, has been around since what, 2001, so is anyone surprised that the NSA has other programs and that US citizens are being tracked?  Senator Ron Wyden has been warning of this for a couple years in cryptic fashion, and he is not a nut job*. 

Perhaps it is as simple as a young Turk, full of vim and vigor, who thought he was going to change the world from the inside, and did something that may not in the end be the smartest thing for him to have done, only to be turned into a political pawn of powerful, unpleasant men.  On the upside, this whole situation could expose the existence of incompetent government oversight, lax hiring standards, inefficient communication, and general bureaucratic malaise.  Or perhaps a sinister, worldwide, or at least far-reaching plot.  Which seems more plausible?

Maybe this can turn into a teachable moment, where the value of the Fourth Amendment (and the First!) is rediscovered, and the reach of the state is rolled back a bit.  Alas, the recent SCOTUS ruling on DNA swabs does not really offer much hope that will happen.




* Full disclosure, Senator Wyden is one Democrat I have voted for, so my defense of his sanity may be self-serving.

[Florestan]

Gentlemen, have you ever heard of something called "the iron law of oligarchy"? 

[Todd]

Gentlemen, have you ever heard of something called "the iron law of oligarchy"?

A variant on a millennia old theme, it appears.  The very nature of a Republic, such as the US, means the people don't directly rule.  I'm not terribly concerned about that; I'm more concerned about continuing Constitutional encroachments. 

I place faith in the self-serving nature of elected politicians.  If enough people get antsy and complain, or, more important, if enough special interest groups start griping, I think politicians will force through some kind of change.

[ralfy]

Peak oil?   Peak oil is 20 years in the future, always has been, always will be.

Carbon is not going anywhere.  When we burn up all that is readily available in one form, we will find another form, including using vegetation to pull CO2 out of the air and making fuel out of it.  When energy becomes expensive there fill finally be an incentive to use it efficiently. 

Environmental degradation and climate change is a serious issue, and not just to the tinfoil hat crowd.

You're too late. The IEA admitted that conventional oil production peaked back in 2005. That is why we are now resorting to non-conventional production.

Why are we now forced to use shale, tar sands, etc., to meet increasing demand? Because oil discoveries peaked in 1964.

Per country, two-thirds of oil-producing countries have reached or gone beyond peak production.

It's worse when you look at it per capita, which is more logical as production serves a growing population. Oil production per capita peaked back in 1979.

Why did we start experiencing high oil (and with that food) prices only during the last decade? Because it was only recently that the oil consumption for the rest of the world started rising and even making up for demand destruction from the US, EU, Japan.

The result, then, is economic meltdown for various rich countries, high oil and food prices, chronic unemployment, increasing resource demand for much of the world, and long-term effects of environmental damage coupled with global warming.

That's why the IEA is now warning of the effects of peak oil (which can happen even as demand exceeds production) and global warming.

[ralfy]

The Western US alone has an estimated 2 trillion+ barrels of oil shale, and current technology could extract around half of that.  Some estimates of total global oil extraction since the discovery of oil in Titusville in 1859 hover around 1 trillion barrels.  Throw in conventional oil, deep sea oil, the massive Central Asian fields still under development, the massive field offshore in Brazil, and more efficient extraction from partly depleted existing fields, and the threat of peak oil is about as real as the same warnings that first appeared in the late 19th Century.  And that doesn't even include natural gas, which is abundant in may areas, or natural gas hydrates, which dwarf even conventional natural gas reserves.  There's plenty of carbon based energy still to be exploited.  (And then there's also burning "biomass" - largely wood - which is back in vogue in parts of Europe.)

With the recent news that the level of carbon in the atmosphere has passed 400 PPM - apparently some magical threshold - environmental concerns are indeed real, though it should be pointed out that average temperature readings taken over the last five years by real scientists at real universities (eg, the University of Reading) are below the levels that were predicted in models preferred by entities like the IPCC.  The future is uncertain, though an upward trend seems most probable.

I would say a more immediate concern is access to potable water.  Time to look into water treatment ETFs.

The problem isn't reserves but flow rate:

http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-only-true-metric-of-energy_28.html

The energy returns for shale are much lower, and decline curves steeper:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_abundance.html

Finally, it gets even worse when you look at flow rate vs. demand. The best-case scenario is a production rate of 12 Mb/d for North America a few years from now. The current consumption rate for the U.S. alone is 19 Mb/d.

[Parsifal]

The problem isn't reserves but flow rate:

http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-only-true-metric-of-energy_28.html

The energy returns for shale are much lower, and decline curves steeper:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/02/u_s_shale_oil_are_we_headed_to_a_new_era_of_oil_abundance.html

Finally, it gets even worse when you look at flow rate vs. demand. The best-case scenario is a production rate of 12 Mb/d for North America a few years from now. The current consumption rate for the U.S. alone is 19 Mb/d.

Except that consumption in the US is actually decreasing (although it is increasing in other parts of the world like China).  The US wastes a colossal amount of energy and if fossil fuels become scarce the price of energy will go up, which will encourage greater efficiency.  That would probably be good, since it would slow down the accumulation of greenhouse gasses and the associated climate change.

[ralfy]

Except that consumption in the US is actually decreasing (although it is increasing in other parts of the world like China).  The US wastes a colossal amount of energy and if fossil fuels become scarce the price of energy will go up, which will encourage greater efficiency.  That would probably be good, since it would slow down the accumulation of greenhouse gasses and the associated climate change.

It is decreasing for the U.S., EU, and Japan because of economic crisis. At the same time, it is increasing for the rest of the world because of a growing middle class and demand for basic needs (e.g., manufactured medicine and food production which are heavily dependent on oil):

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/04/11/peak-oil-demand-is-already-a-huge-problem/

At the same time, more oil consumption is ultimately needed for an economy to grow:

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/07/18/how-much-oil-growth-do-we-need-to-support-world-gdp-growth/

The implication, then, is that meltdown for debt-ridden economies will continue. Meanwhile, the effects of peak oil will be felt given increasing demand for the rest of the world. And the effects of global warming will still be felt as CO2 levels will still rise given increasing demand from the rest of the world.