Open Thread Non-Petroleum, April 24, 2020

Ovi Uncategorized

Comments not directly related to oil and natural gas production should be in this thread. Thank you.

236 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, April 24, 2020”

  1. How’s this for hard truths? Public Radio International is reporting CES WAS A MASS CONTAGION EVENT. ??
    https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-04-24/ces-convention-may-have-spread-coronavirus-throughout-us-and-world

    And further, that woman in California who died from Coronavirus on February 6th…
    https://twitter.com/i/status/1253358092357521409

    She didn’t attend CES, but some of her coworkers did! ?

    So this pretty much validates the worst fears, that we never had a chance to stop the virus. The lockdowns were basically for nothing because the virus was already spreading everywhere for weeks, maybe even months. It was everywhere in the Bay Area in JANUARY.

    1. That fails to explain why the US has the worst outbreak worldwide. It isn’t the poorest or the most densely populated country.

    2. Stud- you seem to be desperately grasping for straws to explain away the gross failure of your presidents response to this crises. Certainly we could not have completely avoided the pandemic, but is common sense that when faced with such a threat, you act quick and decisively to limit influx of more virus and you limit internal spread. But first you have to learn to listen to those who know more (almost everyone when you are talking about trump), and ignore the idiot ‘yes’ men like Hannity, Giuliani, et al.
      There is no reason the USA had to have the poorest performance of all countries, except for leadership decisions.

      “It was everywhere in the Bay Area in JANUARY.”
      True, however the Calif per capita hospitalization and death rate is far better than most of the countries metros, due primarily to good decision making by the the leadership – governor and mayors, out ahead of the Fed.
      Look at the first chart to compare areas of the USA (per capita)
      https://abc7news.com/health/heres-how-ca-coronavirus-cases-stack-up-to-other-hot-spots/6127023/

    3. A couple of resources that folks here might find of interest:
      A primer on R0:
      https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/world/europe/coronavirus-R0-explainer.html

      An epidemic calculator to test your conjectures and indulge your inner epidemiologist:
      https://gabgoh.github.io/COVID/index.html

      So, there were ~175,000 attendees at CES2020, and 60,000 were foreigners. Assuming that 2% of the foreigners were infectious with Covid19, at an R0 of 2.2 after 160 days with no interventions, there would be 171,812 deaths. If interventions are implemented on day 60 of the outbreak that reduce the transmission rate by 20% to R0 to 1.76, then at day 160, there would be 47,015 deaths.

      These are my base parameters:
      Size of population: 328.5 million
      Number of initial infections: 1200
      R0 = 2.2 and 1.76
      T inc = 4.20 days
      T inf = 14 days
      CFR = 3
      Time from incubation to death = 20 days

      Stay safe. Stay home.

      2. “T inf = 14 days”

        Expert opinion of Christian Drosten (Charite Berlin) patients are infectious for less than 10 days according to a very detailed study done with the Munich cohort. The results were published in a Nature paper.

        The virus load is the highest one or two days BEFORE they show symptoms which explains the high pre-symptomatic transmission.

    4. Army National Center for Medical Intelligence knew about it in November 2019. It was in the PDB by early January 2020. USA Int. likely knew about COVID19 before Wuhan got the balls to tell Beijing.

      Intelligence report warned of coronavirus crisis as early as November
      https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/intelligence-report-warned-coronavirus-crisis-early-november-sources/story?id=70031273

      Trump dropped the ball cuz he doesn’t read PDBs

      “The U.S. intelligence community includes a detailed explanation of the potential cataclysmic disease in Wuhan, China―based in part on wire intercepts, computer intercepts, and satellite images―in the President’s Daily Brief in early January.”

      Timeline of the Coronavirus Pandemic and U.S. Response
      https://www.justsecurity.org/69650/timeline-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic-and-u-s-response/

      It’s unfortunate that America doesn’t value population health as it does other national security issues. I suppose, though, that would run contrary to the cult of The Individual, nor would it do much for Northrop Grumman’s bottom line.

    5. A good WP article on excess total all-cause US fatalities. Note that the increase in deaths above the seasonal norms, in the US and elsewhere, is after an offsetting factor, i.e., presumably a very large decrease in traffic fatalities, due to the large decrease in hours driven per day (and note that US insurance companies are issuing insurance rebates due to the collapse in reported accidents).

      U.S. deaths soared in early weeks of pandemic, far exceeding number attributed to covid-19
      https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/04/27/covid-19-death-toll-undercounted/?arc404=true

        1. Yep. Good combination of available manpower and early testing and tracking, plus luck that the start of the fist huge outbreak happend in congregation of a Christian sect, an event with name lists.

    7. Studebaker knows about as much about health care as my hounds.

      Even a freshman student at a community college with open admissions taking an introductory biology course knows a hundred times more if he passes.

    1. Here’s another fun statistic: Tesla is currently worth twice as much as Ford, GM and FIAT-Chrysler put together.

      Put another way Tesla is two thirds of the total capitalization of the America car OEM business.

        1. Did you put in a sell order for all your Tesla stock, Survivor?
          Good job.

          1. Buy low, sell high.
            Short on the way back down.
            How do you lose?

    2. Yes, the post-extractive era is upon us. This is only the beginning of the end, but stock valuations are leading indicators.

      What we’re seeing on the national and international stage is the death throes of the extractive industries. Trump vs the Washing Post is really Koch Industries vs Amazon.

      1. What is going to replace the extractive era? The only realistic alternative that I see is collapse.

        1. Fossil fuel is being replaced by wind, sun, etc. Metals and minerals that are mined will be mined for a long time – eventually they will be recycled.

          We still eat food that comes from farms. But, we live in a post-agricultural economy because only 1% of the population works on farms. The US constitution was written by farmers who controlled the economy and the country’s politics. That’s no longer the case.

          Currently the country’s politics are still controlled by extractive and manufacturing industries, but they are a minority of the economy, and they are on the edge of losing their dominant political power.

          That’s what I mean by a post-extractive era.

        2. “The only realistic alternative that I see is collapse.”
          Well OK, but do you favor fast collapse or slow collapse?
          Or perhaps you would prefer a brisk managed contraction for about 50 years.
          That could be a new area of expertise- Managed Contraction Engineer/Consultant
          Make no mistake, we’ll still extracting things for as long as we are around.
          After all, we don’t have photosynthesis.

  3. Here are the Republican talking points about the corona virus:

    China did this:

    The Chinese Communist Party caused this pandemic. They arrested doctors who tried to warn us.
    They covered up the number of deaths. They lied and pretended the disease could not be
    transmitted. China bought up the world’s supply of face masks and medical supplies, and then
    stopped exports out of the country when we needed them.

    China is not an ally, and they’re not just a rival — they are an adversary and the Chinese
    Communist Party is our enemy.

    For decades, China has stolen millions of our jobs, they’ve hacked into our networks, and
    they’ve exported plagues and fentanyl to the United States.
    ○ At home, China forces women to have abortions, they send religious minorities to
    concentration camps, and they arrest Christians.

    We are too reliant on China:

    97% of antibiotics and many critical pharmaceuticals are now produced only in China — because
    China used predatory pricing to drive American manufacturers out of business. They did this to
    corner the market. They’ve stolen millions of American jobs.

    We also know that China blocked exports of critical medical products from American companies
    in China when the world needed them the most. China caused the virus and then made it worse.
    My Democratic opponent refuses to stand up to them:

    My opponent is soft on China. He/She’s never criticized them, throughout this entire pandemic.
    He/she opposed tariffs on China even though China has stolen millions of American jobs.

    He/She was silent when Nancy Pelosi delayed aid to the American people to try to pass parts of
    the Green New Deal. She didn’t say anything when Democrats passed money to fund the D.C.
    opera – the Kennedy Center – which then laid off its employees.

    Democrats blocked money from small businesses when the paycheck protection program ran out.
    Republicans tried for weeks to pass this unanimously — and this program had bipartisan support –
    – but Schumer and Pelosi blocked it.
    I will stand up to China, bring our jobs back home, and push for sanctions on the Chinese
    Communist Party

    If I’m elected, I’ll fight to move our manufacturing out of China and back home. This will create
    jobs in the United States, and it is important for our national security. We need to get all of our
    pharmaceutical production out of China because we can’t trust them.

    I will also fight for a strong military. We need to be prepared as China continues its aggression in
    the South China sea and campaign of cyber attacks.

    Finally, we need to investigate how China was able to keep this pandemic hidden. China should
    pay a price for arresting doctors who tried to warn about the pandemic. We should impose
    sanctions on China and treat China like the pariah state that they are.

    I won’t link the original because it is a pack of lies that doesn’t deserve spreading. My favorite line:

    Note – don’t defend Trump, other than the China Travel Ban — attack China

    1. No surprise here:

      “Earlier this month, we warned that Chinese companies were flooding Europe with shoddy medical supplies, including defective personal protective equipment (PPE).

      Unfortunately given the mad rush for supplies as governments around the world scramble to buy them from any supplier available, no matter how shady, there hasn’t been enough time to discerningly inspect the equipment, and many dangerous lapses have accrued.

      And while stories about defective equipment on the Continent have been ppearing with increasing frequency, this incident from Spain is particularly alarming: Breitbart has reported that more than 1,000 Spanish healthcare workers have gone into isolation after wearing faulty medical masks bought from China”.

      https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/1000-front-line-medical-workers-forced-isolation-due-faulty-chinese-masks

      1. Yeah, Breitbart and zerohedge got the memo too, I guess.

        Don’t defend Trump, everyone in his right m
        ind knows he’s an idiot. Attack China. That’s how to keep Trump in power.

        1. Alim,

          Both Trump and China should be criticized. Don’t you think?

          1. It’s not at all clear to me what criticizing China is intended to accomplish (except distracting from Trump’s failures).

            Squabbling between countries is not helpful at all. The virus doesn’t care. Obviously there is a need to coordinate policy, and agree on which methods are most effective, but the primary focus now needs to be on finding a way out of the crisis, not public finger pointing. If the american government has a problem with the Chinese, there are proper diplomatic channels for dealing with them discretely and effectively. Twitter is not one of them.

            As this policy paper shows, America’s ruling party has no interest whatsoever in that. If they did, they would remove Trump from office, something that could be done in weeks, with a second impeachment. Filling the media with complaints about the Chinese and lies about Joe Biden’s supposed connections to China while tens of thousands of Americans die is brutally cynical. Allowing that loony to to stay in power is criminally insane.

            The whole thing is just a repeat of the claims about Biden’s connections to Ukraine. Remember that? It’s the same tactics. So no, criticizing China is not what we should be doing. Slandering Joe Biden is not what we should be doing. Recommending that people inject Lysol is not what we should be doing. Solving the huge problem the world is currently facing is what we should be doing.

            I can’t believe I even have to type this out. You Republicans are so far beyond the Pale that you have become a serious threat to the country and the rest of the world. Snap out of it.

            1. Alim,

              Not sure what you mean by the last paragraph as I am not a citizen of the U.S. I am talking more of an international point of view.

              Any country affected by the virus has the right to critique CCP policy. The biggest critiques of the regime are it’s own citizens. Is there a problem with that ?

              Maybe the critiques will force the Chinese government to control or regulate their barbaric wet markets. This is not the first time they have caused an epidemic or a pandemic. Globalisation has made the situation exponentially worse. People should have the right to question and critique anyone or anything they wish. I don’t see anything wrong with that as long as the ground is based on a logical framework.

              On the same note, I don’t see anything wrong with citizens in your country both questioning and criticizing China, WHO and Trump. I personally see no problem with that. As long as the critiques are balanced and does a good job at blaming all those responsible. Because they are all failures.

              With regards to China and where i live Australia. Their influence on our government, universities and business is extremely concerning. This article is from a centrist/left newspaper: (I know this isn’t related to the pandemic but it’s just one example of many of CCPs propaganda and secrecy which would have influenced the initial spread of covid-19)

              Student-activist warns of ‘chilling effect’ after China’s patriotic media singles him out

              A human rights student-activist who has been singled out for criticism by Beijing’s patriotic media said his case risks creating a ”chilling effect” on free expression within Australia.

              https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/student-activist-warns-of-chilling-effect-after-china-s-patriotic-media-singles-him-out-20200425-p54n66.html

              Here is another regarding:

              ‘Very angry’: China pressured EU to drop COVID disinformation criticism

              China sought to block a European Union report alleging that Beijing was spreading disinformation about the coronavirus outbreak, according to four sources and diplomatic correspondence.

              The report was eventually released, just before the weekend, and with some criticism of the Chinese government rearranged or removed, a sign of the balancing act Brussels is trying to pull off as the coronavirus outbreak scrambles international relations.

              Honestly CCP is a disgusting regime and should be criticized by any sane balanced person.

              https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/very-angry-china-pressured-eu-to-drop-covid-disinformation-criticism-20200426-p54n8i.html

  4. https://twitter.com/i/events/1253770050751705089

    “What you just heard is the president of the United States just lying, right there,” Anderson Cooper said after playing footage of Trump attempting to walk back his dangerous suggestion that injecting disinfectants could help cure the coronavirus.

    Embarrassing time for the US.
    Original comment below.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqI5_jH-AbY

    Later Trump lies and claims he was being sarcastic.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNxd2WvIOnA

  5. And so the fight continues between R & D’s – but is it moving the Humans living on Planet Earth toward a better future?

    Step 1. Individuals and groups evolved a bias to maximize fitness by maximizing power, which requires over-reproduction and/or over-consumption of natural resources (overshoot), whenever systemic constraints allow it. Differential power generation and accumulation result in a hierarchical group structure.

    Step 2. Energy is always limited, and overshoot eventually leads to decreasing power available to some members of the group, with lower-ranking members suffering first.

    Step 3. Diminishing power availability creates divisive subgroups within the original group. Low-rank members will form subgroups and coalitions to demand a greater share of power from higher-ranking individuals, who will resist by forming their own coalitions to maintain power.

    Step 4. Violent social strife eventually occurs among subgroups who demand a greater share of the remaining power.

    Step 5. The weakest subgroups (high or low rank) are either forced to disperse to a new territory, are killed, enslaved, or imprisoned.

    Step 6. Go back to step 1.

    http://www.dieoff.com/

    There is NO solution from either the R’s or D’s………

    and Jay said it best:

    “It’s impossible to know the details of how our rush to extinction will play itself out, but we do know that it is going to be hell for those who are unlucky to be alive at the time”.

    “To those who followed Columbus and Cortez, the New World truly seemed incredible because of the natural endowments. The land often announced itself with a heavy scent miles out into the ocean. Giovanni da Verrazano in 1524 smelled the cedars of the East Coast a hundred leagues out. The men of Henry Hudson’s Half Moon were temporarily disarmed by the fragrance of the New Jersey shore, while ships running farther up the coast occasionally swam through large beds of floating flowers. Wherever they came inland they found a rich riot of color and sound, of game and luxuriant vegetation. Had they been other than they were, they might have written a new mythology here. As it was, they took inventory”. — Frederick Jackson Turner

    “Genocide is as human as art or prayer”. — John Gray

    “Kai su, teknon”. — Julius Caesar

    I’m going to make more popcorn and watch the shitshow unfold.

    Hooray for my side: https://youtu.be/cSvy8HpxFxo

    1. So Tim, if we accept the idea that there is no solution to this ugly long march of humanity, lets ask ourselves- how should we conduct ourselves on the journey?
      I say, despite the fact that we are an ugly beast on a destructive crusade (what other kind is there?) through this biosphere, that we should strive to be of better character. If for no other reason than we would like ourselves and other families to be treated with a measure kindness and justice.
      And the choices we make have huge ramifications.
      Such as the choice to end slavery and eventually pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the choice to ban atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons.
      I could list a hundred more examples where the difference between Dem and Rep policies are like night and day.
      We should conduct ourselves as if it matters, and we give a shit.

      1. Fortunately, the maximum-power-principle is demonstrably unrealistic.

        A principle tenet of this idea is over reproduction: Fertility rates have crashed over the last 50 years. OECD consumption of electricity, coal, oil, steel, etc have all plateaued, and fallen on a per capita basis over the last 50 years. It’s quite clear that humans do not care about maximizing their reproduction or their production or consumption of energy.

        1. Fertility rates have crashed for some – while for others….

          More for me – less for thee –

          Look – I am 57 and chose to NOT reporduce – but my Sister had 3 and adopted a Chinese girl – my EX sat me down when she was 27 and told me she wanted 3 – and we separated – and she found another to marry and had 3. Her Sister had 3 – I had a girklfriend later in life who was 10 years younger than me – she had 4~ and was already a Grandmother twice at 38!

          Our High Schools here have breast feeding grooms for new Mothers!

          ACINE — Attached to Park High School’s library there is a private room with paper over the window and a sliding sign indicating whether the room is vacant or not vacant.

          From the outside you wouldn’t know it, but it is one of multiple rooms that the Racine Unified School District recently established for new nursing mothers, both employees and students. It’s part of a way to promote healthy habits for new mothers and comply with a new federal law.

          Last summer, Susan Stroupe, Unified’s director of health services, said she learned at a breast-feeding meeting about a new federal law requiring employers to accommodate breast-feeding employees.

          https://journaltimes.com/news/local/unified-sets-up-lactation-rooms-at-all-its-schools-for/article_ee35f80a-2633-11e2-a74b-001a4bcf887a.html

            1. For the World Total fertility ratio or TFR (number of live births per woman over their lifetime) average went from 5 in 1965 to 2.5 in 2005, the replacement level (zero population growth in long run) is a TFR 0f 2.1. Also about half of the World’s population lives in nations with TFR of 2.1 or less.

              My wife’s is from a family of 5 children, my family was 6 children, of those 11 children from both families, only 6 grandchildren were born for a TFR of about 1.1 for both families.

            2. So population numbers are crashing?

              An average – takes a large number and divides it to create a number.

              I created ZERO – 0 – Nothing – plug that into your equations – and you get ZERO.

              And Jay said it best:

              “It’s impossible to know the details of how our rush to extinction will play itself out, but we do know that it is going to be hell for those who are unlucky to be alive at the time”.

              This may yet not be the time – but the time is coming.

            3. >So population numbers are crashing?

              No, but population growth is being driven by high survival rates rather than high birth rates. Put another way, population is growing because there are more and more old people, not because there are more and more young people.

            4. No, but population growth is being driven by high survival rates rather than high birth rates.

              That is only partially true. Birth rates are still 2.4 times the death rate. That is a lot of babies being born.

              World Population Clock

              In 1972, the population of the world was 3.85 billion, half of what it is today. The world was dramatically overpopulated in 1972. Rivers were then running dry, topsoil was being washed and blown away, forests were being destroyed, water tables were dropping, animals were being driven into extinction. All the things that are happening now were happening then. Except now things are going to hell twice as fast. And the destruction is not slowing down, but speeding up instead.

              And you guys, not just you but Nick, Dennis, and several others believe that lower fertility rates will soon fix everything.

              Yeah, right. Mother Nature will do the fixing. And her fix will not be pretty.

            5. Ron,

              No I do not expect it will fix everything, just a step in the right direction, a lower total fertility ratio will reduce the rate of population growth, not a panacea by any means, but fewer people may lead to less environmental damage in my opinion.

            6. Ron,

              The discussion here isn’t about total population levels, or absolute growth numbers. It’s about whether humans have an innate desire to have many children as possible. The evidence is clear: people generally want to have 2 or fewer children, on average, once they are reasonably prosperous and women are educated and have contraception.

              In fact, women get pretty militant about it. I remember quotes from some Brazilian women who talked about no longer being baby factories.

            7. Tim E,

              No there is immigration to developed areas and the World average TFR is 2.5 not 2.1.

              Yes Tim,

              If no children were born then the population would fall to zero in about 100 years.

              Doubt that will be the case. 🙂

              If everyone decided to have only one child, population would decrease pretty quickly, but not as fast as zero.

        2. Nick, it would do you no harm to learn that the Maximum Power Principle doesn’t say that all people want to have lots of children. It perhaps says, amongst other things, that the people who do have lots of children will quite likely have genes/offspring that populate the planet in the future, and the people who don’t won’t.
          Some people wanting to have no children, or that view increasing in popularity and acceptance, does not negate the maximum power principle, as you seem to imply. Perhaps recheck your premise and conclusion. Perhaps check if humans are the only life on earth or if there are others.
          Much like Cold Blob Bob often forgets that weather exists outside of Kansas; and much like fanbois often forget that a world exists outside of Southern California Star Trek conventions; it, too, seems that Nick often forgets about all life on earth but for himself, and that which is right under his nose.
          If you wish to pursue this foolish argument, and perhaps too if you wish to be seen as a reliable prognosticator, then I’m afraid you’ll have to come up with something more intelligent to say, as usual.

          1. Individuals and groups evolved a bias to maximize fitness by maximizing power, which requires over-reproduction and/or over-consumption of natural resources (overshoot), whenever systemic constraints allow it

            Seems to speak for itself.

            One can certainly speculate that over a long period of time that a desire for many children will be selected for…but there’s no evidence for such a genetic propensity in the population currently. Even after millions of years of natural selection, humans drop the idea of large families like a hot potato the moment contraception, education and urban living are available. And there’s no trace of that long-term natural selection idea in the text above: it says that big families should be happening right now. And they’re really not.

            2. Those are interesting discussions. It seems like the MPP is an interesting proposal, but far from mainstream.

              Maybe it makes sense, but I don’t see anything in those discussions that explicitly mention either human population or human resource consumption. Both of those things are clearly not being maximized by humans. Whether humans have grown both of those things to an unsustainable level is another discussion, but in the OECD, those things have stopped growing.

              So, maybe it’s simply the application of this idea to humans in this manner that’s flawed, and not the underlying theory.

      2. “We should conduct ourselves as if it matters, and we give a shit”.

        Agreed – I have to come into work tomorrow to fix a lathe which has encountered a problem – on “Maintenance Time” which means I am paid less – but the Company keeps operating. So tomorrow I will do my part.

        Today – in fact just minutes ago – I went to Aldi – and there was a homeless person sitting outside – most in Aldi were wearing masks – I wasn’t – but then again I wasn’t coughing or sick. Instead of giving the homeless person fiat $$$ – I gave him a box of cereal grains – and then on second thought I went to the liquor store and bought a high potency 4-pak of 16 ounce cans of Beer – plus two snacks – went back to Aldi – and gave it to him – telling him to enjoy – and he smiled.

        At the Aldi store – I didn’t use a cart – because I only needed a few items – I dropped my egg carton – and as I can tell you – that when I got home – 4 eggs were broken – the others not – but I paid for them all and cleaned up most of the mess – except for the minor mess on the floor in the store. Certainly, you can fault me there.

        True story – fresh off the presses.

        As for: “We should conduct ourselves as if it matters, and we give a shit”.

        Let me know when the Banksters who lend fiat money at interest – push future demand into the present – and issue debt money – cease to exist.

        https://youtu.be/XRbTvoxRNxM

      3. Since we’re the only beast on this planet with a moral compass of any kind, we should strive to be of better character, if only because we’re the only creature who CAN.

        1. “ In the 16th century, philosopher and mathematician Rene Descartes said animals were just automata: red-blooded machines without thoughts or wishes. Since then, animal-behavior scientists have realized that our furry brethren have rich emotional lives and even a rudimentary sense of right and wrong.

          From elaborate elephant funeral rituals to the moral outrage of cuckolded bluebirds, here are some surprising ways that animals exhibit the very human emotions we associate with morality.”

          https://www.livescience.com/24800-animals-emotions-morality.html

          https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/chimps-have-moral-values-of-humans-339571.html

          1. Nick G – I agree with you – and thanks for posting this. Humans think too much of themselves – or so I believe.

  6. As for: “We should conduct ourselves as if it matters, and we give a shit”.

    The Boomers who have pushed up costs for their millionaire retirement pension plans – at the cost of their progeny -need to really ……. face reality of living on a finite Planet with finite resources.

    But then again – Hickory – you may live in endless Utopia. In the multi-verse – it may be possible.

    Given enough time – a monkey sitting at a keyboard and typing could produce an entire unabridged dictionary – it is possible.

    2. The WHO statement context was regarding whether immunity passports (based on positive antibody test) could be relied on, and WHO is saying in effect- we just don’t know yet, its too early to have solid evidence on that issue to the degree we could rely on it.
      On the other hand, they also have no solid evidence yet to refute the opposite- that antibodies do confirm immunity.
      It will take another month or three, I suspect, to sort that out with greater certainty.
      Cross your fingers that the eventual answer is straightforward, and favorable. More like tetanus than HIV.

    3. WHO also said that “China and CCP are doing a great job with the SARS-CoV-2 (real name of covid-19)”.
      WHO also is headed by a former member of the violent Ethiopian communist party…

      … but even IF what WHO says is true, that further casts doubt upon the idea that this thing is naturally derived – and not some “nice recipe” of Xi -Ding -Fuck…
      Think about it before being herded into the barn. It’ll be better for you, I promise.
      be well,
      Petro

        1. Actually SARS is the disease, not the D at the end of covid.
          So you get it, stands for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome.
          CoViD 19 is some crap that WHO whipped up after they screwed up and covered for the ding-dongs of the CCP in order to get attention of the herds away from them
          Be well,
          Petro

            2. People will go to great lengths to explain things in ways that they find palatable.

    4. Strange is not the word!

      This strikes me as fearmongering by the WHO and leads me to speculate about the motive. Here we have a virus that is asymptomatic in a small percentage of the population but, has symptoms ranging from mild to severe in the rest. The only defense currently available appears to be a proper functioning immune system. Despite this there appears to be no focus from the WHO on taking action to help support the human immune system! I did a search on the WHO web site and their idea of immunity appears to focus on vaccines. I could not find anything about what people can do to improve their immune system. I find that intriguing.

      In the meantime anybody attempting to promote lifestyle and dietary changes to improve immune system function as a means of preparing for or combating COVID-19 gets put in Facebook Jail and tends to be censored in Google searches apparently at the behest of the WHO. On the other hand resources abound on the futility of “boosting” the immune system. For example, from the BBC:

      Covid-19: Can ‘boosting’ your immune system protect you?

      If you’re healthy, forget supplements – except vitamin D

      Many multivitamins claim to provide “immune support” or to help “maintain healthy immune function”. But as BBC Future reported in 2016, vitamin supplements generally don’t work in already healthy people – and some may even be harmful.

      Take vitamin C. The health effects of this antioxidant have been steeped in mythology ever since the two-time Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling became obsessed with its ability to fight the common cold. After studying the vitamin for years, eventually he started taking 18,000 mg per day – around 300 times the current recommended daily amount.

      However, there is little evidence to support vitamin C’s mighty reputation for helping us to fight off colds and other respiratory infections. A 2013 review by Cochrane – an organisation renowned for its unbiased research – found that in adults “trials of high doses of vitamin C administered therapeutically, starting after the onset of symptoms, showed no consistent effect on the duration or severity of common cold symptoms”.

      In fact, many experts consider the vitamin C market to be a bit of a racket, as most people in the developed world get enough from their diets already. Though scurvy is thought to have killed two million sailors and pirates between the 15th and 18th Centuries, the numbers now are far lower. For example, just 128 people in England were hospitalised with the disease between 2016 and 2017. On the other hand, high doses of this vitamin can lead to kidney stones.

      “Vitamin supplements aren’t beneficial to your immune system unless you are deficient,” says Iwasaki.

      Surprisingly enough Google search results now show news about a paper published a few days ago (April 23) from a team including a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the Oregon State University and Principal Investigator at the Linus Pauling Institute, that refutes the claims made in the quoted section above:

      Optimal Nutritional Status for a Well-Functioning Immune System Is an Important Factor to Protect against Viral Infections

      Abstract: Public health practices including handwashing and vaccinations help reduce the spread and impact of infections. Nevertheless, the global burden of infection is high, and additional measures are necessary. Acute respiratory tract infections, for example, were responsible for approximately 2.38 million deaths worldwide in 2016. The role nutrition plays in supporting the immune system is well-established. A wealth of mechanistic and clinical data show that vitamins, including vitamins A, B 6 , B 12 , C, D, E, and folate; trace elements, including zinc, iron, selenium, magnesium, and copper; and the omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid play important and complementary roles in supporting the immune system. Inadequate intake and status of these nutrients are widespread, leading to a decrease in resistance to infections and as a consequence an increase in disease burden. Against this background the following conclusions are made: (1) supplementation with the above micronutrients and omega-3 fatty acids is a safe, effective, and low-cost strategy to help support optimal immune function; (2) supplementation above the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), but within recommended upper safety limits, for specific nutrients such as vitamins C and D is warranted; and (3) public health officials are encouraged to include nutritional strategies in their recommendations to improve public health.

      So, on one hand we have the WHO propagating hopelessness, along with mainstream mass media pushing the idea that nothing can “boost” the human immune system. The only solutions being offered including a continued restriction on congregations of any type (globally) and the holy grail of a vaccine against this new virus. Are we to wait for however long it takes to come up with a proven vaccine before we try and “return to normal” (ease restrictions on traveling and gatherings)?

      On the other hand we have the “quacks” (according to some people) that are saying we can defeat this monster by taking active measures to strengthen our immune systems, an approach that would help even if it were possible to be re-infected. The strengthened immune system approach would also help with future, yet unknown viral outbreaks. Dr. Richard Cheng, the Chinese/American doctor at the center of the controversy surrounding this approach has made the observation that while there have been less than 100 epidemics/pandemics recorded in the 200 years leading up to the year 2000, there have been 63 in the less than 20 years since 2000. With the frequency of new viral outbreaks increasing, is the world going to have to go into lock down every time a new virus emerges?

      I find the prospects quite sinister but, I am encouraged by the news I am getting from my preferred news source with regard to responses to COVID-19:

      Orthomolecular Medicine News Service

      1. I think that the WHO’s thoughts on infection not promoting immunity are based on some reports that people who have been infected once can catch it again. They are sounding a cautionary note, to those who think antibodies/passport are the answer, until enough work can be done to prove or disprove the anecdotes, ie don’t plan until we know. It may be inaccurate testing, new infection, or viral remnants such as have been detected recently in eyes. It will take a time to tease this out but it would be bad to plan on post infection immunity as an answer until then.

        NAOM

        1. “WHO’s thoughts on infection not promoting immunity”

          What they said is that they just don’t know yet. People seem bent on trying to make more of it than that. Lets move along folks.

          1. Exactly, that’s why they don’t want plans to made on that basis until the results are in.

      2. A vaccine basically works by ‘boosting the immune system’ specific to the virus it is aimed at.

        1. While the definition of the word boost makes it technically correct in the sense that you used it, I would prefer the word activate “specific to the virus it is aimed at”. The strengthened immune system approach as advocated by Dr. Richard Cheng among others is a non-specific approach to improving immune system function and should improve health outcomes even in areas unrelated to COVID-19.

          Maybe that what underlies the resistance by the medical industry to the idea of using nutrition and supplements as prophylactic or curative agents. It has the potential to reduce revenues big time when potential patients “self medicate”. There will still be lots of money to be made from the health issues caused by poor lifestyle choices (smoking, obesity etc.) but, if the public at large were to catch on to the idea of a nutritional approach to health, it could be devastating to the medical industry.

          As an aside, I went to my local supermarket early this morning and chatted with the store manager for a few minutes. They have no vitamin C. They usually have “Emergen-C” or something similar. Fruit juices are moving fast, as are oranges. He hasn’t noticed anyone with any cold or flu like symptoms in the store. That could just mean that people with symptoms are self quarantining which is nonetheless a good sign. People with colds or the flu should not be going to work or school or any place they can transmit their illness to large numbers of people.

  8. Planet of the Humans

    Michael Moore presents Planet of the Humans, a documentary that dares to say what no one else will this Earth Day — that we are losing the battle to stop climate change on planet earth because we are following leaders who have taken us down the wrong road — selling out the green movement to wealthy interests and corporate America. This film is the wake-up call to the reality we are afraid to face: that in the midst of a human-caused extinction event, the environmental movement’s answer is to push for techno-fixes and band-aids. It’s too little, too late.

    Removed from the debate is the only thing that MIGHT save us: getting a grip on our out-of-control human presence and consumption. Why is this not THE issue? Because that would be bad for profits, bad for business. Have we environmentalists fallen for illusions, “green” illusions, that are anything but green, because we’re scared that this is the end—and we’ve pinned all our hopes on biomass, wind turbines, and electric cars?

    No amount of batteries are going to save us, warns director Jeff Gibbs (lifelong environmentalist and co-producer of “Fahrenheit 9/11” and “Bowling for Columbine”). This urgent, must-see movie, a full-frontal assault on our sacred cows, is guaranteed to generate anger, debate, and, hopefully, a willingness to see our survival in a new way—before it’s too late.

    Featuring: Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Richard Branson, Robert F Kennedy Jr., Michael Bloomberg, Van Jones, Vinod Khosla, Koch Brothers, Vandana Shiva, General Motors, 350.org, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Nature Conservancy, Elon Musk, Tesla.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk11vI-7czE

      1. I hope the movie is better than than the promotional stuff. This introduction has a tone of attacking renewables/EVs, as well as attacking environmental leaders: that’s entirely unrealistic and counterproductive.

        Renewables/EVs are the easiest, most obvious things to do about climate change. It’s true that we have to tackle a lot of other stuff, but if we can’t get renewables/EVs done, nothing else will help, and if we can’t get this easy stuff done we certainly aren’t going to be able to do the other stuff either.

        Educating people on the larger issues is a good idea, but I suspect these guys are mostly preaching to the “on the edge of the issue” choir and shooting their “moderate” allies on the way.

        2. I have not seen it yet Nick but
          “This introduction has a tone of attacking renewables/EVs, as well as attacking environmental leaders: that’s entirely unrealistic and counterproductive.”

          I like the promotional statement I have seen. It is thought provoking, and I am more interested in reality on these subjects.
          If it talks reality, its good in my book. Even if the news is bad.
          We should be well aware that this whole deal (7.8 Billion with metal, plastic and chemicals and chainsaws etc) is not sustainable.

          1. I agree: BAU is not remotely sustainable, and humanity has to change a very wide range of things. But…let me say it again: Renewables/EVs are the easiest, most obvious things to do about climate change.

            If we can’t get renewables/EVs done, nothing else will help.

            If we can’t get this easy stuff done we certainly aren’t going to be able to do the other stuff either.

            My first reaction was that attacking renewables/EVs makes no sense. But, I wonder if they actually know that, but they’re figure that saying incendiary stuff will get attention for their material about the other remaining problems.

            Or not. I just read a review in the Guardian which suggests that the film does nothing constructive: just attacks renewables and environmentalists. If so, it sounds like a sneak attack by the Heritage Foundation.

            1. “But…let me say it again: Renewables/EVs are the easiest, most obvious things to do about climate change. ”

              We absolutely agree on this.
              But that does not mean it is a winning game. The only winning game is to massively downsize population by beginning at about 1980 and peaking by 2010, roughly.

              We all should watch the production, and consider the message seriously.

            2. I didn’t get the feeling from the movie it was time to though up our hands and give up. But BAU is not going to get it done. Which I think most of us here already know. The root of the problem is overshoot and not living within our environmental means.

              Nothing has changed from our conversation a few days ago. Coal still needs to be eliminated from electrical production, transportation needs to be switched to electric and wind & solar needs to grow 25 fold. Conservation and efficiency also need to step it up. Americans are extremely wasteful. Change the tax code from income to damaging consumption, burning fossil fuels and biomass.

            5. “it sounds like a sneak attack by the Heritage Foundation.”

              I was thinking Heartland. Catch Michael Moore with “profit bad”, then move on to all of Big Carbon’s anti-renewable talking points, and finish with “profit bad”.

              Planet of the Stupid
              Exhautive, devastating and much-deserved point by point takedown of Michael Moore’s sadly bogus energy doc. This is the the one I’ll be linking people to, for now.

              The fact-checked response is, a film that is not just stupid, but lazy.
              “Not only is the documentary bad, it’s old bad.

              “All of the stuff in this documentary is ancient”
              https://climatecrocks.com/2020/04/25/planet-of-the-stupid/

            6. Thanks Wharf Rat. Good stuff. Hope Ron reads it. I remember your useful comments from The Oil Drum days!

            7. Hey, I read it. The article is a hatchet job. It never once addresses the main point of the film. That is Wall Street is helping destroy the environment in the name of “renewable energy”. And I might add, not one person on this blog who criticized the film has addressed that point either.

              Hey, why has not one person gotten the point of this film? The film is an attack on the destruction of the planet.

              And here is the dumbest line anyone on this blog has ever posted. It was posted by Nick and repeated by Wharf Rat:

              it sounds like a sneak attack by the Heritage Foundation

              Are you shitting me? The Heritage Foundation is an ultra-right-wing think tank and a darling of Wall Street. Why in God’s name would the Heritage Foundation turn around and attack Wall Street as this film does?

              This film was produced by members of the left, not the hard right. Michael Moore was one of Bernie Sanders strongest supporters.

              Hey people, get the damn message. Our planet is being destroyed in the name of Wall Street profits. Cutting down whole forest in order to generate electricity with renewable energy, wood chips. Except it will take about 100 years to restore the forest if replanted. But they are not even doing that. They are just leaving the bare land to wash away.

            8. Nick, have you bothered to even watch the film? Or did you just google reviews of it in order to find someone who tried to debunk it, so you could quote them?

              I thought I would watch the film even though I thought it was just another green energy promotional film. I was wrong. After watching the first few minutes, I was hooked. I sat mesmerized for the whole film. I did not come away with a different point of view. It just confirmed what I had suspected all along. But it did expose the hypocrisy of the entire green energy movement. Cutting down forest for wood chips, to generate electricity is bullshit, not environmentally friendly.

              The part I disagreed with was with those few, but not everyone, in the film who said, in effect, “Here is what we must do…” Bullshit! There is nothing we can do. We went past the point of no return half a century ago.

              The part about the orangutans was heartbreaking. Their entire habitat is being destroyed to grow palm oil. I had no idea jets could fly on palm oil. But human progress much go ever on and upward. Damn the orangutans, full speed ahead.

            9. Definitely agree Ron, the orangutan and animal fat as biofuel was horrific and just downright pissed me off. Makes you reconsider the meaning of the word “humane”.

              Seriously looking at things from a historical perspective with little bias. Just looking at what humans have done through the ages, one has to conclude, we are overall a shit species, possibly one of the worst species to reside on this planet.

              Not only do we increase the suffering of countless animals directly and indirectly, we also increase the suffering of other human beings. That is our legacy. Generally speaking.

              Carl Sagan – Pale blue dot
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl5dlbCh8lY

              “Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the ‘Momentary’ masters of a ‘Fraction’ of a ‘Dot’.”

          2. I don’t doubt that you haven’t seen it yet – because it does not fit your agenda and challenges your beliefs.

            Dream on.

    3. Stay away from Michael Moore’s crap, his only intent is to manipulate lefty emotions.

      1. Well, of course. The whole point of documentaries is to get the audience to care about stuff that would be boring and dry on paper. And, yes, conservatives aren’t really the audience for this material: they’re too hypnotized by Fox Opinion*.

        * Take a close look at Fox News programming: you’ll see that in a day there’s about 1 hour of “news” and 23 hours of “opinion”. Sean Hannity? Opinion. Tucker Carlson? Opinion. So, don’t call it News!

    4. Michael Moore is the Director – and the film is spot on.

      Watch the so called Green Revolution being underpinned by fossil fuels – creating more pollution than coal – and being EROIE deficient. I can understand that you are other “Greenies’ can’t handle the truth. So be it.

    5. The big take away is (probably) the last thing that will be addressed, population. Each study, paper written, movie made and expert panel discussion conducted, if they are truthful, references the underlying cause of population. The film underscores the havoc wrecked upon the earth and all its inhabitants by the unfettered consumption of one in particular, the human. Because we are unwilling (unable perhaps?) to control our population AND our consumption AND because we fiddle while Rome burns, we have crossed many lines in the sand representing opportunities to correct our behavior. Each line included costs, pain and benefits. I dare say that as each line is passed, the costs and pain go up, benefits down.

      It took a pandemic for the world to experience reduced consumption. The fear of death, a nightmarish death. That, in my opinion, is one sure fire way to get humans to reduce consumption. And we have done it; however, with the expectation that it be a one time request.

      Voluntary vs involuntary. Try getting everyone to reduce consumption voluntarily for a positive outcome. Ain’t gonna happen. Everyone is waiting with bated breath on the “reopening.” Who, do you suppose, wants a world with less – as in less children born, less income, less things to buy, less extraction of resources? Of course, there will be positive outcomes from less consumption, like less pollution of the air, water and land. None of which are primary concerns for the millions of people who suddenly found themselves in long lines for food (among other things.) Nope (or yep), the push to BAU will proceed and we will all, again, pay for it.

    6. Maybe i am being biased. But that was a fantastic fucking documentary. So called “green” energy advocates on this forum need to watch this.

      Humans are a fucking cancer on this planet.

      1. “So called “green” energy advocates on this forum need to watch this”

        I would agree, but maybe not for the same reason. I think it’s an educational process everyone needs to experience. Even more so for those who don’t follow the subject. We all pretty much need to do better and realize what’s happening to the environment. Education is the beginning of the process.

        It’s a lot easier to criticize a problem than fix it. I’m glad you appreciated it.

        1. HB,

          Firstly thank you for linking the documentary.

          I definitely agree. Education is the first step. But maybe i am more pessimistic than others on some issues, I think education can be only be affective if the person is willing to learn, or in other words the person has to have a pre-requisite of a free, open, critical, independent mind.

          This documentary like many like it won’t make any changes in my pessimistic opinion, because the society we reside in has been bombarded by propaganda, from all sides of the political/corporate spectrum. Initially through mainstream media, and with technological progress through the internet which should now be more correctly labeled the misinformation highway. You can find any website or video that will reaffirm peoples confirmation bias, and hence strengthens their beliefs, no matter how out of whack it might be.

          Then there is our genetic programming, which poses another huge problem. We, like all other living things on this planet are programmed to procreate and consume. You’ll only see an extremely insignificant portion of people practice antinatalism voluntarily.

          Also the economic system we have built depends on consumerism, without it the system will collapse. I honestly cannot see anyway out of our predicament. Again i am not saying i am correct in my assertion, but that’s how i currently see it.

          1. This documentary like many like it won’t make any changes in my pessimistic opinion,…

            Hell, it strongly confirmed my pessimistic opinion. But I did not watch it to confirm my pessimistic opinion, I watch it because I thought it was just another green energy promotional film. And I like to listen to all sides of any theory just in case I find a flaw in my own opinion.

            Mike, this film is all about Green Illusions, it is not a green energy promotional film.

            1. Ron,

              Definitely agree. But the Green delusionists will continue their beliefs in my opinion. Some might change and reconsider their cognitive dissonance but most won’t.

              As Mark Twain apparently said:

              It is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.

              Not only is this statement true in my opinion, it speaks volumes about the psychological conditioning of human beings.

          2. Hi Mike,

            You make a lot of good arguments. Let me add to your “misinformation highway”, also marketing manipulation gold mine.

            “Also the economic system we have built depends on consumerism, without it the system will collapse”

            I wouldn’t blame consumerism on our economic system. But human nature of wants and laziness. What I think our system needs are regulations and economic incentives to do the right thing. But it seems like today we can’t even agree on the problems.

            I spent most of my career in sales. If there is one thing that I have learned from it, is that a positive attitude is a key ingredient to success. I’m sure the same holds true for professional athletes. How many 12 year old’s do you think have made it to the NBA with the belief they can’t put the ball though the hoop? Not many.

            I try to improve myself by writing and saying things in the image of what I want to be. Than try to hold myself to it. It helps me be the person I want to be. Religion doesn’t do it for me. And than there are times when I’m just a sarcastic asshole and I can help myself.

            Like myself, I think there are a lot here who are “green” energy advocates that don’t think the world is all that EV rosy. The day we were born, the one guaranty we all had was that we are going to die. That never stopped your parents from them giving you their best. I have a 93 year old mother with poor health, but I don’t give up on her.

    7. People who have not watched this film have no business criticizing it. Just google critical reviews of it and quote them. That just shows your laziness as well as your confirmation bias. Sometimes called “my side bias”. You only read or watch only stuff that confirms what you already desire to believe.

      If you can believe that destroying trees, entire forests, to generate electricity, is environmentally friendly then you have short circuit in your head. If you think cutting down all the forests on Borneo and Indonesia to grow renewable energy, palm oil, is good for the planet then you have a serious cognitive thinking problem. Of course, this will mean all orangutans will be extinct within a decade, but what the hell. Promoting green energy is far more important than a few damn orangutans.

      So criticize this film all you like, but if you have not even bothered to watch the whole film then you are a hypocrite.

      1. Just as I expected, 25 minutes into the “documentary” I decided to waste no more of my time with this piece of unambitious propaganda.

        The article at climatecrocks.com wharf rat provided accurately describes what I’ve seen so far and judging from the way this propaganda is made, I expect the rest of the debunking to fit this hyped up waste of time perfectly.

        I will forever laugh at all of you who fell for this ridiculously badly made piece of propaganda.

        1. I will forever laugh at all of you who fell for this ridiculously badly made piece of propaganda.

          And I will forever laugh at stupid asses who criticize something they have never seen. I pointed out two things that were in the second half of the film, cutting down trees, and the entire forest, for wood chips to generate electricity. And cutting down the forest of Borneo and Indonesia to grow palm oil. And, in the process driving the orangutan into extinction.

          And have any of the champions of green energy commented on either? No, of course not. You watched one-quarter of the film and declared it unambitious propaganda. Well, what in the film was unambitious propaganda? Was it the abandoned solar farms with the shattered mirrors, shut down after only a few years of unsuccessful operation? Or was it showing the obvious, that all so-called green energy projects are built using massive amounts of fossil fuel?

          No, you did not critique the film at all, you only watched a quarter of it. You did not have time to form your own opinion by watching the film, you just quoted what some other quack had to say about it. That is what lazy minded people do.

          To successfully attack an argument a man is making, then one must attack the argument. But if you are unable to do that, all is not lost. You can still call him vile names. (Or, quote some other yahoo who does the name calling for you.)

          1. Well, I haven’t seen it. I have a limited amount of time to dedicate to stimulating my sense of outrage. I worked in researching a form of renewable energy for a long time. That doesn’t mean that I swallowed all of the nonsense hook line and sinker. I saw a lot of the snake oil close up. Anything that looks like “the next big thing” attracts crooks and charlatans. Hell, in my last few years in research the Bush administration moved into the space like a dog in heat. And your comment about Palm Oil is exactly right. There is no socially or environmentally redeemable aspect of this travesty. Obama took a lot of crap for advocating a best of everything energy policy. It wasn’t well implemented, but the idea is correct. There is good and bad in all the different technologies and once you become a blind cheerleader for one and reject all the others you close the door on ever being able to support the needs of the world in an environmentally responsible way. Well, it is probably too late for that anyway. But the point remains, no sector deserves to be shielded from a critical examination and improved where possible. It is up to the individual viewers to decide when something crosses the line and becomes propaganda. Perhaps this is, but there is a lot of the renewable energy business that needs cleaning up and if you are serious about it you should welcome that conversation.

            1. I spent much of the day yesterday reading critiques of this film, pro, and con. Pro:

              Planet of the Humans takes a harsh look at how the environmental movement has lost the battle through well-meaning but disastrous choices, including the belief that solar panels and windmills would save us, and by giving in to the corporate interests of Wall Street.

              Con:

              Humans are like cockroaches. We need fewer of them. That’s the fundamental message of Michael Moore’s new documentary, Planet of the Humans.

              It offers no clues as to how we humans, all 7.8 billion of us, should be meeting our needs for energy, food, and shelter.

              Both reviews are spot on. Yes, Wall Street has taken over the renewable energy movement. It has become all about making money, not trying to save the planet or protecting species from being driven into extinction. And yes, there are too many people on this planet and no, there is ultimately no (painless) solution to this problem. And I think it is just stupid of critics to criticize this film for not offering one. One cannot offer something that does not exist.

              But what shocked me the most was the fact that not one person on this blog offered any critique of this film. They chose instead to quote critical sound bites from other critics like ” unambitious propaganda”. Or even worse still, to launch an ad hominem attack of Michael Moore and the producers of the film.

              Of course, there were parts of the film that were dated. The solar arrays were criticized because they were built several years ago. So quite obviously they should be a pile of junk seven or eight years later. How dare they criticize something just because it turned out to be a total money loser and the Wall Street tycoons decided to abandon it?

              But what pissed me off the most was no one, not one person, chose to address the very important points this film addresses, the destruction of the planet in the name of “renewable energy”. Wall Street has taken over and Wall Street doesn’t give a shit about saving the planet.

              Enough of my rant. Nothing holds my rage at the very stupid blinders the “renewable energy gang” are wearing.

            2. Ron —

              “Nothing holds my rage at the very stupid blinders the “renewable energy gang” are wearing.”

              Well, for what it’s worth, this is precisely why I’ve stopped bothering to comment on your Blog Ron.

            3. For what its worth, I am into reality when I am here, so I put high value when people bring up the problems, inconsistency, shortcomings with any line of thinking. It all part of the story.

            4. Well, from my perspective as a researcher, there was this shift during the Bush administration. Before Bush, the effort was for thirty years idealistic. Everyone, or most everyone working for this sense of mission. For the future. Building something for future generations. The DOE under Bush completely reengineered the Renewable Energy program and put Venture Capitalists at the center of the action cutting back on the actual research budgets and making up the shortfalls with Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs). These agreements involved nondisclosure agreements were funded by industry and created a pipeline favoring short term products over blue sky research. Prior to this, the research was mostly in the public domain. After this the scientists in the national labs were basically working as hired guns for venture capitalists. This is the dynamic that gave us the fabled Solyndra which by the way was in the works before Obama came into office and was rubber stamped as a way to get money into the private sector after the crash. It was clearly a scam as I was yelling to everyone who would listen (I am one of the few people in the world with a publication record relevant to that that technology but I was ignored). So, yes it was very frustrating and I began making plans for retirement.

      2. I have now watched it twice. It is revolutionary, although those of us who have been following energy for years won’t be a bit surprised by its message. The surprising bit for me was learning what sold-out assholes Mckibben, Gore, Branson, et al. are. Yet I shouldn’t be surprised, tho.

  9. From the “doctors will be doctors department”, this was the headline in the print edition of the Sunday edition of the older of the the two local daily newspapers in my neck of the woods:

    COVID-19 killer? – Local doctors develop salt filters for masks to fight coronavirus

    “How it works is that as the salt crystals reform during drying, the sharp edges basically cut through the covering of the virus, on contact, like small knives, killing them in about half an hour,” added the medical director of Windsor Wellness Centre and Carivia Medical Ltd.

    If this “salt filter”, which is worn on the inside of cloth masks, proves to be as formidable a weapon as the medical practitioner believes, it could be a game changer in the fight against the highly contagious virus that has now infected close to three million persons globally and killed over 200,000. More than 800,000 persons have recovered worldwide, even as Jamaica now reports 305 confirmed COVID-19 cases and seven deaths, including a four-year-old who had a chronic co-morbid condition.

  10. And so we shall all argue to the end…. never addressing the problem of Overshoot – a rigged stock market – a Civilization powered by fiat debt money which forces future demand into the present at interest, and a criminal ruling elite.

    Let the Boomers continue to demand every last drop of blood they can extract from the future, past, and present Humans in order to continue their luxuriant lifestyles. Because they “deserve it”.

    2. Yes we do, sounds like you missed the gravey train. I’m going to leave mine to the polar bears. Don’t blame overshoot on me.

    3. To label someone a boomer as if they are bad, is just another form of racism. They are born when and to whom they are born. You don’t pick your country, your race, your time. You just arrive.
      People haven’t changed too much in character for 5000 plus plus years, and your cohort will be no different.
      If you meant to be disparaging to the propensity of people to be conducting themselves poorly- being glutinous, greedy, ‘entitled’, and cruel , well you can find plenty of people like that from all walks of life and all countries, in all eras. Its a big bandwagon.

        1. “Shut the fuck up Boomer” is getting quite #trendy too I hear

    1. Watching this got wondering about the medical industry. Is it ripe for disruption? Is there any technology out there that can deliver better health outcomes for a fraction of the cost of the current system?

      1. Yeah it’s called regular exercise. But it’s hard to get when your big economic goal in life is to get dropped off at the front door by a car that then parks itself cuz you’re too lazy to walk over from the parking lot. I suppose the crippled might find it useful though.

        1. Hi Survivalist,

          I think exercise is only half of the needed disruption. The other half is diet and as one gets older the importance continues to grow.

      2. The main problems in the American health care system are systemic, not technological. Europeans enjoy much better health care at much lower cost. There are a variety of systems, including socialized medicine in the UK, and regulated private insurance markets, like in Germany.

        1. Actually, I was thinking more in terms of an approach (integrative) than a “technology” per se.

    2. He deserves it. I have been following him for the past 4-5 years and his prediction have been spot on till now.

  12. This article is a very good discussion of the issues surrounding the corn ethanol industry in the USA, and is certainly germane to the discussion regarding Planet of the Humans, and everything else we talk about here.
    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/ethanol-has-forsaken-us/602191/

    So, anyone know if the USA corn ethanol production is projected to undergo change in production levels this year, given the huge glut of burnable liquid fuels?

    Last year- Fuel ethanol production capacity in the United States totaled 16.9 billion gallons per year (gal/year) or 1.1 million barrels per day (b/d), as of January 2019, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) 2019 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41393

    ..”In other words, the U.S. devotes enough land to corn-ethanol production to feed 150 million people.”
    The RFS (renewable fuel standard) is an indirect subsidy to this industry, requiring that a certain amount of ethanol be added to all gasoline by refiners.

  13. I think we are all hoping that the world will emerge from this covid-19 crisis with a significantly different approach to social and environmental issues that will result in better outcomes. But the inertia is huge and the vested interest in business as usual have very deep pockets including bought politicians. I fear we will proceed in a succession of desperate short upswings each followed by its own Seneca Cliff, without any sensible progress toward a ‘better world’ for the common man. Its messy now, and it will, on average, just get worse. As Orlov said a while ago, we may as well “collapse now, and avoid the rush”.

    1. ” As Orlov said a while ago, we may as well “collapse now, and avoid the rush”.

      That is profound, and demands a long ponder. Avoiding the rush sounds very smart.
      Hmm..collapse now…

    2. The way I see it we’re standing on the brink of a monumental paradigm shift where basic characteristics of humans will be changed permanently at the end of the pandemic. This includes, intelligence, physical features, longevity, sensory systems, endurance, immunity, and so forth. In short, CRISPR will have come in full.

      1. And what the hell is CRISPR? I googled it and got a lot of stuff about bacterial DNA. Obviously it means something else to you.

            1. (both of these women should receive the Nobel Prize, in my opinion)

    3. I think we are all hoping that the world will emerge from this covid-19 crisis with a significantly different approach to social and environmental issues that will result in better outcomes.

      Of course, we are all hoping but it just ain’t gonna happen. This damn virus will kill a lot of people and it may even change the world. But it will not change human nature. And therein lies the problem. Evolution has adapted us for survival, not for environmental preservation. We will still take territory and resources from all other species, and from our own species whenever we can. We will continue to abuse the earth in order to grow our food, build our houses and other structures, abuse the land and water until it is gone.

      Human nature will not change.

      1. Ron is right, to a first approximation.
        But we humans ( and at least one or two other species) have evolved a new strategy, social cooperation, which can override our more primal instincts to some extent, enabling us to solve environmental problems at least at the local level.

        We have even managed to solve problems such as nuclear weapon proliferation, at least in the short term, from WWII until today…… to the extent than nukes haven’t actually been used in anger.

        There’s some hope that some of us will be wise enough, collectively, to work together and save some portions of the natural world to the extent we ( the enlightened cooperators) can continue to live dignified lives.

        The doomsday cult seems to be utterly convinced that we will destroy just about everything before nature destroys us, to the point we are reduced to small bands of survivors living a Stone Age life, or even extinct. I once thought so myself, before I put more thought into it.

        We’re scattered all over, and it’s at least as likely that we will suffer an environmental and economic collapse that wipes out say fifty, sixty, seventy eighty, maybe even ninety percent of us…… but the remainder may be living in places such that something approaching a modern life style can be maintained.

        And this remainder may establish customs and taboos that serve to protect what ever is left of nature at least locally.

        Of course Ron will reply that the barbarians will destroy it all again, and he would be right, so I’m saving him the trouble, lol.

        1. “but the remainder may be living in places such that something approaching a modern life style can be maintained.”

          There are breaking points beyond which a western economy and the resultant lifestyle cannot be maintained. Access to energy, access to food, access to medicine and hygiene, and a sufficient population to allow specialization and trade are required. These are all interlocking: if you don’t have adequate supplies of diesel, say, you may have to choose between producing toilet paper or growing food, or allocating the manpower to produce medicines. Smaller populations will reduce the number of single-task specialists, and thereby reduce the complexity of the technologies available to a civilization.

          It will take a while- perhaps 20 years- but many technologies will disappear when the final generations of technologists and hardware die off. Books will be burned for heat or used for toilet paper, and eventually there will be no systems to access databases.

          If I had to guess, I would place the number of people (connected by trade, not in discrete pockets) to maintain a 1980’s lifestyle at about 500 million.

          2020 lifestyle? 4 billion.

          Both numbers assume current levels of per-capita energy use, and only the top 10% have a western lifestyle equivalent.

            2. “It may be highly unlikely that we will be able to pull the brake. Nonetheless, we have the moral obligation to try. Success might not be probable, but it is surely possible. ”

              I’m keeping positive!

          2. Hey Lloyd. I believe the average human in 2020 uses considerably more resources than the average human did in 1980. Things like animal protein, plastic, metal. Remember that the average person had much lower purchasing power in much of world than they currently do.
            Per capita – the number of cars, cell phones, toothbrushes, toilet paper, computers, tires, airplanes, shoes is much higher now than then, in all countries.

            1. Hickory,

              If we focus on fossil fuel energy use (oil, coal, and natural gas), in 2018 the per capita use was about 10% higher on average for the World compared to 1979 (peak use before 1980s oil shock.)

              Peak oil in 2027, peak coal (2013 so far, but perhaps 2030) and peak natural gas will result in a decrease in per capita fossil fuel energy use, at least until World population peaks in 2070 or so, though perhaps wind, solar, EVs, nuclear, better efficiency, and technological innovation might allow us to eliminate combustion of petroleum products extracted from underground as well as coal by 2070. Difficult to predict how quickly this might occur, my guess is that 2070 is fairly conservative, we might be able to accomplish this by 2050 to 2060. By “this”, I mean zero combustion of fossil fuels extracted from the earth (some synthetic fuel might be produced from excess wind and solar as energy storage and back up and perhaps for air transport.)

            2. You’re right: I should have said “energy use at their respective levels” rather than “current”.

              That said, I was speaking more to the general unlikeliehood of either figure being possible. I think that any collapse will result in chaos and insularity rather than openness and self-sacrifice for the greater good. Little pockets rather than trade and specialization.

      2. “Of course, we are all hoping but it just ain’t gonna happen.”

        I agree but not for the same reason. There will be entities fighting, tooth and nail, to restore BAU no matter what. Humanity as a whole may want better things but they will not be allowed them.

        NAOM

  14. This is likely the very best time, ever, for the members of this forum to read The Meditations.
    Free online of course.

    Old Marcus forgot more about peace of mind that the entire psych department faculty combined at a typical university will ever know. Sarc light is on but not blazing.

    1. A bit puzzled. I thought a survivalist would be enthusiastic about EV’s, since
      – it allows them to have a vehicle that they can ‘fuel’ themselves with PV from their own solar array. No refineries to rely on for ability to travel and get cargo, etc.
      -it allows a vehicle with moving parts reduced from about 2000 down to 20, so much less maintenance and need for replacement parts from afar.
      Or is it just the Elon Musk thing? (I can understand that).

      1. Simple, he is long BYD and short Tesla. Either that or Musk hit on his girlfriend. I can’t decide which it is.

      1. There playing the world series up there this year due to coronavirus!

  20. Above Ron said –
    “But what pissed me off the most was no one, not one person, chose to address the very important points this film addresses, the destruction of the planet in the name of “renewable energy”. Wall Street has taken over and Wall Street doesn’t give a shit about saving the planet.

    Enough of my rant. Nothing holds my rage at the very stupid blinders the “renewable energy gang” are wearing.”

    Well, I’ll chime in on that point. The attempt to come up with some alternative energy source to fossil fuel is a rational response to what we all know is a huge problem (population overshoot, fossil depletion and carbon driven climate change, and generalized severe destruction of the ecosphere ). There are no good choices for the predicament we are in. Any attempt to adapt will a choice of lesser evils, as long as we exist.

    It is obvious that the greatest (and only meaningful) solution would be to achieve rapid massive population downsizing. Lets hear the proposals for that………. Its very quiet…. I’m all ears. Please refrain from cruelty, I know its hard for you human.

    In the absence of massive population downsizing, people will try to do something to carry them and their families on for the next decades. Anyone got a better idea than solar and wind, lets hear about it. Lets see its viability, and show us how it is lesser evil.

    I acknowledge that these technologies are environmentally destructive, like everything that man touches. The problem, beside population overshoot. is our character. We are a severely flawed species. I am not a believer that there is a cure for that. Perhaps minor improvement through lifelong training. Religions have failed miserably in this.

    I am not eager for a crash and burn population scenario, and neither is anyone who reads this note. If they truly were serious about it, they would have already voluntarily removed themselves from existence, in order to end their destructive presence on this earth. Actions speak louder than words.
    Short of that, we can all take big steps to lessen our footprint, for example travel very few miles and eat much less meat. Those kind of measures should be our biggest focus, beyond birth control.

    1. I don’t know. Feels a little unfair to call humans a severely flawed species. We just do what every other species does, which is reproduce and fill our niche to it’s maximum carrying capacity. We’re just clever enough that we’ve expanded our niche to be vast, along with our impacts.

      Nobody looks at a life extincting meteor asteroid and says ‘that is a severely flawed meteor asteroid, why you do this bad thing?” as it slams into the Yucatan.

      And humans are amazing. Art, music, science, engineering, agriculture, language. Not bad for a pack of primates. And that language thing, it allows us to tell stories, lies if you prefer, and that seems to introduce a software component into the equation for us in a way that it doesn’t seem to for other species. We can be programmed. This can be good, and bad both. We’re an incredibly social species, and our cooperation, in my opinion, has gotten us a lot further along than competition has.

      I think it is Jared Diamond that tells an anecdote about New Guinea highlanders who encounter a stranger having to try and establish that they share some thread of social connection or kinship with each other, or they must fight. Try that as a social norm on Fifth Avenue.

      We are now so cooperative that we have vast networks of supply chains that span the entire globe. Strangers supplying strangers who they will never meet, and for some of us, the definition of ‘our’ tribe includes all humans, and it is starting to expand to include other animals, sentient or even otherwise.

      So, we live by our myths as Joseph Campbell phrases it. We tell stories that govern our behavior, largely for reasons of social conformity. That’s what religion is, and it survived because it served its purpose, for a long time. Perhaps that time is past. It is clear we need a new story. Some say capitalism must end for the planet to survive, or that industrialization must, or we must abandon technology. Perhaps. Or maybe it is not those things themselves, but our way of practicing them.

      What would happen if we allowed those things to continue, but fixed the externalization problem. What if we said, “you cannot pollute for free”? I’m personally not smart enough to say.

      But I look at the ~60% of energy that we currently discard and think that represents a big chunk of potential gain. PV is more efficient at converting sunlight to energy than photosynthesis is, so why grow biofuel to burn once instead of making a PV panel that will produce energy for 25 to 100 years. An electric motor is more efficient by far than animal muscle, so why would we go back to horse power? Yes, these things require vast and destructive industries and economies to exist, but are those really incapable of being reformed to be less destructive?

      My personal biases are in favor of solar, wind, water, tides, geothermal as sources for energy, so as for the Planet of the Humans Film goes, I thought they cherry picked R.E. disaster projects to highlight, and (as criticized) ignored the current state of the technology. But hey, my biases are also against the burning of things generally (don’t even do campfire anymore if I’m alone), so of course they were spot on about the bio-fuels.

      So yeah, maybe there is no hope to be had. Definitely too many people, but the global median age is 30, and global life expectancy is about 73, so half the current population will be dead of natural causes within the next 25 years. It’s a question of how many will be born.

      Maybe the only sustainable humans are small populations of hunter-gatherer-scavengers, but it’s not like we can propose that as the goal for our transition strategy, can we? If we reduce the population to a size than can sustainably hunt and gather, why can’t we still include mountain bikes? Maybe even electric ones. After all, there would be enormous piles of resources lying about everywhere left over from we the Ancient Industrials, and I’ll bet those scavengers will like solar panels a lot while they are still to be had.

      One thing you can credit Jeff Gibbs film with, he’s injected a bit of life into the discussion here.

      *edited cuz, meteors are good guys.

      1. “as for the Planet of the Humans Film goes, I thought they cherry picked R.E. disaster projects to highlight, and (as criticized) ignored the current state of the technology.”
        Agree Bob. That was disappointing and almost got me to tune out. The makers definitely had an agenda. Nonetheless worthy message they present for consideration.

        Regarding the characterization of humans as severely flawed- well I stand by that. For example, we kill far more than we can eat, without pause to consider the death of the other animal. We have committed 100 millions acts of severe cruelty, for absolutely no purpose. We treat the biosphere as though it was no more valuable that the surface of Neptune, even though we are fully aware of the incredible unique magnificence of life. I could go on, but clearly we have a character that has a huge horror streak embedded within. We have seen the goodness and creativity that humans are capable of, but is not the dominant theme of human history.

        1. We have seen the goodness and creativity that humans are capable of, but is not the dominant theme of human history.

          That’s because history cherry picks focuses on the atrocities. They are much more memorable. I question the premise though. I’d say goodness and creativity, overall, far outweigh the evil in human behavior.

          Would you say that there are more people on this planet that are willing to help you, or that are willing to hurt you? That’s not a rhetorical question. Which do you think is the majority?

          Yes, we can be very violent, but that is pervasive amongst animals. At least we aren’t as murderous as some others, meerkats, say, and we’re not the only species that’s known to kill just for amusement, but as far as we know we’re the only one who philosophizes against it, and a lot of the evil we do is collectively evil. One human with a campfire isn’t ‘evil’. Seven billion campfires at once perhaps is.

          As Synapsid would say, time for port, and that reminds me. I forgot to include gastronomy in my list of positive human achievements. There’s a few more croissants to be had before the famine hits. Might as well have one.

          I’ll share. 🙂

          1. I’d say goodness and creativity, overall, far outweigh the evil in human behavior.

            Bob, you are using the wrong words. Every species lives to the very limits of its existence. Every species tries to take food and resources from every other species… and from others of its own species. It has absolutely nothing to do with goodness or evil, it’s just nature, red in tooth and claw.

            The debate concerning the peaceful noble savage has been raging for 300 years. It started with Thomas Hobbs, “the life of the savage was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” and Jean-Jaques Rousseau. Rousseau’s savage, except when hungry, was the friend of all creation and the enemy of none. Rousseau was the origin of the myth of the peaceful noble savage.

            Rousseau’s view held sway among archeologists and anthropologists for most of the 20th century. It was only in the last 40 years or so that academia, via extensive field research, has come to understand that Rousseau’s view of the noble savage was a complete myth. Primitive tribes were almost constantly at war.

            But my point is, none of this has anything to do with good or evil. It is just human nature. It is just what we do. All species are always competing with other species as well as members of their own species, for food and territory. We always have and we always will.

            Not only are human societies never alone, but regardless of how well they control their own population or act ecologically, they cannot control their neighbors’ behavior. Each society must confront the real possibility that its neighbors will not live in ecological balance but will grow its numbers and attempt to take the resources from nearby groups. Not only have societies always lived in a changing environment, but they always have neighbors. The best way to survive in such a milieu is not to live in ecological balance with slow growth, but to grow rapidly and be able to fend off competitors as well as take resources from others.

            Steven LeBlanc, “Constant Battles: Why We Fight” page 73

            1. Yes, you’re correct about the words good and evil. I’m an atheist. I know they’re loaded with baggage. Call their usage poetic license. It’s a bit dry isn’t it to always have to write out “engaging in behaviors generally considered detrimental, or beneficial” or similar all the time? Evil is a good dramatic word. I’d hate for only religious people to be able to use it.

          2. Well, regardless whether we think of our species as flawed or perfect, good or evil, wise or idiotic, it is really beside the point and perhaps I shouldn’t have brought it up in this discussion.
            Bottomline, when considering our size and the way we behave, there are just too fucking many of us. Maybe 5 billion.
            If we were the size of protozoa and had no hands and existed on photosynthesis, it wouldn’t really matter if we practiced genocide at regular intervals, or shit in our own water, or destroyed everything else within a 87 micrometers circumference of our ‘soul’.
            But alas it not so, we are the destroyer of worlds.

            2. I would say 1 billion is a good number to aim for so about 6.782 billion too many, by that estimate, World population was roughly 1 billion in 1800 CE. About 10,000 years ago it was between 5 and 10 million, by several different estimates.

            3. For most of our existence, it has been 1-10 million, with a near extinction 70,000 years ago.
              Unlike today, we had intact ecosystems.

            5. In my opinion, we won’t make it on the other side of exponential population decline. War will take place for resources.

              There is no going back to those stabilised population levels. I am probably wrong but thats just merely my opinion.

    2. “It is obvious that the greatest (and only meaningful) solution would be to achieve rapid massive population downsizing. Lets hear the proposals for that”

      Covid 19.

      =

      I did some very rough estimates a while back. Atmospheric CO2 is going up just over 6 gigatons/year, or a little more than 2 gt/ppm CO2. The US produces a bit more than 6gt/year,

      Let’s kick up our death rate, from 2.8M/year to 1M/day. We’ll be gone in a year. If the rest of the world keeps their FF consumption at current levels, CO2 might level off, altho temps will still go up a few tenths of a degree over the next 30-40 years.

      OTH, if the rest of the world says, “Look; 250M vehicles and lots of oil; let’s loot the place”, our vanishing from the scene won’t mean a thing

  21. So, I took the plunge and watched the movie. While I do not disagree with what it is saying, it does seem to paint with a very broad brush and is somewhat misleading in the weight it gives to the various forms of renewable energy. Judging on the time spent on each topic one could be forgiven for believing that solar thermal (broken mirrors) produces as much energy as solar PV or maybe even more, when in fact solar thermal contributed 0.45% of all renewable electricity in the US last year and solar PV contributed an estimated total of 14.45%. It is uncertain if anymore solar thermal plants will be built as the falling costs of solar PV and battery storage have made them uncompetitive.

    As for biofuels, IMO they are a boondoggle and will eventually be shown to be so. As Bob Nickson pointed out further up PV is several times more efficient than photosynthesis when electricity is the final goal. With top tier PV modules having efficiencies in excess of 20% we are talking about an order of magnitude more efficient in some cases. Palm oil for fuel is a gigantic mistake and one only hopes that we will be forgiven for making it. We will never be able to make good on the creatures who’s habitat has been destroyed. Sugar cane fuel ethanol falls into the same category and the burning of canefields for harvesting is an old practice that was done to make it easier for human laborers to harvest the cane. I thought it had been discontinued with the advent of mechanised harvesting but, in Jamaica for example it is still standard practice even though the sugar factories have asked that it be discontinued since it makes the sugar cane more difficult and costly to process. In addition the practice wastes a lot of energy that could be used by biomass burning processes at the factories instead of just going to waste. I don’t think anything more needs to be said about the insanity of biofuels from corn.

    One note about burning biomass is that when one sees news about uncontrollable forest fires, it is tempting to think that burning all that biomass in electricity generating plants would be better than watching it burn without anything having been gained from it.

    When they turned to EVs, they showed how long ago the footage was shot. The “new” Chevy Volt went on sale in December 2010 and has since seen a second generation which has now been discontinued. When they were badgering the lady from GM about the source of the electricity, it was said that the local utility was using 90% coal. It is very unlikely that that is still the case and as the EPM reports show, coal has gone from contributing almost 50% of US electricity in 2005 to just about 23.5% in 2019 with the downward trend continuing.

    The impression created that renewables will not “move the needle” so to speak is misleading. The UK is now experiencing their longest coal free run of electricity generation at 19 days and 4 hours at the time of this post and renewable electricity generation is breaking records in Germany and Australia as well. One is tempted to ask, if all this investment was not going into renewables what would the world look like? There are some here who seem to take joy in pointing out to those of us who are hopeful that renewables will make a difference some day that lots of new coal plants are still being built but, the point being missed by this movie is that renewables are sitting up to turn all these new coal plants into stranded assets. A new report from BNEF stated as much just yesterday. The question is, if not renewables, where will the electricity come from to satisfy our thirst for it?

    While the film does mention population growth as a major problem, it chooses to focus on renewable energy rather than the taboo subject of liming population growth or even trying to reduce the numbers.

    I took a few minutes to look at the numbers for renewables in the latest EPM data and create a couple of charts. Wind and Hydro are the big contributors going forward in the electricity generation scene in the US with Solar third. Biomass is a two bit player. (See chart below) At the same time renewable generation has doubled over the period covered by the chart and wind has grown to be a bigger contributor than hydro and solar has gone from basically nothing to about 14%. The movie appears to have been made about ten years ago when things were a lot differebt.

    I would point out that the solar array that was shown that used 8% efficient modules could have the modules changed and achieve almost three times the output using the same area, just by using the highest efficiencies currently available.

    Generally the movie seemed to want to make renewables out to be the bogeyman when there are lots of other more fitting candidates for that title.

    1. Hi IB, just had a longish look at Feb EPM. Very interesting pattern unfolding. Coal came in at only 56 TWH. And this was pre pandemic.

      Can you please post the Feb EPM with all the beautiful trendlines. I have grown accustomed to look at EPM through your charts.

    3. I spent over 30 years working on PV technology and efficiency was always my focus. As an old retired fart I currently have single crystal Sunpower modules on my house that have an efficiency of 23% but if we were really serious about efficiency we could be moving into a regime where 30% is the norm. We just don’t have the national commitment to do that. Never have. We can make a nearly 50% efficient cell in the lab. My old group just did that, they just published in Nature. They are expensive multi-junction III-V devices designed to operated under high flux. But there are promising strategies to significantly lower the cost of manufacturing these things particularly at utility scale. You can use a template to grow the films and remove them from the template many times minimizing the amount of materials. We know basically how to do these things. We just aren’t serious about putting the money into the work that would be required to make it real.

      In the mid 80’s we had a portfolio of about seven different PV technologies all of which could have been moved into large scale manufacturing. The problem was that there is this issue with new technologies called “The valley of death” whereby a very large investment is needed to overcome the entrenched legacy technology. It will lose money for years and no private company is willing to take this on. It requires government intervention in the marketplace. And in the United States we have a State religion that says that the government can’t do that. So, these technologies languished until the Chinese looked at them and chose the one that fit their technological industrial and manpower base. That was multi-crystalline silicon. Was it the best of the seven. No. We felt that all seven had the potential to be successful and most were potentially more efficient. But the Chinese were willing to make the investment to shepherd multi crystalline silicon through “The Valley of death”. And that is what they did. So, now we have economically viable multi-crystalline silicon solar cells. And in the process, it has dragged single crystal silicon into the market place as well. Single crystal silicon is inherently more efficient. But those other technologies are still there. And there are others still yet to be exploited. However, as long as the United States clings its State religion, we will never be the ones to bring them to market.

  22. Posted by Michael Moore a few hours ago on Facebook:

    FOUR MILLION VIEWS ONE WEEK

    Planet of the Humans

    Wow. Thanks everyone. We environmentalists, we citizens, are losing the climate catastrophe battle. Wall Street and Corporate America have co-opted parts our green movement. We are out of time. This current virus should be a wake-up call. The next assault on humans will be far worse. Can we just admit that our strategy for fighting the destruction of our natural world has failed and that we need new direction, new leadership. A new NEW green deal. And no more collaborating with billionaires, Koch and fossil fuel-funded foundations, and politicians who’ve succeed at nothing. 350 parts per million? We’re way beyond that limit which we were told a decade ago was “the point of no return.” We are now at 415ppm! This is madness! I refuse to remain silent. I make movies that end up forcing me to tell you the uncomfortable truths that occasionally some of our “liberal” leaders would rather keep from us, especially when they involve people we know and respect. We are overwhelmed with everything right now. Yet the fact that over 4 million of you have watched our film when your main job currently is staying alive through the summer — well, this confirms my belief that people not only can handle the truth, but are relieved someone – filmmaker Jeff Gibbs, in this case – has finally said what most of us had been thinking for some time: That our beloved environmental movement, which has diligently worked hard for years to stop the planet’s demise is, sadly, failing — in part because of wrong choices that have been made. This brings us no joy to say this. Time to usher in a new way! Let’s have that discussion! Share this movie with friends and family – it’s free on YouTube! Let’s resolve to fight like we’ve never fought before.

    1. Ron, if you haven’t read Zehner’s book Green Illusions or listened to his talks on YouTube, you may want to do that. His approach is somewhat simplistic but does the important job of questioning the path of “renewable energy and green actions” as it is applied today.

      The used car salesman approach and personal attacks used by promoters of renewable energy on this site is disgusting and not worth my time. There is no stopping this new religion of “Green” and “Renewable Technology” as itis heavily intertwined in BAU. It will fail, but at one more huge cost and waste of time. It has been ineffective so far, merely promoting more growth and ecological destruction through support of the very systems it pretends to eliminate.

      Good luck to you and yours, spring is here in the north and the real green is appearing once more.

      Down with the fake. Maybe the forced destruction of the economy by the government response to a mild pandemic will bring some reality back to this culture.

      1. “The used car salesman approach and personal attacks used by promoters of renewable energy on this site is disgusting and not worth my time. There is no stopping this new religion of “Green” and “Renewable Technology” as it’s heavily intertwined in BAU. It will fail, but at one more huge cost and waste of time. It has been ineffective so far, merely promoting more growth and ecological destruction through support of the very systems it pretends to eliminate.”

        That’s so true, couldn’t have said it better myself!

      3. Thanks, GF, I have the book but I haven’t gotten around to reading it yet. I buy about twice as many books as I have time to read. But I will watch the Youtube videos by Ozzie Zehner. In fact, I am watching one right now.

        Thanks again.

      4. Yaass queen! Keep slaying those nasty nasty greenie weenies by spilling the tea about “Green” and “Renewable Technology”! ???

      5. We are slated to get a big solar “farm” on our little road here in Maine. And I’m fucking pissed about it.

  23. Listened to Tesla Earnings call and have decided Musk is an idiot, sometimes smart people are so damned arrogant, don’t recognize their own ignorance, and they don’t know when to shut the F up.

    A very poor performance by Musk.

    See

    https://fortune.com/2020/04/29/elon-musk-calls-covid-19-lockdowns-fascist-distracting-from-another-tesla-earnings-win/

    “To say that they cannot leave their house, and that they will be arrested if they do – this is fascist,” Tesla CEO Elon Musk ranted on Wednesday, attacking shelter-at-home orders aimed at curtailing the coronavirus pandemic. “Give people back their god damn freedom.”

    …

    “The extension of shelter-in-place, or as I would say forcibly imprisoning people against their constitutional rights . . . it will cause great harm not just to Tesla, but to many companies,” Musk said. “While Tesla will weather the storm, other companies will not.”

    Musk’s outburst came during what should have been a celebratory earnings call. For much of March, it seemed entirely plausible that the coronavirus pandemic could pose an existential threat to Tesla, which had shuttered factories and was staring down a shaken economy. While the company is not yet out of the woods, Musk has at least kept the bears at bay a bit longer with today’s reported net profit of $16 million, or 9 cents per share.

    1. Dennis, you are incorrect about Elon and should apologize. In this case he is not wrong.

      Musk is not stupid, he is right, though I don’t know if his path of reasoning is proper, but he got to the correct answer. We all should be very pissed off at this oh so old method of control, where some states are even stopping and quarantining out of state travelers plus using National Guard surveys to remove and quarantine out of state people from homes. Plus huge damage to the economy while trillions of dollars again flow to big business and banks, placing the future in jeopardy for the rest of us.

      Listen carefully to this fellow. He is one of many who actually are knowledgeable and realistic in their approach, rather than ignorant politically correct reactionaries while using outdated methods. We have learned a few things in the many outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics of the last century or so. There was no need for economic and personal lockdown as was done, not for the general population.
      Only a small portion of the population, most older, ill and retired, needed protection and quarantine. Plus the extent of infection was far more advanced than was generally broadcast when the “lockdown” started. Plus the methods of control are really not effective, slowing the rate of infection merely forces many vulnerable people to be exposed to active cases as the society is allowed to open again.
      High costs for increased harm is not to be commended, though it will be.

      Perspective on Pandemics —- Professor Knut Wittkowski
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0Q4naYOYDw

      and the earlier interview this was based upon
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGC5sGdz4kg

      I do not expect most people to comprehend the professor’s points but at least a few may get it. Soon history may be muddled by more propaganda and media hype but I expect a book or two will be quite revealing about the huge mishandling and vast harm done by reactionary government edict using inappropriate and ineffective methods. Credit will be taken for what happens naturally in these cases without much action at all.
      But the facade of human control must be kept up, no curtains or hoods lifted.

      I also expect a lot of ad hominem attacks as usual.

      See you Dennis, thanks for all your work here.

      1. Gone fishing,

        I appreciate the differing perspectives, in some cases the minority viewpoint may be the correct one. Before watching your video, I would point out that the minority viewpoint is not always correct, in the case of public health, I have a tendency to trust the mainstream view.

        I thank you for your insightful comments over the years, you are missed (along with Doug).

        1. Erasthones, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Girolomo Fracastoro, Wegener, to name a few of the “minority mindsets”. Let me remind you that it can take decades to centuries for the herd mindset to finally realize the “minority” mindset is correct and they were very, very wrong. In the meantime much harm can be done and much “progress” stalled. Or in some cases, much harm can be delayed and much horror held off.
          If you are not thinking outside the box, you are merely running in place, making heat and repeating mantra.

          1. As I suggested the minority view is not always incorrect, also note that the names you mention are to a large degree now the mainstream view in many fields, the point is that I do not consider myself enough of an expert in every field of knowledge to determine which view is “correct”.

            Perhaps I am a bit humble in this regard. Sometimes out of the box thinking is incorrect in my view, and personally I rely on experts in any given field to make that determination.

            https://www.rockefeller.edu/news/27872-rockefeller-university-releases-statement-concerning-dr-knut-wittkowski/

            Wittkowski was previously employed by Rockefeller as a biostatistician. He has never held the title of professor at Rockefeller.

            The following article also discussed his views, which is essentially allow the virus to run its course and infect the population widely.

            The problem with that approach is that the healthcare system quickly becomes overwhelmed and more people die than necessary due to lack of ICU beds and respirators.

            So I disagree with Musk and Wittkowski and the idea that establishing herd immunity as quickly as possible is the right approach.

      2. Ok you’re lazily trolling. Nobody wants to catch this bug, and reopening the economy will likely cause second wave of infections.
        Pandemic experts and pundits can’t accurately claim that social distancing, etc is ineffective, because it has never been implemented like it has been now. It might be extremely effective, but it’s already undermined because #reopen has taken over, and the inertia will overcome any calls for ‘re-close’.
        Enron Musk has morphed into a Trump protege.

  24. Don’t suggest I’m advocating coal but here’s a pinch of reality….

    SATELLITE IMAGES REVEAL HUGE AMOUNTS OF METHANE LEAKING FROM U.S. OIL FIELD

    “The methane gas escaping the Permian Basin is so excessive that it has tripled the typical heating impact it would have otherwise had through burning the gas. Evidence of this massive leakage undercuts the case made by proponents of natural gas who tout its cleaner-burning qualities over that of its normally dirtier-burning cousin, coal…

    The most up-to-date thinking is that comparing coal and natural gas to generate electricity, gas is worse than coal if the methane emission rate is greater than 2.7%. However, the Permian Basin’s emission rate is higher than that — 3.7% of the gross gas extracted. THEREFORE, THE LEAKAGE IN THE PERMIAN BASIN IS SO HIGH IT MAKES GAS AND OIL EMISSIONS MORE INTENSIVE THAN EVEN COAL.” The caps are mine.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/methane-permian-basin-oil-gas-climate-change/

    1. Doug, do you know if this leakage has to do with poor technique (saving money), or is just inherent to the process of gas production?

      1. Hickory —

        Don’t know, probably both, just remember – “the next time someone tells you that natural gas is a form of clean energy, point out that cleaner doesn’t mean clean, just as better doesn’t mean good. And then remind this person that as long as we/you have a president who’s as committed to gutting environmental laws as Trump is, the path from better to bad to worse is a short one.”

        THE NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY HAS A METHANE PROBLEM

        https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/natural-gas-industry-has-methane-problem

        1. Doug,

          When people look at coal emissions, it is not clear they consider the methane that is often released as a part of coal mining operations.

          I agree both coal and natural are bad, we should improve efficiency and use as little energy as possible, preferably none, though that’s a high bar.

          Potentially wind and solar can be built to replace coal and natural gas as electricity sources, eventually excess wind or solar can be used to produce “green methane, or hydrogen” to store energy and be used as backup during low solar and/or wind periods.

    2. Last I knew, methane was CH4. Oxidize (burn) it and you get CO2 and H2O. Doesn’t matter if it’s coal or natural gas, you’re gonna get CO2. In fact, you can extend that to include burning any carbonaceous fuel, so petroleum, wood, dung, etc. On the other hand, hydro, solar, wind, and nuclear don’t produce CO2 directly, which is why seeing all the increased investment and growth in those technologies is wonderful. The other neat thing is that they can also be used to some extent to power the oil & gas industry itself.

  26. When all is said and done regarding Planet of the Humans, we didn’t learn anything substantial.
    The idea that there is ‘no free lunch’ applied to the ecology was widely accepted as reality in the 1970’s, and no technological advance has revoked the laws of thermodynamics.
    We already knew that that we are picking the lesser of two evils when we attempt to shift to ‘renewable’ solar and wind.
    We should not pretend that this shift is a panacea that would allow this human bulldozer to just roll on.
    And, as the film did a fair job of pointing out, industrial scale biofuel production is not a lesser of evils. It is an environmental failure on a grand scale. That is clear to anyone who has been paying attention.

    What I ask Ron and others who are fond of pointing out the shortcomings of renewable energy source transition is- Picture yourself as a young person, say 25 yrs old. You hope to live on for many decades. You acknowledge all the environmental and economic issues we discuss here. Just what kind of energy policy should you support, work to enact, put your dollar, put your vote?
    And I will add this- if you have nothing constructive to contribute to the answer, consider that all of these 5 Billion younger people are unlikely interested in the opinion. They can imagine doom on their own, without any help.
    Thanks for your perspective.

    1. Hi Hickory,

      I am 35 years old, and antinatalism makes the most sense to me. I think the key points is a reform to the economic system and a reduction in population. So i decided the only thing i can currently do is not have children. It also makes sense to me from a philosophical/moral perspective.

      No matter what energy policy we follow we are going to damage the biosphere, one way or another. There are so many things that are impossible to predict due to the complexity of the world we live in. Hence human action has often led to disaster. The same cycle will continue regardless of what policies will follow. Almighty dollar rules this domain.

      Bottom line is we are evolved to be hunters and gatherers. And live in small communities/tribes. Every activity in the industrial world we created is in some ways at odds with the way we are meant to live according to our biological programming.

    2. What I ask Ron and others… Picture yourself as a young person, say 25 yrs old… Just what kind of energy policy should you support, work to enact, put your dollar, put your vote?

      Hickory, the question is not complete. Would my knowledge be that of a 25-year-old or are you assuming I would know, at 25, what I know now at 81? (82 next month.) So I will try to answer both questions.

      When I was 25 years old world population was 3.2 billion people. I was not at all concerned with the ecological problems of the world back then. But if I were 25 today, I really don’t know. I would very likely be like most 25-year-old men today, and not at all concerned with anything but my own future and financial situation. I would like to think I would have some knowledge of the dire situation the world is in. But it would be foolish to say that I would be so wise. At any rate, I would likely just go about my daily life as if everything were fine and dandy.

      But, if I were 25 today and know what I know at this very ripe old age, I would definitely have a different outlook on life. I would know what the future likely holds for me and for the rest of humanity. So what kind of energy policy would I support? I wouldn’t support any policy because I would know, in fact, I do know, that my support would make no difference whatsoever. The world would, and will, continue its merry way toward oblivion. But there will be survivors. What I would do is try to make plans to be among those survivors.

    3. Hi Hickory,

      I’d probably pull up stakes and move my family to a country such as New Zealand (or perhaps New Caledonia) for a whole bunch of reasons. Quite a few wealthy people have already done this, though more often they’ve bought property there rather than having physically moved (yet!). I lived in NZ for two years and see it as the perfect spot for a “bold hole”.

      WEALTHY AMERICANS HAVE STEPPED UP INVESTMENT IN NEW ZEALAND.

      “Years of doomsday talk at Silicon Valley dinner parties has turned to action. In recent months, two 150-ton survival bunkers journeyed by land and sea from a Texas warehouse to the shores of New Zealand, where they’re buried 11 feet underground. Seven Silicon Valley entrepreneurs have purchased bunkers from Rising S Co. and planted them in New Zealand in the past two years, said Gary Lynch, the manufacturer’s general manager. At the first sign of an apocalypse — nuclear war, a killer germ, a French Revolution-style uprising targeting the 1 percent — the Californians plan to hop on a private jet and hunker down.”

      https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doomsday-preppers/

      1. NZ has very restrictive immigration policies.
        For obvious reasons.
        I’ve never been called on it on South Island.

    4. All understandable reactions to our situation. Thanks.
      I also am anti-natal, and made the deliberate decision to have no children.
      And I am glad that my state is taking fairly strong steps to decrease the carbon footprint of its energy use.

    5. Speaking for myself, as a young man, I saw this coming in the 70’s. Thought that a shift to wind and solar was about the only shot we had. Spent my working life trying to make it happen and we failed. I don’t regret the decision. Hell, you gotta make a living. And has been pointed out ad nauseam in this forum and others the “green movement” has effectively been coopted by Wall Street and other greed heads turning into grist for black humor at this point. But the failure was sociological and political, not technological. We had the means to pull this off by the late nineties. We just didn’t want to spend the money. Same story with Pandemic protection. We were always willing to write a blank check to fight WWIII. Never to fight the real threats. Tragic really. Tragic and incredibly stupid and immature. Like little kids who never stop playing with GI Joes. They grow up and just start buying bigger and more expensive toys until all the wealth of the most prosperous nation on the face of the Earth gets thrown down that rat hole.

  27. Please take note- especially Ron and Dennis

    I did not make that post immediately above- “Everybody should read this from James Howard Kunstler:

    Someone has impersonated me on this site. Happens again and I will disappear.
    Please advise.

  28. Hickory and HuntingtonBeach, someone hijacked your name and posted a Howard Kunstler post in your name. I have deleted them both. When I deleted them any replies to them were automatically deleted also.

    Hey, sometimes these things happen. Neither Dennis or I have any control over such attacks. Please don’t get upset about them. All we can do is delete them when we are advised of the fact. They did not have your email address, only your name. They were posted using a different email address.

    1. Hi Ron, thanks for the heads up. Absolutely no hard feelings. At least I was with good company with Hickory. I think Dennis and yourself do a great jobs managing this site. Giving posters the freedom to use colorfull vocabulary with the ability to vent and yet keeping it all respectful. Thanks again for starting peakoilbarrel.com after the retirement of TOD. I learn things here all the time and community has a large number of great contributors which are all part of the sites success.

    2. Thanks for the explanation Ron. I am surprised that two different people (or emails) could select the same name to post under. Seems there should be a ‘name already taken, select different name’ function with WordPress.

  30. The movie almost completely ignores photovoltaics, which are taking over the energy market, so it is pretty much useless. The long section on concentrating solar power is a red herring.

    Here are some interesting links:

    https://commercialsolarguy.com/2020/05/01/top-ten-list-of-lowest-solar-power-prices-in-the-world-updated-may-1-2020/

    https://www.jwnenergy.com/article/2020/4/solar-and-wind-cheapest-sources-power-most-world/

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-30/renewables-are-the-only-winners-in-historic-decline-in-energy-demand

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51799503

    Like it or not, PV continues to grow, every during the pandemic. Prices have fallen 90% since the footage in the film was made, and there is no end in sight.

    It isn’t an Illuminati conspiracy, or evil foreigners, or capitalist pigs, or communists disguised as environmentalists. It’s just technical innovation, like when electronic pocket calculators killed the slide rule industry.

    It’s not going to save the world or destroy it, but it will significantly reduce our carbon footprint and airborne pollutants.

    1. Looking at the trends in the chart I posted further up, they could be forgiven. In 2009 solar thermal generated some 735 GWh compared to 157 GWh from PV! Who could have guessed that PV wolud grow to over 400 times that amount by 2019 while solar thermal only grew by a factor of less than 5?

      2. Islandboy,

        Not really forgivable, a 5 minute internet search would show that solar thermal is insignificant today.

    2. “Prices have fallen 90% since the footage in the film was made, and there is no end in sight.”

      PV costs $2,50 a watt installed around here with a 13.7 year payback time. Just to feed the grid.

      Insulation pays back in one season around here and reduces GHG emissions up to 20X faster per dollar spent.

      If economics and GHG reduction is the aim, there are a lot better places to invest money than PV. If having symbols to promote one’s “green” status is the aim then have at the PV-EV -battery backup scheme.

      1. You can plant a tree for one dollar through some NGO’s.
        For $10,000 one can not only sequester 34000 tons of CO2 over a 60 year period plus help the life on this planet in many ways.
        Or you can spend that $10,000 on PV, that reduces CO2 by about 2 tons per year in the US. Of course the PV system won’t last 60 to 100 years and does harm to the environment and life instead of helping.

      2. Back in the day, Home Power magazine was sort of the bible of the crowd we felt we were working for. Those folks would never have dreamed of installing a PV system unless or until every possible efficiency measure had been taken in a dwelling. After all it is pure dollars and sense. You need to size the system and the storage for your needs and your needs depend on the efficiency of the dwelling and everything in it. While I am not totally against grid tied systems, they promote laziness which is really the curse of our civilization. Efficiency is the primary untapped source of energy in the country. We waste more energy than most countries could possibly use. The original vision for the switch to renewables was coupled with a massive effort on the efficiency front. Didn’t exactly pan out did it?

  31. Some right-wing nut case is attacking this site. Yesterday we had comments under Hickory and HuntingtonBeach’s name posted. Last night there were two posts with my name on them. One on the petroleum side and one on the non-petroleum site. The posts yesterday were a link to an article by James Howard Kunstler. The post last night, with my name, also linked the Kunstler article but also had three other links to right-wing articles attacking Biden and the Democrats. Of course, I deleted them both but if another gets through I am sorry. I will delete them as soon as I become aware of them.

    Oh, the Kunstler article was nothing more than an attack on the Democrats an a slander of the FBI.

    Please accept my apologies.

    1. The more I read articles like that, the more I’m beginning to think a lot of the virus coverage is merely the media sensationalizing whatever they can in order to get clicks, simply because they need all of them they can get nowadays due to the weakness of advertising industry. Otherwise, these articles don’t make any sense except to exacerbate doom & gloom. Which hasn’t been working very well. Case in point, Florida. Where’s the vortex of endless death & suffering there that was predicted weeks ago? Or the huge spike in cases in Wisconsin after the state’s election? Some people were so sure holding an election was going to cause a huge spike, but the bump ended up being so small they can’t even attribute it to the election. And it didn’t look like any cases that might have come from the election merited hospitalization anyway. Just an infection, and infections do not equal hospitalizations. Finally, one more thing the media isn’t getting right is that all those pics and vids of people out protesting aren’t going to shame them into cowering at home. Those people are outside because they’re tired of being punished for old geezers and convicts and are also tired of being effectively under house arrest with limited entertainment.

      1. Where’s the vortex of endless death & suffering there that was predicted weeks ago?

        That vortex is what social distancing and lock down is supposed to control.

        What it means is the plan is working, and your argument is baseless.

        Science 1, Yahoos, nothing.

        1. The entire reason the doom & gloom crowd predicted Florida would be the next hotspot for deaths was a combination of all the old people there, haphazard social distancing, and a governor reluctant to shut things down. Even with all of these factors, the predicted surge never materialized.

          1. haphazard social distancing,
            So you admit there was social distancing.

            and a governor reluctant to shut things down.
            So he was reluctant, but he still did it.

            Yahoos still nothing.

          2. Damn, why don’t we stop firefighters wasting resources by carrying on fighting fires when the flames are half down?

            Why don’t we send the police home when there is a drop in crime?

            NAOM

        2. The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation
          By Dr. Scott W. Atlas

          https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/494034-the-data-are-in-stop-the-panic-and-end-the-total-isolation

          The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be entering the containment phase. Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts. Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened, rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections; combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades; and then thoughtfully restore the country to function.

          Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near-total lockdown.

          Fact 1: The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.

          Fact 2: Protecting older, at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.

          Fact 3: Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies, prolonging the problem.

          Fact 4: People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.

          Fact 5: We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.

      2. Well said, Jared. It is true that too many people misunderstand that the number of cases is not what matters (especially when testing is limited), but the number of hospitalizations is more important. That number has been showing an optimistic decline and is the main reason why reopening at this point makes sense.

        Further we saw in places like Ohio, Michigan, California, etc. the hospitals were not strained past capacity like we were warned they would be. In fact there was extra capacity because of all the canceled procedures and going forward this will be the bigger threat because many clinics and hospitals will not be meeting quarterly and annual profit targets meaning they could go bankrupt if the country stays locked down.

        1. Further we saw in places like Ohio, Michigan, California, etc. the hospitals were not strained past capacity like we were warned they would be.
          They were not strained because of the mitigation policies.

          This was the intention of social distancing and lockdown.

  34. Did you actually read the New Yorker article?

    It’s not sensationalizing anything. It’s solid competent reporting on what doctors treating patients are discovering about the physiological effects of a novel disease.

  35. I’ve been reading the opinion pieces at this site, and find that some of them are damned good, in terms of covering the pro’s and cons of some issues in considerable depth.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/think

    This article there provides more and better background information about NK doughboy’s importance on the world security scene than any other one piece I’ve read. You could learn more in a long article in a major news magazine, but most such articles are paywalled.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/kim-jong-un-s-appearance-put-death-rumors-rest-world-ncna1199886

    It’s worth a book mark.

  36. Udo Bardi has an interesting piece on the lockdown policy https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-downfall-of-professor-lockdown.html

    I placed this comment on his blog, but it is under moderation for the time being =>

    The thing I don’t understand about the UK’s lock-down policy is that China, South Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc had an effective lock-down policy in place and never had the “benefit” of Neil Ferguson’s analysis. They put those policies in place based on common sense and what could have been back-of-the-envelope calculations from their own health ministries. So the attack on Ferguson is essentially a straw-man and clearly a need to create a Bond-villain as you describe.

    BTW, I kind of understand what goes into the contagion compartmental models as we are one of the few to actually apply them to analysis of resource depletion. The approach works pretty well, yet I do wonder what Ferguson is doing creating thousands of lines of C-code to create such a model while the primary factors are so basic, i.e. quarantine vs no-quarantine.

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/the-oil-shock-model-and-compartmental-models/

    1. Based on Udo’s response, I agree that any modeled behavior involving human decision-making will be impossible to validate beforehand, simply because this is game-theory territory and modeling game-theory is an intractable problem.

      And if we think that peak oil models may be off, then the climate change models by definition will also be off. As you say, qualitatively probably OK, but quantitatively no one can say how much or how fast the world will warm without an accurate emissions model.

Comments are closed.