User talk:Skipsievert

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! TheThingy ^Talk 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

READ THIS please.

WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.

Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.

---

Peak Oil

A point in time is an event, but Peak Oil is a theoretical event. Thus it should occur at a theoretical point in time. If the universe came to an end, for instance, tomorrow, but something's scheduled in two days, it is a theoretical point in time (which, by the way, wouldn't exist). Peak oil therefore must be theory until there is no more oil on the planet (including unrecoverable oil, since technology might someday make it recoverable!) AT ALL. Since the event is theoretical, the point in time is theoretical, too.

Unless you have proof that all oil has been removed from the ground everywhere for all time (which, if you believe in a life formation of oil, is absolutely impossible as long as life exists), then you will never have conclusive evidence of peak oil. It is ALWAYS theoretical.J. M. (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Even when all oil is consumed, it should still be theory, since it is based off other assumptions. It can ONLY be theory, and thus it is a theoretical event. It is a theoretical point in time. It is only flawed factually if you believe "Theory = Fantasy" which anyone seriously in the science community knows is NOT true.J. M. (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However... if you have a glass of water... and the glass has a small hole in the bottom of it... you are going to eventually leak a certain amount of water out of the hole. In other words... we live in a closed system. Oil is a fossil fuel... as taken out of the ground currently. This leads inexorably to an event of a peak in oil. Hence... this is not a theory, it is an event that can be monitored and roughly guestimated as to when said event occurs. Science.... http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html .. according to this the next most probable, if it has not already occurred, is Peak oil... as a thesis or fact. But again, you are entitled to your opinion. If you would, please put further commentary or disccusion on the discussion page of the article Peak oil. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody can drive a car very far on theoretical gasoline. Hitler lost World War II in part because he wasn't aware that his armies were rolling over undiscovered oil in Libya. Oil-addicted economies such as that of the United States cannot comfortably accommodate a rapid, unanticipated drop in oil supply. To the people living in the United States right now, it won't matter if the peaking and subsequent decline of oil production turns out to be merely a local peak due to massive oil discoveries 200 years from now, or due to higher oil production by some new species of sentient life on planet Earth a billion years from now. Consider the analogy with peak agricultural production. If world food production should drop by 10% per year for the next decade, and then rebound to even higher levels than today's production, that won't be much comfort for everyone who starved to death in the meantime. If an interruption in oil supply turns out to be merely temporary on a very long time scale, that is meaningless to everyone who lives on a human time scale. Which is to say, everyone. Another analogy is making the payments on a mortgage - you have to keep up with payments every month, or else the bank will foreclose. If your peak income is still decades in your future, that doesn't impress the bank today. Obviously you can never be 100% sure you have seen your highest annual income until you die. But if your current income is far below what it was a few years ago when you planned your budget, you probably have a problem. --Teratornis (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can not argue with your logic much. Your rundown was kind of funny to read... (comic). Thanks. No doubt we are in for some heady times as the economy collapses... and the resource base crashes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2mKZcCVIPI&feature=channel_page

Wage Slavery

Thanks for your input on the Wage Slavery article. I wonder if you had a chance to look through the whole article before removing the POV tag? I agree that the lead is ok, and there is a criticism section at the end, but have you read the arguments made in the middle sections? Especially the captions for the illustrations and photos? The standard mainstream view of labor is that it is a voluntary sale of one's own time and efforts. This viewpoint is notably absent from the page except at the criticism section at the end. I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your opinion on this. Thanks LK (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as the standard view is expressed... and the heterodox view also is expressed that would make the content neutral or trying to be. Because of the subject (title), it is by nature going to be a controversial article, right now especially with the economy creaking back and forth, and the standard view subject to possible emergence to who knows what. It is a lot like the early 30's right now as to possible dramatic change. I will look closer at the middle section. It could be the fate of that article though, it may have pretty strident heterodox views just because of the context and current situation of the economic system.

Technology has eliminated 'jobs', and while it may create a few... it probably is not going to be enough to give consumers purchasing power, although there are stop-gap ways around that. Energy conversion and mechanization has taken over the role of labor. Machine kilowatts will do the labor of man-hours... for few cents. Hence we seem to be in an epoch changing emergent time... or could be. Although the days of Adam Smith are long gone as far as scarcity ideas and labor theory of value, still... it appears we are on a collision course of technology either destroying the idea of a price system or some such huge possible chaotic change. Capitalism and Communism or Socialism etc. may all be ash canned to history. Thanks... and I will read the article more closely in the middle section. Captions, I will scrutinize. skip sievert (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for your work at Wage Slavery. It's going to lead to edit warring, but that was pretty much inevitable. I'll lend my support to your efforts to trim back the cruft and POV. Hopefully, the article can all come out of this for the better. LK (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Energy Economics

Skip, please note that Abd has set up a discussion page to resolve the problems on energy economics etc.Richard Tol (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability cat

Saw you undid Alan. We're discussing the scope of the cat at Category_talk:Sustainability#Scope_of_this_category. Please join the conversation. NJGW (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... checked it out. skip sievert (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Peak water

Could you please read through the Peak water article. I had it reviewed for GA and it was failed for what seems to me like a handful of arbitrary reasons. I would appreciate any improvements you might add. I am having it reviewed again with a group, rather than a single individual.Kgrr (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I will check it out. Thanks, this issue of peak water is currently a burning one, that is about to become a lot more in the spotlight. skip sievert (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Neo-Capitalism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Neo-Capitalism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Capitalism. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. (just a friendly note..you may have it accidentally setup in your Preferences) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

... please also don't close WQA incidents that you open yourself. You may state (as you did) that it appears resolved, but please others mark them as resolved, and mark them for archiving. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Double thanks. I read the (see Help:Minor edit) and this information will change my approach. Very good to review that. skip sievert (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon

That anon is Freddy Hutter.[1] He used a named account to create Underlying Decline Rate Observed. NJGW (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was hard to make a lot of sense out of those edits. skip sievert (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Energy accounting

Skip, I noticed the RfC. You went over the edge a little, there, making inappropriate accusations or demands, and not, apparently, recognizing and taking opportunities to cooperate. A word to the wise. If you need help, ask. --Abd (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)