<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Dangerous Oil</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/02/dangerous-oil/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/02/dangerous-oil/</link>
	<description>Truth in Energy</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:59:46 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Commodities Broker &#124; DrumBeat: February 3, 2009 &#124; Commodities Options &#124; Commodities Futures &#124; Commodities Prices</title>
		<link>http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/02/dangerous-oil/#comment-481</link>
		<dc:creator>Commodities Broker &#124; DrumBeat: February 3, 2009 &#124; Commodities Options &#124; Commodities Futures &#124; Commodities Prices</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:46:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aspousa.org/?p=887#comment-481</guid>
		<description>[...] Dangerous Oil There has been much debate recently within the defense community between adherents of the so-called “era of persistent conflict,” which posits future war will look a lot like today’s low-level wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those who believe we must maintain our traditional focus on large scale conflict against conventional armies. Thus far, the debate has been seen as occurring between two equally valid points of view with no real right or wrong answer. But I think such a belief is dangerously wrong because the differences between the two couldn’t be more significant, and the consequences of getting this choice wrong could be devastating for the United States owing to one crucial factor: oil and its declining availability in the near future. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Dangerous Oil There has been much debate recently within the defense community between adherents of the so-called “era of persistent conflict,” which posits future war will look a lot like today’s low-level wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those who believe we must maintain our traditional focus on large scale conflict against conventional armies. Thus far, the debate has been seen as occurring between two equally valid points of view with no real right or wrong answer. But I think such a belief is dangerously wrong because the differences between the two couldn’t be more significant, and the consequences of getting this choice wrong could be devastating for the United States owing to one crucial factor: oil and its declining availability in the near future. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed</title>
		<link>http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/02/dangerous-oil/#comment-476</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 19:46:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aspousa.org/?p=887#comment-476</guid>
		<description>"The looming decline of world oil production is not some hypothetical possibility; it is a geological certainty" very true. Similarly human-caused climate disruption and destabilization is not a "debatable factor" - such a statement at such a late time shows ignorance, and reduces the credibility of the whole piece. See  skepticalscience.com/ and realclimate.org and also http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

By the way "conventional" oil to peak "in a few years"? ASPO and others believe it already has; it's total oil/liquids that is "not many years away" from peaking</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The looming decline of world oil production is not some hypothetical possibility; it is a geological certainty&#8221; very true. Similarly human-caused climate disruption and destabilization is not a &#8220;debatable factor&#8221; - such a statement at such a late time shows ignorance, and reduces the credibility of the whole piece. See  skepticalscience.com/ and realclimate.org and also <a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics" rel="nofollow">http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics</a></p>
<p>By the way &#8220;conventional&#8221; oil to peak &#8220;in a few years&#8221;? ASPO and others believe it already has; it&#8217;s total oil/liquids that is &#8220;not many years away&#8221; from peaking</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: What&#8217;s happening to us? &#171; Uh oh</title>
		<link>http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/02/dangerous-oil/#comment-474</link>
		<dc:creator>What&#8217;s happening to us? &#171; Uh oh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.aspousa.org/?p=887#comment-474</guid>
		<description>[...] http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/02/dangerous-oil/ [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/02/dangerous-oil/" rel="nofollow">http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/02/dangerous-oil/</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

