The only thing nearly as enlightening as reading David Collum’s epic Year In Review is listening to him and Chris Martenson riff about its highlights.
Strap in, grab some eggnog, and listen to this year’s recap:
We are so close to a financial crisis now that we may be way, way past the fail-safe.
We’ve got all these unfunded liabilities that we have to pay or face the consequences of – and they are fantastically enormous.
The pensions are all underfunded – at the top of a financial asset price bubble, mind you.
Social Security is a disaster. And we’re promising so much medical help for everyone that is now profoundly expensive.
There are so many things out there that are unmoored. The Fed is unmoored. The digital world is taking us to this digital gulag, in my opinion – I don’t think I’m being hyperbolic.
I think we’re heading for very, very bad places.
Click the play button below to listen to Chris’ interview with David Collum (84m:24s).
The thought of 7 x 7 years compounding debt since we got off the gold standard is all I need to know about our economic situation. A jubilee might be in order. Great observation Chris.
Come on…David Collum takes on climate change without reading the primary scientific literature, by admission! WTF! While criticizing the political aspects of a changing climate as shaping the discussion, it is on that basis he reaches his conclusions. Anyone else find this audacious and troubling?
I like Collum and think he makes wonderful points regarding many trends, but on this topic, he loses many kudos for me, especially as he is a scientist.
To David C: you have several thousand hours to go…
we keep having to listen to voices whose identities have been created as manlinvestments caused by the fiat money system. if we have any hope of averting runaway climate change, then the money system has to change first back to a hard money standard. eg/ big government, growth narrative etc
Yes, I found it disappointing as well. But whatever. I also don’t care for his style much, but on the other hand, I do find much of value elsewhere in his point of view. I’m not a supporter of this site so that I can have all of my views fully validated by whatever content is offered.
I’ve been following this issue closely for 30 years. As a conservation scientist, I know more than a few independently-minded colleagues who decided that the issue was legit more than 16 years ago. At this point, even if there was such a thing as the alternative energy tooth fairy, it is way too late in the game for other’s viewpoints and opinions to matter much in terms of the trajectory of the issue, so it is not worth expending emotional energy on.
If I was scrupulously judicious about guarding against my own confirmation bias, I would read his summary section on climate change and put my own time into figuring out where I think he was mistaken. However, I simply don’t have the time and bandwidth for this right now, for better or worse.
… in proving or disproving the climate change agenda. Now I’m just interested in the proposed “solutions.” Do nothing and continue with business as usual? I won’t listen to anyone with that agenda. Give up what’s left of our independence and freedoms to a massively bloated, all-powerful government and its huge bureaucracy so that they can save the children and the world? Nope. Enrich the banksters with billions in profits from a carbon credits scheme? Not happening.
Yeah, when I heard him say Trump was a “hero figure,” I had a good chuckle. If you want to talk about overreach in the so called “intelligence community,” fine, but to call Donald J. Trump a hero is the goddamnedest thing I’ve heard since the last time Ben Carson said something publicly. Apparently you can be a good scientist and have bat-shit crazy views on other things?
I think Dave got sidetracked by reading the opinions out there on is there or is there not climate change and forgot that the individual or interest group doing the talking (e.g., fossil fuel energy industry, alternative energy industry, political parties, media (and who owns them) is also going to cherry pick which studies or parts of studies they mention to help drive home whatever point they have, so you cannot get a good idea of the status of climate science by listening to any of these folks. They all have an agenda and can’t give accurate climate science information. You have to pore over lots of the primary research to see what which assumptions and limitations they have put into their predictive models, and you need to go over the history of primary research to see what the trends have been for the last several hundreds of years to see the changes so far, and the acceleration of changes since about the '70s. I have been teaching climate, land use, and water resources at the undergraduate and graduate level for 30 years and it’s pretty clear from the primary sources across several fields what changes we have seen (atmospheric, oceanic, terrestrial, etc.) and how they are accelerating.
Was pleasantly surprised with how much I agreed with David Collum’s unorthodox views throughout the interview, especially his bemused take on “climate change”. Thanks for the interview.
Yes, that’s it exactly. What put me off most about DC’s article was the reference to the CATO Institute, regarding climate change. CATO is an authority on this issue? Again, WTF.
Carbon neutral by 2030, easy. Carry on burning fossil fuels but count every wind turbine or solar panel that you install as a carbon credit.
Creative accounting.
When the Ponzi scheme collapses, I’ll be investing in renewable energy.
By the way, I am just joking.
I’ve been reading David Collums Year in Review for a few years now courtesy of PeakP. Have never agreed with all he wrote but enjoyed considering an alternative viewpoint. And he did make me laff.
That being said his opining on Climate change was a bit much. Considering the CATO institute a relevant source pretty much says it all. I guess if you spend 18 hrs on a computer it’s hard to get outside and actually be in nature. And observe.
Reminds me of a good friend who is one of the funniest people I know. Quickest wit and all. However every now and then he unloads a verbal turd. The danger being if you want to be that guy who is quick on the draw with opinions on all things, be prepared to look like an jerk every now and then.
As in all things. No one has all the answers. Some like hearing their own voice. Some need to be outrageous for the sake of it.
Filter what you need.
I really disliked the tone of DC-- ‘everybody is stupid except me’ is how it came across. But I admit I did not listen to it all. I had to shut it off when he stated that he didn’t think climate change is going to be a problem. Really!? And, Chris, just because climate scientists don’t have a solution for who is going to eat and who will not should we achieve zero emissions by 2030 0r 2050 d0esn’t mean they are stupid for not asking that question. Please, a little more humility and recognition that none of us is ready for what’s coming. Anyways, this interview is atypical of the generally thoughtful content of Featured Voices.
I have a couple of friends who regularly send me YouTube videos where some bloviating nut is yammering on about Trump taking on the deep state.
Cambridge Analytica, a military operation, helped to get him in. Intelligence or deep, or steady state runs the subterranean gamut and Trump represents the military wing. The military wing is at odds with civilian agencies, it appears.
Plus…Trump has to somehow conform to the nonsense that he is a pacifist until after the elections, or he’ll lose his libertarian base.
Though the end of year interview with David Collum is entertaining, it’s not particularly funny to be quoting the Cato institute on matters that are gravely serious. We need a good laugh, but not about climate change.
I have to say that, contrary to one of the commenters above, I actually liked Dave’s tone. First of all, if you read his introduction, he was very self deprecating. Quite the opposite of saying he’s smarter than everyone else. When something, “comes across” in a certain way, how it comes across may depend upon the transmitter but may also depend upon the receiver. I think if one is secure about oneself, one would not feel threatened by his tone but, hey, maybe that’s just me. But, in fact, he IS smarter than most. He doesn’t brag about it though. He does interject some much appreciated humor and wit (and goodness knows people are much too serious and dour about issues they have little to no control over) and turns what could be very dry and boring into something that is entertaining, informative, and quite comprehensive in its scope. I applaud him for this amazing accomplishment each year.
I read the review but didn’t listen to the audio so I can’t comment on the CATO Institute comment but the sense I get is that there is a knee jerk opposition to those politics. However, it’s not uncommon that some entity outside of a particular field of knowledge can reveal insight or facts that seem to have eluded those within a particular field of knowledge. Did Chris start out to be an expert in economics? Nope. And being outside the field to start with probably gave him insights and perspectives that would not have been so readily obtained if he had gone through the indoctrination process so many others had.
Climate change is occurring but whether it is the disastrous “climate change” of epic proportions being that is wholeheartedly being embraced by so many as an “end of the world” type scenario is a whole different matter. The panicky manner in which it is being promulgated as the source of everything bad occurring on the planet just puts me off. Any time people panic, they’re courting disaster. Even if I go to my death, I’d rather be calm and present about it. It has always amazed me when you’re on an aircraft that runs into some really dicey situation and people start screaming. Like that’s going to help anything? Get a grip! Do what you can to improve the situation and influence others to do so but stirring up emotional drama and dragging others into it doesn’t do anyone any good. People like AOC saying the world’s going to end in 12 years? Lunacy! Anyone here like to place any monetary bets on that? I’m interested in any takers.
I’m just reading “The Only Three Questions That Count” by Ken Fisher. I’m not a Ken Fisher fan but the book has made me think more deeply about many things. For example, he dispels the myths that high P/E markets are riskier than low P/E markets, that big government budget deficits are bad, that a weak U.S. dollar is bad for stocks, that higher oil prices are bad for stocks and the economy, etc. And he’s very candid about always questioning himself, conventional wisdom, prevailing theories, personal assumptions, and even hard data. After all, no one is omniscient, no one knows everything, no one has ALL the data, and no one, absolutely NO ONE, can reliably predict the future. We’re always looking for that unfailingly accurate prediction but it virtually never happens, except by a bit of luck and circumstance, and then, only to a partial extent which is generally not greater than chance.
I don’t fully embrace so-called climate change (and I repeat, what a dumb, vague, imprecise name) nor do I fully reject it. I don’t know. AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE FOR SURE! I don’t even fully embrace the 3Es. There’s a lot of good data and factual information supporting them and they are very important but I personally see them as being secondary rather than primary influencers. One has to constantly question oneself and the facts and the data. It’s tempting to slap oneself on the back and say how enlightened we are and point fingers at others and say how ignorant or wrong they are, but that’s not a very good way of learning and growing.
Think back and ask yourself what you knew for certain decades ago and then honestly evaluate how accurate you were. It’s a humbling but worthwhile exercise. Being intractable and unwilling to listen and to change does not serve one well.
I usually enjoy the Peak Prosperity podcasts and Mr Collum’s annual review, but I felt this one wasn’t up to the usual high standard, partly because of all the conspiracy theories. I’m still not clear whether a lot of it was tongue in cheek, but I’d like to propose a couple of simple answers to a couple of Mr Collum’s questions. Remember Occam’s Razor - the simplest answer is often the correct one…?
Why did Prince Andrew give that interview?
Because he’s stupid. “Randy Andy”, as he is not-so-affectionately known by the British people, has been an embarrassment to the British people and the British Royal Family for decades. I don’t have the time or space to list all the gaffes and errors of judgement he has committed. He is basically a would-be playboy who is attracted to power, money and glamour like a moth to a candle, to the exclusion of common sense. Thank goodness he’s now retired from public life. To suggest that he is somehow at the centre of a web of intelligence intrigue is just plain silly.
Is Epstein still alive?
No. He died in jail, in circumstances which admittedly leave a few questions to be asked, but bearing in mind that jailed paedophiles have a rather shorter life expectancy than the rest of us, it’s not altogether unexpected and he won’t be missed. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236277588_Suicide_and_the_Publicly_Exposed_Pedophile
Hope this helps. Post Peak Medicine
AO, that’s a well written response that I personally appreciate. I believe you’re correct that we can’t predict the future and many that try have failed. However, what’s your recommendation? Nobody knows for 100% certain if pumping CO2 and other greenhouse house gases into the the atmosphere will be disastrous or not.
If we look back a decade ago (or two decades ago) at the warnings from climate scientists do we find that they were way off? Were they spot on? Were they directionally correct? Are there any metrics at all that we can agree are meaningful measures that would help us? Personally, I look at these metrics from NASA (https://climate.nasa.gov/). I don’t have any reason to doubt NASA’s presentation of historical and present data. I don’t believe they faked the moon landing either.
Do we categorically reject the data (from the community of scientist commissioned to figure out out if there is a disaster or not, including NASA, NOAA) of past/historical, present, and modeled/predicted climate? I know modeled/predicted scenarios are very suspect, but somebody’s got to do it. It has to be done with as much capability as possible. It has to evolve over time and converge on greater accuracy. Failures are part of that process. What’s the basis for rejecting that data? Is there competing data (not funded by oil industry) that presents a strong case there won’t be a climate disaster?
Shall we continue to debate and stall action (BAU) and make no changes until we know for 100% sure that a disaster is headed our way. Shall we just plan to keep burning that oil? Or, do we know enough to count climate change as one of the many reasons to move forward to make meaningful change in this world? Can we stop talking and start doing?
I don’t intend this to be an in your face challenge, I just don’t get it when I hear that similar line of reasoning from David C or others in the PP community. What do you recommend as the next step?