‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science 3 Posted 2 hours, 8 minutes ago
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing! 2 Posted 1 day ago
Grist Exclusive: Will Whole Foods’ new mobile slaughterhouses squeeze small farmers? 7 Posted 3 days, 16 hours ago
The Zen parable of peak oil awareness
An interesting post on the phenomenon encountered by peak oil "doomers" in trying to explain their dour views to those that are unaware:
But if the purpose of the peak oil movement is to spread awareness and ultimately spur action, then telling uninformed people news which radically challenges their worldview may cause them simply to tune us out. In this regard, the worse the news is, the less likely people are to want to hear what we have to say or to believe it if they do listen.
Let’s live on the planet as if we intend to stay.
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Oil: enough energy to melt glaciers!
Comments
View as Flat
odograph Posted 6:41 am
06 Nov 2007
""The vast majority of those activists--by my admittedly small and informal poll--appears to believe that an extreme crisis will have to arrive before the public finally 'gets it.'"
It seems to me that we are in the midst of an international mobilization to get off oil. Sure, it may seem slow (electric car evolution) or misguided (corn ethanol), but I think you have to squint pretty hard to "not see it."
So what does that mean?
I'd worry that those activists themselves have a dynamic, holding themselves apart from the mainstream.
In worst case, they might not accept mainstream actions (or beliefs) until the mainstream returns the favor ... by accepting every plank of that particular activist's peak oil platform.
Anyway, I think peak oil is a real concern, but sadly bound to our human MegaDisasters fascination."
... the soundbite at that "megadisasters" link is amazing.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:04 am
06 Nov 2007
"...the worse the news is, the less likely people are to want to hear what we have to say or to believe it if they do listen..."
Though I stop by once in a while to see what you are all up to, I've decided to stop worrying about most of the problems plaguing our world, human civilization, and the natural ecosystems we depend on.
It is not that I don't want to hear about the problems. It is not that I do not believe what the professionals are saying. It is not that I do not care. If I can do something personally... like my small effort to preserve a patch of biodiversity so it will be there if humans ever come to their senses... I'll act.
But I can no longer absorb the anger and stress evoked by matters beyond my control. Better to prepare myself and my family to cope with the inevitable changes, the inevitable rise and fall of progress, the inevitable rise and fall of stupidity, war, poor leadership, ignorance, lies, et cetera. Humanity is another comet, another meteor, another vast explosion of volcanic activity and I don't believe anyone can prevent the disaster from occurring.
I just finished reading a book about the rise and fall of Alexandria and its libraries. It was both depressing and uplifting. Depressing because there was so much potential and so much lost... a glorious begining, but followed by the decline of the Ptolemaic dynasty, the Roman violence, then the Christian fundamentalist violence, then the Muslim violence, each group chipping away at centuries of accumulated knowledge. How on Earth could I find this at all uplifting? I know the tide eventually turned. It took a thousand years, but humanity eventually came to its collective senses. Sadly, we entering another downturn in the cycle. And it will likely be much worse than all previous downturns.
I suppose my effort has shifted toward something akin to the scribes who copied manuscripts over and over throughout the darker ages so knowledge would not be lost vs. those who directly faced the tsunami of human ignorance and found themselves swept away and largely forgotten.
When the oil runs out, I'll have to adjust. No point in worrying about it until then.
The folks in charge don't want to face reality.
Another victim of Jean-Paul Marat's ghost and his virtual guillotine?
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 8:33 am
06 Nov 2007
I am reminded of stories about the whole American car culture. Early cars often exploded, failed, caught fire, and scared the bejaysus out of the horses. They were hailed as being the devil's work itself. The fuels were toxic and highly inflammable. There wasn't much fuel so people thought little existed outside some Pennsylvania stuff (from whence Quaker State evolved).
But if you follow the history, the new crop of robber-barons weren't into coal-fired trains, they went into cars and buses and rubber for making tires (National Tire Company). Mechanized farm tractors were implemented. And we bought it hook, line, and sinker.
You know how the story ends but the beginnings foretold of exactly what would happen.
As a postscript, please stop wishing that everyone had a Toyota Prius in their garage. You're only playing the Henry Ford game - it would be music to his ears, one of the more famous robber-barons of the motor vehicle culture.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:40 pm
06 Nov 2007
Permalink
MARTINKENTDOCUMENTARYMAKER Posted 1:50 pm
06 Nov 2007
By year's end, analysts predict petroleum will reach $100. And it's not going to stop there. The world we've created runs on oil. But energy experts say the world is running out of oil. Much faster than previously thought. Demand will continue to outpace supplies, shortages are inevitable, and the price will only continue to rise dramatically -- causing a ripple effect of disastrous economic, social and political consequences.
On Tuesday night, November 13th, (at 9 p.m. EST/PST - 8 p.m. C), the History Channel will present Megadisasters: Oil Apocalypse, a documentary that Los Angeles-based filmmaker Martin Kent is calling "a wake up call," about the world's energy crisis. "We can no longer count on getting all the gasoline we need - and there's no plan B."
By "plan B," Kent is referring to a coordinated system of alternative energies laid out in his film, that could replace our addiction and dependence on oil, if society mobilizes quickly to make it happen. It's long been known that oil is a finite, non-renewable resource, that pollutes the environment, and now mankind is coming to realize that it is also most likely causing climate change. With China and India rapidly industrializing, creating an energy-hungry middle class, demand for oil will increase from the world's current consumption of 84 million barrels a day, to 100 million barrels within the next 5 years. Unfortunately, while oil producers and refiners are scrambling to develop new techniques and sources of production, as yet there are no sure means to meet the growing demand.
Oil Apocalypse presents a terrifying set of scenarios. True to the laws of supply and demand, we are fast approaching the breaking point, when the imbalance could destabilize the economies and infrastructures of virtually every nation on the planet. The worst-case scenario, say experts in the film, is a worldwide depression, which could lead to a world war. Still, they say it's not too late. But we have to act fast. Says Kent: "My hope is that upon seeing this film, everyone will be inspired to become an energy activist -- instead of sitting back and hoping that the scientists and leaders will somehow pull everything together and fix this in the eleventh hour. The time to act is now."
Energy experts appearing on camera in Oil Apocalypse include authors Richard Heinberg, Matthew Simmons, David Goodstein, Kenneth Deffeyes, Michael Economides and Christine Woodside; Oppenheimer energy analyst Fadel Gheit, PFC Energy chairman J. Robinson West, RAND Corp.'s James Bartis and U.S. Congressman Roscoe Bartlett. Megadisasters: Oil Apocalypse is a Creative Differences, Inc. production.
Martin Kent
Martin Kent Productions, Inc.
http://www.martinkentproductions.com
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:20 pm
06 Nov 2007
It's good to see a comment from another peaker. Though don't expect too much from the Grist crowd. (There are a few exceptions, e.g. bloggers JMG and Jon Rynn.) I've been trying unsuccessfully for six months to try to get the environmental leadership here to even explore the issue. But all I get is the cold shoulder. How many of them have read the books of Princeton geologist Ken Deffeyes? I'd be surprised if any had.
How high will it go before Gristers start to pay attention? Who knows? Futures on oil are now trading at $250 (from today's NPR Marketplace). Matt Simmons (on CNBC) is saying the economy can handle $300 (equivalent to European petrol prices). Though perhaps the lending crisis will move us into recession and depress oil prices, at least temporarily.
The frustrating thing about is there is a very simple solution that will inevitably have to come into being -- the Oil Depletion Protocol. The elites running this world are not going to let it all collapse. At some point, World leaders will hold a conference to find a way to put a cap on oil prices, and then ration the rest country by country.
But the sooner we get people to explore this issue open-mindedly, the sooner we can get a treaty and limit the damage. And then get on with the important business of transforming to sustainability.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:26 pm
06 Nov 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:28 pm
06 Nov 2007
grist.org
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:53 pm
06 Nov 2007
<<
The worst-case scenario, say experts in the film, is a worldwide depression, which could lead to a world war.
>>
Is there a good dystopic sci-fi novel out there that may shed some light on how a world war might be fought, when there is not enough fuel of the petroleum kind left with which to fight it?
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
odograph Posted 7:25 pm
06 Nov 2007
It is a cable show that caters every week to the human need for visceral (but safe) fear.
It is about watching a disaster, getting briefly scared, forgetting about it, and tuning in the next week to get scared again.
In the blurb I quoted, glacial melting script was combined with mid-west flood video to present an absurd and immediate threat: "What would you do ... if the ice caps melted? would you go to the airport?"
Excuse me? It is a rational fear that ice might melt so fast that we have to run to the airport?
And now ... someone is happy that Peak Oil has made it to that venue?
I am shocked by that ... but I'm also left asking, is that where the more bizarre, compressed, fears about Peak Oil belong?
... be sure to tune in the week after, for pandemics.
Permalink
odograph Posted 7:35 pm
06 Nov 2007
"The locust is one of the most destructive and dreaded life forms on Earth. American pioneers faced the largest swarm of locusts ever recorded. The 1,800 mile long and 110 mile wide cloud of insects ate their way through the heartland and blocked the sun for five days. Famine ensued, and thousands faced starvation. According to recent studies, the possibility of such a swarm returning to the United States is very likely. The destruction would be unimaginable."
... should we all get scared? A swarm is "very likely"
If the irony of this does not bite you yet, I'm not sure what I can do for you ... if you are stuck on some deep and irrational fear that your personal "mega disaster" is "very likely."
Permalink
trock Posted 8:09 pm
06 Nov 2007
How fast could we reduce oil usage? Just look at what was done in 1973. Richard Nixon was president and we had an oil supply crisis. One of the things Dick did was reduce vehicle speed limits to 55 miles per hour. The results? Gasoline usage reduced quite a bit. But the other was fewer crash fatalities, something like 7000 fewer people dieing on from car crashes in 1974 to 1975. Some of that might be attributed to safer cars mandated from congress, but most would be from slower highway speeds.
Since 9/11 2001, nobody has died from terrorism in the United States, and over 250 000 have died from vehicle crashes and 96 000 from murders and much of our attention from the Main Stream Media is terrorism or the war on terrorism. Does the yearly figure for traffic deaths ever make the news, even at the end of the year? Does the weekly number of deaths ever make the news? I realize this is a political issue as well, with some republicans saying we shouldn't be stating the number of Iraq war fatalities as often as the MSM does. But we don't mention the other deaths very rarely or not at all.
People will be willing to sacrifice for war more than they would sacrifice for something like reducing global warming for future generations. Something about killing people that they don't like appeals to people.
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:31 pm
06 Nov 2007
Which risks get excessive attention and which get overlooked depends on a hierarchy of factors. Perhaps the most important is dread. For most creatures, all death is created pretty much equal. Whether you're eaten by a lion or drowned in a river, your time on the savanna is over. That's not the way humans see things. The more pain or suffering something causes, the more we tend to fear it; the cleaner or at least quicker the death, the less it troubles us. "We dread anything that poses a greater risk for cancer more than the things that injure us in a traditional way, like an auto crash," says Slovic. "That's the dread factor." In other words, the more we dread, the more anxious we get, and the more anxious we get, the less precisely we calculate the odds of the thing actually happening. "It's called probability neglect," says Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago professor of law specializing in risk regulation.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:42 pm
06 Nov 2007
Not to mention the huge tar sand oil deposits.
Sorry peakers. Oil price manipulation is creating the oil "crisis". It's a fake crisis used by hedge funds to acumulate still more of your standard of living and freedom. And destroy the human friendly climate of spaceship earth while doing it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 12:01 am
07 Nov 2007
Keep an open mind and watch what's going on. The old nostrums aren't going to be valid much longer.
IEA issues a grim energy report (excerpts about he report)
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:27 am
07 Nov 2007
Hehey, and what do you think we have now Bart? Duuuhbya the chimp talking about WW 3? Cheney threatening Iran while speaking on an aircraft carrier in the gulf. The iminent invasion of ..no not Iran... Pakistan. Will a fundamentalist coup be ignored in a nuclear weaponed Pakistan?
And this article written by a "TIME" reporter. TIME is the pinacle of mass delusional media, even rivaling the WSJ and NYT.
Climate disaster won't peak until we get off the gas guzzling, coal burning GHG rollercoaster. That is the peak that counts.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 12:33 am
07 Nov 2007
Of course people reading that article will try to read between the lines, especially to determine what "bad days" actually means. It might mean a lot of things to a lot of people. It could be anything from "oh no, $3.50 a gallon" or "oh no, end of civilization."
I accept peak oil as a rational risk, but break with those who use peak oil as a jumping-off point to far more tenuous futures.
What can we actually glean from the EIA and Time on that? Well, in my search the word "peak" is not even in that article, let alone "peak oil." It talks about the sorts of constrained production that peak oilers expect, but also about increasing asian demand, etc.
So, how far to read between the lines? I'd say if you like "Mega Disasters" on History Channel ... go for it! Treat "bad days" as the disaster movie of your choice. But leave me out of it.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:19 am
07 Nov 2007
The real disaster in all likelihood is going to be war. Trading partners are highly motivated to negotiate rather than go to war but the world is not flat enough to prevent disasters like the one unfolding in Pakistan. All of human history has been a cycle of growth, local resource depletion, warfare and collapse. Read "Mote in God's Eye" for a Sci-Fi version of that cycle and "Constant Battles" for archaeological evidence of it.
May Bush go down in history as the incompetent oaf that he is and the American public who put him in office twice be forced to realize what they did.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
odograph Posted 1:45 am
07 Nov 2007
Yes, "bad news" in the sense of war is on the nightly news, right now. So predicting things that are existing and true in today's world is a fairly safe bet.
Extending that to (in the case of Mote) the rise of 3-armed, post-apocalyptic, mutant races ... not so much ;-)
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:45 am
07 Nov 2007
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:48 am
07 Nov 2007
Basically, they both lead to the same conclusion: we have to kick fossil fuels (actually, all fuels, but that's another story). Both problems are going bad very quickly at the same time, which if you follow Richard Heinberg's metaphor of yeast in a grape juice bottle, both eating up all of its food source and killing itself by creating waste products (which we like), is logical but disturbing.
All of the anti-peak oil arguments you've listed have been debunked numerous times, sort of like global warming denials. Just keep concentrating on solutions, it seems to me, because there's plenty of crises comin' round the bend.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:02 am
07 Nov 2007
What's really driving the oil use is driving -- next time you're going down a freeway think of all of the thousands of motors running, that's much more than even fleets of supersonic jets.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:06 am
07 Nov 2007
The gist of the book, if you read it again as an adult will become more apparent: endless cycles of growth, war, collapse, i.e., human history. Given time the human race might evolve into specialized forms, just as ant colonies have. E.O. Wilson has had a few thoughts along these lines, not that this is relevant to the discussion, ah, so I will stop now :)
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
odograph Posted 2:13 am
07 Nov 2007
"The Moties are sequential hermaphrodites, changing sex over and over again over the course of their lives -- with one quirk: if a Motie remains female for too long without becoming pregnant, the hormone imbalance will kill her. This ensures a never-ending population explosion."
Nothing like laying it on with a trowel.
But really I'd turn this disaster novel thing around again, and compare it to the History Channel services (one "mega" disaster per week), and ask how much of our disaster fascination is about the disaster, and how much is about the fascination.
I mean, I think we really have to understand why people tune into shows like that, see the movies, read the books, etc. ... before we are really rationally ready to discuss what sorts of disaster scenarios are "likely" and which are merely "attractive."
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 2:46 am
07 Nov 2007
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:51 am
07 Nov 2007
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:53 am
07 Nov 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:03 am
07 Nov 2007
Those kids who hear about a house blown up in the night, in the next village over, are living something out of one of those dystopian sci-fi novels.
We have met Skynet and he is us.
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:06 am
07 Nov 2007
We are bubbling toward our future ...
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 3:20 am
07 Nov 2007
Trock, there are surely inequity problems with the Depletion Protocol. My point is, something like it will have to be agreed on by the U.N. Regarding the liklihood of resource wars, the UN Environmental Program has recently issued a report exploring 4 differnt possible scenarios:
The continuation of present trajectories inescapably leads to these tipping points, the UNEP indicates. That's where the work with models comes in. The experts have defined four scenarios, according to the type of policy that is followed. In the first model, the State takes a back seat to the private sector; unlimited trade develops; natural goods are privatized. The second scenario is based on a centralized intervention that aims to balance high economic growth with an effort to limit its environmental and social impacts.
A third route would be to favor security to respond to civil disorders and external threats: a significant effort would then be devoted to security. Finally, the fourth option is one in which society chooses environmental sustainability and equity, with citizens playing an active role
My philosophy is to persue option 4 with all energy. The die is not yet cast, in my mind anyway.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:47 am
07 Nov 2007
Wars have been fought for millenia without oil. Plentiful oil will not determine the winner of a war either (Iraq anyone?), although it will help.
Two,
Peak Oil is an issue, but not really. End of Oil is a bigger issue, but still not really. Who cares if we don't have oil, there will be other sources of energy and different paths of utilization and efficiency. To all those who are flipping out about it, and there are plenty who I respect, I'm sorry to say that they are mostly wasting their breath.
Three,
Colin, I don't even see how the fourth 'trajectory' can possibly happen. First, people hardly care about equity or sustainability. Second, in almost all cases, the decision is not under control for most countries' populations. And finally, even if a society 'chooses' the fourth option, there will be another aggressive and well organized nation that will take the others' resources.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 7:50 am
07 Nov 2007
A key change in warfare was signaled by Winston Churchill's decision to convert the British naval fleet from coal to oil power, giving them a much greater range.
Does anyone remember old WWI footage showing soldiers on bicycles and horses? A Hungarian friend of mine was in the cavalry as his country was drawn into WW II. Maybe we'll see some of that again.
One thing we won't see as much of is air warfare. The Air Force is looking for alternatives, but they are not easy to find - much harder and more expensive than for ground transportation.
It's probably superfluous to mention that we've been in the Iraq oil war for longer now than the duration of WW II.
A big reason for Japan's entry into WW II was that we cut off their supply of oil. A Japanese relative told me a chilling story that shows how important oil is for fighting wars. Her brother was in line for duty aboard a naval vessel. Its mission was to sail out against U.S. ships and inflict as much damage as possible -- and not return. There was not enough fuel. Basically, a Kamikaze mission. (Fortunately the war ended before the ship was ready and her brother survived.) More about oil and the Japanese navy.
The Caucasus oil fields were a prized objective of Hitler's forces (which were experiencing shortages), as they drove into the south flank and fought The Battle of Stalingrad: It is often considered the turning point of World War II in the European Theater and was arguably the bloodiest battle in human history, with combined casualties estimated above 1.5 million. The importance of oil is probably why some of the best thinking about oil supplies and peak oil is coming from the military.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:36 am
07 Nov 2007
Permalink
atreyger Posted 8:44 am
07 Nov 2007
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2002/Feb/Sp ...
Permalink
trock Posted 9:03 am
07 Nov 2007
And you're right about that comment that we will have enough energy. It's just low prices that we won't have and we can just adjust. I remember reading a book in the 1980's about energy supply and we could if we needed to have 40 percent of our employment working on getting energy. We wouldn't have to do that, but we could, and so what if we did, we'd just pay more, but we would still get the things we need. That's looking at it from a supply point; we could and would reduce usage much faster from a demand efficiency point of view. With a 13 trillion dollar economy like we have now, if we spent 1 trillion dollars a year on wind, nuclear, concentrated solar power and eventually photovoltaics, we could change all energy to those sources in a few years. We'd just buy less of everything else and more of these energy sources for a few years. We only spend something like 5 billion a year on wind. It wasn't that long ago that humans had no beneficial health care, now we spend 2 trillion dollars a year on it. (I've read that it wasn't until 1905 that health care did more good for people than harm, consider not living in a world without X-rays, antibiotics, anesthesia, knowledge of surgery, etc. Scary) Now we can't imagine living in a world without cheap fossil fuel energy. We're spoiled.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:56 am
08 Nov 2007
Yes there is. If the focus remains on peak oil instead of GHG disaster, fuel farming, offshore drilling, tar sand processing, and coal to liquid fuel will absorb the capital needed to foment this renewable energy/conservation re-evolution.
Furthermore, the huge profits from peak oil panic reaped by oil futures traders, like hedge funds, self perpetuate gas guzzling. with that huge market leverage oil traders can keep infernal combustion gas guzzling, fuel farming, "clean' coal, and nukes going forever.
The peak oil fantasy is really a well crafted diversion created by oil traders through their mouthpieces, oil and energy analysts and pundits.
When people start talking peak oil, start countering with peak GHG disaster. Multinational oil and energy corps will not kill the goose that lays the platinum egg. They will raise energy prices slowly enough to keep the world economy going, then use the financial/political power they amass to steer the energy economy and foreign policy to the asdvantage of their bottom lines.
That means endless war and copiuos GHG, eventually replaced by endless war over nuclear power and nuclear proliferation and terror. By the time the fossil fuel is burned up, will humans have to live in giant nuclear powered bunkers to hide from the 300+ mph storms?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 1:02 am
08 Nov 2007
I don't think they need to bother, when human nature casts about for things to fear.
I mean, again, why the freaking heck (family friendly version) is there a show called Mega Disasters on TV every week?
... because it is in our nature.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:31 am
08 Nov 2007
Trusts steal control of every aspect of human life in their race to the bottom line.
The propagandists play into human panic and fear, in fact those are the keys to trading energy futures. Or trading any kind of market that mainly depends upon mass human psychology.
Deception (especially self deception), fear, and panic.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
odograph Posted 1:59 am
08 Nov 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:39 am
08 Nov 2007
Of course human beings are going to engage in warfare, for all kinds of reasons and with any kinds of weapons and war-enhancing capabilities that they can get their opposable-thumb-equipped hands on. That is one of the reasons why one religious tradition sometimes refers to this world as a "vale of tears."
But, as things are, could human beings manage to fight a WORLD war, as Odo's friend Mr. Kent suggested, without an adequate supply of oil? Could anyone send a fleet of ships or aircraft to a distant continent? Could the US maintain its Command zones all around the globe?
(By the way, what is it that keeps those unmanned drones flying for long hours, much longer than conventional manned aircraft can fly? Do they have engines that run on some petroleum product, or do they do it some other way?)
What Jon Rynn suggests, with his North Korean example, sounds right: When the petroleum supply dwindles, it will be seized by the world's militaries, and will no longer be available for the countless civilian uses to which it is now put. So that would be a good-enough condition for a world war, perhaps, without our having to resort to too much sci-fi creativity.
Still, once the remaining sources of petroleum are occupied and controlled by only one player, could we imagine such a war as lasting very long?
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:29 am
08 Nov 2007
But I've always thought naval battles under sail must have been the pinnacle of warfare ... America's Cup, only with cannon.
Permalink