Peak Oil

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Peak Oil

Postby proldic » Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:36 am

Debunking the Hubbert Curve<br><br>Recently, numerous publications have appeared warning that oil production is near an unavoidable, geologically-determined peak that could have consequences up to and including “war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens” (Campbell in Ruppert 2002.) <br><br>The current series of alarmist articles could be said to be merely reincarnations of earlier work which proved fallacious, but the authors insist that they have made significant advances in their analyses, overcoming earlier errors. <br><br>For a number of reasons, this work has been nearly impenetrable to many observers, which seems to have lent it an added cachet. However, careful examination of the data and methods, as well as extensive perusal of the writings, suggests that the opacity of the work is—at best—obscuring the inconclusive nature of their research.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.energyseer.com/NewPessimism.pdf">www.energyseer.com/NewPessimism.pdf</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br><br><br>And let the games begin... <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

click, ding, $$$$$$$$$$$

Postby rain » Sat Jul 30, 2005 6:13 pm

click, ding, $$$$$$$$$$$<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>click, ding, $$$$$$$$$$$<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br>click, ding, $$$$$$$$$$$<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br> <p></p><i></i>
rain
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 12:38 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

"Peak Oil"

Postby albion » Sat Jul 30, 2005 6:55 pm

Indeed, the more one looks into it, the more inconclusive the subject seems to be. For that reason alone I would be suspicious of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>anybody </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->who's excessively sure of themselves regarding "Peak Oil".<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>The public-access pages on this site are presently being built to provide easy reference to various publications involving modern petroleum science. Modern petroleum science, - or what is called often the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, - is an extensive body of knowledge which has been recorded in thousands of articles published in the mainstream, Russian-language scientific journals, and in many books and monographs. However, effectively nothing of modern petroleum science has been published in the U.S.A., and this body of knowledge remains largely unknown in the English-speaking world. For reason of this circumstance, a brief introduction to modern Russian petroleum science has been written separately, and is offered together with a brief indication of some of its immediate economic consequences.<br><br>The unfamiliarity with the Russian-language scientific literature has been further worsened by the bizarre circumstance that modern Russian petroleum science has been subject to the most extensive attempt at plagiarism in the history of modern science. This particular aspect of the history of this body of knowledge is taken up in the section dealing with the political and sociological essays.<br><br>The articles on this site have been put here to accommodate the many requests for reprints and further information, received during the past few years following the publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. of an article formally enunciating the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins and demonstrating the high-pressure genesis of petroleum.<br><br>[...] It deserves to be recognized that all of the contributors to these articles that deal with petroleum science and petroleum operations are all highly competent oil and gas men and women. All have extensive experience in discovering and producing petroleum.<br><br>[...] One should understand that these papers cannot give justice to the immense literature of modern Russian petroleum science. During the half century between 1951-2001, there have been thousands of articles published in the mainstream Russian scientific journals on the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, and many books and monographs. For example, V. A. Krayushkin has published more than two hundred fifty articles on modern petroleum geology, and several books.<br><br>In light of the extensive literature of modern Russian petroleum science, questions inevitably arise among persons reading of it for the first time: Why has there been nothing published on this body of knowledge in the English-language (or American) journals which purportedly deal with matters involving petroleum ? Why have there never been Russian or Ukrainian petroleum scientists invited to address a meeting of, e.g., the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (A.A.P.G.) ? Why has there not been appointed to the faculty of a single department of Earth sciences, at any university in the U.S.A., a petroleum scientist competent to teach modern petroleum science ? In short, why have persons in the U.S.A. never heard of this body of knowledge ?<br><br>Such lack of reporting has not happened by accident. As the reader may surmise, this dysfunctional behavior has been a (rather typical) manifestation of the purveyors of quackery, desperately striving to preserve their self-image and conceits (and jobs). In short, the Wizard of Oz chicanery, - before the little dog Toto snatched away the curtain. No reader should entertain an illusion that the publishing of these articles, in first-rank scientific journals such as Physical-Chemistry/Chemical-Physics, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has been welcomed by the British/American petroleum geo-phrenology brotherhood.<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm">www.gasresources.net/index.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
albion
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 11:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: "Peak Oil"

Postby ZeroHaven » Sat Jul 30, 2005 7:31 pm

Yeah, but does it really matter if the Earth is running out of oil or not? According to this <!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/mediaplayer/vision3.html" target="top">NASA Video</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--> we're gonna be stripping the moon of it's resources soon enough!<br>"the moon is home to abundant resources. it's soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel" <br>After that we can hit up the rest of the solar system. Whee! <p><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ZeroHaven/tinhat.gif"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--></p><i></i>
ZeroHaven
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:34 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Peak Oil

Postby wolf pauli » Sat Jul 30, 2005 8:04 pm

This topic was debated extensively on various threads in Open Discussion #1, e.g., <br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://p097.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=777.topic&start=1&stop=20">p097.ezboard.com/frigorou...=1&stop=20</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>I'd advise contributors to revisit that thread and others before indulging in the multiplication of useless gestures. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
wolf pauli
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 8:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Selah

Postby proldic » Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:31 pm

"i guess i would just consider hope belief with no balls..."<br> <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

re: Peak Oil, etc.

Postby Starman » Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:39 pm

Wolf Pauli's suggestion is quite spot-on.<br><br>Further:<br>"Recently, numerous publications have appeared warning that oil production is near an unavoidable, geologically-determined peak that could have consequences up to and including “war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens” (Campbell in Ruppert 2002.)"<br><br>Observation readily affirms that many incidents and instances of regional political and resource-driven wars, starvation, pandemics, economic recession, genocide, civil war and low-intensity conflict, covert ops, political assassinations and coups, terrorism and mercenary/Intelligence operations are very closely linked with issues of petroleum dependency as a relatively cheap and efficient energy source, substantially increasing market demands for petroleum resources esp. in the developing world ie. China and India, present production capacity at or close to maximum, several-hundred billion dollars needed to keep production at current levels, and even a modest five to ten percent increase in production requiring further several hundred billion dollars in investment and five-to-ten-years lead-time to bring new systems online (including new refineries, pipelines, and deep-sea fleets).<br><br>An additional observation -- The US's heavy military and political investment in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Columbia, Venezuela and Ecuador is very substantially based on subsidizing military defense and/or control of existing western Oil Corporation production facilities and investments, geostrategic positioning for controlling market access or leveraging political/economic influence, and crucially limiting/controlling the supply/investment opportunity to our strategic ally competitors OR our potential enemies (ie, China, Eurasia, India, Russia, Latin America and Africa). <br><br>IF unlimited, accessible abiotic oil or other 'limited' but abundant oil reserves were readily available it is most highly improbable that the US would have 'spent' so much international good-will or diverted such an enormous political, economic and military investment as it has (accumulating unprecedented hundreds of billions of dollars of future debt and flirting with recession/depression/melt-down) on securing influence and control of the world's leading oil-producing states and regions -- The US's Imperial policies trying to put a 'lock' on strategic oil-reserves just wouldn't make any sense if oil production wasn't projected to decline and be incapable of meeting future needs.<br><br>An additional 'criticism' of peak oil projections is that the majority of information is provided by those with close industry connections (not absolutely true, as many financial analysists and other experts are full-service and mixed-industry professionals and information/analysis providers. But the 'critique' of the information being overly technical and thereby 'opaque' (and to be suspected) is a red-herring diversion.<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rolleyes --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>The Peak Oil hypothesis is testable and falsifiable -- criteria which it meets and fulfills, while most of the argument re: 'abundant and unlimited oil supply' extending from Abiotic theory is apparently exempt from or excluded from similiar criteria. Most of the abiotic oil proponents I've debated have depended on the argument 'you can't DISPROVE abiotic oil is abundant and accessable' and that 'sufficient technology to reach 60 miles into the crust where abiotic oil is formed evidently exists --although it's obviously kept as a technological secret so as to not blow the US's hand.<br><br>The implications of Peak Oil go much further than 'just' a projection of declining production. My experience is that those who 'debate' Peak Oil as either 'false' or a deliberate scam are typically uninformed about the issue and uninterested in learning about it or engaging in honest discussion -- while I've done a great deal of background research to acquaint myself with the basis for their argument. <br><br>For instance, I think the theory of abiotic oil is very interesting and has much to recommend it, but I haven't seen anything that compellingly shows we can either exploit abiotic oil to prevent serious shortfall problems or to eliminate further aggravation of the many consequences of peak oil we've already seen. If oil were truly as abundant and relatively unlimited/self-renewing and cheap as those who refute the Peak Oil hypothesis propose, then a whole different and far-more extensive pattern of development and investment esp. of the developing world would be the model at work in the corporate world, instead of conflict and territorial aggression and corporate raiding, with downsizing and consolidation and mergers being used to keep profits 'up' by cutting costs (since the bubble-myth of abundant 'cheap' oil to enable continual growth and drive investments w/double-digit return-on-investment has been shown to have 'popped' -- rising oil prices will most likley cause a ripple-effect of stagflation and economic melt-down and banking-collapse brought-about by the housing-bubble crash.<br><br>Starman<br><!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :smokin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smokin.gif ALT=":smokin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <p></p><i></i>
Starman
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 3:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

solution

Postby Dreams End » Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:15 pm

Well, if we reduce the world population down to about 2 billion or so, we should be fine. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Solution ...

Postby Starman » Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:47 am

Thanks for including me in your vision of 'we', but please, Please count me out.<br><br>On the 'other side' of the controversy:<br>Those who think there's absolutely no basis for global warming, decreasing energy sources in the midst of deliberately cultivated increasing dependency, climate change/drought, resource wars, distribution problems leading to malnutrition and starvation and diseases and infant mortality, social inequality and racial victimization, some 5 million plus economic/war refugees, disease pandemics and an escalating arms-race all connected to the politics of scarcity, can't very well explain the world in terms of a 'fake' oil crisis. Such adherants devoted to the particular discipline of Head-in-Sand-Problem-Recognition are uniquely positioned to find and practice the efficient 'solution' of simply dismissing that there IS a problem.<br><br>No Muss, No Fuss, G'Day!<br><br>40-some years ago, the leaders of the 'free world' were uniquely positioned to truly revolutionize human society following the horror and tragedy of a devastating world war, through the example of enlightened self-rule, equitably sharing the benefits and obligations of regionally-managed nation-states, practicing long-range development planning according to the principles of wise-use and seventh-generation sustainability, encouraging global cooperation and peaceful coexistence through recognition of rule-of-law institutions and a global village project of increasing basic living standards -- doing more in this way to prevent suffering and address population pressures than all the aid programs that would follow instead. <br><br>Instead, the world's leaders succumbed to failed vision and distractions and temptations and a betrayal of their core principles. They evidently failed to appreciate that the allies 'winning' the war imbued them with an obligation to rebuild the post-war world on a better, more forward and socially-just and intelligent model, instead of using their new position of unprecedented influence and authority to take advantage of the world's nations and peoples for their own narrow self-interests.<br><br>Remarkable, isn't it, how such a simple notion is almost never acknowledged or discussed? But then, acknowledging one's failures seems to be anathema to those who are driven to politics and power (unless its criticizing OTHERS for their mistakes and fuck-ups.)<br><br>Oh well -- it's academic now anyway.<br>Starman <p></p><i></i>
Starman
 
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 3:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Peak Oil

Postby proldic » Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:03 am

HTML Comments are not allowed <p></p><i></i>
proldic
 
Posts: 989
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

peak pique

Postby Dreams End » Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:59 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> Thanks for including me in your vision of 'we', but please, Please count me out.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'm glad to hear it! But there are some out there pushing peak oil as rationale for "population reduction". Please be aware of that. And I encourage you to look for such agendas when you sort through the peak oil material.<br><br>A desire to control the world's oil supply does not necessarily equate to the idea that we will run out tomorrow or even in a decade. <br><br>I know Ruppert is not quoted in this thread but he's the one popularizing this idea. I've got a whole other post on Ruppert on OD 1...you can go there so we don't have to rehash it all here. However, there are other agendas that can explain the need to have the world buy into "peak oil.' The desire to push "population reduction" is the most extreme, but simply the desire to raise oil rates is another. And a "collapse" of the economy that is, in fact, more controlled than it looks can also benefit those who already have their fortunes locked away.<br><br>I find that the "incompetence theory"...oh "they just aren't looking ahead" is rarely sastisfying. It doesn't satisfy me about the "intelligence failures" for 9/11 and it doesn't satisfy me about peak oil...IF it's the oil industry insiders who ARE in fact pushing this, then the oil industry knows about it. They won't make much money when the oil runs out and we all die, now will they? Think they don't know that? <br><br>Ruppert, when he's not busy profiting from offshore pyramid schemes, says the "cliff event" is 2007. Cliff..as in "over the..."<br><br>Here's Ruppert in his interview with Hustler Magazine (I read it for the articles.):<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>By 2007 we are certain to see massive dislocations. The explanation for that is very simple: By 2007 there will be an absolute clear break between available product and demand, and the shortfalls will become extremely serious. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=96">www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=96</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Maybe he's right. Well, hell, I've got yogurt in my refrigerator that will still be good then, so there's really not much time to do much, is there? Admittedly, if he were THAT concerned about worldwide collapse,he might not charge for his website's "premium" content, but who can quibble at a time like this? Gotta get what you can for you and yours, right?<br><br>Never fear though, even Ruppert, who has the most dire predictions, doesn't actually believe them. He's pushing investment in gold. Now, in the event of worldwide depression, maybe this is sound...but a collapse to the point of no one being able to eat...well, you can't eat gold.<br><br>And how 'bout his economic advisor Catherine Austin Fitts. Here's what she offers on her latest DVD:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Incubate a Wealth Revolution through a Solari Investor Circle<br>This lecture with audience Q&A provides a balanced approach to coping with such threats as the falling US dollar, economic warfare, and market manipulation. Here Catherine outlines how to "come clean" from a destructive economic system and introduces the Solari Investor Circle, a local investment club for you and the people you trust, to help you start your own wealth-building conspiracy that is entirely under your control—right in your community. Use this CD to help build a lifeboat in times of economic volatility, and to help you launch a wealth revolution in your home and neighborhood.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>Wow! Peak oil isn't so bad after all. I can "incubate a wealth revolution." Ummm, but Cathy...how come you don't mention peak oil among the "threats" we have to cope with? Guess it slipped her mind.<br><br>I'm sorry for the sarcasm but people are ALREADY making money off peak oil. Please be open to the idea that there are other agendas at work, here.<br><br>Now certainly control of resources is behind much of our current foreign policy evil...but wasn't that true 50 years ago as well? Or have we been mucking about with Middle Eastern governments out of concern for democracy? Think it's all just to "protect" Israel? I'm pretty sure that if worldwide Jewry had fled to Swaziland after WWII there would be a lot less of this "special relationship." Sorry, all you who find Zionism at the core of everything, but cart, meet horse.<br><br>I find an awful lot in common with the y2k non-event. It was pushed (primarily by Christian reconstructionist Gary North) and not much happened. Listen to him about how people have (this was in '99) their heads in the sand:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"I used to speak with reporters on y2k. I no longer bother. They are simply paid functionaries of the advertising industry, getting rich off y2k denial. (Well, not getting rich. Just making an all-too-easy living.)<br><br>Anyway, a lot of them asked me this: "But what if everyone believed in y2k? Wouldn't this create chaos?" And the answer is, of course, yes -- as surely as if they all believed that nuclear missiles had been launched five minutes ago, in a nation without civil defense. (Reporters don't like civil defense programs, either.) When a system-wide catastrophe is coming in a short period of time, and 99% of the victims have not prepared, it does no good for everyone to find out about it, except to say a few brief prayers. There are insufficient resources to make preparations. The catastrophe will hit."<br>-- Gary North, April 28, 1999.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Any of this sound at all familiar?<br><br>Now, I looked at North's current website...he's not pushing peak oil. But he DID have an agenda for his y2k predictions. His overt agenda was to hasten the end times toward the Christian apocolypse.<br><br>North again: <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"So, of course I want to see y2k bring down the system, all over the world.<br>I have hoped for this all of my adult life."<br><br>More North related stuff by people who saw through him BEFORE y2k here: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/y2k.htm">www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/y2k.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Why am I bringing up North, then, if he doesn't push peak oil.<br><br>1. He predicted worldwide collapse.<br>2. He made money by predicting worldwide collapse.<br>3. He didn't really seem to take his own prediction seriously (i.e. you could still get two year subscriptions to his newsletter in 1999)<br>4. He had a not very hidden agenda. Christian reconstructionism is hard core, AIDS-is-Gods-judgment type theology.<br>5. He had LOTS of supporting documentation and "insider" information.<br><br>Now, I hope I'm still in communication with all of the amazing, brilliant people on this site in 2007. And by then, we'll know if Ruppert was right. But I want people to consider that there are other explanations for pushing peak oil. <br><br>I'm going to link to a (typically) long, discursive article on madcow. It links John Gray (author of Men are from Mars... and 9/11 truth movement backer), Ruppert and Adnon Koshoggi, weapons dealer and scam artist. I offer this link not because it "proves" a lot...as it is way too rambling, but it at least suggests some sinister players in a bizarre and sinister game. Heaven's Gate gets thrown in, as well.<br><br>I want to quote from that article something I never knew. One of the agendas I am suspecting is the very idea of throwing "end of the world" scenarios out there and tracking them like the "benign" viruses our friends in the biowarfare department sometimes let off into the atmosphere of our major cities. <br><br>An old example of this was a study by the Rockefeller foundation back in 1938. It involved funding a little radio play called "War of the Worlds." Rockefeller. End of world scenario. What ARE these guys playing at? Here's the hopsicker link: <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.madcowprod.com/MC6812004.html">www.madcowprod.com/MC6812004.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Here's the quote:<br><br> “The broadcast was a psychological warfare experiment conducted by The Princeton Radio Project. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the project in the fall of 1937. An Office of Radio Research was set up with Paul F. Lazersfeld as director, and Frank Stanton and Hadley Cantrell as associate directors. Using demographic data on the broadcast’s audience gleaned from a 10-page interview questionnaire given to 135 people, they created a book, “Invasion From Mars: A Study in the Psychology of Panic.”<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Riemann pique

Postby wolf pauli » Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:10 pm

As Colin Campbell said, "Oil is ultimately controlled by events in the geological past which are immune to politics." (Cited by Ugo Bardi, 'Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics?', <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.aspoitalia.net/aspoenglish/documents/bardi/abioticoil1oct04.html">www.aspoitalia.net/aspoen...oct04.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>)<br><br>Given that there's <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>no chance whatsoever</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> that people will take Campbell's incontrovertible point (or Bardi's about abiotic oil), but will focus instead on the manifestly irrelevant, I'll just toss this little parable into the ether, knowing full well it's to no avail, and purely on the grounds that one futile gesture deserves another.<br><br>Once upon a time there was a mathematician named Riemann, who formulated a hypothesis so arcane that there's no point in trying to reproduce it here; suffice it to say that the hypothesis would explain the apparently random pattern of prime numbers. Time marched on, and the use of computers became ubiquitous for many purposes, including the exchange of sensitive financial data; naturally, such data had to be transmitted in encrypted form. Croesus went on sporting with Amaryllis in the shade, but the pundits got to fretting; they realized that if the Riemann hypothesis was confirmed, financial catastrophe might follow. Suddenly all cryptic codes would be breakable in principle, and very likely also in practice. No computer network transaction would be secure.<br><br>White papers were written, executive summaries were scrutinized, and soon enough, people who wouldn't know the Riemann hypothesis from the Hodge conjecture, or a zeta function from a beta version, started <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>hoping</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> Riemann was wrong. Of course, it was no use telling these people that <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>their hopes and desires had no bearing whatsoever on the truth or falsity of the Riemann hypothesis</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->. As far as they were concerned, the hypothesis simply couldn't be true, and no one could think otherwise except unscrupulous folks looking to promote an agenda.<br><br>So too for peak oil. And so too for those who wouldn't know coal shale from coleslaw (except by eating it) or pyrolized kerogen from tea (except by drinking it).<br><br>Irrationality is as irrationality does. <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Bon appetit</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, and <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>L'chaim</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->!<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
wolf pauli
 
Posts: 122
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 8:20 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

hypotheses

Postby robertdreed » Sun Jul 31, 2005 4:25 pm

Both "peak oil" and the effect of human activity on "global warming" are examples of scientific hypotheses where the laboratory is our home planet, and the experiment is taking place in real time. <br><br>The results aren't in yet. Some people think that one or both hypotheses will be shown to be valid. Others think they'll be disproved. <br><br>And there are shades of disagreement even between those who share wider agreements. I've heard at least one commentator declare that global warming will soon prove so catastrophic that humanity will have stop using fossil fuels long before the last barrel of easily available petroleum is pumped from the Earth. <br><br>They're scientific disagreements. Although there are associated political implications, the disputes are to be argued in the arena of science.<br><br>Neither side on those issues can make a case for their position simply by imputing ulterior motives to those who disagree.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>
robertdreed
 
Posts: 1560
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:14 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Some response?

Postby Dreams End » Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:09 pm

I'm interested if I'm the only one who can see other agendas to the "peak oil" business. <br><br>Let's think of this. I am a political activist. I want to make the world better. I want to work in my neighborhood and in my city and in larger communities for change, for justice.<br><br>I just learned from a site that has impressive leftist backing (speaking from the left here) that peak oil makes all other issues irrelevant. No need to organize...just take the time I've got left, buy some gold, get a year's worth of MRE's and off to my cabin for me. Might that not have some appeal to our ruling classes?<br><br>Now, personally, I admit to no knowledge about Hubbert or any other kinds of curves. What I do know is that peak oil is not a unanimous verdict by the "experts." So I can say for certain that there is room for doubt. Otherwise, there would be no debate. <br><br>Within that doubt comes questions about, if it turns out not to be right, where peak oil ideas come from. My suggestion is that there are, possibly, other motivations for putting forward this hypothesis. <br><br>Of course, what I "HOPE" to be true is irrelevant. But if this is an issue so complicated that only experts can judge it's validity, all I can hope to do is examine the motives and potential biases of these experts, as it is primarily their conclusions I'll have to rely on. I'm suggesting that the main purveyor of this idea, at least to the mainstream, is not the sort I trust. Since I will not be able, by 2007, to learn enough to really sort it out for myself...it's the best I can do.<br><br>If it is blatantly apparent that peak oil is real, then the experts should agree....or else there is a cover-up. Given how much press there is...mainstream press these days, I'd say the cover up angle is not correct. And clearly the experts don't all agree or, as I said, there'd be no debate. <br><br>In any event, we'll know soon enough. <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: Riemann pique

Postby heath7 » Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:57 pm

wolfpauli, what do you know? Are you some emminently knowledgeable petro-geologist? If so, start coming off with some <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>incontrovertible</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> proof <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>before</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> attacking those as stupid who don't view peak oil as you do; it really is unnecessary and lacks civility.<br><br>I, myself, am seeking to avoid the cut-and-dry yes-or-no and keep an open mind, because I'd hate to ever be so pretentious to think I know everything. The only reason I'll appear to have taken the anti-Ruppert side is because some opinions (including Ruppert's) have acted like they <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>KNOW</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> what's up with peak oil, and <!--EZCODE BOLD START--><strong>that</strong><!--EZCODE BOLD END--> is wrong. <p></p><i></i>
heath7
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 9:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Energy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest