Peak oil

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: fascinating

Postby wintler » Sun Mar 26, 2006 11:46 pm

..to watch someone trying to pass off a blizzard of bullshit as coherent argument. Newkid may even think he (let me bet its a white american male) is making sense, but his whole 'point' consists of:<br><br>"DE & then Jeff said Heinberg is dodgy, and Simmons is a banker and a Republican, so oil will never peak." <br><br>Gotta give you some credit tho NK, you make good use of inclusive friendly asides ("Smithtalk, please", "You know better than that", "what is it we were saying") and pay appropriate homage to the local big men (DE & Jeff), so you're bound to get some hearing. <br><br>Slopping around the ad hominem attacks and accusing me of being a disinfo agent tho ("Are you some sort of Ruppertian provocateur"), they're no-no's, believe the latter has even been specifically barred. <br><br>-<br><br>I'll say again, to ignore oil peak because you don't like some of the people talking about it, or the way some people are talking about it, is really, really, really, stupid.<br><br>Some people panic about the levels of mercury, cyanide and MTB pollution in US drinking water and catastrophise the consequences. That doesn't mean mercury is good for you, but thats Newkids logic.<br> <p></p><i></i>
wintler
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 5:28 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: fascinating

Postby Dreams End » Mon Mar 27, 2006 12:41 am

What an odd position to be in. to agree with Newkid's sentiment, but to favor wintler in this exchange. newkid, go read the history of this debate around here. threads on Ruppert, Heinberg, peak oil as pop redux scheme etc. <br><br>It just gets repetitive.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
Dreams End
 

Re: fascinating

Postby NewKid » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:06 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>maybe you should look up the word evidence in your dictionary, <br><br>you made the call, you call him a charlatan<br><br>i am interested in evidence,<br>i could create a blogspot in the next 3 minutes called peak oil is bullshit, write a post slamming aforementioned dudes, and it would be worth fuck all to anyone,<br><br>now i am prepared to believe that his company website might exaggerate their own credentials cos that is the norm,<br>but they opened in 1974 immediately focussing on the oil service industry, in 1989/90 they were veryt interested in oil supply and demand factors, their research looks at upstream oil services, midstream and downstream, exploration,production, alternative energy, coal, and the tanker industry.<br>the company has '91 professionals and a total of 141 employees—by far the largest investment banking practice serving the energy industry'<br><br>charlatan? maybe i need to check my own dictionary,<br>or maybe matthew simmons know a bit more about oil than a peakoildebunked, personally i am not sure,<br><br>anyone that takes a hard position on this issue is an idiot, beacause the one thing that is needed to make an assesment is not freely available, evidence <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Congratulations Smithtalk, that's one of the most ineffective responses I've ever seen. You did a fabulous job not only not responding to my argument, but actually revealing that you have no idea what you're talking about one way or the other. I mean that in all seriousness. That took guts. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>to watch someone trying to pass off a blizzard of bullshit as coherent argument. Newkid may even think he (let me bet its a white american male) is making sense, but his whole 'point' consists of: <br><br>"DE & then Jeff said Heinberg is dodgy, and Simmons is a banker and a Republican, so oil will never peak." <br><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Actually no, Wintler, that's not what I was arguing at all. Try again. You're really not getting this are you. I'm not making the anti-peak oil case. That wasn't my point at all. One more time for you and every one else who can't seem to read English:<br><br>The truth of peak oil is not my point. It may be true or it may be complete bullshit or somewhere in between. But relying on tainted sources to come to conclusions on something like Peak Oil is foolish. Let me make an analogy to 9-11. CD may be correct, but there are surely alot of disinformational people arguing CD with bad arguments. Or take the no plane hit the WTC or there was a pod underneath or whatever arguments. Now even if 9-11 was full MIHOP, listening to those people to form your opinions, even if their ultimate conclusion is correct is foolish. <br><br>Now take someone like Dreams End. I get the impression he thinks flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Why? Because basically I think he's cuetaking from sources that he thinks are credible. It's pretty clear he hasn't looked seriously at the available evidence and so he doesn't really know what the hell he's talking about on the subject, but I still consider DE a reliable poster with good arguments and information. So it works a bunch of different ways. <br><br>For the last time, I'm not here to make the anti-peak oil case. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 3/26/06 10:06 pm<br></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

nk says

Postby smithtalk » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:15 am

<i>But relying on tainted sources to come to conclusions on something like Peak Oil is foolish.</i><br><br>my comment was, why is simmons a tainted source, you gave no real response,<br>i demonstrated that to say he doesnt know what he's talking about seems absurd given the length of his industry involvement and the level of his industry involvemt,<br><br>i am very open to being shown that he is in fact 'not credible' for some reason, but i want some evidence<br><br>and i am not sure exactly how i showed that i have no idea what i'm talking about one way or the other<br><br><br>anyway, i dont need other peoples mouthes to help me form opinions, i use my brain, <br>the life blood of the modern industrial system is oil, <br>demand is rising fast especially with china and india on the move, <br>russia has used oil twice this year as a weapon, <br>america has convenient relationships with the first, fourth and fifth biggest holders of oil, has invaded the worlds second biggest and looks set to invade the third biggest,<br>anyone who thinks theres plenty of oil and its an industry scam is missing some very big sign posts that suggest otherwise <p></p><i></i>
smithtalk
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: nk says

Postby NewKid » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:31 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>my comment was, why is simmons a tainted source, you gave no real response, <br>i demonstrated that to say he doesnt know what he's talking about seems absurd given the length of his industry involvement and the level of his industry involvemt,<br><br>i am very open to being shown that he is in fact 'not credible' for some reason, but i want some evidence<br><br>and i am not sure exactly how i showed that i have no idea what i'm talking about one way or the other <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Smithtalk, he's not actually an expert. He wouldn't even get Daubert qualified in court on it. <br><br>I'll reprint the comment for you again,<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>This is nothing but pure lobbyist FUD, a load of major, major, major bullshit that nobody agrees with. Nobody believes world oil production will be 10-20mbd in 2030 -- not Exxon/Mobil, not Shell, not the USGS, not the DOE, not Sadad Al Husseini (see #89), not Colin Campbell, not ASPO, not Jean Laherrere... Nobody. Simmons is talking out his ass. He is not a petroleum engineer, or a geologist, and he has a sum total of zero first hand knowledge of reservoir engineering, and zero first hand knowledge of the Saudi oil fields -- the two subjects on which he is now respectfully regarded as the world's foremost expert. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><br>But Smithtalk, let me say this, even if he were the best qualified guy in the world, would you really trust him? You know, look who he's hanging out with and stuff. If I told you not to believe stuff Dick Cheney says, even if I didn't write a monograph on it for you, I'm pretty sure given his background you'd be cautious about taking him seriously. <br><br>Do you really want to spend time here talking about Simmons? Cause I really don't. I'm pretty sure he's not somebody to listen to. That doesn't mean he's 100% wrong, but you know, I don't take him seriously. If you want to, be my guest. <br> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

ahhh

Postby smithtalk » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:57 am

if dick cheney said things were going pretty well in iraq, i would take that and compare it to all other available peices of info on iraq and then form my own opinion on the his statements, not his personal credibility,<br>the things simmons says on oil i have good reason from a lot of other sources to suspect are close to accurate,<br>i dont care who he has tea with, who he votes for, or what he said in 1987, i like multiple peices of information to join in pointing in a direction, and then i keep checking new bits of info against assumptions,<br><br>the current head of NASA is not an astronaut and doesnt know about the fuel to weight ratios of saturn 5 engines but that doesnt mean that when he talks about the future of space exploration we should write him of as a charlatan, <p></p><i></i>
smithtalk
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

expert

Postby smithtalk » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:00 am

this guy here is no expert, former vp at aramco,<br>what the fuck does he know<br><br>"I think in total the [International Energy Agency] outlook is much too high for production and it’s unrealistic for the world to be expecting such high numbers from all of the producers, including Saudi Arabia. They’re not only overestimating the Middle East, but they overestimate non-Opec, they overestimate Russia, they overestimate the whole global resource base. And I think this is a rather dangerous situation for the US government policy to be based on."<br><br>Sadad al-Husseini, former vice-president of Saudi Arabia's national oil company Aramco<br><br> <p></p><i></i>
smithtalk
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: ahhh

Postby NewKid » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:03 am

Smithtalk, David Icke disagrees with the official story on 9-11. So do I. But I think he's a fraud. If you think other sources make sense on peak oil, good for you. But Simmons has no credibility in my opinion. In about 20 seconds, I found an example where he was exaggerating and talking out of his ass. He's not a qualfied expert. He's got major conflicts of interest. People that know him say he's not to be trusted. <br><br>If you like him, that's fine with me. But if you're really that confused about how to find information on Simmons using the internet, I'm guessing you're not qualfied to make assessments about peak oil. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: ahhh

Postby NewKid » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:20 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Daneshy is on the record stating that Simmons (an MBA banker, with no technical background or expertise in petroleum engineering) is spreading misinformation about the dangers of water flooding in the Saudi oil fields (see #119). Simmons' views have also been disputed by Sadad Al Husseini, a geology Ph.D. who was formerly the head of Saudi Aramco's exploration department (see #89). <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/10/139-petroleum-engineer-flays-simmons_22.html" target="top">peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2005/10/139-petroleum-engineer-flays-simmons_22.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br>see also here<br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/01/219-jim-jarrells-another-day-in-desert.html" target="top">peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/01/219-jim-jarrells-another-day-in-desert.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br>and here<br><br><br><!--EZCODE LINK START--><a href="http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/03/252-two-tongues-of-matt-simmons.html" target="top">peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/03/252-two-tongues-of-matt-simmons.html</a><!--EZCODE LINK END--><br><br><br>Time to find: 52 seconds. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

looking

Postby smithtalk » Mon Mar 27, 2006 3:46 am

well i have been searching tirelessly for some information on JD at peakoil debunked, or john denver as i think he also goes by,<br>just trying to get the gist of his expertise or knowledge in the field and guess what, i cant find anything, nothing,<br><br>time taken, about fifteen minutes,<br><br>but i have a hunch, i'll bet you NK he isnt a geologist and i'll bet he's just a guy, that puts it all together from what he picks up out there, kind of like an analyst, kind of like simmons,<br><br><br>and in case your having trouble reading my posts,<br>i'll say it one more time, i dont like simmons, or support simmons,<br>i just wanted some evidence he was a charlatan,<br>and the three posts on your favourite little site have not demonstrated that to me, nor have all of JD's fawning commentariat <p></p><i></i>
smithtalk
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:53 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: looking

Postby NewKid » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:29 am

Let's see. Talking out of his ass, making bogus predictions, spreading misinformation, all to make a profit. <br><br>Hmm. Yeah, I guess he's not a charlatan. I guess that logic's good there. Sort of like assuming 9-11 was an inside job because the 9-11 commission engaged in a coverup. <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START :rollin --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br>Give it up Smithtalk. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: looking

Postby NewKid » Mon Mar 27, 2006 4:52 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>but i have a hunch, i'll bet you NK he isnt a geologist and i'll bet he's just a guy, that puts it all together from what he picks up out there, kind of like an analyst, kind of like simmons,<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Now can you really say you've seen no evidence. I have to assume you're either a total imbecile or more likely you're being disingenuous here. <br><br>Here's a hint. Look at the people he cites. <br><br>Second hint. Try some Matt Simmons google searches once you're done reading all the people that the site links to who slice up Simmons. <br><br> <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

charlatans

Postby darkbeforedawn » Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:08 am

So newkid, now that you have come out as an apologist for the msm story about 9-11, please do tell, was this really done by nineteen year old anemic jihadists barely able to fly a Cesna, who simultaneously got control of four different commericial jets by wresting the cockpits away from burley military trained pilots, at the direction of a man hiding in a cave known to be on dialysis and in the employ of the CIA? Just because the entire "commission" on this were a bunch of crooks and liars is no reason not to believe the absurd, totally fabricated fairytale they defended, now is it? <p></p><i></i>
darkbeforedawn
 

Re: charlatans

Postby NewKid » Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:20 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>So newkid, now that you have come out as an apologist for the msm story about 9-11, please do tell, was this really done by nineteen year old anemic jihadists barely able to fly a Cesna, who simultaneously got control of four different commericial jets by wresting the cockpits away from burley military trained pilots, at the direction of a man hiding in a cave known to be on dialysis and in the employ of the CIA? Just because the entire "commission" on this were a bunch of crooks and liars is no reason not to believe the absurd, totally fabricated fairytale they defended, now is it? <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>DBD, I think you missed a step or two. Now I'm not entirely sure what in the hell you're talking about, but I suspect it's my comment about the commission and the coverup. What I think you've missed is the comment in another thread where smithtalk said something to the effect of thinking 9-11 was an inside job because there was no serious investigation. I pointed out in that thread that I agree that this is a good point, but is ultimately inconclusive. I cited the fact that people will respond that they think a coverup can occur even though they still believe the patsies were the guilty parties. E.g. those who believe the Warren commission covered stuff up and did a shitty investigation but nevertheless believe Oswald did it. So my point was that incompetence theorists and LIHOPers can concede the Kean commission was a farce and still not accept MIHOP. Indeed, I believe many victims' family members take that position. <br><br>As you must know from reading my posts, I don't believe much of anything about the official story and have no trouble seeing how the commission would cover up or ignore MIHOP. <br><br>That said, I actually think the 9-11 report is an excellent weapon to be used against the official story. <p></p><i></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

mistake

Postby darkbeforedawn » Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:35 am

Sorry NK, I misunderstood your point. It sounded as if you felt 9-11 really wasn't an inside job. Glad to hear you are aware that most of the evidence now is pointing directly to Bushco. <p></p><i></i>
darkbeforedawn
 

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest