by 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>