[Outcast_Searcher]

I think if you believe that concern about climate change (i.e. AGW) isn't becoming seriously mainstream, you're deluding yourself.

AGW is trending higher than peak-oil, but surprisingly not as much as you'd think, despite the Pope, more extreme weather events, etc...

Here is google trends for global warming.

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q ... %2FGMT%2B5

And that tells us NOTHING AT ALL about what people believe about peak oil. The page defined "interest" as web searches -- period.

I'm guessing you try this misdirection deliberately, but do you think you can reasonably assume that everyone who disagrees with you can't, for example, read a simple chart or think logically?

(Do you think, for example, that few searches on "flat earth" mean that people are mostly unsure of whether the earth is flat)?

[ennui2]

And that tells us NOTHING AT ALL about what people believe about peak oil. The page defined "interest" as web searches -- period.

It does to me. It tells me whether it's active in people's thoughts, since the internet is like a hive-mind.

It's not much of a stretch to think that those who spend the most time thinking about it are those who think it's a problem. And when people stop thinking about it, they stop writing about it or searching for it. And that's what took place.

You want to disagree with me on interpreting this chart, fine, but this IS in fact the main way this trending chart is interpreted.

[Outcast_Searcher]

And that tells us NOTHING AT ALL about what people believe about peak oil. The page defined "interest" as web searches -- period.

It does to me. It tells me whether it's active in people's thoughts, since the internet is like a hive-mind.

It's not much of a stretch to think that those who spend the most time thinking about it are those who think it's a problem. And when people stop thinking about it, they stop writing about it or searching for it. And that's what took place.

You want to disagree with me on interpreting this chart, fine, but this IS in fact the main way this trending chart is interpreted.

It's not much of a stretch to realize (just like with my flat earth example, which you conveniently ignored) that if something is considered by the mainstream to be a settled issue, clicking on it frequently (to see what it is about, for example) isn't needed.

But go with your hive-mind theory -- it's a nice buzzword, after all. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the implications of the chart.

[ennui2]

It's not much of a stretch to realize (just like with my flat earth example, which you conveniently ignored) that if something is considered by the mainstream to be a settled issue, clicking on it frequently (to see what it is about, for example) isn't needed.

Not a good analogy, given the fact that climate change impacts and new increasingly doomy reports are an almost daily ritual, raising the issue up again in the forefront of people's consciousness. Go look at Desdemona Despair for an aggregation of such reports. Similar reports about PO (like the Forbes article) are few and far between.

Neverthelss, a doom fatigue starts to set in where it just becomes the new normal and you become increasingly numb to it all. I think that explains the falloff of AGW interest. I think the falloff in PO is because, well, we've got an oil glut. Pretty simple.

[sidzepp]

One can argue Peak Oil for decades to come. Chances are the new fields will be discovered, albeit they will be more expensive and also more dangerous. The concept of PO can be used as an example for all finite resources; soil, fisheries, estuaries, coal, copper, rare earth minerals, fresh water, etc. We are aware of the consequences of a carbon based economy and a capitalist economic system (yes, even the Chinese can be considered capitalistic) humanity must decide on what future we are going to progress. If we continue on our current path and the scarcity of the raw materials needed to fuel our indulgent lifestyles then we will find more challenges each year to our survival.
While the developed world, seems to be addressing the problems in a variety of ways the emerging markets, i.e. China, Brazil, India and China seemed intent on copying the system that got us to where we are today. Even the under-developed world has aspirations for elevating their economic stature in the world community.
So as we march blindly to Armageddon, we must ask ourselves do we argue about presenting our arguments to the world, not a scare tactics, but as a means of developing new Economic and Political philosophies that address the issue and provide the general population, both rich and poor with viable models for a better future? It is apparent that the models we use are not working.

[ROCKMAN]

sid - I see no meaningful "models" being applied anywhere. The global energy dynamic is simply being dominated by selfinterest. I see no reason to expect that to change.

[Smurfs1976]

And when people stop thinking about it, they stop writing about it or searching for it. And that's what took place.

Petrol, diesel and LPG are all readily available to consumers at prices that have been trending down or sideways depending on location.

Not hard to see why the average person wouldn't see oil as a problem right now and will be focused on other things.

[Subjectivist]

And when people stop thinking about it, they stop writing about it or searching for it. And that's what took place.

Petrol, diesel and LPG are all readily available to consumers at prices that have been trending down or sideways depending on location.

Not hard to see why the average person wouldn't see oil as a problem right now and will be focused on other things.

That is the problem with being short term thinkers. You would think the $4.00/gallon prices that popped up in 2013 were some distant experience nobody alive today could remember.

[ennui2]

The concept of PO can be used as an example for all finite resources

But that is a perversion of the term. Sure, doomers think of things beyond LTG, but peak-oil is peak-oil, period.

[ennui2]

The concept of PO can be used as an example for all finite resources

But that is a perversion of the term. Sure, doomers think of things beyond LTG, but peak-oil is peak-oil, period.

Holy jeez! What a pointless post.

No it isn't.

I don't particularly like the marketing tactic of trying to New Coke-ize peak-oil to mean something it doesn't mean. To me that feels like grasping for straws in order to appeal to Joe Sixpack, and that ship sailed years ago anyway. Chris Martenson rebranding his business "Peak Prosperity" is a good case in point also. It's like "Hmm, I guess zombie hordes are a little farther off than we thought, so let's kind of tone it down and try to offer investment tips so people can wealth-build since we know BAU's gonna be around a while. But let's keep the 'Peak' name so we don't feel that we've completely capitulated." The word 'prosperity' has no business in the doomer lexicon.

[shortonoil]

"One can argue Peak Oil for decades to come. Chances are the new fields will be discovered, albeit they will be more expensive and also more dangerous."

The petroleum industry has spent an average of $75 billion per year looking for oil for the last decade. Their search has located about 4 Gb per year, and the world has been consuming 32. If you have knowledge of additional undiscovered supplies contact EXXON. They would be willing to pay handsomely for that information?

"The worst case of ill-informed arrogant misplaced denial ever at PO.com. Much more distressing than the others, even including copious aka oilfinder aka reservegrowthrulz aka shortonoil aka johndenver. yikes"

For Christ sakes, that may be the only dumb thing I have ever heard you say; its a shame it negates your many years of very lucid comments. I assume you are referring to my position on climate change:

1) Is the world warming?

Any dame fool that can read the NOAA reports knows that it is!

2) Is there anything that we can do about it?

The world has at most fourteen years before the integrated global economic system collapses. Institutions that we take for granted will disappear everywhere. The majority of humanity will be concerned with finding 2500 calories to make it through the day. How is the world supposed to fight climate change then? Pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere with their ox carts? Get real! Your battle against climate change was lost before anyone even realized that there was a battle. Don't expect me to get involved in a war of absolute futility. Admit defeat, and save your energy for more immediate, and equally fatal events!

[shortonoil]

Arctic Sea Ice

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects ... e-anomaly/

Let's hope it's the monkeys that are heating up things; as the IIPC's rather flimsy model seems to indicate. They will eventually run out of places to poke holes in the ground. A bunch of them will die off, and earth can go ahead and clean up the mess. If not, some very bad things are happening?

[AdamB]

Forbes: doomers. theoildrum: doomers. doomers everywhere! Where to hide. Another web site perhaps?

TOD took themselves way too seriously for the results delivered. How about a dose of the real crazies instead?

LATOC.....reborn!!!!!

http://dj-atmosphere.com/

[ennui2]

Peak oil is here? Gosh, how shall we cope having to gas up for less than $2 a gallon???

[ralfy]

According to 2006 forecasts, demand is supposed to be around 115 Mb/d by now, but that was not reached because the global economy crashed and remained weak throughout due to fallout from financial speculation. One of the reasons for increased financial speculation was higher oil production cost.

Meanwhile, global population continues to rise, together with more energy and material resources needed to meet basic needs.