[Whatever]

Timing the exact moment of collapse is an inherently difficult thing to do.

On more than one occasion you have put your chips on fast-crash doom within 4 years. Is this statement you walking back from that position or not?

No. I am good with my prediction. No reason to walk it back.

Do you understand what happens to someone's credibility when they plant a stake in the ground and say "doom by this date" and then that date comes and goes?

Yes. But I am willing to risk it because I am sure I am right. You, on the other hand, have no credibility to start with.

Do you expect people to keep giving out free passes for bad "end is nigh" calls?

I don't care. I don't need a free pass.



---Futilitist

[ennui2]

I am good with my prediction. No reason to walk it back.

OK. So I'll keep a crow waiting for you to eat in 4 years.

[Whatever]

I am good with my prediction. No reason to walk it back.

OK. So I'll keep a crow waiting for you to eat in 4 years.

Ha ha. That's a good idea, ennui. That crow will come in handy for you when the famines begin.



---Futilitist

[ennui2]

Hmm... Where have I heard that tone before? Oh, yeah, here we go again.

[Whatever]

Hmm... Where have I heard that tone before? Oh, yeah, here we go again.

You just said I was going to eat crow. I said you might need to eat that crow yourself soon. It was just a rhetorical joke based on what you said. I did not say doom on you, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. Quit trying to put words in my mouth. I don't see how you can think your stupid cartoons are very effective.



---Futilitist

[AdamB]

I am good with my prediction. No reason to walk it back.

OK. So I'll keep a crow waiting for you to eat in 4 years.

Ha ha. That's a good idea, ennui. That crow will come in handy for you when the famines begin.

---Futilitist

Rinsing and recycling Ehrlich....<sigh>....not a shred of originality here at all...

[Whatever]

I am good with my prediction. No reason to walk it back.

OK. So I'll keep a crow waiting for you to eat in 4 years.

Ha ha. That's a good idea, ennui. That crow will come in handy for you when the famines begin.

---Futilitist

Rinsing and recycling Ehrlich....<sigh>....not a shred of originality here at all...

Every apocalypse has the same four horsemen, Adam.

And you are still dodging my question. Have you read the Korowicz paper?



---Futilitist

[ennui2]

And so the strawman arguments continue. I have not claimed the glut will go on forever, but a glut we have and a glut will last for a while. Snoozebar territory, hence the lack of posters here. If you want to pretend otherwise, be my guest, but you'd be "wrong on the internet" to do so.

[onlooker]

And so the strawman arguments continue. I have not claimed the glut will go on forever, but a glut we have and a glut will last for a while.

Snoozebar territory, hence the lack of posters here.

If you want to pretend otherwise, be my guest, but you'd be "wrong on the internet" to do so.

Snoozebar only because the general populace and some here refuse to truly confront the consequences and intricacies of PO. Refuse or cannot because they are wed to this narrative that peak oil will manifest itself in one big bang that will wipe civilization away. Here is where my position is a bit more nuanced. I firmly believe what our resident Oil expert states, yes Rockman, this is about a dynamic and that dynamic or process will not not happen in one given moment but as a drawn out process that will as sure as quicksand devour civilization. So this glut or not glut talk is nonsense, in so much as what matters is the trajectory and trends and they are ALL negative and bringing the Economy down.

[AdamB]

Rinsing and recycling Ehrlich....<sigh>....not a shred of originality here at all...

Every apocalypse has the same four horsemen, Adam.

Quite true. But DAMN we've been waiting a millennium for them to arrive now and all we get are the likes of YOU.

And you are still dodging my question. Have you read the Korowicz paper?
---Futilitist

I have answered your question on multiple occasions. In exchange for my time and quite advanced analytic skills applied to a paper of your choice, I requested your graph be recast to determine its validity in any other than the cherry picked time frames you have applied it to. This is for you to have credibility to even ATTEMPT to pick a paper worthy of investing my time upon.

So far, you have failed in meeting that requirement. You whine, you complain, you repeat your assertions endlessly without a care in the world for their validity....therefore the probabilities would indicate that you have a extremely low, perhaps even zero likelihood of having found any paper worthy of investing a nanosecond of my time.

[AdamB]

Of course this (mostly inane) conversation must come around to the OP. Has the danger of Peak Oil passed?

Only in an alternative magical world (which seems to be singularly inhabited by that Happy Cornie Sprite Couple . . . AdamB/ennui) does the planet earth gush forth forever.

Nobody says it can. Go fight a 1st graders strawman, this one is getting old.

If you do not understand the difference between infinite, and REAL BIG, then track down your 3rd grade math teacher and box their ears for having cheated you out of it, thereby causing you to look foolish on internet forums.

No, guys and gals. The danger of Peak Oil has not passed.

The ones claimed in 2000, 2005, 2006 and 2008 have anyway. The next spot you kick the can to, not yet, but the sine wave of oil production will make this a regular event I imagine.

Rather peak oil is just behind you. Right there. Lurking in the shadows. Big and rough. Full of vim and vigor. Ready to devour the boys and girls. And the guys and gals.

Yes, all the ones in the past were quite horrible. The future ones? Who knows. But I do know that after the completion of a 6000 mile road trip this past weekend, I couldn't find a single fuel station rationing their product, no shortages, and cheap prices even around NYC and up near the NH/Maine border.

Funny thing that, big and rough equaling cheap and plentiful.

[AdamB]

And so the strawman arguments continue. I have not claimed the glut will go on forever, but a glut we have and a glut will last for a while. Snoozebar territory, hence the lack of posters here. If you want to pretend otherwise, be my guest, but you'd be "wrong on the internet" to do so.

Not just snooze bar here. How about...THE WORLD!!!

Check out the headlining graph. Looks like interest in folks who don't get resource economics got panned back in 2009 or so.

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... -span.html

[rockdoc123]

Of course this is a glut. (headslap). Because of the concurrent oil-demand dearth.

so where is your data indicating oil-demand dearth?

[ennui2]

Snoozebar only because the general populace and some here refuse to truly confront the consequences

Look, there used to be what, hundreds of people here? How about LATOC? The regulars used to study these issues in excruciating detail. They did so over a period of years. They were not dumb or ill-informed. They are not sheeple. Why did they tune out and go home? You're somehow a superior intellect to all of them? No. They tuned out because it's a lull.

I firmly believe what our resident Oil expert states, yes Rockman, this is about a dynamic

And Rockman has often acted as a check against Whatever and PStarr's fast-crash doomerism. So he's not the hardcore doomer you think he is.

[Whatever]

I firmly believe what our resident Oil expert states, yes Rockman, this is about a dynamic

And Rockman has often acted as a check against Whatever and PStarr's fast-crash doomerism. So he's not the hardcore doomer you think he is.

It hardly matters. I don't accept the premise that the great ROCKMAN is an oil expert.

And you are still dodging my question. Have you read the Korowicz paper?
---Futilitist

I have answered your question on multiple occasions. In exchange for my time and quite advanced analytic skills applied to a paper of your choice, I requested your graph be recast to determine its validity in any other than the cherry picked time frames you have applied it to. This is for you to have credibility to even ATTEMPT to pick a paper worthy of investing my time upon.

So far, you have failed in meeting that requirement. You whine, you complain, you repeat your assertions endlessly without a care in the world for their validity....therefore the probabilities would indicate that you have a extremely low, perhaps even zero likelihood of having found any paper worthy of investing a nanosecond of my time.

Pathetic. Since you are obviously so afraid to read and debate the Korowicz paper, I will let you off the hook. I don't want to talk to you anyway.

I would recommend that anyone reading this thread take a close look at the Korowicz paper. It outlines in detail how the complex non-linear system called modern industrial civilization will respond to conditions of falling total energy. Rapid collapse is simply unavoidable. That is why AdamB refuses to comment on it.



---Futilitist

[rockdoc123]

Demand in countries all over the world collapsed and never returned after the 2005 and the peak of conventional oil. You want to play oil trader games. I am not interested. This thread is about whether or not peak oil danger is in the past. It most certainly is not.

wheres your evidence? OIl trader? This is EIA data. Please show us the evidence demand collapsed after 2005. It certainly doesn't show up in the gasoline consumption numbers nor does it show up anywhere in any EIA data.

It amazes me how you can make statements that have no factual basis and stick to them in the face of data to the contrary.