Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Sun 05 Feb 2012, 18:17:24

vision-master wrote:
Creationism (young earth creationism) is CLEARLY nonsense to anyone willing to objectively look at a simply overwhelming (and growing) mountain of scientific evidence. (Whatever your theology may be - that is another issue).

Then again, why are we so different? Why didn't dolphins evolve into making cities? Also, if you look at the Earth objectively, it's a living highly conscious being as is our Sun. :)
Some people embrace this logical fallacy that everything is trying to evolve into something "better." Jellyfish have been doing just fine for hundreds of millions of years. That sea urchin is not dreaming about becoming a commuter with a briefcase.
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Sun 05 Feb 2012, 18:58:09

PrestonSturges wrote:
SeaGypsy wrote:All words are loaded. Vile, is a very loaded word. Criticism is warranted and welcome. My reading is that there are 2 totally different meanings to creationism. One is the Bible based standard Christian Science perspective. Another (the one I use) is that science has not (nor do I believe ever will) explain the jump from elemental physics to biology. This massive hole in science leaves plenty of room for conjecture. The conjecture leaves plenty of room for critique. 'Vile' is not a critique usually used in intellectual/ scientific debates. Pretentious. Willfully ignorant. Absolutely lacking in credibility. These are valid critiques, particularly of the first definition.


How life started is pretty much irrelevant to the mechanism of evolution. Saying that evolution isn't valid until the origin of life is proven is like claiming that someone does not understand human nutrition since they don't know how life started. It's a classic "red herring" argument.


I have until now not even mentioned evolution.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9284
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby vision-master » Sun 05 Feb 2012, 19:02:36

SG, didn't you know we evolued from apes after they started eating psilocybin mushrooms. :-D

Image
vision-master
 

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Sun 05 Feb 2012, 19:11:16

I do believe our relationship with psychedelics goes all the way back. For the same reason, I find it hilarious how anti psychedelics are so put down and criminalized by the religions these same experiences initially created.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9284
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby vision-master » Sun 05 Feb 2012, 19:13:01

They don't want anyone to get any ideas. :lol:
vision-master
 

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Sun 05 Feb 2012, 19:22:24

Early modern psychedelic experimentation was mostly done because the US intelligence folks found out that there is no more accurate lie detector than an intelligent person on mushrooms or acid.

Fact is most people are full of shit and bile. Even in Church.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9284
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby meemoe_uk » Sun 05 Feb 2012, 20:22:17

Well thought I'd better say something since this thread attacks cornys like me.
>Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?
No.
The core of any religion was found to be an assertion that can be believed, but cannot be evidenced.

Lets look at ian807s post from page 2.
ian807 wrote:Well, cornucopianism is certainly faith-based in the sense that the data suggests that we're on the downslope of non- renewable energy availability, at least as far as liquid hydrocarbons go.

Good start. IEA data shows oil supply going up for at least 18 years. Its more available to humans now than in the entire history of the 13.7bn year old universe. Yet peakers think we're on the downslope. Which is exact opposite where we are. Ian even uses the term 'liquid hydrocarbon' rather than oil, which just clarifies peakers favourite ambiguity in my favour.


>The faith based arguments to the contrary seem to boil down to:
* The economist's argument: "Demand will create supply"

Bear in mind its the cartel that create demand by choosing the price of oil, the increase in the price of oil has done exactly this for 8 years. Evidenced.

* The "magic oil" argument: "Abiotic oil is a renewable resource, constantly being created."
That's something peakers like to stoop low and try smear with. Cornies don't believe in abiotic oil.

* The technology will save us argument: "New technology [insert favorite here] will solve the energy crisis!
Why need new tech? There's no energy crisis. Old tech has already saved us for thousands of years. Hundreds of years of oil left, thousands for coal, tens of thousands for nuclear power. Nuclear power unlocked energy 10000 to 100000 times denser than fossil fuel. So the effort needed to find some was orders of magnitude less than for fossil fuels. We've effectively not looks for nuclear fuel at all, yet we've found enough to last us thru the next glacial period ( 100,000 years supply ).

* We haven't explored all the Earth's surface yet. There's bound to be more oil (This is sort of a recent Faux News talking point.)
Why bother? We've got so much spare energy. The only exploration is effectively for effortlessly easy oil.

>All of the above arguments demand either a belief in magic
Nope.

That the rest of the peakers here don't say a word to ian just strikes me you're all in silent agreement with him. It's the peak oil doom is now belief that compares to religion. It's just like talking to judgement day focused enthusiasts - the end of the world is nigh. Ever tried convincing such people that the end of the world isn't nigh?
Don't let IEA data spoil your religion. This forum evidences the old assertion that religious fervour grows when the facts which falsify your belief are stuck under noses. This thread is clearly a direct response to the IEA : 2011 set new high oil supply record thread. It's ( and that I've pointed it out to you 2 years in a row, and that if I'd been present I could have done it effectively 18 years in a row, and that I'm going to do it every year from now on! ) threatened your beliefs, so now you all get seriously religious. Same thing happened for AGWers when reality kicked their global warming beliefs when the weather went cold in 2007 as skeptics predicted.
I ought to get a private message of thanks from admin for strengthening the fanatisism of peakers on this forum. Look forward to reading the new level of fiery fundamentalist zeal in all the PO posts this year. Just think what you'll all be like by 2015 and another 4 years of increasing oil supply! You'll all be rabid enraged animals!
User avatar
meemoe_uk
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby SeaGypsy » Sun 05 Feb 2012, 20:48:39

You live in a complete fantasy world. There is no evidence of transition making significant headway towards replacing oil based fuels. There is no evidence that growth in oil supply (feeble at best under the highest ever price) is anywhere near even keeping up with current per capita use, with population growth taken into account. The writing is on the wall and you will be proven very wrong on peak oil. Your grandchildren will find out if you were right or wrong on AGW.
SeaGypsy
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 9284
Joined: Wed 04 Feb 2009, 04:00:00

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby meemoe_uk » Mon 06 Feb 2012, 05:34:17

>There is no evidence of transition making significant headway towards replacing oil based fuels.
There doesn't need to be. There's plenty of oil for the next century.

There is no evidence that growth in oil supply (feeble at best under the highest ever price) is anywhere near even keeping up with current per capita use, with population growth taken into account.
The world population in 1993 was roughly 5.6bn
The world population in 2011 was roughly 7.0bn
The oil supply in 1993 was 67.45mbpd
The oil supply in 2011 was 88.45mbpd
67.45m / 5.6bn = 12.0 barrels per 1000 people per day
88.45m / 7.0bn = 12.6 barrels per 1000 people per day

In December 2011 ( which is the most recent data available ), a new all time high monthly oil supply record was set. Even though I posted the IEA data on this forum last week, not a single forum member has pointed this out, despite me graciously giving you all the chance to be the 1st to announce it ( confirmation of rule : peakers\doomers never look at oil data in case it falsifies their beliefs )

So more oil per person today than in 1993.

Given that you and the rest of the PO gang fail to do the primary school maths for these calculations, just exemplifies why your all able to have your religion. Any understanding of numbers would make you see peak oil doom is now to be completely wrong.
User avatar
meemoe_uk
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby AdTheNad » Mon 06 Feb 2012, 07:18:49

meemoe_uk wrote:So more oil per person today than in 1993.

Given that you and the rest of the PO gang fail to do the primary school maths for these calculations, just exemplifies why your all able to have your religion. Any understanding of numbers would make you see peak oil doom is now to be completely wrong.

Wait, you are using the argument, that because oil per person today (ignoring net energy), while we are ON the bumpy plateau, is higher than it was more than a decade before we hit peak, is the reason short term doomers are wrong? Is this really the caliber of your reasoning?

How about a graph of oil per person from 1993 to now Meemoe, or would that just completely blow up your cherry picked data?
AdTheNad
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 433
Joined: Wed 22 Dec 2010, 07:47:48

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby meemoe_uk » Mon 06 Feb 2012, 07:49:59

How about a graph of oil per person from 1993 to now Meemoe, or would that just completely blow up your cherry picked data?
Since I'm free of the rule : Peakers\ doomers are forbidden by their religion to look at oil data in case in falisifies their beliefs. I can look at the data and tell you : no plateau, so no cherry pick.

I'll draw the graph if no one else does, eventually. Bear in mind I have limited time on this forum, and peakers out number me 40:1 , I can't babysit you all and comply with everyones requests, learn to do it yourself if you're interested ( if you dare break your religious law, you blasphemous heretic ), or you can pay me a salary of $40,000 and I'll work here full time answering peaker questions.
User avatar
meemoe_uk
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 948
Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Mon 06 Feb 2012, 12:30:27

meemoe_uk wrote: Same thing happened for AGWers when reality kicked their global warming beliefs when the weather went cold in 2007 as skeptics predicted.
Yeah? Who was that?
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby Quinny » Mon 06 Feb 2012, 15:38:15

Lose the a and o.

Is Cornucopianism the new Cretinism? :-D
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby AgentR11 » Mon 06 Feb 2012, 15:43:45

Now THAT'S the spirit!
Yes we are, as we are,
And so shall we remain,
Until the end.
AgentR11
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6341
Joined: Tue 22 Mar 2011, 09:15:51
Location: East Texas

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Mon 06 Feb 2012, 19:12:38

AdTheNad wrote:How about a graph of oil per person from 1993 to now

Image
EARLY WARNING (total liquids)

(Was featured on PO: Per Capita Oil Consumption Around the World)

How about per motorist?:
World’s Vehicle Fleet Tops 1 Billion
There are a record 1.02 billion cars, trucks and buses in operation worldwide today, says WardsAuto.com. The online publication figures nearly 36 million new vehicles were added last year, expanding the fleet by 3.6%—the biggest one-year jump in 10 years.

The global fleet as been doubling about every 15 years since 1970, when there were 250 million vehicles operating worldwide, according to the Ward’s analysis.

The U.S. has by far the largest fleet with nearly 240 million registered vehicles. China is next with 78 million, then Japan at 74 million.

Ward’s says the world averaged one car for every 6.75 people last year. The ratio was 1.3 in the U.S. and 1.5 in Italy. The cars-to-people ratio was about 1 to 1.7 in France, Japan and the U.K. In China, there was one vehicle for every 17.2 people last year. The ratio in India was 1 to 56.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby PrestonSturges » Mon 06 Feb 2012, 19:13:51

In an early version of Word, "Creationist" was not recognized and the suggested spelling was "cretinous."
User avatar
PrestonSturges
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6052
Joined: Wed 15 Oct 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby babystrangeloop » Mon 06 Feb 2012, 20:27:01

babystrangeloop
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 638
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 04:34:57

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby ian807 » Tue 07 Feb 2012, 15:25:19

meemoe_uk wrote:That the rest of the peakers here don't say a word to ian just strikes me you're all in silent agreement with him.


Or perhaps the wisdom of crowds is working as expected.

Look. I'd like to believe you. I really would. If we're on the low end of the recovery rates for the remaining proven reserves (45% of 1.4 trillion), we're out of useful oil in 21-ish years instead of 50.

Result? I'm screwed. You're screwed.

I don't relish this. I have a neice and a nephew who are likely to survive most of this century and I'd like them to have a decent life. I don't look forward to peak anything. I'd really, really, rather not believe in peak oil, a congress that only serves the wealthy, multi-trillion dollar national debts, quadrillions in hedge fund exposure or badly build nuclear reactors.

Reality doesn't give a shit what you or I want. The numbers are the numbers. Past production and availability and trends are all the irrelevant factors. You can increase production of water from a sponge by squeezing harder too, for a while. After a certain point, you get nothing that matters. In 25-45 years, our lovely remaining pile of 1.4 trillion barrels of usable proven oil is gone and we get no oil that matters.

On this particular issue, you sound like the turkey that claimed that nothing bad had ever happened before, until the day before Thanksgiving. I have no idea what your agenda is, or perhaps you're just one of those assholes who like to play "devil's advocate" to get attention rather than solving real world problems. That's your privilege, but don't expect people to pay attention for long. It's too transparent.
User avatar
ian807
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 899
Joined: Mon 03 Nov 2008, 04:00:00

Re: Is Cornucopianism the new Creationism?

Unread postby dinopello » Tue 07 Feb 2012, 16:25:13

US to be energy independent by 2030

A corny and a peaker would have two interpretations of this headline.

The usual suspects

Alternatively, the United States could become almost entirely energy independent by 2030, says BP. As the country expands its domestic natural gas production, the U.S. will buy less foreign oil, causing imports to fall to levels not seen since 1990.

"You've got a Western Hemisphere that by 2030 may not be importing any oil from the Eastern Hemisphere," Yergin tells The Daily Ticker's Aaron Task in the above video.


It's no wonder the typical headline scanner/browser would turn to cornicopianism. Its what you want to believe and there are all these types of headlines in the MSM.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests