[FrY10cK]

Bear in mind that ALL crackpot groups throw around terms like "thermodynamics" and so on. They ALL try to sound scientific.

Best wishes,
-Tom S

OMG. Are you for real or are you putting us on? If your're serious, you need to head over to Ron Patterson's site and read up. A lot. For a long time. Weeks even.

After that, read Euan Mearns. His site has a little climate change denial going on but the analysis of humanity's fossil fuel predicament is spot on. You need to get started like, yesterday.
http://peakoilbarrel.com/
http://euanmearns.com/

To understand how the high cost of producing unconventional resources is affecting the global economy, I recommend Reagan-era OMB director and former congressman David Stockman: http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/

Other good sites that cover the nexus of energy and finance include:
http://www.economic-undertow.com/
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/
http://ourfiniteworld.com/

Until you do your homework, you're flaunting your ignorance without making any persuasive arguments.

[Strummer]

After that, read Euan Mearns. His site has a little climate change denial going on

Understatement of the week

[tom_s2]

Hi Pops,

I see, perhaps you can instruct us buy devising your own theory of why PO will not cause collapse and make a bold falsifiable prediction to back it up, don't forget the time factor.

I made two predictions when I started following the peak oil collapse movement, which was about 8 years ago. My first prediction was that civilization was not collapsing regardless of what happens to oil prices. My second prediction was that ocean shipping would not decline by very much for a sustained period, regardless of what happens to oil prices. Both of those were falsifiable, and both of them were correct. If one of them had failed (for example, if ocean shipping had declined by 40% or something) then I would have tried to find out what was wrong with my theory which caused the error.

-Tom S

[Keith_McClary]

Hi Pops,

I see, perhaps you can instruct us buy devising your own theory of why PO will not cause collapse and make a bold falsifiable prediction to back it up, don't forget the time factor.

I made two predictions when I started following the peak oil collapse movement, which was about 8 years ago. My first prediction was that civilization was not collapsing regardless of what happens to oil prices. My second prediction was that ocean shipping would not decline by very much for a sustained period, regardless of what happens to oil prices. Both of those were falsifiable, and both of them were correct. If one of them had failed (for example, if ocean shipping had declined by 40% or something) then I would have tried to find out what was wrong with my theory which caused the error.

-Tom S

More generally, your "non collapse" theory is that population and living standards will continue to grow (or at least remain constant) indefinitely, not limited by finite non-renewable resources. Right?

[Pops]

Tom, saying the world will not collapse because of high price and judging yourself correct gets us right back to my original point:

we haven't collapsed so we won't.

[tom_s2]

FrY10ck:

you need to head over to Ron Patterson's site and read up. A lot. For a long time. Weeks even... After that, read Euan Mearns... Other good sites include...ourfinteworld.com

If you think that "ourfiniteworld" is a "good" site then you can't tell the difference between rank crackpot nonsense and serious scientific thought. Any expert could debunk any of that in about 15 seconds. It's an utterly pseudoscientific website, and so are some of the other links you provided. If you really think those are valid, high-quality sources then you need to crank up the critical thinking a lot.

Until you do your homework

I've already read all of those sources. They simply repeat the same few drastic errors which have already been repeated within this group endlessly for more than 10 years now. Those claims could be debunked by any serious expert in about 15 seconds. Those claims have generated nothing but failed predictions for 10 years without any revision of the underlying theories.

Euan Mearns is better, but last time I checked he was doing supply/demand curves borrowed from economics. He is not a member of the doomsday group. Ron Patterson's site is mostly devoted to charts of oil production and happily avoids the doomsday silliness most of the time.

To understand ... I recommend

You seem to think you are an expert after having read a few crackpot blogs. You are mistaken about that. What I recommend to you, is that you take an actual class in a valid field at a University, and get your information from somewhere other than Gail the Actuary.

...If you read this thread carefully, you will see that I asked a number of basic critical questions. As follows:

If you really believe that, then you have no idea what science is. Where are the journals? Peer review by actual experts? Experiments? Replication? Correct predictions? Falsifiable theories?

Let me ask you this: How would we know that this theory of collapse is wrong? What possible evidence or failure of prediction could lead anyone here to conclude that these theories are wrong?

If this were an actual serious scientific endeavor, then those questions would be extremely easy to answer. However, you've not answered them. In fact, you've not even begun to answer them. Instead, you just said "OMG" like a teenage girl magazine, then provided links to further crackpot sources which haven't begun to answer those questions either.

If you are going to provide a reference, then it needs to answer the objections which were raised. Furthermore, it needs to be something other than a crackpot reference.

-Tom S

[careinke]

I think Tom has proven the point of this thread. It is a waste of time to educate others about peak oil.

[kublikhan]

...If you read this thread carefully, you will see that I asked a number of basic critical questions. As follows:

If you really believe that, then you have no idea what science is. Where are the journals? Peer review by actual experts? Experiments? Replication? Correct predictions? Falsifiable theories?

Tom, this is a social media site. Not a scientific journal. You need to tailor your expectations and message to suit your audience. This is what peakoil.com is:

Peak Oil News and Message Boards is a community and collaboration portal about energy-related topics.

PeakOil.com is a strictly non-commercial & non-affiliated news aggregation and a message-board social networking news site.

Our site’s mission has been “exploring the issue of hydrocarbon depletion” AKA Peak Oil.

This is what peakoil theory is:

Peak oil theory states: that any finite resource, (including oil), will have a beginning, middle, and an end of production, and at some point it will reach a level of maximum output as seen in the graph to the left.

What Is Peak Oil

Anyone can post anything they want here. Crackpot theories, opinions on the war in Ukraine, energy news, or scholarly energy articles. Did you see h2's post? There are plenty of serious posters who are knowledgable in their field who post here or that used to post at the oildrum. There are plenty of idiots here too. Just like at a public pool, most of the noise comes from the shallow end.

As Timo was saying, everyone has different ideas for what the future holds. Even amoung those that think a collapse is going to happen have different ideas on what exactly that collapse will look like.

If you want to debunk a specific collapse scenario, start by stating clearly what you are debunking, such as Olduvai theory:

The Olduvai theory states that industrial civilization (as defined by per capita energy production) will have a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years (1930–2030).

Industrial civilization is defined in Duncan's paper as the time between energy production per capita rising above 37% of its eventual peak value, and it falling back below 37% of the peak value later. In 1996 he estimated this period to be from 1930 until approximately 2025, with the per capita peak having occurred in 1977. In 2009, he considered separately the peaks of standard of living in OECD countries, non-OECD countries, and the USA. He found that the standard of living in the US peaked in 1973, that of OECD countries in 2005, while that of the non-OECD countries was still rising in 2007. He predicted a global peak in standard of living 2010, followed by a decline to the 1930 level by 2030.

Olduvai theory

Then make your case for why you think the theory is wrong. For example:
Olduvai theory is wrong because global standard of living since 2010 has continue to rise. Here is my source on that: ....

Your method of launching broadside attacks against everyone here is only going to rub people the wrong way without making your point.

[Pops]

Just like at a public pool, most of the noise comes from the shallow end.

That's pretty funny.

[tom_s2]

I think Tom has proven the point of this thread. It is a waste of time to educate others about peak oil.

You would need to get something right before you try to "educate" anyone.

There has not been a single serious collapse theory here which would withstand basic criticism, which meets the most basic criteria of science, and which has had any correct predictions.

There have been no successful predictions thus far. On the other hand, there have been dozens of severely failed predictions, about things which these guys claim are as certain as thermodynamics. There is a 0% success rate of prediction despite near-total certainty beforehand. That means this stuff has something seriously wrong with it, and you need to figure out what that is, before you attempt to educate anyone.

-Tom S

[Pops]

...about 8 years ago. My first prediction was that civilization was not collapsing regardless of what happens to oil prices. My second prediction was that ocean shipping would not decline by very much for a sustained period, regardless of what happens to oil prices. Both of those were falsifiable, and both of them were correct.

They are not "scientific theories" because they are not falsifiable. How can one prove whether or not something may happen int the future? Do you mean for us to believe history is over and you won?

LOL

Your idle speculation is no more or less than any "collapsitarian" except for your "proof" that "we haven't collapsed, hence we won't."

[tom_s2]

There are plenty of serious posters who are knowledgable in their field who post here or that used to post at the oildrum.

I realize that. I'm not referring to them. I am commenting on a doomsday theory thread which started off with remarks like this:

...the economy is going to collapse, food shortages are a decade or two away, and there will be a die-off of the human population all because of peak oil.

That's what I was responding to. I was referring to the many doomsday adherents on this website and various other websites.

Tom, this is a social media site. Not a scientific journal. You need to tailor your expectations and message to suit your audience... Anyone can post anything they want here. Crackpot theories...

The problem is, the doomsday theorists repeatedly claim that this stuff is all utterly scientific and akin to the laws of thermodynamics. That has been repeated thousands of times, here and elsewhere. If I go to John Michael Greer's website right now, I find repeated comparisons of this doomsday stuff not only to the laws of thermodynamics, but also to the law of gravity.

If these guys are going to make claims like that, then it's fair for me to post basic criticisms of it. They are the ones making claims here. If they really want to be scientific then they need to answer basic objections.

The claims that this stuff is scientific, are misleading and untrue. There is no similarity between these doomsday theories and actual science. As a result, the doomsday authors are misleading people with their claims of science. I realize they're not doing it intentionally, because they too think this stuff is science, but they are still misleading people.

The problem with crackpot stuff is that real experts just ignore it. They don't even bother to respond. As a result, there is no contrary information available. When someone does a web search on these doomsday theories, they'll find crackpot sources which say "thermodynamics" over and over again, but they'll find nothing to the contrary. To some people, that's very impressive. It looks very scientific to see all this talk about thermodynamics, and nothing to rebut it. Of course, it's not really scientific, but it looks that way.

There needs to be contrary information available, so people don't think these theories are actually scientific and then throw their lives away in anticipation of doomsday.

The original poster of this thread wrote the following:

..the economy is going to collapse, food shortages are a decade or two away, and there will be a die-off of the human population all because of peak oil... This is based on solid scientific evidence.

He and others deserve to know that it is not based on solid scientific evidence. If they want to prepare for doomsday anyway, then fine, however they should do so with their eyes open.

-Tom S

[FrY10cK]

... crackpot nonsense ....
... doomsday silliness ....
... further crackpot sources ....
... other than a crackpot ....

-Tom S

You win. Your scientific refutation of the increasing cost of fossil fuel production leading to contraction of the global economy is impossible to argue against. Alas, these too must be "crackpots" in your eyes:
Ugo Bardi http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com http://www.amazon.com/Extracted-Mineral ... 603585419/
Richard Heinberg http://www.amazon.com/Snake-Oil-Frackin ... 00E6GRIC2/

[tom_s2]

FrY10cK,

I'm not trying to be too harsh here. You obviously keep up on a lot of material. However, you should be careful not just to read material which reinforces whatever theory you have now.

-Tom S

[FrY10cK]

FrY10cK,

I'm not trying to be too harsh here. You obviously keep up on a lot of material. However, you should be careful not just to read material which reinforces whatever theory you have now.

-Tom S

That, we agree on.

[Keith_McClary]

...-Tom S

More generally, your "non collapse" theory is that population and living standards will continue to grow (or at least remain constant) indefinitely, not limited by finite non-renewable resources. Right?

Just trying to clarify what your "non collapse" theory says.

[tom_s2]

Hi Keith,

More generally, your "non collapse" theory is that population and living standards will continue to grow (or at least remain constant) indefinitely, not limited by finite non-renewable resources. Right?

This planet will eventually be destroyed when the Sun becomes a red giant. Also, the universe will eventually undergo a heat death.

I don't know what kind of disasters will happen in the mean time. There could be thermonuclear war or an asteroid strike, either of which could severely damage civilization. I can't predict those things far in advance.

My theory is that industrial civilization will continue humming along until something genuinely unexpected changes that. There is no inevitable collapse happening because of resource shortage. There are obvious substitutes for all uses of fossil fuels, and vastly more time than is required to transition to them. Furthermore, the market economy transitions to substitutes when the time is right, and is already transitioning far earlier than is necessary to avoid collapse. There is simply no scientific law, and no mathematical curve, which implies imminent collapse of civilization.

My theory is that the market economy will switch to obvious substitutes, and will adjust to changing resource availability.

-Tom S

[ralfy]

Hi Keith,

More generally, your "non collapse" theory is that population and living standards will continue to grow (or at least remain constant) indefinitely, not limited by finite non-renewable resources. Right?

This planet will eventually be destroyed when the Sun becomes a red giant. Also, the universe will eventually undergo a heat death.

I don't know what kind of disasters will happen in the mean time. There could be thermonuclear war or an asteroid strike, either of which could severely damage civilization. I can't predict those things far in advance.

My theory is that industrial civilization will continue humming along until something genuinely unexpected changes that. There is no inevitable collapse happening because of resource shortage. There are obvious substitutes for all uses of fossil fuels, and vastly more time than is required to transition to them. Furthermore, the market economy transitions to substitutes when the time is right, and is already transitioning far earlier than is necessary to avoid collapse. There is simply no scientific law, and no mathematical curve, which implies imminent collapse of civilization.

My theory is that the market economy will switch to obvious substitutes, and will adjust to changing resource availability.

-Tom S

According to the IEA, in order for the global economy to continue growing, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia in new oil every seven years. In order for this to take place using unconventional production, current conventional production will have to remain in a plateau for around two decades.

For that to happen, oil and gas producers will have to go for maximum depletion rates and access URRs. That implies significant regulation of oil and gas industries by governments, if not full control.

In addition, in order to deal with global warming, at least 70 pct of increased oil demand per annum will have to be met by renewable energy, and that may mean even more regulation and cooperation between countries. Full transition may involve several decades.

If the new oil involves unconventional production (which means peak production for several sources after only a few years), then even more Saudi Arabias will be needed.

If the global middle class continues rising (which is inevitable given industrial civilization based on capitalism and competition), then even more new oil will be needed.

We need to keep in mind that not only oil but other material resources, from fresh water to copper to phosphates, may also experience issues similar to oil. Given that, we can probably look at this in light of biocapacity and ecological footprint. The former is expected to decrease in terms of accessibility per capita due to pollution, the effects of global warming, and increasing population, while the latter has to keep rising because of the need for continuous economic growth.

Given that, we need to figure out how "business as usual" can take place given the point that we are already in overshoot, and how cooperation between countries and regulation can be achieved can be achieved when the opposite has been taking place for decades.

One way of doing that is to see these points in light of historical trends for various factors vs. forecasts made in the past, and then explain how future trends will go against the forecasts:

is-it-a-waste-of-time-educating-others-about-peak-oil-t71038-60.html#p1238234

[Revi]

Hi Pops,

I see, perhaps you can instruct us buy devising your own theory of why PO will not cause collapse and make a bold falsifiable prediction to back it up, don't forget the time factor.

I made two predictions when I started following the peak oil collapse movement, which was about 8 years ago. My first prediction was that civilization was not collapsing regardless of what happens to oil prices. My second prediction was that ocean shipping would not decline by very much for a sustained period, regardless of what happens to oil prices. Both of those were falsifiable, and both of them were correct. If one of them had failed (for example, if ocean shipping had declined by 40% or something) then I would have tried to find out what was wrong with my theory which caused the error.

-Tom S

I think we are seeing the Baltic Dry Index tanking right now, so maybe that will cut into shipping. We are finally headed into the kind of perilous times we thought were hitting 10 years ago. We managed to hold it all off with fracking and tar sands, but now we really have to pay the piper. I would like to see some shipping done in sailing ships again, even if very high tech. Why not? There are lots of cargoes that don't need to get to port at any specific time and could be shipped that way at far less cost. They could still have motors to navigate if need be.

[Pops]

BDI isn't the dot it once was due to increasing capicity