Login



Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Moderator: Pops

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 15:53:03

kpeavey wrote:Hey Shorty, how about you just answer pstarr's question, without being petty.


I already did. It doesn't deserve a response. And I wasn't being petty...maybe I am confused as to why NOT responding to possible disgruntled people is not deemed a valid response?

Its an unfounded accusation at this point, the implications of which have been spun pretty heavily around here. Reading the article and ignoring those who want to read some redemption of their favorite piece of the peaker movement into it, it strikes me as nothing more than some sort of internal disagreement, the specifics of which don't appear to be presented yet, so these people decided to time their comments to achieve maximum irritation with zero information to substantiate their claims, and apply it against those who they probably won't be working with next year.

It doesn't deserve a response. If someone asked the head IEA honcho about it, if I were him I'd shrug and tell the asker to go hunt down the people and ask them. In other words, no response.
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 16:00:01

kpeavey wrote:Hey Shorty, how about you just answer pstarr's question, without being petty.
My simple question requires careful analysis etc. and would drag Shorty into a world he does not want to visit. So he will dance around prettily :)
Yikes!
pstarr
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 17548
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 16:19:59

pstarr wrote:
kpeavey wrote:Hey Shorty, how about you just answer pstarr's question, without being petty.
My simple question requires careful analysis etc. and would drag Shorty into a world he does not want to visit. So he will dance around prettily :)


Hey, you want to discuss the particulars of peak oil, or the IEA in particular, or the minimum amount of information released in the Guardian article, or what it may or may not mean, I'm all for it.

But if I'm an IEA spokesperson, and sent out in front of the camera's to announce the particulars of the newest IEA report, and I get asked Pstarr's question, I don't answer the question, I don't lend credence to the report in any way whatsoever.

Now, if we are talking about what a peak-centric response should be, like Colin's report except someone with more credibility, I recommended Aleklett to bash the IEA based on what little is known from the original report, mostly because I think he has more credibility than Colin.

My opinion on IEA forecasts is pretty well known, I think they are pretty much a joke, so getting excited about them, pro or con, doesn't strike me as a productive exercise.
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 16:51:03

shortonsense wrote:
pstarr wrote:
kpeavey wrote:Hey Shorty, how about you just answer pstarr's question, without being petty.
My simple question requires careful analysis etc. and would drag Shorty into a world he does not want to visit. So he will dance around prettily :)


Hey, you want to discuss the particulars of peak oil, or the IEA in particular, or the minimum amount of information released in the Guardian article, or what it may or may not mean, I'm all for it.

But if I'm an IEA spokesperson, and sent out in front of the camera's to announce the particulars of the newest IEA report, and I get asked Pstarr's question, I don't answer the question, I don't lend credence to the report in any way whatsoever.

Now, if we are talking about what a peak-centric response should be, like Colin's report except someone with more credibility, I recommended Aleklett to bash the IEA based on what little is known from the original report, mostly because I think he has more credibility than Colin.

My opinion on IEA forecasts is pretty well known, I think they are pretty much a joke, so getting excited about them, pro or con, doesn't strike me as a productive exercise.

Campbell's analysis please?

Or are you still dancing with yourself?
Image
"When there's no-one else in sight
In the crowded lonely night
Well I wait so long
For my love vibration
And I'm dancing with myself"
Yikes!
pstarr
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 17548
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 17:19:31

shortonsense wrote:
kpeavey wrote:Dr. Colin J. Campbell responds to the Guardian
55.9 Kb PDF File


Oh he really needs to do better than that. And he's really, REALLY the wrong guy to be responding.
Come on Shorty. Man up. Why is Campbell the wrong guy to analysis the Guardian newspaper article?

Let's start with the good Doctors's CV: Campbell managed Fina (along with a number of other high-powered posts). Do you know Fina? Belgium national oil, now part of Total one of the six "Supermajor" oil companies in the world.

Okay. So now why is he the wrong guy? And what is wrong with his analysis?
Yikes!
pstarr
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 17548
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby hardtootell-2 » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 17:35:16

why are we FEEDING the TROLLS?
User avatar
hardtootell-2
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Sat 23 May 2009, 17:38:02
Location: 12th dimension

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby Revi » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 17:49:57

The distortion of these figures seems to me to be like the mortgage backed securities meltdown. Everyone believed it because it was in their interest to believe that the bonds were AAA rated. To believe otherwise was to say that the financial system was based on fraud.

We all believe that 3% growth is going to commence again. Even those of us who know operate as if it's going to keep going. Where is this 3% growth going to come from now?

To believe the IEA when they tell us that oil production will peak at 120 million barrels per day is like being one of the Mortgage backed securitiy investors. But it's much worse.
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
User avatar
Revi
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5689
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 18:01:41

hardtootell-2 wrote:why are we FEEDING the TROLLS?
Come on! I deserve it. I've worked hard to earn my stripes. :evil:

Whoa! Look it! I am the very first PO Super Hero :) 10,000 posts. Raise a statue! Do I get a Blue Angel flyover?
Yikes!
pstarr
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 17548
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby kpeavey » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 18:03:24

edited to preserve thread integrity
Last edited by kpeavey on Sun 15 Nov 2009, 19:45:30, edited 1 time in total.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."
-George Orwell, 1984
_____

twenty centuries of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, and what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
-George Yeats
User avatar
kpeavey
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1670
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 18:08:16

pstarr wrote:Campbell's analysis please?
Is that all you wanted? Why not start a new thread rather than cluttering up this one? Use Colins article as the lead in.
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 18:10:41

pstarr wrote:Come on Shorty. Man up. Why is Campbell the wrong guy to analysis the Guardian newspaper article?
His first claimed peak was so long ago that you can't even see it from 2009. Aleklett is much better.
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 18:13:26

kpeavey wrote:and back up your claim. The PDF file link I posted was from the ASPO website. Dr Campbell is the founder of the ASPO and its Honorary Chairman. I can not begin to fathom how his comments would be inappropriate. You can find his Curriculum Vitae here. Put your money where your mouth is. I've done it, as I'm sure you are aware.
Start another thread. Or let Pstarr do it, and I'll be more than happy to join in. A full bore dissection of the predictions and claims of Colin, and why it relates to Aleklett being a better cheerleader for IEA whistleblowers then Colin. I'll show up.
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby kpeavey » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 18:17:14

Revi: +1

We elect our leaders to do right by us. To do so they have to justify their actions to foreign governments by using Official Statistics. The Official Statistics, as we see with increasing frequency, has little to do with facts and everything to do with politics. They are a giant propaganda machine and we know it. Our leaders do their thing, whatever that thing may be. Official Facts are manufactured to support their actions. All the leaders in the world do it. I guess its supposed to be a good idea. If the people want the truth, they have to go and find it independently.

Don't it just make you sick?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."
-George Orwell, 1984
_____

twenty centuries of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, and what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
-George Yeats
User avatar
kpeavey
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1670
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 18:20:46

shortonsense wrote:
pstarr wrote:
shortonsense wrote:
kpeavey wrote:Dr. Colin J. Campbell responds to the Guardian
55.9 Kb PDF File


Oh he really needs to do better than that. And he's really, REALLY the wrong guy to be responding.
Come on Shorty. Man up. Why is Campbell the wrong guy to analysis the Guardian newspaper article?


His first claimed peak was so long ago that you can't even see it from 2009. Aleklett is much better.
So what? Scientists receive new data, better analytic tools, change their minds.

So what makes Akeklett the one?
Yikes!
pstarr
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 17548
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 18:37:24

pstarr wrote:So what makes Akeklett the one?


Credibility. Start another thread already and stop messing up this one.
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 18:51:42

shortonsense wrote:
pstarr wrote:So what makes Akeklett the one?


Credibility. Start another thread already and stop messing up this one.
So assign more credibility to Akeklett, rather than Campbell? How much?
Yikes!
pstarr
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 17548
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 18:52:50

pstarr wrote:
shortonsense wrote:
pstarr wrote:So what makes Akeklett the one?


Credibility. Start another thread already and stop messing up this one.
So assign more credibility to Akeklett, rather than Campbell? How much?


Another thread. Do you know how to make one, or would you like me to show you?
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby kpeavey » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 19:06:16

edited to preserve thread integrity
Last edited by kpeavey on Sun 15 Nov 2009, 19:47:01, edited 1 time in total.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."
-George Orwell, 1984
_____

twenty centuries of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, and what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
-George Yeats
User avatar
kpeavey
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1670
Joined: Mon 04 Oct 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby shortonsense » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 19:24:20

kpeavey wrote:
shorty wrote:Start another thread.

No need. You have sabotaged threads before, why should this time be different?


Politeness is next to saintliness?

kpeavey wrote:As far as Aleklett, he's the President of the ASPO whereas Campbell is the founder and Honorable Chairman. I suspect their views would be similar in nature.


Maybe. Maybe not. The "Uppsala Gang" just put out their own estimate of only 0.5% decline in total liquids a year through 2030.

Colin in 1989 was predicting about 3.5%. Guess who is the most famous resident of the Uppsala Gang, and is like 85% more optimistic?

Image
User avatar
shortonsense
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure-whistleblower

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 15 Nov 2009, 19:30:06

"Uppsala Gang?" You apparently coined this term. It is derogatory and does not contribute to this discussion.
Yikes!
pstarr
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 17548
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

PreviousNext

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron