[Cog]

Why argue that projections based on the current conditions are inaccurate when you pretty much know the low probability of those conditions continuing?

Because many think overpopulation is a non-issue that will be solved by a human population no longer growing, and in fact, declining. That was the argument that was made I was rebutting.

So basically you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

[MonteQuest]

Peak Everything! And amazingly, in my lifetime!
Peak population. economy. civilization. bees. food. medicine. What are the odds?

Pretty high considering we are so far beyond carrying capacity. In 1972, Limits to Growth predicted this. In fact, it's worse than the predictions. The facts haven't changed in 10 yrs, why should their presentation? The phantom carrying capacity of FF brings all these things to a head in the face of population overshoot. In fact, I wouldn't expect anything less but limits being reached across the board.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

You ever read Dave Cohen's blog, Pops? Your last few posts reminded me of this entry he posted a few years ago.

http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/ ... ology.html

[MonteQuest]

So basically you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Let's see your math.

[MonteQuest]

I notice no attempt to refute my numbers, just ad homs and eye rolling.

[Cog]

So basically you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Let's see your math.

Were you in prison the last year or so? Your posts sound like it.

[onlooker]

Cog do you not have something better to do than to slander one of the most respected members on this site?

[MonteQuest]

Cog do you not have something better to do than to slander one of the most respected members on this site?

It's ok. I have tried to be civil with everyone. Guess it's just time to ignore their posts.

[Cog]

Cog do you not have something better to do than to slander one of the most respected members on this site?

It's ok. I have tried to be civil with everyone. Guess it's just time to ignore their posts.

Not even if you tried could you ignore me.

[Cog]

Cog do you not have something better to do than to slander one of the most respected members on this site?

I asked him a question which he refused to answer. That is not slander. But as far as respect, Monty has not made an accurate doomer prediction yet. From what I have read in the archives much ado about nothing.

[Pops]

You ever read Dave Cohen's blog, Pops? Your last few posts reminded me of this entry he posted a few years ago.

http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/ ... ology.html

Actually I do remember that blog. I can understand the post completely. I'm a prepper, even a secular survivalist (although sans gun-fetish), but the definition of doom is fated death— and I just don't believe in fate. So anytime the argument starts galloping in circles with the answer to everything as "doom" it becomes obvious we're not arguing facts or science but rather faith.

This thread is a good example, it started 7 years ago with the premise that lack of investment would soon lead to a true energy crisis because the 6.7% decline rate would make oil
"prohibitively expensive, and more than likely, technically impossible to deliver that much oil ever again."

Good PO type topic. Except it didn't happen, we had 6-7 years of the highest investment ever, even with high price and lots of zombie debt we did recover more or less from the recession, some lots of oil was pumped over the peak of the day and tech evolved as well, RE became much more affordable and widespread, China continued to boomed (if you believe the PR), most people muddled along and some even did great. Lots of stuff happened in other words.

Yet, 7 years and an additional 5mmbd more production later the thread pops up as if only a 7 days had past!

Same story, different glut. lol


And just as inevitably, the thread inevitably turns to the real point, die-off... overpopulation, economic collapse, pandemics... Weimar of all things, lol.
Anything but actually looking at how the original argument either failed, changed, morphed...

[MonteQuest]

But as far as respect, Monty has not made an accurate doomer prediction yet.

Don't recall making a lot of predictions. More like explanations of certain principles of ecology, biology, and physics that predict where things are going and how they will unfold. In 2004, I did say that renewables will never catch up and overtake FF's, and they didn't. Hardly, moved the needle. I said population growth wasn't going to slow and it hasn't. I said debt would grow massively, and it did by $60 trillion. Most of what I predicted are post-peak when terminal decline overtakes all efforts to raise production. We slipped into the eye of the hurricane in 2008 when I wrote the OP of this thread. I came back when I heard to roar of the other eye wall coming. I'm 64. still time to munch the popcorn and see what unfolds.

[ralfy]

There's a study shared in this article that compares forecasts made four decades ago and historical data:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

[onlooker]

Much like LTG projections and scenario simulations back in 1972, they were not predictions per say but different scenarios contemplated using computerized simulations that took into account several different limits to growth factors. Their is an emphasis on ongoing trends and what could transpire based on these trends. Regardless, of what some may say that things are looking dandy, the underlying foundations of the world economy and the US economy are straining and relentlessly weakening in accord with certain limits to growth.

[MonteQuest]

So anytime the argument starts galloping in circles with the answer to everything as "doom" it becomes obvious we're not arguing facts or science but rather faith.

You cannot accuse me of not providing facts and science to support my opinions, Pops.

This thread is a good example, it started 7 years ago with the premise that lack of investment would soon lead to a true energy crisis because the 6.7% decline rate would make oil
"prohibitively expensive, and more than likely, technically impossible to deliver that much oil ever again."

Good PO type topic. Except it didn't happen,

Actually what I said in context was this: "Due to this 6.7% decline rate and the lack of adequate investment, coupled with the delay of much-needed changes in consumption and efficiency, by the time the global economy recovers enough to demand more than the 87 mbpd peak in July 2008, it'll be prohibitively expensive, and more than likely, technically impossible to deliver that much oil ever again."

I also said: We must consider that, should oil prices and demand remain low for an extended period, new investment in oil production — not to mention renewables — will fall to such an extent that, with worldwide depletion of existing fields at 6.7 percent a year, there simply will not be enough new oil, or oil replacement energy, to power an economic recovery.

Oil prices didn't remain low. We recovered enough to produce 96 mbpd, but not enough to produce 110 mbpd in 2015. And it took $60 trillion dollars of new debt and higher prices to do it. LTO didn't close the gap, demand destruction in the developed world hit by the financial meltdown did. Down from 110 mbpd of expected demand to 94.5 mbpd. If not for demand destruction and higher prices, would it have been possible to meet the demand each year since? Possibly, but doubtful.

Yet, 7 years and an additional 5mmbd more production later the thread pops up as if only a 7 days had past!

9 mbpd short of the historical trendline.

I don't think the original argument failed at all. It just played out in ways not anticipated. My original argument still has teeth. We face the real possibility of another financial collapse.

[Cog]

We always face the possibility of another recession. Approximately every 10 years we have a major one. Nothing new.

[MonteQuest]

We always face the possibility of another recession. Approximately every 10 years we have a major one. Nothing new.

We face the real possibility of another financial collapse, worse than the one we just had.

[jupiters_release]

Cog do you not have something better to do than to slander one of the most respected members on this site?

It's ok. I have tried to be civil with everyone. Guess it's just time to ignore their posts.

He's the only person I've ever put on ignore on any forum.

[MonteQuest]

And just as inevitably, the thread inevitably turns to the real point, die-off... overpopulation, economic collapse, pandemics... Weimar of all things, lol.
Anything but actually looking at how the original argument either failed, changed, morphed...

I guess you didn't read the thread. Conservation and efficiency mitigations were brought up. That led to carbon taxes, jobs and debt, which led to per capita consumption, money, population growth, Tragedy of the Commons, etc. You cannot have a critical conversation about PO and mitigation without entering into these realms. If you try, you are ignoring the elephant in the room: overpopulation, which is the real problem. PO is just a symptom.

[ennui2]

You cannot have a critical conversation about PO and mitigation without entering into these realms. If you try, you are ignoring the elephant in the room: overpopulation, which is the real problem. PO is just a symptom.

Monte, you were gone from the board for a long time. You didn't feel the need to have a "critical conversation about PO" during your absence. You came back why? Well, you had an end-is-nigh prophecy for the near-term, right? Debt-bomb doom, right? Well, is that the flag you're waving or isn't it? If it is, then if you retreat back to talking in vague generalities and trotting out Malthus and Catton, you are walking away from any sense of urgency in you returning Messianically to share the good word of doom.

So you either want to stick your neck out or you don't. If you do want to make a short-term prediction, then everything Pops just said (which is basically the same point I've been making for years) about past short-term predictions being wrong most of the time, is totally relevant.

You have to decide whether to make a formal prediction, and if you do, then explain why it's "different this time"(TM).