Exploring Hydrocarbon Depletion
NEW! Members Only Forums!
Access more articles, news & discussion by becoming a PeakOil.com Member.
Gideon wrote:World peak has nothing to do with scarcity - oil is not scarce. It has nothing to do with the US Peak (why would it?). And - the timing of global peak is not made "sooner" because of lack of discovery.
It does not strictly prove the theory from a logical point of view.
In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.
NEOPO wrote:As it stands and according to the generally accepted definition of the word "PEAK OIL" december 2005 was the peak in production that is said to correlate with the midway point of conventional oil depletion.
NEOPO wrote:At that point you will either go into a deep denial and rationalization phase or reveal yourself as the star wars cornucopian that you are
Gideon wrote:You know, I often wonder if Exxon mobile or the Govt. or other institutions having a vested interest in keeping the lid on send guys in to PO and other sites to say things like "this is pseudoscience."
jbrovont wrote:Uh oh - a decoy.
jbrovont wrote:Is there really global warming? Is the climate really changing? Is the pope Catholic?
Ludi wrote:The peak oil theory is extremely robust. Please do some more reading, bub.
bubmachine wrote:NEOPO wrote:As it stands and according to the generally accepted definition of the word "PEAK OIL" december 2005 was the peak in production that is said to correlate with the midway point of conventional oil depletion.
Really? We have peaked already? Can you point to some evidence.
"If you basically have another six to ten months of that decline lasting, then I think for certain we would look back and say, 'Guess what? We actually reached a sustainable peak in crude oil production in December 2005,'" Simmons said at a meeting of the United States of the the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas.
My main problem is that false predictions, by the peak oil theorists, are always explained away by these methods, and I am afraid, this is a sign of a pseudoscience.
Perhaps we could say that no-one can give hard evidence for when the oil will peak. It seems difficult to base any kind of political policy on such a vague prediction.
waegari wrote:But let's suppose false predictions would be a problem.
As far as I'm aware the majority of PO theorists does not even believe we have already passed the peak. Up till now only Deffeyes and Bhaktari
have voiced the opinion that we're already there, and as far as i know they have not retracted on that yet.
So up till now your own theory (or putting it more friendly, your hypothesis) that PO theory invariably explains away false predictions has not been corroborated yet.
waegari wrote:The diferent time ranges PO theorists are talking about vary at best 20 to 30 years amongst each other. Many of us are positive that it would be an irresponsible bet to believe that we should only start getting concerned at the moment of the most optimistic PO estimate.
The theory seems to depend on three main ideas:
1) Oil is an extremely limited resource.
2) The US peaked in 1971.
3) The global peak, due to the lack of discovery of oil fields, must be sooner rather than later.
bubmachine wrote:I think I mainly oppose Heinberg's doomsday predictions. Talking about "die-offs" and moving to an agricultural lifestyle is perfectly useless, because it is based on an unscientific prophecy.
Micki wrote:2) That US peaked in 71 does not have any significant input/impact into PO theory except that
A) Hubbert predicted the peak with pretty good accuracy and his theory for world peak therefore should be taken seriously and
B) It gives an example of a nation that has peaked and gives evidence that this happens. If oil is abiotic and wells refill themselves, they do so with such a low speed that it will not have any impact in a foreseeable future.
seldom_seen wrote:bubmachine wrote:I think I mainly oppose Heinberg's doomsday predictions. Talking about "die-offs" and moving to an agricultural lifestyle is perfectly useless, because it is based on an unscientific prophecy.
Wrong. It's based on principles of ecology and biology that can easily be replicated in a lab or observed in nature.
You can oppose this reality all you want, but it doesn't make it any less real.
Ludi wrote:If you're going to bitch about the "scientific status of the peak oil theory" bub, at least be clear on what you're bitching about.
bubmachine wrote:The main thing I am referring to is Hubbard's original (failed) prediction of a 2000 peak. From a scientific point of view, the theory is "falsified" because the theory cannot expect to predict political occurances. (The 1973 oil crisis).
Yes, the varying times of the prediction, for me, points to the view that it is simply beyond science to predict it.
I think there are many reasons to be efficient in oil use, and to diversify our energy sources. Peak oil is one of them!
I think I mainly oppose Heinberg's doomsday predictions. Talking about "die-offs" and moving to an agricultural lifestyle is perfectly useless, because it is based on an unscientific prophecy.
I think the following types of things would be useful:
2) Stop the main religion of today, the worship of cars.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests