Outcast_Searcher wrote:AdamB wrote:0mar wrote:I'd say within 5-8 years after the peak will real consequential effects of depleted oil hit us. This is because by then the number fudging game will be over and the reality will hit us that oil is not plentiful anymore.
I would point out that Omar has a pretty standard peaker view, circa 2004. Back in the heyday it was all about getting to a good rapture trigger/apocalypse event.
First, in defense of Omar and those of his ilk in the mid 00's, it's hard to predict the future.
Interesting that every ridiculous prognostication from back then (and now as well) doesn't have that as a caveat before being made, don't you think? Probably because it blunts the effect of the fear meme that happy mcdoomsters are trying to generate.
Example:
"Well you know the entire world is going to die in awful ways when peak oil hits on Thanksgiving Day 2005 (Deffeyes) and we'll need guns and ammo and bunkers and bug out bags...BUT...the future is hard to predict."
See? LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS!!!!!.....but......
outcast_searcher wrote:Second, during the spring and summer of 2008 (and really 2005 - mid 2008 as a trend), it was looking like Omar's standard peaker view was pretty reasonable.
It always does. One of its attributes...but only assuming you can find gullible people who don't ask the obvious question...to whit..."well..sure it looks reasonable...but what about all those OTHER times you folks said the same thing and it turned out that you can't predict this at all..."
Colin Campbell peak in 1990. Hubbert's in 1995. Savinar and Ruppert in 2000. Deffeyes and Simmons in 2005. IEA in 2006. TOD in 2008. See what I mean? All looked reasonable. All were a crock. And also notice that NO ONE in peakerville goes back and asks WHY they looked reasonable, and yet were so wrong. Well, some of us have, but we are usually called names for doing it.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:The objection I have to the short term doomer peaker crowd is that NOW, several years into a huge fracking oil supply glut that seems to have no end in sight (and while the oil price might swing a lot in the future, the concept of "running out" in the intermediate term is sheer lunacy), they refuse to accept any data outside their "doom blinder's" view and adjust their outlook, based on objective reality.
Yup. And this is where the history comes in, and why doomers HATE talking about it. Because it calls into question their claim of now, using all the same schemes that have already been discredited by reality.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:BTW, I still believe in the concept of peak oil in terms of the big finite resource issue.
Of course. Everyone does. It might be the only axiomatic part of Hubbert's entire idea, for every finite resource there is a starting point of zero, a maxima along the way to an ending point of zero. This is often converted into a strawman by peakers when they rail against those who disagree with them. But a strawman it is, because it is axiomatic.
Outcast_Searcher wrote:I just don't think it MATTERS to humans any more, given the vast new supplies, the impact of EV's in coming decades, and all the substitutes that will be available in coming decades, including massive amounts of solar, wind, battery, etc. green energy.
Peak oil is as likely to be caused by peak demand, as the other way around. But notice that Hubbert, and later the modern peaker movement, never talked about the demand variable of a two variable, supply/demand equation. Again, how would it look?
"Well gee the world is going to end because of lack of oil and we'll all die, those of us who don't hoard gold and guns and MRE....but then maybe if demand decreases first then you can ignore everything I said before "but"."