[pedalling_faster]

grammar, people, grammar.

"Fewer than 50 years", not "less than 50 years"

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000214.htm

"Use fewer with objects that can be counted one-by-one.

Use less with qualities or quantities that cannot be individually counted."


i didn't know HSBC was in the geology/ oil business. i thought they were in the incompetent, fraud-ridden bank business. but i suppose they do have economists who make forecasts.

[furrybill]

Civilization got on quite well before oil was in use.

True enough.. but world population was only 300 million in the time of Augustus. And, when civilizations collapse it's into a dark age.. they don't just ratchet down in technology then take up logic, rhetoric and philosophy.

Anyhow the question I'm getting at is whether the oil-free "green future" is possible. Either it's true or false, can we really replace oil or not?

Will we replace oil as the central energy source for a profligate way of life? Probably not. I think an oil-free green future is not only possible, it's the only future we have. We'll descend into a dark age but eventually reemerge, reworking old technologies, inventing new ones. New economic and social structures will no doubt come into existence as well. Future generations will look back on us and think we were incredibly stupid blowing our oil energy wad the way we did and smugly ignore their own civilization-destroying problems.

[Niagara]

I have seen the light, and you should too!

I challenge anyone to watch this video and not be convinced that Peak Oil is just a lot of hooey! It's just 4 minutes, but puts it all in a nut shell!

YouTube

LOL at the YouTube comments:

You are a retard, it's too bad that the government stopped sterilizing idiots like your parents before you were popped out on the trailer floor.

You gotta admit though, that banjo track in the background makes you feel all warm n fuzzy

[anonymous1]

grammar, people, grammar.

"Fewer than 50 years", not "less than 50 years"

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000214.htm

"Use fewer with objects that can be counted one-by-one.

Use less with qualities or quantities that cannot be individually counted."


i didn't know HSBC was in the geology/ oil business. i thought they were in the incompetent, fraud-ridden bank business. but i suppose they do have economists who make forecasts.

you can try this handy resource grammica grammar check

[Outcast_Searcher]

grammar, people, grammar.

"Fewer than 50 years", not "less than 50 years"

http://englishplus.com/grammar/00000214.htm

"Use fewer with objects that can be counted one-by-one.

Use less with qualities or quantities that cannot be individually counted."


i didn't know HSBC was in the geology/ oil business. i thought they were in the incompetent, fraud-ridden bank business. but i suppose they do have economists who make forecasts.

you can try this handy resource grammica grammar check

Look. Seriously, as someone with a college education in computer science who winces when people use the wrong words and can't construct a proper sentence, much less a decent paragraph, at SOME point, getting the point across in a comprehensible way on an internet comment SHOULD supercede "proper grammar", when 90% of people wouldn't know the formal grammar rules with an "ordinary" education, IMO.

Look at how poor the articles are re things like grammar, coming out of supposedly "professional" papers like the NYT and the WSJ, much less the average internet discussion thread from an article on subject X on the generally decent internet website.

Seriously, at SOME point, we need to focus on the CONTENT, as long as the comment is reasonably comprehensible to, say, 90% of likely readers where X is their primary language.

As always, IMO, from a layman vs. a linguist or an English major.