Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak Nonsense

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby Smudger » Wed 30 May 2007, 13:35:52

Nonsense wrote:
1 in 12,045


So sometime in the next 30 years or so oil may peak.

Unless some new development alters the odds. That's a pretty slim bet if you ask me. What were the odds in 1902 that a man would walk on the surface of the moon 40 years later? Nada zippo none.

Because things we don't know we don't know, will greatly affect the outcome, I don't see much value in predicting what is essentially a random event which by definition defies prediction.

The accuracy of any prediction decays over time until it becomes mere speculation.

In the case of peak oil there are simply too many factors to be anything more than a semi-educated guess.


Nonsense I think you are talking nonsense (i know someone had to say it eventually ;-) )

Lets do the yes no game - boring but will save a few pages:

Are we all agreed that sometime between now and 2040 conventional peak oil production will peak? yes or No

Bearing in mind even the "anti" PO chaps are saying 2040 i assume you have said yes.

Are we therefore agreed that the occurance of PO is not a prediction of IF it will occur as set out in your post but a fact it will occur we are simply discussing only WHEN it will occur Yes or No

Bearing in mind that if you are this far you have acknowledgeed PO will occur sometime between now and 2040 the second statement is by definition correct

Turning now to when as each day passes the chance of it occuring the next day increases - to take the extreme two days before the end of 2040 the chances of it happening that day are 50:50. so in actual fact because we have a set end time for PO to happen - as set out by the oil companies etc themselves the probability of PO happening increases each day Yes or No

Then are we agreed that that in order to avoid all of the "we're all doomed" nonsense (on pun intended...) the sooner we begin the transition eg by buying near technology (even if it costs a lot) etc to encourage its development the better we will all be. i.e. even if its in 2040 starting now would minimise the cost. yes or No

If you have said yes to all of the above you are now in the same camp as me which is - it actually doesnt matter when it is going to happen far better to very calmly in a grace under pressure type way start moving to some new technology level to minimise my exposure and with the secondary effects of freeing up some non-renewable energy for other people (arguably not the best thing but there you go), reducing CO2 emissions, minimising futrue energy costs etc

go on Nonsense come join us Optimistic Peak Oilers!
love and kisses
Smudger
User avatar
Smudger
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu 05 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Great Britain

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby davep » Wed 30 May 2007, 14:15:49

Hadn't we established that this Nonsense is just an Aaron recurso-troll?
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby OnceFueled » Wed 30 May 2007, 14:32:18

Yeah... but it's still fun.
User avatar
OnceFueled
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Tue 22 May 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby Last_Laff » Wed 30 May 2007, 15:14:30

davep wrote:Hadn't we established that this Nonsense is just an Aaron recurso-troll?


Apparently I've missed something out on this. What had Aaron been doing? Is it the internet mid-crisis thing he's having?
User avatar
Last_Laff
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat 16 Sep 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby Battle_Scarred_Galactico » Thu 31 May 2007, 05:25:36

we have a fairly ok strategy for the potential of an asteroid hitting us


Even if we were lucky enough to get a few days notice (they're not as easy to spot as everyone thinks), the only 'strategy' that has any chance of working is underground bunkers.

(Of course thats' what you might have meant, but just thought I'd make it clear.)
---
Battle_Scarred_Galactico
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu 07 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby Smudger » Thu 31 May 2007, 07:05:32

Battle_Scarred_Galactico wrote:we have a fairly ok strategy for the potential of an asteroid hitting us


Even if we were lucky enough to get a few days notice (they're not as easy to spot as everyone thinks), the only 'strategy' that has any chance of working is underground bunkers.

(Of course thats' what you might have meant, but just thought I'd make it clear.)


agree. just meaning that given the 14m to 1 chance of a hit and the projected 20 years (?) it will take to map every potential threat (possibly comets excepted) i see that as an ok balance between risk/reward. wheras for PO i see the risk/reward way out of kilter
User avatar
Smudger
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 180
Joined: Thu 05 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Great Britain

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby Nonsense » Thu 31 May 2007, 10:22:29

Is there no one to stand against my argument that the complexities involved preclude reaching any meaningful conclusions?

Or is the question itself sacrosanct?

I command you!

[video width=400 height=350]http://www.youtube.com/v/Wt0quE2Fcrc[/video]
User avatar
Nonsense
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Tue 29 May 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby basil_hayden » Thu 31 May 2007, 11:24:16

What's so complex about "that which goes up must come down"?

What's so complex about graphing discoveries, production, supply, demand, and projecting when the system stops working?

What's so complex about understanding that we're burning in a human lifetime or two what took geologic time to produce?

Sorry, not seeing the complexity here.....the complexities involved are just icing on the conclusions cake. [smilie=occasion15.gif]
User avatar
basil_hayden
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: CT, USA

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby threadbear » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 00:49:43

Nonsense wrote:
1 in 12,045


So sometime in the next 30 years or so oil may peak.

Unless some new development alters the odds. That's a pretty slim bet if you ask me. What were the odds in 1902 that a man would walk on the surface of the moon 40 years later? Nada zippo none.

Because things we don't know we don't know, will greatly affect the outcome, I don't see much value in predicting what is essentially a random event which by definition defies prediction.

The accuracy of any prediction decays over time until it becomes mere speculation.

In the case of peak oil there are simply too many factors to be anything more than a semi-educated guess.


I think this is more than a random event. It's something that can be charted and we CAN extrapolatd what should happen if we continue present rates of consumption. A random event can't be predicted within anything but a very wide time frame.

It's not scientific but we can deduce that we will run out, and by the way nations are behaving, it doesn't appear that a cheap easily implemented substitute is available.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby Declan » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 02:49:05

Aaron, "Your failure to be informed does not make me a wacko."

And one more thing...Baaaa...Baaaa.
“Your failure to be informed does not make me a wacko.”
-John Loeffler

“The truth will set you free, but first it will make you sick.”
-Unknown
User avatar
Declan
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun 14 May 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Central Canada

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby Ludi » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 14:46:14

I thought we'd pretty much decided peak could only be accurately observed in hindsight and that any predictions would be more or less inaccurate, their accuracy only determined after peak had been observed having already occurred....


So, I'm not sure what "Nonsense's" beef is......

8O
Ludi
 

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby Gazzatrone » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 19:33:29

Ludi wrote:I thought we'd pretty much decided peak could only be accurately observed in hindsight and that any predictions would be more or less inaccurate, their accuracy only determined after peak had been observed having already occurred....


So, I'm not sure what "Nonsense's" beef is......

8O


I think Nonsense by name. Nonsense by nature. Is all you require to know.
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby PraiseDoom » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 21:08:26

Ludi wrote:I thought we'd pretty much decided peak could only be accurately observed in hindsight and that any predictions would be more or less inaccurate, their accuracy only determined after peak had been observed having already occurred....


Yup...thats the way I understand it. So...it happened 2 years ago...we can see that now...can someone please tell me when the party is gonna get started?
User avatar
PraiseDoom
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 23 Apr 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby NEOPO » Fri 01 Jun 2007, 22:28:27

6000+ members and 50% of them are the same guy! :-D

I like all the lamentations and it only confirms that this site is teaching people.

I use to enjoy newbie post's but hawkman put an end to that!

Send me a PM with a list of all of your alias' hawkman as I have my suspicions yet it would be cool to receive confirmation.

My other Alias is Airline Pilot and PMS :lol:
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
User avatar
NEOPO
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3588
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 02 Jun 2007, 00:46:26

Nonsense wrote:Is there no one to stand against my argument that the complexities involved preclude reaching any meaningful conclusions?


I'm not sure what your punch line will be, but it seems a moot point.

Considering that the very foundations of western industrial societies are based on the exploitation of non-renewable
minerals and fuels, it will be extremely difficult to switch to an industrial and economic system based solely on renewable resources.--M.H. Huesemann


We cannot be prepared to cope and adapt to the coming changes given this foundation, cultural direction, and asset inertia.

We can't even envision how to do so.

It would be like trying to navigate a boat on dry land.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby threadbear » Sat 02 Jun 2007, 01:21:57

MonteQuest wrote:
It would be like trying to navigate a boat on dry land.


Evidence?
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 02 Jun 2007, 02:08:25

threadbear wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
It would be like trying to navigate a boat on dry land.


Evidence?


Of what? An analogy?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby crapattack » Sat 02 Jun 2007, 03:48:59

Sounds like nonsense aka Aaron is stirring up a tempest in a teacup, meaningless but It does make the brew stronger. All this talk hurts my head, time to do some gardening.
"Ninety percent of everything is crap."
-Theodore Sturgeon

Stay low and run in a random pattern.

List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents
User avatar
crapattack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 646
Joined: Sat 03 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Vancouver, BC

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby Aaron » Sat 02 Jun 2007, 08:32:37

MonteQuest wrote:
Nonsense wrote:Is there no one to stand against my argument that the complexities involved preclude reaching any meaningful conclusions?


I'm not sure what your punch line will be, but it seems a moot point.

Considering that the very foundations of western industrial societies are based on the exploitation of non-renewable
minerals and fuels, it will be extremely difficult to switch to an industrial and economic system based solely on renewable resources.--M.H. Huesemann


We cannot be prepared to cope and adapt to the coming changes given this foundation, cultural direction, and asset inertia.

We can't even envision how to do so.

It would be like trying to navigate a boat on dry land.


By his logic since you can't predict with any certainty that you'll get killed playing on the freeway, you might as well go for it.

Nonsense attempts to shift the burden of proof to peakers. He's saying that we don't know all the facts... so we can't prove that depletion is eminent.

Look at it this way nonsense, if peak is right now, then we should have begun some sort of transition 30 years ago... if peak is 25 years from now, then we should begin... now.

Nobody disputes that peak will happen... even CERA & the USGS predict a peak in oil production. So are you so selfish that as long as it's not happening on your watch you don't care?

Just because we can't predict specifically when peak happens does nothing to change the situation... only who will suffer from it... us, or a future generation.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston

Re: Peak Nonsense

Unread postby PraiseDoom » Sat 02 Jun 2007, 10:05:07

Aaron wrote:
Look at it this way nonsense, if peak is right now, then we should have begun some sort of transition 30 years ago... if peak is 25 years from now, then we should begin... now.

Nobody disputes that peak will happen... even CERA & the USGS predict a peak in oil production. So are you so selfish that as long as it's not happening on your watch you don't care?

Just because we can't predict specifically when peak happens does nothing to change the situation... only who will suffer from it... us, or a future generation.


But hasn't this statement been true since Hubbert was proved right in 1971? We knew in 1971, and we should have started changing...then. Or 8 years later when we noticed the effects of US Peak ( others controlling out energy future, embargo effects ) and Jimmy thought we should wear sweaters to solve the problem? So thats ALREADY an entire generation that should have known better and started doing something, and didn't. So why should us modern types be any different? We don't care, its someone elses problem, somewhere down the road.

Which is why its goin into the crapper any minute now. The chickens have finally come home to roost.
User avatar
PraiseDoom
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 289
Joined: Mon 23 Apr 2007, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 48 guests

cron