[ennui2]

What, you are perhaps being polite?

I agree with your condemnation of doomers as a psychological disease only up to a point. Infinite growth in a finite system is impossible. While it's true that peaker predictions have turned out to be worthless and the peaker faithful seem to be incapable of acknowledging that fact, it doesn't mean we're going to have a bright future. It just means the center holds longer and we might feel the bite from some other limit to growth earlier than peak oil (AGW impacts already being felt worldwide).

when geologic limits are reached. Like now.

You're not going to give up on that, are you? Talk about filling swimming pools with oil and you're still trying to raise the alarm about geologic depletion? Maybe a few years from now, but not NOW.

[ennui2]

You deleted your original post too soon. Maybe you realized you set yourself up to be hoisted on your own petard?

"peaker predictions have turned out to be worthless" hum? All peaker predictions? Let me think on that . . . (mods/admin: I really need a head-scratch emoji here ) . . . nope. wrongo buster.

None of the peaker predictions forecast this current situation. Most of them forecast some flavor of Mad Max doom and rank and file peakers clutched and continue to clutch at every piece of current events to foretell uber-doom (the current favorite being that Kurds vs. Turkey will touch off WWIII).

I could write a book full of all the bad calls that have quietly come and gone. Stuff like the late Mike Ruppert saying Fukushima radiation would kill the planet (it's still polluting but will never cause the kind of death and destruction he was ranting about in his blogs). False prophets like him whip a lot of people into a frenzy ala Chicken Little which is not beneficial.

[Revi]

Anyway, we are at $1375 now, and we are well on our way to our goal of $2000. If this movie comes of as chicken little, so be it. We are going to make it happen! I think it will be amusing for all sorts of people to see the kinds of things we have been up to for the past 12 years or so. Even a broken clock is right twice a day!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/14 ... love-story

[AdamB]

And 2005 wasn't Jim's shining oopsy moment, he had already done that during his Y2K hysteria. Social commentary? Sure, the guy is quite witty. Anything related to analysis? Forget about it. His entire spiel is basically melancholy, gee why can't the world be small and rural like when I was young. That's about it.

'This is funny. You are pretty witty also AdamB, but it seems your schtick is giddy optimism. You're not sniffing that eau d' Bakken again? tsk tsk.

Mr reserve had the type of resources pinned down, that would lead to the shale revolution. Mr Rockman had the mechanism that would allow those resources to explode across the country like a hydrocarbon bomb, altering the very fabric of oil space and time, and causing Saudi Arabia to completely change their policy position of 30+ years, that of price.

Did any of your commentary on how the claims of peak oil might go, from a decade back, see the US increase oil production by nearly the production rate of Ghawar? Or are emoticons and getting every fact wrong that you can lay your hands on the best you can do?

[AdamB]

AdamB/ReserveGrowthGuy, It is unsightly and somewhat disingenuous to call upon current IEA/EIA predictions to support your crazy idea for abiotic oil and reserve growth and all those loony things. When you want to ignore IEA/EIA's previous horrible predictions. tsk tsk.

Do you understand that Mr reserve called something correct, from a decade out, that you did not? Do you understand that never in the old thread I went through post by post, did he make any comment about abiotic oil? Do you understand what he did say would happen, and when those things indeed, happened? Do you understand how Mr Rockman's POD idea works, and why it consists of basic economics? Do you understand that the EIA and IEA are not the same organization, were not founded with the same mission statement, and while they do similar things, they do it quite differently? Do you understand that the EIA underestimated global oil production from a decade back? Do you understand that they didn't fall for the decline yesterday, decline now, decline tomorrow routine that appears to typify the sum total of peak oil knowledge among the non-professionals?

Do you even understand that getting "carried away" is a poor euphemism for "don't know dick"?

I never bother with those charts much, as they are little more but wild-guess extrapolations of previous outdated supply/demand production regimes.

But peak oil charts, getting it wrong (as opposed to the provided EIA projections getting it right) are okay with you?

Notice, this comes from 2011, and they underestimated shale as well. It reaches nearly 3.5 bilion barrels a year in 14/15. Do you like this chart of yet another underestimating supply, or would you prefer, you know, one from Hubbert showing how even more poorly he did?

Chart and article from Economist, underestimating shale oil.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicd ... 03/focus-0

and Hubbert's prediction of US oil, perhaps a chart pstarr does like, since, after all, it is Hubbert?



Hubbert says about 0.9 billion a year from the US. We are at about 3.5 billion.

Which chart do you think we should be looking at? Those who knew better than to use a bell shaped curve, such as the EIA and BP and the Economist, or Hubbert?

Always quietly tweaked in the dead of night. We now see how those old predictions have collapsed when evil speculators and nefrarious oil companies cook their books. Or when geologic limits are reached. Like now.

That is what Hubbert thought had happened back in 1970. And some folks, cherry picking oil density just a little to avoid the obvious, say happened back in about 2005. And you believe them. A little "carried away" again, methinks.

[AdamB]

What, you are perhaps being polite?

I agree with your condemnation of doomers as a psychological disease only up to a point. Infinite growth in a finite system is impossible.

It is axiomatic, and cannot be denied.

Here is the local finite "system". I'm thinking, our low rates of growth have no fear of needing to slow down, quite yet.

While it's true that peaker predictions have turned out to be worthless and the peaker faithful seem to be incapable of acknowledging that fact, it doesn't mean we're going to have a bright future.

Define "bright". How far into the future? This is now, and people only a decade ago were talking about the end of the world, and instead we have happy motoring. To more than a few people, we have already made it past peak oil, and certainly this future looks pretty bright, compared to what was expected even a decade ago. No mutant zombie bikers or power down here now, or expected for at least another five years!

when geologic limits are reached. Like now.

You're not going to give up on that, are you? Talk about filling swimming pools with oil and you're still trying to raise the alarm about geologic depletion? Maybe a few years from now, but not NOW.

Depends on who you get your resource estimates from. Carnegie Mellon folks are talking about 24 trillion barrels. Can you just see how they would react if Pstarr wandered in one day and began lecturing them from his fine knowledge base...otherwise known as "getting carried away"?

http://carnegieendowment.org/2015/03/11 ... mate-index

I recommend the second paragraph under Oil 2.0, about a page or three down. Pstarr will split a gut over how many trillions of barrels smaller his number is, when compared to academics and scientists and such.

[ennui2]

Here is the local finite "system". I'm thinking, our low rates of growth have no fear of needing to slow down, quite yet.

So I take it you believe we're going to lick Fusion and spread out into the cosmos? Sorry, I don't see that happening. I guess there's still a statistical chance of it, but ecological limits are putting a time-limit on magic-tech breakthroughs.

Define "bright". How far into the future? This is now, and people only a decade ago were talking about the end of the world, and instead we have happy motoring.

True, but in its place we also have the start of AGW doom licking at our heels. You can't escape doom unless you tackle the entire system. Dirty energy is a double-edged sword.

No mutant zombie bikers or power down here now, or expected for at least another five years!

Probably, yes. But at some point you have to let go of bashing the bad predictions of 10 years ago and look at what happens, let's say, after the next 5 years when the can-kicking has run out of steam.

It's like, how many people still talk about Y2K doomers or 2012 doomers? Whether those doomers repent or not, those bad calls fade into the distance and lose relevance.

I mean, there's a very small number of stalwart peak doomers who are still doing intellectual backflips to try to hold onto their narratives and remain relevant. Picking on them is little more than a pass-time at this stage because nobody is really listening to what they have to say. It's like shooting fish in a barrel, really.

But I, personally, can't go back to a nonchalant attitude about BAU. We definitely are banging against limits to growth, just not all limits simultaneously, and consequences have a lag effect (CO2 pollution being the most obvious example, but also mass-extinction rippling through the food-chain).

That doesn't change the fact that in the industrialized world we're still safely buffered from this, we are. I just don't think anyone can reasonably see the future as peaches and cream. That's not the same thing as predicting empty store shelves in six months.

[AdamB]

Here is the local finite "system". I'm thinking, our low rates of growth have no fear of needing to slow down, quite yet.

So I take it you believe we're going to lick Fusion and spread out into the cosmos?

Incorrect. I am simply demonstrating that thinking small is exactly why malthus got it wrong, why peak oil was wrong, why peak natural gas was wrong, why all the scarcity arguments over the past century have been wrong.

Perspective matters. A common factor in all Malthusian exercises is the requirement to think small.

All that is required to test any Malthusian idea, is to think a little bigger. There is ZERO requirement for my "finite" system to be the same as yours. The picture just did a better job emphasizing that fact than a bunch of words.

Define "bright". How far into the future? This is now, and people only a decade ago were talking about the end of the world, and instead we have happy motoring.

True, but in its place we also have the start of AGW doom licking at our heels.

Again, according to which theory on AGW? The one that says it is natural variability, on a much smaller scale than what happened coming out of the Younger Drayas, the one that says it is all humans, all the time, since the beginning of the Industrial revolution (forgetting about the LIA, and all prior warming time periods, and how temperature swings are bi-directional and always have been), and another that says that humans have been doing it for 10,000 years, which would seem to indicate that it has been with us as long as agriculture...and what...we're now going to stop eating?

http://www.amazon.com/Plows-Plagues-Pet ... 0691146349

You can't escape doom unless you tackle the entire system. Dirty energy is a double-edged sword.

Energy is energy. There is no quantifiable measure to a BTU of being dirty, or clean. It is just a BTU. It is the human value system, a PARTICULAR human value assumption, imposed upon a BTU, which means like all things non-mathematical, it can be argued or disproved.

If you are dying, and the only way to stay alive is to use dirty BTUs, as opposed to some magical clean BTU, I can assure you that you won't hesitate for a second to take what ya got and use it.

Humans being funny this way.

No mutant zombie bikers or power down here now, or expected for at least another five years!

Probably, yes. But at some point you have to let go of bashing the bad predictions of 10 years ago and look at what happens, let's say, after the next 5 years when the can-kicking has run out of steam.

Okay fine. We stop remembering that peakers are the LAST people you ask about oil and gas production, because they have continuously proven they know nothing about it.

5 years from now is no more can-kicking than 10 years ago when Mr reserve and Mr Rockman both knew why peak oil wasn't what it was cracked up to be.

So...unless both of those positions have changed somehow, or are different in 5 years, only then will I think there will be much change. So...Mr reserve knew that unconventionals should not be discounted and were on the way. Will they run out in 5 years? Absolutely not. Mr Rockman maintained that price matters, and would affect future production rates, industry getting more when the price goes up. Okay, might the price return to $100/bbl levels? Sure. And JUST AS IT HAS BEFORE, what might happen next? More supply, in the form of those unconventionals that Mr reserve know about, or more discoveries in deeper water or the Arctic or more field growth or a change in regime in Venezuela and the flood of production from the largest oil field on the planet.

So...CAN anything change, as long as those conditions continue to hold? Unlikely. One provides new supply, the other knows it happens at a given price, we've seen the price before, survived it, so we will undoubtedly survive it next time. This isn't kick the can, it is only an analysis of whether or not the power of the two ideas, known of a decade ago by two posters on this site, will suddenly STOP in 5 years. The answer is, no they won't, so I don't expect to see anything much different in 5 years. Low prices will cure current low prices, just as high prices cured previously high prices. Continue for at least our lifetime.

It's like, how many people still talk about Y2K doomers or 2012 doomers? Whether those doomers repent or not, those bad calls fade into the distance and lose relevance.

Unless you wish to discount the same claims of doom TODAY, based on the same, already discredited ideas of YESTERDAY.

How many times do YOU reuse a failed idea, hoping that the result will be different next time? 2X? 5X? 10X?

When do we apply the knowledge learned about why peak went bad last time, and FIX it? When do the resource estimates by experts get properly processed by the economists, who then can calculate given price against supply and demand, and come up with a real answer, as opposed to endless fitting random declines to time series data and proclaiming TEOTWAWKI by those with the least amount of experience in these matters?

In the meantime, the reason why knowing how bolloxed up it was before is important, is so that peakers don't keep falling for this one....time...after time...

But I, personally, can't go back to a nonchalant attitude about BAU. We definitely are banging against limits to growth, just not all limits simultaneously, and consequences have a lag effect (CO2 pollution being the most obvious example, but also mass-extinction rippling through the food-chain).

Define limits. Define growth. You've already seen how fast I defined finite in a perfectly legitimate way.

That doesn't change the fact that in the industrialized world we're still safely buffered from this, we are. I just don't think anyone can reasonably see the future as peaches and cream. That's not the same thing as predicting empty store shelves in six months.

Define peaches and cream. Define First World acceptable quality of life. Define "enough"?

[Plantagenet]

which theory on AGW? The one that says it is natural variability, on a much smaller scale than what happened coming out of the Younger Drayas[sic]...

You should learn what the acronym means before you post more gibberish.

The acronym "AGW" stands for "Anthropogenic Greenhouse Warming". The word "anthropogenic" in this context means "human-caused".

Your suggestion that the AGW theory says that contemporary climate change is due to natural variability like the Younger Dryas event is gibberish----anything anthropogenic is not natural by definition.

Cheers!


Dryas flowers

.

[ennui2]

Incorrect. I am simply demonstrating that thinking small is exactly why malthus got it wrong, why peak oil was wrong, why peak natural gas was wrong, why all the scarcity arguments over the past century have been wrong.

I don't discount innovation or adaptation as unknown variables, Adam. I just think there comes a point of diminishing returns as long as population keeps shooting upwards. We can all dispute the finer-grained details and over-eager doomer predictions but it's hard to ignore the "axiomatic" truth of limits to growth and that sooner or later, consequences will bite hard. Conceding that does not mean I think the sky is going to fall tomorrow. There has to be some middle-ground between being a corny and a fast-crash doomer. Attempting to paint people into one corner or another ignores the gray area in the middle.

Again, according to which theory on AGW?

You're losing me on this one. This is a borderline denialist argument and I'm not buying it.

If you are dying, and the only way to stay alive is to use dirty BTUs, as opposed to some magical clean BTU, I can assure you that you won't hesitate for a second to take what ya got and use it.

I don't deny this, but if you use dirtier energy, you produce more pollution. That pollution causes negative feedbacks. This was all part of the LTG computer algorithm.

Will they run out in 5 years? Absolutely not...Continue for at least our lifetime.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Unless you wish to discount the same claims of doom TODAY, based on the same, already discredited ideas of YESTERDAY.

I do, when they're worth discounting.

How many times do YOU reuse a failed idea, hoping that the result will be different next time? 2X? 5X? 10X?

What you should do is apply new methodology. The problem with Oil Drum style methodology is it's largely revolving around chart-watching. Hubbert's curve, after all, is a visual icon, the bell-curve. But as we've seen, it is possible for above-ground factors to cause production to catch a 2nd or 3rd wind, or for production to decline for reasons OTHER than geological depletion. But some peakers keep appealing to the chart as the ultimate source of truth and then reading geological depletion into any plateau or downward slide, like they're currently doing with fracking (which is heavily colored by the price crash).

You shouldn't assume that any new methodology will be cornucopian. When the oil runs out, it runs out. We know that's gonna happen sooner or later. If by that point we're weaning ourselves off of it, great, maybe it won't be so bad. But there's still cause to be concerned. Not immediate existential panic, but concern.

Define limits. Define growth. You've already seen how fast I defined finite in a perfectly legitimate way.

Why? Go read the book or its updates.

Define peaches and cream. Define First World acceptable quality of life. Define "enough"?

While it's true that quality of life is subjective, there does come a point where most would concede that TS has HTF. You know, zombie hordes. Cormac McCarthy. That sort of thing. I agree that on the downward spiral people will continue to argue whether things have gotten bad enough to qualify the present as "doom". It's ultimately a subjective thing and there will always be outliers who don't agree.

[Revi]

We are funded!!!!! We are working on editing and distribution now. Thanks to all who kicked in for the film!

We'll get the bags and DVD's out soon! Thanks again!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/14 ... nav_search

[AdamB]

Your suggestion that the AGW theory says that contemporary climate change is due to natural variability like the Younger Dryas event is gibberish----anything anthropogenic is not natural by definition.

Cheers!
.

I should have been more clear. Thank you for correctly mentioning "AGW theory" as well, quite right.

[AdamB]

Incorrect. I am simply demonstrating that thinking small is exactly why malthus got it wrong, why peak oil was wrong, why peak natural gas was wrong, why all the scarcity arguments over the past century have been wrong.

I don't discount innovation or adaptation as unknown variables, Adam.

I didn't say you did. But those who need a malthusian catastrophe usually throw the size of these effects out the window first, while trying to limit their perspective to that little box I mentioned.

I just think there comes a point of diminishing returns as long as population keeps shooting upwards.

Logistic functions, such as those describing population growth, do not keep shooting upwards. There is slow initial growth, a fast period of growth that can resemble exponential growth, and then they become asymptotic. A fortunate fact of population growth indeed.

We can all dispute the finer-grained details and over-eager doomer predictions but it's hard to ignore the "axiomatic" truth of limits to growth and that sooner or later, consequences will bite hard. Conceding that does not mean I think the sky is going to fall tomorrow. There has to be some middle-ground between being a corny and a fast-crash doomer. Attempting to paint people into one corner or another ignores the gray area in the middle.

Not being able to define "finite", means that you cannot proceed to any other assumptions of this, or that. How finite is your perspective? Because the instant you understand what Hawkin is saying, is the same instant you realize that a planetary perspective is a microscopic view of what our species may become.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/nati ... /79049598/

So before anyone can even discuss what "middle-ground" is, one must outline a perspective. Hawkins perspective obviously is quite a bit beyond any doomer I've ever heard of, because as you seem to imply, the answer you are looking for is one only derived if we assume there is no chance of a human diaspora. The instant someone decides that there is such a chance, the outlook is entirely different.

You're losing me on this one. This is a borderline denialist argument and I'm not buying it.

Denialist is a term used to denigrate those who disagree with us. We use it when we want to short circuit a debate, or worse yet, don't want to even think about another answer to a question we have already decided we like the answer to.

Climate folks use it to shut down anyone who might mention anything about past warmings, as one example, or scientifically rigorous and statistical reasonable measurements of natural variability, which might happen to show that what has taken place since the LIA fits within those bounds.

I tend to avoid it myself.

Unless you wish to discount the same claims of doom TODAY, based on the same, already discredited ideas of YESTERDAY.

I do, when they're worth discounting.

And your thoughts on the use of bell shaped curves to parameterize natural gas production? Pstarr says he doesn't believe graphs from the experts who underestimated the shale revolution, but came far closer than the peakers did, so he ought to love the comparison here between a proper graphic, even the reality turns out to be somewhat different.

How many times do YOU reuse a failed idea, hoping that the result will be different next time? 2X? 5X? 10X?

You shouldn't assume that any new methodology will be cornucopian. When the oil runs out, it runs out. We know that's gonna happen sooner or later. If by that point we're weaning ourselves off of it, great, maybe it won't be so bad. But there's still cause to be concerned. Not immediate existential panic, but concern.

People have been concerned for more than 150 years. Do you have a time frame on when our concern should move to "worried"? Another century and a half perhaps? I think with the ongoing transition that we are moving quite nicely towards other forms of power generation, and remember that logistic function I mentioned earlier for population? Well S curves in terms of market saturation are also used in economic modeling, and they describe a similar profile. We are in the itty bitty growth stage right now, but because we have the transport already being mass produced to take advantage of renewable electricity generation, we are certainly moving down the right path.

Define limits. Define growth. You've already seen how fast I defined finite in a perfectly legitimate way.

Why? Go read the book or its updates.

I didn't realize you already had someones computer program in mind, and were willing to let them set the parameters of the definitions.

When LTG begins to encompass a more complete perspective, with the resolution of even breaking out basic resources when it claims that they decrease, but can't provide the output table of which ones, and how much, then perhaps it will be worth looking into. I mean really, a model claiming to model resources, but it can't even tell you how much are used of what resource base? How about we discuss really serious computer programs!.

Define peaches and cream. Define First World acceptable quality of life. Define "enough"?

While it's true that quality of life is subjective, there does come a point where most would concede that TS has HTF. You know, zombie hordes. Cormac McCarthy. That sort of thing. I agree that on the downward spiral people will continue to argue whether things have gotten bad enough to qualify the present as "doom". It's ultimately a subjective thing and there will always be outliers who don't agree.

Anyone in a war zone would concede that TS has hit TF. Doesn't require oilpoclypse. And those who kept enough cash to make their fortunes during the Depression were certainly outliers, and might not have worried as much as everyone else.

Just another matter of perspective.

[ennui2]

Logistic functions, such as those describing population growth, do not keep shooting upwards. There is slow initial growth, a fast period of growth that can resemble exponential growth, and then they become asymptotic. A fortunate fact of population growth indeed.

This assumes rosy demographic shift, but let's follow that scenario anyway. The current population, even if it didn't go any higher, is not sustainable. Population can't just plateau out. It needs to go down. I'm not saying that as a misanthrope. There are tons of studies talking about how we're living above 1 earth and sucking all of the accumulated natural capital out of the earth. Forests, soil, freshwater, fish, you name it.

Not being able to define "finite", means that you cannot proceed to any other assumptions of this

Even if I can't give you some overarching definition of "finite", I can see the "drawdown" of natural capital all around, and much of it is unavoidable in order to keep so many people alive at even a subsistence level. This tells me we're heading for trouble.

the answer you are looking for is one only derived if we assume there is no chance of a human diaspora. The instant someone decides that there is such a chance, the outlook is entirely different.

Human diaspora meaning the Interstellar scenario? Yeah, I don't think it's gonna happen because we're living in a very deep gravity-well and it simply takes too much energy to get enough humans off the planet to relieve population pressures. The only way to fix that is some magic Star Trek technology that doesn't seem to be on the horizon anytime soon, and we'd need it NOW for it to amount to much.

I think there's a chance we'll establish a small colony before TSHTF, but a die-off event is pretty much certain at this point. Not sure exactly when or how hard, just that it's gonna happen.

Denialist is a term used to denigrate those who disagree with us.

Bullshit. So you think it's worth listening to moon-landing hoaxers, holocaust deniers, and flat-earthers? At some point something is just a de-facto truth and outliers are justifiably treated as fringe weirdos.

And your thoughts on the use of bell shaped curves to parameterize natural gas production?

The problem with some of the bell-curve future projections is they assume that the amount of "intentionality" of the drilling is fixed, as well as the recovery techniques. If you simplify the process down to this theoretical purity, then you probably WOULD have a bell-curve. But once you add these extra variables, then it's hard to really predict how much of an observed dip represents geology and how much is some other factor. Then you add in the bias of doomers wanting to latch onto doom and you have a recipe for bad calls as we've seen.

People have been concerned for more than 150 years. Do you have a time frame on when our concern should move to "worried"?

Yes. Around 2030.

I think with the ongoing transition that we are moving quite nicely towards other forms of power generation

But that's just part of the whole puzzle. What about soil? Factory farming? Biodiversity loss? Climate impact on agricultural yields?

When LTG begins to encompass a more complete perspective

I await your published book intended to refute LTG. Until then, I think you're taking pot-shots at a group of people who tried their best to model this stuff, and I think they've done a pretty bang-up job so far compared to the evidence we're now seeing of the "drawdown".

Anyone in a war zone would concede that TS has hit TF.

Which is an argument I've made in the past, that those who were living through WWI or WWII thought doom had come. I think I know the difference between a passing crisis and the real deal, though.

[Revi]

It's amazing how right on those old models have proven to be. It's also amazing how little we listened to them. Oh well. We are on track to do exactly what they thought. No surprise.

[AdamB]

The current population, even if it didn't go any higher, is not sustainable. Population can't just plateau out. It needs to go down. I'm not saying that as a misanthrope. There are tons of studies talking about how we're living above 1 earth and sucking all of the accumulated natural capital out of the earth. Forests, soil, freshwater, fish, you name it.

I do not agree that the current population is not sustainable. This claim, for all the reasons of the day, which aren't much different than the one you would like to use, are why Ehrlich was wrong. I'll go with this angle continuing to be wrong.

Even if I can't give you some overarching definition of "finite", I can see the "drawdown" of natural capital all around, and much of it is unavoidable in order to keep so many people alive at even a subsistence level. This tells me we're heading for trouble.

And have been for centuries. Nothing knew here.

Human diaspora meaning the Interstellar scenario? Yeah, I don't think it's gonna happen because we're living in a very deep gravity-well and it simply takes too much energy to get enough humans off the planet to relieve population pressures.

Once upon a time...the seas were full of monsters...never venture from sight of land, lest they get you.

Hawkins perspective is different.

Denialist is a term used to denigrate those who disagree with us.

Bullshit. So you think it's worth listening to moon-landing hoaxers, holocaust deniers, and flat-earthers?

Peak oilers? Guy McPherson? The Population Bomb?

There is no shortage of folks with interesting ideas, some of them really wacky. And having a cool name to call them is just an excuse not to consider a thing they say.

People have been concerned for more than 150 years. Do you have a time frame on when our concern should move to "worried"?

Yes. Around 2030.

GIGO works for me, when it comes to a blackbox that can't even output its results in a common form.

I think with the ongoing transition that we are moving quite nicely towards other forms of power generation

But that's just part of the whole puzzle. What about soil? Factory farming? Biodiversity loss? Climate impact on agricultural yields?

What about it? Compared to peak oil, that stuff all seems like a cake walk. And it seems like Ehrlich cycled through some of these as well. That went over even worse than recent peak oil claims.

When LTG begins to encompass a more complete perspective

I await your published book intended to refute LTG.

Don't need one. Already referenced people putting together far more complete models, handling far more detail, and preparing to do the same thing for the globe. They'll publish their results, free of charge, and can do far more with the kinds of expertise they have, in both the modeling arena and in terms of subject matter experts (let us not forget, they didn't fall for peak oil hysteria in the least, so their org must be stocked with folks as smart as Mr reserve and Mr Rockman)) and resources they buy. You ever see a peak oiler even attempt to use some of the best data sources for oil and gas on the planet? I haven't. Which might explain why they do poorly, and these folks didn't.

Anyone in a war zone would concede that TS has hit TF.

Which is an argument I've made in the past, that those who were living through WWI or WWII thought doom had come. I think I know the difference between a passing crisis and the real deal, though.

Posters on this website would have said that exact same thing, about peak oil effects they could see in real time. In 2005. Now, we know it was a crock. So..recycling the same ideas...and expecting a different result....mmmmmm

[Tanada]

Congrats! I look forward to watching when you get finished with it!

[Revi]

It might be really good timing also. We are hoping to put it out to film festivals this summer. Here's the latest from Peak Oil Barrel. Ron Patterson is really good at boiling down the data and he feels that we hit the world peak last July. He had originally predicted April, so he's not far off at all.

http://peakoilbarrel.com/oil-price-and- ... more-11774

2015 will be the year world production of crude oil peaked. The return of higher oil prices, whether later this year or further in the future, will not bring production back to the 2015 level. Ron Patterson, from above.