warpig13 wrote:Outcast_Searcher wrote:When refusing to reply to the voice of credible data and sanity and math and science and experience in oil is a "waste of time", that says ALL that needs to be said for you or your ilk.
Good luck with your loony bin postings. Over time, you'll need it.
There was nothing credible, sane, mathematical, scientific or experienced in any of that... it was just a chart without a clear explanation as to it's relevance. I can't be arsed playing guessing games... it's childish and neither will I be led on a wild goose chase, because someone doesn't like what I'm saying and then deciding to use a traditional trolling technique to derail my thread.
For the record Peak Oil is defined as " Peak oil refers to the hypothetical point at which global crude oil production will hit its maximum rate." Synthetic oil (fossil fuel derivatives) are not crude oil. Likewise, there ARE NOT multiple peak oils as was suggested, there is just one and that was around 2005-8.
If you're able to make a succinct on-topic point in a friendly manner, I'll reply, if not - I won't.
Warpig there is no point in even bothering a reply to Adam or Outcast. If you state something other than there worldview they want to claim you are a fast crash doomer or something of that ilk. These dudes are dependent on the shale oil scheme and the financial industry, both are scams.