Doly wrote:Or is your interest more related to noting ideas of folks you like without thought or question as to the past usefulness or accuracy of their work?
No, my interest is related to noting ideas I like, without thought or question as to whether the people who had them also had some other ideas that were bad.
Well, that is a good answer, sort of. So you like an idea, the credibility of the author being irrelevant, and then...you study it? Research it? Decide if the, in this case, previous discredited conclusions were drawn in error because of the data, or suppositions, or poor thinking on the part of the original claiment?
Doly wrote:Adamb wrote:His published research discredited by...you know...reality, and I highly recommend Figure 2.
Hall, C.A.S. and C.J. Cleveland. 1981. Petroleum drilling and production in the United States: Yield per effort and net energy analysis. Science 211: 576-579
Oh, yes, I remember we talked about this one before. Figure 2 is where he specifically mentions that he didn't include the latest oil discoveries. Which simply proves that he was being too conservative.
Indeed. And a common claim for peak oil methods getting it wrong.
So now I get to demonstrate why I asked about your familiarity with research professionally.
Hubbert published in the late 1960's how to correct for being too conservative. The method was employed by the USGS in 1975 in Geologic Circular 725, Methodology Chapter, approx page 25. Discovery process modeling was being published by the USGS
in 1980 to make sure the inexpert and careless weren't being too "conservative" when doing their work. And before someone complains that gee, how could Charlie be expected to like do...RESEARCH....when it was published so near his work, well then he obviously missed the classic reference for the origins of this research, to whit,
Arps, J. J., and Roberts, T. G., 1958, Economics of drilling for Cretaceous oil on the east flank of the Denver-Julesburg basin: American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, v. 42, no. 11, p. 2549-2566.
So Charlie couldn't for the life of him find alternatively 2 year old published research from THE leading research organization on this topic, 7 year old publications from the leading researchers on how NOT to be conservative using 15 year old research from Hubbert himself, or 22 year old research that was the origin story of the entire concept, because, you know, fishing doesn't teach you Geocience 101?
Do you know why Charlie missed all this? Because to those of us who aren't amateur researchers (which alleged includes Charlie), the most likely answer CAN'T be "I was too conservative".
Doly wrote:It's an argument based on first principles. And when I said "first principles" I don't mean that I got my ideas from some modern economics textbook that made a bullet-point list of principles of economics. I got my ideas from reading some of the original material of the early writers on the field of economics, because I heavily suspect that most famous economists post-WWII have been very busy saying whatever rich people wanted to hear. In particular, I'm referring to the labor theory of value.
Well, then we can discuss your ideas and arguments rather than pretending they are first principles just because you call it that, giving a priority it certainly may not have.
Doly wrote:One of the most basic laws of economics there is, supply and demand.
So you accept there is a crunch on supply. Do you accept the crunch on supply is likely to continue for the foreseeable future?
Define "crunch". I know there is a 3 way relationship between supply, demand and price, and no part of the intersection of those 2 curves is called "crunch" that I have ever been aware of..
If I insert "high price" as a substitute for what you are calling "crunch", I would say no, I do not expect high prices to continue into the foreseeable future.
Doly wrote:As for your statement that things gradually get more expenisve, you'd have to be more specific.
I was as vague as you were.
Well I would be happy to be more specific, but when you use the word "crunch" to define something on a supply/demand/price curve, we're all just arm waving here.
I've got no beef with independent research, but you didn't for a second do yours on Charlie's referenced work. When finished with a publication, I hand my work off to a pack of ravenous wolves who want to see the ideas torn down to atoms. The proof of the research is how well they can't do it. Who do you use for your research reviews? Folks in your area of expertise, or experts in the research field the idea you like is in?
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."
Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"