bubmachine wrote:seldom_seen wrote:It's been pointed out over and over that the world peak in production can only be confirmed in the rear view mirror....
The inability to predetermine this moment does not make it any less real or imminent.
If it can only be confirmed in the "rear view mirror", then you cannot say that it is imminent. ?
bubmachine wrote:JustinFrankl wrote:And Heinberg dislikes coal because it is dirty and nuclear because it is dangerous. This is silly, and it shows a basic ignorance of psychology or sociology.
Nuclear waste remains radioactive and toxic to the environment for millions of years. Coal is a dirty fuel to burn, and the global warming and climate change scientists point to coal as one of the largest contributors of pollution and greenhouse gases.
The only thing this has to do with the human psyche is the psychological and sociological effects of prolonged suffering.
Well, in the debates that I have heard, Heinberg doesn't think coal or nuclear is a viable option, because he doesn't like them.
I think people would prefer to have energy and try to deal with the problems of that energy production. Whinging environmentalists are not going to stop nuclear power. Sorry.
bubmachine wrote:OK, that is fair enough. I think I need to find some quotes then, because I am not convinced by Heinberg's doomism.
bubmachine wrote:My position is quite simple. No-one can predict the oil peak, but world peak must happen sometime. So we must do something about it. I agree that some sort of action is needed.
lper100km wrote:So why come here with all the other dismissive and irrelevant material and simply try to promote a cock fight? What's your point??:roll:
Well, I'm not sure you do agree that. Your dismissal and mischaracterisation of Heinberg's position (on many issues), your seeming approval of unsustainable power generation methods (coal and nuclear) and many other statements you've made seem to suggest that you have a position closer to deniers.bubmachine wrote:My position is quite simple. No-one can predict the oil peak, but world peak must happen sometime. So we must do something about it. I agree that some sort of action is needed.
bubmachine wrote:I think the following types of things would be useful:
1) Diversify. And that includes coal and nuclear. Coal is dirty and nuclear is dangerous, but I am sure we can work it out.
Bubmachine wrote: Goodbye
at least you get properly banned for not being gullible enough to swallow the standard dogma....
Aaron wrote:at least you get properly banned for not being gullible enough to swallow the standard dogma....
Now that's funny.
Aaron wrote:
This is the full-contact Internet... get a helmet.
Can you (assuming you're correct in your belief that peak was July 2005)?ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:They can't figure out why, 18 months post Peak, the world still thinks of Peak oil as some quirk of tree-huggery.
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:Aaron wrote:at least you get properly banned for not being gullible enough to swallow the standard dogma....
Now that's funny.
Thank you for not disputing the accuracy of the statement.
Aaron wrote:
I wouldn't validate ad hom nonsense like your sig by responding to it...
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:Aaron wrote:
I wouldn't validate ad hom nonsense like your sig by responding to it...
I actually thought my sig line was quite good. And accurate enough to make it difficult to respond to.
ReserveGrowthRulz wrote:PO is not a Peak issue. PO isn't an Oil issue. PO isn't an energy issue. PO is a "How outrageous of a economic/societal consequence can I fabricate with the minimum amount of reality intruding" issue.
I think the idea of a peak is almost tautological
a geological product is limited, by definition. I know that some people doubt that oil is a fossil fuel at all, but this does not make much difference. From a logical point of view, there cannot be a limitless supply of it.
It seems to me that the idea that the oil will peak is obvious. But it seems that it is beyond the limits of science to predict when it will happen. No-one seems to know how much oil is in the ground. By using the data of discovery, seems very weak as an accurate method of prediction. It is too easy to explain falsified predictions on other factors. (The oil crisis caused the 2000 prediction to be delayed, the OPEC countries are exaggerating the amount of reserves .... all these are "ad-hoc" hypotheses to "save" the theory).
My main problem is that false predictions, by the peak oil theorists, are always explained away by these methods, and I am afraid, this is a sign of a pseudoscience.
Perhaps we could say that no-one can give hard evidence for when the oil will peak. It seems difficult to base any kind of political policy on such a vague prediction.
It could be argued that the peak oil theory, although weak from a strictly scientific point of view, is in awareness, but the powers that be are "managing" the oil supply.
Making doomsday predictions is not science. Sorry.
Not even then, IMO. Continuing down an unsustainable path, knowing that it's unsustainable is madness. I think the only difference regarding peak date is that the transition to some other energy system or social/economic system can be much more controlled and gradual. But the difference implies a certainty over the date of peak, which we'll never have, so policies should always include dealing with the possibility of an imminent peak, whilst moving societies and economies in a different direction. Even if peak was likely to be 100 years from now, or further away than that, this approach should not be different; if a business as usual approach was used where peak was likely to be 100 years away, that would be based on an unverifiable assumption - that we'd somehow figure out a way to keep things going longer, given a bit more time.ashurbanipal wrote:We ought to be doing roughly the same things whether oil will peak next friday or 20 years from now. Only if oil peak is more than 20 years away should our politics be different.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests