OilmanChoke wrote:Hmmm. It really doesn't matter to me whether we have Peak Oil, Plateau Oil, or NotPeak Oil, whether now or in the future. I have seen the energy balance projections and they depend on economic viabilities of each component, and in no case does the sky fall. The fact that Peak Oil concept has taken on such an important role to many of you is telling, if only to highlight a kind of catastrophic "the sky is falling" mindset. The most interesting comment was the fellow (person?) who stated that he or she had no faith in mankind, and that it was somehow dangerous to have faith in the ingenuity of mankind. Wow. So, somehow, I should have more faith in Chicken Littles and politicians seeking to increase their power instead of engineers and scientists who look for technical solutions.
That's some convoluted logic in that paragraph. I don't know what energy balances you've seen but every examination I've seen for alternatives, either singly or in combination, falls down due to problems of scale, time to transition, side-effects, resource constraints (for harnessing said alternative) or wishful thinking. Furthermore, your characterisation of everyone who doesn't take your position is an insult to many who have done far more work that you in trying to understand our situation. And my comment on placing faith in mankind's ingenuity to sort out every problem has nothing to do with placing faith in something else; I always suggest doing what we know we can do, not what we don't know we can do - this requires no faith.
OilmanChoke wrote:The Dude... (Love the movie and the name)... Our friends the Japanese will screw with the Clathrates, just like they do the whales. The US is spending a big portion of its DOE research dollars on Clathrates, and some fellow just came up with a way of mapping them via sulfate geochemistry that is supposedly very cheap. Of course, figuring out how to capture the methane as it sublimates from ice to gas is the trick, and certainly screwing with the pressure/temperature regime is risky. Kind of like the first Nukes, where the possibility existed for setting off a global chain reaction. That must have been a butt clencher day in NM for those in the know!
Again, you ask us to put faith in human ingenuity to avoid catastrophic effects of harnessing clathrates, rather than instead do something different from busines as usual. This is most certainly a faith based position.
OilmanChoke wrote:I have read about the conjectures about Clathrate drivers in the past, and it makes some sense. We see a lot of catastrophic climate change in the geological record. 100,000 year on up volcanoes will also be good candidates (10 times plus the historical human greenhouse gas load released in one eruption). If we want a civilization that lasts more than 100,000 years (current set up is only 100 years old at best), we better be able to deal with natural phenomena that is truly catastrophic.
Not really. You appear to be suggesting that because we will not be able to deal with the naturally occurring catastrophic events that beset the earth from time to time, we shouldn't do anything about near term probabilities that we could do something about. This is a false argument because it implies that we should never alter our behaviours, since bad things always happen. We should be concerned with near term climate change that our behaviour exacerbates, because it's obvious that such change will affect, and is affecting, our habitat for the people that now live in it, or for their children.
OilmanChoke wrote:If Peak Oil wasn't an issue, would you think differently about "what needs to be done"? If anthropogenic greenhouse gas effects were shown conclusively to be bunk as climate drivers, would you alter your worldview?
As we are living unsustainably (currently requiring about 1.3 earths, set to markedly increase with the growth of the BRIC economies), it wouldn't now alter my world view much. If we continue to use resources beyond their renewal rate, and without regard for the impacts, then we're screwed anyway; to rely on avoiding the problems in our lifetimes, leaving it to future generations, is a faith based position.
OilmanChoke wrote:If I had called a tree "wacky", no one would have objected. If I had called the concept of God "wacky", some of you may have been offended. When I called the concept of "sustainability" wacky, I got a response that was the equivalent to telling a church full the same thing about God.
Not at all. You got a reasonable answer. If you are not concerned with sustainability then that is up to you but why call those that are concerned, wacky? It's a perfectly acceptable position to want to try to figure out a way for one's descendents to live good quality lives.
OilmanChoke wrote:Predictions are not accurate, they assume perfect knowledge, and mandating action on imperfect knowledge is silly.
And yet you demand inaction on imperfect knowledge. Are you saying that our way of life is sustainable for the next few decades and that the growth of the BRIC economies will have no effect on that position? How do you know, without perfect knowledge?
OilmanChoke wrote:Sustainability means nothing without population control, population control leads to human rights violations of the highest magnitude.
Sustainability includes a stable population; who has said anything else? And "control" can come in many ways, only some of which violate human rights (which are rights that we, ourselves, decide on, anyway; they aren't a physical law). Even if the solution that do violate current rights, are you saying that humans are incapable of deciding on actions that may have some undesirable consequences but have an overall benefit? If so, I could well agree with you there.
OilmanChoke wrote:I repeat my query, if we have a 300 year supply of something, doesn't that qualify as sustainable for all intents and purposes? Please, one of you go invent a 1000 year or 100000 year sustainable, cheap energy supply. Mankind would be better off, and you will be richer than Creseus (OK, I probably spelled that wrong)... until 50 years or 100 years from now when someone invents something better.
That's a faith based position. What is the something we have 300 years supply of, and how do you know for certain?
OilmanChoke wrote:Unless you agree with my friend on this board that he essentially doesn't believe in human ingenuity. That isn't even addressable it so contrary to every bit of available evidence, unless he is living in Darfour.
You are perverting my post. I said relying on human ingenuity to solve every problem is a faith based position. Where is the available evidence that humans have always solved every problem in the past perfectly? How do you know that every solution hasn't resulted in unintended other problems? I've often read such undiluted faith and often read of lists of problems that weren't solved or that had unintended consequences.
Yours is a faith based position and you ridicule those that suggest we should take a more rational approach.
OilmanChoke wrote:
Lastly, everyone has a dog in this fight. I am an oilman. I derive income from finding and producing oil and gas. Climate researchers work largely for governmental entities. They seek funding, and funding is grotesquely available to study the "problem", because there is a power grab underway.
Hmm, are you saying that every climate scientist is under control of some organisation that has a specific interest in validating AGW? This seems nonsense to me. The US government has only recently acknowledged AGW, yet thier main science bodies have long acknowledged it. Governments most certainly don't want AGW to be true because that means having to do something about it. Yet you are claiming that the few scientists who support your opinions are the ones that should be believed.
OilmanChoke wrote:Many in my industry have pointed out that Matt Simmons is an Investment Banker specializing in oil field services. By creating a scarcity scare, he commands higher valuations for the companies he finances and sells. Matt Simmons and his proselytizing about Peak Oil has made me more money than Plateau or NonPeak oil has ever made me. Go Matt! Go Peak Oil Brothers! You MIGHT be right! You MIGHT not!
Who are these people that have pointed this out? So because one person may benefit from pushing energy problems (though I'm not sure Matt does; this has been discussed a few times here), we should instead believe those that have a different view based on their making a living from that different view? This is illogical. Make your arguments and let's see if they stand up, by themselves, regardless of who gains or loses from being right.
OilmanChoke wrote:It's not just money, either. Many of you have a lot invested in your value systems
I can't speak for others but this is completely wrong, in my case. What you may understand my value system to be has changed markedly in the last few years, due to looking carefully at the climate change and peak resources arguments. I would still love to read a good argument, with sound evidence, that allows be to ignore both issues; it would make my life one hell of a lot easier - and I'm all for easy living. But all I hear is faith.