kevincarter wrote:DOOM
DoomWarrior wrote:My second-favorite 4-letter word!kevincarter wrote:DOOM
Now I only need food on the supermarkets
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
Shoot, y'all don't need the Queen's English, and as far as I know, didn't use it. Ya just need something that's been proof-read.Barbara wrote:No.
It's just indicative that it was an international meeting and we aren't expected to speak english like the Queen Elizabeth.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
yesplease wrote:I liked the second slide.Now I only need food on the supermarkets
That said, it unfortunately seems indicative of the level of rigor used in most analysis...
And we expect participants at a meeting of the Association for the Study Advocacy of Peak Oil to tell us there's plenty of oil left, that technological advances will continue apace and that we can continue to drive our SUV's in the suburbs for the foreseeable future?
I'm disappointed. He didn't include t3h zombi3z.kevincarter wrote:yesplease wrote:I liked the second slide.Now I only need food on the supermarkets
That said, it unfortunately seems indicative of the level of rigor used in most analysis...
That was written by a Spanish guy who does comics, not by one of the speakers.
Debunk the rigor? What does that even mean? Something is either rigorous, or not, and someone can debunk a statement I suppose, but they can't debunk the rigor, outside of using the word in a way that isn't standard.kevincarter wrote:Their analysis seemed good to me, some of the guys talking had been working in the oil sector for a long time. I don't know, I welcome you to go to their next ASPO meeting and try to debunk the rigor of their analysis on their face, and see what they say.
Professor Membrane wrote: Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
kevincarter wrote:And we expect participants at a meeting of the Association for the Study Advocacy of Peak Oil to tell us there's plenty of oil left, that technological advances will continue apace and that we can continue to drive our SUV's in the suburbs for the foreseeable future?
Well, What I expect is to more or less find reality trough more or less coherent facts. One one side I see ASPO, on the other I see abmiotic oil advocates and 2050 predictions based on smelly data. I wish I could buy the "2050, we-will-conquer-the-stars, hidrogen cars" theory but I just can't swalow it because I find it uncoherent. So if anyone has any good info that could make me underestand that PO is false and that I'm jus t freaking out I'd be glad to read it. But I guess there isn't, because its all about the data, and as I said the "2050" data smells baaaad.
OilFinder2 wrote:Your problem is that you buy into the propaganda and "projections" from peak oil advocates lock, stock and barrel and accept it as fact, when it is about as far removed from fact as you could possibly get.
OilFinder2 wrote:kevincarter wrote:And we expect participants at a meeting of the Association for the Study Advocacy of Peak Oil to tell us there's plenty of oil left, that technological advances will continue apace and that we can continue to drive our SUV's in the suburbs for the foreseeable future?
Well, What I expect is to more or less find reality trough more or less coherent facts. One one side I see ASPO, on the other I see abmiotic oil advocates and 2050 predictions based on smelly data. I wish I could buy the "2050, we-will-conquer-the-stars, hidrogen cars" theory but I just can't swalow it because I find it uncoherent. So if anyone has any good info that could make me underestand that PO is false and that I'm jus t freaking out I'd be glad to read it. But I guess there isn't, because its all about the data, and as I said the "2050" data smells baaaad.
There is no "data" on 2050, because 2050 is still 42 years away. "Data" are numbers on things which are already fact. Events 42 years from now are not facts yet. The only things which exist for the year 2050 are projections and wild-ass guesses. And many - if not most - projections of things 42 years from now are little more than wild-ass guesses anyway.
42 years from now, a lot could happen. They could perfect nuclear fusion and develop super-lightweight cars made of carbon nanotubes with batteries which will run for 300 miles on one charge . . . in which case few people will give a rat's ass about oil, and it will be $10/barrel. Or they could discover 200 billion recoverable barrels off the east coast of the US, 300 billion barrels off the coast of Brazil, 500 billion barrels in the waters around Indonesia, a trillion barrels in Iraq, another 50 billion barrels in unexplored basins in the deserts of Australia, and who knows what else, where else. Or both could happen. Or a massive disease could wipe out 1/3 of humanity, in which case worries about running out of oil will seem like a joke.
Your problem is that you buy into the propaganda and "projections" from peak oil advocates lock, stock and barrel and accept it as fact, when it is about as far removed from fact as you could possibly get.
kevincarter wrote:Oh, another interesting thing they said at the meeting was that during the great depression they discovered the biggest oil field in the US in Texas (1930) and that the country had all this oil to work its way out of the depression, so now we may be having a great depression again but there is no big mama oild field to fix the problem.
OilFinder2 wrote:Your problem is that you buy into the propaganda and "projections" from peak oil advocates lock, stock and barrel and accept it as fact, when it is about as far removed from fact as you could possibly get.
kevincarter wrote:OilFinder2 wrote:Your problem is that you buy into the propaganda and "projections" from peak oil advocates lock, stock and barrel and accept it as fact, when it is about as far removed from fact as you could possibly get.
Can you then show me the weak points of this propaganda and the true facts, please?
kevincarter wrote:Oh, another interesting thing they said at the meeting was that during the great depression they discovered the biggest oil field in the US in Texas (1930) and that the country had all this oil to work its way out of the depression, so now we may be having a great depression again but there is no big mama oild field to fix the problem.
Starvid wrote:DoomWarrior wrote:My second-favorite 4-letter word!kevincarter wrote:DOOM
So what's the no.1 word, "beer"?
OilFinder2 wrote:kevincarter wrote:OilFinder2 wrote:Your problem is that you buy into the propaganda and "projections" from peak oil advocates lock, stock and barrel and accept it as fact, when it is about as far removed from fact as you could possibly get.
Can you then show me the weak points of this propaganda and the true facts, please?
All I need to do is give you links to the countless threads posted in this forum from earlier this year where your fellow peakers incessantly predicted $200, $300 and $500 oil with no end of the rise in sight, world oil production falling off cliffs, that the oil price rise had nothing to do with speculation, that Saudi production would never be able to rise again, that Americans would never be able to reduce their oil consumption by any substantial amount, and so on, and so forth. All this belief was fed by other peaker/doomers to the point it was accepted as fact. Now that the price of oil has crashed to levels below that which 75% of the forum here thought was impossible, that US oil consumption is down by 1.7 million bpd in the latest month, and world crude oil production has gone up, all those predictions of the peaker/doomers from earlier in the year are looking downright funny now. At least a few of you are starting to admit it might be time to eat crow.kevincarter wrote:Oh, another interesting thing they said at the meeting was that during the great depression they discovered the biggest oil field in the US in Texas (1930) and that the country had all this oil to work its way out of the depression, so now we may be having a great depression again but there is no big mama oild field to fix the problem.
This is a great example of you falling for peak oil propaganda without question. That a mere 7 billion barrel oil field was somehow magically responsible for saving the US from the Depression (in spite of the fact that the Depression continued for another 11 years after the discovery!), and that another big discovery somewhere could magically save us from the current (possible) Depression, tells me that your thinking has become so oil shortage-centric that it has gone beyond an academic interest and entered the realm of a religion. When one starts attributing just about everything to Cause X - be it economic cycles, political cycles, social phenomena, and whatever else - then Cause X has ceased to be an academic pursuit and crossed over the line into a religion. Why do I say this? Because the world is far too complicated to be attributable to any single Cause X, that's why.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 76 guests