pstarr wrote:Okay, AdamB banged out another confusing non-response type distraction. Why I bother?
Because you choose distraction, hyperbole and "getting carried away" rather than fact based responses?
pstarr wrote:Okay, AdamB banged out another confusing non-response type distraction. Why I bother?
AdamB wrote:pstarr wrote:So true onlooker. AdamB attacks folks long gone, from ancient debates.
They aren't ancient debates.....
Plantagenet"
Nonetheless, you keep arguing about what people said and things that happened 10-15 years ago.
[/quote]
Not arguing. Referencing. When the same idea is recycled, without consideration for how poorly it worked out last time, well, it is a perfectly valid way to make a point.
Hubbert's work from 1956 wasn't ancient when it was used by peak oilers to proclaim the end of the world or various other nonsensical scenarios nearly half a century later, therefore noticing what was claimed for oil supply a decade ago, and how obviously wrong those ideas were, is quite a bit more modern.
[quote="Plantagenet wrote: I hate to break it to you but you are so late and so out of date that Matt Simmons and Michael Lynch have both been dead for years.
Plantagenet wrote:
I want to argue about what Michael C. Lynch and Matt Simmons said about peak oil!!! Set the wayback machine to the year 2005!
Cheers!
AdamB wrote:Plantagenet wrote: I hate to break it to you but you are so late and so out of date that Matt Simmons and Michael Lynch have both been dead for years.
I know. And yet he still shows up in the Wiki as a reference on being an industry "expert", in the second paragraph no less. Seems like his ideas, even as bad as they were, are still in the modern lexicon of what it means to be off your rocker bonkers.
AdamB wrote:
Once upon a time there was this idea, and it was called "science". By compiling knowledge and understanding by those who have gone before, referencing their ideas and experiment, new ideas and concepts are formulated on that basis. The opposite is also true, as previous people are discredited in their thinking, in its quality or predictive ability, going forward people who study these past ideas (we'll call them "scientists") know to not run down those blind alleys, not to make the logic faults made by those who came before, to learn from their mistakes and ideas since discredited by reality. So we learn from the mistakes of Campbell and Heinberg, Ruppert and Savinar, Tverberg and Klare, Top Whipple and Ugo, Cobb and Kjell, Berman and Martenson.
Without prior understanding of how things have gone wrong, there can be no learning from past mistakes, and humans being prone to repeat history they haven't learned, we say and do the same nonsensical things all over again. Peak oil being a perfect example of just that.
Have a nice day!
Plantagenet wrote:At the same time anyone with even a slight knowledge of science should know that there are numerous examples of scientists who everyone thought was wrong who eventually turned out to be right as well as scientific theories that everyone thinks is right that turn out to be dead wrong. Plate Tectonics, for instance, was wrong....then it was right. The young earth used to be scientific gospel thanks to the clever work of Lord Kelvin, but now its wrong. Evolution was wrong until it was right. Medical science was sure that fogs caused disease and then they discovered germs. etc. etc.
plantagenet wrote:Right now its pretty clear Hubbert was wrong in all of his specific predictions about the timing, mechanisms, and predictability of peak oil. But, nonetheless, its still possible that global oil production may "peak" at the some time in the future, whether from "peak demand" or some other cause.
plantagenet wrote: When that happens don't be too shocked if people drag out Hubbert's original prediction of peak oil and give him credit for coming up with the whole idea.
CHEERS!
ROCKMAN wrote:Not "scared" of PO? If one has paid attention to the various aspects of the peak oil dynamic for the last 25 years (high oil prices, oil patch bust, $trillions spent on military activities in the ME along with the lose of thousands of our miliutary along with hundreds of thousands of civilians, economic damage, etc) and aren't concerned about the nature of our energy future then they have no understanding of how the world actually functions.
pstarr wrote:AdamB, really? You will not succeed in dragging either Jimmy Carter or Mathew Simmons into your pathetic little intern games. President Carter is busy at work on his peanut farm (installing 1.3 mw of solar) the other long dead and laughing in his crypt. At you.
Rockman made an actual argument. Speak to him or stop wasting everybody's time.
I see this all the time. I liked this quote:AdamB wrote:That isn't amazing. It's called the Dunning-Kruger effect.spike wrote:What's amazing are the way some of the posters are absolutely certain about what's going to happen, or their interpretation of what's happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E ... ger_effect
<Pahalial> "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin
<kionix> wtf? begets isn't a word. quit trying to make up words, ****face.
I directly contradict Short alot. Short just ignores facts that contradict his model. Even when his followers ask for an explanation about the contradictions between his model and reality he ignores them. Don't forget Short's ultimate goal here is to make money peddling his model. So anything that might harm that goal needs to either be ridiculed or ignored so as not to draw attention to the giant holes in his theories. But let's keep ETP discussion in the ETP thread.onlooker wrote:P, I caught Kub directly contradicting what Short states , go to the Etp thread
ROCKMAN wrote: The Rockman truly regrets what the country has gone thru in the last few decades: $trillions of pissed away tax $'s and, most regretable, the waste of thousands of our military lives.
Rockman wrote:But it was the result of the greed and foolishness of politicians and a selfish public that consumed fossil fuels with no regard for the rest of the world or the future. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't take advantage of the inevitable.
Rockman wrote: Trading blood for oil was a sin and always will be. Didn't care much for it when I got to witness such asinine "trades" first hand a lifetime ago and still don't care for the f*cking balance sheet. LOL.
ROCKMAN wrote:k - "But let's keep ETP discussion in the ETP thread.". Works for me. That's how I've been able to avoid wasting time discussing the model: I never open the thread.
Return to Open Topic Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests