The date can be pushed back much farther if more costly (or maybe some to-be-discovered improved) technology is used.
Talk about "shrinking our economies" is pretty meaningless.
how far can the tar sands really go in the face of high conventional prices?
cthulhu wrote:He should stick to talking about things he knows about, what ever they are.
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:cthulhu wrote:He should stick to talking about things he knows about, what ever they are.
What? Like the linguistical foundations of computer science?
WebHubbleTelescope wrote:If you read his other writings on oil interests, we discover that to understand the current situation, think in terms of access and control. The USA can easily get access to oil, but like everything else, control has been the goal.
so, it's really very simple. Chomsky has the ability to transfer knowledge to people willing to listen. However, that will not get him on the mass media, because 50% of the population by definition is not willing to listen to new ideas.
cthulhu wrote:CONTROL!!! no ACCESS!!!
The basic theory is incontrovertible. The only questions have to do with timing and cost.
cthulhu wrote:The basic theory is incontrovertible. The only questions have to do with timing and cost.
I mean that really shows such a paucity of reflection on what peak oil really means. What does it mean? Wow, what a question! Pity the Great Chompsky and his Amazing Flying Monkeys pisses on one of the serious implications of what it does mean with a "pretty meaningless."
Take your eye of the Flying Monkeys Hubble; they shit without a warning!!!!
cthulhu wrote:Listen I don't have time to converse with idiots, wide eyed and goggly beautiful. What he means isn't up for debate. It is there in black and white, and it ain't much. I pointed out earlier the cult like following he attracts, I suspected I would get some followers who would project what ever they wanted to see on this miserable piece of crap.
The guy is spinning a line. Sure I swallowed the bait, but then I spat the hook into his eye. He is a dickhead. Okay-a-mundo?
The basic theory is incontrovertible. The only questions have to do with timing and cost. ...
As for the estimates of cost, by reasonable standards one could argue that oil is far under-priced.
low-priced oil leads to heavier use and less effort to create sustainable alternatives.
That I think is a far more serious problem than production peaking. In fact, one could argue that the earlier production peaks, the better off the human species (and a lot more) is, because of the effects of unconstrained use of hydrocarbons on the environment.
Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests