The scientific status of the peak oil theory
Posted: Fri 12 Jan 2007, 13:53:12
Hello everyone.
I am reasonably new to all this peak oil stuff. It is all very interesting.
My main concern, is the actual scientific status of the theory. I am a bit of a Popperite, and I tend to have a strict criteria of what is science and what isn't. (I even think Darwinism is a dubious theory from a scientific point of view, so I am hard to please! "Scientific consensus" is nonsense!)
The theory seems to depend on three main ideas:
1) Oil is an extremely limited resource.
2) The US peaked in 1971.
3) The global peak, due to the lack of discovery of oil fields, must be sooner rather than later.
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.
If it is correct that Hubbard predicted that the US would peak, then this, of course, suggests the collaboration of the theory. It does not strictly prove the theory from a logical point of view.
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. (Greg Palast has argued that the Iraqi policy, for decades, is to keep it off the market. Maybe a "soft-landing" is being planned. The Saudi oil will take the main pressure in the short-term, and Iraq and Venezuela can take over the main production when Saudi becomes a problem.)
I am reasonably new to all this peak oil stuff. It is all very interesting.
My main concern, is the actual scientific status of the theory. I am a bit of a Popperite, and I tend to have a strict criteria of what is science and what isn't. (I even think Darwinism is a dubious theory from a scientific point of view, so I am hard to please! "Scientific consensus" is nonsense!)
The theory seems to depend on three main ideas:
1) Oil is an extremely limited resource.
2) The US peaked in 1971.
3) The global peak, due to the lack of discovery of oil fields, must be sooner rather than later.
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.
If it is correct that Hubbard predicted that the US would peak, then this, of course, suggests the collaboration of the theory. It does not strictly prove the theory from a logical point of view.
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. (Greg Palast has argued that the Iraqi policy, for decades, is to keep it off the market. Maybe a "soft-landing" is being planned. The Saudi oil will take the main pressure in the short-term, and Iraq and Venezuela can take over the main production when Saudi becomes a problem.)