[trespam]

I'm hoping your analytical abilities, which are necessary to integrate the many diverse sources of energy information, are better than your ability to figure out the whole URL thing and the wonders of the preview function.

What's the point of the post? 16 billion barrels is a smidgeon. And the ad-hominem arguments against peak oil, e.g. motivated by the greed to sell books, is fallacious.

Back to the drawing board I suppose?

[Permanently_Baffled]

And it's not fallacious.

Think about it (analyze).

Matt savinar sells books, he makes money. What good is money in the world he is predicting?

Oh, right.

But in the world we STILL live in, money is king. So, it seems to me that his best bet is to continue living in the world we are in now.

Hence, the outlandish book predicting fire and brimstone and the end of the world, waah waah waah. Better get your heads down folks, this is going to be a big one! And while your head is in the sand, he's skipping out of town with your dough. Classic con game. If not book sales then speeches and "consulting contracts" and etc etc.

Just shut up already and stop feeding the monkey.

This book was free before the US election in PDF format on the internet. Also Matt could make more in a few days as a lawyer than sales from his book. So I think your theory is hogwash

As for the 16 billion barrels , well thats 6 months world consumption , we are saved!!

If you disagree with Matt, then please refute his arguments, considering the consequences he would be happy to be proved wrong!! (but I think you will find the future isn't too rosey!)

PB

[Rembrandt]

three questions.

A. have you checked the price of the book
B. have you checked how much copies matt Savinar has sold
C. Have you extrapolated what it would cost at this moment to be able to live on booksales?

When you can answer these and apply them to your theory then you may have some credibility.

What you also could have done is write something like this which is my opinion:

I think Matt Savinar's theory about the Die Off is flawed, his thinking is too linear.

He compares humans to bacteria in petri dishes. He compares oil to the food in the petri dish. Humans can switch to other Fuels, bacteries can't. Bacteria just keep using food in a rapid proces. Humans don't they have this thing called PEAK oil. It's a slow process when compared to the food usement of bacterie and in a totally different way.

That gives credibility you can use arguments against it or you can agree with it. Not with something childish non credible as "No, it's the wacky proclamation of some guy who wants to sell books"

[trespam]

Is this post nothing more than a diatribe against Matt? Give me a break. I haven't read his book and have no intent to do so. I have read about 20 books on this topic, from "Beyond Oil" written in the 1980s, to many of the latest publications that were written without all the speculation of what happens when oil peaks.

If you have a grudge against Matt, please flame him in the flaming forum. If you bear news on energy, great. The 16 billion barrels in Alaska are a quanity most of us know about. We don't discount it. But it's not going to make a big difference in the end.

The debate on peak oil is not black and white. Matt's book, from what I can tell (haven't looked closely), seems more like a FAQ that is posted on the internet than a standard publication. Perhaps I'm wrong. But it falls into the alarmist end-of-the-world, conspiracy category. Along with Ruppert and even Heinberg.

There are plenty of peak oil believers (T Boone Pickens) who do not believe in the conspiracy theories, are solidly Republican, and think Iraq was not about oil. But they still believe in peak oil.

[Aaron]

Isn't the first Harry Potter book the most sold book now?

[trespam]

Apocalypse books and theories only whip people up into an unneccessary frenzy. And from what I know of people, they are borderline already. No need to push them over the edge.

I don't even care about them I care about me. The last thing I need is more loonies in my path, carrying assaul rifles and waiting for the price of gas to hit $5.50 before they start shooting.

If you get my meaning.

Which makes it all the more important to have reasoned debate on these topics.

But take a look outside. I haven't seen any civil insurrection yet. When the price of gas hits $7.00, you can bet there will be some fist fights and other problems at gas stations. But that's always going to happen. And there will always be people looking for a reason to lock-and-load, particularly in a country that includes succesful cults-turned-religions like Mormonism.

I have yet to see one good model that describes how peak oil will play out economically. A model is only that--a model. But the word-smiths, who create models much more akin to science fiction--or Harry Potter--do not a proof make neither--much less so.

See the barrons article posted today at Energy Bulletin. It provides a reasoned discussion of the peak oil issue. No end of the world talk. No mass starvation. But it still makes the point. The standard of living of everyone will be decreasing. People better get used to it. And they better be prepared, so they understand what is happening and that invading the oil produces will at best buy a little time and at worst speed up the decline.

PS: I used Preview to be certain everything looked ok. hint hint.

[trespam]

Reasoned debate is fine.

BUT, you log onto this web site and the first thing you read is:

Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult, apocalypse bible prophecy sect,

Maybe Peak Oil is upon us, maybe not. But this guy Savinar can go piss up a pole, to use the the parlence of our times.

In the past, I used Life After the Oil Crash site for energy news, but now use www.energybulletin.net and the news posted by people on this site (which often duplicates Energy Bulletin).

Look at it this way: if oil and natural gas disappeared tomorrow, there would be a horrific die off, mass starvation, across the world. But it won't disappear tomorrow. There will be shocks (e.g. revolution in Saudi Arabia?) and economic decline. And in 200 years, do not expect there to be 9 billion humans on the planet. I don't think the planet can support it without cheap energy. Maybe 2 billion? Not sure. Therefore define a transition between 6.5 billion of today, the increases that will continue through the early part of this century, and the likely decline that will occur in the coming years after that.

[notacornucopian]

Perhaps you would not see the statement as offensive if you stop equating the word " civilization " with " the end of the world ".

The way we live will change, and I believe that the rational debate at this site is worthwhile. The coming decades will be difficult, and having some foreknowledge of what is to come can only help to smooth the transition somewhat.

I have a copy of Matt's book, and although his view is not a pleasant one, one could argue that it may be the end result if we ( as a species ) do nothing to heed it's warning. People like Matt and Jay Hanson argue that it is an inevitable path because of the mechanism of being human - with fear of the unknown being a central component. Your defensive posture only adds validity to thier arguments.

[JR]

If I were trying to introduce someone to PO, Matt's site would not be the first place I would direct someone on the internet. The way he presents it seems to either make people just laugh him off, or it scares the pants off them.

I found a better site for PO newbies. That is:

www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk

To me...it presents all the facts in an easy to read format without scaring someone to death.

JMHO

Jodi

[Aaron]

If I were trying to introduce someone to PO, Matt's site would not be the first place I would direct someone on the internet. The way he presents it seems to either make people just laugh him off, or it scares the pants off them.

I found a better site for PO newbies. That is:

www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk

To me...it presents all the facts in an easy to read format without scaring someone to death.

JMHO

Jodi

I second that

[Colonel]

This great evil,
where do it come from?

How did it steal into the world?

What seed, what root did it grow from?

Who is doing this?
Who is killing us?

Robbing us of us of life and light?
Mocking us with the sight of what we might have known?

Does our ruin benefit the Earth? Does it help the grass to grow or the sun to shine? Is this darkness in you too? Have you passed through this night?

--"The Thin Red Line"

[0mar]

Actually, through catabolite repression, bacteria are able to switch from fuels. Let's assume a mixture of glucose, lactose, and gelatin are used in a culture.

Initally, glucose is plentiful and the bacteria happily grow to carrying capacity. Because glucose is plentiful, there is almost no need for lactose or gelatin. Then, within a generation or two, almost all the glucose is taken up. Now lactose enters the cell and switches on the lactose metabolism pathway (there are more steps than this, but simplified for arguments sake). During this transition, there is a die-off for those bacteria that couldn't switch fast enough. Again, the lactose substitutes perfectly for glucose, there are relatively few changes needed. Now lactose levels drop as bacteria grow and grow. Finally, the same mechanism is used for gelatin. What do the bacteria do now? They die.

We aren't using most of our resources in a sustainable manner. Like the bacteria, we are simply consuming without regard to what is actually in place. Unlike bacteria however, time is on our side. Given enough time, we could overcome most, if not all of the problems posited by 21st century activities. However, short-term gain and long-term punishment is more popular among policy makers than a sustainable future. For example, worldwide, fishing yields are dropping, arable land is decreasing, forests are being deforested at an astonishing rate, standards of living are staying steady or dropping, the Carbon and Nitrogen cycles are out of whack, global climate change is becoming more and more reality, and non-renewable sources of energy are close to peaking. Does this look like an optismistic picture for the 6 billion people on earth. Total energy production of 19.1 TW caused most, if not all of these problems. What happens if we move energy production up to 60-80 TW. It is my contention that the earth's ecology will simply collaspe.

The world simply can not support this many people wanting to live an affluent lifestyle. Maybe if we all lived like somalis or if 2 billion people lived like Moroccons/Turks, we could be sustainable, but not at our current level. This is why Matt Savinar is correct in assuming there will be a die-off. Unless we drastically reduce our consumption levels, there will be no way the Earth can sustain 4-6 billion people currently. Maybe when we have some sik-ass technology, but not in present-day 2004.