Carnot wrote:I would agree with CB.
This forum has been hijacked by a few whose sole purpose is to belittle anyone that believes in Peak Oil, rather than engage in constructive debate. Anyone who mentions oil depletion and the peaking of the oil supply is ridiculed. No wonder this site is nearly dead. I for one cannot be bothered to read the abuse given out and am even less willing to receive the puerile comments if my comments are not in line with the mob of peak oil deniers. Perhaps expunging those who make offensive comments would be a step in the right direction.
The loss of The Oil Drum was a moment to rejoice for the mob, now they are trying their damnedest here.
So let me see if I understand this. So it's fine when the perma-doomers like Shortonoil and Armageddon call people who disagree with their points all kinds of childish names, etc.
(BTW, their points, re results over time are almost always wrong, and they're often not backed up by results or by any but cherry-picked, out of context, or just wrong (from poor sources) "data").
But when other posters point this our using objective data, results, serious sources, explain why they think they're wrong, etc., that's abusive and ridicule? Something seems badly amiss here, IMO.
...
Now, I'll admit, the tone here has gotten too frequently uncivil, on BOTH sides of many discussions. The moderation lets most things slide, and posters have adapted to that, since there are so many insults, etc. that it, IMO, becomes a habit to snipe. I've pointed this out before. I've occasionally done it, when getting tired of a literal RASH of insults by the doomers -- as though enough insults validate their points. (And I'm NOT criticizing the moderation here -- I'm pointing out their stance. They only have a finite amount of resource, for one thing. I'd prefer they use that to keep the site stable, and provide access and search to the body of posting history, as they do.)
But to blame only one side of the debate on this is completely wrong, and just shows your bias in the belief system, IMO. Kind of like a political argument.
And for peak oil, the discussion SHOULD be about facts, data, trends, etc., not about a political belief system.
Now, notice. I have disagreed with you, and haven't called you a single name or attempted to insult you in any way. I've just explained why I believe our POV's on this differ, especially re assigning blame to only one side, especially given the blatant behavior here of much of the side you support. That has been my normal mode of discourse over 95% of the time -- the exceptions being when I am pushed by too much name-calling and blatant making things up by the usual suspects on the side of fast crash doom.
My purpose here, as I stated when I joined long ago, has been to learn about oil production and energy overall, primarily as an aid to investment. Ridiculing has no place in that. But data, re making things up DOES. Is peak oil at some point a mathematical certainty? Absolutely. Is there any reasonable evidence to believe it is in our face as many proponents continue to claim -- absolutely not. And not even for the next few decades, re causing a big problem re available supply.
You claiming that the lack of true evidence for short term peak oil doom, due to a world largely awash in oil through at least 2050, re various good sources like the IEA, EIA, BP Statistical Review, etc. is due to "the mob" is VERY telling.
Look -- if peak oil / fast crash doomers want to create a site where PEAK OIL DOOM is claimed in every post, and any dissenting opinions are disallowed, fine. Unless something changes, that is not this site. And that's no site I want to have anything to do with -- if I want something like that, I have zerohedge and a whole variety of doomer blogs which aren't worth the space they take up in the ether.