Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak oil debate

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby PersecutedGadfly » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 14:28:48

There is not going to be any peak oil debate. With the one exception of Matthew Simmons, the last thing peak oilers want is actual debate. The peak oil movement is all about silencing and ridiculing ones opponents and critics with ad hominem attacks instead of listening to them and debating them.

MattSavinar wrote:I will not debate Corsi. He is a neocon operative tied directly to Bush and Cheney.

Hi Matt. Funny how you don't say that about Matthew Simmons who you describe as "one of George W. Bush's energy advisors" and a "lifelong Republican."

So there you have it. Another peak oiler afraid to debate.

Armageddon wrote:Heinberg also said he wants no part of a debate with Corsi. He doesn't have much respect for him becasue of all the swift boat crap.

Yet another peak oiler afraid to debate. Notice a pattern?

entropyfails wrote:With Corsi, you can dismiss the entire argument in a few short minutes.

This is what the average peak oiler thinks a debate is.
User avatar
PersecutedGadfly
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri 28 Sep 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Armageddon » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 14:52:17

PersecutedGadfly wrote:There is not going to be any peak oil debate. With the one exception of Matthew Simmons, the last thing peak oilers want is actual debate. The peak oil movement is all about silencing and ridiculing ones opponents and critics with ad hominem attacks instead of listening to them and debating them.

MattSavinar wrote:I will not debate Corsi. He is a neocon operative tied directly to Bush and Cheney.

Hi Matt. Funny how you don't say that about Matthew Simmons who you describe as "one of George W. Bush's energy advisors" and a "lifelong Republican."

So there you have it. Another peak oiler afraid to debate.

Armageddon wrote:Heinberg also said he wants no part of a debate with Corsi. He doesn't have much respect for him becasue of all the swift boat crap.

Yet another peak oiler afraid to debate. Notice a pattern?

entropyfails wrote:With Corsi, you can dismiss the entire argument in a few short minutes.

This is what the average peak oiler thinks a debate is.


It's hard to debate morons who ignore geological facts and believe oil is abiotic. The primary misconception with people regarding peak oil is they do not understand the term peaking. They confuse peaking with running out. HUGE difference.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby AlCzervik » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 14:55:18

PersecutedGadfly wrote:There is not going to be any peak oil debate. With the one exception of Matthew Simmons, the last thing peak oilers want is actual debate. The peak oil movement is all about silencing and ridiculing ones opponents and critics with ad hominem attacks instead of listening to them and debating them.

MattSavinar wrote:I will not debate Corsi. He is a neocon operative tied directly to Bush and Cheney.

Hi Matt. Funny how you don't say that about Matthew Simmons who you describe as "one of George W. Bush's energy advisors" and a "lifelong Republican."

So there you have it. Another peak oiler afraid to debate.

Armageddon wrote:Heinberg also said he wants no part of a debate with Corsi. He doesn't have much respect for him becasue of all the swift boat crap.

Yet another peak oiler afraid to debate. Notice a pattern?

entropyfails wrote:With Corsi, you can dismiss the entire argument in a few short minutes.

This is what the average peak oiler thinks a debate is.


Nice work, troll. I am one of the least knowledgeable people on here about peak, and I could still kick the ass of most any nonbeliever. The only thing I couldn't get caught up in is the technical aspects of the abiotic argument, because I am not a biochem/physics type guy, but I could refer right over to Dale Allen Pfeiffer's debunkings of that. All you need to know is 3 of the 4 largest oil fields in the world are confirmed in decline in the past few years. Number one...the jury is out...but a great case is being made by the Oil Drum geeks that Ghawar is on the ropes. Nothing, no amount of potential barrels in the sludge out there (or even the ultra slow abiotic oil you think is made), can make up for those declines. Everything pretty much rides on Saudi as to whether the world can increase production at this point. Peak will be confirmed in the rear view by the end of the decade. Count on it. I am sure you fools will say it's above ground factors limiting production, though. Why not take your challenge over to The Oil Drum?
AlCzervik
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Wed 14 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: The Motor City

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby PersecutedGadfly » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 15:03:33

Armageddon wrote:It's hard to debate morons

It is? Does that say more about you or the morons? Let's see, it took you exactly four words before you used an ad hominem attack to ridicule your opponents. Nice job.

AlCzervik wrote:Nice work troll

You guys are demonstrating my point brilliantly. Any more names you want to call me to prove my point?

Serious readers for centuries are alert to recognize that ad hominem attacks generally mask an inability to counter an argument on logical or evidentiary grounds. In the days of Lenin, communist agitators took the ad hominem attack to a new level, perfecting techniques to discredit their opponents with the intent to discourage the public from listening to arguments that were serious and potentially fatal criticisms of communism. Medved appears to be taking the advice of the radical socialist activist Saul D. Alinsky, who articulated on page 128 of his 1971 book “Rules for Radicals” his rule No. 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
User avatar
PersecutedGadfly
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri 28 Sep 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Armageddon » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 16:05:55

PersecutedGadfly wrote:
Armageddon wrote:It's hard to debate morons

It is? Does that say more about you or the morons? Let's see, it took you exactly four words before you used an ad hominem attack to ridicule your opponents. Nice job.

AlCzervik wrote:Nice work troll

You guys are demonstrating my point brilliantly. Any more names you want to call me to prove my point?

Serious readers for centuries are alert to recognize that ad hominem attacks generally mask an inability to counter an argument on logical or evidentiary grounds. In the days of Lenin, communist agitators took the ad hominem attack to a new level, perfecting techniques to discredit their opponents with the intent to discourage the public from listening to arguments that were serious and potentially fatal criticisms of communism. Medved appears to be taking the advice of the radical socialist activist Saul D. Alinsky, who articulated on page 128 of his 1971 book “Rules for Radicals” his rule No. 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”


It's very typical of you people to post only part of my response and ignore the rest. I said, "It's hard to debate morons who ignore geological facts and believe oil is abiotic". Do you see how you skipped over the main point and chose to post only the part you wanted to ? That's called ' picking and choosing facts to fit your agenda' , which is how you people operate.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby PersecutedGadfly » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 16:25:33

Armageddon wrote:It's hard to debate morons who ignore geological facts and believe oil is abiotic.

There's a very obvious reason why it's hard for you to debate "morons" who "ignore geological facts" and "who believe oil is abiotic". You aren't mentally capable of it.
User avatar
PersecutedGadfly
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri 28 Sep 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Armageddon » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 16:31:23

Every Geologist with any credibility at all knows oil is not abiotic and was not formed by dinosaurs like Mr. Corsi believes. If oil was abiotic, why are most oil fields in the world in decline, especially the huge ones ? Come on Einstein, think really hard , you can do it.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby TheDude » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 16:38:33

Token post/troll snack: Abiotic Snake Oil. As rigorous a debate as you please.

I'm thinking OilisMast is back with a new IP, and in about four hours no less - his handlers have beaucoup buckage by definition, after all.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby PersecutedGadfly » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 16:50:35

Armageddon wrote:If oil was abiotic, why are most oil fields in the world in decline, especially the huge ones?

Because they are 50 to 100 years old.

Is Brazil in decline? Statistics show otherwise. In 1980 Brazil was producing 180 thousand barrels per day. Today Brazil is producing over 2 million barrels per day.

Brazil's giant offshore oil discoveries

The geological description of the Campos Basin suggests that the rock formations in which oil is being found are in Upper Oligocene to Lower Micocene deposits – in other words, deposits from the Cenozoic Era, dating back only some 24,000 years. Dinosaurs dominated in the prior Mesozoic Era which stretches back 250 million years ago and end some 65 million years ago. The oil-rich deposits in the Campos Field stretch back at most some 20 thousands of years, not millions. This should rule out that any dead dinosaurs or decaying ancient forests formed the oil found off Brazil's shore. Dinosaurs supposed died out in the Crataceous Period at the end of the Mesozoic Era, just before the Cenozoic Era began.


In fact, Total and Devon just found another billion barrels this month.

Come on Einstein, think really hard , you can do it.

Please refrain from childish ad hominem if you are capable of it.
User avatar
PersecutedGadfly
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri 28 Sep 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Armageddon » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 17:10:17

PersecutedGadfly wrote:
Armageddon wrote:If oil was abiotic, why are most oil fields in the world in decline, especially the huge ones?

Because they are 50 to 100 years old.

Is Brazil in decline? Statistics show otherwise. In 1980 Brazil was producing 180 thousand barrels per day. Today Brazil is producing over 2 million barrels per day.

Brazil's giant offshore oil discoveries

The geological description of the Campos Basin suggests that the rock formations in which oil is being found are in Upper Oligocene to Lower Micocene deposits – in other words, deposits from the Cenozoic Era, dating back only some 24,000 years. Dinosaurs dominated in the prior Mesozoic Era which stretches back 250 million years ago and end some 65 million years ago. The oil-rich deposits in the Campos Field stretch back at most some 20 thousands of years, not millions. This should rule out that any dead dinosaurs or decaying ancient forests formed the oil found off Brazil's shore. Dinosaurs supposed died out in the Crataceous Period at the end of the Mesozoic Era, just before the Cenozoic Era began.


In fact, Total and Devon just found another billion barrels this month.

Come on Einstein, think really hard , you can do it.

Please refrain from childish ad hominem if you are capable of it.


You just proved my point. Old fields decline, they don't refill. Thanks for playing. Next.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby PersecutedGadfly » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 17:14:09

Armageddon wrote:You just proved my point. Old fields decline, they don't refill. Thanks for playing. Next.

Like I said this is what you people call debate. There won't be any real debate.

I actually used to believe in peak oil. Then I saw that it's all political and no science. The only reason why Matt Simmons and Boone Pickens tout peak oil is so they can profit.
User avatar
PersecutedGadfly
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri 28 Sep 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby davep » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 17:31:38

PersecutedGadfly wrote:
Armageddon wrote:You just proved my point. Old fields decline, they don't refill. Thanks for playing. Next.

Like I said this is what you people call debate. There won't be any real debate.

I actually used to believe in peak oil. Then I saw that it's all political and no science. The only reason why Matt Simmons and Boone Pickens tout peak oil is so they can profit.


Even if they do refill, is there any possibility they could refill fast enough to sustain demand? The figures say no. So even if it is abiotic, the replacement rate is still vanishingly small compared to consumption. The peak oil argument still holds.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4571
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Armageddon » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 18:19:57

davep wrote:
PersecutedGadfly wrote:
Armageddon wrote:You just proved my point. Old fields decline, they don't refill. Thanks for playing. Next.

Like I said this is what you people call debate. There won't be any real debate.

I actually used to believe in peak oil. Then I saw that it's all political and no science. The only reason why Matt Simmons and Boone Pickens tout peak oil is so they can profit.


Even if they do refill, is there any possibility they could refill fast enough to sustain demand? The figures say no. So even if it is abiotic, the replacement rate is still vanishingly small compared to consumption. The peak oil argument still holds.



I wouldn't call it 'refilling'. Oil may be created by the earth, but it takes billions of years for this process. Hardly going to solve the looming energy crises. If peak oil wasn't true, would be Bush and Cheney be over in Irag 'liberating' people ? North Koreans need 'liberating' way more than the Iraqi's did. But guess what ? That's right, North Korea doesn't have oil. And, I wonder why Bush and Cheney are meddling in Africa ? Yep, you guessed it, because they have lots of oil too. The good stuff too, unlike Venezuela and Canada.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby PersecutedGadfly » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 18:29:31

davep wrote:even if it is abiotic, the replacement rate is still vanishingly small compared to consumption. The peak oil argument still holds.

Granted. You might be right. I'm not denying the supply demand equation. What I'm denying is the philosophy, scientific method, and open-mindedness of the "fossil" fuel cult and by extension the peak oil cult.
User avatar
PersecutedGadfly
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri 28 Sep 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby davep » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 18:37:36

PersecutedGadfly wrote:
davep wrote:even if it is abiotic, the replacement rate is still vanishingly small compared to consumption. The peak oil argument still holds.

Granted. You might be right. I'm not denying the supply demand equation. What I'm denying is the philosophy, scientific method, and open-mindedness of the "fossil" fuel cult and by extension the peak oil cult.


As I said, whether the source is fossil or abiotic, the peak oil problem is essentially the same. So in extending your denial to "the peak oil cult" you are contradicting your recognition of "the supply demand equation".
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4571
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Armageddon » Fri 28 Sep 2007, 23:11:58

If you think fossil fuels or whatever combinattion of alternatives will keep supplying the world with cheap and abundant energy you are going to be in for a rude awakening. The worlds economy can only grow when the energy supply grows. The days of energy growth are over. Now, add in the consumer debt, and the lack of the consumer to borrow to the equation, it this party is over. A debt based economy that is maxed out on debt, and a dwindling energy source is going to collapse. Google search a video called money masters and you will learn who controlls the world.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Zardoz » Sat 29 Sep 2007, 01:31:16

PersecutedGadfly wrote:Blah, blah, blah...

You're a crafty one, Oily, gotta hand it to you. You just keep popping back up.

Aaron, it must feel like you're playing Whack-A-Mole.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby chumley » Sat 29 Sep 2007, 13:17:46

I enjoy persecutedgadflies posts. I would like to be exposed to information that is contrary to the theory of peak oil. I find his posts to be informative and well spoken. And he has the all important links to back his theory.

Forums are set up in order for people of differing views to argue their position.

From reading this thread it appears to me the ad hominem attacks are being carried out by the PO crowd.

Refute his argument if you can.

You are not a troll just because you argue against popularly held views on a discussion board and post reason's why.
User avatar
chumley
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri 08 Jun 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby greenworm » Sat 29 Sep 2007, 15:33:46

Hold on, I though Alex Jones was paid off by the Jesuits to promote fear. Oh man oh man, no one said the rabbit hole would be a straight line. :lol:
User avatar
greenworm
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri 27 Jan 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Armageddon » Sat 29 Sep 2007, 21:13:08

PersecutedGadfly wrote:
davep wrote:even if it is abiotic, the replacement rate is still vanishingly small compared to consumption. The peak oil argument still holds.

Granted. You might be right. I'm not denying the supply demand equation. What I'm denying is the philosophy, scientific method, and open-mindedness of the "fossil" fuel cult and by extension the peak oil cult.


PersecutedGadfly, take your fingers out of your ears and the blindfold off your eyes and read this :

A secretive gathering some of the world’s biggest oil companies has concluded the industry will discover far less oil than officially forecast, meaning global oil production may peak much sooner than many expect.
The Hedberg Research Conference on Understanding World Oil Resources was held by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in Colorado Springs last November to try to reconcile widely divergent estimates of likely future reserves additions. In an interview with Lastoilshock.com, oil executive Ray Leonard said the majority view was that future oil discovery would amount to some 250 billion barrels, rather than the 650 billion barrels suggested by the United States Geological Survey.

1) Finding less
2) Using more
3) Reserves dwindling
4) Production flat or possibly in decline

Open your eyes and smell the coffee one time.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5414
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests