data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5bec1/5bec12df6d651f70b9fe4a7b245910309b0725ae" alt="Cool 8)"
Open Question to Powerswitchers From RGR. Input requested.
Moderator: Peak Moderation
Agreed, but that's precisely why it doesn't make sense for you to be demanding a "scientific" basis. The peak oil issue is not the geological question regarding how much oil there is in the ground. Nor is it really the technological question of how fast it's technically possible to get it out of the ground. The issue is the consequences - how people and Governments should and will respond as and when the cost of getting oil out of the ground starts to rise (actually, that is four very different questions - how people will, how people should, how Governments will, how Governments should). Those are political, economic, sociological and behavioural questions, not scientific ones. Personally, I believe markets will enable and encourage human ingenuity to deal with the problem if they are allowed to, which puts me in a bit of a minority round here though I've not yet managed to get myself sent into exile for itRGR wrote:No one says that peak oil is a myth, except maybe the abiotics. Claiming others say this, when they don't, is called a "strawman".Catweazle wrote:I want to see the proof that peak oil is a myth, I really do. I have kids and I want them to enjoy the same advantages as I do.
The "myth" is that hysterical consequences are attached to it.
What you wrote wasRGR wrote:Lets be clear, I didn't "demand" anything. I asked a question. One which I didn't assume would be so difficult to answer.Keepz wrote:Agreed, but that's precisely why it doesn't make sense for you to be demanding a "scientific" basis.RGR wrote: The "myth" is that hysterical consequences are attached to it.
... but you did not specify what exactly is the proposition for which you are seeking examples of scientific support. Some people still seem to think the debate is about whether oil is an infinite resource which can carry on being produced indefinitely at previous rates - I am agreeing with you that that is a foolish and unhelpful way of defining the debate, since nobody believes that. But you yourself, and many others, remain unclear as to whether the issue is about (a) how long it will be before oil production goes into terminal decline, or (b) whether the consequences will be hysterical when it does. What I am saying is that neither is wholly amenable to a science-based answer, since economic and political factors affect both issues."What do you, British peakers extraordinare, think is the best, highest quality, most irrefutable piece of science within the peak oil debate?"
- the mad cyclist
- Posts: 404
- Joined: 12 Jul 2010, 16:06
- Location: Yorkshire
The consequences will be economic, and I find that quite worrying, since it only took two American building societies, with amusing names, to almost shatter the world economy.RGR wrote:The "myth" is that hysterical consequences are attached to it.
Let nobody suppose that simple, inexpensive arrangements are faulty because primitive. If constructed correctly and in line with natural laws they are not only right, but preferable to fancy complicated devices.
Rolfe Cobleigh
Rolfe Cobleigh
- UndercoverElephant
- Posts: 13629
- Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
- Location: UK
Yup. In my own case I never bothered in the first place.Catweazle wrote:Cornering RGR is like playing marbles on a ferry, the target keeps moving and you end up feeling a little nauseous.modcons wrote:No worries![]()
I recently hosted the eminent NZ climatologist Dr Jim Salinger. There were a bunch of denialists there who he crushed with his command of the subject.
Having previously been in a few cocktail discussions with some of these expert denialists I was reassured, if disappointed, to see their arguments were easily revealed to be half understandings and incomplete.
I was hoping for some clarity like that.
Most people don't bother any more.
I don't know, that is why I am asking! Having been following this forum for a while now I am still not sure what exactly is the insight that Peak Oilers think that the "powers that be" are deliberately concealing from us, and the "sheeple" are too short-sighted and stupid to understand.RGR wrote:Well then, what do YOU think the issue is? It would be reasonable to answer my question in either context, if you preferred one over the other.Keepz wrote: But you yourself, and many others, remain unclear as to whether the issue is about (a) how long it will be before oil production goes into terminal decline, or (b) whether the consequences will be hysterical when it does.