Open Question to Powerswitchers From RGR. Input requested.

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

RGR

Post by RGR »

[quote="AndySir"] 8)
Last edited by RGR on 03 Dec 2010, 04:10, edited 1 time in total.
RGR

Post by RGR »

[quote="Catw 8)
Last edited by RGR on 03 Dec 2010, 04:10, edited 1 time in total.
RGR

Post by RGR »

[quote="UndercoverElephant"] 8)
Last edited by RGR on 03 Dec 2010, 04:10, edited 1 time in total.
RGR

Post by RGR »

[quote="Catweazle"]
8)
Last edited by RGR on 03 Dec 2010, 04:11, edited 1 time in total.
Keepz
Posts: 478
Joined: 05 Jan 2007, 12:24

Post by Keepz »

the mad cyclist wrote: And I'd like to know why all those articles I keep reading, about how life is just going to carry on as it is, because it always has, seem to dismiss, or completely ignore, the relentless rise of consumerism in the East?
Please reference some of these articles?
Keepz
Posts: 478
Joined: 05 Jan 2007, 12:24

Post by Keepz »

RGR wrote:
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.
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".

The "myth" is that hysterical consequences are attached to it.
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 it
RGR

Post by RGR »

8)
Last edited by RGR on 03 Dec 2010, 04:11, edited 1 time in total.
Keepz
Posts: 478
Joined: 05 Jan 2007, 12:24

Post by Keepz »

RGR wrote:
Keepz wrote:
RGR wrote: The "myth" is that hysterical consequences are attached to it.
Agreed, but that's precisely why it doesn't make sense for you to be demanding a "scientific" basis.
Lets be clear, I didn't "demand" anything. I asked a question. One which I didn't assume would be so difficult to answer.
What you wrote was
"What do you, British peakers extraordinare, think is the best, highest quality, most irrefutable piece of science within the peak oil debate?"
... 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.
User avatar
the mad cyclist
Posts: 404
Joined: 12 Jul 2010, 16:06
Location: Yorkshire

Post by the mad cyclist »

RGR wrote:The "myth" is that hysterical consequences are attached to it.
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.
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
User avatar
UndercoverElephant
Posts: 13629
Joined: 10 Mar 2008, 00:00
Location: UK

Post by UndercoverElephant »

Catweazle wrote:
modcons wrote:No worries :D

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.
Cornering RGR is like playing marbles on a ferry, the target keeps moving and you end up feeling a little nauseous.

Most people don't bother any more.
Yup. In my own case I never bothered in the first place.
RGR

Post by RGR »

[quote="Keepz"]
8)
Last edited by RGR on 03 Dec 2010, 04:11, edited 1 time in total.
RGR

Post by RGR »

[quote="the mad cycli 8)
Last edited by RGR on 03 Dec 2010, 04:12, edited 1 time in total.
RGR

Post by RGR »

UndercoverElephant wrote: In my own case I never bothered in the first place.
Last edited by RGR on 11 Aug 2011, 03:42, edited 1 time in total.
Keepz
Posts: 478
Joined: 05 Jan 2007, 12:24

Post by Keepz »

RGR wrote:
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.
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.
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

Post by RGR »

[quote="Keepz"] 8)
Last edited by RGR on 03 Dec 2010, 04:12, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply