A good Republican though
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e47a3/e47a395b0eccacaa7ab3598b347deb2eb3b5c8b7" alt="Wink :wink:"
Moderator: Peak Moderation
Eternal Sunshine wrote: I wouldn't want to worry you with the truth.![]()
What magic koolaid this shister is selling it doesn't sayOur products are designed to stretch existing global resources well beyond the current capacities. We've already invested over one quarter of a million dollars.
Sounds a bit like continual growth to me... i.e. what most governments base their finances on LOLA Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.
Ah there was some infoWe are currently researching and developing a product that can revolutionize the transportation industry. This project reallocates existing technology and applies it in new and innovative ways.
I wasn't really talking economic or political speculation, the fields of science for each, but especially economic science as it pertains to peak oil. Politics is just far too unpredictable to be included in future extrapolation, but it certainly could be used in a historical context.RGR wrote: No restriction on angle, but at the end of the day I am a geoscientist, and would most likely concentrate on science rather than economic speculation or anything related to politics.
The geological side is the most stable, with the fewest variations and unpredictability (from what I understand), while the economic and political uncertainties take it into the realm of "thought experiment" as they are too unpredictable to project into a future scenarios. If that makes sense.RGR wrote:While equipped to tackle nearly any conceivable geoscience topic, I'm not sure what you mean by "thought experiment" in relation to peak oil.
As long as you keep holding amateurs in a certain level of contempt and lower yourself to their (our?) levels, you don't do yourself any favours and come across as a troll. Not explaining does nothing but make you appear arrogant and it undermines your position as knowledgeable, you just get ignored and dismissed. As you can see by some of the comments within this thread. It's why I have always done my best to be respectful, polite and ask, what I hope, are sensible questions.RGR wrote:Cocktail party level conversations with amateurs are not the same as peer reviewed science. And intelligence is not the issue, my ability to use the full range of resources to me during this cocktail party level of conversations is. That restriction has been removed for the purposes of doing science.
I've never seen the bell-curve, or any bell-curve for that matter, as being an accurate description of reality as it exists from a data-set taken at a certain point in time. When considering oil extraction/depletion, it doesn't take into account other factors like technology, methodology, politics or economics.RGR wrote:Still employed. And the paper isn't a given...prior to writing one, a worthy topic to write it on is necessary. Others have certainly already taken down some of the concepts I would have studied a few years back, so a contribution on those topics is no longer necessary. Plus I would prefer to be unique, anyone can bash the bell shaped curve nowadays considering how poorly it works.
The subject is intimately bound up with politics and economics. The rate of exploration is determined by the price of oil. The price of oil is determined by the value of the dollar, the state of the world economy, the rate of exploration and a 101 other things as well.RGR wrote:No restriction on angle, but at the end of the day I am a geoscientist, and would most likely concentrate on science rather than economic speculation or anything related to politics.
syberberg wrote: I think I may, however, be reading what your proposed paper is trying to achieve. For my clarity, are you looking to update the science behind field dynamics and how they peak individually and then extrapolating that onto a national/global scale to project into the future, or look at all the underlying science behind peak oil theory with no or limited future projections/speculations?
That's quite a surprising statement with a nearly 100% chance of being wrong unless you don't just live in the Rocky Mountains but actually work for the Rocky Mountains Institute. As Ken says, we may have the wrong one.RGR wrote:I would estimate that there is a nearly 100% chance you already have.biffvernon wrote: So what's the point of telling us that we can read your publications?
That's fine - but it sidesteps the whole peak oil thing, which is all about timing.RGR wrote: Well, this could be tough then. I am supremely well equipped to handle geoscience topics from almost every angle. But the amount of oil in the ground, or available for use at a certain price point, is not politically dependent as I see it. The timing of its use may have a political component, but I can ignore that by not caring about timing, but perhaps only volumes or costs.