Open Question to Powerswitchers From RGR. Input requested.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Dec 2010, 08:29

RGR wrote: But expectations of any reasonable answer was always a low probability event

Expectations were low, not was. We allow RGR to write rubbish here so long as it is in good English.

meemoe_uk · Post by **meemoe_uk** » 28 Dec 2010, 12:30

RGR wrote: No one has ever posted my pic. They post lots of other pics, but those are usually meant to be derogatory.

I followed maudbie's link
http://www.rgrresources.com/RGRResourcespp1.pdf
Seemed like the kind of stuff you write so I figured it was likely you, along with the pic.

Long time no see MeeMoe. If I recall correctly, we went round and round once about climate change, human caused or otherwise. Yes? No?

It was more on peakoil at latoc. I was a peaker, moderate doomer. At the time the community was hyping Dec2005 as all time peak oil. After about a year of being pretty sure PO was a imminent mega issue, I began to see cracks in the story ( some of which you pointed out ). I couldn't figure why things didn't add up, and none of my fellow peakers were interested in such petty detail over singing in the doom choir. A year later, with no progress on the explaining the inconsistencys in the PO story, and with no peakoil specific doom happening, I decided it was more likely that POnow was just a hype story like all the other religions, albeit one more convincing than most. I found out that peakoil is an old story, probably 1st gaining support thousands of years ago when the babylonians wondered if the natural upwellings of oil around the middle east may run out some time. And so it is with the modern oil industry. Anyone aware they are dependant on oil should worry if the oil well is past peak. The bulk of the PO community consists of those getting kicks out of the hyping fear and uncertainty of PO. If they'd do some proper research they'd see the natural limits of energy consumption are nowhere near bad \ uncomfortable.

So! As I say, there's me and a few other open minded peeps been trying to find you again. I haven't got any specific questions on the top of my head, but is there any set stuff you think every reformed ex peak doomer oughta know?
You know RocDoc or from the peakoil.com forums?
People speak of another poster in the oil industry, 'JD', who opposed the PO hype.

Couldn't see anywhere specifically for none PO crisis people to do general discussion of this forum.

>Who f***ing cares!
>Expectations were low, not was. We allow RGR to write rubbish here so long as it is in good English.
Sorry fellas, I tried the PO fad 4-5 years ago, I know at it's core it's hollow pile of hype. I might decide to help RGR bust up your community with the sword and numchucks of truth.

contadino · Post by **contadino** » 28 Dec 2010, 12:32

What's the betting that meemoe and RGR can't both post at the same time?

madibe · Post by **madibe** » 28 Dec 2010, 14:01

LOL Contadino... but MeeMoe says he's followed my link to RGRs picture and does indeed think it is him. Double bluff? Na, two different individuals methinks.

I cant wait for the numchucks

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 28 Dec 2010, 14:08

[quote="meemoe_uk"][

madibe · Post by **madibe** » 28 Dec 2010, 14:43

RGR Wrote:

Maudbie wasn't who I had in mind when I said that at least a few of these Brits have neurons and synapses which work the way they are supposed to.

Thanks for that RGR. Happy New Year to you too.

meemoe_uk · Post by **meemoe_uk** » 28 Dec 2010, 16:51

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/
thanks. It will be my readers digest for the next few weeks.
It was nice to hear my story well told by someone else. And then the hundreds of comments in agreement, and then all 4 years ago!
Well that's washed away any thought I had I was 'ahead of the pack' by debunking for myself POdoom. I'm a few years behind. It's good to know that it isn't just me and a dozen others scattered about. The reality is there loads of us who know POnow is false, but there's only a dozen or so who spend their time in the PO churchs. Figures. Just like it's rare to see evolutionists heckling at in-church rituals.

Are the enlightened ones ready to start an ExPOdoomer forum?

woodpecker · Post by **woodpecker** » 28 Dec 2010, 18:28

meemoe_uk wrote:
Forums don't have them, at least not honest ones. One of the ex-Latocian springups claimed to have one, but are working there way through banning there first heretic as we speak.

I suggest you get a grip on the difference between 'there' and 'their'. (You perhaps have an understanding of the difference between 'and' and 'or'? Or 'but' and 'no'"?) Then perhaps someone might pay some attention to something you say. Perhaps.

eatyourveg · Post by **eatyourveg** » 28 Dec 2010, 18:39

meemoe_uk wrote:http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/
thanks. It will be my readers digest for the next few weeks.
It was nice to hear my story well told by someone else. And then the hundreds of comments in agreement, and then all 4 years ago!
Well that's washed away any thought I had I was 'ahead of the pack' by debunking for myself POdoom. I'm a few years behind. It's good to know that it isn't just me and a dozen others scattered about. The reality is there loads of us who know POnow is false, but there's only a dozen or so who spend their time in the PO churchs. Figures. Just like it's rare to see evolutionists heckling at in-church rituals.

Are the enlightened ones ready to start an ExPOdoomer forum?

You might find this more informative as part of your reading programme:

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=16782

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 28 Dec 2010, 23:22

Meemoe and RGR, perhaps you could turn your minds towards this thread;

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=16593

I'm interested in this graph which appears to show that the EIA are revising their estimates downwards each year. Is the graph a fake ? or am I misunderstanding the graph ? Or perhaps the EIA have made some simple error you could point out to them.

AndySir · Post by **AndySir** » 28 Dec 2010, 23:33

I found this in the linked debunker blog. The blogger asks the question, 'is Peak Oil scientific?' This is the response.

It depends on what you mean by "peak oil". If by "peak oil" you mean the inevitable peak and decline in natural/conventional oil, then yes: it's a settled scientific fact which no one disagrees with. That much cannot be refuted. But I think it's a little disingenuous to claim that "peak oil" means nothing but that. In fact, "peak oil" is a huge mountain of doomsday religion, survivalism, luddism, anti-capitalism, conspiracy theory, democratic politics, radical environmentalism, fascism, nationalism, eugenics, authoritarian depopulation programs, goldbugs, oil speculators, shit-talking market bears and every other agenda under the sun, all trying to advance themselves under the cover of that tiny pinpoint of scientific fact.

That's nice, one of the debunker crowd actually took some pains to say they weren't attacking peak oil, but this straw man they have decided is the real 'peak oil'. Many RGR posts now become clear.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 29 Dec 2010, 01:41

[quote="maudibe"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 29 Dec 2010, 01:43

[quote="meemoe_uk"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 29 Dec 2010, 01:53

[quote="woodpecker"]

Catweazle · Post by **Catweazle** » 29 Dec 2010, 09:39

RGR wrote:
Catweazle wrote:Meemoe and RGR, perhaps you could turn your minds towards this thread;

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... hp?t=16593
I am not allowed to participate in a thread where information based on decades of professional geoscience and oilfield experience might cause some Brit to get their panties in a knot, and go whining to mommy administrators over someone not reading from the Bible of choice for this particular congregation.

Catweazle wrote: I'm interested in this graph which appears to show that the EIA are revising their estimates downwards each year. Is the graph a fake ? or am I misunderstanding the graph ? Or perhaps the EIA have made some simple error you could point out to them.
Peakers, as they do with the crude oil discovery graph, have a bad habit of selectively manipulating information, changing definitions, or cherry picking their timeframes to try and make a point. To minimize this, any conversation about an improperly referenced graph has to generate two initial questions, who built it, and where did it come from? If it was generated during a burst of peaker propaganda creation, I would have to actually pull the EIA reports to verify the numbers before speculating on its veracity.

Does it matter who compiled the graph if the figures are correct ? Assuming you have the reports you could quickly debunk the graph it was incorrect. I note that the IEA have revised their estimates of consumption up, to 87.4mbd for 2010. This figure is higher than their own estimate of production 2010 at 85.5mbd. I'm a bit confused by these figures, perhaps you could explain why their figures for production are consistently being revised downwards whilst their estimates for consumption are going up.

To this amateur it looks as if supply will struggle to meet demand, which perhaps explains why oil is at $91+ per barrel despite a huge recession.

A while back somebody on here suggested that "Peak Oil" should really mean "Peak Affordable Oil", I agree, what do you think ?