The RGR rebuttal to PowerSwitch users thread.

[postie]

This thread is intentionally left blank, awaiting RGR's evidence as to why Peak Oil isn't going to happen.

Feel free to put all your evidence in here RGR! As good little scientists, we'll evaluate your evidence. Critically. (fair enough?)

This thread is ONLY for RGR to post in. Let's see how long it takes for him to post his evidence here.

[RGR]

[quote="postie"]

[RenewableCandy]

My stated position is that I am perfectly happy to accept whichever peak oil happens to be the most recent.

Wrong again! Your stated opinion, as written on these pages, seems to vary at random: you really don't read what you write, do you ?

[2 As and a B]

This thread is intentionally left blank, awaiting RGR's evidence as to why Peak Oil isn't going to happen.

You really don't read what I write, do you?

My stated position is that I am perfectly happy to accept whichever peak oil happens to be the most recent.

In the modern peak era (lets keep it to just this century) we've got the Savinar/Ruppert/Deffeyes peak of 2000, the Simmons/Deffeyes/Ruppert/Lundberg(?) peak in 2005, the IEA peak in 2006, the TOD peak in 2008, or the most recent peak in 2010.

I am quite comfortable accepting with whichever one a particular congregation adheres to.

Which is your favorite?

What are your criteria for defining 'peak oil'? It seems you are just picking up on other people's predictions or readings of passing peaks.

[eatyourveg]

This thread is intentionally left blank, awaiting RGR's evidence as to why Peak Oil isn't going to happen.

You really don't read what I write, do you?

My stated position is that I am perfectly happy to accept whichever peak oil happens to be the most recent.

In the modern peak era (lets keep it to just this century) we've got the Savinar/Ruppert/Deffeyes peak of 2000, the Simmons/Deffeyes/Ruppert/Lundberg(?) peak in 2005, the IEA peak in 2006, the TOD peak in 2008, or the most recent peak in 2010.

I am quite comfortable accepting with whichever one a particular congregation adheres to.

Which is your favorite?

Just in case you missed it in the other thread troll:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnzHtm1jhL4

[postie]

Hey....RGR...

can't do it can you.

You don't even have to "de-cloak" yourself and provide evidence from your own repository of knowledge. Hey.. why not provide one shred of evidence that Peak Oil isn't going to happen..

Simple as that... provide the evidence.. any evidence. Not even your own. Link to stuff. You know.. link.. put up something we can look at. The more the merrier.

Go on.. do it.

[UndercoverElephant]

This thread is intentionally left blank, awaiting RGR's evidence as to why Peak Oil isn't going to happen.

You really don't read what I write, do you?

My stated position is that I am perfectly happy to accept whichever peak oil happens to be the most recent.

In the modern peak era (lets keep it to just this century) we've got the Savinar/Ruppert/Deffeyes peak of 2000, the Simmons/Deffeyes/Ruppert/Lundberg(?) peak in 2005, the IEA peak in 2006, the TOD peak in 2008, or the most recent peak in 2010.

I am quite comfortable accepting with whichever one a particular congregation adheres to.

Which is your favorite?

Do you mind if I ask you a question???

What do you think the future holds in store for human population numbers? Do you think it will stabilise at a higher level than today's? If so what sort of level? If not, what else do you think is probably going to happen?

[RGR]

[quote="foodimista"]

[RGR]

[quote="UndercoverElephant"]

[RGR]

[quote="postie"]

[biffvernon]

I think the planet can only carry so many people, finite world and all that. But that number depends on more variables then can honestly be forecast with any degree of accuracy. Carrying capacity of humans is a tricky number to forecast because unlike most of the planet's species, humans can alter both their behavior and the carrying capacity of the environment itself.

If I recall correctly, and I may not, certain forecasts claim 9 billion people or so by 2050, followed by a small decline afterwards? I haven't investigated, but that estimate works for the sake of argument.


Peak oil has already happened.

Yep, RGR is quite right.

(How the world turns.)

[UndercoverElephant]

I think the planet can only carry so many people, finite world and all that. But that number depends on more variables then can honestly be forecast with any degree of accuracy. Carrying capacity of humans is a tricky number to forecast because unlike most of the planet's species, humans can alter both their behavior and the carrying capacity of the environment itself.

If I recall correctly, and I may not, certain forecasts claim 9 billion people or so by 2050, followed by a small decline afterwards? I haven't investigated, but that estimate works for the sake of argument.


Peak oil has already happened.

Yep, RGR is quite right.

(How the world turns.)

When you find youself agreeing with RGR and disagreeing with almost everybody else who posts here then you, Biff, ought to start worrying that maybe you're missing something important. It's not that RGR has accidentally managed to get something right for once. He's as wrong as ever.

[DominicJ]

Postie
A few minutes on this very site should lead you to the fact that we 600,000 years of realtively well proven and entirely untapped methane hydrate reserves.
We have another 150 years of entirely proven shyale reserves that are just about to come on stream/

Peak oil is a political and technological problem, not a geology problem.

[biffvernon]

I think the planet can only carry so many people, finite world and all that. But that number depends on more variables then can honestly be forecast with any degree of accuracy. Carrying capacity of humans is a tricky number to forecast because unlike most of the planet's species, humans can alter both their behavior and the carrying capacity of the environment itself.

If I recall correctly, and I may not, certain forecasts claim 9 billion people or so by 2050, followed by a small decline afterwards? I haven't investigated, but that estimate works for the sake of argument.


Peak oil has already happened.

Yep, RGR is quite right.

(How the world turns.)

When you find youself agreeing with RGR and disagreeing with almost everybody else who posts here then you, Biff, ought to start worrying that maybe you're missing something important. It's not that RGR has accidentally managed to get something right for once. He's as wrong as ever.

Oh yes, I am deeply worried. So let's take these two things.

First "Peak oil has already happened."

Well, taking into account the caveats that RGR rightly included about just what type of oil we are measuring, "Peak oil has already happened" is a statement that I would not regard as wrong. It might in a few years turn out to be not entirely right but it's close enough for me.

Secondly "If I recall correctly, and I may not, certain forecasts claim 9 billion people or so by 2050, followed by a small decline afterwards? I haven't investigated, but that estimate works for the sake of argument."
I can't see where RGR is wrong on that. It's the consensus position of demographers and may be proved wrong in the fullness of time but it's the a good working assumption.

[RGR]

[quote="UndercoverElephant"]