Can the Saudis really ramp up oil production

[woodburner]

Why not write plain English instead of riddles? The idea of writing is to communicate with someone else, not obfuscate.

[boisdevie]

Why not write plain English instead of riddles? The idea of writing is to communicate with someone else, not obfuscate.

Pourquoi uniquement en anglais hein?

[emordnilap]

The idea of writing is to communicate with someone else, not obfuscate.

That's true. Until you try to interact trolls and vested interests, that is. But you know this anyway, wb, yet you still try. Respect!

[woodburner]

Why not write plain English instead of riddles? The idea of writing is to communicate with someone else, not obfuscate.

Pourquoi uniquement en anglais hein?

Well, if you write in French, you can't communicate with me as I don't speak French. May as well write in Polish, I don't speak that either.

[RenewableCandy]

Tell him to rewrite this then:

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... ncept.html

Because the second paragraph is factually inaccurate and anyone familiar with the peak oil story should be able to spot why and start giggling on the spot.

How is this for an idea? Lets have a contest…who can find the most footnotes in the science literature contradicting either the ideas, or logic, or the facts, in this particular article?

I can think of about 9,

sources please.

Sure. Lets do them one at a time. One sentence at a time, in order, we'll work through it. You pick the first mistake you can find, and I'll pick the first mistake I can find, and together we'll work our way through it.

First sentence.

"But what is happening exactly with peak oil and why so much fuss about it?"

No factual objections to this one, other than what I consider to be a misrepresentation as to the fuss. TOD went belly up not because there was fuss, but because their editors and contributors were becoming punchlines to jokes at American conferences sponsored by AAPG and SPE. During plenary sessions no less.

No references needed on this one, if only because the "fuss" comment really is more of an opinion than any fact.

So, what are your thoughts on sentence 1?

I asked for sources not waffle. Come on get with the program.

[emordnilap]

The troll is not worth your considerable smarts, RC.

[Ralph]

Why not write plain English instead of riddles? The idea of writing is to communicate with someone else, not obfuscate.

Agreed. Maybe we can start a petition and send it to Ugo demanding better peak oil blog reports?

[Ralph]

I asked for sources not waffle. Come on get with the program.

I laid out some reasonable rules to avoid the expected "show me yours before I show you mine" routine.

Thank you for predictably heading in just that direction.

If you aren't familiar with the obvious errors in the work, and are afraid to admit it, just say so. You'll feel better afterwards, admitting it.

[woodburner]

I asked for sources not waffle. Come on get with the program.

I laid out some reasonable rules to avoid the expected "show me yours before I show you mine" routine.

Thank you for predictably heading in just that direction.

If you aren't familiar with the obvious errors in the work, and are afraid to admit it, just say so. You'll feel better afterwards, admitting it.

I occasionally have the misfortune to tread in something similar, though less wordy.

[biffvernon]

Back on the subject of troll, I had the good fortune to stumble across this excellent piece on youtube, well-named Eivør - Trøllabundin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=RD46W ... piFmZLICgM

I'll leave you to find the connection.

[RenewableCandy]

I asked for sources not waffle. Come on get with the program.

...rules ... expected ...

...you aren't familiar ... obvious errors...

I said sources, not condescending language.

Try again rgr.

[Ralph]

Try again ralph.

Let's go back to 1998, when Colin Campbell and Jean Laherrere raised up again a problem that had been first noticed by Marion King Hubbert, in 1956.

Okay fine.

"The consumption of energy from the fossil fuels is thus seen to be a "pip",rising sharply from zero to a maximum, and almost as sharply declining, and thus representing but a moment in the total of human history.

Hubbert, M.K., 1949, Energy From the Fossil Fuels, Science, February 4, 1949 Vol 109, p 108

Trick question…is there even earlier proof of him discussing and even predicting peaks?

Do you have ANY evidence at all that Ugo has more than superficial knowledge on these topics, as demonstrated by him not even knowing the proper decade that Hubbert was cooking up his ideas?

Hell, do you even know if the question I asked is trick or not? Ugo obviously doesn't.

[woodburner]

It's well nigh impossible to work out the meaning of whtever question it ws you asked.

[RenewableCandy]

Ralph (a.k.a. rgr) is referring to the fact that Hubbert (apparently: but this could be tosh) first published his idea in a scientific paper in 1949, whereas most people, Ugo Bardi included, date the idea to 1956, when it "hit the headlines".

Which, even if true, goes straight into the "True But Irrelevant" bucket.

For one thing, peak oil never was just a doomer's game where players tried to guess the exact day for the end of the world. No; it was – and it still is - a fertile concept; a way of seeing the world. It taught us a lot, and it is still teaching us a lot.

...except, apparently, ralph/rgr.

[Ralph]

Ralph (a.k.a. rgr) is referring to the fact that Hubbert (apparently: but this could be tosh) first published his idea in a scientific paper in 1949, whereas most people, Ugo Bardi included, date the idea to 1956, when it "hit the headlines".

Which, even if true, goes straight into the "True But Irrelevant" bucket.

If you are not aware of the fundamental requirement of having researched and understood ones source material before drawing conclusions based on said material, then there are quite a few religions I can recommend who require just this lack of understanding.

Ugo wants to base whatever his conclusions are on an improper understanding of the subject matter, he is allowed. And others are allowed to notice, and point out the poor research involved. And then giggle.

In August of 2013 during the plenary session at the inaugural Unconventional Resource Technology Conference in Denver, Colorado, one editor and one contributor to TOD were held up as examples of professionals who made the mistake of duplicating the same type of error that Ugo has with his blog post.

Sure its irrelevant…right up until the professionals begin giggling when your name is mentioned. TOD disappeared for a reason, and the professionals in the industry with time still remaining in their career (assuming they had one of value in the first place) can ill afford to be the butt of a joke among three national professional organizations at once, the american association of petroleum geologists, society of petroleum engineers, and society of exploration geophysicists.

If all of those guys are laughing at you, at the very least it might be best to consider it a clue. Feel free to consider such disdain among the professionals at the national level to be a mark in the "true but irrelevant" column.