Would you go back to university?

[Ralph]

"Ralph" contributes nothing useful or interesting to any of the discussion here.

You often use that type of response for anyone who doesn't agree with your view who questions your statements.

Don't be surprised. It is actually quite common, and comes with the territory when one has a personal requirement to do their best to understand both sides of an issue prior to considering themselves qualified to have an honest opinion on the topic. Let alone a professional one.

Just the thorough knowledge of both sides then being confused with a deniers position, true acceptance only being given to those who nod vigorously…no…FURIOUSLY….in defense of the required mantra.

Ugo is one of US!…therefore anyone daring to even point out his flawed knowledge on the topic must be one of THEM! Excommunicate the heretic! If they will not abide by church doctrine, torture them with hot knives until they confess!!

Been going on for centuries, fortunately web forums don't have the power the Church once did to enforce compliance with their doctrine.

[Ralph]

I am advocating the banning of Ralph, but not you or AndySir, because he is a propagandist who has come here for the sole purpose of misleading people.

I have provided the footnote showing that Ugo Bardi is WRONG. Not propaganda, flat out WRONG. And am quite willing to provide evidence of MORE of the SAME.

The IEA cost supply curve is a simple graphic, yet UNMATCHED in all of peaker dom because to do so would force acknowledgment of the very principles the topic tries so very hard to avoid…economics.

Propaganda? Nope, the work of an entire organization with more horsepower on the peak oil topic than has ever been applied by ASPO, TOD, all of their affiliates, discredited editors and whoever else someone might want to throw in the pile. Not propaganda. Fact.

More facts?

ASPO went to the EIA in December of 2012. Spent about 2 hours there according to ASPO-USA and came away with several interesting tidbits, including the name of a liaison and the offer to examine any part of the NEMS model that they wished.

ASPO thought that was a great idea, them being able to be helpful and all, and in the 13 months since that happened how many WORDS have you heard talking about how poor that model is? Where it is flawed? How much better random declines could work than the obvious horsepower applied by the DOE's signature statistical and analytical organization?

The answer? None.

You want propaganda? Read Ugo's blog. Or Gail's. But whatever you do, don't ever forget that when the facts and reality disagree with your world view, it isn't the facts and reality that are wrong, goodness knows what happens if you suddenly couldn't rearrange the universe to rationalization your position on any topic, someone might confuse you with a critical thinker or objective analyst. The horror!

[RenewableCandy]

I am advocating the banning of Ralph, but not you or AndySir, because he is a propagandist who has come here for the sole purpose of misleading people.

I have provided the footnote showing that Ugo Bardi is WRONG.

On one (1) irrelevant point. Big deal. And on that ralph bases its entire worldview

People (UE and WB, for example) are going to fall out fttt because the issues here on Board (possibility of the UK becoming short of energy in its various forms, and how to adapt to it, among other issues) are experienced directly by humans (and not ralph's corporate Masters).

We are already experiencing shortages of oil and other forms of energy in the guise of rising prices. I do feel, however, that this is so obvious that "ralph" isn't really misleading anyone. It's just making itself look more and more like a boorish prat.

[Ralph]

I am advocating the banning of Ralph, but not you or AndySir, because he is a propagandist who has come here for the sole purpose of misleading people.

I have provided the footnote showing that Ugo Bardi is WRONG.

On one (1) irrelevant point. Big deal.

If an academic is so ignorant of the basic factual information, can you please explain how this then leads to confidence in their conclusions based on such an incorrect understanding?

Ugo has effectively decided to sneak a 2+2=5 past the true believers in the hope they are as ignorant on the topic as he is. If you can't do 2nd grade arithmetic correctly, there isn't a chance I'm taking your word on the results of your long division answer.

And I offered up quite a few more points, in exchange for the least bit of critical thinking on YOUR part in exchange. But you don't know the other mistakes he made in that blog post, and therefore can't be drawn into a discussion based on actual information now can you? You don't have the knowledge to know where he is wrong, it would require rewiring your belief system on the topic to even attempt it, and if there is one thing for certain in this world, folks will do amazing things to keep their belief systems intact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_G ... ous_group)

We are already experiencing shortages of oil and other forms of energy in the guise of rising prices. I do feel, however, that this is so obvious that "ralph" isn't really misleading anyone. It's just making itself look more and more like a boorish prat.

Rising prices are not a guise of shortage. They are rising prices. During the great gasoline scare of 1916 when prices were tripling people weren't running around predicting peak oil because of it.

Don't like what you pay for petrol? Do something about it, and pocket the discretionary income you save, or buy iPods and gizmos creating economic activity in another arena. But you don't get to pretend that higher prices are the same as shortages, or even rationing. I've been subjected to rationing before, and it was during the last episode of resource scarcity fear mongering. This time the amplitude hasn't come close to that one.

[RenewableCandy]

High prices are a type of shortage.

Ever heard of "poor people" (oh sorry you're a corporate mouthpiece so you're probably not bothered...)? High prices mean that they go short of something.

Don't like what you pay for petrol? Do something about it, and pocket the discretionary income you save

so you haven't actually noticed that that is what most of this forum is about

[Ralph]

High prices are a type of shortage, you twat.

More Econ 101, less of the same kind of moronic nonsense that gave the world peak oil….in 1989….

[Little John]

High prices are a type of shortage, you twat.

More Econ 101, less of the same kind of moronic nonsense that gave the world peak oil….in 1989….

Obfuscatory twaddle. I see you [deliberately] didn't reference the source. In which case, allow me:

http://thismatter.com/economics/market-equilibrium.htm

The relevant text accompanying the diagrams being:

Supply determinants other than prices include the prices of the factors of production used to create the product, technology, taxes and subsidies, number of sellers, price expectations, and the prices of other related goods. If supply determinants increase supplies, while the demand remains constant, then the equilibrium price will decline, because it must adjust to the new, higher equilibrium quantity, which can only be sold at lower prices. Supply determinants that decrease supplies will cause the equilibrium price to rise, since it will take fewer buyers to buy the product at the higher price and only those who are willing to pay the higher price will buy it.

Demand determinants other than the product price include consumer preferences, income, prices of substitutes and complements, and the number of buyers. If the supply remains constant, but non-price demand determinants increase demand, then the equilibrium price will rise, since the equilibrium quantity will also increase, and the suppliers will only supply more product at a higher price. Likewise, if demand decreases because of factors other than price, then the equilibrium price will decline, since suppliers will only be able to sell the new, lower equilibrium quantity of their product.

The following diagram shows how changes in non-price demand and supply determinants can change the market equilibrium. In the first diagram, the supply curve shifts rightward, from S1 to S2, representing an increase in supply caused by non-price supply determinants, causing the equilibrium price to decline from P1 to P2 and the equilibrium quantity to increase from Q1 to Q2. In the 2nd diagram, it is the demand curve that shifts rightward, from D2 to D1, representing an increase in demand from demand determinants other than price, causing the equilibrium price to increase from P1 to P2 and the equilibrium quantity to increase from Q1 to Q2. Note that if the supply curve shifts leftward, from S2 to S1, then the equilibrium price moves from P2 to P1 and the equilibrium quantity moves from Q2 to Q1; likewise, when the demand curve shifts from D2 to D1.

So, in short, an increase in supply in the absence of a commensurate increase in demand will cause price to fall and vice versa. Well, no shit Sherlock

You put these graphics up without any reference to their source and without any accompanying text in a deliberate attempt to baffle with bullshit. You're pathetic.

[Ralph]

So, in short, an increase in supply in the absence of a commensurate increase in demand will cause price to fall and vice versa. Well, no shit Sherlock

Spread your knowledge upon Renewable. He/she thinks that higher prices are shortages. So you are right…no shit Sherlock….more economics, less nonsense.

[RenewableCandy]

So, in short, an increase in supply in the absence of a commensurate increase in demand will cause price to fall and vice versa. Well, no shit Sherlock

Spread your knowledge upon Renewable. He/she thinks that higher prices are shortages.

It can't get its head round the fact that poor people exist (such people would experience high prices as a shortage, durrr), let alone "imagine" itself to be one. Turing test fail.

[Little John]

.,,,Just because poor people couldn't afford to buy for themselves a gold crown like the king doesn't mean there was a shortage of gold. Or crowns.,,,

Yes it does, numb-nuts

If gold were in high supply it's price would be low and poor people would be enabled to enter the market for gold.

Demand destruction of a commodity that would otherwise attract a high demand is directly linked to shortage of supply of that commodity. Demand destruction can also occur at the other extreme (at least relative to supply) if the supply becomes inexhaustively high.

[Ralph]

If gold were in high supply it's price would be low and poor people would be enabled to enter the market for gold.

You have just managed to show you didn't even understand what cost and supply curves are used for or how they work, or what an economist actually calls a shortage, probably not a surprise considering that peakers have been doing the same when it comes to knowledge about upstream petroleum issues for longer than TOD was around. Why don't you go ask the guy who says he went to a really good school, he hasn't pulled a boner in the economics department yet, get him to explain it to you.

In common use, the term "shortage" may refer to a situation where most people are unable to find a desired good at an affordable price. In the economic use of "shortage", however, the affordability of a good for the majority of people is not an issue: If people wish to have a certain good but cannot afford to pay the market price, their wish is not counted as part of the quantity demanded at that price.

[Little John]

If gold were in high supply it's price would be low and poor people would be enabled to enter the market for gold.

You have just managed to show you didn't even understand what cost and supply curves are used for or how they work, or what an economist actually calls a shortage, probably not a surprise considering that peakers have been doing the same when it comes to knowledge about upstream petroleum issues for longer than TOD was around. Why don't you go ask the guy who says he went to a really good school, he hasn't pulled a boner in the economics department yet, get him to explain it to you.

In common use, the term "shortage" may refer to a situation where most people are unable to find a desired good at an affordable price. In the economic use of "shortage", however, the affordability of a good for the majority of people is not an issue: If people wish to have a certain good but cannot afford to pay the market price, their wish is not counted as part of the quantity demanded at that price.

You know nothing of my understanding of economic theory in general and of my knowledge of econometrics in particular. And you certainly understand less of these things than you would have others think. I wont attempt to speak for anyone else. But I will disabuse you here of any assumption on your part that your obfuscatory, mischievous twaddle is viewed with anything but utter derision and contempt by me.

[RenewableCandy]

...or what an economist actually calls a shortage, ...

is perfectly well understood thank you very much but is not the issue here. The issue is, the problems experienced by those on the margins, or shut out, of the market for some essential commodity.

Lets put it this way: supposing "ralph" were human and I ran into him with a tank. The law of conservation of momentum would apply and, looked at from the point of view of an impartial physicist, that wouldn't be a problem...

Of course it probably wouldn't be a problem for ralph either, 'cause he's doubtless backed-up somewhere.

[UndercoverElephant]

Spread your knowledge upon Renewable. He/she thinks that higher prices are shortages.

It can't get its head round the fact that poor people exist (such people would experience high prices as a shortage, durrr), let alone "imagine" itself to be one. Turing test fail.

Poor people existed before the first hallucinations of peak oil appeared in the dreams of the oil ignorant. Just because poor people couldn't afford to buy for themselves a gold crown like the king doesn't mean there was a shortage of gold. Or crowns.

Steve is correct; you are wrong. All you have to do to make this clear is reverse the statement: if there was no shortage of gold then poor people would be able to afford to buy lots of it for themselves. Presumably you wouldn't argue with that? If gold was as abundant in the Earth's crust as iron is then poor people would be able to buy as much gold as they buy iron, and for a similar price.

More thinking, less confusion based on ignorance I always say.

Why don't you F*** off then, since it is you who is posting the ignorant, confused bullshit?

What are you doing here? Why do you come here? If you don't agree with the basic premises shared by the community here, why do you choose to post on our board? You are a textbook example of an internet troll, and you're here because you feel threatened by the fact that these discussions, which you are intent on disrupting and derailing, are being had in public at all. If you really were confident of what you claim to believe, then you'd just ignore Powerswitch and get on with your own life. What would you have to gain by coming here if we were really all wrong and deluded? Nothing. You are exactly like a creationist who feels the need to post on a forum devoted to science, because their own belief system is threatened by the very presence of such fora. Either that or you are indeed a corporate puppet, and are being paid to post this bullshit by an organisation that is similarly threatened.

F***ing Americans. I wish your country would just sink into the ocean instead of polluting the rest of humanity with cultural filth, slime and disease.

[RenewableCandy]

erm except vtsnowedin and a few...