Vortex2 wrote: ↑29 Jan 2023, 08:47
clv101 wrote: ↑28 Jan 2023, 11:01
RGR's a troll, always had been always will be. Don't feed the troll.
Yep .. but unusually he is a bright, well-educated troll in a fairly prominent role in the oil industry.
"Troll" is the term used to dismiss ideas, concepts and posters on the internet without having to think about them Vortex, we all know that. Unfortunately folks just out to make trouble give a well informed dissenting opinion a bad name.
When someone publishes new or different ideas in the scientific comunity, which draw some level of derision in that community, they aren't called trolls. Someone else writes a paper detailing why they are wrong, and let it go at that.
On the internet? Scientific evidence, expertise, etc etc is easily dismissed outright when it contradicts a closely held opinion. It works in support of an opinion of course, but not when it is contrary. That has always been strange to me, but as a rule has remained consistent in both of the centuries where I've been paying attention to it. Peak oil claims in the modern era (1990 onward) are an excellent example of this dynmaic playing out. A fascinating learning dynamic, and knowing both sides of the coin has been quite helpful, professionally speaking.
Now that the specifics of peak oil dependencies, timing, volumes, composition etc etc has been worked out, there are more pertinent topics to work on, and amusingly (but not unexpectedly) these topics are mostly ignored at this point in time, on the science side. You can find them percolating on the internet though. Like I said, a fascinating dynamic. The internet has these kernels of ideas, they can hit on a valid underlying point, but just don't have the resources or experience to leverage the actual answer out.
