The long view,...

[RGR]

[quote="Bozzio"]

[happychicken]

Global Peak Oil happened in 1929, 1941, 1948, 1957, 1973, 1980, 1990, and 2005, and maybe doing an encore in 2008!

These dates may represent Oil Crises, even possibly global ones, but not "global peak oil"

[J. R. Ewing]

Only thing that still gets me is RGR's signature Oil never reached Peak Oil in those years claimed, but I posted about that ages ago

It certainly was peak oil, for years and years sometimes, after those peaks. And the world didn't end then either.

No it wasn't 'true' Peak Oil, it was just a Oil Shock. It always recovered to produce higher peaks, I recon this last shock was Peak Oil as I doubt it will recover to produce an higher output ever again - that is Peak Oil.

[Bozzio]

The other peaks were peaks in global production...Peakers don't like to discuss them because they aren't the peak of peaks, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT

Why would peakers discuss anything other than the peak of peaks? It is you who keeps raising the issue of what has been said before to justify your own twisted logic. What has gone before helps to give a guide as to the future and amazingly the scenarios the peakers discuss surrounding the problems of high energy prices based on historical precedent are coming true. That's the bit you don't like so you pretend it will sort itself because it has done so before. However, you have absolutely no proof that it will this time. Certainly no proof that I have seen.

1874 Pennsylvania State Geologists don't count? Peak oil is nonsense in part because of all the other peaks..and yes...people have been worried about it for a long time. And what does it matter, the volume with which some ninny got up and announced another BAD estimate of oil left? Current peakers starting with Campbell in 1990 aren't any different, I seriously think that the internet just concentrates the gullible in such a way that they are easier to access by someone selling a book, stocks, freeze dried food, etc etc.

Did I mention anything about 1874? You are the one who has claimed peak oil on other dates dates (and I know the source of these dates because I posted the web page with these on in a previous reply to you). So stop your moaning and answer my question. I know it's easier for you to attack the general peaker ethos rather than get into the detail although employing such a technique is what makes you a troll so I'm not surprised at your pathetic reply.

[RGR]

[quote="happychicken"]

[RGR]

[quote="J. R. Ewing"]

[RGR]

[quote="Bozzio"]

[biffvernon]

I notice you still haven't changed your signature to:

"Global Peak Oil happened in July 2008."

Do try to catch up.

[RGR]

[quote="biffvernon"]

[Bozzio]

The other peaks were peaks in global production...Peakers don't like to discuss them because they aren't the peak of peaks, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE POINT

Why would peakers discuss anything other than the peak of peaks?

How am I supposed to know? Write Colin Campbell a letter and tell him to STOP already....its not like I need more ammunition to show how silly this entire thing has become.

So stop your moaning and answer my question. I know it's easier for you to attack the general peaker ethos rather than get into the detail although employing such a technique is what makes you a troll so I'm not surprised at your pathetic reply.

Pick a question which doesn't require me googling up the basics for you, and I'll take a crack at ANYTHING. Its not like I mind typing on this topic.

As usual you offer nothing and spout crap.

Yes please, I'd like YOU to answer my question instead of me having to google it and please include the peak output figures and media discussions concerning the peaks for each year you have included in your tag line.

[RGR]

[quote="Bozzio"]

[Bozzio]

Yes please, I'd like YOU to answer my question instead of me having to google it and please include the peak output figures and media discussions concerning the peaks for each year you have included in your tag line.

A) I'm not googling global production rates for someone incapable of doing it for themselves and

B) Whether or not psychologically damaged amateurs made a fuss over it in puff pieces doesn't not negate the factual nature of Step A.

so no, if you wish to argue the validity of the answer to 2+2 do it with someone who thinks there is uncertainty involved.

So you can't answer my question then? Which makes a mockery of your signature.

[Vortex]

Sheesh ... as we approach a fresh, clean, unsullied New Year RGR is still here ..

[RGR]

[quote="Bozzio"]

[chrisc]

Sheesh ... as we approach a fresh, clean, unsullied New Year RGR is still here ..

I think what is needed is for someone to properly document his activities:

If someone is prepared to present me (james@powerswitch.org.uk) with examples of RGR (or anyone) being here with intentions to disrupt, or that he is trolling, please do so and I will give it strong consideration. Unfortunately I do not get to read every post and I do not read many of RGRs so any help in this area is appreciated. It is clearly an issue for a number of the sites users.

http://powerswitch.org.uk/forum/viewtop ... 1911#91911

Personally I don't have the time or energy to do this at the moment (I just ignore him), it clearly needs to be done...