The long view,...

[RevdTess]

If we ever upgrade to the newer versions of phpBB there's a neat 'ignore' function...

[Totally_Baffled]

Come on guys he may be a little annoying , but RGR does sometimes make perfectly legitimate points.

Ok , he could be less annoying about it, but perhaps if we didnt keep giving him the ammunition?

In other words if you make a prediction or an assumption (or quote someone else making a prediction) surely its only fair to be challenged if those predictions or assumptions turn out to be wrong?

If for example Gwahar is still pumping 5 mpd in 2015, then the question is "Why did so many experts predict its demise in the early 2000's?"

There is quite a few examples of predictions on overall and individual countries oil supply and perhaps we need an analysis of why the predictions were wrong and how it effects future forecasts?

For example on Saudi Arabia, has TOD done any analysis on why SA hasnt peaked yet or why Gwahar hasnt collapsed?

It would be an interesting piece of work, then they can apply their findings to other oil producers?

Just one example of many....

[clv101]

For example on Saudi Arabia, has TOD done any analysis on why SA hasnt peaked yet or why Gwahar hasnt collapsed?

Eight posts on Ghawar in 2008.

[Totally_Baffled]

Thanks Chris - very interesting, makes you wonder why some of this information wasn't considered before predictions of plummeting SA data were made!

I think the points made in the conclusion about data are so important.

In other words - the data available (at least in the public domain) seems to be either inaccurate, unavailable, out of date or missing.

Either ways its hard to forecast future productions based on such data, which makes you wonder why so many make such predictions of imminent production collapse at risk of their credibility? (Does Matt simmons still stick to his guns on SA?)

Does this also mean that RGR is at least a little vindicated? The TOD analysis seems to back track a little on previous analysis which I have read prediction SA's oil production being well into terminal decline by now..

Would it be fair to say that we dont actually have a smegging clue how much oil the world has and how fast it can be produced?

CONCLUSION

The 2008 IEA World Energy Report urgently (and appropriately) recognizes the need for an assessment of future energy supplies based on a detailed accounting of the world's inventory. This need is not reflected in the data presented for the specific yet critical example of Saudi Arabia. Building and querying a database of the world's oilfields is good, but this is only of value if the underlying data is sound. Given the importance of Saudi Arabia's oil production, both from a practical and a symbolic standpoint, it is unfortunate that surprisingly little incremental effort was expended from WEO 2005 to WEO 2008 on conducting a truly original analysis of the situation for Saudi Arabia, especially given recent events. Furthermore, the aggregate data presented contains several glaring errors, casting further doubt on the quality of the raw data (assumed to be provided by IHS). IEA has clearly been hamstrung in its own efforts of painting an accurate energy picture, both in its available resources and in its access to the necessary data. It would be useful if IEA made available the raw data used for their work, thus allowing for additional analysis from the larger energy community. The focus on the world's oil future, and Saudi Arabia's in particular, needs to be sharpened.

[Billhook]

There has been some discussion of how the free speech RGR's trip represents
is crucial to meaniful discussion,
but I've yet to see a constructive contribution from it.

Given that censorship is the norm in all our discussions, with the censor being whatever the law says isn't legal,
surely this stuff about free speech is just a comforting delusion ?

Or do people here really seek the right to discuss the best way of kidnapping and skinning the prime minister,
or of raping his infant children ?

Ditto the propagandas of minorities' persecution. In spades.

Thank God, and democracy, for a reasonable degree of censorship.

So about RGR . . . . .?

Regards,

Billhook

[Totally_Baffled]

BillHook,

I take your point about hiding behind the right to free speech, however I dont think RGR has posted anything that I would consider extreme enough to censor?

I mean, how offensive can one be about energy related topics?

RGR could go about it differently, but I think its important to have a counter argument to keep us from getting carried away?

[chrisc]

This is not an issue of censorship or freedom of speech -- something else is happening here...

Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately... disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinformation

Fear, uncertainty and doubt... is generally a strategic attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_unce ... _and_doubt

Psychological Operations... are techniques used by... to influence a target audience's value systems, belief systems, emotions, motives, reasoning, and behavior. Target audiences can be governments, organizations, groups, and individuals, and are used in order to induce confessions, or reinforce attitudes and behaviors favorable to the originator's objectives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_operations

[RGR]

[quote="chrisc"]

[Billhook]

BillHook,

I take your point about hiding behind the right to free speech, however I dont think RGR has posted anything that I would consider extreme enough to censor?

I mean, how offensive can one be about energy related topics?

RGR could go about it differently, but I think its important to have a counter argument to keep us from getting carried away?

Coherent counter arguments ( if available) I'm all for.

Plain snide rudeness and whollly gratuitous offesive text being provided on a daily basis seems to me utterly unhelpful, juvenile, and a waste of time.

If he doesn't quit such stupidity, I'd see no reason to tolerate him much longer.

Just in terms of putting off other new people who won't face that sort of cheap egotripping,
I think his conduct diminishes this site.

Regards,

Billhook

[Vortex]

I think his conduct diminishes this site.

I think you are spot on.

RGR may or may not have valid points to make .... BUT ... he doesn't come across as straightforward.

There is something about his behaviour or demeanour which is intrinsically disruptive. I find this disruption more significant than the content of his contributions ... despite how often he posts them.

To sum up, I think he fails the "No Asshole Rule".

See: http://www.DODGY TAX AVOIDERS.co.uk/Asshole-Rule-Ci ... 863&sr=1-2

[Catweazle]

Some of you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about RGR, and I can understand that, but he is essentially correct in his main argument - that Peak Oil production will be decided economically rather than physically.

He reinforces his argument at every opportunity to discredit anyone who expresses fear of an oil shortage, typically by claiming that oil has been too cheap for too long and that the market will adjust.

What RGR ignores is that his argument is totally irrelevant, Peak Oil is reached when the general population of Earth can no longer afford to keep using it, regardless of how much is locked up in tar sands or other unconventionals.

I just ignore him now, it's plain to me that he is only interested in convincing people to keep using oil whatever the cost and to discredit any easily understandable arguments that might encourage people to use alternatives.

[Totally_Baffled]

Plain snide rudeness and whollly gratuitous offesive text being provided on a daily basis seems to me utterly unhelpful, juvenile, and a waste of time.

Fair enough, if someone is doing that then I agree they should be given a couple of warnings then maybe a temp ban esculating to a perm ban if pesistent.

One word of caution though, I have seen a few insulting/offensive posts directed at climate skeptics and those that question PO (or its timing and/or how bad it will be afterwards etc etc)

For example, and I hate to name drop, but hasnt there been some strong worded stuff between MacG/snowhope (climate skeptics) and the man made climate changers?

I dont find any of the posters in those threads offensive, nor does anyone else i suspect?..

[Vortex]

I'm just so tired of RGR and the endless posts he generates both directly and indirectly.

I no longer care about his message, his 'secret' knowledge etc ... I just want the pain to end so we can all resume the nice chats (and rows!) we used to have before his arrival.

[emordnilap]

I'm just so tired of RGR and the endless posts he generates both directly and indirectly.

I no longer care about his message, his 'secret' knowledge etc ... I just want the pain to end so we can all resume the nice chats (and rows!) we used to have before his arrival.

Hear hear.

[Shira]

If we ever upgrade to the newer versions of phpBB there's a neat 'ignore' function...

jmb says "it's on the list of things to do" but it won't happen any time soon as we're moving house on Jan 5th and who knows when we'll get a reliable internet connection sorted, it took seven weeks last time...but rest assured, it will happen and then RGR can post to his heart's content and those of us who don't want to see it can ignore him. Huzzah!