[MD]

1. Present irrefutable facts. As much as possible, choose facts that have have no counter argument available.
2. Extract conclusions from the listener. Do not define outcomes for them.

Here is the order I would present the facts:
1. Mega field production, percentage of total, and age of fields. Reference Matthew Simmons (I have the link at home and will paste it in later).
2. Single field production modeling(basic curve, examples of specific field history, texas is best, links anyone?)
3. New projects coming on line (petroleum review mega projects, link later).
4. Growth in demand projections(IEA, etc.)
5. Impact of historical oil shocks.

That's all the time I have at the moment. Please expand on this and comment. We all need help in this area, I think.

I doubt the "tough love" or "confrontational" approach common with addiction denials is helpful here. That's just my very uneducated opinion, I would really like some expertise to weigh in on this issue.

[RonMN]

#5 impact of historical oil shocks...i think that's KEY!

People just don't realize how intertwined our lives are with oil (i know i didn't until i started studying PO).

Most people think it extends to the price at the pump & that's it...and THAT'S where they stumble on realizing how devestating PO can really be.

[Such]

present all of the best available data you can... let people draw their own conclusions. if they still aren't convinced... just tell them: "then wait and you will see"

One problem with previous oil shocks is that they always ended....

[TheTurtle]

Just out of curiosity, who are you trying to convince?

[MD]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', 'J')ust out of curiosity, who are you trying to convince?

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', 'J')ust out of curiosity, who are you trying to convince?

[Whitecrab]

The approach I'm currently trying is to briefly set up Hubbert, and then hit the audience with my "kill list":

-By backdating oil reserves (examining the date of discovery, not business statements), it becomes clear world oil discovery actually peaked in 1964
-80% of the global oil supply is from fields found in 1973 or earlier, and 20% comes from 14 giant oilfields whose average age is over 50 years old
-Since 1980, with perhaps 2 exceptions, each year the world found less oil than it consumed
-Currently, the world can only find one barrel of oil for every 4 it uses
-Almost every non-OPEC nation is already peaking or post-peak
-Spurious reserve revisions suggest OPEC stocks may be severely over-estimated
-World energy demand is projected to triple by 2050, with China and India becoming car nations
-No mega projects (fields with over 500 million barrels of oil) were found in 2003 or 2004, something which has not happened for over 70 years. None are scheduled to come online after 2007, and any we found today would take 6+ years to develop
-For various practical reasons, tar sands and shale oil will almost certainly never contribute more than 10% of current world demand – never mind growing demand
-There is a fair consensus about how much oil the world contains. If you triple that, for the sake of argument, and run the Hubbert equations, you still get a peak within 25 years

Hopefully it has been made clear that oil is on the way out; Hubbert is merely the best predictive tool available, not some radical method. Discussion about alternatives & etc. can later follow as required (you'd have to build 2 nuke plants every day, not enough platninum for hydrogen, etc.)

If anyone has other bullet points, I'm collecting. I really should go back and find the exact references for each point (most are from Campbell's work, a little ODAC).

For natural gas I usually let this do the talking. (Source).

[MD]

Great job whitecrab! The gas link does indeed speak for itself.

[MD]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', 'J')ust out of curiosity, who are you trying to convince?

[MD]

Great job whitecrab! The gas link does indeed speak for itself.

[Doly]

I agree with the general approach, but the facts and the order they are presented should be chosen depending on the person you are talking with. The facts and order you suggest are good for convincing a technical person. A non-technical person will be confused and unsure about technical details. Think of somebody trying to convince you about some theory on an area you know little about. They wouldn't convince you, because you don't know enough about the subject to develop a clear opinion.

My approach with a non-technical person that is familiar with economy is presenting economic facts first, and then explaining that the problem is structural because of geological reasons.

If the person is neither technical nor financially savvy, I would approach the problem as "experts think that there's a new oil crisis brewing". Everybody knows what an oil crisis is. Then present facts coming from whatever authority this person respects. The latest energy speeches of Bush can be quite convincing, for example.

[TheTurtle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MD', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', 'J')ust out of curiosity, who are you trying to convince?

[dduck]

Because I believe that with proper leadership, it is possible for a nation like the U.S. to execute programs that will greatly soften the impact of the decline in fossil fuel supplies. However, an enlightened populace must come first, because the required programs will demand the whole-hearted support of most of the people. Granted, the likelihood of pulling it off is not all that great, but....
I bought 5 copies of "The End of Suburbia" (DVD) and am keeping them moving among individuals and groups. I also write letters to newspapers, some of which get published. It might not help, but one has to try.

Aloha
dduck

[ubercrap]

I think many people in general don't want to "soften the impact." They are so confident in themselves and their abilities (either well founded or not)that I think they see greater opportunity for wealth and power in the increase and escalation in competition for resources than a more planned egalitarian approach. It wouldn't matter that it isn't likely they will thrive, the idea that the opportunity is there to test whether they could is much more important to them.

[MD]

Back to the original topic:
How to effectively present the facts of Peak Oil?

[dduck]

MD posts:
Back to the original topic:
How to effectively present the facts of Peak Oil?

Most Americans seem to be numerically-challenged, so it is better to leave out the info on jillions of barrels and megastuffs of thermal units. That's why I bought 5 copies of "The End of Suburbia". It is just right for introducing the topic to those who haven't really thought about the topic. It drags a bit at the beginning for us oldsters who lived through the lifestyle changes depicted, but for the younger generations, a lot of it is news.

After they have gone through shock, denial, and naive proposals of solutions, I find that followup appropriate to their technical background becomes feasible.

Aloha
dduck

P.S. I have no financial interest in the DVD!