[dashster]

When you debunk Peak Oil, you must be making an argument for an alternative "theory". Is there any other theory that contradicts Peak Oil besides the Infinite Oil Theory? Is that what "JD" believes in - the Infinite Oil Theory?

[AirlinePilot]

I think..If I recall..JD was more about claiming reserve growth was never estimated correctly and its here where the PO folks fall down. He is partly right, but wishing that it continues seems hard to support given all that has gone on during the last 5 years with global production, GNE, and the price paradigm.

I also recall a large part of his debunking PO has to do with Hubbert Linearization being flawed.

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'I') think..If I recall..JD was more about claiming reserve growth was never estimated correctly and its here where the PO folks fall down. He is partly right, but wishing that it continues seems hard to support given all that has gone in during the last 5 years with global production, GNE, and the price paradigm.

I also recall a large part of his debunking PO has to do with Hubbert Linearization being flawed.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dashster', 'W')hen you debunk Peak Oil, you must be making an argument for an alternative "theory". Is there any other theory that contradicts Peak Oil besides the Infinite Oil Theory? Is that what "JD" believes in - the Infinite Oil Theory?

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AirlinePilot', 'I') think..If I recall..JD was more about claiming reserve growth was never estimated correctly and its here where the PO folks fall down. He is partly right, but wishing that it continues seems hard to support given all that has gone in during the last 5 years with global production, GNE, and the price paradigm.

I also recall a large part of his debunking PO has to do with Hubbert Linearization being flawed.

[ralfy]

If we look only at energy and resources, then we can avoid collapse only if we assume that governments and economies worldwide will cooperate with each other. The outcome will be living standards equivalent to that of Cuba:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _footprint

The problem is that we have not seen such cooperation. Instead, we see a growing middle class that wants more resources, businesses that want to earn by extending more credit, a population that will still grow, the effects of environmental damage and global warming on bio-capacity, and governments working with multinational companies that have shown no qualms in using military force to control resources.

Thus, the problem isn't just the Jevons paradox but multiple predicaments plus recent history.

The second point is obviously wrong given the need for petrochemicals, the use of oil for cargo ships, the lag time needed for a transition, oil still needed for the transition (i.e., an energy trap), plus the lack of coordination and cooperation between those who control significant levels of credit and resources, not to mention growing resource demand needed by a growing population.

The third point is also wrong because it looks at the energy needed to make cars that are efficient or otherwise and the need for cars worldwide. Put simply, if we assume a particular requirement for every household, and that is for this example one passenger vehicle, then we will obviously not be able to meet the requirements of a global population. This type of lifestyle will require an ecological footprint equivalent to around four global hectares per capita, but biocapacity will only allow for less than two. And that's for the current global population (which will still grow) and assuming that environmental damage plus global warming will not lead to lower bio-capacity.

The fourth point is not a solution but inevitable: we will need multiple sources of energy. The point of "dooomers" isn't that this won't take place. It's that it will not allow for "business as usual."

Finally, none of these debunk peak oil in any way. If any, they validate the issue.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'I')f we look only at energy and resources, then we can avoid collapse only if ......

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'T')he only significant difference I've experienced with TOD and PO.com is that I haven't been banned here. Not yet anyway.

[davep]

Current ethanol subsidies are a sham, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate biofuels such as ethanol as part of a multi-faceted farm (where waste output is used as input for other processes). Anyway, that's an argument we've had before and doesn't really have its place in this thread

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'K')ub, I went back to look at your early posts. You seem to have considered me a doomer for suggesting that biofuels were/are a joke. Or that the housing crisis and financial meltdown was a consequence of peak oil.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
so now we are angling for Richard Heinberg's Pol Pot solution perhaps? "Follow me! We will survive if you just give up your rights, freedoms, happiness and come work on my farm!"

JD has a topic for that as well.

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/200 ... nberg.html

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '
') Not sure if you were at this site a few years ago but there was a crazy amount of hype around here. Talk of zombies, cannibals, plans to cull the sheeple, etc. Other sites were even worse. Thankfully the site has moderated over the years. Say what you want about JD, I found it was refreshing to actually have someone call out the uber doomers on their hype. I certainly enjoyed his posts more than other cornys like Meemoe.

[AgentR11]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dashster', 'F')rom the commenters on the transcribed articles, it appears that a lot of people have the opinion that all hope is lost - absolutely nothing can be done to stop a collapse of society. But at the same time, I get the impression that they think they themselves will be fine.