[fossilnut2]

"(Conflict is the nice/nice way of saying war these days BTW)"

Actually the last 2 decades have been the most peaceful in history. Conflict very rarely means war.

The bulk of rthe world's population lives in Asia. No wars. There are tense relations between India and Pakistan but their conflict has not led to war...in fact much less likely than in the past. Who is Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia at war with? China, a quarter of the world's population is not a t war. It made an excursion into N. Vietnam about 25 years ago but that was short lived. Africa? Who is fighting who? Libya had a few troops in Tchad a couple decades ago. South America? Caribbean? Australia? New Zealand? Even the Arabs and Israelis haven't had a knockum-sockum inover 30 years

With 180 nations in the world, the USA and it's pawns are unique in invading and occupying Iraq. War is hardly the norm for settling the conflicts between nations. Europeans, the center for the worse wars of the last century, are more likely to take drastic steps such as boycotting wine or cheese to settle conflict than to dig trenches and set up machine guns.

[seahorse2]

No Wars in Asia or the world, not in Africa? How about genocide in Rwanda? What about the ongoing guerrila war in the Phillipines? Russian Invasion of Afghanistan in the 80s? Iran/Iraq was in the 80s? War in Chechnea? Balkans genocide? I'll list a few more when I get back from work, but this will give you some reading to do.

[Ketzl]

The world at peace:

Current wars from GlobalSecurity.org

Wikipedia's list of current wars

[cheaplaughs]

120.000 dead in the tsunami did we care not really!
40.000 dead in a earthquake do we care not really!
famine & aids in the third world do we care not really!
$3.00 a gallon gas do we care you bet your sweet ass!

I think most people didnt give a shit about katrina when it
hit but wholly shit they cared when those gas prices shot up.

A apocolyptic event to half this planet is life or death to the rest of
us its a lifestyle change.Do I believe in peak oil yes do I believe it
will cause the end of mankind no.Do I believe it will cause major
lifestyle change yes do I believe we are ready for it no.

I would also dare to suggest the people of Indonesia no longer
think peak oil is a theory.

[azreal60]

As the last 3 posts already pointed out the logical fallicy of what you said, i will simply say that the american government stopped Declairing wars. A declared war is between two governmental powers. The fact is, the big governments don't want things all torn up, because that hurts the profits of the businesses that support them. This isn't a leftist bemoaning this by the way, this is simple fact.

The difference is illistraited in the more recent wars. It was the US large army winning handily over the very weak armed forces of a nation, and then a large resistance movement kicking the crap out of the US army while they try to Civilize that area. The point is that the civilzed powers are very unequal in power now adays, but short of large killing of of civilians, there is no national power nowadays that could effectively resist an irate populance.

So there have been tons of wars, just no government declaring war.

[JoeW]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') think peak oil theory is great. At its minimum, it's a great starting point for conversations our society needs to have about our economic model and our resource consumption. However, I'm not convinced it is valid.

[Ketzl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JoeW', '
')The Peak Oil Theory is irrefutable if the following assumption is correct:
Oil is a finite resource.

[Daryl]

"The Peak Oil Theory is irrefutable if the following assumption is correct:
Oil is a finite resource. That is the only assumption. If that is true, then mathematically speaking, there is a number of barrels of oil that will be extracted from the earth and that number represents the area under the curve of oil production versus time. You can't have a curve that starts at zero (which is not being contested), hits 84mbpd in 2005 (which is also not contested), and goes to zero (which it will if oil is indeed a finite resource) without there being a maximum in there somewhere. It is mathematically IMPOSSIBLE. The only way to attack the Peak Oil Theory is to attack its assumptions, which you have not done. To prove peak oil theory is false, you have to prove that oil is not a finite resource. Good luck with that."


If you go back to my original post, I titled it 3 reasons to be sceptical of POT. I did not think I was refuting it. There is a difference.

I am new to this and I'm probably getting in over my head before I have read more on the subject, but I don't think you are addressing the important issues. Of course oil is a finite resource. It's the discussion of the implications of it being finite that is important. The peak oilers I have read make the following arguments. 1) alternative fuels are not a viable alternative to keep our current system expanding, 2) demand for oil is inelastic to the point where it won't be able to adjust meaningfully to higher prices 3) the global economy cannot adjust smoothly or at all to slower demand for higher priced oil 4) Current transportation and distribution systems are fatally unviable and unable to adapt to scarce expensive oil 5) We can't find enough new oil to delay Hubbert's peak long enough to give us time to adjust.

Anyway, that's all I can think of off the top of my head. I hope I articulated some of those arguments properly. I don't think the statistical aspects of the core Hubbert's peak argument are that controversial. It's the arguments that are being made about issues 1-5 above that are full of broad assumptions, oversimplifications, many statistics. My own gut feeling is that when you address issues 1-5, you are taking on too big of subject. I don't think the full ramifactions of expensive oil are knowable. That doesn't mean we should discuss the issue. I'm just commenting on the nature of the discussions. The point of my post was that some aggressive advocates of these ideas are using too many questionable statisics (when making arguments 1-5), are presenting their arguments in a bullying, one sided fashion, and are possibly stirring up paranoid apocalyptic delusions for their own profit.

[jtmorgan61]

I haven't been on this board in quite a while... but here are some starting points for thinking about peak oil scenarios without getting into excruciatingly math-driven arguments about individual replacements for either oil or transportation (which I've already done... check out the archives).

I strongly recommend everyone read the excellent article "4%, 11%, who the hell cares?" by Stuart over at the oil drum. Those are Stuart's rough depletion rate cutoffs for turbulence and societal collapse, respectively. He makes a good argument.

I'd put those arguments in the context of current depletion rates. The north sea is an extreme example at 12-15%. The continental US, conversely, has depleted at more like 2% since peak in 1970. Saudi arabian fields that are depleting, if I remember correctly, are going at abbout 6-8% (this number may be wrong!). That suggests to me that global depletion is going to have a very hard time getting to double digits. If I remember correctly, many peak oil theorists such as Heinberg (~3.5%) and Skrebowski (~5%) give pretty low numbers

The depletion rate in fields that are already declining is going to be further mitigated by the fact that new fields are coming online, the fact that tertiary recovery methods can stem declines in some cases, coal liquefaction, gas to liquids, and oil sands, and perhaps by thermal depolymerization or oil shale. (The numbers pricing and scaling these options are in previous, longwinded arguments I've had on this board. They don't appear to be completely out of scale with current oil drilling projects).

[jtmorgan61]

I had to take issue with one post...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o, your dismissiveness of Communism, Daryl, is based upon forgetting the Chinese.

[fossilnut2]

...The point of my post was that some aggressive advocates of these ideas are using too many questionable statisics (when making arguments 1-5), are presenting their arguments in a bullying, one sided fashion, and are possibly stirring up paranoid apocalyptic delusions..."

True. However, I don't find them bullying but silly. There's some rational analysis of oil production, future supply and demand , etc. Unfortunately there's also the cliche group of Mad Max adherents who like to follow gurus and need to be part of a cult that is privy to 'the Truth'.

[Aaron]

I've had a few of these conversations, of course, and wanted to add that it's misleading to contemplate "the end of the world as we know it".

Resource depletion almost guarantees our world will be more like is has been than ever before...

Call em whatever you like... large groups of folks killing each other... that's war.

We have been doing it for centuries, and we're doing it today.

Do we really think oil scarcity will cause our planet to break out in peace?

The effects of depletion are bad... but nothing compared to how your peers will react to it.

Simmons says it in rich white-guy speak.

By the time we get to lawless, zombie-ridden, mutant biker landscapes, you will have been at war for many years and probably won't give a crap.

[bobcousins]

I wish there was a term to distinguish between "peak oil production" and "peak oil doom scenarios" (PODS?). I think noone disputes POP. I think what the OP refers to is actually PODS, and there is a legitimate debate over whether PODS is the outcome of POP or not. I guess we also need terms for "oil peaks, but business as usual", "oil peaks, leads to new society".

What happpened to the definitions for hard/soft landing, doomerosity levels etc? These sort of definitions could be put in a sticky so that new and not so new readers can get a quick steer. Someone will tell me they already are...

[mgibbons19]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('fossilnut2', ' ')True. However, I don't find them bullying but silly. There's some rational analysis of oil production, future supply and demand , etc. Unfortunately there's also the cliche group of Mad Max adherents who like to follow gurus and need to be part of a cult that is privy to 'the Truth'.

[Sunspot]

None of those three "reasons" has any scientific validity, and are therefore irrelevant.

[GoIllini]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'I') wish there was a term to distinguish between "peak oil production" and "peak oil doom scenarios" (PODS?). I think noone disputes POP. I think what the OP refers to is actually PODS, and there is a legitimate debate over whether PODS is the outcome of POP or not. I guess we also need terms for "oil peaks, but business as usual", "oil peaks, leads to new society".

What happpened to the definitions for hard/soft landing, doomerosity levels etc? These sort of definitions could be put in a sticky so that new and not so new readers can get a quick steer. Someone will tell me they already are...

[RonMN]

I have an ider

We all chip in to buy Aaron an atrtificial intelligence (AI) and let him load it onto the PO server...after it learns all it can about the subject it will give us the most logical conclusion.

The question is...do we really want to know what the most likely outcome will be?

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'I') have an ider

We all chip in to buy Aaron an atrtificial intelligence (AI) and let him load it onto the PO server...after it learns all it can about the subject it will give us the most logical conclusion.

The question is...do we really want to know what the most likely outcome will be?

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WebHubbleTelescope', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', '1')) It is too statistically dense. Statistics are are inherently unreliable because they are subject to misinterpretation, falsification, bad data input, exagerration etc.

[Daryl]

I thought it would be helpful to repost a comment made in August by Dr. Doom in the "Savinar Debunked" thread that Matt Savinar started. He gives several examples of how statistics are tricky and generally makes one of my points very articulately.





"Matt, I also want to thank you because it was through your site that I discovered the PO phenomenon.

That said, I do think your detractor makes some good points, they are points that I myself have come to believe are flaws in the doomsday argument.

Specifically, I think it is demonstrably untrue that conservation won't work. As your detractor did, I like to use Europe as my example. I'm sure you'll agree, there is tremendous waste in our current way of doing business as usual. Where we disagree is that I believe conservation will buy us time, perhaps quite a lot of time given what I see as a very great amount of waste. I don't buy into Jevon's paradox - as prices go through the roof, people will use less oil. But, for example, if they can get the same "transportation" benefit as they did before by switching to a more efficient vehicle, they will. Result: they travel the same number of miles as before, spend just as much as they did before to go those miles, but use less oil to do so. This is at the heart of your detractor's argument that people buy transportation, not gasoline. That's exactly right - you must consider the utility derived from a consumptive activity, not just the consumption itself. The fact that consumption hasn't dropped much despite a huge rise in the price of oil isn't a counterpoint to this - demand for energy is inelastic and the price will have to go up a whole heap more to get people to change their ways. Also, there is lag built into the system as it takes time to e.g. turn over the fleet of inefficient vehicles with better ones.

Another point that I've tried to make here, also in the "debunk" document, is that concluding that we can't build alternatives quickly enough to matter e.g. more efficient cars or whatever by computing some huge "additional" energy expenditure that would be required is flawed for exactly the reason stated in the debunker's note - it ignores the "going concern" nature of the economy. We are already producing cars, we are already building power plants, houses, etc. These are already counted in current consumption, and it is double-counting to assume some huge amount of additional energy has to be consumed to switch to alternatives. I'm convinced that if we can manage the transition, wind, solar, and nuclear energy, coupled with some use of biofuels, can sustain our present civilization, especially if as much waste as possible is wrung out of it.

Another related problem that I found with your argument is concluding that we can't develop alternatives because we need oil to build them out. Not so! We need energy to build them out, which is not the same thing. Given some overall additional energy resource we can always find a way to make that energy usable by e.g. heavy equipment or whatever. One of the simplest ways that might be done is by displacement. For example, if I can produce more electricity, and I can use that to displace some existing use of oil (by, for example, getting people into plug-in hybrid cars) then I'll free up that oil for use in heavy equipment to e.g. mine coal or whatever. The focus on EROEI (rather than on dollar figures) is a correct one from an engineering point of view, but it's a mistake to assume the EI part must come from oil just because it does so today.

I also wonder about the accuracy of many of the EROEI figures I see. Many inaccurate numbers seem to fly about, particularly for technologies (such as nuclear power) that are disliked for other reasons. You know the old saying, lies, damned lies, and statistics! I suspect many researchers find the numbers they want to support their position (for or against some energy source). Indeed, I expect there is a good bit of double-counting error in many EROEI figures, too. For example, do they count all the energy needed to feed and transport the workers that build the plant or whatever. Oops - we have to feed them anyway (assuming we're trying to avoid collapse).

I won't bother with the economic arguments, economics is hopelessly muddled, indeed the dismal science. At some level the very concept of debt implies an assumption of growth. You're right and your detractor is wrong about this. It need not be true at an individual scale, as your detractor notes, but if you take the entire system as a whole, then it's a closed system, and somewhere, somehow, some growth is needed to make the debt system work.

Where I would disagree is that the system is on the verge of collapse. We could well get crises of various sources (e.g. a wave of personal bankruptcies from the housing bubble and shoddy lending practices), but I don't see any reason why there is any particular "magic number" for the price of oil that will precipitate a collapse of the international system.

Another area where I would disagree with you is that growth necessarily has to involve increased resource (and particularly energy) consumption. Any number of counter-examples (most involving intellectual progress in the sciences and arts) can be found if you look around. It's fair to say that certain types of physical, material growth (most particularly in the human population) must inevitably reach some limits. I won't argue with you that we may be beyond sustainable limits for our planet, though the jury is still out on that.

The bottom line, the indisputable fact, is that oil is a finite resource and we have been running out of it since the day the first barrel was pumped. We can't keep acting like our FF resources are inexhaustible. At some point, we won't, probably not before some real pain is felt, but, IMO, probably before it's too late to preserve our technological civilization."