[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '
')Many a person has died trying to cross a river with an average depth of 3 feet. Statistics are manipulated by the statistician and interpreted incorrectly by the typical person. The global warming stats that average out a 5 degree increase, for temperate climates, are of limited or negative untility, until you understand it's going to likely get much much colder in the winter and blistering hot in the summer. What sticks in people' minds is the average, so the meaning of climate change is actually stripped away using stats.

[Daryl]

I am the original poster. I believe I clarified my statement earlier. I don't thing the statistics surrounded the core depletion argument are too "dense". It's the speculation about the consequences of depletion that make me pause. I think too many negative assumptions being made. Many times these assumptions are based on statistics being tossed around that aren't necessarily trustworthy.

I do believe the "doomers" are raising alot of valid concerns - ineffiency of aternative fuels, lack of scalablity of alternative fuels, ability of the economy to adjust, resource wars etc. However, in dramatising the problem, they are probably overstating their case. They quote alot of interesting statistics, it's just there are so many of them and such large issues are being addressed. For example, as discussed earlier, they are pessimistic about conservation and quote statistics on the amount of oil required to rebuild the entire nations auto fleet, igoring the fact that the auto fleet turns over every 7 years anyway. Thus they are double counting oil consumption on this issue.

[Daryl]

I have a technical question. Does anybody have an estimate on how much oil it requires to refine oil into gasoline? Hydrogen is criticized because it is expensive to produce. When they calculate how much oil is used to produce hydrogen, do they subtract from that the amount of oil used to refine the same amount of gasoline? Can 't we assume at this point that producing the hydrogen will be replacing the production of the same amount of gasoline? Just wondering if this has been hashed out already somewhere here on the boards. This could be another example of how tricky and misleading statistics can be. Thanks in advance.

[NEOPO]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') am the original poster. I believe I clarified my statement earlier. I don't thing the statistics surrounded the core depletion argument are too "dense". It's the speculation about the consequences of depletion that make me pause. I think too many negative assumptions being made. Many times these assumptions are based on statistics being tossed around that aren't necessarily trustworthy.

I do believe the "doomers" are raising alot of valid concerns - ineffiency of aternative fuels, lack of scalablity of alternative fuels, ability of the economy to adjust, resource wars etc. However, in dramatising the problem, they are probably overstating their case. They quote alot of interesting statistics, it's just there are so many of them and such large issues are being addressed. For example, as discussed earlier, they are pessimistic about conservation and quote statistics on the amount of oil required to rebuild the entire nations auto fleet, igoring the fact that the auto fleet turns over every 7 years anyway. Thus they are double counting oil consumption on this issue.

[Daryl]

"I do feel for you.
I know what you want to hear.
I am sorry to say that if you are to hear what you want to hear you will only be lending your ear to lies.

Keep poking about here and you will find that those you now perceive as doomer's are merely moderates and soft landers."




Quick crash.....economic collapse......grid failure...... Will make Mad Max look like the Sound of Music. Night of the Living Dead is more like it.

Have a nice day.Hope they reach your bunker last..... javascript:emoticon(':)')
Smile

[Daryl]

Another example of how statistics can be misleading. from - Gary D. Halbert and InvestorsInsight [garyhalbert@investorsinsight.com]

"Much has been said about the shortage of refineries in the US. Depending on which source you cite, there are either 144 or 148 refineries operating in the US, down from 324 in 1981. Much has also been written and said about why we have not built a new refinery in this country in almost 30 years. There are numerous arguments (and conspiracy theories) about why we don't have more refineries, but I will leave that subject to others.

What you may not know is that despite the fall in the number of refineries to less than half from the peak in 1981, refining capacity has actually risen substantially over the last 20 years. Since 1985, refining capacity has risen from 12,500,000 barrels per day to over 17,000,000 barrels per day this year according to the American Petroleum Institute.

This significant increase, even as the number of refineries was cut by more than half, has been possible mainly because: 1) many existing refineries have been expanded and upgraded; and 2) major advances in technology. "

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat you may not know is that despite the fall in the number of refineries to less than half from the peak in 1981, refining capacity has actually risen substantially over the last 20 years. Since 1985, refining capacity has risen from 12,500,000 barrels per day to over 17,000,000 barrels per day this year according to the American Petroleum Institute.

[bobcousins]

Does this help ?
U.S. Refining Capacity, Crude Runs, and Utilization Rate, 1973-2002

[stepka]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Any apocalyptic forecast is should be held in suspicion. We have records of them going back as far as 5 or 6 thousand years and so far they have all been wrong.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'D')oes this help ?
U.S. Refining Capacity, Crude Runs, and Utilization Rate, 1973-2002

[Daryl]

To Stepka:

All your points are fair. I have not refuted peak oil theory. Wasn't trying to. I think peak oil theory is more than fascinating. The core depletion argument is very credible. The speculations on this board about the effects of depletion not on as solid ground as the core argument, but they aren't insane ravings either. They are very realistic potential ramifications of depletion. It is vital that our society begins to address the issues raised by peak oil theory. I think peak oilers are an advance guard of a revolutionary change that will start taking in the not too distant future. Peak oilers have a message to get out. The sooner and more effectively the message gets out, the better chance we have of solving some of these problems.

I still say, though, that we have to careful how statistics are bandied about. They shouldn't be twisted by super debaters to fit their arguments. I think expositions of these problems can be made without the evangelical apocalyptic badgering of a Savinar or a Kunstler. They may have a role as attention getters, but I think those that follow in their wake will have a more permanent effectiveness by presenting the arguments in a more balanced, moderate tone.

So, if I started this thread over, I wouldn't name it 3 reasons to be sceptical of Peak Oil Theory. Maybe - 3 ways to improve the explanation of Peak Oil Theory and its effects.

[NEOPO]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ny apocalyptic forecast is should be held in suspicion. We have records of them going back as far as 5 or 6 thousand years and so far they have all been wrong.

[MrBill]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Daryl', 'I') think peak oilers are an advance guard of a revolutionary change that will start taking in the not too distant future. Peak oilers have a message to get out. The sooner and more effectively the message gets out, the better chance we have of solving some of these problems.