[DamienJasper]

Marshal energy plan?

While we're at it, you clearly aren't getting my point as far as the BB constantly pitting Lynch vs Campbell, using logical fallacies of "Whoever's right more wins" using Hubbert as the pariah.

While I'm on it, speaking of people who can't come up with answers, Campbell's Rimini protocol is all well and good. But exactly how does Campbell figure to do some of this stuff?

AND, as another sidenote, I thought the date may have been shoved around due to the hurricanes knocking out production. Out of curiosity, what sort of effect do you think the hurricane has/had on the peak?

[seahorse2]

What does BB stand for?

As far as a marshall energy plan, I believe in implementing the ideas outlined by the Hirsch report, bc its something that the U.S.A can do without worrying about global cooperation (which is what Campbell wants - fine in a perfect world, but this is an imperfect world). Further, if America can quit importing so much oil, it would solve, for many years, the world's current peak oil crisis. So, the Hirsch ideas would solve the United States problem and solve, temporarily at least, the world's imminent peak oil problem.

[DamienJasper]

BB=Bulletin Board.

[seahorse2]

I agree with you there. The continued reliance, by anyone, on Campbell or Lynch is wasted effort. I think Campbell and Lynch are good starting points to learn the issues, but its a waste of time to stay there and argue either position too long. Its important to understand what each is saying and also understand the weaknesses of each of their arguments, but its also necessary to move on.

The reason I will sometimes support some of what Campbell says is only to make sure people appreciate that peak oil is a serious issue that needs consideration. If in fact, as Lynch says, oil will be replaced by a new energy source (which everyone agrees with), its important to start making that transition now, not later, and start the transition probably at a governmental level to drive the effort with money, tax incentives

[fossilnut2]

Campbell says, Jesus says, Lynch says, Nostradamus says...

The cult of the personality. Peak Oil is more or less valid because 'the guru says' Why? What special superpowers of logic do does a guru possess that the gullible don't bestow on him.

[seahorse2]

Fossilnut,


Fossilnut, bc people learn, it does not mean they are cultist. You went to school. You read books, but there is a big difference between learning, gaining knowlege and being a cultist, and you know that. As you know, "cult" is associated with worship. Debate is not worship, nor is learning.

But tell us where you stand Fossilnut. Do you believe in this concept of a world oil peak? If so, when do you think it will occur? If you believe it will occur, do you believe it will be an issue, non issue? Show us how you are not gullible like the rest of us. Give us another guru to follow.

[DamienJasper]

Okay, I was kinda sympathetic to fossilnut until his guru statement. Geologists aren't gurus. There's a huge difference. 2nd off, if history is an indication, Jesus turned out to be much more than a guru.

I don't see why people say it doesn't matter if the peak is '07 or 10. Those three years are a huge deal to me.

[ashurbanipal]

I'll take a shot at the second question. Upfront, my position is that Campbell is more credible than Lynch. Here's why:

1) As background, it should be noted that the two dates mean something in completely different domains. When Lynch says that Peak will occur in 2050 (if that's what he says--I know he thinks it's a long way off and I seem to recall 2050 is his pick), he's really understood as meaning that peak will happen a long time in the future. If he's still alive then, and he's roughly correct, he probably won't be saying that 2050 is THE year. When Campbell says 2007 or 2010, he's understood as meaning that exact year. So there's a difference in the semantic nature of each prediction.

This is important because by picking a far-off date, Lynch leaves himself quite a bit of wiggle-room. After all, if peak occurs in 2055, who would blame him for being 5 years off? Who would blame him, or say that he's flip-flopping, if he revised his prediction by 5 years right now? On the other hand, Campbell doesn't seem to get that kind of slack. If he switches from 2007 to 2010, people start howling about his credibility.

Seen in the same light as Lynch's prediction, though, Campbell's prediction is that peak is going to happen soon. Not later, and maybe not exactly when Campbell says. Just soon.

It may be said that predicting a far away date exactly is more difficult than predicting a close-in date, but I don't know that this is true. The factors that make the one more difficult make the other more difficult as well. Sure, there could be massive political upheaval between now and 2050. There could be massive political upheaval between now and 2010 as well. There could be a bunch of new data coming to light in 20 years. There could be a bunch of new data coming to light tomorrow. Over the long term, uncertainties are statistically more likely to creep in. But that's a double-edged sword--they don't necessarily creep in at a greater rate for any given period, but Lynch knows that the law of averages is on his side. In other words, knowing that everyone else thinks he's at a disadvantage, he's able to use that to his advantage. Not that I think he actually sits around and thinks about it that way.

2) To me, therefore, the question of who is more credible boils down to whether their methods and the available evidence support an earlier or later date for peak. Nevermind if they support exactly 2010 or exactly 2050. I believe that the available evidence supports an earlier date.

3) Finally, if you read his papers, Lynch hasn't been any better on short or long-term predictions than Campbell. Neither has anyone else that I've read.

That said, I've no doubt that there are lots of double standards out there.

[DamienJasper]

Lord, I think I'm gonna go crazy again.

[ashurbanipal]

You've been crazy before?

[DamienJasper]

My first posts when I came here caught me in the throes of near suicidal depression because of my PO research.

Around that time I interviewed some of the professors at my college. Martin Hackworth is a smart guy and I want to speak with him again. The head of the geology department is one of the "Plateau" theorists. He postulates that it's not logical to use the bell curve because why would consumption remain the same in the face of prohibitive costs? He called places like Savinar's site "The Sky is Falling dot com". Kinda funny, seeing as how this is a guy who's worked in energy his whole entire life. His advice to me; invest in altermative fuels once you have the money. Even if they don't work, they'll still be valued.

I have no idea why I told you that last part...

[seahorse2]

I agree that to the individual, a 1-3 year difference in timing does make a difference. I, like you and most people, am worried about the here and now. I think its highly unlikely that we will have an imminent peak in oil production with a steep decline rate. Therefore, I don't see the real depressing doom scenario happening.

I also think that it would be real difficult to ever reach the doom and gloom scenario simply bc increasing prices, like we have now and had in the 70s, lead to recessions and demand destruction for oil. This constant demand destruction extends the date of world oil peak.


Unless Saudi Arabia goes into decline soon (argued by Simmons), I agree that the most likely oil depletion scenario is a long bumpy plateau (as argued by Saudi Aramco and others- Exxon Mobile for example). However, for your average American this long bumpy plateau means the "good life" will come down several notches. This seems to be the scenario that Michael Klare suggests, where the world enters a period of resource wars with the various countries of the world competing for finite resources, namely, oil. This position also seems to be supported by the ICF report on the oil refinery crunch, which concludes that by 2010 the countries of the world will compete for the finite refined product on the market. These resource wars, if not contained, could possibly trigger some doomsday scenario. At a minimum, though, this scenario means serious economic difficulty for the United States, especially if the dollar is replaced as the currency for trading oil contracts.

So, even though this last scenario is not the "end of humanity", it has several "depressing" possibilities, and I mean that in the sense that the economic and political climate Americans have grown accustomed to will become "depressed."

What does it mean for people like you and I? Hopefully, we are more intelligent voters. Hopefully, it means we begin living in our means now, making wiser purchasing decisions, understanding the difference between need and desire, hopefully, we make better career choices along the way and stay open and flexible in our planning.

[bobcousins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DamienJasper', 'I') don't see why people say it doesn't matter if the peak is '07 or 10. Those three years are a huge deal to me.

[DamienJasper]

Seeing as how I don't have the time to type out every single detail of my life past and present to justify this, I don't see why you don't just take me at my word. But I'll just leave you with this;

Why the fuck not?

[bobcousins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DamienJasper', 'S')eeing as how I don't have the time to type out every single detail of my life past and present to justify this, I don't see why you don't just take me at my word. But I'll just leave you with this;

Why the fuck not?

[cornholio]

Personally, 3 more years will mean a lot to me... It is time enough to get a more efficient car, pay down the home morgage some, and possibly get some land close to town (30 acres or so) which will be a source of wood in the near term and a place for an efficient earth contact shelter in the longer term...

[DamienJasper]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DamienJasper', 'S')eeing as how I don't have the time to type out every single detail of my life past and present to justify this, I don't see why you don't just take me at my word. But I'll just leave you with this;

Why the fuck not?

[wilburke]

Ad Hominen attacks aside, the one thing about Campbell's numbers that everyone seems to be missing is that his "Peak" year includes all liquids, from the light crude up to the more expensive/lower yielding heavy and deep water oils. One thing hasn't changed: according to Campbell, the peak year for light crude is 2004, i.e. the cheap stuff. Not only is this date clearly behind us, but the behavior of the oil markets reflects this in how the prices have shot up in the past year.

[dolanbaker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', 'M')y take is we're on the bumpy plateau. The actual middle (peak) is irrelevent. Continual economic growth is going to stall soon, being crimped by supply/refinery problems, and recession is around the corner.

Getting physically, financially and mentally prepared for a recession is the best we can do. We no longer have the twenty years for a seamless transition, and I don't think we have ten years for a bumpy transition. I think we are heading for hard times but collapse is still a way off.

But, hey, that's just an opinion, and they and we are free at the moment.

[Cid_Yama]

It's perfectly ok for you to go back to your life and pretend Peak Oil will not happen in your lifetime.

Reality does not require your belief, and you will meet it however you are.