[Markos101]

Hi, it's (sortof) good to be back on the Peak Oil forums. I realised peak oil now a couple of years ago, and it certainly changed by life view.

It's made me learn a lot, particularly about the way in which groups with certain ideologies are now empowered by a virtually limitless supply of information on the internet; often from academic sources that any sane person would regard as reputable.

But academics are as much prone to their own ideologies as much as anyone else; and however much they may be experienced, they also can disagree remarkably about exactly the same topic.

For example, you may find academics who predicted peak oil happened 5 years ago or very soon (e.g. ASPO/Campbell et al.). These groups are generally followed by those whom dislike industrial civilisation, and feel in some way they disbenefit from it, and those whom have a general distrust of the more centralised information superstructures we experience today in the form of 'Big Media'. They believe the truth is only uncovered by focusing away from the generally held view; and feel empowered by the belief that they are of a viewer, almost annointed set of people who really know the truth and can see through the veil that other's cannot.

And they are correct in stating that Colin Campbell, from his credentials at least, is a reliable source of information. Campbell et. al. state that oil data is skewed, unreliable, and that their's is the most reliable out there; that governments are covering up on the subject and putting their heads in the sand; and that economists fail to recognise the tie between wealth and energy consumption and absurdly forecast ever increasing economic growth. He claims that OPEC have created spurious revisions and protect their political interests, and that this wide-ranging psuedoconspiracy has led to apathy, foolishness, and widespread ignorance.

However, there are also other oil groups whom don't predict peak oil for a couple of decades at least, whom have just the academic affliations as Campbell. And they point out that 'dr doom' Campbell has predicted the day of the apocolypse before, and been incorrect. They point out that the earth is chock full of heavy oils and shales. And those who oppose this view claim that the energy-ratio isn't as good for these sources and that it just goes to show how bad economists are, and how ecology reins supreme in an almost Nature-as-deity sort of fashion.

But even those who do agree peak in the somewhat near future, they disagree that man is akin to bacteria in a petri dish that have just reached the peak of their agar-consuming orgy (mainly, of course, because the earth can yield crops which does not dry up overnight, even if gas does become more expensive).

There's also equal wars between 'experts' between who believe 9/11 happened as the official conspiracy stated, and those whom believe it was an 'inside job'.

One of the things that peak oil made me learn is that I can now find a reputable, reliable expert with years of experience to prove whatever point I wish - whether I take the left or right, convservative or liberal, MIHOP or LIHOP. Those whom take either side tend to focus purely on the information that supports their chosen worldview, and tend to almost unconsciously filter out information to the contrary.

Does that mean that any debate or research of peak oil is a waste of time?

No, but I also believe from experience that the old adage of 'it's usually the place between the two extremes' is usually the most befitting to reality.

My two cents,

Markos

[Ludi]

And you yourself live on a planet where ecology doesn't reign supreme?

Really.


See again yet another person confusing the science of ecology and the philosophy of environmentalism.

Don't y'all ever get curious about finding out the difference between these two things?

[Markos101]

What no one has proven to me Ludi is exactly why man's use of tools on earth is unsustainable.

The idea of peak oil - and the return to plush, sustainable living after a period of much pain and tension - appeals much to academics such as Richard Heinberg; far left environmentalists to whom the demon on earth is 'the corporations'. Now I've read his writings, and to his compliment, he does know what he is talking about.

But what no one has explained is exactly why man's use of tools - including but not limited to farming - in supplement to nature's cycles is unsustainable.

And my point really is, I am arguing between two sides which ultmately do not lead to what many (sometimes very intelligent) peak oil interest groups seek.

Peak oil; whether expressively a psuedo-religion or not; does have all the hallmarks of a form of spiritual movement.

It's leaders - impartial academics with no industrial interests to protect or political propaganda to bring forth - write the texts which the followers protect with ever increasing strong emotional and intellectual attachment. Even if criticial thinking is their strength, they tend to ignore evidence from equally academically affiliated parties unconsciously. They feel special, and try to evangelise other 'disbelievers' either of their impending doom, or that by the end of their lives they will be farming using cattle and globalisation will be but a strange and temporary phenomonen that may or may not have brought about a despotic global order of corporate rule. And one of the most pivotal strengths is that it cannot be absolutely disproven.

But the more they discuss it, the more they feel empowered by the fact that they are becoming experts; not experts at ecology, industrial energy, or economics (for only long term experienced daily workers in the fields are the most knowledgable in their fields); but what they are becoming, and like it all the more, is experts at rationalising for the movement they support. After going down the rabbit-hole; or taking the red pill, other peak oilers are their brothers in peak oil.

Is ASPO, or the Church Of Peak Oil correct - perhaps they are?

But is peak oil 'truth'? Absolutely not.

Markos

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut is peak oil 'truth'? Absolutely not.

[Rincewind]

The Peak Oil concept is a testable hypothesis supported by an increasing amount of evidence.

To disprove Peak oil hypothesis is simple

demonstrate (with evidence) that there is an ongoing process that is producing more than 30 billion barrels of oil a year and that this process is increasing production at 2 to 3%% per annum

If you want 'truth'[sup]TM[/sup] go to a church, mosque, or temple.

Rincewind

[Markos101]

Before I get seduced back into the intellectual cult, this will be my last posting in this thread.

I'm not desputing Peak Oil (you've reacted as if I am). I agree that it's a testable hypothesis, and that it will happen; the time at which it will happen and the steepness of the curve - and the ability for other sources, wherever they may be found, to replace the deficit is completely a matter of debate.

What I'm stating is my belief that many followers of the peak oil movement are not interested in solving the peak oil problem; for as many will know, discussing and debating in a forum will not do anything to solve the problem they debate. It can only be solved, to whatever extent, by those working daily in industry.

What they're interested in has become an ideology that has the intellectual and emotional attachment of a religion, similar to that of followers who attend the church, mosque, or temple that you mention; rather than an active attempt at solving the problem in the real world.

I think that's the truth (shall I put a 'tm' here as well?)

Markos

[jeezlouise]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', 'W')hat no one has proven to me Ludi is exactly why man's use of tools on earth is unsustainable.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jeezlouise', 'W')hat's so confusing about that?

[BrownDog]

What is "the peak oil movement"? I want to know whether or not I'm a follower.


BTW, subtlety is lost on the masses.

[americandream]

Markos, your choice of the analogy "tools" is well chosen. I guess, one needs to ask oneself, is humankind using a sledgehammer to crack his winters cache of nuts, or some other perhaps gentler tool.

I try and avoid using value ridden language in analysing resourcing issues affecting the future development of the planet. All the most vociferous sentiments are little more than playground catcalling and do not address the core issue. What is that issue?

Whilst I have severe misgivings regarding some of the pronouncements emanating from some individuals in this forum, I cannot escape the fact that no matter what we might say or do, the spotlight is increasingly on accessibility to our core systemic resource (oil) as the use of it increases with the extension of cornucopian lifestyles across the globe.

If anything, I suspect that we have seen nothing yet, in these early days of development in previously non-cornucopian societies the likes of the former USSR and the Asian giants of the East (an additional 3 billion or so of exceedingly enterprising huiman beings from ancient civilisations with histories of commerce).

IMHO, the next decade will not only see a severe dislocation in terms of the on time deliverability of oil, it will see a significant reduction in lifestyle quality as well as at least these 3 billion additional consumers attempt to recreate what was previously the lifestyles of a much smaller group WITHIN the Western hemisphere (a group within a then narrow group).

So, in conclusion, the question is not whether one or the other position is extreme, the question is do we have the ability to shift to an energy level that not only maintains the system in its current expansion, but allows for its naturally upward growth.

I for one have seen nothing to replace oil in terms of its scope and versatility so I for one am in favour of systemic adjustment and greater accountability globally of the degree that allows us to both husband this resource and maintain some modicum of technology based civil society...in the hope that given time, we may move to that functional next level.

PeakOil is a reality....its in the headlights if not in the mirror.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', 'W')hat no one has proven to me Ludi is exactly why man's use of tools on earth is unsustainable.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', ' ')
What I'm stating is my belief that many followers of the peak oil movement are not interested in solving the peak oil problem; for as many will know, discussing and debating in a forum will not do anything to solve the problem they debate. It can only be solved, to whatever extent, by those working daily in industry.

What they're interested in has become an ideology that has the intellectual and emotional attachment of a religion, similar to that of followers who attend the church, mosque, or temple that you mention; rather than an active attempt at solving the problem in the real world.

I think that's the truth (shall I put a 'tm' here as well?)

Markos

[Markos101]

The basic problem with carrying capacity argument is that it assumes that human beings are akin to bacteria in a petri dish - that we have been given one spot of nutrient agar and have uncontrollably consumed to our peak.

This picture assumes that the earth has humans on it (that is correct), and that oil and gas are our only resource (that isn't correct) that will disappear once used; that farming methods spring only from Haber-Bosch. That isn't true.

Depending on who's writings you gravitate to - which would depend on your chosen worldview - you can find plenty of organisations whom have found similar yields without the use of haber-bosch.

Note that being capable of finding similar crop yields without the use of haber-bosch would very much kill-off the petri dish argument, but that many folks seem to ignore evidence of similar yields using different methods and different strains, because it offends I believe their emotional attachment to the idea of a population reduction, rather than their logic.

Is it a 'truth that sets you free'?

Markos

Markos

[bobcousins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')owever, it is the fact that man's numbers are beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of the earth by the estimation of a preponderance of pherologists.

[jeezlouise]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Markos101', 'D')epending on who's writings you gravitate to - which would depend on your chosen worldview - you can find plenty of organisations whom have found similar yields without the use of haber-bosch.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'H')owever, it is the fact that man's numbers are beyond the sustainable carrying capacity of the earth by the estimation of a preponderance of pherologists.