[bubmachine]

Hello everyone.

I am reasonably new to all this peak oil stuff. It is all very interesting.

My main concern, is the actual scientific status of the theory. I am a bit of a Popperite, and I tend to have a strict criteria of what is science and what isn't. (I even think Darwinism is a dubious theory from a scientific point of view, so I am hard to please! "Scientific consensus" is nonsense!)

The theory seems to depend on three main ideas:

1) Oil is an extremely limited resource.
2) The US peaked in 1971.
3) The global peak, due to the lack of discovery of oil fields, must be sooner rather than later.

I think the idea of a peak is almost tautological; a geological product is limited, by definition. I know that some people doubt that oil is a fossil fuel at all, but this does not make much difference. From a logical point of view, there cannot be a limitless supply of it.

If it is correct that Hubbard predicted that the US would peak, then this, of course, suggests the collaboration of the theory. It does not strictly prove the theory from a logical point of view.

It seems to me that the idea that the oil will peak is obvious. But it seems that it is beyond the limits of science to predict when it will happen. No-one seems to know how much oil is in the ground. By using the data of discovery, seems very weak as an accurate method of prediction. It is too easy to explain falsified predictions on other factors. (The oil crisis caused the 2000 prediction to be delayed, the OPEC countries are exaggerating the amount of reserves .... all these are "ad-hoc" hypotheses to "save" the theory).

My main problem is that false predictions, by the peak oil theorists, are always explained away by these methods, and I am afraid, this is a sign of a pseudoscience.

Perhaps we could say that no-one can give hard evidence for when the oil will peak. It seems difficult to base any kind of political policy on such a vague prediction.

It could be argued that the peak oil theory, although weak from a strictly scientific point of view, is in awareness, but the powers that be are "managing" the oil supply. (Greg Palast has argued that the Iraqi policy, for decades, is to keep it off the market. Maybe a "soft-landing" is being planned. The Saudi oil will take the main pressure in the short-term, and Iraq and Venezuela can take over the main production when Saudi becomes a problem.)

[bubmachine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', 'W')orld peak has nothing to do with scarcity - oil is not scarce. It has nothing to do with the US Peak (why would it?). And - the timing of global peak is not made "sooner" because of lack of discovery.

[Aaron]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t does not strictly prove the theory from a logical point of view.

[NEOPO]

Bub - I will help

Uhm Gideon - I dont understand what you are saying.
1.Oil might not be scarce per se yet cheap and easy oil is.

2.Every nations depletion is part of peak oil - how could it not be?

3.Discovery could effect "peak" yet most charts allow for some discovery so to effect peak we would either have to experience far less or way more discovery then we anticipated and this could only be seen in the proverbial "rearview mirror".

As it stands and according to the generally accepted definition of the word "PEAK OIL" december 2005 was the peak in production that is said to correlate with the midway point of conventional oil depletion.

Now wait for Gideon to provide details and be prepared to counter attack!

He will use issues like extrapolations of demand and depletion curves, human populations, economies, the laws of thermodynamics as well as the concept of EROEI and perhaps even Energy density!

At that point you will either go into a deep denial and rationalization phase or reveal yourself as the star wars cornucopian that you are
Whatever you choose - may the force be with you.... always.


As far as Aaron goes - there is no defense against that!!

[bubmachine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')As it stands and according to the generally accepted definition of the word "PEAK OIL" december 2005 was the peak in production that is said to correlate with the midway point of conventional oil depletion.

[bubmachine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gideon', '
')You know, I often wonder if Exxon mobile or the Govt. or other institutions having a vested interest in keeping the lid on send guys in to PO and other sites to say things like "this is pseudoscience."

[jbrovont]

Uh oh - a decoy.

Is there really global warming? Is the climate really changing?
Is the pope Catholic?

There are lots of great resources available both on and on this site about what peak theory is.

However, debating whether pi really is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to it's circumference...is...uh... enough said.

Neither are we debating what the definition of the word 'is' is either.

And BTW, Gideon, CNN actually ran an article about this a week or so ago. I can dig it out of my RSS archive if you're interested.

[bubmachine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbrovont', 'U')h oh - a decoy.

[Ludi]

The peak oil theory is extremely robust. Please do some more reading, bub.

[bubmachine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'T')he peak oil theory is extremely robust. Please do some more reading, bub.

[Dreamtwister]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bubmachine', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', '
')As it stands and according to the generally accepted definition of the word "PEAK OIL" december 2005 was the peak in production that is said to correlate with the midway point of conventional oil depletion.

[waegari]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bubmachine', '
')
My main problem is that false predictions, by the peak oil theorists, are always explained away by these methods, and I am afraid, this is a sign of a pseudoscience.

Perhaps we could say that no-one can give hard evidence for when the oil will peak. It seems difficult to base any kind of political policy on such a vague prediction.

[bubmachine]

Dreamtwister, cheers for the info.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('waegari', '
')But let's suppose false predictions would be a problem.
As far as I'm aware the majority of PO theorists does not even believe we have already passed the peak. Up till now only Deffeyes and Bhaktari
have voiced the opinion that we're already there, and as far as i know they have not retracted on that yet.
So up till now your own theory (or putting it more friendly, your hypothesis) that PO theory invariably explains away false predictions has not been corroborated yet.

[Micki]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he theory seems to depend on three main ideas:

1) Oil is an extremely limited resource.
2) The US peaked in 1971.
3) The global peak, due to the lack of discovery of oil fields, must be sooner rather than later.

[seldom_seen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bubmachine', 'I') think I mainly oppose Heinberg's doomsday predictions. Talking about "die-offs" and moving to an agricultural lifestyle is perfectly useless, because it is based on an unscientific prophecy.

[Ludi]

If you're going to bitch about the "scientific status of the peak oil theory" bub, at least be clear on what you're bitching about.

[bubmachine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Micki', '
')2) That US peaked in 71 does not have any significant input/impact into PO theory except that
A) Hubbert predicted the peak with pretty good accuracy and his theory for world peak therefore should be taken seriously and
B) It gives an example of a nation that has peaked and gives evidence that this happens. If oil is abiotic and wells refill themselves, they do so with such a low speed that it will not have any impact in a foreseeable future.

[bubmachine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seldom_seen', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bubmachine', 'I') think I mainly oppose Heinberg's doomsday predictions. Talking about "die-offs" and moving to an agricultural lifestyle is perfectly useless, because it is based on an unscientific prophecy.

[bubmachine]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I')f you're going to bitch about the "scientific status of the peak oil theory" bub, at least be clear on what you're bitching about.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bubmachine', '
')The main thing I am referring to is Hubbard's original (failed) prediction of a 2000 peak. From a scientific point of view, the theory is "falsified" because the theory cannot expect to predict political occurances. (The 1973 oil crisis).