PeakOil is You
The scientific status of the peak oil theory
Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory
by firestarter » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 13:17:56
Popper's problem of induction doesn't mean we can't use science to approximate geological/geopolitical probabilties or timelines regarding peak oil theory. Most complex issues do not follow a strictly deductive process. I don't think peak oilers generally employ Hegelian dialectical methodologies to fortify their arguments in hopes of deluding the uninitiated. I don't need any complex reasoning skills to understand that in 1990 there was apprx 11 million barrels of spare capacity a day on the market, and by 2006 there was apprx 1.5 million barrels of spare capacity. Induction doesn't keep us from seeing the forrest because of the trees. Denial might, however.
-
firestarter - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1171
- Joined: Sun 19 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory
by Dreamtwister » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 14:42:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bubmachine', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seldom_seen', '
')It's been pointed out over and over that the world peak in production can only be confirmed in the rear view mirror....
The inability to predetermine this moment does not make it any less real or imminent.
')It's been pointed out over and over that the world peak in production can only be confirmed in the rear view mirror....
The inability to predetermine this moment does not make it any less real or imminent.
If it can only be confirmed in the "rear view mirror", then you cannot say that it is imminent. ?
Maybe "imminent" is a little sensationalist, but with the data available, we can reasonably state a time-range. Even the hyper-optimists like CERA say "2030 at the latest".
That may not be "imminent", but it's certainly cause for immediate action.
And don't pay any attention to RGR when he says things like "2 years post-peak and nothing bad". When he makes those claims, he consistently fails to notice the ~$13 billion worth of adjustable rate mortgages that reset last week, the half-trillion dollar war and the degeneration of Mexico from third-world vacation destination to failed state.
The whole of human history is a refutation by experiment of the concept of "moral world order". - Friedrich Nietzsche
-
Dreamtwister - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2529
- Joined: Mon 06 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
Re: The scientific status of the peak oil theory
by JustinFrankl » Sat 13 Jan 2007, 15:37:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bubmachine', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JustinFrankl', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd Heinberg dislikes coal because it is dirty and nuclear because it is dangerous. This is silly, and it shows a basic ignorance of psychology or sociology.
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd Heinberg dislikes coal because it is dirty and nuclear because it is dangerous. This is silly, and it shows a basic ignorance of psychology or sociology.
Nuclear waste remains radioactive and toxic to the environment for millions of years. Coal is a dirty fuel to burn, and the global warming and climate change scientists point to coal as one of the largest contributors of pollution and greenhouse gases.
The only thing this has to do with the human psyche is the psychological and sociological effects of prolonged suffering.
Well, in the debates that I have heard, Heinberg doesn't think coal or nuclear is a viable option, because he doesn't like them.
I think people would prefer to have energy and try to deal with the problems of that energy production. Whinging environmentalists are not going to stop nuclear power. Sorry.
The environmentalists aren't whining, and they don't have to stop nuclear power. Its long-term unmanageable toxicity will do that for them.
"We have seen the enemy, and he is us." -- Walt Kelly
- JustinFrankl
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 623
- Joined: Mon 22 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
