Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby kublikhan » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 21:36:51

I'm new here, maybe someone can clear some things up for me.

Why do people keep posting data not relevant to peak oil here as being caused by peak oil? Or are there people here who really believe the US housing bubble was caused by peak oil? It seems to me that people are so eager to find proof we have peaked they are taking any negative news they can get their hands on and saying "SEE? We've peaked!"

I have only gone through a few threads so I am not sure what the 911 quote is in reference too. Is that referring to the 'theory' that the US government brought down the WTC with explosives?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat can technology do to technology solve overpopulation?
War, disease, pestilence, famine, or sterilization. But for whatever reason, nobody likes these solutions.
Oh come on. Many countries have declining populations now that are not being caused by any of the above.

Also, I don't know why you would say overpopulation caused peak oil(or peak everything). If we had half the current world population, and zero population growth, we would still hit peak oil/everything. It would just take a little longer.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5064
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 21:41:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', ' ')Sorry Monte but I can't find any reference to this term.


"Pherology is defined as the science of the human carrying capacity of the Earth or specific parts of the Earth. Pherologists define carrying capacity as the human population that can be supported in a given territory, in a specified lifestyle (normally the one to which people may resonably aspire), without degrading their physical, ecological and social environment, and without imposing wastes on the global environment beyond a specified (or internationally agreed) limit." (Excerpt from The Pherologist newsletter). ...


Are you pulling my leg? This definition is a joke isn't it? Monte please tell me you are kidding.

The pherologist Newsletter was never a peer reviewed paper and does not even exist anymore. Neither does EPOC the self proclaimed pherologist umbrella organisation, which ceased to exist end of 2006.

Montequesy you are quoting pseudo science. The term pherology did not enter the science community even it is over 10 years old? It did not even make t in a dictionary? Not even Wikipedia has an entry?

Please Montequest think about your credibility, you are better than that.
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby GreyGhost » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 21:58:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'T')he fertility rate has been declining due to a continued rise in the standard of living over the last 40 years via fossil fuels and Demographic Transition.

Those projections are based upon a continued rise in the standard of living in developing countries via Demographic Transition.

With peak oil, what are the chances the SOL is going to continue to rise anywhere, much less in the poor developing countries?


MonteQuest, you are implying that Demographic Transition is caused by, and requires, high energy consumption. This is not correct. The actual causes are social and cultural change, as described in ...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wikipedia on Demographic Transition', '#') birth rates fall due to access to contraception, increases in wages, urbanization, a reduction in subsistence agriculture, an increase in the status and education of women, a reduction in the value of children's work, an increase in parental investment in the education of children and other social changes. Population growth begins to level off.
# During stage four there are both low birth rates and low death rates. Birth rates may drop to well below replacement level as has happened in countries like Germany, Italy, and Japan, leading to a shrinking population
(full entry)

In this way we can reduce our population in a non-disruptive way.

Lighthouse, relax; we are in overshoot, but you don't need to become an alcoholic. You just need to avoid having kids.
User avatar
GreyGhost
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed 31 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 22:06:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', ' ')Montequesy you are quoting pseudo science.


No, I am defining pherologist for you. The study of carrying capacity.

Don't like it. Who cares?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 22:12:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GreyGhost', 'L')ighthouse, relax; we are in overshoot, but you don't need to become an alcoholic. You just need to avoid having kids.


too late - No, not the alcoholic, I've 6 kids 24,21,16,12,10 and 6

Don't take me wrong The only thing I do not agree with Montequest are the figures. The range for carrying capacity for humans published by the "leading experts" is between 1 billion and 40 billion. So pick a number.

Montequest is not willing (or able?) to provide reliable peer reviewed figures nor to disclose the models they used to arrive at the published non peer reviewed figures.

All I want is a reliable peer reviewed source and not quotes of an not longer published newsletter of an not longer existing organisation.
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 22:13:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GreyGhost', ' ')MonteQuest, you are implying that Demographic Transition is caused by, and requires, high energy consumption. This is not correct. The actual causes are social and cultural change, as described in ...


No, a continuing rise in the standard of living via fossil fuels is what fuels the later stages of transition.

Access to contraception, increases in wages, urbanization, a reduction in subsistence agriculture, an increase in the status and education of women, a reduction in the value of children's work, an increase in parental investment in the education of children and other social changes will not continue to occur post peak.

The rise in the SOL that facilitates these social changes will not happen in the developing countries.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 22:16:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', ' '). The range for carrying capacity for humans published by the "leading experts" is between 1 billion and 40 billion. So pick a number.


No, it's 2 to 3 billon and only if we restore the damage.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ontequest is not willing (or able?) to provide reliable peer reviewed figures nor to disclose the models they used to arrive at the published non peer reviewed figures.


Asked and answered three times already.

Here's the fourth.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n the journal, Politics and the Life Sciences of September 1997, Professor Kenneth Smail made the case for dramatically reducing human numbers, and leading commentators in the field of population and development contributed their views on it.


http://eco.gn.apc.org/pubs/smail.html
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 22:19:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', ' ')Montequesy you are quoting pseudo science.


No, I am defining pherologist for you. The study of carrying capacity.

Don't like it. Who cares?


It is not a question whether I like or not.

It is a question of YOURcredibility and the credibility of the sources you quote.

And sorry to say but a simple google search has exposed your sources as pseudo science.

Sorry Monte but your reaction shows clearly that you do not have any reliable source to quote from, nor a peer reviewed study, which would confirm your believes.

Sorry that is just not good enough.

I want to know and not to believe just because you said so.
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 22:22:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A')sked and answered three times already.

Here's the fourth.

...


The magic words in this context are

PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby GreyGhost » Sat 01 Dec 2007, 22:27:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GreyGhost', ' ')MonteQuest, you are implying that Demographic Transition is caused by, and requires, high energy consumption. This is not correct. The actual causes are social and cultural change, as described in ...


No, a continuing rise in the standard of living via fossil fuels is what fuels the later stages of transition.

Access to contraception, increases in wages, urbanization, a reduction in subsistence agriculture, an increase in the status and education of women, a reduction in the value of children's work, an increase in parental investment in the education of children and other social changes will not continue to occur post peak.

The rise in the SOL that facilitates these social changes will not happen in the developing countries.

Which of these requires increased use of fossil fuels?
* access to contraception ... does not require increased use of fossil fuels (unless you count the cost of the latex?)
* Increase in wages ... ok maybe
* a reduction in subsistence agriculture ... nope
* an increase in the status and education of women ... nope
* a reduction in the value of children's work ... nope
* an increase in parental investment in the education of children and other social changes ... nope

I think your mistake is based on viewing humans as nothing more than animals, which prevents you considering social and cultural influences that can occur independently from the influences like energy and environment. With respect, I understand you have extensive experience but this is as a park ranger yes? So you know about ecosystems of animals not humans, and your experience is working against you in this case.
User avatar
GreyGhost
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed 31 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby yeahbut » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 01:39:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'I')'m new here, maybe someone can clear some things up for me.

Why do people keep posting data not relevant to peak oil here as being caused by peak oil? Or are there people here who really believe the US housing bubble was caused by peak oil? It seems to me that people are so eager to find proof we have peaked they are taking any negative news they can get their hands on and saying "SEE? We've peaked!"

I have only gone through a few threads so I am not sure what the 911 quote is in reference too. Is that referring to the 'theory' that the US government brought down the WTC towers with explosives?


As a fellow newbie just slightly further down the track, let me say welcome kublikhan and pass on a few tips I've been given by patient long-time members. 1)re 'relevant data':there are lots of different forums with different areas of focus, including the open forum, where just about anything goes as a topic, hence 9/11. If you think a particular thread topic is pants, don't bother with it. 2)Read as much as you can, both of ongoing discussions here, and of links and books recommended by members in their posts. There's a lot of catching up to do and you can't really engage in the debate until you done yourself some learnin'(I sure ain't there yet). 3) I do kinda know what you mean here $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')taking any negative news they can get their hands on and saying "SEE? We've peaked!"


this seems to encapsulate the attitude nicely:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '
')
Its really funny how everything is now peak oil related.

Joe: "My wife does not sleep with me anymore"

Jim: "Yep, As free energy wains so does industry and jobs, prices rise, your wife will lock you out of the bedroom more often"
:lol:
User avatar
yeahbut
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue 30 Oct 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Heineken » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 02:08:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', ' ')I think the assumption that wealthy, wasteful lifestyles are inherently far more harmful to carrying capacity than impoverished, frugal lifestyles should be questioned. Indeed, this is a myth that should be popped.


Myth? In terms of impact on the environment, it has been estimated that the US population is the equivalent of 20 billion Chinese, although that is being narrowed with 11% a year growth.


How is "impact" to be defined? I highly weight qualitative impacts, not just quantitative ones.

Many Third World countries are open sewers, with smashed forests, overgrazed or desertified land, poisoned water, huge numbers of endangered species (or outright extinctions). They have damaged themselves so severely that they have to import food from rich, wasteful America, a land where the survival of a mussel species is given more priority than the water supply of a major city.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog

"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
User avatar
Heineken
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7051
Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Rural Virginia
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby zeugen » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 03:43:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '[')b]Montequesy you are quoting pseudo science. The term pherology did not enter the science community even it is over 10 years old? It did not even make t in a dictionary? Not even Wikipedia has an entry?

Dear Lighthouse,

You might be amazed to know that Wikipedia is not the most authoritative of encyclopedic reference sources, in fact it is not a formal reference source at all. If you limit yourself to that and Google then I'd suggest you stop spamming people here about their lack of academic credentials. Pherology is indeed in the academic literature in relation to ecological demography and is a term coined by the Optimum Population Trust, an academically affiliated organisation that you will find summarised on Wikipedia. If you don't have the skills to find a peer reviewed academic reference for the term from there then here's one for you:

Ronsin, Newman & Dubois, "Ecomalthusians and Pherologists", Conference 99: Nature, Society and History, Long Term Dynamics of Social Metabolism, September 30-October 2, 1999, Vienna, IFF, Social Ecology.

Another good starting point for finding some academic references for the population estimates would be from the Prof Richard online article MonteQuest sent you to. It is an online copy of a peer reviewed academic article appearing in:

Richard, G. A. 2002. Human Carrying Capacity of Earth. Institute for Lifecycle Energy Analysis, v.1, Winter 2002.

In it you will find the various references cited in the online article's table of pop estimates. For instance, where it says Cohen (1995a) go to either the footer or end references list and get the full reference. The Cohen one will then lead you to the various original authors' papers that it cites. However seeing as you are having difficulties understanding what an academic reference is you might find this rather specialized pherological field of research a bit difficult for non-specialists to understand fully, myself included. That's why we have people like the many academically qualified specialists MonteQuest has already sent you to for an informed summary. If you'd like to further your academic research then just follow the bread crumbs he has rather generously given you and we could perhaps then all steer this very interesting topic away from ridiculous ad hominem attacks and on to the actual subject matter itself.

Estimates of global carrying capacity and the rather chilling conclusions of many "pherologists" are very much worthy of our consideration and are altogether relevant to the discussion of the peak of global oil supply and the gigantic population growth our 200 year old fossil fuel bonanza has supported up until now.

Cheers mate.
Polemos is lord of all things,
it has shown some to be gods and some mortals,
it has made some slaves and others free.
Everything originates in its strife ... Strife is justice
and all things both come to pass and perish through strife.
Heraclitus
User avatar
zeugen
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 04:18:33

zeugen Even Gigi does not use the term pherology in her paper, which is btw not peer reviewed!

However the published figures for carrying capacity are between 0.5 and 40 billion. Even Prof. Gigi Richard quotes the higher numbers of Cohen.

And pherology is not a recognised field of science. It is a word created by EPOC an organisation which ceased to exist end of 2006 and used for their newsletter which does not exist anymore.

Can you point me in the direction of an university with a pherology department? I would love to discuss this subject with a real recognised pherologist.

And no I'm not interested organisations like the "Optimum Population Trust" a charity with dubious credentials. I'm only interested in a serious institution (university) who has a pherology department.

But I'm sure your answer (if you answer at all) will not name one ...
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby zeugen » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 05:01:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '1'). zeugen Even Gigi does not use the term pherology in her paper, which is btw not peer reviewed!

2. However the published figures for carrying capacity are between 0.5 and 40 billion. Even Prof. Gigi Richard quotes the higher numbers of Cohen.

3. And pherology is not a recognised field of science. It is a word created by EPOC an organisation which ceased to exist end of 2006 and used for their newsletter which does not exist anymore.

Can you point me in the direction of an university with a pherology department? I would love to discuss this subject with a real recognised pherologist.

4. And no I'm not interested organisations like the "Optimum Population Trust" a charity with dubious credentials. I'm only interested in a serious institution (university) who has a pherology department.

But I'm sure your answer (if you answer at all) will not name one ...


1. I think you'll find the reference:

Richard, G. A. 2002. Human Carrying Capacity of Earth. Institute for Lifecycle Energy Analysis, v.1, Winter 2002.

is a valid academic publication.

2. Estimates for global carrying capacity, as MonteQuest has already explained, vary depending on the criteria involved in the calculation. The lower range estimates are the ones we need to worry about especially where energy is factored in.

3. You will find a "pherologist" in an ecological sciences department, ask for their resident ecological demographer. The term comes from the ancient Greek "pherein" which means "to bear, or carry" and is in use in the academic literature as I've already shown above.

4. The "dubious" Optimum Population Trust which apparently coined the term "pherology" is an academically affiliated mainstream organisation and its Patrons include:

Professor Paul R. Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University
Professor Aubrey Manning, Professor of Natural History, University of Edinburgh
Professor Norman Myers CMG, Visiting Fellow, Green College, University of Oxford, and at Universities of Harvard, Cornell, Stanford, California, Michigan and Texas
Jack Parsons, Lecturer and writer and former Deputy Director of the Owen Population Centre, at Cardiff University.
Jonathon Porritt CBE, Programme Director of Forum for the Future and Chairman of the UK Sustainable Development Commission.
Professor Chris Rapley CBE, Director of the British Antarctic Survey
Sir Crispin Tickell GCMG KCVO, Chancellor of the University of Kent, Director of the Policy Foresight Programme at the James Martin Institute, and former UK Permanent Representative on the United Nations Security Council.

5. You are either an idiot or a troll or both. Why don't you stop spamming and start discussing? Or is this topic so overwhelmingly troubling for you that you are reduced to simple dissemblance?
Polemos is lord of all things,
it has shown some to be gods and some mortals,
it has made some slaves and others free.
Everything originates in its strife ... Strife is justice
and all things both come to pass and perish through strife.
Heraclitus
User avatar
zeugen
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun 25 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 06:00:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zeugen', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', '1'). zeugen Even Gigi does not use the term pherology in her paper, which is btw not peer reviewed!

2. However the published figures for carrying capacity are between 0.5 and 40 billion. Even Prof. Gigi Richard quotes the higher numbers of Cohen.

3. And pherology is not a recognised field of science. It is a word created by EPOC an organisation which ceased to exist end of 2006 and used for their newsletter which does not exist anymore.

Can you point me in the direction of an university with a pherology department? I would love to discuss this subject with a real recognised pherologist.

4. And no I'm not interested organisations like the "Optimum Population Trust" a charity with dubious credentials. I'm only interested in a serious institution (university) who has a pherology department.

But I'm sure your answer (if you answer at all) will not name one ...


1. I think you'll find the reference:

Richard, G. A. 2002. Human Carrying Capacity of Earth. Institute for Lifecycle Energy Analysis, v.1, Winter 2002.

is a valid academic publication.


The Institute for Lifecycle Energy Analysis is not a valid academic publication. The paper was pubished exactely under the link Montequest posted — and in the organisations newsletter. Nowhere else!

Please zeugen stop the nonsense. You are about to lose the last bit of credibility if you really consider the ILEA newsletter as an academic peer reviewed publication. ILEA's Mission statement was (—was because this organisation and its newsletter also do not exist anymore!):

Provide United States consumers with the education and tools necessary to make purchasing and lifestyle choices that work toward a sustainable global economy.

Source: http://www.ilea.org/mission.htm

So please spare me the crap. Academic paper. Unbelievable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zeugen', '2'). Estimates for global carrying capacity, as MonteQuest has already explained, vary depending on the criteria involved in the calculation. The lower range estimates are the ones we need to worry about especially where energy is factored in.


And? Why are you insisting then that we are already in overshot?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zeugen', '3'). You will find a "pherologist" in an ecological sciences department, ask for their resident ecological demographer. The term comes from the ancient Greek "pherein" which means "to bear, or carry" and is in use in the academic literature as I've already shown above.


Been there, done that, and no you are not right. The term results usually in a mild smile.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zeugen', '4'). The "dubious" Optimum Population Trust which apparently coined the term "pherology" is an academically affiliated mainstream organisation and its Patrons include:

Professor Paul R. Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies, Stanford University....

Oh please. You do not want to go there. Please zeugen tell me you do not consider Professor "never got it right" Paul Ehrlich a reliable source?

Ehrlich who predicted that the world would experience famines sometime between 1970 and 1985 due to population growth outstripping resources?

You mean that Ehrlich who wrote that "in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."

You mean Ehrlich who also stated, "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980,"

Here an article about Prof. Ehrlich in the Opinion Journal of the Wall street Journal:

[url=http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110005103]We're Doomed Again!
Paul Ehrlich has never been right. Why does anyone still listen to him?[/url]

Environmentalist Paul Ehrlich has proved himself to be a stupendously bad prophet. In 1968 he declared: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." They didn't. Indeed, a "green revolution" nearly tripled the world's food supply. In 1975, he predicted that, by the mid-1980s, "mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity," in which "accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion." Far from it. Between 1975 and 2000 the World Bank's commodity price index for minerals and metals fell by nearly 50%. In other words, we abound in "key minerals." Naturally, Mr. Ehrlich has won a MacArthur Foundation genius award--and a Heinz Award for the environment. (Yes, that Heinz: Teresa Heinz Kerry is chairman of the award's sponsoring philanthropy.)

So why pay him any notice? Because he is a reverse Cassandra. In "The Illiad," the prophetess Cassandra makes true predictions and no one believes her; Mr. Ehrlich makes false predictions and they are widely believed. The gloomier he is and the faultier he proves to be as a prophet, the more honored he becomes, even in his own country.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zeugen', '5'). You are either an idiot or a troll or both. Why don't you stop spamming and start discussing? Or is this topic so overwhelmingly troubling for you that you are reduced to simple dissemblance?

I'm the troll?

You guys are quoting newsletter which do not exist anymore from organisations, which do not exist anymore and try to sell it to us as as academic paper.

You guys are not able to name one University which has a pherology department.

But you quote pherologist expert as base for your figures.

And you are calling me a troll? As usual when nothing helps a personal attack will proof the point.
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 06:11:46

Please guys all I'm asking for is a peer reviewed scientific paper published in an academic publication, which confirms your figures. That can not be that hard ...
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby steam_cannon » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 06:42:27

Overpopulation could be simply defined as a situation where there is not enough resources for the people using them.

Example:
* A tsunami washes away half of the land on a low lying island.
* Nobody died so that island has the same number of people.
* Now there isn't enough land to feed everyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore the island is overpopulated.

Now reread your post and see if you get it...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'A')lso, I don't know why you would say overpopulation caused peak oil(or peak everything). If we had half the current world population, and zero population growth, we would still hit peak oil/everything. It would just take a little longer.

If a population depends on food coming from the earth. And if food is used up and not replanted, and the earth can no longer support those people. When that needed resource is used up the carrying capacity of the earth is reduced and the earth is overpopulated. This situation would be called overshoot and a famine would come next.

Overpopulation does not require population growth, if the resources they depend on are shrinking.
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby steam_cannon » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 07:47:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', 'p')herology is not a recognised field of science. Can you point me in the direction of an university with a pherology department?
Department names very between universities. For Princeton University you would talk to people in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

Lars O.Hedin - Professor
Ecosystem analysis, with emphasis on the emergence and maintenance broad-scale patterns in the cycling of nutrients and trace gases. Email: lhedin 'at' princeton [dot] edu

More important though is Pherology is a topic of research and not a department. To make it clear, universities don't have climate change departments. Research topics like climate change are studied by climatologists and by scientists in many fields in fact. Mathematicians, biologists, and physicists also study climate change. Also scientist often wear many hats. They may be an ecosystem analysis one day and a biologist the next.

Lighthouse, your use of language would suggest that you don't know much about university systems or research in general. That's the impression you're giving people. I'm not questioning if you are educated, but you give the impression that you don't know much about the these things. And most college graduates are not experts in research.

This is college level and graduate level reading. If you don't understand it, that's ok. You can take your time and try again. If you do understand it, even better! But nobody wants to hear a broken record. You have gotten some pretty good answers to your questions about research. If you don't know that they are good answers, I suggest you move on.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('zeugen', 'I')f you limit yourself to that and Google then I'd suggest you stop spamming people here about their lack of academic credentials.
Also a good point.
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: Is "Peak Oil" really that bad?

Unread postby Lighthouse » Sun 02 Dec 2007, 08:29:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('steam_cannon', '.')..

This is college level and graduate level reading. If you don't understand it, that's ok. You can take your time and try again. If you do understand it, even better! But nobody wants to hear a broken record. You have gotten some pretty good answers to your questions about research. If you don't know that they are good answers, I suggest you move on.


Steam_cannon you really want to sell me an article in a newsletter of an non for profit organisation as a peer reviewed paper? Is that what you saying? You really want to tell me the word pherologist - a creation of EPOC, an organisation, which does not even exist anymore, is a recognised field of science, even there is no reference at all to the term in scientific literature, or any dictionary?

You try to achieve this by discrediting my person? I that the only way you can do it?

You could not proof me wrong otherwise? All I was asking for was a peer reviewed paper which confirms Montequests 2 billion. Can you show me one? No? I did not think so ....
I am a sarcastic cynic. Some say I'm an asshole. Now that we have that out of the way ...
User avatar
Lighthouse
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 04:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests



cron