by FreddyH » Tue 15 Apr 2008, 05:25:29
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FreddyH', 'O')bviously, my point is that the basis for the gloom merchants' dogma that fossil fuel and general energy decline will bring about TEOTWAWKI on the short, medium or long term is completely baseless and unfounded. Today's flow volume will be with us for at least the next 23 years. Nat'l Gas & Coal present even better prospects. And total Energy is not projected to decline before the end of the century...
Admittedly, Energy production must service a growing population until 2045. After that, we will have potentially greater Energy amid a falling population ... but a population with increasing larger disposable income.
Wow, you really know how to turn a situation that sees maybe, if we're lucky, if nothing unforeseen happens, a not too bad energy position, into a one that certainly sees very little reason to do anything about potential problems we face. You rail against other models whilst feeding your numbers into your model to, da-da, come up with a fairly benign mitigated gap and a certainty that population, and resource demand, will peak by 2045, being all downhill thereafter.
You message seems to be: "don't worry folks, believe my models that we have no reason to be alarmed about any of earth's limits and no need to adjust your own lifestyles or to push for adjustments to society; my models say everything will be fine, so that settles that".
One of the graphs you show averages out peak predictions, as though the average must be the correct one (with all of the input models being wrong, of course).
And population growth rate has been stable or increasing for the last 4 years, so maybe that 2045 peak needs to be adjusted.
Your cutesy cut&paste job is disengenuous i.e. it hides the fact that my model is but one of 23 in the TrendLines Avg. All the models are submitted by geologists and analysts. About a third of them belong to ASPO franchises. Yet u mock the result 'cuz it is diametrically opposed to group think by the McPeaksters.
I have elaborated for several years on the inherent methodolgy error of bottom up analysis for forecasting purposes. I have also laid out the impecable track record of the optimists wrt long term projections. Each McPeakster proponent suggested and added over the years has ended up upward revising or being deleted due to invalidation of their projections with the passing of time (to wit: Bakhtiari).
OTOH, several of the optimists have been relegated to our "Hail Mary" presentation and likewise deleted from the Avg (to wit: CERA).
Michael Lynch has warned me that in such a large universe, often the reality will track towards one of the two camps. Because they all pretty well share the same data bases and over the past six months we have purged the dated and extreme/unfounded/invalidated forecasts, i have high confidence that this crop of practitioners will be party to an eventual and extraordinary merging of views.
It may seem a long process to some, but since version one in 2004 progress has been made and is definitely assisted by scrutiny of the component models/scenarios by forums as this one...
On the matter of a post 2045 drop in demand, i cannot agree with your analysis. The rate of populaton decline will be insignificant in the few decades after Peak Population and will most probably be exceeded by the growth rate of disposable income and expectations within a growing working class in Chindia and Africa. Demographic studies suggest that ageing societies in China et al will return to the conventional pyramid formation in the latter half of the Century.
Nobody compels the McPeaksters to adopt the forecasts, scenarios and projections presented and published by leaders in their field within Energy and Populaton study sectors.
Like followers of Intelligent Design, Y2k apocalypse and fiat currency & economic collapsea, your cult is has its own sources for purported knowledge for its KoolAid recipe. Feel free to feed your constituency as i do mine...
