by MattSavinar » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 20:31:57
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n the other hand, Jay has a right to question anyone's credibility, it helps us all determine the truth. We question the credibility of SA all the time, as well as IEA and all the other writers, so, Jay raises fair points. I've email with Matt, and believe he is big enough to take the criticism.
The problem with Jay is that he never bothers to question or comment any of the facts and/or conclusions I present.
If you take a look through his posts, at least the ones where he isn't busy either flaming people or threatening people with physical and or financial attacks, he actually has a pretty wide ranging knowledge of energy technology.
What he could do, if he wasn't so busy flaming/threatening everybody, is something like this:
"Half way down the main page on his site, Savinar quotes experts A,B,and C as saying such and such. He then goes on to say why along with facts 1,2, and 3, events X,Y,Z are going to happen. Here's why he's wrong. "
About a year ago, somebody posted a thread regarding my calculations of demand/supply. Turned out I had done the calculations wrong (although the main point I was making still stood). Guess what? The next day I updated my site to reflect the recommendations of the person who made the post pointing out my error.
Jay has the capability to make these type of posts, but instead he focuses on "exposing" me as a mid-twenties, non-practicing attorney with no background in petroluem geology.
I suppose his efforts at "exposing" me and my "lack of credibility"would be well worth the time, except for the fact that I make my age and professional/educational background abundantly clear on my site.
See
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/aboutme.html
I even post a picture, which is more than Jay has ever done. Perhaps he has a "face for radio."
One tidbit regarding attorneys versus "experts": experts, particularly economists, are trained to tell you what will happen if everything goes according to plan (ie, the econ textbook)
Attorneys are trained to research legal precedents, analyze the facts of the case before them in light of those precedents, and then postulate what will happen in the real world, where if things always went according to the plan, there would be no need for attorneys.
If your client asks you what will happen give a certain set of circumstances, you give them your best opinion based on an analysis of thier factual situation in light of previous, similiar cases.
If the case ever goes to trial, the attorney calles expert witnesses to the stadn. If Peak Oil was on trial, those experts would be people like Simmons, Deffeyes, Yongquist, Campbell, etc. . . .
In the case at hand (peak oil/collapse of civilization) the facts of the current case involve resource depletion, financial insolvency, imperial overstretch etc. . .
So let's look at previous cases most analagous to the current case: Easter Island, the Viking Norse, Rome, etc. . . .
Given what has happened in these previous cases, this case will likely end in the same result. Of course, there is always the possibility of some "miracle" happening, but outside of that I would advise you to prepare as though the precedents are going to be followed.
Anways, I wouldn't worry too much about Jay. As per one of his recent posts, he is applying for EU citizneship. Given the fact Bush's budget cuts services for the mentally ill, Jay might be better off over in France where they have more compassion and tolerance for folks suffering from certain "challenges."
Matt