[MattSavinar]

Hello all,

I'll be appearing on Report on Business Television (Canadian) next Friday at 4:45 western time.

Apparently, I'm scheduled opposite Peter Huber, author of "The Bottomless Well."

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/bottomlesswell/

Huber is also an attorney by training. (And an engineer, also)

Should be interesting,

Matt

[maverickdoc]

Huber was on the daily show (comedy central) maybe 2 weeks ago. His book is non-sense. You should have no problems.

On a different not. Will you be willing answer a few question on your book. Say on a thread devoted to it?

do we have on, or should I start one?

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('maverickdoc', 'H')uber was on the daily show (comedy central) maybe 2 weeks ago. His book is non-sense. You should have no problems.

On a different not. Will you be willing answer a few question on your book. Say on a thread devoted to it?

do we have on, or should I start one?

[Such]

kick his ass... Matt... Huber is a buffoon.

[Whitecrab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', 'I')'ll be appearing on Report on Business Television (Canadian) next Friday at 4:45 western time.

[Agren]

If someone can tape it and make it downloadable I'd be glad.

[maverickdoc]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Agren', 'I')f someone can tape it and make it downloadable I'd be glad.

[stu]

Matt.

On paper this guy has way more experience than you.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/huber.htm

[quote]Peter Huber is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy, writing on the issues of science, technology, and the law.

Peter Huber’s latest book, Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists (Basic Books, 2000), called “the richest contribution ever made to the greening of the political mindâ€

[nero]

From what I can tell from reading the Bottomless Well in the bookstore, his basic premise is that human ingenuity is boundless therefore it doesn't matter that oil is finite. I think the easiest counter to that is to point out the multiple civilizations in the past failed to survive even though they had just as much human ingenuity as we do. However the easist counter argument probably isn't the best; any reference to civilization failing immediately labels you a crackpot. On a business news channel, heavy reference to facts such as the recent loss of spare capacity,higher oil prices, and the inability of many major international oil companies to replace their reserves would be a better counter to the "faith based" argument.

Just my two cents,

[stu]

If it's going to be on a business channel then Huber is most probably going to end up coming out better.

He'll probably preach the "market forces" theory which will make the viewers (most likely people of an economic mindset) believe him and label Matt as some inexperienced crackpot who just has a website and a book.

Nothing personal Matt.

I just think you might be swimming out of your depth.

[maverickdoc]

Can one of our Canadian collogues please, please tape it and up load it?

[Whitecrab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', 'F')rom what I can tell from reading the Bottomless Well in the bookstore, his basic premise is that human ingenuity is boundless therefore it doesn't matter that oil is finite. I think the easiest counter to that is to point out the multiple civilizations in the past failed to survive even though they had just as much human ingenuity as we do. However the easist counter argument probably isn't the best; any reference to civilization failing immediately labels you a crackpot. On a business news channel, heavy reference to facts such as the recent loss of spare capacity,higher oil prices, and the inability of many major international oil companies to replace their reserves would be a better counter to the "faith based" argument.

Just my two cents,

[BabyPeanut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('stu', 'H')e'll probably preach the "market forces" theory

[BabyPeanut]

I also like my sound bite which goes:

Slow Oil Is No Oil
The world needs 82 million barrels a day not some little shale oil trickle.

[pilferage]

I'm not a big fan of your attitude (a bit too extreme imho), however, this guy is a real nut. I'd suggest focusing on his claim of infinite energy...
on a finite planet.
Also, be Bearish, focus not on the possibilities this guy presents, but on the probabilities of those possibilities. (i.e. We probably won't be able to drop everything and provide a cheap transportation structure in a few years, the implementation time will be measured in decades)
It's 'Prepare for the worst and hope for the best' for a reason...

[MattSavinar]

After consulting with an expert who shall remain nameless, I emailed the producer and cancelled. I suggestted she contact Matt Simmons or Ken Deffeyes as both have books coming out within the next few weeks/months.

Also, I may have misunderstood the producer when she said she was interested in having me on to give the "other side" of the infinite energy point of view. I think Mr. Huber was on the show last week. IE, whoever she end's up having on to give the point of view most common amongst board members will be on by themselves. But I'm not sure.

Lora sent me a link from a few weeks back from the show. They had on 3 analysts who spoke quite candidely about the Hubert peak. I don't have the link handy but perhaps she can repost it.

Matt

[BorneoRagnarok]

Good for you, Matt. I have the 6th sense that someone try to assasinate your reputation with that joker. If you continue with the show, you will be wiped out.

The best option now is wait and see. According to Sun Tze Art of War , better sit still when you don't have any competitive advantages. He is Harvard , MIT guy with Phd in engineering.

Strike when the situation is hot. The time will come when Joe the Public complained about the high gasoline price. Campbell, Matt Simmons or Ken Deffeyes will be too busy to grant interview to hundereds if not thousands of media outlets.

You can step in to fill the void and destroyed the flat earth economists, engineers. Harvard or non-Harvard alike. But now stay in low profile mode. At that time, you will be the mainstream expert and not some crackpot lawyer that don't practiced law and advocate peak oil.

The rule of thumb is be active when the oil price hit USD 80 per barrel or when the housing bubble burst whichever come first.

[entropyfails]

Boo Matt!

In such an obvious attempt at character assassination, you could have easily turned the tables on that crazy bastard. Point to tons of numbers, concede points and turn them to your advantage. For example, you could have pointed out that even if a miracle technology gets invented tomorrow, we still have to replace trillions and trillions of dollars in infrastructure. You could point out that this would only accelerate human growth and destroy our environment even faster than we do currently. You could point out that his belief in this miracle technology comes from just that, belief. You could have pointed out that he couldn’t possibly argue anything substantive with you because of that belief. And you can call any ad hominems lobbed by him as such.

You could have done much and you would have got a TV credit. TV people only care about that. If you’ve got some TV time, then you have a much better chance at a green light in the future.

Who cares that they want to destroy you. Prove yourself indestructible. If you REALLY think that all these things will go down how you say, then you have no choice but to step up and speak your mind.

But maybe you’ve calculated that this will land you more speaking gigs in the future. But taking the patient conservative route doesn’t seem like your style. Go with whatever works for you.

Good luck!

---
EntropyFails

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('entropyfails', 'B')oo Matt!

In such an obvious attempt at character assassination, you could have easily turned the tables on that crazy bastard. Point to tons of numbers, concede points and turn them to your advantage. For example, you could have pointed out that even if a miracle technology gets invented tomorrow, we still have to replace trillions and trillions of dollars in infrastructure. You could point out that this would only accelerate human growth and destroy our environment even faster than we do currently. You could point out that his belief in this miracle technology comes from just that, belief. You could have pointed out that he couldn’t possibly argue anything substantive with you because of that belief. And you can call any ad hominems lobbed by him as such.

You could have done much and you would have got a TV credit. TV people only care about that. If you’ve got some TV time, then you have a much better chance at a green light in the future.

Who cares that they want to destroy you. Prove yourself indestructible. If you REALLY think that all these things will go down how you say, then you have no choice but to step up and speak your mind.

But maybe you’ve calculated that this will land you more speaking gigs in the future. But taking the patient conservative route doesn’t seem like your style. Go with whatever works for you.

Good luck!

---
EntropyFails

[stu]

Wise move Matt.