[Ardalla]

I am surprised that no one has agreed with me that there is not likely a vast, multi-faceted conspiracy to deceive the world's population. In my above posts I used the word 'delusional' rather than 'liars' because that was just my colorful way of saying I believe their approach to be 'wrong-headed'.

Simmons is as much of a Bush insider as we are likely to find who is an advocate for peak oil. On the mainsite here you can read his experiences with presenting the data to the administration. I have no use for Bush, but Simmons actually likes the guy.

The following is the best article I have yet read on peak oil. I probably shouldn't bury it in this thread. It deserves a couple of hours of intense perusal. I hope people will check it out.

http://tinyurl.com/2ecw3

They are very sympathetic to Hubbert/Campbell, but they go into the alternatives at length. It describes in some detail the models that are used by USGS and IEA and why they reach the conclusions they do. As I said above, it's a matter of the reliability of the resource data. If the data can be interpreted in several ways, why assume the doomsday scenario is the most accurate? They believe the day will be saved by reserve growth and new technologies. I think the IEA-USGS et al are being incredibly stubborn and even criminal in not revising their forecasts as current events unfold, but I have hope they will eventaully at least change to a more neutral stance. A change to, "Well, it's no longer a certainty regarding future oil supplies," would be an improvement and would be scientifically more responsible.

I'm not going to take the huge step of considering a world wide conspiracy; a conspiracy that would involve major oil companies, governments and scientific organizations. All of which would be saying, "We know the truth, but we're not going to tell anyone because there is no solution and why disturb people when there is nothing they can do?" It may be I'll have to alter my opinion as more facts come to light. I'm not ready to do that yet.

[Leanan]

I don't know that I'd call it a conspiracy. I'd attribute it to ignorance, and the natural human tendency to optimism.

They've done studies, where they tested depressed people and normal people on their view of certain situations. Then they had an independent judging company determine which assessments were most accurate, without knowing whose they were. It turns out that the depressed people were actually the most realistic. The reason they are depressed is not because they have tendency toward pessimism. They just see things as they are, without the normal tendency toward optimism. In short, it's normal for humans to wear rose-colored glasses. When we're healthy, we think we have more control over the world than we actually do. It's necessary to our mental health. (And it's probably the same for other animals, too, so this is something that's been with us for a long time.)

Ignorance also plays a role. I think many of the people who accept peak oil but think it won't be so bad assume that when prices get high enough, we'll find alternative energy sources. Why shouldn't they think this? We've always done it before. Wood to coal to to oil.

The answer, of course, is the laws of thermodynamics. Wood to coal to oil represents a switch to resources of increasing energy density. There doesn't seem to be any resource more energy-dense than oil. But most people do not understand the laws of thermodynamics. Americans especially are abysmally ignorant of the laws of physics. Even most college students who have taken physics classes don't really understand basic principles of physics.

So people may think that there will be a bad few years, but then we'll find something that will save us. They may even think that there's no use preparing, because we won't be inspired to come up with solutions until we're in the grip of the problem. It's telling that those with the most pessimistic views (Heinberg, Goodstein) are the ones who take thermodynamic views of the problem. Those who look at it only from the geology point of view, like Deffeyes, think that we'll switch to alternatives, and all will be fine.

[sheilach]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hose who look at it only from the geology point of view, like Deffeyes, think that we'll switch to alternatives, and all will be fine.

[Leanan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat 'alternatives' are they talking about?

[sheilach]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n Deffeyes' case, solar, wind, nuclear, biomass, that sort of thing

[RIPSmithianEconomics]

Perhaps the goverments follow the Cold War philosophy of "We'll all go together when we go, we'll all go together when we go, Jew Arab White Man and Eskimo we'll all go together when we go"

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')omething called the "Defense Information Agency" checks in daily also, but I don't who they are.

[LateGreatPlanetEarth]

Remember that half of any car's total energy consumption happens before it's driven.

[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LateGreatPlanetEarth', 'R')emember that half of any car's total energy consumption happens before it's driven.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

About right on the percentages. I did some fact checking when I saw some people claiming that it took 100,000 miles of driving to recover the fuel used in manufacturing.

more here with the pie chart:
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2004/05/manufacturing-cost-in-oil.html

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('LateGreatPlanetEarth', 'R')emember that half of any car's total energy consumption happens before it's driven.

[notacornucopian]

Matt - what does that 15 % include ? The energy used in the manufacture in the plant, or everything including the mining of the ore, production of the plastic and other materials, etc. ?

[MattSavinar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('notacornucopian', 'M')att - what does that 15 % include ? The energy used in the manufacture in the plant, or everything including the mining of the ore, production of the plastic and other materials, etc. ?

[notacornucopian]

From the data/pie chart ( on the Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment link ), about 10% of the life cycle total energy goes into the manufacture of a typical car. The other pie chart on the same page suggests the manufacture of a typical car contributes almost 60% of toxic releases into the environment. So even if PHEV were mass produced, and we assume they take the same amount of energy to manufacture, then 60% of environmental degradation directly related to the manufacture of vehicles would still occur.
I also quickly read through the "Carrying Capacity" paper found on their home page and found it interesting that the table of estimates from various sources had one thing in common - the authors whose basis was "Energy" all came in at about 2 billion people.