[Geodesic]

Evolution is a theory too. A pretty good one I'd say. Fundamentalist crackpots have a different "theory" of course.

[mos6507]

These denialist articles all started flooding out after the IEA 2020 bombshell up through to the ASPO convention and they all hit the same buttons. It's like they are all variations on the same list of denialist talking points.

I also love how none of these mention the flipside of more recoverable oil, being global warming. I'm sure if they had to address that issue they'd just deny global warming as well. The required heft of a thorough apologia for the continuance of BAU grows and grows with each passing year.

[oxj]

It's a theory.

Being a theory doesn't mean that it's not a fact.

Quantum electrodynamics is a theory. It predicts the fine structure constant with amazing accuracy. Nobody debates the factual nature of QED, yet it continues to be classified as a "theory."

Similarly, only uneducated people only see the theory of Darwinism as not a fact, and mock it as a "theory," even though those same people see their insecticides work less and less year after year.

Learn what the word "theory" means. It is used out of respect for a few scientists, such as Newton, who early on created "laws," e.g., Newton's second law, and then out of humble respect, everything else is a "theory."

In comparison with QED, POT is much more speculative, yet it bears the name "theory." Don't be so arrogant to believe that POT could ever become a law.

What you need to be aware of is this very argument that the author's use of this word has generated. The author pokes at POT as a "theory" to create confusion and doubt in the reader's mind. He is playing on your lack of education. It is simply character assassination, a classic rhetorical tool. Pay it no attention, and move on.

For myself, I get to him lambasting it as a "theory" in the first paragraph, and I plainly see it is a bit of rhetorical tripe, and skip reading the rest of the article because there are better things to do with my day. In fact, I was going to come here and mention that right away, but lo! There's already a petty argument going on about it.

[TWilliam]

Part of the problem here lies in the fact that the word theory has two distinctly different meanings.

In science, the word theory is used to denote "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena".

In colloquial non-scientific parlance, the word theory is mistakenly conflated with the term hypothesis, "a tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena". Of course obfuscationists rely on and encourage this confabulation in the public mind to keep the uninformed swallowing their drivel.

The latter is the mistaken sense in which the term is used when people utter the platitude, "just a theory". The former, scientific meaning is what is actually indicated when the phrase "peak oil theory" is used amongst those who understand the phenomenon. Denialists of course attempt to convince people that the colloquial misapplication of the term is what is meant...

[rangerone314]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rangerone314', 'U')SGS and their estimates... seriously?!?!?

The USGS was so on the mark with their US-48 estimates and Hubbert was so wrong.... NOT! Pin the tail on the donkey estimates...

[Pops]

Of course the guy who is speaking for the oil industry is going to poo poo any idea his product is obsolete.

California is considering where to put it's weight in moving away from oil and the spokesman for oil is defending his clients, how is that hard to grasp?

Letter to California Energy Commission from WSPA
Re.: 2007- IEPR- Transportation Energy Forecasts
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')SPA continues to support the use of low rolling resistance tires, better integration of transportation and land-use planning, and other measures to improve fuel efficiency and reduce transportation fuel demand growth.

We do not agree, however, with any artificial demand constraints. If specific mandates or objectives to limit or reduce the use of petroleum products are placed on the system, investors cannot be expected to put their risk capital into new facilities that produce, distribute and dispense additional supplies or even into the maintenance of existing supplies.

[Pops]

Oops wrong button...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e do not agree, however, with any artificial demand constraints.

[XOVERX]

I read this thread and was intrigued by the word "theory."

So I engaged in an "at-office" experiment. I took my pen and tossed it up into the air. It came down. I tossed it again. It came down again.

I used an admittedly small sample -- 10 tosses. Nonetheless the results for the theory of gravity were pretty impressive, at least to me: 100% predictive -- The pen came back down to my desk each and every time.

Let's see here . . . . Oil is a finite resource. No one argues that oil is a finite resource -- Can we accept that as a fact? Kind of like the coffee in my coffee cup is finite?

I have a "theory" about the coffee in my coffee cup. The "theory of the coffee in the cup" is that if I keep drinking my coffee, most of it will eventually all go down my gullet. Like the theory of gravity, I am currently testing the "theory of the coffee in the cup" as I type.

I've had to refill my coffee cup twice already. I had to make a pot of coffee, too. There is now less coffee in the coffee pot than when prior to my first filling my coffee cup.

I am beginning to think that the "theory of the coffee in the cup", like my experiments with the "theory of gravity", may hold water . . . er, coffee.

But oil is not like coffee. Oil "grows" only over tens of millions of years. "Baked" and "pressurized" may be better descriptors of the creation of oil than "grows," I admit. Indulge me.

Once consumed, oil cannot be quickly "reproduced" from the bowels of the earth. If it could, then oil wells would not deplete. The "theory of the abiogenesis of oil" -- that oil spontaneously regenerates itself by means other than formation from long-dead living creatures -- does not have one oil well or one oilfield to substantiate it.

Since the theory of abiogenesis of oil finds no empirical substantiation in the field, it is not a scientific theory at all. Not being a scientific theory, with no application to help oil men find oil in the real world, the "theory of abiogenesis of oil" is merely a "big guess." Thus, the "theory of abiogenesis of oil" is not accepted by oil men or by the scientific community as anything other than pure balderdash (although I know some creationists who do "believe in" the "theory of the abiogenesis of oil").

But I digress. Oil does deplete, or so every single oil man tells me. If these oil men are lying to the world, then Congress needs to repeal the income tax oil depletion credit pronto!

Depletion -- that's analogous to me drinking my coffee, right? Consumed? Used up? Gone? Like when I say I've "drunk all my coffee," there's always a few drops left in the cup. It's not really "all gone" -- at least not at first, but, for purposes of our discussion, I hope we can agree that the coffee in the cup, once drunk, is "gone."

And someday, just like the coffee in my coffee cup, the oil in the earth is going to hit the halfway mark of oil depletion, correct? That's a theoretically factual statement, right? Every single producing oil well hits the halfway point of production. Every single oil field hits the halfway point of production. Every nation hits the halfway point. Is it such a stretch to the denier's minds that the earth, too, has, or will, hit the halfway point of recoverable oil that lies deep within its interior?

Now the so-called "theory of Peak Oil" is not hitched to the idea of complete consumption of oil, is it? Peal Oil simply talks about when the halfway point of oil depletion occurs, natural forces of the "theory of inelastic supply" comes into play. Prices rise. Items dependent upon oil to produce become more scarce. Hoarding occurs. And so forth.

Lots of "theories" out there, aren't there? It's really not very complicated. Not at all. Applying the "theory of peak oil" to the "theory that my coffee will be drunk up" and to the "theory of gravity," I'm wondering who's trying to fool who here?

Scientific phenomenon, when called "theories" by the scientists, simply do not mean "non-factual" or "no evidence" or "big guesses so you get to pooh-pooh undeniable facts." Do not confuse the scientific usage of the word "theory," which does not mean "big guess," with the layman's usage of the word "theory," which does mean "big guess."

And that's the wool the this thread's author is trying to pull over our collective eyes because depletion of natural resources, including oil, is a fact of life not a debatable guess.

Nice try, but dude, oil really is depleting. Each and every day. Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Homesteader', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arthur75', 'B')tw, peak oil isn't a theory : It is a primary school level mathematical fact. Consuming a finite non renewable resource has to go through a maximum in production.

[SoothSayer]

Hmm ... my antivirus software reports an avatar here as contaiing a Trojan ...

http://peakoil.com/forums/images/avatars/gallery/gallery/037.gif
Firefox Denied:
Trojan.JS.Ramif.a

[gandolf]

The reason it is called the "Peak Oil Theory" is because when it was first formulated that is exactly what it was... A theory

Since the 50's however it has been proved no longer a theory but a fact as a result of oil peaking in America, North Sea, Mexico, Australia and many other countries and regions.

So peak oil is a fact, it is just that at the moment is is regional. It is when it is global that things will really change

[Newfie]

Carlhole,

SCIAM also, within the last 2 years did an article about how we could produce 50% of our energy by 2030 if we were to invest 30 to 50 billion in collection, HVDC, and compressed gas.

So, which SCIAM is right? The point is that SCIAM is not the revealed truth, it is a popular science magazine that publishes a range of views.

As I recall the article you cite does not in any way address in any way the obstacles to creating that kind of energy. Switching to a completely electric power society would be an incredible job, can you imagine an all electric Freightliner? Or Air Bus?

Peak Oil will happen, no doubt. The questions are many but a few are:

1. Are we smart enough to use our remaining fossil fuel to build a completely electric society? (I bet NOT!)
2. If fossil fuel does NOT run out sufficiently fast will we cook the planet? (I bet YUP!)
3. How can we feed 9.xxx billion people for the next 200 years or so?

Articles like the one above are deliberately spreading misinformation to a gullible public who wants to hear that they can continue to party like its 1999 forever. Selective hearing.

[americandream]

Ah well, I guess I'll jettison my healthy lifestyle and whoop it up on the smokes, booze and food. Chances are just as good theres a fix all capsule will turn up to fire up my engines before I croak it.

What the heck you doin on a doomers board? I suspect folks like you have such empty lives, you gotta come on places like this to attract some notoriety. We wouldn't, the rest of us long termers, be here, if we were convinced by the BAU meme. Marketwatch has a great forum for the eternally optimistic.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'T')he Peak Oil Theory is a theory. That's why it is so named.

To take a hypothetical example, if the National Ignition Facility were to prove that fusion energy were possible and feasible, the dependence of the world on fossil fuels would quickly disappear. This would completely demolish any presumed "mathematical" certainty of the Hubbert Bell Curve for petroleum extraction.

Now, I realize that it is a matter of religious belief here on PeakOil.com that human beings are incapable of invention or adaptation and so it is also matter of belief around here that fusion energy will never be realized.

But, therefore, the certainty of a peaking of oil supply (rather than a peaking of oil demand) is a matter of belief rather than mathematical certainty, because one must believe that future advances are impossible.

You're free to believe whatever you wish. I have always believed that the future holds much in the way of surprise for us all.

[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SoothSayer', 'H')mm ... my antivirus software reports an avatar here as contaiing a Trojan ...

http://peakoil.com/forums/images/avatars/gallery/gallery/037.gif
Firefox Denied:
Trojan.JS.Ramif.a

[Dr. Ofellati]

Text deleted.

[Carlhole]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dr. Ofellati', 'I') encourage all of those who agree with me that Peak Oil is behind us, or immediately imminent, to engage with those who disagree rationally and with dignity, and to resist at all costs the urge to label people with juvenile tags such as "denier," which functions mainly to make us appear as if we are religious fanatics who cannot meet dissension with reason, but only with volume.

[TWilliam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', 'H')ubbert himself admitted as much. The curve-fitting approach he used was arbitrary. The fact is, oil petroleum production is affected by innumerable factors, (geological, political, economic, technologic) which make fitting it to a neat bell-curve merely theoretical, and only under a set of unique assumptions.

[rangerone314]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dr. Ofellati', 'W')hen they put a man in jail for discussing history and his opinion of it, is that living and let living?

When I get discriminated against for being white, is that live and let living?
That's what you really mean.

[Pops]

OK, enough with the hitler crap. if AD and DrO want to duke it out I suggest you do it via PM.

This is the last thread you muck up, you with me?