Post: #101

(01-14-2019 12:06 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 05:03 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  So why it is not like that when it comes to the global warming? It would be easy to deny, "Just seasonal fluctuations, no evidence of man-nature causation at all".

Not sure what you're trying to say here. There's no shortage of global warming denial. What do you think the vast majority of members here feel about it?

When it comes to peak oil, people's worries about oil supplies fluctuate based on price. The price hasn't been dangerously high since 2008, hence worries are low.

In both cases the issues of limits to growth are embedded in the public consciousness (especially in entertainment, see Avatar, Thanos, the plot of Aquaman, etc...), but it's still in the back of people's minds as they go on with their daily lives as normal.

It's sort of like a smoker knowing smoking causes cancer but choosing to smoke anyway. Modern life is just too comfortable and future consequences too easy to discount.

Heck, look at the other thread about how many americans live paycheck to paycheck. People tend to live in the now and don't plan for the future. We're not adapted to tackle these sorts of problems.

My point is the mass medias, governments, NGOs stance: they are staunchly on the global warming side. The GW dissenters are dispersed on the net.
In the case of peak oil, the reverse is true: mass medias, governments, businesses and most of the NGOs are against the peak oil; the dissenters (peak oilers) are here and there on the net. Nevertheless, I would venture to say that still the peak oil is even less known than Wikileaks.

So it cannot be the same mechanism in both the global warming and the peak oil case. For the former, it is amplified by "official" reality, for the latter, it is discounted by the same officialdom. There is no symmetry here.
And the question remains: why?

And it is the very important question since the majority of people still think that the official reality is the reality itself, not just a great show. They are willful "Truman Show" stagers. As an example: the Polish "sceptic" website is debunking peak oil with this not-very-sceptic-argument, "If peak oil were real, we would hear about it all the time from the press, TV etc". Actually it is officialy called "argumentum ad verecundiam" and it seems to be a very convincing argument for a lot of people, it is even the double "ad verecundiam" since it uses the power of scepticism itself (as a scientific stance) to debunk peak oil. Whereas the reality is just the opposite, a sceptic should doubt the doubtfulness of peak oil here.

To sum up, the public may be like "Truman Show" actors, but someone else is in place both of a director and of a film crew.

Post: #102

(01-14-2019 12:39 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  So it cannot be the same mechanism in both the global warming and the peak oil case. For the former, it is amplified by "official" reality, for the latter, it is discounted by the same officialdom. There is no symmetry here.
And the question remains: why?

Dude ..
Global warming allows to tax people more, it's good for the elite.
Peak oil would cause panic, less spending and thus less tax, bad for the elite.

Come on now ..

Post: #103

(01-14-2019 03:58 PM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 12:39 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  So it cannot be the same mechanism in both the global warming and the peak oil case. For the former, it is amplified by "official" reality, for the latter, it is discounted by the same officialdom. There is no symmetry here.
And the question remains: why?

Dude ..
Global warming allows to tax people more, it's good for the elite.
Peak oil would cause panic, less spending and thus less tax, bad for the elite.

Come on now ..

I don't see much relevance here, dude...

1) There is already less spending, and so there is less taxes. Taxes essentially depend on the entire economy, not only on your wish to buy (or not) some consumer goods.
2) There is no evidence whatsoever that panic would follow. Maybe, if an announcement would be made like 'no more oil in a year', but not even peak oilers are claiming that. Probably it is something like 10-20 years.
3) The elite has an access to the real money printer (banks, and central banks) ANYWAY, so they do not really need your taxes. In the current system, taxes are much more like an instrument of control than some kind of profit operation. They are paid neither in silver nor gold. They are not paid in your working time, like in medieval times. They do not have any inherent value. But they do have control value: diesel tax will make you to buy less diesel, and that is its main function. Since less diesel will be sold, the tax itself will not bring more money for France.
You put the problem in a wrong way. The right way: if I had access to an unlimited amount of money (I am the elite now, remember), how would I spend my money in order to achieve control of the highest possible number of things?
The very fact that nowadays your hear so much about inflation as the greatest evil of our times and the main concern of central banks means that the essential problem of the system is "how to manage money in such a way that they would not lose value", not "how to provide enough money for taxes". Money is just like any other kind of commodity here, and central banks are mines. But only you decide how much money you will mine, since it is a wonderful mine without any depletion, so there is no natural resistance whatsoever.

In this context I suppose talking about peak oil instead global warming would provide the elite with much greater compliance of population in regard to reforms, so, with greater control at the end. Isn't that what they want...?!

Post: #104

"And the question remains: why?"

Stop looking for an anomaly where none exists.

Peak oil will re-enter the public conversation when oil spikes up above $150/bbl like it did in 2008 and not a moment sooner. Until then people see it as a non-issue for as long as fracking will have kicked the can down the road.

"Isn't that what they want...?!"

Again, this constant fixation of "what they want" is infantilism/mental-masturbation. Stop looking to the elite as either the root of the problem or the key to the solution. The elite reflect the society that enriches/empowers them and put them there. We've met the enemy and it's us. You want daddy to swoop in and save us...from ourselves? What's going on is the result of every move we as individuals make every day. That's what tragedy of the commons is. It's the cumulative impact of billions of humans and their environmental footprints. You could nail every "elite" to a cross and you will have not accomplished jack shit if our way of thinking and acting doesn't change.

Post: #105

Oil won't hit $150 anytime soon, and it wouldn't last long if it did happen, because many countries have the capacity to ramp up production. Canada and the US alone can pick up the slack, for the next century or two. There are many other countries whose potential is vastly untapped, including current producers Russia, Venezuela or Iran, and vast untouched reserves in places like the Arctic.

(01-14-2019 07:31 PM)questor70 Wrote:  Again, this constant fixation of "what they want" is infantilism/mental-masturbation. Stop looking to the elite as either the root of the problem or the key to the solution. The elite reflect the society that enriches/empowers them and put them there. We've met the enemy and it's us. You want daddy to swoop in and save us...from ourselves? What's going on is the result of every move we as individuals make every day. That's what tragedy of the commons is. It's the cumulative impact of billions of humans and their environmental footprints. You could nail every "elite" to a cross and you will have not accomplished jack shit if our way of thinking and acting doesn't change.

The "elite" runs the banking system, the corporate world, governments, the global governance system (UN, IPCC, World Bank, CFR etc), the media, academia and foundations/NGO.

You'd have to be completely blind to think all this doesn't affect "our way of thinking".

Post: #106

(01-14-2019 05:54 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  I don't see much relevance here, dude...

This is because you are either not thinking straight or not that well-informed.

(01-14-2019 05:54 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  Taxes essentially depend on the entire economy, not only on your wish to buy (or not) some consumer goods.
[..]
There is no evidence whatsoever that panic would follow.
[..]
The elite has an access to the real money printer (banks, and central banks) ANYWAY, so they do not really need your taxes.
[..]
diesel tax will make you to buy less diesel, and that is its main function. Since less diesel will be sold, the tax itself will not bring more money for France.

These quotes are so wrong they're not even worth answering.
Do your homework, come back when you know.

Post: #107

(01-15-2019 03:14 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 05:54 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  I don't see much relevance here, dude...

This is because you are either not thinking straight or not that well-informed.

(01-14-2019 05:54 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  Taxes essentially depend on the entire economy, not only on your wish to buy (or not) some consumer goods.
[..]
There is no evidence whatsoever that panic would follow.
[..]
The elite has an access to the real money printer (banks, and central banks) ANYWAY, so they do not really need your taxes.
[..]
diesel tax will make you to buy less diesel, and that is its main function. Since less diesel will be sold, the tax itself will not bring more money for France.

These quotes are so wrong they're not even worth answering.
Do your homework, come back when you know.

WTF?
Please explain, O Knowledgeable one, what I do not understand, please answer, O Clever one....

PS. Have you ever heard about fiat money system?

Post: #108

Ok, you remind me of an old friend I had who reacted like that when I had this attitude, so sure I'll answer

Regarding point 1 : search the makeup of the gdp, and the share of consumer spending in the gdp. Tax makeup of the gdp is also interesting. This can provide some data : https://stats.oecd.org/
Point 2 : this is just ridiculous, of course there would be a panic. I don't have an argument, you'll have to accept it like that. Or not, your choice, it is not important anyway.
Point 3 : look into the history of the euro, and of the french franc vs the d-mark. Who would need printing now and who can/can't. You could also look into japan and the evolution of its national debt since the 80s.
Point 4 : millions here only need diesel to go to work, get the groceries, and drop/fetch their kids to school. And sometimes to heat their home. How would tax variations impact the demand curve ? How that does impact the government potential spending ? How does that impact the government itself ? Look into the gilets jaunes movement.

Post: #109

Again:

1) What is now, is just now. You can change GDP composition. In war economy, like Germany during WWII, consumer goods were essentially looted, German economy itself was concentrated on producing weapons. The weapons made GDP.

2) there would not be a panic, if they said - it is 20 years away. They say more or less the same regarding global warming. That in 20 years there will be either drought or flood everywhere.

3) The printer is now in Frankfurt, Germany and that is a real problem for the French. Quite ironic, when you know that Euro was a French idea. Nevertheless, elites still have some access to it, I believe. Not many people belong to elites, mind you, for UK estimation is that just 36 000 people make up "the establishment". Compare that with UK population, which is counted in millions.

4) Obviously the people could be cycling to work, to grocery shop, children could use mass transit... In former socialist countries private cars for a long time were rather rare, but people still were buying groceries, going to work, children were going to school etc. Houses were heated with coal, now mostly with gas. It is a matter of a lifestyle, not necessity. It is really like Kunstler says, "happy motoring" is the Western way of life.
Since France, like Soviet Union, has so much relatively free nuclear energy, I wonder why you do not have so many trams or trolleybuses as Soviets used to have.
From my personal experience: once upon a time you could travel on electric trolleybuses through the entire Crimea (!), I mean not only inside cities, but from city to city.
There are many solutions you have never developed because you were never interested in them. May I remind you a famous saying, "Necessity is a mother of invention"?
Even now you have a kind of closed mindset, and I say this as a pessimist myself (!). I do hope you are not typical of "Yellow Vests" movement. As I see now, the low stress tolerance coupled with the lack of imagination will bring social unrest in the West rather sooner than later. The great failure of elites is that they are not trying to roll out any kind of positive idea, like "building a new home for everyone" etc, but they just want to scare you and then to say "and now, you must cope with that". As much as badly socialism ended, it started as a positive project, giving hope to masses. Nothing similar nowadays.

Post: #110

You don't seem to be willing to see things for what they are.

The majority of the GDP is consumer spending.
Sure, if you send your consumers to the front this will not stay so, thanks for the suggestion

The euro was not a french idea, see french history between ww2 and y2k.

People could not cycle to work, for various reasons but basically france is big and sparse and housing costs near the cities is totally decorrelated from actual wages.
So the territory was modeled a bit like in the usa, many people drive over 100km every day, which is only possible because of cheap diesel fuel and cars.
And then you have megacities like paris where everything has to be delivered via huge (diesel) trucks from far away because the city itself does not produce any tangible goods.

USSR had many cool things, this is true, I am a big fan of ekranoplanes for instance Or screw-propelled vehicles ..
However their ways were not sustainable as history showed, so it's irrelevant.
Oh and having a multi-million people slave industry helps, too.

And yes, france was once big on nuclear energy, but in the 80s (already !) the ecologist morons stopped the development programs (mostly the superphenix SFR) so now we have nothing.
Funny that russia finalized its own model 2 years ago, so basically we are now 30 years late on civil nuclear technology.
And the tendency is to get rid of the nuclear plants we do have, so yeah it's going to be complicated to replace anything with it.

Post: #111

I have read that accepting Euro by Germany was the price the French set for France conceding to unification of Germany in 1991. In this case, France has been finally hoisted by its own petard, as Germany in EU with Euro is more powerful than ever.

As for other things:
1) the USSR slave industry was already in the significant decline in the 70'es and 80'es, essentially declining since Nikita Chruszczow, and it was mainly mining and logging anyway. The last mega-construction site of USSR, the BAM railway, was built entirely by young volunteers (a great place to pull chicks, too; I once met a Slovak guy who went there as a young volunteer and had great memories of that time). The fact that USSR failed has not much to do with Gulag, actually there were no clear-cut reasons for USSR breakup. It is still a kind of mystery. Nationalism wasn't so strong there, the Baltic states, sure, but the rest....It was much more a FEUDAL phenomenon than any kind of organic nationalism most of the time; a local administration of every republic almost never really liked Moscow anyway, and you see a lot of these guys like Lukaszenko or Nazarbajew becoming almost feudal kings in their respective republics, reigning since the fall of USSR up until now... It surely means that there was no political scene outside the single party of USSR, and it has remained in this way.
Whatever, the West is now failing too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikal%E2%...r_Mainline

2) Maybe people could not cycle but surely they could go by bus. One bus uses less fuel than 50 cars of bus 50 passengers.

3) Maybe I have wrong idea of France, but I thought there is no suburban sprawl there, just cities and banlieus, and then villages that consume half of the entire EU budget in the form of agricultural subsidies. Where is this low density population that everyday commutes 100 km to work? What kind of work is that that they want to commute so far?
If that is true, then you need some serious decentralization and localization, like in the Netherlands where every second small city has some central institution. The Dutch state TV is in Hilversum, for example. Ever heard of Hilversum previously?

Post: #112

(01-15-2019 03:14 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 05:54 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  I don't see much relevance here, dude...

This is because you are either not thinking straight or not that well-informed.

(01-14-2019 05:54 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  Taxes essentially depend on the entire economy, not only on your wish to buy (or not) some consumer goods.

[..]
The elite has an access to the real money printer (banks, and central banks) ANYWAY, so they do not really need your taxes.
[..]

These quotes are so wrong they're not even worth answering.
Do your homework, come back when you know.

“We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon." ~ Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 1934.

Now what you should focus on is the above statement about absence of permanent money in the system; therefore, taxes are not really useful as a means of gaining wealth since they do not stand for anything permanent, too.

Post: #113

(01-15-2019 07:06 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  The great failure of elites is that they are not trying to roll out any kind of positive idea

And what would that be and how politically expedient would that be? You guys no longer flying? Driving an EV? Nobody wants to change their behavior, so why expect big mommy and big daddy government to wave a magic wand and make everything go away? It's unrealistic.

While this thread continues to be yanked into politics and tinfoil hat territory...

https://www.sciencealert.com/antarctic-i...-the-1970s

The "elites" are inconsequential in the end. The planet reacts how it's gonna react to our collective behavior.

Post: #114

(01-15-2019 12:58 PM)questor70 Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 07:06 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  The great failure of elites is that they are not trying to roll out any kind of positive idea

And what would that be and how politically expedient would that be? You guys no longer flying? Driving an EV? Nobody wants to change their behavior, so why expect big mommy and big daddy government to wave a magic wand and make everything go away? It's unrealistic.

While this thread continues to be yanked into politics and tinfoil hat territory...

https://www.sciencealert.com/antarctic-i...-the-1970s

The "elites" are inconsequential in the end. The planet reacts how it's gonna react to our collective behavior.

The idea could be simply some variation on the brotherhood idea, but with some agency to the people, not the top-down management like Merkel's invitations of Syrian refugees...
I really think if people were told the entire truth, they could at least take an informed decision. Even if people voted to continue BAU and to die off in consequence, the elite still could escape to New Zealand to create there a perfectly enlighted society for future.

But it seems that the elite are hell bent on this old adage that "knowledge is power". Actually, when I was going to school I heard that statement a lot around, nowadays it seems that it somehow disappeared...therefore, it may be more relevant than ever.


As for the Arctic, I think that the elite actually secretly wish for the melted Arctic since supposedly the Arctic is the last frontier of natural resources. You realize this when you hear that suddenly China claims to be an "arctic country" too. Nevertheless, development has been really lagging down due to ice conditions; the Russians managed to roll out just a single working Arctic oil platform during the last 10 years! Rather pathetic, I would say, even taking into account the difficulty of Arctic conditions.

Of Antarctica itself I haven't heard much about until now.... but if the situation there is 4 times worse than we previously thought than what about large Siberian permafrost with methane trapped inside ...? Simply scary to even ponder that... on the other hand, if you read the article carefully, all that melted ice for now has made up just for 1 milimeter of sea level rise. When you realize this, the article starts to look like propaganda of fear again. Obviously what they try to convey is "Antarctica Is Now Rapidly Melting All Over, Including Parts We Thought Were Safe", not "Sea level has risen 1 milimeter due to the melting of Antarctica". I suppose the title words I have just put in bold go into subconsciousness... Well, it is a good propaganda, I have discovered it only by the third reading of the article. And who reads the same newspaper articles 3 times? Essentially, no one.
Scary times, one does not know what to believe at all.

Post: #115

(01-15-2019 02:18 PM)Kaligula Wrote:  ...

The idea could be simply some variation on the brotherhood idea, but with some agency to the people, not the top-down management like Merkel's invitations of Syrian refugees...
I really think if people were told the entire truth, they could at least take an informed decision. Even if people voted to continue BAU and to die off in consequence, the elite still could escape to New Zealand to create there a perfectly enlighted society for future.

But it seems that the elite are hell bent on this old adage that "knowledge is power". Actually, when I was going to school I heard that statement a lot around, nowadays it seems that it somehow disappeared...therefore, it may be more relevant than ever.


As for the Arctic, I think that the elite actually secretly wish for the melted Arctic since supposedly the Arctic is the last frontier of natural resources. You realize this when you hear that suddenly China claims to be an "arctic country" too. Nevertheless, development has been really lagging down due to ice conditions; the Russians managed to roll out just a single working Arctic oil platform during the last 10 years! Rather pathetic, I would say, even taking into account the difficulty of Arctic conditions.

Of Antarctica itself I haven't heard much about until now.... but if the situation there is 4 times worse than we previously thought than what about large Siberian permafrost with methane trapped inside ...? Simply scary to even ponder that... on the other hand, if you read the article carefully, all that melted ice for now has made up just for 1 milimeter of sea level rise. When you realize this, the article starts to look like propaganda of fear again. Obviously what they try to convey is "Antarctica Is Now Rapidly Melting All Over, Including Parts We Thought Were Safe", not "Sea level has risen 1 milimeter due to the melting of Antarctica". I suppose the title words I have just put in bold go into subconsciousness... Well, it is a good propaganda, I have discovered it only by the third reading of the article. And who reads the same newspaper articles 3 times? Essentially, no one.
Scary times, one does not know what to believe at all.

Look, it's pretty clear that you're not well-informed on these subjects, you're all over the place and basically just profusely plastering unscientific fear porn you've been exposed to from mainstream propaganda sites.

I would suggest not clogging this board with material that you're not in full command of, as a new poster (and very prolific one) it doesn't make you look good. You've provided some great insights on other subjects where your expertise came through, like Polish history and politics, thanks for that.

I will refer you to better sources on the subject, starting with WUWT, Anthony Watts' site, the world's most viewed site on climate science ( https://wattsupwiththat.com/ ). It's a very active site, supported by a large and smart scientific community, they're always on top of the news and provide solid backgrounds on the fundamentals and dynamics.

Here is his take on the latest Antarctic scare:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/15/t...-ice-melt/

Post: #116

Thanks for remarks.
I do not have any expertise on global warming and thus I do not comment on its scientific credibility or social relevance. I know there is a huge debate around GW but I do not follow it. GW is a complex idea mostly based on not-so-complex models. Thanks for the links, I will read them. My last post was simply on rhetorics of global warming in the mass media, being just a comment on questor70 own post. Moreover, have you noticed that I have actually put in question the dreadful message behind questor70 last link?

I have read a lot on peak oil, and not only on the net but hard copies in libraries too, so I will respectfully disagree that I am purely "clogging". Moreover, there are few other posters who seem to stand behind this idea, too. I am open for any arguments. It might be that this openness sometimes looks like being prolific. But I think that it is good that we have at least one thread at the forum where we can discuss the problem thoroughly.

I am not such a new poster (registration in 2015) and not so prolific... Maybe sometimes.

I am glad that at least you have enjoyed my "Polish" posts. The irony is that I enjoyed them a bit less than posts here; but I always try to spread some reliable information about Poland as too often I have met foreigners rather horribly mistaken about Poland (well, reliable information is often hard to get outside Poland, I know).

Post: #117

You're not clogging, but you are all over the place.

For instance I never said this :

(01-15-2019 08:17 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  The fact that USSR failed has not much to do with Gulag

But rather the opposite, that slaves helped an unsustainable model to last longer than it should have.

Anyway, regarding france's population density, here is how our elite sees it :


Ideally (for me anyway) you live in a white zone but not too far away from a green city.

Post: #118

(01-16-2019 05:01 AM)Oberrheiner Wrote:  You're not clogging, but you are all over the place.

For instance I never said this :

(01-15-2019 08:17 AM)Kaligula Wrote:  The fact that USSR failed has not much to do with Gulag

But rather the opposite, that slaves helped an unsustainable model to last longer than it should have.

Anyway, regarding france's population density, here is how our elite sees it :


Ideally (for me anyway) you live in a white zone but not too far away from a green city.

It looks like you have a desert in the middle of France.... A lot of places to stage a new Vendee uprising if needed. Paris easy to surround, MIDI and Strasbourg can be isolated. Otherwise empty spaces for guerillas...Now I understand why Germans so easily won in 1870-1871 just by laying a siege to Metz and Paris.
Go French CounterRevolution, go!!!

Post: #119

(01-13-2019 01:50 PM)911 Wrote:  I've abstained from posting on this thread because it's so thoroughly infected with dumb normie notions of peak oil and global warming, notions boosted by low-info low-rep posters who are ill-equipped to filter globalist manipulation.

Look at the link posted above by Kaligula, this one:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-...g-for-you/

this resilience.org site here is a religious website, the religion being the Cult of Gaia, where humanity is evil and must be forced to deindustrialize for its own sake, lest the planet burn, and where people are made to feel guilty for using hydrocarbons like oil, gas and coal, which have brought incredible wealth and comfort to humanity.

The cult of gaia is part and parcel of the globohomo leftie agenda, ensnaring the majority of non-STEM over-educated millennials and hippie boomers in blue states. It's pathetic to see that kind of disinfo being relayed on this board.

Peak Oil has been proven to be false, proven oil reserves have shot up and ACTUALLY DOUBLED in the 00s:





One of the main reasons global warming is being pushed so hard is PRECISELY because hydrocarbons have been proven to be a nearly inexhaustible energy resource, providing cheap energy for at least the next two centuries, which is plenty of time to transition to real, viable new high-tech energy sources. Oil is the second most plentiful liquid on earth after water, and we've barely scraped the surface in terms of accessible deposits.

Peak Oil/Global Warming are an ideological mean to artificially throttle the use of cheap energy sources and keep the middle classes poor through direct and indirect taxation schemes. It's really that simple.

Since I have been criticized on the charge that I do not know my subject, I will put to your notice that the second chart you presented here is rather bogus. Everybody who has studied the subject knows that OPEC official reserves are unreliable, since OPEC (most of big oil producers except Russia, USA, Norway, UK and few others) determines members production quotas on those reserves (FYI, Production quotas are to keep oil price high [OPEC official code for high - "stable"], not to save oil for future). If you want to produce more
(= to earn more) - or even produce the same volume all the time - you have a great incentive to artificially inflate your proved reserves. The first of the charts has even a notion of "OPEC paper barrels" (stands for barrels that exist only on paper)....so it is a well known problem in the industry, and a basic knowledge for every Peak Oil researcher.
It is very clear that the second chart is unreliable from the fact that reserves are presented as either rising or straight, constans lines for years and years - it is physically impossible when you are continously recovering oil to have the same level of reserves all the time. These straight lines have something akin with equally straight lines that colonial powers chose as borders in Africa - both were chosen for convenience, not reality.
Since you posted these charts as the evidence for no-peak-oil position, with all respect I must conclude that you are not a serious student of Peak Oil, Sire.

Anyway, proved reserves are everywhere mainly for statistics . What does count for actual oil recovery are so-called recoverable reserves.


As for all the talk about globalists propaganda etc, I would like to remind everyone a basic tenet of agitprop: you mix lie with truth. I do not suppose it has changed. Therefore, some things globalists talk about are false, but some are true. It is not so easy that globalists=liars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agitprop

Post: #120

To sum up this thread, I shall list the reasons for my belief in peak oil theory:

1) It is a simple theory - mathematically even elegant - based on a single variable: conventional crude oil recovery. Everything else (shale oil, for example) can be defined in terms of this one variable. Therefore, the theory is Ockham Razor-proved.
2) It follows the inductive method of reasoning very well, especially since it was first proved by the local conventional crude oil peak in USA only.
3) It has been developed and maintained exclusively by a grassroots movement. On the other hand, all corporate interests are against it. For comparison, in case of global warming theory, some financial interests are for global warming since they hope for carbon tax and carbon emission trade as new sources of profit.
4) I have not found a single relevant question that one could not credibly answer in the framework of this theory.
5) Last 20 years of turmoil in MENA points to the increasing significance of this biggest oil producing region. Increasing significance of MENA points to peak oil.

As you see, no economic arguments at all, only mathematical (1, 2), historical (3,5), and philosophical (4). So, if you want to debunk the theory, it would help if your arguments were of the same kind. Arguments "from observed scientific achievement" count as historical.

Post: #121

Well, there has been today some user, tygertgr, who has posted and then completely disappeared, together with his post, like the Flying Dutchman.
His links, however, have been real, and good. Just read this:

http://energyskeptic.com/2016/more-evide...d-in-2005/

When you read it, you'll realize that a lot of peak oil debate, similarly to global warming debate, suffers from the serious problem of what the numbers really mean. Moreover, the peak oil debate concentrating upon the upstream (oil recovery) has actually obfuscated a bit that what we are really interested in is the downstream, namely what comes out of refinery, diesel for example....

Post: #122

For future reference:

A kind of index entry to all kinds of questions around peak oil:

http://energyskeptic.com/2017/rob-mielca...uble-when/

Summary of the peak oil debate up to now:

http://energyskeptic.com/2019/jorg-fried...-scarcity/

Post: #123

Post scriptum:

If understanding doesn't make our lives better, lack of understanding can hardly make them worse.

Post: #124

Globalists generally have put aside their earlier policy of a gradual "boiling a frog", with 2015 refugees exodus being the best example. So I think that they know too that they are running of time, namely, of resources. Unless of course, you believe that some occult logic drives globalists, but I think that the logic of resources is a bit more rational.
New crises will also give a cover for the resource crisis. Maybe even occultism meme is such a cover. Smoke and mirrors everywhere, in any case.

Post: #125

For as Kurt Cobb stated on his blog Resource Insights following the mid-2016 Vision 2030 announcement,

The world’s largest exporter of crude oil, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, recently announced a plan for its post-oil future. If a country almost synonymous with the oil economy can see the need for such a plan, how can the rest of the world, particularly the United States, the world’s largest consumer of petroleum, not see the necessity of such foresight?

A good article on Saudis:

https://peakoil.com/publicpolicy/the-com...sale-is-on