| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » 4 Years to Go.
Page 1 of 12 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:42 am |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eeyore |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:30 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
knews4u2chew@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Utter drivel.
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:09 am |
|
|
|
|
In misc.survivalism Dan Bloomquist <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote:
The scientist is the liar, because the scientist is the liberal. He just
hates NASCAR.
If it were up to the scientist, he would outlaw the pickup truck! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:01 am |
|
|
|
|
In misc.survivalism Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: Yes, they've been predicting a peak in oil for many decades now. We went
over this in another thread.
This is the "old news" propoganda technique. It is an illegitemate way to
go about proving a point, but nevertheless appeals greatly to dolts.
Quote: However, because they keep getting it wrong, there is no reason to belive
them.
This is a logical fallacy. The data and analysis may well give sufficient
reasons to believe them, and any other predictions are simply irrelevant
to the conclusions they reach presently.
Quote: Particularly since they represent a group, the "Oil Depletion Analysis
Centre", who's bread and butter is to scare people about oil depletion.
This is a appeal to motives, which is a blatent logical fallacy. It is
entirely possible that their conclusions are supported by the data, no
matter what their name is.
You, sir, are either unknowing in the field of logic, or else you
intentionally spread specious arguements. Which is it?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Bloomquist |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Eeyore wrote:
Could you qualify that? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eeyore |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Not necessary.
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Don Lancaster |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Bloomquist |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 11:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stuart Grey |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:42:25 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote:
Quote: http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Yes, they've been predicting a peak in oil for many decades now. We went
over this in another thread.
They keep predicting this peak, and one decade, they will be right.
However, because they keep getting it wrong, there is no reason to belive
them.
Particularly since they represent a group, the "Oil Depletion Analysis
Centre", who's bread and butter is to scare people about oil depletion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:50 pm |
|
|
|
|
In misc.survivalism Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
Quote: On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:01:48 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:
In misc.survivalism Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
Yes, they've been predicting a peak in oil for many decades now. We went
over this in another thread.
This is the "old news" propoganda technique. It is an illegitemate way to
go about proving a point, but nevertheless appeals greatly to dolts.
The prediction we're a half decade away from running out of oil was first
made in 1956.
That is irreleant. You're just crowing more about some irrelevant old
news, as if that has any bearing on the truth of the recent report.
<Irrelevant history deleted>
Quote: You are partly correct, in that one day we will run out of oil;
I said exactly nothing about that, not one way, and not the other. You
are a liar or a fool. Or both.
however,
Quote: you are, as usual, utterly full of shit and gibbering stupidly when you
suggest that this theory has any validity as a predictor
I never said anything of the sort, liar.
Quote: given it's long
and sorry half century of history of raising a false alarm.
Quote: However, because they keep getting it wrong, there is no reason to
believe them.
This is a logical fallacy. The data and analysis may well give
sufficient reasons to believe them, and any other predictions are simply
irrelevant to the conclusions they reach presently.
LOL! Your attempt to mimic rational behavior is an utter failure, because
you don't know anything about logic.
A theory
Gien that we are talking about a report, your comments about a theory are
irrelevant.
<Irreleant comments about some sort of theory snipped>
Quote: Particularly since they represent a group, the "Oil Depletion Analysis
Centre", who's bread and butter is to scare people about oil depletion.
This is a appeal to motives, which is a blatent logical fallacy. It is
entirely possible that their conclusions are supported by the data, no
matter what their name is.
No, it is simply an explanation of why the false theory was advanced...
again.
It is NOT an appeal to motives? Do tell, boi logician!
Quote: You've simply chosen the theory that fits your political agenda.
I hae chosen no theory, liar.
Quote: You, sir, are either unknowing in the field of logic, or else you
intentionally spread specious arguements. Which is it?
You're well known to be to be a gibbering idiot, and you've not shown a
glimmer of intelligence ... ever.
An appeal to unnamed authority? "You're well known to be ..."? Or is it
as simple as an Ad Hominem, boi-logician?
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russel |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Bloomquist |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Stuart Grey wrote:
Who are 'they'?
Quote: They keep predicting this peak, and one decade, they will be right.
Who are 'they'?
Quote: However, because they keep getting it wrong, there is no reason to belive
them.
Who are 'they'?
Quote: Particularly since they represent a group, the "Oil Depletion Analysis
Centre", who's bread and butter is to scare people about oil depletion.
Really! Where do you get that truth? Is this your 'they'? If so, cite
the decades of past peaks they predicated.
So, with an expected demand/production disparity of some 50mb/d in
twenty years, where will the new production come from? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stuart Grey |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 4:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:57:58 +0000, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Quote: Stuart Grey wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 23:42:25 -0700, knews4u2chew wrote:
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2656034.ece
Yes, they've been predicting a peak in oil for many decades now....
Who are 'they'?
They keep predicting this peak, and one decade, they will be right.
Who are 'they'?
However, because they keep getting it wrong, there is no reason to belive
them.
Who are 'they'?
Particularly since they represent a group, the "Oil Depletion Analysis
Centre", who's bread and butter is to scare people about oil depletion.
Really! Where do you get that truth? Is this your 'they'? If so, cite
the decades of past peaks they predicated.
So, with an expected demand/production disparity of some 50mb/d in
twenty years, where will the new production come from?
Your ignorance is noted. "They" refers to Hubbert and his followers, who
have been predicting an oil peak since 1956. Hubbert's original paper
predicted it would peak in the early 1960s.
New production comes from new discoveries and more innovative oil
extraction techniques. One day we WILL run out of oil, but you can't
predict it from theories based on ignorance.
BTW, Hubbert's paper was a call for using coal and nuclear energy sources. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stuart Grey |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 18:01:48 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:
Quote: In misc.survivalism Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@comcast.net> wrote:
Yes, they've been predicting a peak in oil for many decades now. We went
over this in another thread.
This is the "old news" propoganda technique. It is an illegitemate way to
go about proving a point, but nevertheless appeals greatly to dolts.
The prediction we're a half decade away from running out of oil was first
made in 1956.
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf
It has been updated every few years. The fallacy of the peak oil theory is
that it doesn't allow for new discoveries or new extraction techniques,
which is why it has a half century history of false predictions.
You are partly correct, in that one day we will run out of oil; however,
you are, as usual, utterly full of shit and gibbering stupidly when you
suggest that this theory has any validity as a predictor given it's long
and sorry half century of history of raising a false alarm.
Quote: However, because they keep getting it wrong, there is no reason to
believe them.
This is a logical fallacy. The data and analysis may well give
sufficient reasons to believe them, and any other predictions are simply
irrelevant to the conclusions they reach presently.
LOL! Your attempt to mimic rational behavior is an utter failure, because
you don't know anything about logic.
A theory that does not preserve the truth is not a sound and valid theory.
This theory fails, as there are many instances of it failing to predict.
It has NEVER correctly predicted. Ergo, it is rejected.
It's conclusion may ONE DAY BE RIGHT, but that would not make the theory
any less irrational.
Quote: Particularly since they represent a group, the "Oil Depletion Analysis
Centre", who's bread and butter is to scare people about oil depletion.
This is a appeal to motives, which is a blatent logical fallacy. It is
entirely possible that their conclusions are supported by the data, no
matter what their name is.
No, it is simply an explanation of why the false theory was advanced...
again.
If you read the entire article, you'd see that BP oil, iirc, was
predicting another 40 years of oil at present consumption and reserves.
You've simply chosen the theory that fits your political agenda.
Quote: You, sir, are either unknowing in the field of logic, or else you
intentionally spread specious arguements. Which is it?
You're well known to be to be a gibbering idiot, and you've not shown a
glimmer of intelligence ... ever. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Dan Bloomquist |
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Stuart Grey wrote:
Quote:
Your ignorance is noted. "They" refers to Hubbert and his followers, who
have been predicting an oil peak since 1956....
Hubbert predicted global peaking for the turn of the century and the
embargoes have pushed it out a few years. His numbers are spot on.
Quote: Hubbert's original paper
predicted it would peak in the early 1960s.
We have done this before. You are full of shit. He predicated a peak in
U.S. capacity at 1970 and was spot on.
Quote: New production comes from new discoveries and more innovative oil
extraction techniques. One day we WILL run out of oil, but you can't
predict it from theories based on ignorance.
Discoveries are now running 15-20% of demand. It will be below 10% in a
decade. And it is stupid to say, 'Running out of oil', as the issue is a
capacity/demand disparity.
I guess that makes you the ignorant puss. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:07 am |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 15, 12:15 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
It never is with you! haha..
Fact is these same sorts of scientists -geophysicists who study oil
supplies - created a panic with the prediction that the US - an
exporter of oil through the 1950s - would run out of oil by 1970
leading to US loss of control of pricing and an era of ever increasing
oil prices and increased international instability in the period
following. Resulting in a vast accumulation of wealth in oil rich
regions with unpredictable long range political consequences.
At the time non-geology non-expert technologists countered with the
idea that nuclear power would continue to develop and be too cheap
meter soon and at that point reliance on oil supplies will be passe
well before 1970. Why by then we'll likely have a station on the moon
and oil will join coal in the ranks of history as an energy resource
that used to be important.. So, the US had nothing to worry about and
need take no agressive steps..
I think the pessimistic experts were right, and the non-expert
technologists were wrong then.
And I think the pessimistic experts are right now and you are wrong
now Graham.
One wonders why Eeyore posts here since he doesn't believe we're
running out of oil, doesn't believe that global warming is real, and
doesn't believe hydrogen is an important energy source. haha.. To me
he's looking more and more like a hired thug just to argue with and
shout down any conversation in this newsgroup so that it doesn't
become a reliable and cogent source of informatoin sharing among like
minded folks.
In Britain Hyde Park has a section called Speaker's Corner. Anyone
anytime can get on their soapbox and talk about any subject. Its a
long-standing tradition in England, a nation that holds dear to its
traditions. Anyway, its also a well known fact that if any of the
powers that be don't like what a person is saying at speakers corner
they can greatly limit his or her abillity to atrract a crowd by
hiring thugs to shout down, yell curse words, or otherwise make life
unpleasant for any speaker. In the worst instances of this sort of
thing, speakers can be followed home, menaced and even attacked. The
police are there at Hyde Park to protect against this sort of thing.
Not here! haha..
The usenet is the 21st century, global equivalent of speakers corner.
And people like Graham are the 21st century equivalent of hired thugs
that obscure and ultimate defeat an otherwise interesting gathering of
like-minded folk. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 1 of 12 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:31 pm
|
|