So, can we stop worrying about “peak oil” now?

posted at 5:31 pm on February 23, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

For decades, eco-radicals and Malthusians have been crying wolf at the calamitous and ever-imminent phenomenon of “peak oil,” when extraction reaches its highest possible rate and the wells will start running dry — leading to famine- and war-inducing energy price shocks that will send humanity into an economic and environmental tailspin, so everybody start running for the hills!

Obviously, oil and gas’s critics have an interest in perpetuating the time-bomb fear of peak oil (all the better that we forcibly commit to their preferred ‘green’ energies, on the double), but we have amazingly managed to bypass all of these forecasted benchmarks without incident. Meanwhile, thanks largely to hydraulic fracturing in just the past few years, the world’s proven reserves have only continued to expand.

Here are just some of the latest numbers on why “peak oil” is still just an environmentalist boogeyman, from Vaclav Smil at AEI (emphasis mine):

When the final figures for the fourth quarter of 2012 are in, the world will have a new crude oil production record: the total for the first three quarters was about 1 percent ahead of the 2011 total. This is a remarkable achievement for a commodity with annual output that now surpasses, for the first time ever, 4 billion metric tons and which has been, for decades, the largest source of fossil energy and the most valuable item of international commerce. …

But the IEA also says that the world has already reached the peak of conventional oil extraction and that the continuing rise in output is now due only to rising recovery of unconventional sources including extra heavy oil, oil sands, and gas converted to liquids. But that conclusion rests on accepting an arbitrary divide between the two categories. The oil industry has always pushed the boundaries of extraction: going first deeper as rotary drills displaced old percussion drilling, then offshore but within the sight of land in shallow waters, then far offshore in deeper water, then deploying directional and horizontal drilling and recovery of heavy oils, and (starting in 1967) extraction of oil from tar sands.

As technological progress has continued to march along, so has our ability to more fully tap into our own resources and push the boundaries of what “conventional” oil extraction even means. And while the United States has managed to largely lead the recent oil-and-gas revolution even with a federal government that’s been only lackluster with permitting on federal lands and waters, there are mega reserves throughout the rest of the world that have yet to be fully explored and tapped because of government policies.

The dramatic rise in shale-gas extraction and the tight-oil revolution (mostly crude oil that is found in shale deposits) happened in the United States and Canada because open access, sound government policy, stable property rights and the incentive offered by market pricing unleashed the skills of good engineers. …

Policy, not geology, is driving the extraordinary turn of events that is boosting America’s oil industry. East Asia boasts shale and tight-oil resources greater than those of the United States. Latin America and Africa too have very substantial endowments. However, the competitive environment, government policy and available infrastructure mean that North America will dominate the production of shale gas and tight oil for some time to come. …

Today, market-led innovation has brought us to a crossroads again, and the time has come to make critical decisions about energy. Nations with abundant resources must decide whether to follow the path of open markets, including foreign access and competitive pricing. Alternatively, they can opt for restrictive investment regimes that risk becoming less rewarding.

Whatever else the complexities of the global economy and national policies may mean, it is at least abundantly clear that we are not running up against a wall of fuel supplies anytime soon; and even better, that human beings are endlessly adaptable, resourceful, innovative, and efficient.

Global oil and gas supplies are certainly finite in some sense of the word, but there’s no need to induce mass panic about it in a bass-ackwards attempt to convince the world that we absolutely must switch to those holy grails of green, wind and solar — which continue to fail the test of the free market, by the way. Everybody can just calm down.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Doesn’t mater, the green grifters will find something else.

rob verdi on February 23, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Julian Simon was right: PEOPLE are the resource worth investing in, since it was smart and savvy innovators that have saved us from peak wood, peak coal, peak oi, etc.

thebrokenrattle on February 23, 2013 at 5:35 PM

an environmentalist boogeyman

…that is everything!…E V E R Y T H I N G !

KOOLAID2 on February 23, 2013 at 5:36 PM

If we don’t build any new refineries, it won’t matter how much oil/gas we get out of our ground? The epa is going 24/7 making it almost impossible to get permits and the thousand of new regulations are so costly even the refineries we have now are not able to keep up?

The US has more oil/gas than almost any nation on earth, but bho/epa/and his whole team are he!! bent on seeing we pay 6/9per gal so we stop using gas! That will make food and everything we buy getting so expensive only bho/mo/and the elite will have anything? That, IMO, has been and is the plan from day one of bho’s election.
L

letget on February 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM

If oil ran out we could go to nuclear power generation, with Ammonia fueled cars. We could use Thorium reactors if the Uranium ran out.

These people don’t understand human ingenuity.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 5:46 PM

I am always amused (and saddened at unlearned lessons) when conservatives think that issues can be argued calmly and rationally. The left does not Do calm or rational. They do fear, hate, screaming, and childishness.

Warner Todd Huston on February 23, 2013 at 5:48 PM

I worry about A Mine Shaft Gap and Peak Mine Shafts, myself…plus the supply of womyn for the mine shafts.

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM

To capitalism!!

*clink* and a huzzah!!

abobo on February 23, 2013 at 5:57 PM

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Exactly.
There will always be another energy source.
That we haven’t found it yet, or that it hasn’t fully developed, does not matter.
We get better, and we make things better.
Only the enviroluddites don’t like it.

massrighty on February 23, 2013 at 6:00 PM

we are not running up against a wall of fuel supplies anytime soon; and even better, that human beings are endlessly adaptable, resourceful, innovative, and efficient

…unless the government interferes!

KOOLAID2 on February 23, 2013 at 6:00 PM

We get better, and we make things better.
Only the enviroluddites don’t like it.

massrighty on February 23, 2013 at 6:00 PM

They want progress to end, whatever the cost in human lives.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 6:02 PM

so many italics

classic

John Kettlewell on February 23, 2013 at 6:09 PM

They want progress to end, whatever the cost in human lives.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 6:02 PM

And yet, we’re viewed as anti-science, and the other side uses the label “progressive;” which some think implies that we are the side opposed to progress.

massrighty on February 23, 2013 at 6:12 PM

And yet, we’re viewed as anti-science, and the other side uses the label “progressive;” which some think implies that we are the side opposed to progress.

massrighty on February 23, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Everything about the left is a lie, even their names. They aren’t liberal, progressive, or democratic.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 6:17 PM

The dramatic rise in shale-gas extraction and the tight-oil revolution (mostly crude oil that is found in shale deposits) happened in the United States and Canada because open access, sound government policy, stable property rights and the incentive offered by market pricing unleashed the skills of good engineers.

This is the money shot. While the rumors of oil’s demise have been greatly exaggerated. The pessimistic truth is that the only thing that has fueled this innovation is the disappearance of easy to get oil, and by easy I mean cheap.

DFCtomm on February 23, 2013 at 6:25 PM

Someone should remind the lemmings that according to ‘the experts’ we should have run out of enough food for human survival over 100 years ago!

GarandFan on February 23, 2013 at 6:28 PM

calmly and rationally

funny. First, pols, left, media and other institutions do not profit off of calm rational thinking. Second, our country is a bunch of trust fund babies using up the wealth that previous generations built…and self-indulgence limits the extent of serious thought.

r keller on February 23, 2013 at 6:31 PM

And yet, we’re viewed as anti-science, and the other side uses the label “progressive;” which some think implies that we are the side opposed to progress.

massrighty on February 23, 2013 at 6:12 PM
Everything about the left is a lie, even their names. They aren’t liberal, progressive, or democratic.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 6:17 PM

It all depends on your definition of progress and innovation. If you equate progress to extracting more resources from the ground, the economic foundation of Russia, Saudia Arabia or Venezuela, then you may feel offended. How dare anyone oppose progress!

Others don’t see oil production as progress, per se, but as the perpetuation of an exiting industry. So yes, there are some who might believe that the internet and knowledge economy are the primary drives of progress. After all, Germany and Japan have almost no natural resources but among the highest standards of living.

The other obvious factor is global warming. For those who see a leftist scientific conspiracy orchestrated from the UN, it’s a non-issue. But for states such as New York and New Jersey, facing the prospects of more massive storms that cause damage in the tens of billions coupled with rising ocean levels, it cannot be ignored.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Julian Simon was right: PEOPLE are the resource worth investing in, since it was smart and savvy innovators that have saved us from peak wood, peak coal, peak oi, etc.

thebrokenrattle on February 23, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Julian Simon was a great clear thinker. He smacked down Paul *We’re all Gonna Die Soon* Ehrlich, on a bet concerning future prices of resources, IIRC. Ehrlich finally paid up, but whined about it.

Mimzey on February 23, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Others don’t see oil production as progress, per se, but as the perpetuation of an exiting industry.

I see oil as a fuel that runs tractors and feed millions of people. I see it as a fuel that brings that food in trucks to those who need it. I see oil as something that allows the transportation network to function so that famines are infrequent due to the ability of that network to supply what is lacking elsewhere.

So yes, there are some who might believe that the internet and knowledge economy are the primary drives of progress. After all, Germany and Japan have almost no natural resources but among the highest standards of living.

And yet they would starve to death if the food stopped being produced because there weren’t enough tractors, or trucks, or ships to bring it to them. The Internet isn’t going to ship a million tons of wheat.

The other obvious factor is global warming. For those who see a leftist scientific conspiracy orchestrated from the UN, it’s a non-issue.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM

I see AGW as the load of crap it is.

Co2 has been far higher in the past and there has been no disastrous runaway greenhouse effect. Temperatures have been both elevated in the past such as the Medieval Warm Period when there were no great industrial factories or SUVs to create such an effect. We also have the Little Ice Age which followed the Medieval Warm Period.

None of this had a damn thing to do with man or what he was doing, so my suggestion to those global warming nuts would be to get over yourself, you just aren’t that important. Temperatures rise and fall independently of man, and they will continue to do so.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 6:49 PM

It all depends on your definition of progress and innovation

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Hahaha you’re such an idiot. If you don’t think the new methods to find and extract oil is not progress you’re even dumber than originally thought.

True to form. More fear mongering . There is no proof storms have actually increased . Why are you so dishonest?

CW on February 23, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Why are you so dishonest?

CW on February 23, 2013 at 6:52 PM

Because if he wasn’t dishonest he wouldn’t have anything to say?

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 6:55 PM

After all, Germany and Japan have almost no natural resources but among the highest standards of living.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM

And yet Germany and Japan are in the top 6 in oil consumption .

Seriously you expose your ignorance more and more every single day.

Maybe you should go back to talking about Rush, Beck, and Bill Gates. You seem much more comfortable there.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 6:55 PM

And yet they would starve to death if the food stopped being produced because there weren’t enough tractors, or trucks, or ships to bring it to them.

I never said that farming isn’t important. I said that the continuation of farming is NOT a sign of progress. Take it easy, no one is putting down farmers or truck drivers.

None of this had a damn thing to do with man or what he was doing, so my suggestion to those global warming nuts would be to get over yourself, you just aren’t that important. Temperatures rise and fall independently of man, and they will continue to do so.

Maybe you need to admit that you’re not a scientist, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and just because you can band together with like-minded ‘experts’ on the internet doesn’t validate your feeble understanding of science, whether it’s global warming or the properties exhibited by graphene under pressure.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Maybe you need to admit that you’re not a scientist, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and just because you can band together with like-minded ‘experts’ on the internet doesn’t validate your feeble understanding of science, whether it’s global warming or the properties exhibited by graphene under pressure.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Says the idiot that doesn’t realize that we have not seen any real increase in storms . Heck you probably think the US is being ravaged by monstrous hurricanes. Pssst science boy ,,,it is not true.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:00 PM

And yet Germany and Japan are in the top 6 in oil consumption .

Seriously you expose your ignorance more and more every single day.

It’s telling that you can’t comprehend the difference between oil production and oil consumption. Brilliant.

You are a bitter little man, it’s unfortunate that name calling is your main response. Wasn’t mommy ever there too teach you how to behave like a big boy?

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:06 PM

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:06 PM

So ye with little mind just glosses over the fact that they are two of the larges USERS of oil? That’s the point . Who cares that they may not be able to produce it themselves …they still use it. Sheesh you’re really not that bright. Funny you talking about acting like a big boy. Do tell us about Rush, Beck, and also the rich liberals again…you always fall back on those talking points.

Oh and science boy please tell us what happens to sea levels naturally when the Earth is in an interglacial period as we are now. This should be good.

laughable.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:10 PM

I never said that farming isn’t important. I said that the continuation of farming is NOT a sign of progress.

Yes it is. I realize to a leftist that starving people IS a sign of progress given how often that takes place when your ideas are ever put into practice, but to us anti-scientific types, starving people is a sign of failure.

Maybe you need to admit that you’re not a scientist, you don’t know what you’re talking about…

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 6:56 PM

Except I do know what I am talking about and it doesn’t really take all that much trouble to find out the truth of it. The fact that you evaded the point also speaks to that. Temperatures rise and fall totally independent of human industrial production.

The Jurassic Period had CO2 levels that were around 1800 ppm and there was no runaway greenhouse effect.

Sorry…we don’t need you to save the earth, the whales, or even your hometown. It’s kind of a letdown I know, but that comic book stuff isn’t real Bayam.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Oh and Brayam love how your bring the facts. / Too much.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:12 PM

It’s telling that you can’t comprehend the difference between oil production and oil consumption.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:06 PM

Without the oil they would be starving so yes, it is rather important. Their standard of living is dependent on that oil you ninny.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 7:14 PM

So ye with little mind just glosses over the fact that they are two of the larges USERS of oil?

The point is that many first world countries, unlike Russia and Saudi Arabia, actually produce very little of their own energy, and that the linkage between energy production and economic greatness is tenuous. But it takes quite a scholar to point out that the world’s largest industrial nations consume a lot of oil. Are we dealing with a Harvard man perchance?

Says the idiot that doesn’t realize that we have not seen any real increase in storms . Heck you probably think the US is being ravaged by monstrous hurricanes. Pssst science boy ,,,it is not true.

Great, you’re practically stalking me. But I’m glad that you so deeply appreciate every word I write.

Are you saying there’s no evidence behind increased storm severity? I can’t imagine anyone trying to claim an ‘increase’ in storms, yet you think it’s worth addressing.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Without the oil they would be starving so yes, it is rather important. Their standard of living is dependent on that oil you ninny.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 7:14 PM

Brayam thought they got that oil through magic. You see if you don’t produce it yourself your use doesn’t matter to the environment.
Whoa….. wow if that is Brayam’s thought process he’s even denser than first thought.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Great, you’re practically stalking me. But I’m glad that you so deeply appreciate every word I write.

You flatter yourself but nice dodge.

Are you saying there’s no evidence behind increased storm severity? I can’t imagine anyone trying to claim an ‘increase’ in storms, yet you think it’s worth addressing.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Where’s that evidence? The fact is that if you look at the world as a whole there is no real increase. Sorry to burst your little bubble.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:21 PM

the linkage between energy production and economic greatness is tenuous.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Germany and Japan are the nations you mentioned and both those nations know how absurd your statement is.

Japan was crushed in World War Two and oil was no small part of why that happened. Germany’s strategy in World War Two was driven by the need to acquire oil, and their war machine ground to a halt because that oil was denied.

Look up the Ploesti oil raid (operation Tidal Wave) and why Japan invaded Indonesia.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 7:25 PM

The point is that many first world countries, unlike Russia and Saudi Arabia, actually produce very little of their own energy, and that the linkage between energy production and economic greatness is tenuous.

-Brayam

And if they couldn’t get it? They’d be just as great…

again dumber and dumber with every single post.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Brayam thought they got that oil through magic. You see if you don’t produce it yourself your use doesn’t matter to the environment.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:19 PM

He’s pushing the idea that we can just be think tanks for the world, and somehow our thoughts will be so valuable to the others, that they will keep sending us their goodies forever.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Brayam come on woman share your scientific knowledge with hot gas….tell us what happens to global temperatures and ocean levels when we’re in an interglacial period like we are now. It won’t hurt ya …just try there braniac.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Say too Brayam what is our baseline temperature? Which one do you choose? 1970? 1000 AD? 100 AD? 12000 BC?

(Laughably this is so beyond you as is the use of baseline budgeting is with the common Democratic voter).

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:34 PM

tell us what happens to global temperatures and ocean levels when we’re in an interglacial period like we are now. It won’t hurt ya …just try there braniac.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Where did you learn the word ‘brainiac’, in high school? No, there’s no reason to justify scientific research endorsed by the Academy of Sciences of every nation in the world and nearly all renowned physicists in the US. The right has it all figured out.

And it’s hard to believe that most of the US is being outmaneuvered by so many of its economic rivals, given such insight and knowledge at home.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:36 PM

For decades, eco-radicals and Malthusians have been crying wolf at the calamitous and ever-imminent phenomenon of “peak oil,” when extraction reaches its highest possible rate and the wells will start running dry — leading to famine- and war-inducing energy price shocks that will send humanity into an economic and environmental tailspin, so everybody start running for the hills!

Of course not…but I view “peak oil” as the sweet crude that comes up easily in liquid form in the Middle East and some other regions. I believe Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have been hiding their real reserve estimates from the West. I’m not sure if it’s because they have already reached peak oil and don’t want us to know, or if their reserves are way more plentiful than we think so they can keep the prices up?

Oil tars/sands exists in very huge supply here and in Canada, but face it, it will end up costing more because of extra refining steps. Still, better to have it than to not. The economic system will simply have to adjust until something better comes along.

Though their timelines are way off, I too, don’t buy the infinite resource angle. There is always a finite amount of X, even sunlight. The question is, how long will X last used at the current rate, or how long in the future with increased usage?

BTW, anyone out there ever thought of what an alien technologically-advanced system would have to probably have to reach the nuclear stage? Most likely wood then coal then oil then nuclear? If there were no wood, coal, oil or uranium what then? If these things did exist, then that would mean that planet would be pretty much identical to ours…just wondering.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 23, 2013 at 7:38 PM

He’s pushing the idea that we can just be think tanks for the world, and somehow our thoughts will be so valuable to the others, that they will keep sending us their goodies forever.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 7:27 PM

That’s right, if the US could only revert to a agriculture and mining based economy, in the form of Russia, it would be so much better!
Let Apple, Google, Genentech, and all of those worthless ‘knowlege-based’ companies disappear. The world won’t need their services forever.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Where did you learn the word ‘brainiac’, in high school? No, there’s no reason to justify scientific research endorsed by the Academy of Sciences of every nation in the world and nearly all renowned physicists in the US. The right has it all figured out.

And it’s hard to believe that most of the US is being outmaneuvered by so many of its economic rivals, given such insight and knowledge at home.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Poor baby. In other words you have nothing.

You just keep proving me right. You’re not too bright.

Come on now share with us your knowledge of Rush Limbaugh. You know you want to.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Let Apple, Google, Genentech, and all of those worthless ‘knowlege-based’ companies disappear. The world won’t need their services forever.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:39 PM

So much straw.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:40 PM

Where did you learn the word ‘brainiac’, in high school? No, there’s no reason to justify scientific research endorsed by the Academy of Sciences of every nation in the world and nearly all renowned physicists in the US. The right has it all figured out.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Well out here in Elk Snout we call that an Argument From Authority. That means that some fancy talkin’ city feller said somthin’ an we is all to believe whatever he say, cause he wearing a fancy suit an all.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 7:41 PM

Heh.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:42 PM

That’s right, if the US could only revert to a agriculture and mining based economy, in the form of Russia, it would be so much better!

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:39 PM

Nope. That doesn’t mean that an economy shouldn’t be multi-faceted. We need an agricultural sector, and a great number of people around the world need it as well or they starve. In fact the idiot ethanol subsidies are part of the reason for the rise in food prices that created the Arab Spring. Thanks to the environmental insanity.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 7:44 PM

Without logical fallacies Brayam would have very little. The Argument from Authority is her favorite. ( Bill Gates, Buffet, etc etc)

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:49 PM

I also wonder if governments/companies are hiding a lot more from us in terms of resources? For instance, how come no new huge diamond fields, silver mines or gold mines have been found in the last 100 years? If new ones are found, the total supply doesn’t seem to increase beyond the old supply demand ratio.

I remember reading in a geology book years ago how amethyst used to be a very expensive, precious gem. And then a huge deposit was found in Brazil and the bottom fell out of the market, and over night became at best a semi-precious stone. Something tells me that the savvy wouldn’t let that happen again!

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 23, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Others don’t see oil production as progress, per se, but as the perpetuation of an exiting industry. So yes, there are some who might believe that the internet and knowledge economy are the primary drives of progress. After all, Germany and Japan have almost no natural resources but among the highest standards of living.

Nope. You. Missed. The. Point.

The ability to drill/mine/extract more efficiently is, all by itself, a form of progress.

The point I made, and that you missed, is that your side paints conservatives as anti-science, and anti-progress, without any rational basis for it.

The other obvious factor is global warming. For those who see a leftist scientific conspiracy orchestrated from the UN, it’s a non-issue. But for states such as New York and New Jersey, facing the prospects of more massive storms that cause damage in the tens of billions coupled with rising ocean levels, it cannot be ignored.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM

I will consider global warming obvious when it is proven, using open-source methods that can be both validated and replicated by scientists who don’t have a vested interest in an outcome they have presupposed.

Your on the side of ignorance, intolerance, and superstition.
Prove global warming. Then, prove that whatever warming you can find is caused wholey and soley by man. Then, find a proximate cause. Then, prove that it would go away/go down/decrease by specific changes in behavior.

Show your damn work, skippy.

massrighty on February 23, 2013 at 7:51 PM

1) Bayam makes the valid point that energy PRODUCTION and development are only loosely correlated. But, as others point out, Hi energy usage is correlated with development.
2) Bayam, all those “hi tech” things you mentioned, are very ENERGY intensive and dependent…imagine Google or Facebook or a bio-tech firm WITHOUT power…

Ergo, cheaper energy=greater growth, even for Hi Tech/digital firms….

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 7:51 PM

Well out here in Elk Snout we call that an Argument From Authority. That means that some fancy talkin’ city feller said somthin’ an we is all to believe whatever he say, cause he wearing a fancy suit an all.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 7:41 PM

Right, there’s no reason to give the broad conclusions of the scientific community any credence. Not when you can easily asses all the data and relevant science yourself.
It’s another reason to feel excited by the promise of a data feed from the CERN super-collider to right-wing bloggers. Particle theory is about to be revolutionized.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Something tells me that the savvy wouldn’t let that happen again!

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 23, 2013 at 7:49 PM

Put the tin-foil hat away….

You get more when prices RISE…it’s worth our while to find oil/amethyst….

So, no there isn’t a shadowy cabal (of Jooos or Capitalists) preventing the discovery of anything….after all, it’s in the outside players interest to break into the market to reap the profits. Why would they let a cabal deny them and how could a cabal afford to deny them?

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 7:53 PM

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Right back to the logical fallacy. Par!!

Say what is the most dominant greenhouse gas ?

CW on February 23, 2013 at 7:55 PM

Ergo, cheaper energy=greater growth, even for Hi Tech/digital firms….

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 7:51 PM

The high energy input to the agricultural and mining sector is also why so many workers are freed up from the mines and farms for other purposes. Without that we really would revert to a more primitive economy.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Right, there’s no reason to give the broad conclusions of the scientific community any credence. Not when you can easily asses all the data and relevant science yourself.

There was a broad consensus:
1) That Phlogiston caused fire;
2) That Plate tectonics was hookum; and
3) That ulcers were caused by stress, not bacteria.

Much of the IPCC “scientific consensus” is from PhD’s in areas OTHER THAN Climatology…and even the Climatologists aren’t universally convinced, and some of the Climatologists who ARE convinced have shoddy statistics.

Lastly since you are all “Scientific” and such…give me one falsifiable hypothesis of Global Warming that has panned out. That IS the basis of Science, a falsifiable set of claims, who’s proof strongly suggests that the proferred hypothesis is correct.

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Right, there’s no reason to give the broad conclusions of the scientific community any credence. Not when you can easily asses all the data and relevant science yourself.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:52 PM

Correct. Shocking as it must be for a leftist there are people in the world who can think for themselves. No, seriously. We don’t just let others tell us what to think but actively investigate what they tell us and come to our own conclusions.

Your priests may not be telling your tribe the whole story.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 8:00 PM

The other obvious factor is global warming. For those who see a leftist scientific conspiracy orchestrated from the UN, it’s a non-issue. But for states such as New York and New Jersey, facing the prospects of more massive storms that cause damage in the tens of billions coupled with rising ocean levels, it cannot be ignored.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM

I need a Cuckoo clock picture for this.

The Rogue Tomato on February 23, 2013 at 8:00 PM

Some years ago Brayam would have been screaming about global cooling. What a lackey.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 8:01 PM

But for states such as New York and New Jersey, facing the prospects of more massive storms that cause damage in the tens of billions coupled with rising ocean levels, it cannot be ignored.

See, storms are NOT more massive, just because you have a (refuted) talking point doesn’t make it true.

Ocean levels are NOT rising, yet ANOTHER refuted talking point….please try some new ones.

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 8:08 PM

I will consider global warming obvious when it is proven, using open-source methods that can be both validated and replicated by scientists who don’t have a vested interest in an outcome they have presupposed.

Open source? As in the open source model made prevalent by American liberals in California?

There we go again, scientists can’t be trusted to produce credible results in their fields of study because of inherent ‘conflicts of interest’. If only you had been around 50 years ago, you might have been effective at deflecting anti-smoking science.

I recently hosted a group of Chinese high school exchange students, visiting the US during a break, over dinner. These kids start school at 7:30am and end at 5:00pm, 6 days a week. All spoke English fluently, many planned to pursue engineering or science degrees in college. The mistrust of the scientific community so common on the right is uniquely American. It’s absolutely unheard of in China (and Europe), especially among educated high school kids. In 6 years these kids will graduate and ready be to compete for your jobs and for your kids jobs.
A world with few real boundaries is going to extract a heavy, heavy price on those unprepared for the new reality. The bulk of the world’s resources will go to those with the best minds and with the most advanced knowledge economies.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 8:10 PM

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 8:10 PM

A very long reply that said essentially nothing.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 8:12 PM

A world with few real boundaries is going to extract a heavy, heavy price on those unprepared for the new reality. The bulk of the world’s resources will go to those with the best minds and with the most advanced knowledge economies.

And this relatees Global Warming, HOW?

And obviously it excludes YOU….

You keep prating on aobut “science” so just bring ut those falsifiable hypotheses, please?

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 8:13 PM

The mistrust of the scientific community so common on the right is uniquely American.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Oh, it’s our fault. We made them hide e-mails. Plot to silence dissenters, and scheme ways to circumvent FOI requests. The loss of good faith you and scientists have been moaning about is a direct result of their actions.

DFCtomm on February 23, 2013 at 8:16 PM

Right, there’s no reason to give the broad conclusions of the scientific community any credence. Not when you can easily asses all the data and relevant science yourself.
It’s another reason to feel excited by the promise of a data feed from the CERN super-collider to right-wing bloggers. Particle theory is about to be revolutionized.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 7:52 PM

You mean that same scientific community that was faking all the global warming data revealed in those emails. Those others are right. You aren’t very bright. Have you ever fallen for one of those Nigerian money scams?

msupertas on February 23, 2013 at 8:17 PM

The mistrust of the scientific community so common on the right is uniquely American.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 8:10 PM

Europeans have always been a bunch of sheep. I know, I lived there. Maybe it’s uniquely American to not always believe everything that’s spoon fed to ya. Well, most of us anyway.

msupertas on February 23, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Plot to silence dissenters, and scheme ways to circumvent FOI requests. The loss of good faith you and scientists have been moaning about is a direct result of their actions.

Science dissenters? Are you serious?

When the right starts innovating and contributing to scientific progress in this country, I’ll shut up. Or even start a successful auto manufacturing company. Or search engine. But right now it’s main role seems to be that of whining and advancing various conspiracy and victimization theories. It’s much easier to tear down than to build, and it’s an unfortunate path to follow. Not sure how this and the next generation of conservatives will compete against their Chinese peers who fully embrace science and act with complete confidence in scientific progress (incl. global warming science).

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 8:25 PM

who fully embrace science and act with complete confidence in scientific progress (incl. global warming science).

They DO, because their country doesn’t seem to act that way….

Again, falsifiable hypotheses that have panned out…please provide them…

Hint: Einstein said IF his theory was corect:
1) He explained the hitherto fore anomalous orbit of Mercury;
2) The gravity lens effect of star light; and
3) Clocks running at different speeds in differing gravity wells.

1) was self-evident, 2) demonstrated in the 1920′s and 3) in the 1970′s by the USN.

Einstein has “science” you keep talking ABOUT science but not actually providing any.

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 8:29 PM

Science dissenters? Are you serious?

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 8:25 PM

Yes you twit. If I remember correctly, they discussed ways to circumvent FOI requests and talked about how to stop the publishing of any papers from people who dissented from AWG. I wouldn’t be worried about those Chinese. They have many, many social factors working against them, and that bright shiny future you’re talking about will rob them of their manufacturing base. When it’s automated you don’t need slave Chinese labor.

DFCtomm on February 23, 2013 at 8:30 PM

There we go again, scientists can’t be trusted to produce credible results in their fields of study because of inherent ‘conflicts of interest’. If only you had been around 50 years ago, you might have been effective at deflecting anti-smoking science.

This isn’t even close to the point I was making. I will restate;

I will consider global warming obvious when it is proven, using open-source methods that can be both validated and replicated by scientists who don’t have a vested interest in an outcome they have presupposed.

Your on the side of ignorance, intolerance, and superstition.
Prove global warming. Then, prove that whatever warming you can find is caused wholey and soley by man. Then, find a proximate cause. Then, prove that it would go away/go down/decrease by specific changes in behavior.

Show your damn work, skippy.

massrighty on February 23, 2013 at 7:51 PM


I recently hosted a group of Chinese high school exchange students, visiting the US during a break, over dinner. These kids start school at 7:30am and end at 5:00pm, 6 days a week. All spoke English fluently, many planned to pursue engineering or science degrees in college. The mistrust of the scientific community so common on the right is uniquely American. It’s absolutely unheard of in China (and Europe), especially among educated high school kids. In 6 years these kids will graduate and ready be to compete for your jobs and for your kids jobs.

I struck this; it doesn’t prove anything, or move your point.

A world with few real boundaries is going to extract a heavy, heavy price on those unprepared for the new reality. The bulk of the world’s resources will go to those with the best minds and with the most advanced knowledge economies.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 8:10 PM

We already have the best minds, and the most advanced knowledge economies. I want that, and plentiful, efficiently gathered energy.

My position is that we can have all of it.

massrighty on February 23, 2013 at 8:32 PM

The mistrust of the scientific community so common on the right is uniquely American.

bayam on February 23, 2013 at 8:10 PM

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter include several United Nations IPCC scientists.

The scientists declared that global warming has become a “pseudo religion” and they noted that rising CO2 has “had no measurable effect” on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the “UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility.”

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” – Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” – Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” – U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri’s asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it’s hard to remain quiet.” – Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken…Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” – Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature’s regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?” – Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil… I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” – Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” – Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” – Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” – Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Whatever the weather, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

“But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” – Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

“The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities.” – Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

“Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” – Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

“I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion?” – Dr. G LeBlanc Smith, a retired Principal Research Scientist with Australia’s CSIRO.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 8:34 PM

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Smackdown. Good stuff.

msupertas on February 23, 2013 at 8:42 PM

When the right starts innovating and contributing to scientific progress in this country, I’ll shut up. Or even start a successful auto manufacturing company. Or search engine.
bayam on February 23, 2013 at 8:25 PM

She’s back and in fine form. Using the same talking points we have grown accustomed to. This one has about 5 thoughts that she uses over and over while daring not to question the scientific community .

Say Brayam tell me what happens when we are in an interglacial period like we are now ? What happens to the Earth’s temperature? The oceans’ level. Do tell as you’re all knowing….

CW on February 23, 2013 at 8:48 PM

Smackdown. Good stuff.

msupertas on February 23, 2013 at 8:42 PM

It will mean nothing. For the left as Ivar Giaever says, global warming has become their religion. They believed in the coming ice age for the same reasons.

This is a fun image…

http://kiradavis.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/time-magazine-ice-age-global-warming.jpg

What never changes is their hate for human advancement. Everywhere they want to roll back the clock to an age when the world was smaller and they were bigger.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 8:49 PM

I recently hosted a group of Chinese high school exchange students, visiting the US during a break, over dinner. These kids start school at 7:30am and end at 5:00pm, 6 days a week. All spoke English fluently, many planned to pursue engineering or science degrees in college. The mistrust of the scientific community so common on the right is uniquely American. It’s absolutely unheard of in China (and Europe), especially among educated high school kids. In 6 years these kids will graduate and ready be to compete for your jobs and for your kids jobs.

Actually that they are so willing to NOT think and NOT question is quite scary. One of the main jobs of a scientist should be to challenge and question. Instead your ilk prefers to silence or mock those that dare disagree. Ironically this simply fuels the distrust of those that don’t believe.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 8:50 PM

It’s absolutely unheard of in China

You and Friedman. What a pair.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Oh Bayam, Science, please…the build-up of CO@ leads to greater water vapour concentrations and higher temperatures….where’s the water vapour? Are there more or the same number of clouds? Have there been alternative explanations for cloud formation? How do you account for the correlation between sun spot activity and climate?

Also, snow to be a rarity in Britain….drought…more storms…more intense storms….Arctic Ice disappearing….Antarctic Ice Shelf disappearing (or is that volcanic activity?)

THIS is “science” simply talking ABOUT science is NOT science….

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 8:58 PM

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Brayam knows nothing other than she believes. That one is 51 cards short of a full deck.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 9:01 PM

I know just because you don’t answer doesn’t mean anything, life intrudes, I know that…but it’s like Bayam ran off…

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 9:02 PM

it’s like Brayam ran off…

JFKY on February 23, 2013 at 9:02 PM

It has nothing bus 5 different talking points all reheated when needed. Not.Much.Else.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 9:18 PM

*but

CW on February 23, 2013 at 9:18 PM

Observation:

Out: Peak Oil
In: Peak Price

Let me explain. We will be awash in oil for at least a couple of more generations that is a certain. But we have to acknowledge that the cheap stuff is just about gone. Back when it only took pennies to suck the oil out of the ground the retail price of the refined stuff stayed pretty low. But the reserves we are finding, good as they are, are deeper, offshore, require newer more expensive technologies to extract. Nothing wrong with that.

But now rather than pennies to suck the oil out of the ground it takes a couple of dollars. That translates that the base cost for the refined stuff will be higher as a result. Gas that is $3.50-4.00 will be the norm.

Dr. Dog on February 23, 2013 at 9:29 PM

But now rather than pennies to suck the oil out of the ground it takes a couple of dollars. That translates that the base cost for the refined stuff will be higher as a result. Gas that is $3.50-4.00 will be the norm.

Dr. Dog on February 23, 2013 at 9:29 PM

And if so we will naturally adapt to other resources like natural gas as time goes on. Trying to force some of these green energy sources is just pure folly.

CW on February 23, 2013 at 9:34 PM

If we don’t build any new refineries, it won’t matter how much oil/gas we get out of our ground? The epa is going 24/7 making it almost impossible to get permits and the thousand of new regulations are so costly even the refineries we have now are not able to keep up?

letget on February 23, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Yep. Obama will say he supports ‘all of the above’, when behind the scenes he supports none of the above. Refineries are the bottleneck, and he will choke off our energy supply by choking off the refineries.

petefrt on February 23, 2013 at 9:37 PM

But the reserves we are finding, good as they are, are deeper, offshore, require newer more expensive technologies to extract. Nothing wrong with that.

But now rather than pennies to suck the oil out of the ground it takes a couple of dollars. That translates that the base cost for the refined stuff will be higher as a result. Gas that is $3.50-4.00 will be the norm.

Dr. Dog on February 23, 2013 at 9:29 PM

Could well be but they are investigating Methane Hydrates along the continental shelf which could supplement, or replace oil in thermal generating plants.

sharrukin on February 23, 2013 at 9:38 PM

CW,

Don’t disagree one bit. Its also pure folly that we have not opened a new refinery in 30 years. Logic dictates that we should spread the refining capacity of this country over a diverse area. It is too concentrated in just a few sites. A terrorist hit on just a few of them would put us in a world of hurt.

Dr. Dog on February 23, 2013 at 9:41 PM

The other obvious factor is global warming… it cannot be ignored.
 
bayam on February 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM

 
Show your damn work, skippy.
 
massrighty on February 23, 2013 at 7:51 PM

 
That sums up the skepticism beautifully.

rogerb on February 23, 2013 at 9:52 PM

“peak oil” is a valid concept. There is not an infinite stock of oil in the world. There may be centuries of stock, but it is not by any sense of the word, infinite. To the extent that we can get our energy needs satisfied by other “renewable” sources of energy — such as sunlight — we are ahead of the game.

As for fracking — it is commonly used for extracting, not additional oil, but additional natural gas — known as “shale gas”.

We had a bunch of anti-fracking guys come to demonstrate in here in Culver City, and I met one walking down the block on stilts dressed like Uncle Sam and a big “No Fracking” sign on his back. I asked him how he heats his house in winter — did he use electricity or natural gas? He said he uses natural gas, and I responded that he needed to shift over to electricity immediately. He asked why, and I told him that fracking is how most of the natural gas in California is produced, so if he was serious about it, he should make the shift. He accused me of lying, but I said facts don’t lie, and you should be sure of your facts before you go off protesting against something you both need and use.

unclesmrgol on February 24, 2013 at 1:53 AM

bayam, like all climate alarmists, relies upon the logical fallacies of “consensus” and “appeal to authority” to avoid addressing the real questions.

On “peak oil,” it isn’t just a crazy fad of the organic bean sprout crowd, it’s been official policy of all government and industry agencies for more than a century. Every single estimate of how much oil was in reserve has been proven incredibly wrong over time. The official estimate in 1949 was less than 20 years worth of oil in the US. In 1970, world oil reserves were estimated to be exhausted in 30 years assuming consumption increased at just over the rate of average world GDP growth. Actual consumption increased at more than double that rate, and yet, by 2000 there were more known reserves remaining than the 1970 estimate thought existed in total at the time.

It isn’t about supply. It isn’t about pollution (we use more fossil fuels but produce less pollution from them than 30 years ago – one reason carbon dioxide has suddenly been classified a pollutant). It’s about control over the economy by an unqualified elite.

Adjoran on February 24, 2013 at 4:19 AM

Given that the US and Europe are hitting the limit of the government’s financial ability or the publics willingness to continue to shower subsidies to keep uncompetitive green energy things like wind, solar and corn-based ethanol, can we start talking about “Peak Green Energy” having been reached.

KW64 on February 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM