Skip to main content

View Diary: Peak oil and peak silliness (111 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  you should look at longer trends (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse, helfenburg

    and not overstate small increases in production in a single year as evidence of a trend or lack of a trend.

    From your source:

    2012 was 2.6% more than 2004

    2004 was 9.9% more than 1998

    1998 was 11.5% more than 1991

    That looks like a trend, one you should think about.

    •  You are just changing the subject (0+ / 0-)

      Oil production is increasing, therefore we are not at peak oil.

      The fact that oil production is not meeting your preconceived levels has nothing to do with it.

      •  how is it changing the subject to point (0+ / 0-)

        out that the rate of increase in oil production is slowing dramatically over the last 20 years?  That is what peak oil is about.  If you want to argue we are not quite at the peak yet, fine, but there are comments in this thread suggesting that a small increase last year means no peak oil.  

        •  Suppose we disagree over the speed of a vehicle (0+ / 0-)

          I say that it is speeding up. You claim that it is slowing down.

          I show you the speedometer and point out that it is reading a higher value than it was a few minutes ago.

          Then you say, "But the rate of acceleration is less than it was before."

          You just changed the subject. We were never discussing acceleration before that. The value of the acceleration is immaterial to your original argument about the vehicle's speed.

          •  I'll play that game (0+ / 0-)

            Peak oil says it is going to stop accelerating because it is using up a finite resource.  it will reach a peak and then slow down.  That is what it is.

            You were never discussing acceleration because
            a) you don't understand peak oil, or
            b) you are willfully ignoring ideas and facts to make your point based on a simple and simplistic data point

            •  Why do you have to resort to ad hominem attacks? (0+ / 0-)

              You are only making yourself look foolish.

              Your acceleration argument is a red herring. If you don't know what that means, please look it up.

              Besides that you have a faulty red herring. Your figures are wrong. (Strangely, 11.5 is correct for 1991 - 1998)

              You cherry picked the years. Percent increase in world oil production using half decades:

              1980 - 1985   -9.4%
              1985 - 1990   12.1%
              1990 - 1995     3.2%
              1995 - 2000     9.7%
              2000 - 2005     7.5%

              These figures signify nothing and are still a red herring.

              •  I see you left out the last 7 years (0+ / 0-)

                of course you did, it would demolish your point

                •  Still flogging that dead horse? (0+ / 0-)

                  The numbers are publicly available. Do your own math.

                  Your point is the one being demolished. My only point is that you don't know what you are talking about.

                  You somehow look at this table that shows that we are extracting ever more oil, year after year and then jump to the totally illogical conclusion that we are running out of oil.

                  Your conclusion is not supported by the facts.

                  Now if you could somehow make a graph of these figures and make a testable prediction, I would love to be proved wrong.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site