Peak oil a hoax? Prove it.

[wintler2]

..
Because wars were never fought to secure oil before this century. Right? No elites would ever launch an invasion to secure something they could sell for more than 100 times the cost of pulling it out of the ground unless that oil, gold or silver were about to run out!

Strawman, yawn.

[wintler2]

[The hydrocarbon companies are not promoting peak oil, although they are acting as though it is happening, since it's not their choice. The hydrocarbon companies are promoting drill-baby-drill: from the ocean floor to the mountain-top, in your watershed, below the crust (if we believe the claims this is what Russia is "successfully" doing), in countries on the list of those yet-to-be-conquered, at the North Pole and on the fucking moon. (Which certain people should now take a rolling fuck at.) The government backs them up in these suicidal endavors with hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending and diplomatic maneuvering, also subsidizing some agribusiness via the criminal biofuels scam, while "subsidizing" renewables and transport conversion measures with pocket change -- loudly jangled.

And what else is new, JR? LOL

How many fucking years has this been going on now?

Is this you admitting that Big Oil denies peak oil? Cos that will be news to the rest of your loopystickdogmorganooknowsyou collective. (ps i never said they were sockpupets, i think its more of a braincell sharing collective).

[StarmanSkye]

Thanks eyeno, stephen, lupercal et al for speaking of the reasons why I too think peak oil has been fabricated and is being cynically exploited to justify the exorbitant profiteering of American/corporate imperialism, also used to perpetuate the Pentagon's>MIC's neocolonialism/expansionist abroad & militarist domestic Police State agenda. The energy/military/financial syndicates mutually support and feed each other, have done so since the late 1800s but with a vengeance post WW 2.

The control-paradigm tactic of the ruling/ownership-class elites can be seen in many strategic areas, but quite notably in the nuclear industry which sabotaged alternative nuclear technologies esp. liquid salt reactors that have all the upside (and more) once promised via uranium/plutonium business model but with none of the serious problems ie. high-cost, technical complexity, requiring extensive centralized bureaucracy and control, large enviro footprint, ecological damage, human health impact, weapons-proliferation risk, safety and accident issues. Like big oil dependency, the uranium-pluronium industry has become a tightly-controlled monolith that effectively resists any challenge to its authority and the established order of 'how its done'.

I am totally convinced that big oil and their political/corporate/financial partners have fabricated the politics of scarcity and are exploiting it to maximize their wealth, power and control over much of ther global society.

Another for-instance of how US elites on behalf of big-oil successfully exploited artificial sacarcity of oil production resources -- I know from priveleged insider sources (which I've shared on this forum years ago) that US elite forces and mercs on Pentagon-TOP orders sabotaged kuwait's oil wells, to put them out of commission for several years, blamed on Saddam's retreating Republican Guard as they got run-out of Kuwait (after the US essentially gave them the no-holds-barred Green Light to invade).

Yet another piece of evidence for those willing to put the pieces together re: the US's manipulative & exploitive agenda on behalf of the ruling elites.

[wintler2]

But an unexploited [except they've been pumping it since 1927] 12 year supply of oil sitting beneath less than 0.1% of the earth's surface area would change nothing whatsoever in your mind about your righteous dreams of a looming oilpocalypse?

Again with the 'oilpocalypse' strawman, again proving you're operating in bad faith.
Again you don't quote me, you just try & stuff words in my mouth.

I simply don't get you.

You don't get alot of things. Have you read the first post in this thread?

You believe that current oil prices are the result of supply and demand, right?

Nope, not solely.

If so, why won't steeply increased oil prices force your S&D controlled free market to make wholesale substitutions, either with conservation or alternative power sources?

Substitution is happeneing, where it can, thats why Big Oil has created the worlds biggest environmental crime, athabasca tar sands. But its expensive. Deep oil - another substitution - but its expensive & risky. Ethanol - expensive & big opportunity costs.

You talk like you just invented this problem, whereas as many people much smarter than you have been publicly grappling with this for a decade.

We all agree that would we stop burning so much oil for a myriad of reasons starting yesterday. So if higher oil prices force current oil consumption levels to be offset by conservation or alternative power sources, why is "peak oil" anything to worry about?

See first post in thread.

I have stipulated many times that there will almost certainly come a time in the currently indeterminant future when world oil production levels diminish (even if producers are trying their best to liberate that oil). And we will surely exhaust our supply of oil someday unless we cut our current consumption levels. But we should stop burning so much oil long before the date of peak potential oil production ever arrives, and if we do, then why does the fact that this date will inevitably come to pass even matter?

So you accept that oil will peak?

Could you put that in a single sentence, so i can easily quote it back to you? I've had trouble with a sadistic teenager trolling this thread pretending different views, wouldn't want you to get mixed up in that.

[Nordic]

Unreal. But I'm gonna go with it for now. But to do so, I need a few questions answered.

If there's limitless oil, then why isn't the United States pumping it out from its own turf? Why did "they" let American production dwindle so much?

Why did "they" let the modern Saudi Arabian state turn out the way it has? I.e. rich and super powerful? Is it because they wanted to prop up a Muslim monarchy for religious reasons? Are all the Oilmen secret Muslims?

Or maybe the strip clubs are just WAY better over in Saudi Arabia. Oh wait. I know. It's the weather.

So if there's limitless oil just lying in big pools out there waiting to be brought to the surface, why isn't every Tom Dick and Harry out drilling it right now? Why can't I buy some land in, say, Missouri or Illinois, two places where I happen to know there are SOME oil wells, and just start drilling it out like crazy?

What kind of magic has created this super power that the Big Oil companies have? Why are they the ONLY ONES who seem to be able to drill this abundant and limitless resource out of the ground?

If it's limitless, anyone should be able to do it.

If it's limitless, why is anyone fighting over it at all?

If it's limitless, why aren't poor countries pumping it out from under their feet? Must be another conspiracy, I'm sure they're all paid off by Big Oil to keep mum about it!!

And all those multigazillion dollar oil derricks pumping oil out of super-deep ocean wells. That's all just for show. Hell, they're probably not even REAL. Probably made out of paper mache and balsa wood. To make people think that Big Oil has to spend all that money in order to pump that oil up out of the ground. They don't. It's limitless and abundant.

Yeah, I can go with this. If I turn upside down an entire 100 year history of geo politics!

Really, when you come up with bonafide dictionary-definition "conspiracy theories" you should really think about the permutations of it. Where does it lead? If you're right, how does history have to be rewritten? How does science have to be rewritten? How does the multinational power balance in the world have to be rewritten or otherwise explained?

Because people who think that oil is limitless and abundant, and that its growing scarcity and ultimate peak production is one big manufactured LIE, have to rewrite the entire history of the World to make their theory work.

So let's see it. Go for it. I want to read your version of history.

[Rory]

Whether it 'scarcity engineered by design', or 'peak oil' is correct per say, doesn't change the consequences of the last 130 years of petrochemical based industry that underpins contermpory society. Those being that we, collectively exist (and for a large part) subsist/prosper due to petrochemicals: our race's destiny is locked into a cycle of dependence.


I'm fully down with the idea that, as others have proposed; the major elite powers are operating to an occult agenda based around keeping major supply sources of oil under wraps/under debilitating warfare, to drive price hikes and prevent an increase in growth of consumption (prolonging any downward curve on a Hubbard model of EROEI vs Supply).

Let’s assume for sure that they are: Oil will still run out eventually as present rates of consumption continue or grow slowly. Prices will rise as extraction cost go up.

Let’s assume that they don't (drill baby drill): Oil will still run out as present rates of consumption continue or grow. Prices will rise as extraction cost go up.

For those that believe that the above will not occur in either scenario... I don't know what to say. Good luck with your though processes I guess.

Secondly: The problem we face (assuming the above is true either way) is that there is no technological solution to either problem. Solar panels, roof top gardens (how much roof area, is necessary to provide full, year round subsistence + work calories for one adult human btw?), communal living, Thorium, liquid salt reactors, magic free-energy beans, etc.. aren't going to solve the central problem of population growth. Sorry. Is a nice thought but won't work.

Example: Magic energy beans are discovered and distributed to every household in the world. Non-polluting and infinite energy output. Drives cars and widescreen tvs - everything. Population keeps growing. Boom - we 'Easter Island' the world even more quickly than we're doing currently.

We are a swarm of locusts - as a race, so far, incapable of reversing our growing consumption of finite (or consuming faster than they can self replenish) resources.

Yes we should cast off oil immediately for many reasons but one of them (the ugliest truth but perhaps the most pertinent, long term) is that it would halt and maybe reverse population growth - cheep energy supply, particularly petrochemicals, is a catalyst for growth. I don't mean to come all Rockefeller, Kissinger or Prince Phillip but, is we continue to keep growing as a race, in size then we will doom everyone.
And if not, it will be a less beautiful, fauna/flora diverse, less hospitable, happy place to be. Sorry.

For reading in support of this idea:


See Professor Bartlett lecture on Aritmatic, population and Growth.

Transcript: http://www.albartlett.org/presentations ... glish.html

In the summer of 1986, the news reports indicated that the world population had reached the number of five billion people growing at the rate of 1.7% per year. Well, your reaction to 1.7% might be to say “Well, that's so small, nothing bad could ever happen at 1.7% per year.” So you calculate the doubling time, you find it’s only 41 years. Now, that was back in 1986; more recently in 1999, we read that the world population had grown from five billion to six billion . The good news is that the growth rate had dropped from 1.7% to 1.3% per year. The bad news is that in spite of the drop in the growth rate, the world population today is increasing by about 75 million additional people every year.

Now, if this current modest 1.3% per year could continue, the world population would grow to a density of one person per square meter on the dry land surface of the earth in just 780 years, and the mass of people would equal the mass of the earth in just 2400 years

Bacteria grow by doubling. One bacterium divides to become two, the two divide to become 4, the 4 become 8, 16 and so on. Suppose we had bacteria that doubled in number this way every minute. Suppose we put one of these bacteria into an empty bottle at 11:00 in the morning, and then observe that the bottle is full at 12:00 noon. There's our case of just ordinary steady growth: it has a doubling time of one minute, it’s in the finite environment of one bottle.

I want to ask you three questions. Number one: at what time was the bottle half full? Well, would you believe 11:59, one minute before 12:00? Because they double in number every minute.

Well, every once in awhile we run into somebody who says we shouldn’t worry about the problem, we can solve it. In this case, we can solve it by growing corn, distilling it into ethanol, and run all the vehicles in the US on ethanol. Lets just look what he says, he says today ethanol production displaces over 43 ½million barrels of imported oil annually. That sounds pretty good doesn't it, until you think. First question you’ve got to ask: 43 ½million barrels, what fraction is that of US vehicle consumption in a year? The answer is, it’s 1%.

You would have to multiply corn production devoted to ethanol by a factor of 100 just to make the numbers look right. There isn't that much total agricultural land in the United States. There’s a bigger problem. It takes diesel fuel to plough the ground to plant the corn, to make the fertiliser to make the corn grow, to tend the corn, to harvest the corn. It takes more energy to distill it. You finally get a gallon of ethanol, you will be lucky if there’s as much energy in the gallon as it took to produce it. In general, it's a loser.

Chief amongst these optimists was the late Dr Julian Simon, formerly professor of economics and business administration at the University of Illinois, and later at the University of Maryland. With regard to copper, Simon has written that we will never run out of copper because “copper can be made from other metals.” The letters to the editor jumped all over him, told him about chemistry. He just brushed it off: “Don’t worry,” he said, “if it’s ever important, we can make copper out of other metals.”

Now, Simon had a book that was published by the Princeton University Press. In that book, he’s writing about oil from many sources, including biomass, and he says, “Clearly there is no meaningful limit to this source except for the sun’s energy.” He goes on to note, “But even if our sun was not so vast as it is, there may well be other suns elsewhere.” Well, Simon’s right; there are other suns elsewhere, but the question is, would you base public policy on the belief that if we need another sun, we will figure out how to go get it and haul it back into our solar system? (audience laughter)

Video: http://old.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461


(edited for interweb deleting part of the post during submission)

[Harvey]

Whether it 'scarcity engineered by design', or 'peak oil' is correct per say, doesn't change the consequences of the last 130 years of petrochemical based industry that underpins contermpory society. Those being that we, collectively exist (and for a large part) subsist/prosper due to petrochemicals: our race's destiny is locked into a cycle of dependence.


I'm fully down with the idea that, as others have proposed; the major elite powers are operating to an occult agenda based around keeping major supply sources of oil under wraps/under debilitating warfare, to drive price hikes and prevent an increase in growth of consumption (prolonging any downward curve on a Hubbard model of EROEI vs Supply).

Let’s assume for sure that they are: Oil will still run out eventually as present rates of consumption continue or grow slowly. Prices will rise as extraction cost go up.

Let’s assume that they don't (drill baby drill): Oil will still run out as present rates of consumption continue or grow. Prices will rise as extraction cost go up.

For those that believe that the above will not occur in either scenario... I don't know what to say. Good luck with your though processes I guess.

Secondly: The problem we face (assuming the above is true either way) is that there is no technological solution to either problem. Solar panels, roof top gardens (how much roof area, is necessary to provide full, year round subsistence + work calories for one adult human btw?), communal living, Thorium, liquid salt reactors, magic free-energy beans, etc.. aren't going to solve the central problem of population growth. Sorry. Is a nice thought but won't work.

Example: Magic energy beans are discovered and distributed to every household in the world. Non-polluting and infinite energy output. Drives cars and widescreen tvs - everything. Population keeps growing. Boom - we 'Easter Island' the world even more quickly than we're doing currently.

We are a swarm of locusts - as a race, so far, incapable of reversing our growing consumption of finite (or consuming faster than they can self replenish) resources.

Yes we should cast off oil immediately for many reasons but one of them (the ugliest truth but perhaps the most pertinent, long term) is that it would halt and maybe reverse population growth - cheep energy supply, particularly petrochemicals, is a catalyst for growth. I don't mean to come all Rockefeller, Kissinger or Prince Phillip but, is we continue to keep growing as a race, in size then we will doom everyone.
And if not, it will be a less beautiful, fauna/flora diverse, less hospitable, happy place to be. Sorry.

For reading in support of this idea:


See Professor Bartlett lecture on Aritmatic, population and Growth.

Transcript: http://www.albartlett.org/presentations ... glish.html

In the summer of 1986, the news reports indicated that the world population had reached the number of five billion people growing at the rate of 1.7% per year. Well, your reaction to 1.7% might be to say “Well, that's so small, nothing bad could ever happen at 1.7% per year.” So you calculate the doubling time, you find it’s only 41 years. Now, that was back in 1986; more recently in 1999, we read that the world population had grown from five billion to six billion . The good news is that the growth rate had dropped from 1.7% to 1.3% per year. The bad news is that in spite of the drop in the growth rate, the world population today is increasing by about 75 million additional people every year.

Now, if this current modest 1.3% per year could continue, the world population would grow to a density of one person per square meter on the dry land surface of the earth in just 780 years, and the mass of people would equal the mass of the earth in just 2400 years

Bacteria grow by doubling. One bacterium divides to become two, the two divide to become 4, the 4 become 8, 16 and so on. Suppose we had bacteria that doubled in number this way every minute. Suppose we put one of these bacteria into an empty bottle at 11:00 in the morning, and then observe that the bottle is full at 12:00 noon. There's our case of just ordinary steady growth: it has a doubling time of one minute, it’s in the finite environment of one bottle.

I want to ask you three questions. Number one: at what time was the bottle half full? Well, would you believe 11:59, one minute before 12:00? Because they double in number every minute.

Well, every once in awhile we run into somebody who says we shouldn’t worry about the problem, we can solve it. In this case, we can solve it by growing corn, distilling it into ethanol, and run all the vehicles in the US on ethanol. Lets just look what he says, he says today ethanol production displaces over 43 ½million barrels of imported oil annually. That sounds pretty good doesn't it, until you think. First question you’ve got to ask: 43 ½million barrels, what fraction is that of US vehicle consumption in a year? The answer is, it’s 1%.

You would have to multiply corn production devoted to ethanol by a factor of 100 just to make the numbers look right. There isn't that much total agricultural land in the United States. There’s a bigger problem. It takes diesel fuel to plough the ground to plant the corn, to make the fertiliser to make the corn grow, to tend the corn, to harvest the corn. It takes more energy to distill it. You finally get a gallon of ethanol, you will be lucky if there’s as much energy in the gallon as it took to produce it. In general, it's a loser.

Chief amongst these optimists was the late Dr Julian Simon, formerly professor of economics and business administration at the University of Illinois, and later at the University of Maryland. With regard to copper, Simon has written that we will never run out of copper because “copper can be made from other metals.” The letters to the editor jumped all over him, told him about chemistry. He just brushed it off: “Don’t worry,” he said, “if it’s ever important, we can make copper out of other metals.”

Now, Simon had a book that was published by the Princeton University Press. In that book, he’s writing about oil from many sources, including biomass, and he says, “Clearly there is no meaningful limit to this source except for the sun’s energy.” He goes on to note, “But even if our sun was not so vast as it is, there may well be other suns elsewhere.” Well, Simon’s right; there are other suns elsewhere, but the question is, would you base public policy on the belief that if we need another sun, we will figure out how to go get it and haul it back into our solar system? (audience laughter)

Video: http://old.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461

Read Hardin's, The Tragedy of the Commons;

We want the maximum good per person; but what is good? To one person it is wilderness, to another it is ski lodges for thousa mix.

TWO: If it's not (using basic arithmetic; consumption at current growth rates will outstrip supply eventually, it must be so - incontestably - unless the planet has a magic well to replenish supply out of thin air. See, ONE ) then the entire above still applies. We're growing past our planet's ability to cope.

There's not much to argue against in that.

[Rory]

(edited for interweb deleting part of the post during submission)

To finish the post.

Read Hardin's, The Tragedy of the Commons;

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/art ... mmons.html

This thread from last summer: Human race 'will be extinct within 100 years'

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28601&hilit=bartlett

Much interesting ideas and debate regarding population.

One: Peak Oil is a hoax. We get all of the above but with added hydrocarbon pollution.

TWO: If it's not (using basic arithmetic; consumption at current growth rates will outstrip supply eventually, it must be so - incontestably - unless the planet has a magic well to replenish supply out of thin air. See, ONE ) then the entire above still applies. We're growing past our planet's ability to cope.[/quote]

[stickdog99]

Substitution is happeneing, where it can, thats why Big Oil has created the worlds biggest environmental crime, athabasca tar sands. But its expensive. Deep oil - another substitution - but its expensive & risky. Ethanol - expensive & big opportunity costs.

You talk like you just invented this problem, whereas as many people much smarter than you have been publicly grappling with this for a decade.

Funny how these "smart people" and you have in this decade of confronting the problem so far come up only with oil and ethanol-based solutions that burn carbon and require the vast distribution networks that Big Oil currently monopolizes, ennit?

So you accept that oil will peak?

Of course, I accept that total oil production will decline at some currently indeterminant point in the future. I hope that this will happen because the need for oil will have dissipated by that point because of substitution with renewable power, but I think our elite plan on burning a hell of a lot more oil before they let go of the oil distribution energy monopoly they have devised, so I would not be surprised if oil production peaks at some point in the future (my current guess would be at least 20 years down the road) because oil actually does become that scarce.

[stickdog99]

Unreal. But I'm gonna go with it for now. But to do so, I need a few questions answered.

If there's limitless oil, then why isn't the United States pumping it out from its own turf? Why did "they" let American production dwindle so much?

You can't control the world if you don't control the world's energy.

Why did "they" let the modern Saudi Arabian state turn out the way it has? I.e. rich and super powerful? Is it because they wanted to prop up a Muslim monarchy for religious reasons? Are all the Oilmen secret Muslims?

Or maybe the strip clubs are just WAY better over in Saudi Arabia. Oh wait. I know. It's the weather.

Why do we prop up Latin American strongmen? Is it because of the ceviche?

So if there's limitless oil just lying in big pools out there waiting to be brought to the surface, why isn't every Tom Dick and Harry out drilling it right now? Why can't I buy some land in, say, Missouri or Illinois, two places where I happen to know there are SOME oil wells, and just start drilling it out like crazy?

If there is a bunch of oil in Missouri or Illinois, this oil is almost impossible to get to. The vast majority of easily accessible oil is around the continental shelves.

What kind of magic has created this super power that the Big Oil companies have? Why are they the ONLY ONES who seem to be able to drill this abundant and limitless resource out of the ground?

Anybody who has hundreds of millions and can get a permit can drill for it. But when they sell it, they have to sell it to Big Oil. The monopoly is on distrubition not production. But if the production levels get out of hand anywhere, the US military/intelligence nexus can be very dissuasive.

If it's limitless, anyone should be able to do it. If it's limitless, why is anyone fighting over it at all?

I'm not saying oil is limitless. I'm saying that there is a lot of reserve capacity and probably enough accessible oil around to feed current appetites for over 50 years at least. I am saying that the alternative sources of energy are virtually limitless. As for fighting over oil, someone else controls the cheap oil you do not control.

If it's limitless, why aren't poor countries pumping it out from under their feet? Must be another conspiracy, I'm sure they're all paid off by Big Oil to keep mum about it!!

How the hell is a poor country supposed to drill offshore without foreign investment? Look at the history of Iraq. Iraq proves that all you have to do is withhold investment and destabilize a little and even a country with a shitload of easy to drill, cheaper than dirt oil will be hard pressed to pump out more than 2 million barrels of day over its entire history.

And all those multigazillion dollar oil derricks pumping oil out of super-deep ocean wells. That's all just for show. Hell, they're probably not even REAL. Probably made out of paper mache and balsa wood. To make people think that Big Oil has to spend all that money in order to pump that oil up out of the ground. They don't. It's limitless and abundant.

Again, Big Oil is far more about distribution than it is about production. Oil producers will try to produce oil anywhere they can make a profit by doing so. If these ventures are costly, what does that matter so long as the price has been rigged high enough to still make a tidy profit?

[wintler2]

Of course, I accept that total oil production will decline at some currently indeterminant point in the future....

Great, welcome to the reality based community.

..elites blah blah ..

Whatever, go start your own thread.

--

As i stated on pg1, this isn't about what oil peak might mean, how it might be gamed by elites yadda yadda, it was always about the simple physical fact that it will happen.

Notice how many pages it has taken to get one poster to address the topic of the thread, and to finally admit that actually, they accept it. I think i've got every right to be as surly as i fucking please.

[stickdog99]

Population growth is a big problem.

Sure. The Earth may be able to sustain quadruple its current human population, but if current growth/expansionist capitalistic economic policies are not curtailed, even this much growth would probably be more than enough to foul the entire Petri dish.

It seems as if our global elite's current plan for this is loosely selective eugenics via war and other disasters (including severe food/energy "shortages") along with disease (perhaps spread via vaccination and "medication").

[stickdog99]

Of course, I accept that total oil production will decline at some currently indeterminant point in the future....

Great, welcome to the reality based community.

..elites blah blah ..

Whatever, go start your own thread.

--

As i stated on pg1, this isn't about what oil peak might mean, how it might be gamed by elites yadda yadda, it was always about the simple physical fact that it will happen.

Notice how many pages it has taken to get one poster to address the topic of the thread, and to finally admit that actually, they accept it. I think i've got every right to be as surly as i fucking please.

Congratulations. You have proved yourself to be surly, self-righteous, small-minded and imbecilic all in a single post. But you definitely "won" your "point" and isn't that what discussion is all about?

[Stephen Morgan]

Whether it 'scarcity engineered by design', or 'peak oil' is correct per say, doesn't change the consequences of the last 130 years of petrochemical based industry that underpins contermpory society. Those being that we, collectively exist (and for a large part) subsist/prosper due to petrochemicals: our race's destiny is locked into a cycle of dependence.

There is absolutely no reason we can't shift to being dependent on something else.

Secondly: The problem we face (assuming the above is true either way) is that there is no technological solution to either problem. Solar panels, roof top gardens (how much roof area, is necessary to provide full, year round subsistence + work calories for one adult human btw?),

Hardly any if properly managed.

communal living, Thorium, liquid salt reactors, magic free-energy beans, etc.. aren't going to solve the central problem of population growth. Sorry. Is a nice thought but won't work.

Population growth simply isn't a problem. As countries get better educated they invariably suffer a dramatic decline in birth rates, and see this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=27054&hilit=population

On the underpopulation crisis.

Example: Magic energy beans are discovered and distributed to every household in the world. Non-polluting and infinite energy output. Drives cars and widescreen tvs - everything. Population keeps growing. Boom - we 'Easter Island' the world even more quickly than we're doing currently.

We are a swarm of locusts - as a race, so far, incapable of reversing our growing consumption of finite (or consuming faster than they can self replenish) resources.

Your hatred of mankind is noted, but has no validity. That's presumably why you keep believing in the bullshit science of "sky is falling" oilpocalypse, because you have an insatiable lust for the blood of the innocent and that particular fantasy allows you to believe that one day mankind will collectively be starving in the gutter.

Interesting also that humanity seems to be the only thing such people don't think will have a "peak", despite all evidence to the contrary.

Snipped the usual malthusian bullshit used as an excuse to cause suffering to humans.

[Stephen Morgan]

Read Hardin's, The Tragedy of the Commons;

http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/art ... mmons.html

Read the thread "Debunking the 'Tragedy of the Commons'"

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=19976&hilit=tragedy

TWO: If it's not (using basic arithmetic; consumption at current growth rates will outstrip supply eventually, it must be so - incontestably - unless the planet has a magic well to replenish supply out of thin air. See, ONE ) then the entire above still applies. We're growing past our planet's ability to cope.

Might well create it out of nothing through the abiotic process, but that's irrelevant. You are projecting current growth into the future as if it were an otherwise irreversible trend, which is the most basic of fallacies.