URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Global Collapse
  HTML https://globalcollapse.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: General Discussion
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 1809--------------------------------------------------
       Re: mental master debating
       By: Phil Potts Date: November 22, 2021, 3:45 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=BuddyJ link=topic=83.msg1808#msg1808
       date=1637613333]
       [quote author=Phil Potts]
       Yes let's deal with what he did say there.
       Looks like once again he was prescient. Taking 1979 production
       of 37m barrels and increasing it by 5% per year brings us to 64m
       barrels by 1990.
       [/quote]
       Global crude oil and lease condensate production in 1979 was
       56.6 mmbbl/d. In 1990 it was 60.4 mmbbl day. The rate of annual
       growth was approx. 0.6%, not his nearly an order of magnitude
       growth rate higher.
       Data here
  HTML https://www.eia.gov/international/data/world/petroleum-and-other-liquids/annual-petroleum-and-other-liquids-production?pd=5&p=0000000000000000000000000000000000vg&u=0&f=A&v=mapbubble&a=-&i=none&vo=value&&t=C&g=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001&l=249-ruvvvvvfvtvnvv1vrvvvvfvvvvvvfvvvou20evvvvvvvvvvnvvvs0008&s=94694400000&e=1609459200000
       [quote author=Phil Potts]He was right on target to the exact
       year that world oil consumption could not continue at 5% annual
       increase and fell that year from the previous.
       [/quote]
       An order of magnitude out of whack you mean?
       [quote author=Phil Potts]
       The next few years, increases avg 1.6%, more than 3x lower.
       That's crystal ball uncanny.
       [/quote]
       Hopefully you'll forgive me but I'm not going to check this math
       if you can't be counted on to do the underlying data right.
       [quote author=JimmyC]
       But some time in the 1980's it can't go up any more.
       [/quote]
       Was he uncanny in picking peak oil sometime during the 1980's?
       [quote author=Phil Potts]
       Obviously if he wrote in 1977 about how to still be consuming
       oil in the 21st C, he never implied that there would be a
       complete end to oil in 1990.
       [/quote]
       Good thing I didn't imply that oil was going to end either. Here
       is my quote, which you might have missed.
       [quote author=BuddyJ]Well then we can discuss the quote perhaps?
       This would seem to indicate an end...an end of supply meeting
       demand. This is generally referred to as peak oil.[/quote]
       We have been discussing his claim, quoted above, about oil not
       going up, and the end to all the world's oil reserves within a
       decade or so. Was it uncanny on his part getting both wrong? Oil
       continued to go up. Through the current peak oil of 2018 anyway.
       Current oil reserves are 1 trillion+ barrels or something like
       that.
       So was Jimmy uncannily precognitive on these critical issues, or
       not?
       [quote author=Phil Potts]
       Take your hat off! The only easier money than taking Jimmy to
       the track, would be if I had a dollar for every peak oiler and
       doomer you misattribute The End.[/quote]
       Certainly you have changed what an "end" might be, and added
       capitalization, versus the one I made sure to define such that
       someone might not substitute semantics in order to declare a
       belated victory for poor Jimmy.
       Good thing some of us do mats and dat tinkin stuff for a livin',
       and stuck wit that thar datas and suchlike!  ;D
       [/quote]
       Youre citing the same agency you say gets it wrong calling peak
       oil and I need to fish around in their website.
       You always say you lived through the end 31 yrs ago, never
       bothering to say what this end refers to. It only fits Carters
       end of the 80s. 1990.
       Now you want to agree that Carter never implied you wouldn't
       live through it, only you could no longer enjoy 5mpg and
       tailfins.
       [attach=1]
       [attachment deleted by admin]
       #Post#: 1812--------------------------------------------------
       Re: mental masterbation
       By: monsta666 Date: November 22, 2021, 6:42 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I understand your non-position Mking. You simultaneously believe
       that constant growth is unsustainable yet collapse will never
       happen because of a bunch of people got timelines wrong.
       #Post#: 1815--------------------------------------------------
       Re: mental masterbation
       By: Phil Potts Date: November 22, 2021, 8:52 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       "There is no relation to Carter's claim of the world running out
       of oil by the end of the 1980s"
       In the last post I started typing "and tomorrow you will be
       straight back to saying people predicted the end of oil", but
       decided to keep it short. It took you less than a day.
       No you did not say anything about EIAs 2021 figures, you named
       them as one answer to give names to the 6 peak oils you lived
       through. Nobody needs to torture themself as well as you to draw
       out that again, you were not saying that someone was wrong. Why
       did u say u lived through their peak oil in the time frame, if
       they are not discredited? Rhetorical question.
       From what I gather earth day did not release a joint statement
       signed off by various people predicting the end of the world.
       Each person there is only responsible for themself, a concept
       you can not grasp.
       Ehrlich's predictions at Earth Day are for the year 2000, not
       1990 according to NYT
       Why don't you apply the same logic you use to say peak oil can't
       be calculated correctly, and make environmental protection
       legislation the stochastic? Then tell us with the same certainty
       that rapid growth, continuing to drive 5mpg land yachts, with
       zero protection to water, wildlife, forest, and oil slicks
       regularly in the news back then would not have led to much worse
       environmental catastrophe.
       "my research is in the claims of peaks, running outs, dieoffs
       and whatever, who made theses claims, what was the basis for
       doing so, did they go wrong, how much were they wrong, did they
       appear to LEARN anything when they did it for the 2nd-3rd-4th
       times (a popular stunt in the peak oil world), etc etc."
       Maybe you do that in your own time.
       If you did this here or with those interested in it, you would
       be welcomed not banned from serious discussions. I know your
       brief is just to influence anyone paying attention to us or
       other forums that  we are all fools. Method is only of the
       Hitler wore shoes argument.
       It's like pulling teeth to get even a name for who you are
       talking about if you throw out a date, then looking it up and
       finding out what they said, which is not a predicted end of the
       world or end of oil. Saying you lived through their dates means
       you are attempting to influence either the ignorant, yourself,
       or both, that they said you would be dead at that time. Then
       theres whatever evangelist said Jesus would return soon because
       they believe in the edited edition and interpretation they have
       of the  bible and think prophecies are being fulfilled. They
       have almost nothing to do with anyone else, but if they were
       wrong, then anyone else yoe associate them with must be also.
       You can't expect to take part in a collegial forum and also do a
       daily 'doomers are dumb' drive by without backing anything up. I
       think the word 'troll' gets over used to dismiss inconvenient
       arguments, but if you never explain who, when, why and what it
       has to do with anyone else, that is all you are doing.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page