Peak Oil

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I never think of the future - it comes soon enough.-Albert Einstein

He may not have thought of the future, or was just being very ironic; probably the latter. I however do almost endlessly. Why? Because the future should kick major ass, that's why. Think of what humans have made in the last few hundred years; we're "gods". We fly around in flying machines, have single bombs that can end large cities, have landed on the freakin' Moon, have robotic probes outside of our solar system, have split atoms for non-weapon use, can communicate using a high-speed, global computer network........ What does the future hold? Hard to say, but here's some things that should exist; one day.

Read about the orbital rings, supra planets and such in the science papers near the bottom of this page. http://www.paulbirch.net/
He's a bit of a dummy when it comes to the religion department, but eh, what ya' gonna do?

There's an ass load of cool reading to be had here, http://foresight.org/
I'll do a little linking to help out though:

http://www.foresight.org/Nanomedicine/Respirocytes.html

http://discuss.foresight.org/~josh/Ufog.html

So, do you think of the future?

And now for the O.A. stuff:

http://www.orionsarm.com/civ/Dyson_Trees.html

[Zikes]

Interesting stuff! I'm especially interested in the Utility Fog, it seems like a good idea but I'd imagine most of the applications it speaks of would be extremely expensive.

Now that I think about it, I'm not altogether certain about having my house made out of a bunch of light emitters and receptors, either...

Technology can really bring a lot of great stuff into our lives, but the more good it does the more potential for misuse seems to follow :hm:

[ceptimus]

I think it's Clarke's third law (I'm posting from a PDA, so it's tricky to check) that says something like:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic.
You only have to consider what Earth-dwellers from a few hundred years ago would think of things like television and the internet to begin to appreciate the likely truth of Clarke's vision.

[viscousmemories]

(I'm posting from a PDA, so it's tricky to check)
Hey cool. Does it render okay?

[ceptimus]

Not bad. I'll post a photo of it when I get back home. (I'm posting from a laptop connected via wireless in a motel this time!)

[viscousmemories]

Cool. I've tried hitting it with a cellphone and it was a nightmare. :D

[Farren]

You hit Ceptimus' laptop with a cellphone?

[viscousmemories]

It was asking for it.

[davidm]

I never think of the future - it comes soon enough.-Albert Einstein

He may not have thought of the future, or was just being very ironic; probably the latter. I however do almost endlessly. Why? Because the future should kick major ass, that's why. Think of what humans have made in the last few hundred years; we're "gods". We fly around in flying machines, have single bombs that can end large cities, have landed on the freakin' Moon, have robotic probes outside of our solar system, have split atoms for non-weapon use, can communicate using a high-speed, global computer network........ What does the future hold?

Two words:

Peak Oil (http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/viewtopic.php?t=341)

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Two words:

Peak Oil (http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/viewtopic.php?t=341)


Two words Nuclear fusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion) I dislike doomsdayers. Why? Because they're always, always wrong.

[davidm]

Here (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html#anchor_90) is a summary of the problems of fission and fusion.

Here (http://www.energybulletin.net/2311.html) is a sobering analysis of the end of the oil age, and the prospects for oil replacements, by David Goodstein, Caltech provost and professor of physics and applied physics. Of fusion, Goodstein writes:

The ultimate solution to our energy problem would be to master the power of controlled thermonuclear fusion, which we’ve been talking about doing for more than half a century. The solution has been 25 years away for the past 50 years, and it is still 25 years away. Beyond those sobering statistics, there are at least five or six schemes for harnessing fusion energy that I know of. One of them, called the spheromak, is studied here at Caltech in an experimental program run by Professor of Applied Physics Paul Bellan and his research group.

He goes on to discuss the research, and then writes:

But attaining this objective is far off. The existing apparatus is much too small to reach the hundred million degree temperatures needed to generate power. The Bellan team is studying the fundamental physics of the self-organizing process in the hope it can be used to create and sustain the desired fusion plasma confinement geometry in a reliable, controlled manner.


I dislike doomsdayers. Why? Because they're always, always wrong.

A touching sentiment, but quite obviously this is historically and laughably false.

In today's New York Times there was a long article on the oil flameout, and what it is going to mean for the car culture, though it gingerly stepped around coming to terms with the meaning of it all. Coincidentally, today's Times also has a huge, full-color doubletruck ad by Chevron, featuring a letter by David J. O'Reilly, Chevron's chairman and CEO. In the letter, in polite corporatese, O'Reilly begs the government for help in facing the coming catastrophe.

[JoeP]

I dislike doomsdayers. Why? Because they're always, always wrong.A touching sentiment, but quite obviously this is historically and laughably false.
SkepticJ says 'always' so it should be easy to prove him wrong. Can you provide an example so we can share in the laughter? Oil has not yet run out though clearly it will.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic.

Niven's corollary: Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. :D

[davidm]

I dislike doomsdayers. Why? Because they're always, always wrong.A touching sentiment, but quite obviously this is historically and laughably false.
SkepticJ says 'always' so it should be easy to prove him wrong. Can you provide an example so we can share in the laughter? Oil has not yet run out though clearly it will.

If by "doomsdayers" SkepticJ means, literally, predictions of the complete doom or extinction of all mankind, then he is not wrong, in that obviously people still exist. However, the peak oil problem and what it entails is not, by that reckoning, a doomsday prediction, either. It is a prediction that modern industrial and technological society will have to come to an end as the oil runs out, absent some miracle new energy source that is not on the horizon.

In the context of the discussion, I take "doomsdayers" to be pessimists predicting bad or catastrophic outcomes according to certain trend lines. By that definition, the doomsdayers are often right.

1929

Doomsdayer: It looks like the economy is going to tank.

Opitimist: Nonsense! The end of poverty is right around the corner!

Result: Great Depression, followed by the World War II it instigated.

1861

Doomsdayer: Um, it looks like there's a war brewing.

Optimist: Nonsense! We'll work everything out peacefully!

1347

Doomsdayer: Um, why are all these people dying?

Optimist: Nothing to worry about! Death waves come and go.

Result: The Black Death, in which one third of the population of Europe died.

And so on.

The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/duncan/olduvai2000.htm)

[Morroskye]

VERY cool links!!! I'm fascinated with this subject but I have to rain on the parade a bit, unfortunately. Certainly the march of human progress in much of the world is astonishing and a man from 1700 would be in shock & awe if he walked down a street in any major city. But progress hasn't been the case in huge areas of the world. I think 200 years from now most of the world will be in far worse shape than it is now. More of a "MadMax" scenario. The inevitable collapse of oil driven economies, ethnic and religious strife and extremism and the population surge will bring chaos and instability to most of the world. With no real superpowers holding back conflicts like they once did, every group will have to battle for resources. Hopefully I'm all wrong but I have this gut feeling that I'm glad I'm 41 and not a newborn as this age approaches.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I know about the problems with fusion. Saying it hasn't gotten any closer in 50 years is false.



Really, so all those doomsday planetary alignments that will end the world, Biblical Armageddon etc. etc. happened? Hmmm, I must have missed them.

The Black Death was supernatural to the Europeans of the time. Do you want to prove they really said such instead of posting false quotes?

WW2 wasn't caused by the American Great Depression. It was caused by Adolf Hitler and his gang taking advantage of the bad conditions in Germany from WW1 to rise to power. Japan was just expanding like all empires in history want to do, etc. WW2 got us out of the Great Depression!

Provide a real quote about the American Civil War please. Fake quotes don't convince me.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

VERY cool links!!! I'm fascinated with this subject but I have to rain on the parade a bit, unfortunately. Certainly the march of human progress in much of the world is astonishing and a man from 1700 would be in shock & awe if he walked down a street in any major city. But progress hasn't been the case in huge areas of the world. I think 200 years from now most of the world will be in far worse shape than it is now. More of a "MadMax" scenario. The inevitable collapse of oil driven economies, ethnic and religious strife and extremism and the population surge will bring chaos and instability to most of the world. With no real superpowers holding back conflicts like they once did, every group will have to battle for resources. Hopefully I'm all wrong but I have this gut feeling that I'm glad I'm 41 and not a newborn as this age approaches.


A little advice, watch a little less Mel Gibson movies, The Postman and TankGirl.

You're probably right though, just like like Y2K brought about a Mad Max World five years ago. I'm sure glad I bought all that food, water, gas, generator, crossbow and that huge hunting knife.

[davidm]

I know about the problems with fusion. Saying it hasn't gotten any closer in 50 years is false.

Did you read what the Caltech professor of physics and applied physics said?



Really, so all those doomsday planetary alignments that will end the world, Biblical Armageddon etc. etc. happened? Hmmm, I must have missed them.

Did I say something about planetary alignments or Biblical Armageddon? If not, I guess you're aiming at a strawman.

The Black Death was supernatural to the Europeans of the time. Do you want to prove they really said such instead of posting false quotes?

You don't think, when the black death was just getting underway, there weren't people divided into various camps on what was happening, including optimists and doomsayers? I do. So this is a valid example of "doomsaying" being proved right, something you said had never happened.

WW2 wasn't caused by the American Great Depression. It was caused by Adolf Hitler and his gang taking advantage of the bad conditions in Germany from WW1 to rise to power. Japan was just expanding like all empires in history want to do, etc. WW2 got us out of the Great Depression!

There probably wouldn't have been a World War 2 without the depression, because it was the worldwide depression that thrust Hitler into power in 1933. The point, however, is not to debate counterfactual histories. It's to note that in 1929, people were optimistic, for the most part, about the future. No less than Herbert Hoover, the president, predicted that poverty in America would soon be eradicated. Some people were warning in 1929 that stocks were wildly overvalued. These people were not listened to -- they were considered to be dour old doomsayers. They proved to be right, so this is another counterexample to your claim that doomsayers are never, never right.

Provide a real quote about the American Civil War please. Fake quotes don't convince me.

This is a situation similar to the eve of the black death. Common sense tells us there were optimists and pessimits about what the future held back then. But, anyway, let's listen to Abrahm Lincoln in his Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861:

I am loth to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearthstone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

Bold-face by me. Oh, well.

Also, historically all civilizations rise and fall. Why should ours be different?

Here is the argument:

Premise 1: We are at or near peak oil.

P2: Oil is by far the cheapest and most efficient energy source, and no known alternative energy source comes close to it in terms of Energy Returned Over Energy Invested (EROEI). Also, most alternative energy sources would require an oil-based infrastructure to develop and sustain; i.e. they are not oil alternatives but oil derivatives.

P3: Demand for oil is soaring among both developed and developing nations even as the production of oil is beginning to fall.

Conclusion: Rising demand will continue steadily to outstrip falling supply and oil civilization, in the absence of credible energy alternatives, will be forced to downscale radically.

The argument is potentially vulnerable in one or more of its premises, so your best bet is provide an argument there.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I'm sure glad I bought all that food, water, gas, generator, crossbow and that huge hunting knife.

All that stuff might still come in handy. :yup: :D

[davidm]

If we do lose technological civilization to resource depletion, I suppose I'll most lament the end of the rather brief era of the smiley. :sadbye:

[livius drusus]

You and me both, brother. :comfort:

[Morroskye]

VERY cool links!!! I'm fascinated with this subject but I have to rain on the parade a bit, unfortunately. Certainly the march of human progress in much of the world is astonishing and a man from 1700 would be in shock & awe if he walked down a street in any major city. But progress hasn't been the case in huge areas of the world. I think 200 years from now most of the world will be in far worse shape than it is now. More of a "MadMax" scenario. The inevitable collapse of oil driven economies, ethnic and religious strife and extremism and the population surge will bring chaos and instability to most of the world. With no real superpowers holding back conflicts like they once did, every group will have to battle for resources. Hopefully I'm all wrong but I have this gut feeling that I'm glad I'm 41 and not a newborn as this age approaches.


A little advice, watch a little less Mel Gibson movies, The Postman and TankGirl.

You're probably right though, just like like Y2K brought about a Mad Max World five years ago. I'm sure glad I bought all that food, water, gas, generator, crossbow and that huge hunting knife.
Assuming a handful of Western countries and Japan will always consume at current levels is naive at best. Ignorant at worst. Assuming the Western oil economies will just flourish forever is foolish. Go ahead. Keep those rosy glasses on and keep consuming! Keep electing religious conservatives and corporate oil moguls. It'll be interesting watching things unfold! :popcorn:

[davidm]

Assuming a handful of Western countries and Japan will always consume at current levels is naive at best. Ignorant at worst. Assuming the Western oil economies will just flourish forever is foolish. Go ahead. Keep those rosy glasses on and keep consuming! Keep electing religious conservatives and corporate oil moguls. It'll be interesting watching things unfold! :popcorn:

It’s worse than that. We are consuming at current levels only currently; capitalism depends on constant growth. Also, India and China are now becoming voracious in their energy needs. There are two distinct trend lines: Rising energy consumption and falling energy output. The peak oil scenario suggests, based on the best available evidence, that the two trend lines are intersecting right about now.

Many call this Late Oil Civilization or Late Technological Civilization. I prefer to think of it as Early Smiley Civilization. :yup: Can Smiley Civilization be saved, or is there some rule of thumb that by the time an intelligent species has attained Smiley Level, it is destined to implode of its own weight, because of the centuries of resource depletion that made Smiley Civilization possible in the first place? :shrug:

I hate to end on an apocalyptic note. I don’t know how many of you read the paper to which I linked above, (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/duncan/olduvai2000.htm) by the geologist Richard C. Duncan, but it presents a scientific case of population overshoot and resource collapse, and what this implies. This has happened many times before: an example is the Mayan civilization that overshot its resource base of corn and then over a century and a half, collapsed. Our collapse might come much swifter, and it will be global and irreversible. The following is from the abstract of the linked paper:

The Olduvai theory has been called unthinkable, preposterous, absurd, dangerous, self-fulfilling, and self-defeating. I offer it, however, as an inductive theory based on world energy and population data and on what I’ve seen during the past 30 years in some 50 nations on all continents except Antarctica. It is also based on my experience in electrical engineering and energy management systems, my hobbies of anthropology and archaeology, and a lifetime of reading in various fields.

The theory is defined by the ratio of world energy production (use) and world population. The details are worked out. The theory is easy. It states that the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100 years: 1930-2030.

World energy production per capita from 1945 to 1973 grew at a breakneck speed of 3.45%/year. Next from 1973 to the all-time peak in 1979, it slowed to a sluggish 0.64%/year. Then suddenly —and for the first time in history — energy production per capita took a long-term decline of 0.33%/year from 1979 to 1999. The Olduvai theory explains the 1979 peak and the subsequent decline. More to the point, it says that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus giving Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years.

Should this occur, any number of factors could be cited as the 'causes' of collapse. I believe, however, that the collapse will be strongly correlated with an 'epidemic' of permanent blackouts of high-voltage electric power networks — worldwide. Briefly explained: "When the electricity goes out, you are back in the Dark Age. And the Stone Age is just around the corner."

I hope someone can refute this. :jawdrop2:

[Morroskye]

Assuming a handful of Western countries and Japan will always consume at current levels is naive at best. Ignorant at worst. Assuming the Western oil economies will just flourish forever is foolish. Go ahead. Keep those rosy glasses on and keep consuming! Keep electing religious conservatives and corporate oil moguls. It'll be interesting watching things unfold! :popcorn:

It’s worse than that. We are consuming at current levels only currently; capitalism depends on constant growth. Also, India and China are now becoming voracious in their energy needs. There are two distinct trend lines: Rising energy consumption and falling energy output. The peak oil scenario suggests, based on the best available evidence, that the two trend lines are intersecting right about now.

Many call this Late Oil Civilization or Late Technological Civilization. I prefer to think of it as Early Smiley Civilization. :yup: Can Smiley Civilization be saved, or is there some rule of thumb that by the time an intelligent species has attained Smiley Level, it is destined to implode of its own weight, because of the centuries of resource depletion that made Smiley Civilization possible in the first place? :shrug:

I hate to end on an apocalyptic note. I don’t know how many of you read the paper to which I linked above, (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/duncan/olduvai2000.htm) by the geologist Richard C. Duncan, but it presents a scientific case of population overshoot and resource collapse, and what this implies. This has happened many times before: an example is the Mayan civilization that overshot its resource base of corn and then over a century and a half, collapsed. Our collapse might come much swifter, and it will be global and irreversible. The following is from the abstract of the linked paper:

The Olduvai theory has been called unthinkable, preposterous, absurd, dangerous, self-fulfilling, and self-defeating. I offer it, however, as an inductive theory based on world energy and population data and on what I’ve seen during the past 30 years in some 50 nations on all continents except Antarctica. It is also based on my experience in electrical engineering and energy management systems, my hobbies of anthropology and archaeology, and a lifetime of reading in various fields.

The theory is defined by the ratio of world energy production (use) and world population. The details are worked out. The theory is easy. It states that the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100 years: 1930-2030.

World energy production per capita from 1945 to 1973 grew at a breakneck speed of 3.45%/year. Next from 1973 to the all-time peak in 1979, it slowed to a sluggish 0.64%/year. Then suddenly —and for the first time in history — energy production per capita took a long-term decline of 0.33%/year from 1979 to 1999. The Olduvai theory explains the 1979 peak and the subsequent decline. More to the point, it says that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus giving Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years.

Should this occur, any number of factors could be cited as the 'causes' of collapse. I believe, however, that the collapse will be strongly correlated with an 'epidemic' of permanent blackouts of high-voltage electric power networks — worldwide. Briefly explained: "When the electricity goes out, you are back in the Dark Age. And the Stone Age is just around the corner."

I hope someone can refute this. :jawdrop2:
Afraid I can't!

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I know about the problems with fusion. Saying it hasn't gotten any closer in 50 years is false.

Did you read what the Caltech professor of physics and applied physics said?


Yeah I did. We also know a hell of a lot more and have much more powerful computers(which is probably what will be needed to control the mag fields that contain the plasma).


Eh, you win the "doomsday" argument I guess. They weren't really doomsdays though because we're still here. It's a pity people are afraid of fission, and that you don't account for it's use when oil does run out. Ever heard of pebble bed reactors? They're a new idea in fission. Should be almost, if not totally impossible for a meltdown with these kind of reactors.

[JoeP]

Assuming a handful of Western countries and Japan will always consume at current levels is naive at best. Ignorant at worst. Assuming the Western oil economies will just flourish forever is foolish. Go ahead. Keep those rosy glasses on and keep consuming! Keep electing religious conservatives and corporate oil moguls. It'll be interesting watching things unfold! :popcorn:

It’s worse than that. We are consuming at current levels only currently; capitalism depends on constant growth. Also, India and China are now becoming voracious in their energy needs. There are two distinct trend lines: Rising energy consumption and falling energy output. The peak oil scenario suggests, based on the best available evidence, that the two trend lines are intersecting right about now.

Many call this Late Oil Civilization or Late Technological Civilization. I prefer to think of it as Early Smiley Civilization. :yup: Can Smiley Civilization be saved, or is there some rule of thumb that by the time an intelligent species has attained Smiley Level, it is destined to implode of its own weight, because of the centuries of resource depletion that made Smiley Civilization possible in the first place? :shrug:

I hate to end on an apocalyptic note. I don’t know how many of you read the paper to which I linked above, (http://www.hubbertpeak.com/duncan/olduvai2000.htm) by the geologist Richard C. Duncan, but it presents a scientific case of population overshoot and resource collapse, and what this implies. This has happened many times before: an example is the Mayan civilization that overshot its resource base of corn and then over a century and a half, collapsed. Our collapse might come much swifter, and it will be global and irreversible. The following is from the abstract of the linked paper:

The Olduvai theory has been called unthinkable, preposterous, absurd, dangerous, self-fulfilling, and self-defeating. I offer it, however, as an inductive theory based on world energy and population data and on what I’ve seen during the past 30 years in some 50 nations on all continents except Antarctica. It is also based on my experience in electrical engineering and energy management systems, my hobbies of anthropology and archaeology, and a lifetime of reading in various fields.

The theory is defined by the ratio of world energy production (use) and world population. The details are worked out. The theory is easy. It states that the life expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than or equal to 100 years: 1930-2030.

World energy production per capita from 1945 to 1973 grew at a breakneck speed of 3.45%/year. Next from 1973 to the all-time peak in 1979, it slowed to a sluggish 0.64%/year. Then suddenly —and for the first time in history — energy production per capita took a long-term decline of 0.33%/year from 1979 to 1999. The Olduvai theory explains the 1979 peak and the subsequent decline. More to the point, it says that energy production per capita will fall to its 1930 value by 2030, thus giving Industrial Civilization a lifetime of less than or equal to 100 years.

Should this occur, any number of factors could be cited as the 'causes' of collapse. I believe, however, that the collapse will be strongly correlated with an 'epidemic' of permanent blackouts of high-voltage electric power networks — worldwide. Briefly explained: "When the electricity goes out, you are back in the Dark Age. And the Stone Age is just around the corner."

I hope someone can refute this. :jawdrop2:


The quote seems to be assuming that "Industrial Civilisation" started in 1930. Since large parts of the globe were both industrial and civilised in the 19th century, they are clearly using that term to mean something more specific ... Oil-fired Industrial Civilisation, perhaps. The argument doesn't require refuting, it requires ignoring.

They have a point though: coal and natural gas are completely depleted, so oil is in fact pretty much our last chance.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I never think of the future - it comes soon enough.-Albert Einstein

He may not have thought of the future, or was just being very ironic; probably the latter. I however do almost endlessly. Why? Because the future should kick major ass, that's why. Think of what humans have made in the last few hundred years; we're "gods". We fly around in flying machines, have single bombs that can end large cities, have landed on the freakin' Moon, have robotic probes outside of our solar system, have split atoms for non-weapon use, can communicate using a high-speed, global computer network........ What does the future hold?

Two words:

Peak Oil (http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/viewtopic.php?t=341)


I should have said this days ago; thanks for spamming my thread with your agenda. You yourself linked a long post, which may or may not be original to your fingers, that you posted on another forum. How many forums have you cut and pasted that to? How many technology threads have you derailed? Thanks. Thanks a lot, asshole. If you wanted to talk about oil running out, there is a forum, this forum, open to you posting your own thread about it.

[livius drusus]

davidm isn't a spammer or obsessed on this topic or anything like that, SkepticJ. I'm sorry you feel the peak oil issue derailed the thread, but I think you're leaping to unwarranted conclusions here. :(

[viscousmemories]

I don't see how it's a derail, personally. You ended your OP with "what does the future hold?" and davidm responded with an article about oil depletion. Seems perfectly on topic to me.

[davidm]

The quote seems to be assuming that "Industrial Civilisation" started in 1930. Since large parts of the globe were both industrial and civilised in the 19th century, they are clearly using that term to mean something more specific ... Oil-fired Industrial Civilisation, perhaps. The argument doesn't require refuting, it requires ignoring.

They have a point though: coal and natural gas are completely depleted, so oil is in fact pretty much our last chance.

Actually, that’s off the point. Of course, industrial civilization started before 1930, so that might have been a poor choice of words on the author’s part, but what he is really pointing out is that in 1930, per capita energy production began to soar for the first time in history. So he has arbitrarily defined that as the start of industrial civilization, but he could just as well have said the longer and clumsier, “start of the period of time in which per capita energy production began to soar.” I think he chose “industrial civilization” as a short hand.

The argument is mathematical. Per capital energy production peaked in 1979. It has been falling since. Calculating the rising population and soaring energy demand with the downward trend line of per capita energy production yields the conclusion that per capita energy production in 2030 will be the same as it was in 1930. Since there will be many more people in the world in 2030 than in 1930, with exponentially greater energy needs, this fact alone will bring to a permanent end our experiment in technological civilization. That is the argument that requires rebutting, essentially a mathematical one.

I say a permanent end because the nonrenewable resource of oil that powered industrial civilization is – nonrenewable. No future human or even nonhuman intelligence on this planet will have access to this resource. To quote from Sir Fred Hoyle in the Olduvai paper:

It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on the Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing intelligence this is not correct. We have or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only.

[davidm]

I should have said this days ago; thanks for spamming my thread with your agenda.

I have no agenda, unless you yourself have one.

You yourself linked a long post, which may or may not be original to your fingers...

It is indeed "original to my fingers." I am a writer and an editor. But thanks for the ad hom.

...that you posted on another forum. How many forums have you cut and pasted that to?

None except this one. You can google around if you don't believe me. In fact, if you think I didn't write that myself, google around and show us all the original source of it, or you ought to withdraw your charge.

How many technology threads have you derailed?

None. Nor have I "derailed" this one, except insofar as you evidently find yourself unable to present a counterargument.

Thanks. Thanks a lot, asshole.

You're welcome.

If you wanted to talk about oil running out, there is a forum, this forum, open to you posting your own thread about it.

Indeed, except my home forum is the Galilean Library, and I linked to that thread in case anyone here were interested in discussing what looks to be the paramount moral, ethical and economic issue of our era. I didn't start a thread here about the subject because I don't have time to be starting threads on multiple fora, and my main posting activity must necessarily these days be confined to the Library.

You asked a question: "What does the future hold?" And I answered it. And frankly, I decided to give that answer in this particular thread because your opening post, IMO, displayed the sort of hubristic faith in the New God of Technology that has got us into the frightening fix that we are facing.

[davidm]

One amendment. Now that I think about it, I did link to that post at two other forums, one in the context of the economy of building at Ground Zero and another at a forum on Mars. In both cases -- as here -- the link was for those who wanted to discuss the issue further at my home forum. I hardly think any reasonable person can call that spamming. But you're entitled to your opinion.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

None. Nor have I "derailed" this one, except insofar as you evidently find yourself unable to present a counterargument.

You asked a question: "What does the future hold?" And I answered it. And frankly, I decided to give that answer in this particular thread because your opening post, IMO, displayed the sort of hubristic faith in the New God of Technology that has got us into the frightening fix that we are facing.


What do you want from me? I already said you won the "doomsday" argument.

What faith? The things I linked can exist one day.
You think I'm happy with how the world is? Cutting down all the rainforests probably won't kill us, since much oxygen comes from the microrganisms in the sea. But, what it will do is destroy millions of years worth of "design" work that could have technological application if only we knew about it. Plus all the lost beauty. I loath those slash-and-burn farmers. Morons.

I'll say it again. What makes you think that fission won't be adopted once the oil does run out(which won't be 2030, maybe 2100 will be) and coal(we have several centuries worth still)? Fossil fuel runs out, we move to fission. Fission is used until fusion works. Solar, hydro, wind etc. are being worked on to make them even better. Not as much as I'd like, but at least something.
Here's some links:

http://www.mos.org/cst/article/2806/

http://www.me.dal.ca/~dp_01_10/index.htm

You should maybe read up on Quantum Dots used in photovoltaic cells.

[davidm]

I'm certainly not here, or anywhere, to try to win arguments. That is what sink holes like iidb are for.

Oil will completely run out in 35 years. Long before that, as supplies decline and demand increases, we will run into global chaos. The source for 35 years, btw, is British Petroleum and Chevron, among others. Not only have most nations long passed their oil production peak (the U.S. did so in 1970), but the world passed discovery peak decades ago. Hence, we are going to rapidly run out of oil.

You would need to build hundreds of fission reactors to make up for this shortfall, and there is not a single one being planned by the U.S. What's more, fission reactors are not going to run cars or planes. Finally, to make parts for fission reactors, you need oil.

A possible solution may be found here, (http://www.mrs.org/publications/bulletin/2005/jun/june05_MaterialMatters.pdf) mooted by the Nobel laureate and professor of chemistry and physics Richard Smalley. It would involve a worldwide grid of solar panels and an energy distribution system consisting of storing and transferring energy not as mass (like petroleum) but in the form of energy itself.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I'm certainly not here, or anywhere, to try to win arguments. That is what sink holes like iidb are for.

Oil will completely run out in 35 years. Long before that, as supplies decline and demand increases, we will run into global chaos.


".....except insofar as you evidently find yourself unable to present a counterargument." Right..... If you don't like iidb then don't go there. I only drop in once an a while myself.

When we're not running our post-apocalyptic, rusting towns on pig shit in 2040 you'll eat your words will you?

[viscousmemories]

I think the disconnect here is that SkepticJ wants to talk about the future where we all have personal jetpacks and our cars fold into briefcases, and davidm wants to talk about the real future. :giggles:

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I think the disconnect here is that SkepticJ wants to talk about the future where we all have personal jetpacks and our cars fold into briefcases, and davidm wants to talk about the real future. :giggles:


You mean the "real" future don't you? No, davidm wants to talk about no future at all, or you might call it a futuristic past.

[viscousmemories]

You mean the "real" future don't you? No, davidm wants to talk about no future at all, or you might call it a futuristic past.
Eh? What is that supposed to mean? You proposed fission as a replacement for oil:
Fossil fuel runs out, we move to fission.

Davidm argued that fission is an unlikely solution:

You would need to build hundreds of fission reactors to make up for this shortfall, and there is not a single one being planned by the U.S. What's more, fission reactors are not going to run cars or planes. Finally, to make parts for fission reactors, you need oil.

Your rebuttal to his argument was:

When we're not running our post-apocalyptic, rusting towns on pig shit in 2040 you'll eat your words will you?

Since he never suggested that pig shit power was the wave of the future, I have no idea what you're referring to. Do you have maybe some suggestions for how to solve the problems with fission he mentioned?

[ceptimus]

I think our biggest problem is that we just have too many people. As long as the human population continues to grow, we compound our problems - insufficent resources of fuel and fresh water, pollution, disease, the eradication of the other species we are privileged to share our planet with, and so on.

With human population at one-tenth or less of its current level, the world would look a much better place to me. Still enough people to run a global economy, but not too many people.

Until our technology advances enough for us to populate other worlds, or space itself, I think we need to limit our numbers. Unfortunately, the only way we seem likely to do this at present is by catastrophe: war, famine, pandemic, climate change or similar armageddon.

Hopefully enough people will survive the coming catastrophe to rebuild society on a more sustainable basis - basically that means less people. I'm afraid the extinction of other species, both plant and animal, will continue until then; that makes me both sad and angry.

However, I am still optimistic about the future. I hope and expect that the human species will colonize the solar system in the next 500 years, and all the nearby star systems in the following 10,000.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Your rebuttal to his argument was:

When we're not running our post-apocalyptic, rusting towns on pig shit in 2040 you'll eat your words will you?

Since he never suggested that pig shit power was the wave of the future, I have no idea what you're referring to.


It's so unfunny when someone doesn't get the joke. You've heard of the 80s Mel Gibson movie Mad Max: Beyond Thunder Dome? The "city" in the movie runs off of methane from pig shit.

[viscousmemories]

It's so unfunny when someone doesn't get the joke. You've heard of the 80s Mel Gibson movie Mad Max: Beyond Thunder Dome? The "city" in the movie runs off of methane from pig shit.
Oh yeah, I've even seen the movie. I didn't remember that part though.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Eh? What is that supposed to mean? You proposed fission as a replacement for oil:


Davidm argued that fission is an unlikely solution:

You would need to build hundreds of fission reactors to make up for this shortfall, and there is not a single one being planned by the U.S. What's more, fission reactors are not going to run cars or planes. Finally, to make parts for fission reactors, you need oil.




Yes, switching to fission reactors when the oil starts to run out is unlikely. People will decide "Hey, I don't want to build fission plants. I'd rather re-enter the Middle Ages technology level than build those, those, those horrible RADIOACTIVE plants!"

In 2035 do you think cars will run on oil? Planes, most of them anyway, probably still will. Am I mistaken or is it possible to make oil much faster synthetically than happens in nature? If so, fission could be used to power some synthetic oil production plants. Planes run from the jet fuel from that oil.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Interesting stuff! I'm especially interested in the Utility Fog, it seems like a good idea but I'd imagine most of the applications it speaks of would be extremely expensive.

Now that I think about it, I'm not altogether certain about having my house made out of a bunch of light emitters and receptors, either...

Technology can really bring a lot of great stuff into our lives, but the more good it does the more potential for misuse seems to follow :hm:


Well, the idea is that it wouldn't exist until assemblers to make them exist. Diamondoid would be made of carbon. Carbon is in the air even, as carbon dioxide. You should really read about nanotech in depth--> www.foresight.org

[davidm]

I'm certainly not here, or anywhere, to try to win arguments. That is what sink holes like iidb are for.

Oil will completely run out in 35 years. Long before that, as supplies decline and demand increases, we will run into global chaos.


".....except insofar as you evidently find yourself unable to present a counterargument." Right..... If you don't like iidb then don't go there. I only drop in once an a while myself.

I'm using the term "argument" in the sense of a premise, not in the sense of fighting. What I'm asking for is a counterexample or a refutation.

When we're not running our post-apocalyptic, rusting towns on pig shit in 2040 you'll eat your words will you?

Which the above isn't.

At Physics Today.org, ( http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html) Paul B. Weisz, an emeritus professor of chemical and bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania and a retired senior scientist and manager at the Central Research Laboratory of the Mobil Corp., explains why all our choices are bad, including trying to convert coal into oil.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Which the above isn't.

At Physics Today.org, ( http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html) Paul B. Weisz, an emeritus professor of chemical and bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania and a retired senior scientist and manager at the Central Research Laboratory of the Mobil Corp., explains why all our choices are bad, including trying to convert coal into oil.


I didn't mean for it to be. Damn you people, get the joke!


I must say that's the longest Appeal to Authority I've ever seen written by anyone; congratulations.

Since you're not going to shut the hell up and stop derailing this thread, I guess it's time to tear your linked post a new asshole:

Something you should keep in mind is oil production, etc. is based on oil reserves. Now this might sound rather obvious, but actually it isn't, because the term oil reserve does NOT mean the total amount of oil in the ground. It means the amount of oil that we could extract given current oil extraction technology AND current oil prices. In the 70's, oil reserves were sufficient to sustain demand for about 20 years. Obviously, we didn't run out of oil. Similarly, while oil reserves right now may stand at 30 years, we are NOT going to run out of oil in 30 years. There are huge deposits of oil in the world (such as the sand oil in Canada) that will last MUCH longer, but cannot be used right now because it would simply be too expensive. But that will change one way or another: either technology will make it cheaper to extract, or rising prices will mean it will become worthwhile.

Obviously, of course at some point we'll run out of oil. And at some point before then, we'll hit peak oil production. But we're sure as hell not going to run out any time soon, and I don't think anyone has a good idea about when peak oil will actually hit or how steep any decline will be. In fact, it could just plateau for a very long time before any decline.

I find it very interesting that there is almost a hope that we'll run out of oil. All the talk about primitivists, and statements like "If there is any positive side to stark changes coming our way, it may be in the benefits of close communal relations, of having to really work intimately (and physically) with our neighbors, to be part of an enterprise that really matters and to be fully engaged in meaningful social enactments instead of being merely entertained to avoid boredom." Talking about impending oil crisis and a return to primitive communal conditions is a sort of Earth-First version of the Rapture: those who clue in to the coming appocalypse will be able to live happily in its wake, while the rest of us oblivious schmucks will get our well-deserved comeuppance.

Oil prices will continue to climb in the long run. This will slow down overall global economic growth, since that is sensitive to energy costs. It will also make all other energy sources more competitive, which is why all major auto makers have all kinds of cool prototype projects going.

You're also forgetting hydroelectric power. Yes, I know not many cities run on it, but the one's that do have electricity for many thousands of years to come. Those cities with power, if it came to this, could be the places where technology is kept going until fusion works. Let's say that all oil and coal are gone, we're still not doomed to stay at primitive tech. Wood, wood is stored energy. Sure it takes a lot. Bamboo is a very good option I can see. Do you have any idea how fast it grows?! This wood can be used to power generators, even if it has to be done in pulses, to power research buildings and to build solar power plants to generate electricity. Oil and coal are just chemical energy that microorganisms, plants etc. gathered and then put under pressure to concentrate it. Turning wood into charcoal is another fuel option. Or even the joking methane from pig shit to power the production of solar power plants. The solar power plants can then power the world until fusion. You see, we're not dead no matter what? I'm not saying life would be easy for many during some of this hypothetical time, but it's better than giving up, being primitive, and dying like the dinos did when the KT asteroid hit Earth. Hydro power could be used to produce charcoal. Solar could be used. I'm done now, you assertion that we're stuck as primitive forever from the loss of oil is laughable.

[viscousmemories]

I must say that's the longest Appeal to Authority I've ever seen written by anyone; congratulations.
Appealing to an authority is not fallacious if the person is a recognized authority in the field under discussion, which I'm pretty sure Paul B. Weisz, an emeritus professor of chemical and bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania and a retired senior scientist and manager at the Central Research Laboratory of the Mobil Corp. is, and you are not.

[davidm]

Which the above isn't.

At Physics Today.org, ( http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p47.html) Paul B. Weisz, an emeritus professor of chemical and bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania and a retired senior scientist and manager at the Central Research Laboratory of the Mobil Corp., explains why all our choices are bad, including trying to convert coal into oil.


I didn't mean for it to be. Damn you people, get the joke!

I realize it's a joke. Maybe you'd care to address the issue instead of joking.


I must say that's the longest Appeal to Authority I've ever seen written by anyone; congratulations.

No, it is not an appeal to authority fallacy. Your position seems to be that pointing to the findings of any recognized authority is fallacious. If that were the case, we'd have to do away with the technology that you love. But anyway, the true fallacy comes when one insists that something must be true if an authority says so. I've done no such thing. I provided you with a link so that you could gain some understanding of the severe energy problems that we face. I'm sorry it didn't work.

Since you're not going to shut the hell up and stop derailing this thread, I guess it's time to tear your linked post a new asshole:

I've derailed nothing. Your position seems to be that anyone who disagrees with you is derailing a thread.

Something you should keep in mind is oil production, etc. is based on oil reserves. Now this might sound rather obvious, but actually it isn't, because the term oil reserve does NOT mean the total amount of oil in the ground. It means the amount of oil that we could extract given current oil extraction technology AND current oil prices. In the 70's, oil reserves were sufficient to sustain demand for about 20 years. Obviously, we didn't run out of oil. Similarly, while oil reserves right now may stand at 30 years, we are NOT going to run out of oil in 30 years. There are huge deposits of oil in the world (such as the sand oil in Canada) that will last MUCH longer, but cannot be used right now because it would simply be too expensive. But that will change one way or another: either technology will make it cheaper to extract, or rising prices will mean it will become worthwhile.

Did read any of the links I supplied? The best data that we have (and it is of course defeasible, but probably not by a great deal) demonstrates that the total recoverable supply of oil in the whole world is at or near peak. So, yes, we are talking about total oil in the ground, and not oil reserves. Moreover, global oil discovery peak happened in 1960. This means that each year, less and less oil is discovered. United States oil production peak occurred in 1970. Today, we produce half the oil we produced then. Almost all nations except Saudi Arabia have hit production peak! And there are strong indications that the Saudis have peaked as well, though no one knows for sure because the Saudis are not transparent. As to oil sands, the thread to which I linked, as well as others, discusses why it will take huge investments (and energy inputs) to recover this stuff, if it even is recoverable. It might prove to be an energy sink, with the cost of recovery greater than the profit from return.

Obviously, of course at some point we'll run out of oil. And at some point before then, we'll hit peak oil production. But we're sure as hell not going to run out any time soon, and I don't think anyone has a good idea about when peak oil will actually hit or how steep any decline will be. In fact, it could just plateau for a very long time before any decline.

Yes, it could plateau for a number of years. But if you read the links I gave, to people who understand the nature of the problem (not an appeal to authority) you'll see that a broad consensus is that peak will happen this decade. If we're lucky, maybe early next decade. Remember, this is peak of all oil, not just reserves. After peak is passed, serious problems are bound to crop up rather quickly.

I find it very interesting that there is almost a hope that we'll run out of oil. All the talk about primitivists, and statements like "If there is any positive side to stark changes coming our way, it may be in the benefits of close communal relations, of having to really work intimately (and physically) with our neighbors, to be part of an enterprise that really matters and to be fully engaged in meaningful social enactments instead of being merely entertained to avoid boredom." Talking about impending oil crisis and a return to primitive communal conditions is a sort of Earth-First version of the Rapture: those who clue in to the coming appocalypse will be able to live happily in its wake, while the rest of us oblivious schmucks will get our well-deserved comeuppance.

This, of course, is entirely ad hominem and hence useless for any discussion. Note that the passage you quoted is not from me.

Oil prices will continue to climb in the long run. This will slow down overall global economic growth, since that is sensitive to energy costs. It will also make all other energy sources more competitive, which is why all major auto makers have all kinds of cool prototype projects going.

The basic problem is that these alternatives are not economically scalable to sustain even a fraction of our current global industrial civilization. The energy returned over energy invested of oil is far greater than all the alternatives, and that is the crux of the problem.

You're also forgetting hydroelectric power. Yes, I know not many cities run on it, but the one's that do have electricity for many thousands of years to come. Those cities with power, if it came to this, could be the places where technology is kept going until fusion works. Let's say that all oil and coal are gone, we're still not doomed to stay at primitive tech.

All these alternatives you're talking about are not oil substitutes but oil derivatives. In other words, in the absence of vast petroleum inputs, it's very possible we won't even be able to build things like solar panels or wind turbines. You need oil to build them! Hydroelectric obviously is only a limited solution. Are you going to power Las Vegas on hydroelectric?

Wood, wood is stored energy. Sure it takes a lot. Bamboo is a very good option I can see. Do you have any idea how fast it grows?! This wood can be used to power generators, even if it has to be done in pulses, to power research buildings and to build solar power plants to generate electricity.

You really think we're going to run industrial civilization on wood and bamboo?

Oil and coal are just chemical energy that microorganisms, plants etc. gathered and then put under pressure to concentrate it. Turning wood into charcoal is another fuel option. Or even the joking methane from pig shit to power the production of solar power plants. The solar power plants can then power the world until fusion.

Again, oil has by far the greatest energy return over energy invested. None of these alternatives in whole or in part can compete. Without oil you can't sustain the kind of civilization we have, unless we can make fusion work. Fission probably wont' work: you'd have to build not hundreds but thousands of nuclear plants to replace the oil industry, and it's not even clear how such generated power could be used to run things like cars and airplanes. Ninety percent of our transportation is powered by oil.

You see, we're not dead no matter what? I'm not saying life would be easy for many during some of this hypothetical time, but it's better than giving up, being primitive, and dying like the dinos did when the KT asteroid hit Earth. Hydro power could be used to produce charcoal. Solar could be used. I'm done now, you assertion that we're stuck as primitive forever from the loss of oil is laughable.

It's not my assertion, it's the assertion of experts who have studied the matter and of an analysis of the available data. The problems will start long before the actual oil (not reserves, but all oil in the ground) run out, which British Petroleum estimates will happen in 35 years at our current and forecasted rate of consumption. And if the oil does run out without an economically scalable alternative energy source already in place long before then, we are not going to be able again to build an industrial civilization, because we will have squandered the energy source that made it possible in the first place.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Are you going to power Las Vegas on hydroelectric?

It already is. In an apocalypse future do you think that power would be wasted on powering all those useless casinos? I don't. It would be used to power much better things.

"You really think we're going to run industrial civilization on wood and bamboo?"

Nice strawman dude. I wasn't saying an entire civilisation would, just small cities working on higher technology, such as solar, wind, wave and other hydro and fusion. It's better than giving up. Another power source is geothermal. If it came to it, high technology could be developed in Iceland, running off the steam. The steam could be used to produce hydrogen gas or whatever for industry within the country. Once fusion is developed it is carted out to the rest of the world for the economy to rebuild. On fusion power this could go very fast. We'd have everything we've learned over the last four-hundred years still stored in books, computer drives etc. so really, what's been lost?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

No, it is not an appeal to authority fallacy. Your position seems to be that pointing to the findings of any recognized authority is fallacious. If that were the case, we'd have to do away with the technology that you love. But anyway, the true fallacy comes when one insists that something must be true if an authority says so. I've done no such thing. I provided you with a link so that you could gain some understanding of the severe energy problems that we face. I'm sorry it didn't work.

Your position seems to be that anyone who disagrees with you is derailing a thread.


If it's the argument that speaks for itself then why did you even bring his name, education, former job etc. into it then? As to the technology I love, no you wouldn't, because the papers explain the tech and it doesn't matter who typed them. I think Paul Birch(the supramass shell and other tech stuff on the linked site) is actually a dummy in the religion department(He doesn't understand why his country of England doesn't have a State-Church, not because he believes in God(Just in case you wanted to try that strawman))and is sexist.

No, my position seems to be that anyone who can't stay on the topic of technological innovation instead of Peak Oil and energy running out is derailing a thread. I have an idea, I'll start a new thread on technology and we'll keep the Peak Oil discussion going on this one. VM or LD, can you change the thread title to Peak Oil?

[viscousmemories]

VM or LD, can you change the thread title to Peak Oil?
Done. :1thumbup:

[Johnny Pneumatic]

A potential hydrocarbon source is in the form of gas, primarily methane, trapped in high-pressure deep ocean ices. Called methane hydrates, there may be more hydrocarbons here than the total of all petroleum so far extracted and in the known reserves. That's a lot!

A few links on methane hydrates:
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Durham.html

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/

http://www.ornl.gov/info/reporter/no16/methane.htm

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/...ates/title.html

There are potentially problems associated with these resources and their recovery, but man is a clever critter and will survive if we don't just lay down and give up due to fatalism and negativity. Can't never could do anything.
You and your forum buddies go ahead and give up though, and your's and their ancestors will die with the next big asteroid impact in thousands or more years. Asteroids, big ones, will hit earth several more times before Sol starts to kill Earth with the increase in heat. Climate change, can also kill humans long before Sol also. Giving up=death. All the sane people will try and survive by keeping "high"(someday this technology will be laughably primitive) technology; our ancestors(many we wouldn't even call human because they'll be so weird) will call the stars of the Milky Way and beyond home.

[davidm]

A potential hydrocarbon source is in the form of gas, primarily methane, trapped in high-pressure deep ocean ices. Called methane hydrates, there may be more hydrocarbons here than the total of all petroleum so far extracted and in the known reserves. That's a lot!

A few links on methane hydrates:
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Durham.html

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/

http://www.ornl.gov/info/reporter/no16/methane.htm

http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/...ates/title.html

Why is that when I provide a link, it's an Appeal to Authority, but when you provide multiple links, you are making a case?

There are potentially problems associated with these resources and their recovery, but man is a clever critter and will survive if we don't just lay down and give up due to fatalism and negativity. Can't never could do anything.
You and your forum buddies go ahead and give up though, and your's and their ancestors will die with the next big asteroid impact in thousands or more years. Asteroids, big ones, will hit earth several more times before Sol starts to kill Earth with the increase in heat. Climate change, can also kill humans long before Sol also. Giving up=death. All the sane people will try and survive by keeping "high"(someday this technology will be laughably primitive) technology; our ancestors(many we wouldn't even call human because they'll be so weird) will call the stars of the Milky Way and beyond home.

Yes, there are a lot of problems associated with their recovery. It might be economically feasible, or it might not. Pollution from these resources is also a big problem. However, I'll confine my continued discussion of this topic to this thread (http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/viewtopic.php?t=341), for anyoone interested in following the discussion or joining in. Your repeated ad homs, red herrirngs, insults, and refusal to support your assertions bore me.

[viscousmemories]

Well FWIW, I found the peak oil discussion very enlightening. Thanks davidm. If it hadn't happened, I probably wouldn't have even glanced twice at this two-page Chevron ad (http://www.willyoujoinus.com/advertising/print/) I saw in Wired this morning. The lead in is: "It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We'll use the next trillion in 30." They seem to have a lot more information on that site as well, although I haven't browsed around much yet.

www.willyoujoinus.com

[godfry n. glad]

[QUOTE=davidm]
[quote]Something you should keep in mind is oil production, etc. is based on oil reserves. Now this might sound rather obvious, but actually it isn't, because the term oil reserve does NOT mean the total amount of oil in the ground. It means the amount of oil that we could extract given current oil extraction technology AND current oil prices. In the 70's, oil reserves were sufficient to sustain demand for about 20 years. Obviously, we didn't run out of oil. Similarly, while oil reserves right now may stand at 30 years, we are NOT going to run out of oil in 30 years. There are huge deposits of oil in the world (such as the sand oil in Canada) that will last MUCH longer, but cannot be used right now because it would simply be too expensive. But that will change one way or another: either technology will make it cheaper to extract, or rising prices will mean it will become worthwhile.

Did read any of the links I supplied? The best data that we have (and it is of course defeasible, but probably not by a great deal) demonstrates that the total recoverable supply of oil in the whole world is at or near peak. So, yes, we are talking about total oil in the ground, and not oil reserves. Moreover, global oil discovery peak happened in 1960. This means that each year, less and less oil is discovered. United States oil production peak occurred in 1970. Today, we produce half the oil we produced then.

Excuse me. I have not yet read the links supplied, but I shall. From what I can tell, I agree, in part, with davidm here, but I have a reservation about this statement regarding US production. It is my understanding that US production of crude oil has been artificially suppressed, in that it has been public policy to encourage importation of foreign oil, thereby drawing down foreign reserves while preserving a national reserve in the ground. Correct me if I err, here.

Almost all nations except Saudi Arabia have hit production peak! And there are strong indications that the Saudis have peaked as well, though no one knows for sure because the Saudis are not transparent. As to oil sands, the thread to which I linked, as well as others, discusses why it will take huge investments (and energy inputs) to recover this stuff, if it even is recoverable. It might prove to be an energy sink, with the cost of recovery greater than the profit from return.

It might. The thing is, we don't know. The term "economically recoverable" is tricky, because as the price of oil rises with its increased scarcity, it would seem that other now "uneconomic" means of energy production would become more "economic". It is true, in my understanding, that the easily extracted and processed petroleum has been tapped.

Obviously, of course at some point we'll run out of oil. And at some point before then, we'll hit peak oil production. But we're sure as hell not going to run out any time soon, and I don't think anyone has a good idea about when peak oil will actually hit or how steep any decline will be. In fact, it could just plateau for a very long time before any decline.

Yes, it could plateau for a number of years. But if you read the links I gave, to people who understand the nature of the problem (not an appeal to authority) you'll see that a broad consensus is that peak will happen this decade. If we're lucky, maybe early next decade. Remember, this is peak of all oil, not just reserves. After peak is passed, serious problems are bound to crop up rather quickly.

I find it very interesting that there is almost a hope that we'll run out of oil. All the talk about primitivists, and statements like "If there is any positive side to stark changes coming our way, it may be in the benefits of close communal relations, of having to really work intimately (and physically) with our neighbors, to be part of an enterprise that really matters and to be fully engaged in meaningful social enactments instead of being merely entertained to avoid boredom." Talking about impending oil crisis and a return to primitive communal conditions is a sort of Earth-First version of the Rapture: those who clue in to the coming appocalypse will be able to live happily in its wake, while the rest of us oblivious schmucks will get our well-deserved comeuppance.

This, of course, is entirely ad hominem and hence useless for any discussion. Note that the passage you quoted is not from me.

Oil prices will continue to climb in the long run. This will slow down overall global economic growth, since that is sensitive to energy costs. It will also make all other energy sources more competitive, which is why all major auto makers have all kinds of cool prototype projects going.

The basic problem is that these alternatives are not economically scalable to sustain even a fraction of our current global industrial civilization. The energy returned over energy invested of oil is far greater than all the alternatives, and that is the crux of the problem.

Agreed. However, economic circumstances and technological, or even societal, changes can make what was economically unfeasible suddenly feasible. As oil prices rise, there is a scramble to find more reserves, as well as a shift into other energy sources, where practicable. The big problem is that demand is still increasing and supply is (or shall soon) not.

You're also forgetting hydroelectric power. Yes, I know not many cities run on it, but the one's that do have electricity for many thousands of years to come. Those cities with power, if it came to this, could be the places where technology is kept going until fusion works. Let's say that all oil and coal are gone, we're still not doomed to stay at primitive tech.

All these alternatives you're talking about are not oil substitutes but oil derivatives. In other words, in the absence of vast petroleum inputs, it's very possible we won't even be able to build things like solar panels or wind turbines. You need oil to build them! Hydroelectric obviously is only a limited solution. Are you going to power Las Vegas on hydroelectric?

Yes. Las Vegas currently is powered by hydroelectric in large part. But your point is well taken. Energy fuelling with liquid hydrocarbons is a damned convenient method. Messy, too.

Hydroelectric power has it's limitations as well. Only specific sites are appropriate for the generation of hydroelectric power and they, like oil deposits, are not evenly distributed upon the face of the planet. Additionally, since agglomerations of human communities rarely occur in close proximity to such sites, transmission of the generated energy is a major issue. Then, the basic tools for hydroelectric generation, are not environmentally neutral; there are a whole host of additional problems which go with it. As there are with any alternative source of energy.

Wood, wood is stored energy. Sure it takes a lot. Bamboo is a very good option I can see. Do you have any idea how fast it grows?! This wood can be used to power generators, even if it has to be done in pulses, to power research buildings and to build solar power plants to generate electricity.

You really think we're going to run industrial civilization on wood and bamboo?

I think it's possible. I don't think it would necessarily be any kind of utopia, though. Plus, deforestation poses it's own risks. *cough* *cough*

Oil and coal are just chemical energy that microorganisms, plants etc. gathered and then put under pressure to concentrate it. Turning wood into charcoal is another fuel option. Or even the joking methane from pig shit to power the production of solar power plants. The solar power plants can then power the world until fusion.

Again, oil has by far the greatest energy return over energy invested. None of these alternatives in whole or in part can compete. Without oil you can't sustain the kind of civilization we have, unless we can make fusion work. Fission probably wont' work: you'd have to build not hundreds but thousands of nuclear plants to replace the oil industry, and it's not even clear how such generated power could be used to run things like cars and airplanes. Ninety percent of our transportation is powered by oil.

Yep... And if it weren't for petroleum and the internal combustion engine, we'd be hip-deep in horseshit by now.

You see, we're not dead no matter what? I'm not saying life would be easy for many during some of this hypothetical time, but it's better than giving up, being primitive, and dying like the dinos did when the KT asteroid hit Earth. Hydro power could be used to produce charcoal. Solar could be used. I'm done now, you assertion that we're stuck as primitive forever from the loss of oil is laughable.

It's not my assertion, it's the assertion of experts who have studied the matter and of an analysis of the available data. The problems will start long before the actual oil (not reserves, but all oil in the ground) run out, which British Petroleum estimates will happen in 35 years at our current and forecasted rate of consumption. And if the oil does run out without an economically scalable alternative energy source already in place long before then, we are not going to be able again to build an industrial civilization, because we will have squandered the energy source that made it possible in the first place.

Well, other than industrial civilizations having been built without massive quantities of oil (oil having come late to the industrialization party), oil as a fuel has provided immense gains in what could be done. However, because much of it was so relatively cheap when it was extracted, processed and used, much of the energy was wasted. Squandered is an excellent description. I would expect to see an industrial society where energy inputs into industrial processes would be minimized and output per energy unit input maximized.

Still, with pushes toward alternative energy sources (as they become economic relative to petroleum) and ever greater efficiencies in production, I'd expect that there will be major economic dislocations, accompanied by the typical human responses of war, famine, pestilence and disease. There will be struggles over control of energy resources (there are now). Populations continue to climb and some portions of that expanding population expect to be able to enjoy lifestyles equivalent to those societies which have built themselves upon the availability of relatively inexpensive hydrocarbon fuels. I don't know that what is expected is sustainable. Energy is only one input into creating a sustainable society, and one which adversely impacts other inputs.

I also don't know as waiting for some kind of miraculous bailout like fission is particularly adviseable. It seems to be gambling on something that does not exist. Now, that's not to say that we couldn't stumble on to some means of harnessing some amazing energy source (like we did with petroleum), but to put our eggs all in that basket and continue on like everything was going to be just hunkydory seems foolish to me.

Last questions: Is it considered desireable to continue industrial civilization? I think to postulate some post-apocalyptic Thunderdome future is one possibility, but I suspect that there are many other alternatives betwixt that one and our current one. Could a post-industrial society not be a decent one? It seems to me that all here are bewailing the passing of the industrial civilization...is that accurate? If so, can somebody let me in on why?

[davidm]

Man, there are too many nested quotes to deal with in Godfrey's post. So I'll answer here.

1. Even if U.S. production has been artificialy suppressed -- and I don't know of any evidence for that -- it doesn't change the fact that U.S. production peaked in 1970 and is today half what it was then. Also, while oil companies might try to pull off conspiracies, it'd be very hard to do. Their records are made open and transparent by law. The fact is that production has been steadily declining, year after year, for 35 years.

2. As to economic recoverability: The thing about oil is that in it's early days, when there were actually oil geysers, it had a 30:1 ratio of Energy Returned Over Energy Invested (EROEI) That is, it took one barrel of il to recover 30. Truly, this was almost free energy. Today the return is much lower, though still better than potential replacements. And, yeah, economic recovery might become more economic if oil is scarce. But that only means the process will still be extremely expensive. It's just that oil will be extremely expensive, too. All this means is that energy is going to much more expensive than it is now, with all the implications that fact entails. It's also true that with all oil fields, not all the oil is recoverable. This happens when the EROEI becomes 1:1. If it takes one barrel of oil to recover another, the undertaking is economically pointless.

3. Alternative energy schemes and extraction methods can be economically feasible only if we greatly scale back our industrial society. But if we do that, we also have to scale back the industries, requiring enormous energy inputs, that we will need to extract ever-harder-to-get energy sources. This threatens a vicious circle leading to a downward spiral.

4. As to Las Vegas, I was really referring to the car culture there (and all over America, really). We are not going to run our huge fleet of cars, trucks and planes on nuclear or solar power. Nor are we going to run them on hydrogen. Hydrogen is not an energy source -- it is an energy carrier, and needs to be produced. It has a lot of problems and limitations that oil doesn't have. That's why it's so scary, in retrospect, to recall that President Bush was trying to peddle "the hydrogen economy" a few years ago. He must know it's not going to happen.

5. Yes, we'd be hip deep in horse shit by how. We might have to be again. Horses are pretty good self-reproducing solar power units.

6. Yes, industrial civilization began without oil energy. But we were only able to scale it up to its fantastic dimensions because of oil. Without oil, we're going to have to scale it back down.

Still, with pushes toward alternative energy sources (as they become economic relative to petroleum) and ever greater efficiencies in production, I'd expect that there will be major economic dislocations, accompanied by the typical human responses of war, famine, pestilence and disease. There will be struggles over control of energy resources (there are now). Populations continue to climb and some portions of that expanding population expect to be able to enjoy lifestyles equivalent to those societies which have built themselves upon the availability of relatively inexpensive hydrocarbon fuels. I don't know that what is expected is sustainable. Energy is only one input into creating a sustainable society, and one which adversely impacts other inputs.
I'd expect this is right. I'd also expect that suburbia, the two cars and two-car garages, and the single-family homes full of TVs, computers and beef shipped to the store from 3,000 miles away are all going to be things of the past.
I also don't know as waiting for some kind of miraculous bailout like fission is particularly adviseable. It seems to be gambling on something that does not exist. Now, that's not to say that we couldn't stumble on to some means of harnessing some amazing energy source (like we did with petroleum), but to put our eggs all in that basket and continue on like everything was going to be just hunkydory seems foolish to me.
Well, we do have fission. To meet current energy needs (ignoring future growth), the research I'm finding suggests we'd need literally to build thousands of nuclear power plants. It goes without saying how unlikely that is. The other alternative is hot or cold fusion, but no progress has been made on either. We've been trying to figure out economical hot fusion for 50 years and haven't done so.
Last questions: Is it considered desireable to continue industrial civilization? I think to postulate some post-apocalyptic Thunderdome future is one possibility, but I suspect that there are many other alternatives betwixt that one and our current one. Could a post-industrial society not be a decent one? It seems to me that all here are bewailing the passing of the industrial civilization...is that accurate? If so, can somebody let me in on why?
Well, that's a great question, and one we touched on at the Peak Oil thread at the Galilean Library. Maybe it deserves its own thread here.

[davidm]

Oh, and SkepticJ, in case you’re still lurking about on this thread: Earlier you wrote this:

I should have said this days ago; thanks for spamming my thread with your agenda. You yourself linked a long post, which may or may not be original to your fingers, that you posted on another forum.

Thus you insinuated that I am a plagiarist.

Several post later, you wrote:

Since you're not going to shut the hell up and stop derailing this thread, I guess it's time to tear your linked post a new asshole:

Something you should keep in mind is oil production, etc. is based on oil reserves. Now this might sound rather obvious, but actually it isn't, because the term oil reserve does NOT mean the total amount of oil in the ground. It means the amount of oil that we could extract given current oil extraction technology AND current oil prices. In the 70's, oil reserves were sufficient to sustain demand for about 20 years. Obviously, we didn't run out of oil. Similarly, while oil reserves right now may stand at 30 years, we are NOT going to run out of oil in 30 years. There are huge deposits of oil in the world (such as the sand oil in Canada) that will last MUCH longer, but cannot be used right now because it would simply be too expensive. But that will change one way or another: either technology will make it cheaper to extract, or rising prices will mean it will become worthwhile.

Obviously, of course at some point we'll run out of oil. And at some point before then, we'll hit peak oil production. But we're sure as hell not going to run out any time soon, and I don't think anyone has a good idea about when peak oil will actually hit or how steep any decline will be. In fact, it could just plateau for a very long time before any decline.



Not plagiarizing much, are we? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?threadid=59886)

Maybe you could now have the courtesy to cut and past my rebuttal of the argument that you cut and paste from another forum while falsely claiming credit for it, although please have the courtesy to attribute my argument to me (the actual author). Also, you might want to tell your gullible friends at the JREF “skeptics” board that ad hom is not an argument; that in any case, no one that I know of wants to see the world slip into catastrophe; and that just because you can google up something 667,000 times on the Web, this does not constitute “science by Google hit.” It is a non sequitor to suppose that because something pops up on the Internet, it must be bogus. To see why, I just did a Google of “The Problem of Evil” and came up with more than 140,000 hits. Does it now follow that there is no philosophical Problem of Evil just because discussion of it appears on the Web?

Those JREF arguments, BTW, are absolutely pitiful. Those people are supposed to be informed skeptics?

[viscousmemories]

Those JREF arguments, BTW, are absolutely pitiful. Those people are supposed to be informed skeptics?
I've met some solid rational thinkers at JREF, but in my opinion they're few and far between. Generally speaking it seems to be more of an anti-homeopathy and paranormal site than a site to showcase and promote skepticism and critical thought. Anymore, anyway.

SkepticJ, I said it at JREF and I'll say it here, I think it's pretty weak to be asking for rebuttals at JREF to cut-n-paste elsewhere. It's easy to make arguments look bad when the person making them isn't around to defend themselves.

[davidm]

Those JREF arguments, BTW, are absolutely pitiful. Those people are supposed to be informed skeptics?
I've met some solid rational thinkers at JREF, but in my opinion they're few and far between. Generally speaking it seems to be more of an anti-homeopathy and paranormal site than a site to showcase and promote skepticism and critical thought. Anymore, anyway.

However that may be, at the ongoing Peak Oil thread at the Galilean Library I have just made a post rebutting some of the more incredibly idiotic assertions on that thread. Since you post there, you might want to drop them a line that their "arguments" did not escape my evil eye. Some of that stuff made my head spin.
:spinning:

[viscousmemories]

I don't know if 159 posts in two years really can really be called "posting there", but anyway... done. :1thumbup:

:slide:

[davidm]

I don't know if 159 posts in two years really can really be called "posting there", but anyway... done. :1thumbup:

:slide:

Thank you! :yes!:

Let's see if they will come out to play. :whup:

BTW, I wasn't suggesting you were a regular poster at that board, I just meant that you were registered there. I certainly wasn't going to register there just for this issue.

[viscousmemories]

BTW, I wasn't suggesting you were a regular poster at that board, I just meant that you were registered there.
Oh I didn't think you were, I was just being facetious. :)

[godfry n. glad]

Those JREF arguments, BTW, are absolutely pitiful. Those people are supposed to be informed skeptics?
I've met some solid rational thinkers at JREF, but in my opinion they're few and far between. Generally speaking it seems to be more of an anti-homeopathy and paranormal site than a site to showcase and promote skepticism and critical thought. Anymore, anyway.

However that may be, at the ongoing Peak Oil thread at the Galilean Library I have just made a post rebutting some of the more incredibly idiotic assertions on that thread. Since you post there, you might want to drop them a line that their "arguments" did not escape my evil eye. Some of that stuff made my head spin.
:spinning:

Sorry, I won't set foot in the Galilean Library.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Oh, and SkepticJ, in case you’re still lurking about on this thread: Earlier you wrote this:

I should have said this days ago; thanks for spamming my thread with your agenda. You yourself linked a long post, which may or may not be original to your fingers, that you posted on another forum.

Thus you insinuated that I am a plagiarist.

You could now have the courtesy to cut and past my rebuttal of the argument that you cut and paste from another forum while falsely claiming credit for it,

Oh, I'm still here, I just don't have internet except on two days of the week, so you'll understand it will take me time to get back to you.

You want to know why I did that? If you take the time to look through this forum's archives you'll find we get spammers starting or derailing threads like this. Sorry, it seems I was wrong about you doing this.

I claimed no such thing, in fact I stated on the forum you linked that's what I did; and gave the link to where I posted them! If you still think I'm taking credit for those arguments please bold quote in your reply where I said those were my original arguments. I did have some arguments of my own, but you don't seem to like to reply to the harder ones, possibly because you can't. I'll take you up on your offer, I'll debate you on your forum. How's that?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Is it considered desireable to continue industrial civilization? I think to postulate some post-apocalyptic Thunderdome future is one possibility, but I suspect that there are many other alternatives betwixt that one and our current one. Could a post-industrial society not be a decent one? It seems to me that all here are bewailing the passing of the industrial civilization...is that accurate? If so, can somebody let me in on why?



Yes, yes it is. Now I don't mean our type of industrial civilisation where we've mowed down forests and not replanting, slash and burn agriculture in South America and Africa ect., but a civilisation where we can talk with one another at the speed of light, not roast in the summer ect. is a world I want to live in. Also, unless one wants humanity to go extinct we must leave Earth. It's been a good home, but asteroids will hit unless we are a space faring civilisation that can stop them. The Sun will start to kill the life on Earth in 900,000,000 years or so, humans will be long, long gone from asteroid impacts and climate change by then though unless we get off Earth.

I saw something quite neat on the Science Channel yesterday, sunflowers (http://www.energyinnovations.com/) . But yeah, we're still doomed to a low technology future. What, what energy source could we use? It can't be that huge nuclear fusion reaction happening 93,000,000 miles from us, don't be silly.
I'd also like you to back up your assertion as to why oil is needed to produce solar plants. Can you? I wouldn't be suprised if the reason we use oil is because it's an easy energy source, not because that's the only thing that will work.

[godfry n. glad]

I'd also like you to back up your assertion as to why oil is needed to produce solar plants. Can you? I wouldn't be suprised if the reason we use oil is because it's an easy energy source, not because that's the only thing that will work.

Sorry, not my assertion. I'll hand that over to davidm, who made it.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

4. As to Las Vegas, I was really referring to the car culture there (and all over America, really). We are not going to run our huge fleet of cars, trucks and planes on nuclear or solar power. Nor are we going to run them on hydrogen. Hydrogen is not an energy source -- it is an energy carrier, and needs to be produced. It has a lot of problems and limitations that oil doesn't have. That's why it's so scary, in retrospect, to recall that President Bush was trying to peddle "the hydrogen economy" a few years ago. He must know it's not going to happen.

6. Yes, industrial civilization began without oil energy. But we were only able to scale it up to its fantastic dimensions because of oil. Without oil, we're going to have to scale it back down.


Yeah, sure you were...... :rolleyes: This is a wonderful strawman, who's said we would run cars on fusion or solar, at least directly? A fusion or solar plant that is used to split water for hydrogen fuel would work.
Has anyone here said hydrogen is anything more than a battery?
Yes, hydrogen does have problems, they're being worked on. The leaking problem you might be thinking of? There's already a way to store hydrogen without a pressure tank.--> http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/content.phtml?ref=1097845704

Also metal hydride hydrogen storage works and is being made better.


Ah, so you've changed your turn. Scaled back down is very different from going away. Scaled back down just means less is produced, then when fusion eventually works we can scale back up. Or we could build many thousands of solar plants using methane fuel from different sources.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

[QUOTE=SkepticJ]
Why is that when I provide a link, it's an Appeal to Authority, but when you provide multiple links, you are making a case?


Because, unless I'm mistaken I didn't extol their education, past job ect; you did. It doesn't matter who they worked for, if they're a doctor in anything, what place they held and how long they did said things; all that matters is the data. I wouldn't have cried Appeal to Authority if you hadn't said this: an emeritus professor of chemical and bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania and a retired senior scientist and manager at the Central Research Laboratory of the Mobil Corp. That's the fallacy, you almost, if you didn't, say I should listen to and trust their argument based on this. Maybe you weren't, but it sure looks like that's what you were doing.
The only bearing that bolded text could have is in this man's biography, telling what he did with his life.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

[QUOTE=SkepticJ]
Sorry, not my assertion. I'll hand that over to davidm, who made it.

Whoops, sorry about that. I knew you didn't make that claim, it just slipped into the wrong reply.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Those JREF arguments, BTW, are absolutely pitiful. Those people are supposed to be informed skeptics?
I've met some solid rational thinkers at JREF, but in my opinion they're few and far between. Generally speaking it seems to be more of an anti-homeopathy and paranormal site than a site to showcase and promote skepticism and critical thought. Anymore, anyway.


You couldn't be more wrong, oh well, sucks to be you. The reason why there's so many threads about homeopathy isn't because we like talking about it, it's because the homeopaths come there and start thread after thread after thread. I think homeopathy is so silly and such a waste of time debating it that I don't post to those threads. I don't post there as much as I used to either. I guess it's because it's the same old crap being posted by the religious, mystical, paranormal etc. crowd. I enjoy posting here at Adult Swim and doing my worldbuilding much more.

Are you irked with me or someone else for some reason? You seem more hostile than your normal cheerful phase.

[viscousmemories]

Because, unless I'm mistaken I didn't extol their education, past job ect; you did. It doesn't matter who they worked for, if they're a doctor in anything, what place they held and how long they did said things; all that matters is the data. I wouldn't have cried Appeal to Authority if you hadn't said this: an emeritus professor of chemical and bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania and a retired senior scientist and manager at the Central Research Laboratory of the Mobil Corp. That's the fallacy, you almost, if you didn't, say I should listen to and trust their argument based on this. Maybe you weren't, but it sure looks like that's what you were doing.
The only bearing that bolded text could have is in this man's biography, telling what he did with his life.
You're wrong about that, SkepticJ, as I explained on the previous page (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=91464#post91464). Appealing to an authority who is in fact an authority on the subject under discussion is not fallacious. That bit of autobiography about the guy's work with Mobil Corp. is necessary to establish that he is an authority.

Are you irked with me or someone else for some reason? You seem more hostile than your normal cheerful phase.
Well, yeah! I'm irked that you would copy-n-paste someone elses arguments here and act as though they were your own. And I'm irked that you're denying that you did that. Of course you didn't start your post with: "Here are some of my own personal, original thoughts which I just came up with all by myself..." I mean, who does? But when you post an argument on a forum and don't cite where you copied it from, of course it looks like you're trying to pass it off as your own original writing.

But anyway... I'm not much of a poster at JREF and my impression of it as a mostly anti-homeopathic and paranormal site should be taken with a grain of salt. That's just the impression I took away from infrequent visits over a couple of years. I've interacted with many JREF'ers elsewhere and I have nothing against the place or the people in general.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Well, yeah! I'm irked that you would copy-n-paste someone elses arguments here and act as though they were your own. And I'm irked that you're denying that you did that. Of course you didn't start your post with: "Here are some of my own personal, original thoughts which I just came up with all by myself..." I mean, who does? But when you post an argument on a forum and don't cite where you copied it from, of course it looks like you're trying to pass it off as your own original writing.

But anyway... I'm not much of a poster at JREF and my impression of it as a mostly anti-homeopathic and paranormal site should be taken with a grain of salt. That's just the impression I took away from infrequent visits over a couple of years. I've interacted with many JREF'ers elsewhere and I have nothing against the place or the people in general.


Well sorry for pissing you off. I wasn't hiding the fact that's what I did though. If I wanted to do that I could have asked on a forum you've never heard of and not given a direct link to where I pasted them.

You're probably busy, but maybe you could post and hang out there more. Some of the posters on there, including me, are awesome. Tricky and Shemp have made me bust a guy more times than I can remember, and critical thinking abounds, if you're not in Politics (even some skeptics aren't skeptical enough when it comes to this).

[davidm]

[QUOTE=davidm] I'll debate you on your forum. How's that?

First, you do not seem to understand that I am not interested in debating about anything. What I am interested in doing is fostering discussion.

It takes my breath away that you could almost boast about plagiarism. And I'm amused to see that the people you plagiarised from are bragging about having their arguments swiped and used by you, here, without giving them credit. What's amusing is that their arguments were worthless, as I have already shown at the Peak Oil thread at the Galilean Library.

If you want to "debate" this issue at the Library, you should realize beforehand that there are very strong restraints on speech there, unlike here. Practically every post by you in this thread would have been deleted there, and probably you would already have been banned. Plagiarism is against the rules at the library. Swearing is against the rules. Insults are against the rules. Ad hominem attacks are against the rules. Making an assertion without putting out the effort to defend it is against the rules. Here are the rules. (http://www.galilean-library.org/statutes.html)

And no, I haven't "changed my tune." You evidently have not put in enough effort to read the thread in question, which presents several different possible scenarios of an energy-starved future, including a scaled-down society or even the collapse of civilization. No one can predict the future. Some miracle technological quick fix may even pop up, but no one in his or her right mind would bet on that.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

[QUOTE=davidm] I'll debate you on your forum. How's that?

First, you do not seem to understand that I am not interested in debating about anything. What I am interested in doing is fostering discussion.

It takes my breath away that you could almost boast about plagiarism. And I'm amused to see that the people you plagiarised from are bragging about having their arguments swiped and used by you, here, without giving them credit. What's amusing is that their arguments were worthless, as I have already shown at the Peak Oil thread at the Galilean Library.

If you want to "debate" this issue at the Library, you should realize beforehand that there are very strong restraints on speech there, unlike here. Practically every post by you in this thread would have been deleted there, and probably you would already have been banned. Plagiarism is against the rules at the library. Swearing is against the rules. Insults are against the rules. Ad hominem attacks are against the rules. Making an assertion without putting out the effort to defend it is against the rules. Here are the rules. (http://www.galilean-library.org/statutes.html)

Some miracle technological quick fix may even pop up, but no one in his or her right mind would bet on that.

Does the word debate have to mean a mean spirited argument to you? Argument doesn't mean the two or more persons involved are angry, they just disagree and are trying to prove one another wrong.

It's their choice to do that, I'm not telling them to.

Hmmm, in other words it's a dictatorship over there, no thanks then.

You should ban yourself from your own forum, here's yet another strawman argument from you. No one on here has said there will be a miracle technological fix. A miracle technological fix would be a perpetual motion machine. Fusion is no miracle, it's been going on for billions of years longer than our sun has existed. Humans created fusion reactions decades ago, most people call them hydrogen bombs. The problem is this type is uncontrolled, obviously. But that's also the point of a bomb. We can contain fusion reactions already. The problem still to be fixed is to get more energy out of the reaction than is used to start it and contain it.
The septillions of stars and brown dwarf superjovians of the universe are my proof of the workability of fusion.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

You're wrong about that, SkepticJ, as I explained on the previous page (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=91464#post91464). Appealing to an authority who is in fact an authority on the subject under discussion is not fallacious. That bit of autobiography about the guy's work with Mobil Corp. is necessary to establish that he is an authority.


A theologian or a Pope is an authority on the subject of God. Should I believe in God because they're an authority and they do?

[viscousmemories]

A theologian or a Pope is an authority on the subject of God. Should I believe in God because they're an authority and they do?
I don't think that's analogous, but I think we can compromise. From here (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority_2.htm):

Not every reliance upon the testimony of authority figures is fallacious. We often rely upon such testimony, and we can do so for very good reason. Their talent, training and experience put them in a position to evaluate and report on evidence not readily available to everyone else. But we must keep in mind that for such an appeal to be justified, certain standards must be met:

1. The authority is an expert in the area of knowledge under consideration.

2. The statement of the authority concerns his or her area of mastery.

3. There is agreement among experts in the area of knowledge under consideration.
I don't think we have enough information to determine whether these conditions have been met, and so we can't confidently say whether the quote was a fallacious appeal to authority. However if you want to assert that it was, I think that puts the burden of proof on you. Simply asserting that an argument is fallacious isn't sufficient, you have to prove it.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I don't think that's analogous, but I think we can compromise. From here (http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalfallacies/a/authority_2.htm):


That's much better than just saying "It isn't a fallacy.", thanks for the correction.

[davidm]

Hmmm, in other words it's a dictatorship over there, no thanks then.

Oh, what an amazing shock!! Who could possibly have predicted your response??

Oh, and look, after VM's post yesterday, it seems the Peak Oil thread at JREF has run out of gas! :fart:

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Oh, what an amazing shock!! Who could possibly have predicted your response??


Mmmm, maybe a reverse time traveler, if that's possible.

If you think I lack the balls to post there, then I suppose I'll sign up and take on the topic just to prove you wrong. As you already know, if you took the time to read my posts, my internet time is very, very limited. You'll understand that it could take me until next Monday or Tuesday to get over there.


Yeah, it's not ok for me to make jokes in a debate thread, but it's just fine for you to insult me with a farting smiley. Yeah, no hypocrisy here....

[davidm]

Oh, what an amazing shock!! Who could possibly have predicted your response??


Mmmm, maybe a reverse time traveler, if that's possible.

If you think I lack the balls to post there, then I suppose I'll sign up and take on the topic just to prove you wrong. As you already know, if you took the time to read my posts, my internet time is very, very limited. You'll understand that it could take me until next Monday or Tuesday to get over there.

If you continue to think in these juvenile terms, you won't last long at the library. My reference was not to you "lacking balls" to post, but to the idea that you would characterize the library as a "dictatorship" for enforcing rules that are intended to foster discussion as opposed to fighting.


Yeah, it's not ok for me to make jokes in a debate thread, but it's just fine for you to insult me with a farting smiley. Yeah, no hypocrisy here....

The smilie wasn't aimed at you. That should be very clear from reading the post.

Anyway, if you intend to participate at the library, I hope you have carefully read the rules. In addition to the ones I've mentioned, you can't bring grudges there from other sites, and badmouthing the library at other sites (like calling it a "dictatorship") will subject you to banning.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

The smilie wasn't aimed at you. That should be very clear from reading the post.

Anyway, if you intend to participate at the library, I hope you have carefully read the rules. In addition to the ones I've mentioned, you can't bring grudges there from other sites, and badmouthing the library at other sites (like calling it a "dictatorship") will subject you to banning.


Oh, so instead of insulting me, you were insulting the forum. Ah, that makes it not hypocritical, since it's against your forum rules to bad mouth the Library on other sites.

Is there a reason you're so opposed to free speech? Not allowing some stuff to be said on your forum is somewhat understandable. But making it above criticism on other forums, don't you think that's treading on the territory of what kings did; not allowing people to grip about them?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I'm certainly not here, or anywhere, to try to win arguments. That is what sink holes like iidb are for........

Anyway, if you intend to participate at the library, I hope you have carefully read the rules. In addition to the ones I've mentioned, you can't bring grudges there from other sites, and badmouthing the library at other sites (like calling it a "dictatorship") will subject you to banning.

I just had to savor this by posting it.

Your repeated ad homs, red herrirngs, insults, and refusal to support your assertions bore me.


Yeah, run away to your own forum where you're a mod. You insult Libertarians over there without being banned. I insult Nature(not even a person) and the fatalist attitude and I'm given the threat of being banned, WTF?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you going to power Las Vegas on hydroelectric?


Yes. Las Vegas currently is powered by hydroelectric in large part.

As to Las Vegas, I [b]was really referring to the car culture there (and all over America, really)[b]. We are not going to run our huge fleet of cars, trucks and planes on nuclear or solar power.


If that's what you were referring to then why not say "Are you going to run America's car culture on hydroelectric?"? You're being very dishonest here with your ad hoc pseudodoublespeak (http://www.answers.com/doublespeak&r=67) that it makes me sick to my stomach (and no, I'm not just saying that). You won't see this post though, since you've run back to your forum with your tail between your legs; the tail covering your sent gland near your anus that gives off the smell telling that you're afraid.

[livius drusus]

Good lord, SkepticJ, what is the matter with you? davidm hasn't done shit to you and yet, your attacks get more disgusting the less provoked they are. Respond to his arguments or don't, but this nonsense here just makes you look bad, not him.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Good lord, SkepticJ, what is the matter with you? davidm hasn't done shit to you and yet, your attacks get more disgusting the less provoked they are. Respond to his arguments or don't, but this nonsense here just makes you look bad, not him.

Nothing, well except he's beyond criticism on his own forum while I'm not, and he's a dishonest prick as I showed in the post you just replied to. Read through the thread on Peak Oil on his forum. He insults Libertarians, I call him on it and he gives the apologetic that because it's not a attack on a single person it's ok. Well, my attack on Nature(which you can't read because one of the mods removed it) wasn't toward a single person. Nature isn't even a person at all! The mod gives me the threat that I'll be banned if I do it again. Well I read over their forum rules and saw nothing about attacking Nature's kindness. I suppose it's one of their unwritten, esoteric rules. I can't be held accountable to a rule they don't tell me about. You don't see a double standard here? I sure as hell doesn't exist, do! It's about to put me off from posting on his forum. You can bash Big Oil and evil Capitalists over on their without the mods batting an eye. Dare to be an anti-primitive, fatalist, wishing for the "good ol' days" in the GL and risk getting banned.

I am responding to his arguments over there, I have to, because he's run away from here.

Another post from him I should have gotten to before now: Indeed, except my home forum is the Galilean Library, and I linked to that thread in case anyone here were interested in discussing what looks to be the paramount moral, ethical and economic issue of our era. I didn't start a thread here about the subject because I don't have time to be starting threads on multiple fora, and my main posting activity must necessarily these days be confined to the Library.


But you had plenty of time to post all those replies to this thread didn't you? I don't know about you, but I've been known to post an original thread with a link to another place without plugging it in someone else's thread. I tried starting another technology thread in this forum, but it's died with no one being interested. They were very interested in this one until you showed up changing the subject. Thanks plenty. :whup: I'd have been happy to follow your link to the GL had you done so in your own thread. Now I'm just pissed.

[livius drusus]

Nothing, well except he's beyond criticism on his own forum while I'm not, and he's a dishonest prick as I showed in the post you just replied to.

You have shown nothing except your own inability to refrain from ad hominem attacks. davidm is an entirely honest prick (and you haven't even seen him be the latter unless you were around IIDB when the Nazis were out in full force). So far all you've posted in this thread has been lashing out, up to and including bumping this thread up from its 2 week slumber just so you can hurl invective here because they won't let you over there.

The fact that you've had trouble with GL moderation says precisely nothing about the validity of your claims or his. Even if you were treated unfairly -- and I don't know that you were -- that's hardly a good reason to heap insults on someone who whether you admit it or not, has done nothing but reply sustantively to you.

[davidm]

davidm is an entirely honest prick.

Thank you. :giggle:

[Johnny Pneumatic]

So far all you've posted in this thread has been lashing out, up to and including bumping this thread up from its 2 week slumber just so you can hurl invective here because they won't let you over there.

The fact that you've had trouble with GL moderation says precisely nothing about the validity of your claims or his. Even if you were treated unfairly -- and I don't know that you were -- that's hardly a good reason to heap insults on someone who whether you admit it or not, has done nothing but reply sustantively to you.


Really? Maybe you should read through this thread again where I talk about fuels, such as wood that can be used once oil runs out. Yes, I have done personal attacks. I wasn't using personal attacks to win arguments, that's a fallacy. I was having fun insulting an irritating person who changed the subject of my thread. If you'd care to read over the thread at the GL I'm doing well against davidm; so well in fact that I have things he's failed to counter as of yet. If it's that he can't, or just has missed them I don't know.

As for him being honest, I guess ad hoc pseudo-doublespeak doesn't count to you as dishonest? If davidm is honest, then religious apologetics, Creationists and politicians are honest.

[viscousmemories]

If you'd care to read over the thread at the GL I'm doing well against davidm; so well in fact that I have things he's failed to counter as of yet.
I just looked over there and your custom title is "Banned by the Galilean dictatorship". Have you tried posting lately?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I just looked over there and your custom title is "Banned by the Galilean dictatorship". Have you tried posting lately?

Not in a few days. Yep, it seems they banned me even though I haven't posted anything "wrong" on there since the Nature bashing. I guess they can't handle a person who actually gives counter arguments instead of being a Greenpeace luddite that says "Wake up! We must move back to primitive ways, they're better!" I could try a sockpuppet, but I won't. If I posted under it they'd ban it to for making points that don't fall in with the GL Party line.

[viscousmemories]

I think it's more likely that you were banned for talking smack about their administrative policies here and your general disregard for their forum rules and policies there than because they can't handle a person who gives counter arguments instead of being a Greenpeace Luddite.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I think it's more likely that you were banned for talking smack about their administrative policies here and your general disregard for their forum rules and policies there than because they can't handle a person who gives counter arguments instead of being a Greenpeace Luddite.

If I would have complained about the unfairness on their forum you think they would have listened? Who are they going to ban first, a member or a mod for breaking rules? We know from the custom title who banned me; yeah, no personal feelings there! Hey david, thanks for being a hypocritical micro-dick and banning me. :2birds:

[livius drusus]

I don't even know how you can say this shit with a straight face, SkepticJ. Your behavior there was snide, sarcastic and committedly dogmatic from the very beginning. You were never looking for genuine, open discussion, but only to erect laughable strawmen about luddites or whatever other nonsense.

By their rules they could have banned you on your second post. I'm amazed they even cut you the slack they did.

[viscousmemories]

If I would have complained about the unfairness on their forum you think they would have listened?
I'm sure they would've listened, but I doubt they would agree that you were treated unfairly. Even if you didn't read the rules before joining there, davidm specifically mentioned here that you would be banned if you talked smack about the GL administrative policies elsewhere.

Who are they going to ban first, a member or a mod for breaking rules?
I'm sure they'll ban anyone who breaks the rules, but I don't see where davidm broke any.

We know from the custom title who banned me; yeah, no personal feelings there! Hey david, thanks for being a hypocritical micro-dick and banning me. :2birds:
The GL founder and admins are members here too. I don't think moderators have the ability to ban people.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I don't even know how you can say this shit with a straight face, SkepticJ. Your behavior there was snide, sarcastic and committedly dogmatic from the very beginning. You were never looking for genuine, open discussion, but only to erect laughable strawmen about luddites or whatever other nonsense.

By their rules they could have banned you on your second post. I'm amazed they even cut you the slack they did.

No more snide, sarcastic and dogmatic than other members and mods on there that aren't banned.

Can you read my thoughts to know? If so apply for the Randi Million.
See, you don't even know what I said. I didn't build up strawmen about luddites over there. I attacked "Nature" as being benevolent and not deserving of the prostration it's getting on that thread, and I said being a fatalist is a bad idea. Who, who did I insult? This is LESS insulting than saying Libertarians drool over the idea of perpetual motion free energy machines. That, my friend is mocking REAL people. Fine, they can and did ban me; I have plenty of other forums that I actually enjoy to post to. :indifferent: They should ban davidm also to be fair. Fair however, doesn't appear to be in their nature.

I posted plenty of stuff on energy sources. I'd post some more links if I weren't banned. Oh well, their loss.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I'm sure they'll ban anyone who breaks the rules, but I don't see where davidm broke any.

See the post above this one for answer.

[viscousmemories]

See the post above this one for answer.
Are you saying that you feel davidm should be banned for mocking Libertarians?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Are you saying that you feel davidm should be banned for mocking Libertarians?

If I have a mod(hugo if I remember right) give me a threat of being banned after I mocked Nature(not even a person, just a word for everything not human) and fatalism(also not a person), hell yes!
If the mod(hugo) wouldn't have gotten on my case(and deleted my comments) I wouldn't care so much about david's remark, other than it's still an ad hom (http://www.answers.com/ad+hominem&r=67) (just many people instead of to one man) so it's against their forum rules.

[godfry n. glad]

hugo?

As in Holbling?

If that's it, then that's your problem. Don't ever go to a board where Hugo Holbling is a mod or a person of authority. He takes great pride in applying his double standards every where he goes.

[viscousmemories]

If I have a mod(hugo if I remember right) give me a threat of being banned after I mocked Nature(not even a person, just a word for everything not human) and fatalism(also not a person), hell yes!
If the mod(hugo) wouldn't have gotten on my case(and deleted my comments) I wouldn't care so much about david's remark, other than it's still an ad hom (just many people instead of to one man) so it's against their forum rules.
Hugo Holbling isn't a mod, he's the board founder and the guy who wrote the rules there. As mentioned, those rules are very strict and include a lot about what kind of attitude you're allowed to display there and what you say about their forum elsewhere. I have no idea what all you said, but I can tell you that just based on your comments that are still visible there and additional comments here, it is very obvious why you were banned according to those rules. But from what I can see, it isn't so obvious why davidm should be banned.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

hugo?

As in Holbling?

If that's it, then that's your problem. Don't ever go to a board where Hugo Holbling is a mod or a person of authority. He takes great pride in applying his double standards every where he goes.

I went and ckecked the name; yep, one and the same guy. Where have you seen his handy work before?
Finally, someone who doesn't think I'm lying. :wave:

[Johnny Pneumatic]

As mentioned, those rules are very strict and include a lot about what kind of attitude you're allowed to display there and what you say about their forum elsewhere. I have no idea what all you said,...


Yes, they are strict. I think mocking certain Libertarians because they may wish free energy machines were real, is an insult, and thus an ad hom; don't you?
Attitude? I had no stronger attitude than the other people on there saying "Wake up!" or the one's that bash Oil Companies. Talk about bringing grudges to the forum!(which is one of their rules)

Exactly, and you'll never know, thanks to hugo's edit. So since you don't know, perhaps you'd be kind enough not to judge me based on faith?

[viscousmemories]

Yes, they are strict. I think mocking certain Libertarians because they may wish free energy machines were real, is an insult, and thus an ad hom; don't you?
Well, "an insult, and thus an ad hom" doesn't really make sense. An insult can be part of a fallacious ad hominem argument, but not necessarily. Sometimes an insult is just an insult. But in any case which of their rules do you think davidm violated by insulting "certain Libertarians"? I didn't see his comment so I'm not sure what he said specifically.

Attitude? I had no stronger attitude than the other people on there saying "Wake up!" or the one's that bash Oil Companies. Talk about bringing grudges to the forum!(which is one of their rules)
Well obviously attitude is subjective. You have acted like davidm was abusing you throughout this thread here, when in fact he responded substantively to almost every one of your posts and you responded to almost every one of his posts with insults and derision. I guess I'm not surprised that you don't think your attitude there was inappropriate.

Exactly, and you'll never know, thanks to hugo's edit. So since you don't know, perhaps you'd be kind enough not to judge me based on faith?
And now you're insulting me by implying that I'm judging you based on faith. Nice. Anyway, no. As I very clearly said I'm judging the situation based on your still extant posts and your comments here. It isn't necessary for me to know what Hugo deleted to understand why you were banned there. It's obvious why you were.

[godfry n. glad]

hugo?

As in Holbling?

If that's it, then that's your problem. Don't ever go to a board where Hugo Holbling is a mod or a person of authority. He takes great pride in applying his double standards every where he goes.

I went and ckecked the name; yep, one and the same guy. Where have you seen his handy work before?
Finally, someone who doesn't think I'm lying. :wave:

Don't get your hopes up too high, SkepticJ. I'm not on your side of this issue at all...I'm a "tree-hugger". Your interactions here with davidm have not made you look too rational at all.

But then, I understand. Somewhat. I've seen Hugo's work in several places: IIDB, Hyperboreans, HH and here. I believe he willfully misrepresented me to other members of a board from which I had been exiled by a friend of his. He's still around here, but doesn't show much....just an occasional cameo appearance. My experience is that he demands attention and obeisance for himself and his ideas, but refuses the same to anyone whose ideas conflict with his opinions. Since he's such a pompous ass on top of it all, it's best just not to go where he has authority.

Might I suggest that you get ahold of Jared Diamond's latest tome, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed? I believe he has done a superlative job in addressing many of the factors that are current stressors on global societies. I'd be curious to hear your assessment of his conclusions, because frankly, I found them overly optimistic.

[davidm]

:yawn:

Don't flatter yourself too much, SkepticJ.

If you want to see me in real prick mode, do a search of my posts at iidb, especially those in response to Nazis, white suprematists and Ayn Randroids.

I suppose I shouldn't say this, given the fact that I agree one shouldn't badmouth other places, but I can't resist (being weak like all people).

Being banned from iidb is like being told you are insufficiently mentally insufficient to take up tenancy at the local lunatic asylum. You quickly realize that you've been paid a compliment. :yup:

[godfry n. glad]

Being banned from iidb is like being told you are insufficiently mentally insufficient to take up tenancy at the local lunatic asylum. You quickly realize that you've been paid a compliment. :yup:

Why... Thank you, davidm.

[Hugo Holbling]

I hereby claim all 50 points, David. :yup:

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Sometimes an insult is just an insult. But in any case which of their rules do you think davidm violated by insulting "certain Libertarians"? I didn't see his comment so I'm not sure what he said specifically.

You have acted like davidm was abusing you throughout this thread here, when in fact he responded substantively to almost every one of your posts and you responded to almost every one of his posts with insults and derision......

And now you're insulting me by implying that I'm judging you based on faith. Nice. Anyway, no. As I very clearly said I'm judging the situation based on your still extant posts and your comments here. It isn't necessary for me to know what Hugo deleted to understand why you were banned there. It's obvious why you were.

Yes that's true, but not in a debate about Peak Oil where he is lambasting a
strawman of Libertarian's stance toward energy.

Really? Please show me. I have however been acting like I was(because I was) pissed that he derailed my thread. I wasn't acting pissed about it over there. The comments where I'm angry over there, well guess why? It's because they got on my case when I hadn't broken one of their rules, they misunderstood what I was saying. I don't think I should take blame when it's their deficient reading comprehension that caused them to think I was trying to stir up trouble.

You shouldn't take it as an insult. It may be obvious to you, because you're ignorant of the situation involved around those posts. The paragraph above this one explains the situation around those posts.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Don't get your hopes up too high, SkepticJ. I'm not on your side of this issue at all...I'm a "tree-hugger". Your interactions here with davidm have not made you look too rational at all.


I'm not getting any hopes up, don't worry. Funny you should say this, because I'm not, not a "tree-hugger". That is to say I lament the loss of the Rainforests, the over-fishing and all the other senseless ecological destruction. However, if we HAD to "rape" Earth to become an interstellar civilisation, so be it. Better we "spoil" a planet and survive than to stay trapped on this rock ball and die with the next big impact; don't you think? You might say we're the saviors of life on Earth. There may be other sentient species that evolve on Earth yet. However, do you want to take that chance that they'll become advanced enough to save the life of Earth from Sol, before it grows into a red giant? Earth, literally will be boiled away; the rock, metal, everything; and blown to the stars by the dying sun. Mercury, Venus and Earth; gone. Mars and the outer planets will survive however.

[viscousmemories]

SkepticJ, I made no judgements about your posts there or how they were moderated because I don't know any of the details. What I do know is that you made it clear here (before you even joined GL) that you were going there with the intention of 'debunking' davidm's claims and that you don't like their 'fascist' moderation policies.

In other words, you very clearly didn't join there because you wanted to be an active member of that community and you obviously didn't have any respect for their rule against talking smack about their forum elsewhere. All of that is your prerogative, of course. But as I said it makes it obvious why you were banned.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

SkepticJ, I made no judgements about your posts there or how they were moderated because I don't know any of the details. What I do know is that you made it clear here (before you even joined GL) that you were going there with the intention of 'debunking' davidm's claims and that you don't like their 'fascist' moderation policies.

In other words, you very clearly didn't join there because you wanted to be an active member of that community and you obviously didn't have any respect for their rule against talking smack about their forum elsewhere. All of that is your prerogative, of course. But as I said it makes it obvious why you were banned.

So? Why else would I join in to a Peak Oil thread if not to debunk what I don't agree with?
I'm afraid this is a non sequitur. Just because I started posting on there about Peak Oil and loath the tight-assed rules doesn't mean I wouldn't be an active, contributing member. I just hadn't seen another topic on there yet I wanted to discuss. I won't get the chance now.

Well since I'm banned I guess I'll have to ask davidm to post my replies and links:

davidm, you remember the link I gave to oil plants (http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/0007.Tao.biofuels.html) as a source of hydrocarbon fuel? These plants, or more correctly the ones that can be enginnered to produce petroleum-like oils could also be used as a source of oil for the maintenance of solar power plants ect.(which you claimed need oil, but still haven't been able to explain why)

I thought this (http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF3/358.html) was interesting.

[viscousmemories]

So? Why else would I join in to a Peak Oil thread if not to debunk what I don't agree with?
If you had read their forum 'statutes' you would've seen this:
It is taken as given that The Galilean Library is a place wherein arguments or ideas are being explored, not declared, and that we are hoping to learn from each other; therefore, a high standard of conduct is expected.
It seems to me that joining solely to debunk someone's argument obviously contravenes that principle, but despite that they gave you a chance to prove that you were there to participate in good faith. Whether you did that or not is irrelevant, though, because you very clearly slammed their administrative policies here despite their clear restriction against badmouthing their forum elsewhere.

I'm afraid this is a non sequitur. Just because I started posting on there about Peak Oil and loath the tight-assed rules doesn't mean I wouldn't be an active, contributing member. I just hadn't seen another topic on there yet I wanted to discuss. I won't get the chance now.
No, it isn't a non sequitur. You seem to think you were unjustly banned and I'm explaining that it's not only just, but obvious why you were. The only thing that's unclear to me is why you were allowed to join at all, given your stated intention to...
[...] sign up and take on the topic just to prove [davidm] wrong.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

If you had read their forum 'statutes' you would've seen this:
It is taken as given that The Galilean Library is a place wherein arguments or ideas are being explored, not declared, and that we are hoping to learn from each other; therefore, a high standard of conduct is expected.

Whether you did that or not is irrelevant, though, because you very clearly slammed their administrative policies here despite their clear restriction against badmouthing their forum elsewhere.

No, it isn't a non sequitur.

I did read them, I guess I missed that one.

And you don't seem to be geeting why I bad mouthed them, because I was given the threat of banning while davidm wasn't. How many fucking times must I say this before you get it?! Godfry has already spoken of hugo's fairness lacking, you think he would have listened to me if I griped at the unfairness over there?

Yes, it is; because as I just said. It doesn't follow(non sequitur) that I wouldn't be a active member of that community just because I don't like the rules.

You know what? Lets end this argument now ok? This isn't going to get me back on there, so it's pointless in bitching back and forth with you(a person who is a nice guy in my book) I don't want to be a member of the GL if their mods and creator are so microcephalic and hypocritical.

This argument ends NOW.

[viscousmemories]

I did read them, I guess I missed that one.
Okay.

And you don't seem to be geeting why I bad mouthed them, because I was given the threat of banning while davidm wasn't. How many fucking times must I say this before you get it?! Godfry has already spoken of hugo's fairness lacking, you think he would have listened to me if I griped at the unfairness over there?
You don't seem to be getting that I don't care why you badmouthed their forum. That is irrelevant to the fact that doing so is a clear violation of their rules subject to immediate banning.

Yes, it is; because as I just said. It doesn't follow(non sequitur) that I wouldn't be a active member of that community just because I don't like the rules.
Correct, it would be a non sequitur if I had said that. Lucky for me I didn't, though. What I said is that your stated reason for joining that forum (to prove davidm wrong) shows that you didn't join the forum to be an active member of the community. It is irrelevant that you might still have become an active member there. All I have said is that you clearly didn't join there for that purpose, unless you were being disingenuous when you said you would join there "just to prove him wrong".

You know what? Lets end this argument now ok? This isn't going to get me back on there, so it's pointless in bitching back and forth with you(a person who is a nice guy in my book) I don't want to be a member of the GL if their mods and creator are so microcephalic and hypocritical.

This argument ends NOW.

What I hear you saying is "This argument isn't going to benefit me, so it ends NOW." I appreciate that you don't see any point in arguing about something that isn't going to serve you, but as it happens your needs aren't my only concern. This is exactly the attitude you took to GL when you signed up there and very likely a good part of the reason you were banned, since it directly contradicts the principles that site is founded on. It's intrinsically antagonistic.

Nevertheless I'm fine with dropping it NOW. Just don't respond and I won't. :)