Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 08:22 PM

Quote from: RE on May 18, 2024, 09:47 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 07:14 AMWe are discussing doomer scenarios....WAGs are all there is.

Without any data I'm not going to set a timeline.  I am not and never have been a "Peak Oiler".

Well good for you then. The amount of egg on face those folks have accumulated would sink the Titanic at this point. Best to stay as far away as possible from that one.

Eh, you see it as more important than I do.  To me, the concept of PO, that decline would be tied to reaching a peak in oil consumption is what is relevant, not how perfect the predictions were of the date it would be reached.  We already agree (I think) that if you don't have all the data you won't get a perfect prediction.  As more and better data comes in, the results get more accurate, so there isn't too much fundamentally wrong with the model.  The main thing wrong I see is it discounts too much the effect of energy substitution.  It's not complete substitution, but it's enough to slow things down.

Quote

Quote from: REIn terms of "failure", the fact timelines aren't spot on isn't failure, just means all the data wasn't accounted for and/or there have been discontinuties affecting the rate of change.

Okay...so when someone calls a time, and a volume, and gets it wrong it isn't failure. Would you volunteer that it is just incompetence, making a guess they knew was a WAG but pretending it time and volume certain? And then when the WAG didn't work out, and they did it again, with the same result, what would that be? Just stupid as a stump?

I would volunteer that making absolute claims for anything in the future is a mistake, which I try not to make.  When you talk about future events, you should always speak in terms of probabilities.  Nothing is written in stone.  However, when you start talking about future events, people try to pin you down for a date, as you have been doing with me.  In order to impress upon people the gravity of the situation, doomers often fall into the trap of pitching out dates.  Dr. McStinksion is a great example of that.  If you want foolish, that's where you find it, because not only his timeline was incredibly wrong, his model of positive feedback loops has practically zero basis in scientific research to date, and any data he has is pulled out of his ass. That's where you find incompetence and egg meets face disease.

Quote

Quote from: REOne such discontinuity was tight oil production.  Rather than failing, most of what was predicted is coming true, though it's mostly happening in South and Central America right now, which is why they are running up here in ever increasing numbers.

So when tight oil production began being developed from shales in northern Pennsylvania between 1880-1900 (might have been in the 1860-1880 timeframe, it has been awhile since I checked my library on this one), that was a discontinuity? Strikes me that folks that knew some geology, like at least geologically trained peak oilers, certainly can't make that claim with a straight face. And if your point is BOY are they lousy at doing some basic research in historical geology about when tight oil from shale began development, I couldn't deny it. Footnote provided on request of course, from the mid-90s no less. So any peak oilers after that timeframe can't claim to be uninformed on this fact.

Tight oil was identified early on, and I recall you pointing out in the past that fracking isn't really new either.  However, it wasn't pursued at scale until quite late in the game, so its contribution to the total mix was insignificant until the last decade or two.  You can date Marcellus, Eagle Ford and all the formations properly for us.

Quote

Quote from: REWho was POTUS is irrelevant.

The video seemed to take a different angle. Would you say his claim was materially wrong? He had quite a bit of causality assigned to Reagan there.

I didn't watch that video.  I don't really care which jackass was in the Oval Office or which party was running the show.  They're all idiots.  Carter was slightly less of an idiot, but he was ineffectual.

RE