Peak Oil? No Way!
ozonb
14 May 2009
Now, the "consensus" back in the mid-1970s was that America and the world were running out
of oil.
Ironically, some in the media were also claiming a scientific consensus that the planet
was cooling, fossil fuels could be to blame, and we were all going to freeze to death
unless we kicked our fossil-fuel habit. We were told we needed to find alternatives to
oil - fast. That task, we were told, was too important to leave to markets, so government
needed to intervene with massive taxpayer subsidies for otherwise uneconomic forms of
energy.
That thinking led to the now infamous 1977 National Energy Plan, an experiment with
central planning that failed miserably.
Fast-forward to today, and: d�j� vu. This time the fear is not so much that we're running
out of oil, but that we're running out of time - the earth is getting hotter, humans are
to blame, and we're all doomed if we don't stop using fossil fuels - fast. Once again we're
being told that the job is too important to be left to markets.
Well, the doomsters of the 1970s turned out to be remarkably wrong.
My bet is that today's doomsters will be proven wrong.
Over the past 39 years mankind has consumed nearly twice the world's known oil reserves in
1970 - and today proven oil reserves are nearly double what they were before we started.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/14/now-thats-a-commencement-speech/
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
E.A.
> 14 May 2009
>
> Now, the "consensus" back in the mid-1970s was that America and the world were running out
> of oil.
American production DID peak around 1970. That's why America went
increasingly to the Middle East. The underlying reason just didn't
make headlines. Those are facts, Bonzoid.
> Ironically, some in the media were also claiming a scientific consensus that the planet
> was cooling, fossil fuels could be to blame, and we were all going to freeze to death
> unless we kicked our fossil-fuel habit. We were told we needed to find alternatives to
> oil - fast. That task, we were told, was too important to leave to markets, so government
> needed to intervene with massive taxpayer subsidies for otherwise uneconomic forms of
> energy.
There you go with tired revelations taken out of context. Dittoheads
will nod like bobble-head dogs, but it doesn't mean much.
> That thinking led to the now infamous 1977 National Energy Plan, an experiment with
> central planning that failed miserably.
Only because people like you were/are too dense to understand the
reasoning behind it. Jimmy Carter was one of the more intelligent U.S.
Presidents but not much of a motivator. Regardless, most people will
use a resource until it gets too costly to do otherwise. No real
foresight or planning, just lemming behavior, like AGW-denial for the
sake of some family's big-bore V-8 tradition. Pappy drove one and so
did his pappy before him!
> Fast-forward to today, and: déjà vu. This time the fear is not so much that we're running
> out of oil, but that we're running out of time - the earth is getting hotter, humans are
> to blame, and we're all doomed if we don't stop using fossil fuels - fast. Once again we're
> being told that the job is too important to be left to markets.
>
> Well, the doomsters of the 1970s turned out to be remarkably wrong.
No, they were right all along. It just took time to become apparent.
The last stronghold of oil is still the Middle East.
> My bet is that today's doomsters will be proven wrong.
Anything that isn't about mindless cornucopianism equals "doom." All
must be well with the world 24/7 or Bonzo will get mad.
> Over the past 39 years mankind has consumed nearly twice the world's known oil reserves in
> 1970 - and today proven oil reserves are nearly double what they were before we started.
Wrong. Physical reserves have not increased in the millions of years
since most fossil fuels were formed. What does "before we started"
actually mean? It's a well known fact among geologists that ALL oil
fields peak, thus the sum total of oil fields will also peak. This
applies to the U.S., the Middle East and whole planet. New discoveries
don't "create" oil where none previously existed. They are following
the law of diminishing returns, as should be expected. The planet is
finite and so is the oil on it.
Random article about a big field in decline:
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2007/04/cantarell_fadin.html
ALL fields will end up like Cantarell at different rates. ALL fields
combined will suffer the same general fate. These are facts.
Peak Oil is inevitable and the current recession has only squashed
demand (thus prices) temporarily. The Bonzos and Julian Simons of the
world, obsessed with money alone, can't understand the phenomena of
physically scarce resources. Sheeple are fooled by fluctuating pump
prices, failing to study the core resource.
The only way to escape Peak Oil is to find a mass-substitute for it,
or some miracle way to recycle it from carbon emissions. Neither is
likely. Ignore Bonzo and get common sense at sites http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.
E.A.
http://enough_already.tripod.com/
Keep your Creation out of my science.
ozonb
"E.A." <enough_...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:2abb9cb7-b3b6-463c...@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On May 18, 9:34 pm, "ozonb" <oz...@o.com> wrote:
> 14 May 2009
>
> Now, the "consensus" back in the mid-1970s was that America and the world were running
> out
> of oil.
American production DID peak around 1970. That's why America went
increasingly to the Middle East. The underlying reason just didn't
make headlines. Those are facts, Bonzoid.
======================================
The expert said "America and the world"!
======================================
claiming a scientific consensus that the planet
> was cooling, fossil fuels could be to blame, and we were all going to freeze to death
> unless we kicked our fossil-fuel habit. We were told we needed to find alternatives to
> oil - fast. That task, we were told, was too important to leave to markets, so
> government
> needed to intervene with massive taxpayer subsidies for otherwise uneconomic forms of
> energy.
There you go with tired revelations taken out of context. Dittoheads
will nod like bobble-head dogs, but it doesn't mean much.
======================================
The article comes from an energy industry insider.
And you presume to know more!
ROTFLMAO
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
mike.h...@gmail.com
ozonb wrote:
> 14 May 2009
> Now, the "consensus" back in the mid-1970s was that America and the world were running out
> of oil.
Prove it, or are you all waffle?
US production *did* peak then - and who said middle-east production
was peaking then? No one - another lie from Bozo.
> Ironically, some in the media were also claiming a scientific consensus that the planet
> was cooling,
There was no such consensus - another Bozo lie exposed.
Trevor Wilson
"ozonb" <oz...@o.com> wrote in message news:4a1236d6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
>
> 14 May 2009
>
>
>
> Now, the "consensus" back in the mid-1970s was that America and the world
> were running out of oil.
**Bullshit. US oil production had peaked. Saudi oil had not.
>
>
>
> Ironically, some in the media were also claiming a scientific consensus
> that the planet was cooling,
**Media, schmedia. The scientific press was reporting about global warming.
No one cares what People Magazine was saying about anything.
fossil fuels could be to blame, and we were all going to freeze to death
> unless we kicked our fossil-fuel habit.
**Like I said: No one cares about People Magazine.
We were told we needed to find alternatives to
> oil - fast. That task, we were told, was too important to leave to
> markets, so government needed to intervene with massive taxpayer subsidies
> for otherwise uneconomic forms of energy.
>
>
>
> That thinking led to the now infamous 1977 National Energy Plan, an
> experiment with central planning that failed miserably.
>
>
>
> Fast-forward to today, and: d�j� vu. This time the fear is not so much
> that we're running out of oil, but that we're running out of time - the
> earth is getting hotter, humans are to blame, and we're all doomed if we
> don't stop using fossil fuels - fast. Once again we're being told that the
> job is too important to be left to markets.
>
>
>
> Well, the doomsters of the 1970s turned out to be remarkably wrong.
**Well, no. The idiots of the 1970s, like the idiots of today, were wrong.
There was no "global cooling".
>
>
>
> My bet is that today's doomsters will be proven wrong.
**You've already lost that bet.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
What A. Fool
Enough already of the misinformation.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs070-03/fs070-03.html
Either natural gas or methane can be used to turn
heavy oil into light oil, and that means there will be a
peak in about 150 or 200 years.
marcodbeast
>>> much that we're running out of oil, but that we're running out of
>>> time - the earth is getting hotter, humans are to blame, and we're
>>> all doomed if we don't stop using fossil fuels - fast. Once again
>>> we're being told that the job is too important to be left to
>>> markets.
>>>
>>> Well, the doomsters of the 1970s turned out to be remarkably wrong.
>>
>> No, they were right all along. It just took time to become apparent.
>> The last stronghold of oil is still the Middle East.
>
>
> Enough already of the misinformation.
>
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs070-03/fs070-03.html
>
>
> Either natural gas or methane can be used to turn
> heavy oil into light oil, and that means there will be a
> peak in about 150 or 200 years.
Um, no.
"The estimated volume of technically recoverable heavy oil (434 billion
barrels) and natural bitumen (651 billion barrels) in known accumulations is
about equal to the Earth's remaining conventional (light) oil reserves
(table 1, fig. 1). "
..And much more costly to process.
Eric Gisin
See my post of 16th about Carter, he blew $2.1 billion of Great Plains Coal Gasification Plant,
which absolutely nothing.
"E.A." <enough_...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:2abb9cb7-b3b6-463c...@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
ozonb
"Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:77fcb0F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> "ozonb" <oz...@o.com> wrote in message news:4a1236d6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>
>>
>> 14 May 2009
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, the "consensus" back in the mid-1970s was that America and the world were running
>> out of oil.
>
> **Bullshit. US oil production had peaked. Saudi oil had not.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> Ironically, some in the media were also claiming a scientific consensus that the planet
>> was cooling,
>
> **Media, schmedia. The scientific press was reporting about global warming.
Do you have even one example?
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
leona...@gmail.com
> ozonb wrote:
> > 14 May 2009
> > Now, the "consensus" back in the mid-1970s was that America and the world were running out
> > of oil.
>
> Prove it, or are you all waffle?
> US production *did* peak then - and who said middle-east production
> was peaking then? No one - another lie from Bozo.
•• Mike you do not know your ass from 3rd base.
You apparently believe in King Hubbert's
Peak Oil bullshit.
>
> > Ironically, some in the media were also claiming a scientific consensus that the planet
> > was cooling,
>
> There was no such consensus - another Bozo lie exposed.
•• Mike you do not your ass from 3rd base.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Natur.281..558W
•• I doubt you would understand it, if you could read it
-- --
The evidence from Mars destroys the notion that
humans are responsible for warming Earth. Mars
has global warming, but without a greenhouse
and without the participation of Martians.
Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov
marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html
leona...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "ozonb" <oz...@o.com> wrote in messagenews:4a1236d6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> > 14 May 2009
>
> > Now, the "consensus" back in the mid-1970s was that America and the world
> > were running out of oil.
> **Bullshit. US oil production had peaked. Saudi oil had not.
>
is worthless.
The Hubbert peak theory posits that for any given geographical area,
from an individual oil-producing region to the planet as a whole, the
rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve. It
is one of the primary theories on peak oil.
Choosing a particular curve determines a point of maximum production
based on discovery rates, production rates and cumulative production.
Early in the curve (pre-peak), the production rate increases due to
the discovery rate and the addition of infrastructure. Late in the
curve (post-peak), production declines due to resource depletion.
The Hubbert peak theory is based on the observation that the amount of
oil under the ground in any region is finite, therefore the rate of
discovery which initially increases quickly must reach a maximum and
decline. In the US, oil extraction followed the discovery curve after
a time lag of 32 to 35 years.[1][2] The theory is named after American
geophysicist M. King Hubbert, who created a method of modeling the
production curve given an assumed ultimate recovery volume.
•• King Hubbert was the first of the charlatans to
presume to predict future events by computer
modelling. BSI = BSO
Hubbert sold his nonsense to a lot people and may
have been at the root of the monster futures
market for oil.
> > Ironically, some in the media were also claiming a scientific consensus
> > that the planet was cooling,
•• It really was cooling and still is.
> **Media, schmedia. The scientific press was reporting about global warming.
•• Bullshit, Trevor, Where were you in 1979?
Did you read Dr Geneviève Woillard's paper?
Of course not.
Abrupt end of the last interglacial s.s. in north-east France
Nature, Volume 281, Issue 5732, pp. 558-562 (1979).
Close study of past interglacials might indicate how and when the
present interglacial will end and whether we are heading towards a
warming or a cooling1,2. No certain prediction has been possible
because of man's interference with the environment. But, we report
here that when exploring the records of past temperate intervals, we
observed frequent signs of abrupt changes of local environment. In
particular, abrupt shifts in forest composition end each Pleistocene
interglacial whose record was studied in detail. In Grande Pile (north-
east France), the Eemian (s.S.) (oxygen isotope substage 5e) temperate
forest was replaced by a pine-spruce-birch taiga within ~150+/-75 yr.
These results are based on rich pollen content of continuously
deposited laminated gyttja and on the assumption of a constant
sedimentation rate during the last 11,000-yr long interglacial. If the
area today was affected in a similar way, the relatively fast
transition of the environment, and by implication of the climate,
would place serious constraints on man.
DOI: 10.1038/281558a0
> fossil fuels could be to blame, and we were all going to freeze to death
> > unless we kicked our fossil-fuel habit.
•• While "fossil fuels" are not in any way involved,
by AD 2100 there will be no doubt that the ice
man is coming.
> We were told we needed to find alternatives to
> > oil - fast. That task, we were told, was too important to leave to
> > markets, so government needed to intervene with massive taxpayer subsidies
> > for otherwise uneconomic forms of energy.
•• When governments mess with markets everybody loses.
> > Fast-forward to today, and: déjà vu. This time the fear is not so much
> > that we're running out of oil, but that we're running out of time - the
> > earth is getting hotter,
•• Not running out of time
> > humans are to blame,
•• Again not at all true
> > and we're all doomed if we
> > don't stop using fossil fuels - fast.
•• Only AGW alarmists believe that
>
> > Well, the doomsters of the 1970s turned out to be remarkably wrong.
•• They were mostly right, but too many fools expect
instant gratification from a process that deals in
100,000 year cycles.
> **Well, no. The idiots of the 1970s, like the idiots of today, were wrong.
> There was no "global cooling".
•• Again they were mostly right, but too many fools expect
instant gratification from a process that deals in
100,000 year cycles.
>
> > My bet is that today's doomsters will be proven wrong.
>
> **You've already lost that bet.
•• NO! Trevor you are the loser all the way from the gitgo.
marcodbeast
> On May 19, 4:31 am, mike.hunth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> ozonb wrote:
>>> 14 May 2009
>>> Now, the "consensus" back in the mid-1970s was that America and the
>>> world were running out of oil.
>>
>> Prove it, or are you all waffle?
>> US production *did* peak then - and who said middle-east production
>> was peaking then? No one - another lie from Bozo.
>
> �� Mike you do not know your ass from 3rd base.
> You apparently believe in King Hubbert's
> Peak Oil bullshit.
>>
>>> Ironically, some in the media were also claiming a scientific
>>> consensus that the planet was cooling,
>>
>> There was no such consensus - another Bozo lie exposed.
>
> �� Mike you do not your ass from 3rd base.
>
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Natur.281..558W
Did you mean to post a link that helps verify AGW theory?
marcodbeast
What you mean is, you cannot prove him wrong in any way. lol
chemist
Ever heard of Abiotic Oil
Trevor Wilson
"ozonb" <oz...@o.com> wrote in message news:4a134b6b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
**Yep. Several, in fact:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
Get someone to explain it to you.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Trevor Wilson
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:48037b1c-9ffe-4f9d...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 5:26 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
> "ozonb" <oz...@o.com> wrote in messagenews:4a1236d6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> > 14 May 2009
>
> > Now, the "consensus" back in the mid-1970s was that America and the
> > world
> > were running out of oil.
> **Bullshit. US oil production had peaked. Saudi oil had not.
>
�� You should realize that any popular "consensus"
is worthless.
**Indeed. Facts, however, are facts.
The Hubbert peak theory posits that for any given geographical area,
from an individual oil-producing region to the planet as a whole, the
rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve. It
is one of the primary theories on peak oil.
Choosing a particular curve determines a point of maximum production
based on discovery rates, production rates and cumulative production.
Early in the curve (pre-peak), the production rate increases due to
the discovery rate and the addition of infrastructure. Late in the
curve (post-peak), production declines due to resource depletion.
The Hubbert peak theory is based on the observation that the amount of
oil under the ground in any region is finite, therefore the rate of
discovery which initially increases quickly must reach a maximum and
decline. In the US, oil extraction followed the discovery curve after
a time lag of 32 to 35 years.[1][2] The theory is named after American
geophysicist M. King Hubbert, who created a method of modeling the
production curve given an assumed ultimate recovery volume.
�� King Hubbert was the first of the charlatans to
presume to predict future events by computer
modelling. BSI = BSO
Hubbert sold his nonsense to a lot people and may
have been at the root of the monster futures
market for oil.
**Nonetheless, oil resources are not infinite. As oil runs out, the cost of
extraction increases.
> > Ironically, some in the media were also claiming a scientific consensus
> > that the planet was cooling,
�� It really was cooling and still is.
**Bollocks. The TREND is to warming, not cooling.
> **Media, schmedia. The scientific press was reporting about global
> warming.
�� Bullshit, Trevor, Where were you in 1979?
**Sydney, Australia. I read Scientific American back then. Lots of reports
on global warming. None of cooling. Read this:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
It comprehensively debunks the notion that "global cooling" was considered
by the majority of scientific journals.
Did you read Dr Genevi�ve Woillard's paper?
**A 20 year old paper, written by a botanist, which has been shown to be
flawed? That paper? No. If she had been a climatologist, I would be far more
interested.
Of course not.
**Prove it.
> We were told we needed to find alternatives to
> > oil - fast. That task, we were told, was too important to leave to
> > markets, so government needed to intervene with massive taxpayer
> > subsidies
> > for otherwise uneconomic forms of energy.
�� When governments mess with markets everybody loses.
> > Fast-forward to today, and: d�j� vu. This time the fear is not so much
> > that we're running out of oil, but that we're running out of time - the
> > earth is getting hotter,
�� Not running out of time
> > humans are to blame,
�� Again not at all true
> > and we're all doomed if we
> > don't stop using fossil fuels - fast.
�� Only AGW alarmists believe that
>
> > Well, the doomsters of the 1970s turned out to be remarkably wrong.
�� They were mostly right, but too many fools expect
instant gratification from a process that deals in
100,000 year cycles.
> **Well, no. The idiots of the 1970s, like the idiots of today, were wrong.
> There was no "global cooling".
�� Again they were mostly right, but too many fools expect
instant gratification from a process that deals in
100,000 year cycles.
**Talking about "cycles" without providing any rationale, is disingenuous.
There are no "cycles". There are events. They may LOOK like cycles, but we
have no evidence that they are cyclicly generated.
>
> > My bet is that today's doomsters will be proven wrong.
>
> **You've already lost that bet.
�� NO! Trevor you are the loser all the way from the gitgo.
**Ah, the old "insult the opponent, rather than produce the facts ploy".
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
richp
>
> - Show quoted text -
Have U gone off the deep end???
leona...@gmail.com
wrote:
> <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48037b1c-9ffe-4f9d...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 5:26 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
> wrote:> "ozonb" <oz...@o.com> wrote in messagenews:4a1236d6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> > > 14 May 2009
>
> > > Now, the "consensus" back in the mid-1970s was that America and the
> > > world
> > > were running out of oil.
> > **Bullshit. US oil production had peaked. Saudi oil had not.
>
> •• You should realize that any popular "consensus"
> is worthless.
>
> **Indeed. Facts, however, are facts.
•• ROFLMAO
I have not seen any facts from your 3 posts
in this thread
>
> The Hubbert peak theory posits that for any given geographical area,
> from an individual oil-producing region to the planet as a whole, the
> rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve. It
> is one of the primary theories on peak oil.
>
> Choosing a particular curve determines a point of maximum production
> based on discovery rates, production rates and cumulative production.
> Early in the curve (pre-peak), the production rate increases due to
> the discovery rate and the addition of infrastructure. Late in the
> curve (post-peak), production declines due to resource depletion.
>
> The Hubbert peak theory is based on the observation that the amount of
> oil under the ground in any region is finite, therefore the rate of
> discovery which initially increases quickly must reach a maximum and
> decline. In the US, oil extraction followed the discovery curve after
> a time lag of 32 to 35 years.[1][2] The theory is named after American
> geophysicist M. King Hubbert, who created a method of modeling the
> production curve given an assumed ultimate recovery volume.
>
> •• King Hubbert was the first of the charlatans to
> presume to predict future events by computer
> modelling. BSI = BSO
>
> Hubbert sold his nonsense to a lot people and may
> have been at the root of the monster futures
> market for oil.
>
> **Nonetheless, oil resources are not infinite. As oil runs out, the cost of
> extraction increases.
•• You are only 20 years behind in petroleum
physics and chemistry
>
> > > Ironically, some in the media were also claiming a scientific consensus
> > > that the planet was cooling,
>
> •• It really was cooling and still is.
>
> **Bollocks. The TREND is to warming, not cooling.
•• Try proving something for a change.
> > **Media, schmedia. The scientific press was reporting about global
> > warming.
>
> •• Bullshit, Trevor, Where were you in 1979?
>
> **Sydney, Australia. I read Scientific American back then. Lots of reports
> on global warming. None of cooling. Read this:
>
> http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
>
> It comprehensively debunks the notion that "global cooling" was considered
> by the majority of scientific journals.
•• What a joke !!!!
> Did you read Dr Geneviève Woillard's paper?
>
> **A 20 year old paper, written by a botanist,
•• What a fascist jackass you are Wilson. Don't like
the message attack the messenger.
The paper dated 1979 was written by the
preeminent paleologist of the 20th century, who
used pollen for carbon dating
> which has been shown to be
> flawed?
•• It is trevor that is flawed
°•• After you prove unequivicably that global
warming exists.
>
> > We were told we needed to find alternatives to
> > > oil - fast. That task, we were told, was too important to leave to
> > > markets, so government needed to intervene with massive taxpayer
> > > subsidies
> > > for otherwise uneconomic forms of energy.
>
> •• When governments mess with markets everybody loses.
>
> > > Fast-forward to today, and: déjà vu. This time the fear is not so much
> > > that we're running out of oil, but that we're running out of time - the
> > > earth is getting hotter,
>
> •• Not running out of time
>
> > > humans are to blame,
>
> •• Again not at all true
>
> > > and we're all doomed if we
> > > don't stop using fossil fuels - fast.
>
> •• Only AGW alarmists believe that
>
>
>
> > > Well, the doomsters of the 1970s turned out to be remarkably wrong.
>
> •• They were mostly right, but too many fools expect
> instant gratification from a process that deals in
> 100,000 year cycles.
>
> > **Well, no. The idiots of the 1970s, like the idiots of today, were wrong.
> > There was no "global cooling".
•• You are o/ne o/f the idiots of today and you are WRONG!
>
> •• Again they were mostly right, but too many fools expect
> instant gratification from a process that deals in
> 100,000 year cycles.
>
> **Talking about "cycles" without providing any rationale, is disingenuous.
> There are no "cycles". There are events. They may LOOK like cycles, but we
> have no evidence that they are cyclicly generated.
>
•• Bullshit!!!
Trevor Wilson
<leona...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c551e252-fa80-42e1...@o30g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 7:41 pm, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
wrote:
> <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:48037b1c-9ffe-4f9d...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 5:26 am, "Trevor Wilson" <tre...@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au>
> wrote:> "ozonb" <oz...@o.com> wrote in
> messagenews:4a1236d6$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>
> > > 14 May 2009
>
> > > Now, the "consensus" back in the mid-1970s was that America and the
> > > world
> > > were running out of oil.
> > **Bullshit. US oil production had peaked. Saudi oil had not.
>
> �� You should realize that any popular "consensus"
> is worthless.
>
> **Indeed. Facts, however, are facts.
�� ROFLMAO
I have not seen any facts from your 3 posts
in this thread
**I am not responsible for your inability to read and comprehend plain
English. I suggest you read my words again, or get someone to explain them
to you.
**Cite your proof. Just to re-cap:
You are now going to prove that:
1) Oil resources are infinite.
2) That the costs of extracting oil increase, for any given well, over time.
Have fun doing that.
>
> > > Ironically, some in the media were also claiming a scientific
> > > consensus
> > > that the planet was cooling,
>
> �� It really was cooling and still is.
>
> **Bollocks. The TREND is to warming, not cooling.
�� Try proving something for a change.
**Sure. Read this:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/projections2001.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html
> > **Media, schmedia. The scientific press was reporting about global
> > warming.
>
> �� Bullshit, Trevor, Where were you in 1979?
>
> **Sydney, Australia. I read Scientific American back then. Lots of reports
> on global warming. None of cooling. Read this:
>
> http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
>
> It comprehensively debunks the notion that "global cooling" was considered
> by the majority of scientific journals.
�� What a joke !!!!
**On the contrary. It is a well-researched, carefully documented report,
which reflects reality. It cannot be summarily dismissed by "What a joke
!!!". If you can refute the data, then present your alternate research. Lack
of presentation of data will allow us to dismiss your claim.
> Did you read Dr Genevi�ve Woillard's paper?
>
> **A 20 year old paper, written by a botanist,
�� What a fascist jackass you are Wilson. Don't like
the message attack the messenger.
The paper dated 1979 was written by the
preeminent paleologist of the 20th century, who
used pollen for carbon dating
**None of what I wrote is incorrect. It is a 20 year old paper written by a
biologist. NOT a climatologist. Do you understand the difference?
I thought not.
**Done.
>
> > We were told we needed to find alternatives to
> > > oil - fast. That task, we were told, was too important to leave to
> > > markets, so government needed to intervene with massive taxpayer
> > > subsidies
> > > for otherwise uneconomic forms of energy.
>
> �� When governments mess with markets everybody loses.
>
> > > Fast-forward to today, and: d�j� vu. This time the fear is not so much
> > > that we're running out of oil, but that we're running out of time -
> > > the
> > > earth is getting hotter,
>
> �� Not running out of time
>
> > > humans are to blame,
>
> �� Again not at all true
>
> > > and we're all doomed if we
> > > don't stop using fossil fuels - fast.
>
> �� Only AGW alarmists believe that
>
>
>
> > > Well, the doomsters of the 1970s turned out to be remarkably wrong.
>
> �� They were mostly right, but too many fools expect
> instant gratification from a process that deals in
> 100,000 year cycles.
>
> > **Well, no. The idiots of the 1970s, like the idiots of today, were
> > wrong.
> > There was no "global cooling".
�� You are o/ne o/f the idiots of today and you are WRONG!
>
> �� Again they were mostly right, but too many fools expect
> instant gratification from a process that deals in
> 100,000 year cycles.
>
> **Talking about "cycles" without providing any rationale, is disingenuous.
> There are no "cycles". There are events. They may LOOK like cycles, but we
> have no evidence that they are cyclicly generated.
>
�� Bullshit!!!
**Present your alleged "cycles". After you present the alleged cycles, you
need to explain how such "cycles" are generated. I'll wait.
> > > My bet is that today's doomsters will be proven wrong.
>
> > **You've already lost that bet.
>
> �� NO! Trevor you are the loser all the way from the gitgo.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au