Perhaps a more scientific and pragmatic approach to these issues is worth considering. I wonder how familiar the author of this article is with the (longstanding, extensively tested and reviewed) theory of inorganic oil formation, as well as the (proven incorrect) organic material formation theory.
Statistics and causality are worth considering too – note especially the excellent article on the so-called “Hubbert Model” by M. C. Lynch.
Le Chatelier’s principle is also an interesting consideration regarding predictions of complete industrial collapse over a 5-10 year timescale.
I believe the current ‘peak oil’ predictions are almost entirely economically, scientifically, and statistically baseless, and generally are being used to further an agenda, whether it be political, economic, or moral/ethical.
However, inequality is certainly a global concern and methods of reducing it in a sustainable way need to be implemented.
Great article. I wish more people would read it and wake up.
Perhaps a more scientific and pragmatic approach to these issues is worth considering. I wonder how familiar the author of this article is with the (longstanding, extensively tested and reviewed) theory of inorganic oil formation, as well as the (proven incorrect) organic material formation theory.
Statistics and causality are worth considering too – note especially the excellent article on the so-called “Hubbert Model” by M. C. Lynch.
Le Chatelier’s principle is also an interesting consideration regarding predictions of complete industrial collapse over a 5-10 year timescale.
I believe the current ‘peak oil’ predictions are almost entirely economically, scientifically, and statistically baseless, and generally are being used to further an agenda, whether it be political, economic, or moral/ethical.
However, inequality is certainly a global concern and methods of reducing it in a sustainable way need to be implemented.
http://www.gasresources.net/index.htm
http://www.gasresources.net/Lynch(Hubbert-Deffeyes).htm
Thanks for the link Alan – I’ll check them out. I wonder how come your point of view gets to be the ‘more scientific’ one, though.