Well said.

I would perhaps summarize your view as:

Something can be done.

To which I would humbly add:

Something should be done.

There are those who dislike modern Western society, and in all honesty I'm forced to agree that there are some disagreeable aspects to it. However, honesty also forces me to note that never before have so many people been so far from misery, starvation, and death.

Look at how most people lived 500 years ago. Look at how poor people in poor countries live now.

The desperate struggle to merely survive that plagued mankind has largely vanished from modern Western society, to an extent never before imagined in human history. So, while that society may be far from perfect, its destruction without a clear alternative would vastly increase the toll of human misery.

And looking on that possible wave of suffering with anticipation is the sign of a sick mind. It's no better than looking at someone with a nasty wound, telling them it's sure to get infected and how horrible dying of infection will be, all the while refusing to help them look for any treatment.

As something with the (theoretical) possibility to bring about this much suffering, peak oil attracts the kind of sick freak who gets off on misery. I'm not saying that's everyone here - not even most - but ask yourself, how many times have you read someone insistently braying how the world is doomed, how billions will die, how civilization cannot survive, how collapse is inevitable...without a shred of evidence or argument to support their fantasies?

Now ask yourself, who fantasizes about plunging billions into misery, despair, and death?

Delusions about an impending apocalypse have been with us for a long, long time, and people who are prone to such beliefs are using peak oil as a convenient rationalization for their pre-existing faith in an imminent collapse. While their irrational pessimism is sad, their latching onto peak oil seriously obscures the actual facts surrounding what honestly is a serious and important issue. Like the patient at risk of infection, what we need now is to look for treatment - figure out how best to deal with the current situation - rather than to froth at the mouth about how painful dying from infection is going to be.

When in the midst of cultists prophesying doom - again - how are rational people supposed to take us seriously?

Anyone who honestly wants to talk to others about peak oil, just stick to the plain, verifiable facts - anything you can't convince others of is probably your personal opinion. For those who just enjoy ranting about their apocalyptic fantasies, go to the hell you seemingly desire.

Just don't expect the rest of us to follow you there.

Well, Pitt, you've just painted yourself into a nice corner. Stick to the facts, he says. If we stick to the facts, an inevitable consequence in any conversation with any rational human being is "What does this mean to me?" And this is where the rubber meets the road. If you cannot convince someone that there is a personal impact, then they will take no action. In order to convince someone that there is a personal impact, you must speculate about possible consequences. No one, not even you, knows the future about peak oil with any certainty. So lacking context and unable to do anything except recite facts about oil supplies, discovery rates, and (currently) declining production, one is left unable to draw conclusions or to speculate about possible consequences.

In other words, your long diatribe is full of nonsense, Pitt. We must draw conclusions about the future, which, by definition, are opinions! Now, you can argue that we should be cautious in our conclusions. You can argue that extreme conclusions hurt our image. But without conclusions that mean something to the person listening to the recitation of facts, there will be zero motivation to do anything because the assumption, based upon their personal experience, will be that "technology will save us" and that therefore it is not their personal problem.

So no, I won't stop with the conjecture. I won't stop wondering what will happen. I won't refuse to consider the worst case scenarios just because you insist that I do so.

And finally we have the usual ad hominem straw man juvenile BS, which I never expected from you, Pitt, least of all you.

Anyone who honestly wants to talk to others about peak oil, just stick to the plain, verifiable facts - anything you can't convince others of is probably your personal opinion. For those who just enjoy ranting about their apocalyptic fantasies, go to the hell you seemingly desire.

There it is in black and white, Pitt the Elder accusing anyone who talks about grim scenarios as someone who must inevitably want those scenarios to come to pass. Did your grandfather tell Winston Churchill that he must have wanted the Nazis to attack because he warned about it? Yes, that is how absurd your argument sounds. Completely comically ridiculous right on its face.

"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function." -- Dr. Albert Bartlett
Into the Grey Zone

GZ,
You prettty much said what I was going to say to Roger. So, I guess I'll let it go.

Todd