37 comments on Sir David King’s View on Peak Oil
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
37 comments on Sir David King’s View on Peak Oil
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Blogroll
- ASPO The official site of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas.
- Energy Bulletin Clearing house for news regarding the peak in global energy supply.
- PowerSwitch Dedicated to raising awareness & discussion of the impending & permanent decline of cheap oil & gas supply.
- ODAC Oil Depletion Analysis Centre working to raise awareness and promote better understanding of the world's oil-depletion problem.
- Global Public Media Public service broadcasting for a post carbon world.
- Post Carbon Institute Learning to live in a low energy world.
- PeakOil.com US site and forum to educate and promote awareness of global hydrocarbon depletion.
- FEASTA The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability
- Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) This website describes an effective and fair response both to climate change and oil/gas depletion
- Aleklett's Energy Mix Global Energy Systems, Peak Oil, etc
- www.SamassaVeneessä.info Finnish peak oil site
Other Blogs
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.




GAIA Host Collective
Biog:
David King (scientist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Professor Sir David King ScD FRS
Born 1939
South Africa
Residence UK
Field physical chemistry
Institutions Cambridge Univ.
Alma mater Witwatersrand Univ.
Notable prizes Rumford Medal 2002; knighthood 2003
Sir David King ScD FRS is Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, and consequently head of the Office of Science and Innovation. He is also the Director of the Surface Science Research Group at the Department of Chemistry at University of Cambridge [1] and a Fellow of Queens' College. He was Master of Downing College, Cambridge until 2000.
In 1988, he was appointed Professor of Physical Chemistry at Cambridge, and subsequently became Master of Downing College (1995–2000), and Head of the University Chemistry Department (1993–2000). From 2000, he has served as Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, In 2002, he was awarded the Rumford Medal by the Royal Society.
He founded two research centres, the Leverhulme Centre for Innovative Catalysis at Liverpool in 1987 and the Unilever Cambridge Centre for Molecular Informatics in 1998.
In his role of scientific advisor to the UK government he has been outspoken on the subject of climate change, saying:
I see climate change as the greatest challenges facing Britain and the World in the 21st century [2]
and
climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today - more serious even than the threat of terrorism [3]
He strongly supports the work of the IPCC, saying in 2004 that the 2001 synthesis report is the best current statement on the state of play of the science of climate change, and that really does represent 1,000 scientists [4]
He has criticised the United States government for what he sees as its failures in climate change policy, saying it is: failing to take up the challenge of global warming [5].
In an article published in The Guardian newspaper on 25 October 2005, George Monbiot drew attention to King's increasing support for nuclear power in the UK, which, Monbiot argues, contradicts his stance on climate change, and represents a mutation of his role. [6]
Sir David King told The Independent newspaper in February 2007 "he agreed that organic food was no safer than chemically-treated food" and openly supported a study by the Manchester Business School that implicated organic farming practices in unfavourable CO2 comparisons with conventional chemical farming. Questions have been raised about King's support for intensive bird farms in the context of the dangers it posed regarding bird flu and further questions have been raised about his environmental credentials again when he spoke on the BBC talking about "the end of free range farming practices."
I did some digging and if you look at the fields he is involved with ie:
Leverhulme Centre for Innovative Catalysis
Surface science
http://www.catalysisnetwork.com/Overview.htm
http://svr.ssci.liv.ac.uk/
The same old themes appear - big drugs, big petrochemicals, Monsanto-esque pig patenting eco-nightmare corporate lobbying....well you get the picture.
This guy is not part of the solution he is part of the problem
Of course thats all just an opinion, officer..
he is just a policy man, with little/no scientific training.
his main responsibilities were to either get more funding or do PR and get public support or big donations.
i doubt he could hold a scientific thought in his head.
you will note that there are no papers published under his name, nor is ever mentioned as a professor.
Oh come on----somebody isn't a professor of chemistry at Cambridge by hereditary title. I'm sure he actually is/was a practicing chemist or chemical engineer.
The principal mistake that he makes is the assumption that "peak oil" theory and predictions have nothing to do with the more superficially apparent economics or 'above ground factors' --- and that geophysical reality has no input into those as well.
"Peak Oil" of course as understood here has everything to do with those since it is about flows.
The fundamental driving fact is the geophysically justified assumption of non-replenishing (at human timescales) oil fields distributed with the usual power-law type of probability distributions in size, and space.
To that, add facts about human behavior and economics: easy oil is used up first----people deplete the largest and easy-to-get-at-high-reservoir-quality first.
Peak Oil is the inevitable conclusion that inevitably the depletion of previous oil fields---even assuming continuing improvement in technology and ability to extract 'deeper' into the probability distribution tails---the deficit from filling up the probability distribution easiest-to-hardest/biggest-to-smallest will inevitably win out over the improvement-in-technology curve. That is, even as technology gets better, the size of the oil fields now newly extractable will continue to get smaller, and not make up for the old, easier, oil being pumped out faster (due to application of same improved technology on geologically easier targets).
It a mathematical fact made obvious by continuity arguments: assume negligible cost to extract out oil no matter how difficult. What is the flow of oil the next year? Zero, of course. And zero, ever after that.
All the issues the professor talks about (usual above-ground factors) are always and still there, but the effect on society revolves quite prominently about the present situation w.r.t. the peak time.
The empirical question is "when is this peak?" Here, obviously we disagree with the professor. The effect on human society and decisions made will be quite distinct on the two sides of the peak, and the question of "are we close or not" really does matter.
And we have a winner!
Thanks for doing the leg-work Pondlife.
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
ML,
Do you want those with onions?
Strange report coming from one with such bonafides.
King reminds me very much in many respects of C P Snow another portentous Labour Government mouthpiece who gave scientific credence to Wislons Gubment in 1964.
He was of course the author of the nonsensical 2 Cultures debate and was also like ziz a product of Leicester University - he prior way as a chemist when it was a University College of U of London.
It was said that a large and unpleasant discolouration on one of the ceilings of what had been a chemistry laboratory and turned into the library was a result of one of his experiments that went wrong.
He wrote turgid
novelsstories about academic life and their interface with Government. he pretended like King to have inside knowledge on all matters scientific but actually portrayed a banal and impoverished understanding bolstered by a 2nd class intellect with a prose style somewhere between women's romantic fiction of the day and bad copywriting " The Corridors of Power" was the name of one of his stories in which Lewis Elliot (AKA CPS) "fixes" the fundamental problems of science, man and the known Universe. These sorts are always great on horizons, vistas, landscapes, panoramic views which allows themn to escape the sordid world at their feet.King and his sidekick Stern are a matching pair of academic poltroons who have managed to convince the Blairs of the world of their omniscience (none too difficult a task) and which, because of the intellectual pygmies of the press are allowed to publish their trite , shallow views with all the power that the Government machine provides.
These sort of people are always atracted like moths are to a flame to "emerging technologies" fuel cells, soalr power, geothermal power, HVDC across oceans / continents, anyone remember the Mohorovijic layer ? Bore down and heat the world forever for nothing ?
King? - perhaps Court Jester.