![]() | Saudi Arabia - production forecasts and reserves estimates | The Oil Drum: Europe | More on the Systematics of Hubbert Linearisation | ![]() |
168 comments on Duncan Clarke Responds to David Strahan
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
168 comments on Duncan Clarke Responds to David Strahan
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
nice rethorics. basically the guy says:
1 - you've cried wolf many times before, therefore there's no wolf;
2 - your evidences are just tiny facts that can support many theories;
3 - there's tech ya know?
4 - things are too difficult to grasp. Don't bother;
5 - because things are difficult to grasp, I can say about them whatever I want, nevermind your facts. I can say blah blah blah. See? I rule;
6 - you've ad hominemed me, how bad of you;
7 - here's my repply: you're a doomer;
8 - you're a doomer.
9 - you're a doomer.
10 - there. I've showed you how you are a doomer and thus you are totally wrong.
1 - you've cried wolf many times before, therefore there's no wolf;
As our old pal JMG says, remember that in the parable, the sheep end up getting eaten.
| The problem will solve itself.
| But not in a nice way.
jbunt
What is the source of this "cried wolf" crap. I have been following oil for 40 years, and other than Jimmy Carter or maybe some unknown environmentalist - who has actually written a well documented book in the last 40 years that has previously said that PO is (was) here. Even now, the consensus (among PO experts) is that it is near, but perhaps not quite. Although recent statistics have peaked, we are not sure what, if any, production restraints are in place due solely to a lack of transparency from KSA, among others.
Luis,
When you want to engage in a debate / argument with somebody, the first thing you have to do is to take the other person serious, even is you don't agree with him. Calling the other guy names, or making fun of his arguments, even if you think they are untrue, is not the way to get the discussion going.
Mr Clarke is not particulary 'insulting' or 'behaving badly', so I see no reason not to listen first.
So I take it that you believe in the "civilized discourse" approach that lead us down the path of cozy inside-the-beltway punditry. Ever see the British parliament in action?
I believe both these guys are British. They can handle themselves quite all right.
The British have nothing on the Taiwanese parliament.
Puts CSPAN to shame.
The corruption level in government is inversely proportional to the number of fights in parliament. If no one is fighting then you know everyone is bought.
I respect your opinion but I don't agree at all. I didn't call him names but I did make fun of his arguments, because he didn't make any whatsoever. He just called the other guy a doomer:
"your case is locked into the peak oil litany."
... as if that was some kind of an argument. The notion that he denies Peak Oil is laughable, because even the industry acknowledges PO.
And then he goes to claim that PO view...
...is one that greatly discounts world oil resource and reserve potential, future exploration efforts and discoveries, inherent oil market dynamics, crude price impacts and inter-fuel transitions, the future application of multiple technologies, the on-going and substantial phenomenon of reserve growth in the world’s oilfields, societal adaptation, and much more besides
... which is blatantly false. Either he is beating a straw man, or being ignorant or being a liar. I think he's the third. Then he makes another ignorant rant:
This new 21st century paradigm may be expected to continue. But it does not mean that the world has run out of reserves or the supply of oil, let alone all liquids. Nor, despite peak oil’s assumptions, is all now known once and for all on world oil reserves.
... which is completely unrelated to PO. First, no one is saying that oil "is running out", second, no one is saying that all is known once and for all. This is completely a wrong criticism of PO.
The world oil game is arguably one of the hardest things to understand and measure, let alone predict with precision.
Yet, he's the one who claims that oil will be alright, just because he awoke with good feelings, as he gives no data whatsoever. Have faith will ya?
Right.
And why should I "respect" such fraudulent speech, so full of rethorics and shallow of content, that serves no purpose than to derail debate and to further delay the political PO lobbyism that he so envies about (why sure, the oil majors lobby is certainly smaller...) and to delay the public consensus that something is got to be done about it. He's no more than a shill, and I am happy and all the way to joke him whatever I want.
luisdias,
I think you did an excellent job of knocking Duncan Clarke down.
You could have also pointed to the blatant hypocrisy embedded into Clarke's "sound" logic.
On one hand Clarke says:
In other words, Clarke adopts a linear forecasting approach in which PO models will continue to include gross errors just as they had before.
On the other hand Clarke says:
He wants to have it both ways. He is allowed to maintain a linear model of failing PO models that will continue to fail forever in the same way but we are not allowed to have model of increasingly converging PO models because it is only "we" who fail to appreciate where the knee in the nonlinear curve occurs.
I'm sure westexas is holding his breath every night for that surprising nonlinear up tick in Lower 48 production.