[John_A]

John_A: I have tried hard to understand your position ... My conclusion is ...that you are a troll. I had been hoping that by engaging in the debate, I might learn something new but I realize I am wasting my time.

There is still the 1 out of 10 chance that John_A is not a troll and that he honestly believes that "money" is real and is what makes the world go round, whereas "science" is for geeks alone and has nothing to do with what "really" happens in the oil patch.

I don't recall saying much about my opinion on money at all. Seems like a terribly relative concept, but as they say, it does make the world go round.

[Strummer]

Depends on which side of the human intelligence probability density function debate he stands on. If, like many, he assumed that human intelligence is normally distributed, then mean equals median and either, or both, answers are correct.

A class of college students is not a general population sample, quite far from it, so the averages and distributions within that group can not be inferred from the general population distributions. The average could be very far from the median within such group.

[John_A]

Depends on which side of the human intelligence probability density function debate he stands on. If, like many, he assumed that human intelligence is normally distributed, then mean equals median and either, or both, answers are correct.

A class of college students is not a general population sample, quite far from it, so the averages and distributions within that group can not be inferred from the general population distributions.

Let us investigate.

The professor makes a correct statement...average IQ of this class is X (regardless of the parent population from whence it originated). He then makes an implicit assumption of a symmetrical distribution, indicated by locating the median and mean at the same location.

Rockman then pulls a "cute" on said professor, unknown if Rockman understood at the time that his "cute" answer had already been rendered "not cute" because the professor has already broadcast quite plainly that he is talking about a symmetrical distribution with the mean and median occupying the same value.

Rockman, can you clear this up for us? Were you even aware that the professor had already implied a symmetric distribution whereby the mean and median were the same value, thereby rendering your "its a median" comment irrelevant? Was this a stat's class prof, someone who could be expected to understand themselves that they had just dictated a symmetrical distribution, or just someone pretending to be statistically inclined because lets face it, if he/she was teaching a geology course he already knew that the real math/stats courses were being handled elsewhere?

Was it YOU who assumed a symmetrical distribution of human intelligence on general principles and then focused on the 50/50 split without realizing that the professor had already locked down the distribution type to be symmetrical? Or something else in the story you haven't yet told us yet?

[Gordianus]

My conclusion is the same as pstarr, that you are a troll. I had been hoping that by engaging in the debate, I might learn something new but I realise I am wasting my time.

It isn't a waste of time Gord, 99% of folks won't post, only read and your engagement is what we want them to read.

John_A (and his many predecessors) perform the function of voicing the BAU POV, without which there would not be much to say and so no chance to educate the passing surfer. I think the demise of many boards is related to the extent to which the opposing view is moderated and the talk becomes inbred to the point of irrelevance.

He isn't a shill for PO.com but if we didn't have a foil to come up with nonsensical arguments, we'd need to invent one to encourage conversation.

I understand and I agree it is really important to allow all points of view. I shall certainly continue to contribute to the discussion when I can. But I probably won't debate EROEI with John_A any further.

He's our very own autonomous-touch-typing-strawman.

A nice way of putting it - like it!

[Quinny]

Still no answer from JA to my very simple question.

[ralfy]

It isn't a waste of time Gord, 99% of folks won't post, only read and your engagement is what we want them to read.

John_A (and his many predecessors) perform the function of voicing the BAU POV, without which there would not be much to say and so no chance to educate the passing surfer. I think the demise of many boards is related to the extent to which the opposing view is moderated and the talk becomes inbred to the point of irrelevance.

He isn't a shill for PO.com but if we didn't have a foil to come up with nonsensical arguments, we'd need to invent one to encourage conversation. He's our very own autonomous-touch-typing-strawman.

Please continue to debate if you can stand it. If not, simply click his name then click "Add Foe" and he will be banished from your sight.

I think trolling refers to repeating the same wrong arguments even after they have been debunked. In contrast, a debate will involve new points. Given that, the demise of a board may actually spell the success of the main argument raised in that board.

The implication is that trolls are allowed to post in the forum so that it will remain active or that those who do not participate will be constantly reminded of errors committed by the former.

[Pops]

I think trolling refers to repeating the same wrong arguments even after they have been debunked.

Trolling has a very specific definition @po.com;
Repeated posting designed to elicit an emotional, angry response.

That's it.

Mods here don't have the responsibility of fact checking every post, judging which arguments have been proven or debunked; policing the viewpoints of the members or directing the conversation one way or the other. The Mods main responsibility is to attempt to keep the conversation civil and let it develop as it will. In the rare instance we have moved to prevent the derailment of every thread in a particular direction or by a particular off topic argument.

It's only taken us 10 years and lots of burnt out Mods to figure that out, LOL.

[MD]

My conclusion is the same as pstarr, that you are a troll. I had been hoping that by engaging in the debate, I might learn something new but I realise I am wasting my time.

It isn't a waste of time Gord, 99% of folks won't post, only read and your engagement is what we want them to read.

John_A (and his many predecessors) perform the function of voicing the BAU POV, without which there would not be much to say and so no chance to educate the passing surfer. I think the demise of many boards is related to the extent to which the opposing view is moderated and the talk becomes inbred to the point of irrelevance.

He isn't a shill for PO.com but if we didn't have a foil to come up with nonsensical arguments, we'd need to invent one to encourage conversation. He's our very own autonomous-touch-typing-strawman.

Please continue to debate if you can stand it. If not, simply click his name then click "Add Foe" and he will be banished from your sight.

well said!

[Quinny]

I understand your point entirely (and agree), but I was referring to the point that John A also states that NOBODY takes into account the energy embodied by geological processes and yet STILL makes the statement.

Like you most on here are perfectly familiar with Physics and do not need the 'lectures' on it's application from JA that are basically meaningless.

Quinny,

It's been so long ago that who can remember?

Do you mean this?:

You haven't answered the ? You make a statement saying that more energy went into manufacturing that one gallon of diesel than is embodied in it! ... What makes it so? ... Please explain?

The key word in the question is "manufacture" and what is implied thereby.

If it means human effort only and not the efforts put in by Mother Nature without hominid help, then the one gallon of diesel (in combination with the available oxygen in the air) has more potential for doing useful work then the amount of work humans put into obtaining this current day form of 'unobtainium'.

On the other hand, if you substitute the word "producing" in place of "manufacturing" in your above question, then John_A (much as it pains me to say he is right in any department) is correct.

The total amount of energy that was invested (mostly by Mother Nature) in "producing" the one gallon of diesel is greater than the amount of "potential" energy present in that one gallon. This is so because no conversion process is 100% and that one gallon of diesel is the product of many many conversion process.

90% x 90% x ...... x 90% quickly becomes close to zero (=0%) when repeated often enough.

[ralfy]

Trolling has a very specific definition @po.com;
Repeated posting designed to elicit an emotional, angry response.

That's it.

Mods here don't have the responsibility of fact checking every post, judging which arguments have been proven or debunked; policing the viewpoints of the members or directing the conversation one way or the other. The Mods main responsibility is to attempt to keep the conversation civil and let it develop as it will. In the rare instance we have moved to prevent the derailment of every thread in a particular direction or by a particular off topic argument.

It's only taken us 10 years and lots of burnt out Mods to figure that out, LOL.

There's something wrong with that definition, as one can repeat a fact concerning peak oil and then receive an angry response that makes no sense.

FWIW, the errors committed don't require fact checking as they defy common sense. In several cases, they even contradict each other.

What is notable is that the errors are mentioned repeatedly across several threads.

[John_A]

Maybe the short term memory neurons in my brain are fried.
Better take them over to Fry's Electronics and have them tested.

I seem to recall you saying that EROEI is never the deciding factor in the oil patch and only the money kind of $RO$I is the deciding factor.

Yes.

But you intimated that only money makes the world go round...my comment was specific to the decisions in the oil industry. I cannot vouch for the decisions of the individuals on the planet (certainly money is nice, but IRR isn't how I determine economic decisions in my life and I don't expect others to necessarily do that either).

As long as there is a profit to be made by some private party, rigs will be built, rigs will be leased or sold, and holes in the ground will be drilled.

Are you saying you never implied any of that?

I said that absolutely. But I applied the idea to the oil and gas business where I know it for a fact. Certainly people are not required by any law, manmade or physical law of the universe, to chase the almighty dollar as their reason for existence. Certainly isn't mine, and I don't expect it to be someone else's unless they announce it of course.

[John_A]

Still no answer from JA to my very simple question.

9:03AM December 2nd, 2013. I answered the question soon after you asked it Quinny, maybe 2-3 posts later.

[John_A]

What is notable is that the errors are mentioned repeatedly across several threads.

What errors Ralfy? Not buying into your belief system is not an error. Knowing better than to confuse peak oil with the kind of credit market shenanigans you would prefer to talk about (peak oil having not come off so well as of late) is not an error.

Certainly in a conversation about the REAL peak oil it seems obvious that explicit with that title is that folks are now having a wee bit of trouble determining one kind (non real) from another (real).

One peak oil to rule them all, One peak oil to find them,
One peak oil to bring them all and in the darkness bind them

Sorta works.

[Quinny]

You posted a reply that mentioned ROCKMAN's accounting for well expenditure. You did not explain how you can make the 2 statements that you did. ie NOBODY takes into account geological processes and prehistoric solar inputs and manufacturing a gallon of diesel takes much more energy than it contains.

Still no answer from JA to my very simple question.

9:03AM December 2nd, 2013. I answered the question soon after you asked it Quinny, maybe 2-3 posts later.

[ROCKMAN]

Quinny - Have you ever read why I don't try to teach pigs to roller skate? Simple actually: because it would only frustrate me and irritate the pigs. Essentially doesn't do anyone any good. But I do admit an occasion urge to slap some inlines onto one of those porkers. LOL

[Quinny]

You're better keeping out of it. Don't want to tarnish your image as our resident Oil Industry Peaker

[John_A]

You posted a reply that mentioned ROCKMAN's accounting for well expenditure. You did not explain how you can make the 2 statements that you did. ie NOBODY takes into account geological processes and prehistoric solar inputs and manufacturing a gallon of diesel takes much more energy than it contains.

Still no answer from JA to my very simple question.

9:03AM December 2nd, 2013. I answered the question soon after you asked it Quinny, maybe 2-3 posts later.

The question I answered with the post mentioned above was how the manufacturing of diesel has more energy input than you retrieve in the form of said diesel.

I missed the first one you mention, related to geologic processes.

Would it be better if I said, "I have never seen anyone calculate the energy input of geologic processes to take organic matter and turn it into some long chain hydrocarbon or another".

Would that clarify the issue?

[Quinny]

So you are saying that you believe there is more energy put into manufacturing a gallon of diesel than you get out of it!

Please confirm this is what you believe?

You posted a reply that mentioned ROCKMAN's accounting for well expenditure. You did not explain how you can make the 2 statements that you did. ie NOBODY takes into account geological processes and prehistoric solar inputs and manufacturing a gallon of diesel takes much more energy than it contains.

Still no answer from JA to my very simple question.

9:03AM December 2nd, 2013. I answered the question soon after you asked it Quinny, maybe 2-3 posts later.

The question I answered with the post mentioned above was how the manufacturing of diesel has more energy input than you retrieve in the form of said diesel.

I missed the first one you mention, related to geologic processes.

Would it be better if I said, "I have never seen anyone calculate the energy input of geologic processes to take organic matter and turn it into some long chain hydrocarbon or another".

Would that clarify the issue?

[Quinny]

The question is neither, but a simple quest to identify the beliefs of a fellow poster so I might ascertain their true position

Quinny,

A funny thing happened on the way to the grammarian's annual forum.

We discovered that the English language is full of imprecision and ambiguity.
(Indeed many of Shakespeare's plays are built on such ambiguity.)

You left out from your question the identity of the players involved in the act of "manufacturing" this gallon of diesel.

If the players on your stage are only human beings and no other forces of Nature than the answer is that of course, the gallon of diesel has far more potential energy than that which the human actors invested into possessing this gallon of magic elixir. (EROI >> 1).

On the other hand if your question includes all the energy that Mother Nature invested into the creation of this gallon of diesel, starting with the highly inefficient photosynthesis of prehistoric botany then the answer is the exact opposite, EROI approaches zero.

So which one is your question and what ultimate conclusion are you trying to drive to?