[MonteQuest]

All debates are foolish and tedious. So why do you debate instead of discussing?

No, I tire of people who do not have enough grasp of the concepts to be discussing them. The discussion becomes foolish and tedious.

Do some homework. You are not up to the task.

That better?

[yesplease]

At no point in the quote I posted did you make any reference to developing countries.

Well, they are where the action is.

Could be, but they weren't specifically what you were talking about.

[MonteQuest]

At no point in the quote I posted did you make any reference to developing countries.

Well, they are where the action is.

Could be, but they weren't specifically what you were talking about.

Sure were. It's also what the UN was talking about when they made those projections.

[yesplease]

not a proof so to speak, as noted by the If suchansuch, then suchandsuch bit. Not a whole lot to to prove there.

So, an opinion, not a logical statement. The "if ... then" implied that one follows from the other, which it did not.

Not an opinion, an axiom. You are familiar w/ 'em aren't you?

Yeah. Yours is not an axiom.

"If oil consumption drives GDP then w/o oil we can't have GDP, otoh if GDP drives oil consumption, then w/o oil we can still have GDP." Seems pretty axiomatic to me. There is an assumption, followed by a logical result. Clearly, if oil drives GDP, that is to say we cannot have GDP w/o oil, then w/o oil we cannot have GDP. Otoh, if GDP drives oil, w/o oil we can still have GDP since it's composed of many other things besides oil use and is constantly changing. In any event, look at the upside, at least you tried!

Sorry. It's an illogical opinion.

You seem quite fond of saying this, however I haven't seen you offer anything to support it. That being said, I shouldn't be surprised considering you also claimed to know the future. How's your crystal ball doing btw?

[yesplease]

Same thing.

Your quote tags are all screwed up. What's the same thing?

You and a troll.

If anything, at least you're consistent. We can rely on good 'ol Monte for an ad hominem in lieu of supporting their statements, or even providing something that isn't trivial, in a thread.

[MonteQuest]

"If oil consumption drives GDP then w/o oil we can't have GDP, otoh if GDP drives oil consumption, then w/o oil we can still have GDP."

Farking nonsense from a troll!

Nothing grows without an input of energy. Period.

End of nonsense posting.

Move the hell on!

[yesplease]

Well, they are where the action is.

Could be, but they weren't specifically what you were talking about.

Sure were.

That must be why you didn't mention them.

Demographic Transition is made possible by cheap, readily available fossil fuels which allows for the rise in the standard of living/economic growth that lowers fertility.

As an aside, it's so nice to see you restorting to claims that you were talking about what you weren't talking about. Shoot, why even bother posting anything? All ya need is one post, and the claim that you were talking about everything in way that supports any claim you feel like making, even if you didn't happen to say it. Oh lord...
Is this the doomercopianism I heard about? I suppse everyone actually posted something that results in their assertions always being correct, regardless of what they actually posted.

I think pstarr may have a job for you at his swimming pool!

[yesplease]

"If oil consumption drives GDP then w/o oil we can't have GDP, otoh if GDP drives oil consumption, then w/o oil we can still have GDP."

Farking nonsense from a troll!

Nothing grows without an input of energy. Period.

Except for Cuba's population. Less energy, but somehow, the population grew! And, fortunately, we have plenty of energy besides oil, most of which is part of what GDP measures.

End of nonsense posting.

Move the hell on!

Another ad hominem. How surprising! At least you're consistent.

[yesplease]

Don't bother MQ. He thrives on abuse. I know. You'll just get dirty playing his little game.

creep

So... If I point out when others make statements that are contradicted by current data or respond jokingly to their ad hominem attacks, I'm a creep, but somehow, it's o.k. when you detail how you're going to poisen someone else?

Now Yesplease, you can ridicule these number but unless you offer something else (other than claims for authority and work you don't understand) then you'd better quit it. Okay? If you can't respond constructively, and discuss this in a mature manner than I will be forced to send you to your room without computer privileges. And without dinner. And then I will lock the door and gas you inside with Zyklon-B cyanide gas. Okay?

Yeah, I'm the creep.

[yesplease]

Would be interesting to see if Monte was - once in a while - able to change his opinion and admit that also he could be wrong sometimes, instead of the usual condescending retort in order to protect his ego.

As for me (to quote:): Thank God, I have my ego under my total control.

It won't happen. Monty is someone who takes two to three decade old papers as gospel but can't even seem to grasp the information they present correctly... Not to mention they have a crude, perhaps elementary, grasp of thermodynamics, even though they bandy it about quite a bit, and use anything they feel validates their position, regardless of whether or not it's logical or consistent.

The best we can expect is that they'll stop posting the erroneous info in the thread in question. But don't worry, they'll probably spread their own special brand of misinformation in another thread at some later time.

[TonyPrep]

"If oil consumption drives GDP then w/o oil we can't have GDP, otoh if GDP drives oil consumption, then w/o oil we can still have GDP." Seems pretty axiomatic to me.

Yeah, I realise that you think it's axiomatic

There is an assumption, followed by a logical result.

No, not a logical result; an opinion, based on the assumption that, because oil doesn't drive oil consumption (in your hypothetical case), then no oil consumption at all will not impact GDP to an extent that can't be made up by other stuff.

Clearly, if oil drives GDP, that is to say we cannot have GDP w/o oil, then w/o oil we cannot have GDP. Otoh, if GDP drives oil, w/o oil we can still have GDP since it's composed of many other things besides oil use and is constantly changing.

See above.

Sorry. It's an illogical opinion.

You seem quite fond of saying this, however I haven't seen you offer anything to support it.

I take it you can read?

That being said, I shouldn't be surprised considering you also claimed to know the future.

I don't and never have claimed to know the future, though undoubtedly you have kept by an out of context quote by me to try and convince yourself that I have.

[yesplease]

"If oil consumption drives GDP then w/o oil we can't have GDP, otoh if GDP drives oil consumption, then w/o oil we can still have GDP." Seems pretty axiomatic to me.

Yeah, I realise that you think it's axiomatic

There is an assumption, followed by a logical result.

No, not a logical result; an opinion, based on the assumption that, because oil doesn't drive oil consumption (in your hypothetical case), then no oil consumption at all will not impact GDP to an extent that can't be made up by other stuff.

Did you mean oil doesn't drive GDP consumption? In any event, I never stated, and or meant, that no oil at all would impact GDP to the extent that can't be made up by other stuff. It may be the case, or it may not, I dunno precisely. What I did say is that if oil drives GDP then w/o oil we can't have GDP, since that's what drives it. Otoh, if GDP drives oil, then w/o oil, we can still have GDP since GDP is composed of many other things besides oil. I'm betting that as it;s measured, other things will eventually take oil's place, so to speak, but they may not. The point being that if GDP drives oil we can have no oil, but still have GDP, which is composed of many other things besides oil. So, again, what par precisely is illogical?

That being said, I shouldn't be surprised considering you also claimed to know the future.

I don't and never have claimed to know the future, though undoubtedly you have kept by an out of context quote by me to try and convince yourself that I have.

No convincing needed. You seem to know that in the future the human race can't outlast the solar system.

What we can reasonably state is that the human species will not outlive the solar system.

[yesplease]

Don't bother MQ. He thrives on abuse. I know. You'll just get dirty playing his little game.

creep

So... If I point out when others make statements that are contradicted by current data or respond jokingly to their ad hominem attacks, I'm a creep, but somehow, it's o.k. when you detail how you're going to poisen someone else?

Now Yesplease, you can ridicule these number but unless you offer something else (other than claims for authority and work you don't understand) then you'd better quit it. Okay? If you can't respond constructively, and discuss this in a mature manner than I will be forced to send you to your room without computer privileges. And without dinner. And then I will lock the door and gas you inside with Zyklon-B cyanide gas. Okay?

Yeah, I'm the creep.

yup. still a creep

What? Lemme get this again just to make sure, you think it's o.k. to detail how you were going to kill another member of the forum, but consider pointing out inconsistent statements and joking around creepy? Jesus H. Christ, I never knew I was conversing w/ deranged psychopaths... Puts everything in a new perspective I suppose.

[MonteQuest]

Yesplease seems only interested in distortion.

The tactics of a troll.

[MonteQuest]

Another ad hominem.

Might want to look up that definition. I am not attacking you to avoid the merits of the debate.

You are posting nonsense that has no merits to debate.

[yesplease]

Yesplease seems only interested in distortion.

The tactics of a troll.

Hardly. I'm only interested in seeing reasonable data and logical insight, w/ a bit of ribbing thrown in the mix. If you feel that's trolling, don't respond to my questions, it's as simple as not feeding the trolls.

[ReducedToZero]

yesplease wrote:
"Clearly, if oil drives GDP, that is to say we cannot have GDP w/o oil, then w/o oil we cannot have GDP. Otoh, if GDP drives oil, w/o oil we can still have GDP since it's composed of many other things besides oil use and is constantly changing. "


What does GDP driving Oil mean?

[yesplease]

Another ad hominem.

Might want to look up that definition. I am not attacking you to avoid the merits of the debate.

An ad hominem attack isn't just about attacking someone to avoid the merits of the debate, it's, strictly speaking, about attacking someone instead of debating with them, in order to change the subject, which is done by default since a personal attack tends not to be on topic, unless of course the topic itself is nothing but a flame war.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

So... When you respond to a claim or question I have by calling me a troll instead of arguing, or producing evidence against the claim, or responding to the question by clarifying what you meant, that's an ad hominem attack, unless of course you're joking around. Any personal attack, unless of course in the Hall of Flames, is off-topic and an ad hominem argument. For example...

"If oil consumption drives GDP then w/o oil we can't have GDP, otoh if GDP drives oil consumption, then w/o oil we can still have GDP."

Farking nonsense from a troll!

Same thing.

Your quote tags are all screwed up. What's the same thing?

You and a troll.

Are both ad hominem attacks since instead of arguing, or producing evidence, or clarifying what you meant, you called me a troll.

You are posting nonsense that has no merits to debate.

Could be, but in order to show that you would need to argue your case in a logical fashion and produce convincing evidence, instead of making ad hominem attacks.