[Loki]

I thought this rant on Grist.com was pretty right on, at least when it comes to the credibility (or lack thereof) of some of the peak oil blogosphere's most vocal spokenuts. Of course he ignores saner voices like Deffeyes, Heinberg, et al. But the guy's got a point.

Where do you think PO.com fits in this? My impression is that most of the fast collapsers (imminent die off, Olduvai Gorge, etc.) and assorted conspiracy nuts have moved on, and the slow collapsers have come to dominate the board. Still fringe, and still crazy as hell, but slightly less so

Peak oil failed as a public movement because those entrusted with spreading the message were spouting nonsense.

Matt Savinar's page was the number one peak oil site. He is indeed an astrologer, and he advocated people stocking up on dried food for TEOTWAWKI.

Ruppert, a self-professed expert on peak oil whose claptrap was widely disseminated in that appallingly inaccurate movie "The End of Suburbia," really did write a book about peak oil being the motive for his wacky conspiracy theory that Dick Cheney staged the 911 attacks.

Robert Hirsch of the famous (or rather infamous) Hirsch report, with its stentorian tones about "mitigation," really did predict 500-dollar a barrel oil before a nationwide TV audience, just before oil prices crashed in '08. He's also a climate change denier. Read his latest book if you don't believe me.

"Archdruid" James Greer really did tell a radio audience that peak oil would cause those who are currently kept alive with medications to die from lack of such medicines.

Peak oil "rock star" Matt Simmons really did bet that oil would reach 200 dollars by the end of 2010 (he lost), and he really did lose his mind on national television, saying that there was an "open hole" in the floor of the Gulf of Mexico and that the whole Gulf coast would have to be evacuated.

This all has nothing to do with the "timing" of peak oil. It has to do with the whole lot of peak oil soothsayers becoming something of a freak show.

http://www.grist.org/oil/2011-09-18-ame ... g-together

[efarmer]

I remember when certain mortality failed to catch on as a public movement. The problem is that
the true believers, who had the proof, were all dead an unable to convince the skeptics that
mortality was for real. Then a few prominent people got really sick but did not die, and then
the whole mortality movement began to fall apart. I still believe in certain mortality for most
people, but I also am convinced I am an exception to the trend, and by writing this post I am
in no small way proving it. Movements are like that, I even know some of the folks from the
certain mortality movement who got caught posting they were dead when they probably were
not and got banned by the mods (the ones still living of course) and moved on to www.peakoil.com.

Peak Oil is so old school, have you heard about the Minimum Oil Movement yet?

EF

[ralfy]

Thanks! I think this is the correct link:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-En ... 2-802.html

He refers to Hirsch, Simmons, and others, but doesn't mention the U.S. military, the German military, the IEA, Lloyd's of London, and many other organizations--military, banking, government--that have issued similar warnings.

Also, I understand his optimistic views of the future, i.e., we won't have cars and malls, but we can still shop, watch movies, etc., from home using the Internet and other means. But our problems exceed that of peak oil:

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2 ... ed-economy

That is, we only have around 670 million cars worldwide, and likely most human beings aren't part of the middle class. At the same time, even such technology and the manufacturing process needed to produce goods that will allow people to shop online if not have such goods delivered will likely negate any savings made from not using passenger vehicles.

Finally, in general, one will probably need the equivalent of around four global hectares in order to have a "wired" lifestyle coupled with some JIT and some localization. But the biocapacity of the planet probably cannot handle even that, esp. for the current average consumption rate and global population. Meanwhile, that population will still increase, environmental damage and even climate change will take their toll, and the current chronic economic crisis will lead to more destabilization, including more social unrest, currency and trade wars, and likely even leading to resource wars.

[Bruce_S]

I thought this rant on Grist.com was pretty right on, at least when it comes to the credibility (or lack thereof) of some of the peak oil blogosphere's most vocal spokenuts. Of course he ignores saner voices like Deffeyes, Heinberg, et al. But the guy's got a point.

Where do you think PO.com fits in this? My impression is that most of the fast collapsers (imminent die off, Olduvai Gorge, etc.) and assorted conspiracy nuts have moved on, and the slow collapsers have come to dominate the board. Still fringe, and still crazy as hell, but slightly less so

This all has nothing to do with the "timing" of peak oil. It has to do with the whole lot of peak oil soothsayers becoming something of a freak show.

Didn't mom warn us that we would be judged by the company we keep? Maybe mom was right, and this article seems to back it up.

[Duende]

If HItler stood there and said 2 + 2 = 4, it is true regardless of the fact that it's a maniacal dictator saying it.
-or-
"If a person believes x (which seems really nutty) and they also believe y (which seems equally nutty), then x invalidates y (or vice versa)." Of course this sort of thinking doesn't stand up to strict logic, but when do people ever employ logic?

Loki wrote:

I thought this rant on Grist.com was pretty right on, at least when it comes to the credibility (or lack thereof) of some of the peak oil blogosphere's most vocal spokenuts.

It has to do with the whole lot of peak oil soothsayers becoming something of a freak show.

This issue of credibility (or 'incredibility' as the case may be) for many people is an important consideration that is not easily dismissed. Maybe I'm just more open-minded than many other people, I don't know. I can look past some of the stuff I don't happen to agree with and cut right down to the meat of the matter.

Loki wrote:

Where do you think PO.com fits in this?

I tend to agree with your brief analysis. The world could go to hell in a handbasket tomorrow for sure, but it's looking increasingly doubtful that it would do so as a direct consequence of catastrophically sudden peak oil. I could be wrong about that (I hope I'm not).

I think that the long peak oil plateau has changed the story from what it was over the past 10 years or so. Many of the doomers were unable to adapt to a more complex and nuanced explanation of what the hell's going on. Some guys, like Greer for instance, stay fleet-footed in constructing a cohesive narrative out of the latest trends and events. His latest book "The Wealth of Nature" ties together peak oil with the current and ongoing monetary collapse in a compelling way to my mind. But in spite of this, I hesitate to recommend his books to friends and coworkers because of the other projects he has going on - Druidism, etc. And that's kinda unfortunate.

[Bruce_S]

Cheap shots. Pointless. Tired old saws that add nothing to the debate.
Ruppert's a wacko. Greer's a wacko. Simmonn's a wacko. Savinar makes money

What does Bendzela bring to the debate?

Peak oil wasn't supposed to STAY a debate. That is part of the problem, "Man debates, nature acts" remember that one? The "nature acting" part was the cool part, which allowed people like Ruppert and Savinar to get involved in the first place, each trumpeting different scenarios in a game of "who can make up the most ridiculous story to attract the most attention" like some childish peeing for distance contest.

And peak oil as an idea got covered in urine.

[MD]

"Peak Oil" did get highjacked by the fringe element. The "real" peak oil is as much an economic phenomena as it is geologic.

Economic in the sense that we will stop using oil the way we used to simply because of the associated investment and extraction costs.

Demand will shrink and therefore global production will fall.

The very term "Peak Oil" helped determine the causes fate. It innately presumes "we are running out."

[eastbay]

"Peak Oil" did get highjacked by the fringe element. The "real" peak oil is as much an economic phenomena as it is geologic.

Economic in the sense that we will stop using oil the way we used to simply because of the associated investment and extraction costs.

Demand will shrink and therefore global production will fall.

The very term "Peak Oil" helped determine the causes fate. It innately presumes "we are running out."

Painting the entire peak oil movement with the crooked brushstrokes of a few outspoken idiosyncratics will create a highly distorted picture of not only the movement itself, but the dire depletion scenario as well.

Look instead to the numerous, well-researched works of the sane and one will get a crystal-clear image of our common disaster. The world ... humanity ... is most definitely running out of oil. Those speaking otherwise are painting a false and dangerous, fantasy image of our future.

[Plantagenet]

Its not just the wacky "leaders"----the entire Peak Oil story has gotten very muddled since the price peak of $148/bbl in 2008.

Peak OIl theory predicts that oil will get expensive and high energy prices will hurt economic growth. Just as predicted, oil prices took off and got very expensive after production stalled at a plateau in 2005 and the world has been in recession since 2008, but even peak oil supporters can't agree whether or not the current high oil price and global recession is caused by peak oil.

When even people in the peak oil movement can't agree whether or not the current global situation is caused by peak oil, you can't really expect the media or the general public to "get it" or care about it.

[Bruce_S]

Economic in the sense that we will stop using oil the way we used to simply because of the associated investment and extraction costs.

Work in progress as we speak. Don't need it, don't want to use it, can certainly avoid using it, and there must be thousands of businesses out there making investments on the same type of feeling. Let the Chinese have it, them building out infrastructure based on expensive fossil fuel inputs while the US cures the problem for the developed world is a win-win.

The very term "Peak Oil" helped determine the causes fate. It innately presumes "we are running out."

An unfortunate thing, because it certainly isn't about running out. Also unfortunate that the real issues got hijacked by the Prophets in their rush to prophet/sell/attract attention.

[Windmills]

I think most of the old vanguard proponents missed the mark by assuming a sharp peak whose movement would would be dominated by conventional oil. The peak itself may also not be the defining moment of transition. I'll hold my nose while I say it, but Yergin was right about the plateau. I think the trouble will start when we run out of $100 oil, $110 oil, $120 oil, $130 oil, and $140 oil. If the breaking point of the global economy is $150 and there are no oil substitute less expensive on which to fall back, we have fully collided with the problem of peak oil. We will not be able to afford what is being produced, and there will be nothing less expensive. There will be no alternatives, no choices. That's when the pain sets in. I think part of the question is now "how much more sub-$150 oil is there left?" assuming we can adapt to prices up in that range. We might also want to consider the proportion of cheap and expensive oil in the mix. That might have some impact on the timing of the troubles to come. The closer the global oil mix becomes to be dominated by expensive oil, the more pain we'll have from that issue, too.

[Plantagenet]

If you gradually raise the temperature of water, you can cook a frog because he never figures out the temperature of the water is rising.

If you gradually raise the price of oil, you can crash the world's economy and most people will never figure out the basic problem is that the price of energy is going up.

[Pops]

I found a lot to agree with, the criticism is completely valid. Didn't we talk about this when it was first published?

We all know that the "peak demand" argument is fake, a distinction without a difference. When extraction peaks, demand peaks by definition. We taste the spoonful of sugar, but the pill still goes down like a chocolate-covered Valium. Fahey and his source, Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), recast the very terms of "peak oil" in their own image. They articulate these refurbished terms as foregone conclusions, and they do so with confidence, not with apocalyptic fervor. Their argument is a Winner.

The end of growth--which peakers have spoken about for so long now that it is something of a cliché --is spun not as our punishment for failing to prepare for peak oil but as our reward for increased fuel efficiency standards, ethanol mandates, and less driving due to demographic shifts, such as the aging of the Baby Boomers.

I'm pretty sure the author posted here for many years and he's certainly no apologist for big oil or denier of PO or all talk when it comes to actually doing something about PO - if he's who I suspect. But he is exactly right that the Overnight Armageddonists like Kuntsler who have a new Slate-Wiper Warning every couple of months do no good for public awareness of peak oil - they could probably make the theory the sun will rise tomorrow look shaky and vaguely exploitive.

But, sensationalism sells papers and books and blogs. How many of the more measured PO "pundits" get their face on the tube? Gail Tverberg for example couches her "predictions" in "ifs" "mights" & "coulds" without any hysteria and she doesn't get any press - good or bad. Not much there for sensationalist media consumers so not much for sensationalist press. ASPO-USA is having a coffee klatch this week and I sure didn't see anything about it on the Evening News, those guys are pretty low-key so no "Tabloid" headlines to be found there.

I talked to the producer for CNN that did the PO story a couple of years ago. She listened to me talk about PO for 45 minutes, I'll give her credit for that, but what she really wanted was to come and tape my "compound" because the story wasn't about PO really, it was about wacky PO "survivalists". Their idea was not to inform but entertain.

But in the end, it's normalcy bias, not book writers looking for a buck that killed the "movement" such as it is. The world oil price this year will average over $100/bbl (with US unleaded tied to Brent not WTI) and instead of the MSM saying "Oh crap, cheap oil is over!" they say "Oh Yea! We're saved by expensive oil!" - exactly as the author said; that's the winner.

Lots of people have said over time that oil is so interwoven into our lives that it will be hard to tease out what is correlated and what isn't. Of course laying the blame for every ill at the door of PO is as harmful as "ALLCAPPING" TEOTWAWKI is Nigh! Or arguing "Peak Demand" is a good thing instead of the result of "Demand Destruction" instigated by the inability to pay. The oil companies even have an ad campaign right now about how great it is that oil prices are high because all the money they syphon from other consumption somehow benefits the economy more when "they" spend it. It must be working because that is the new argument made here lately: "High oil prices are Good and we should be grateful to the oil companies for channeling all those wasted dollars to Houston."


Really, there's not much difference between Simmons predicting oil at $200 and Yergin predicting $30. The difference is that people want to believe Yergin when he says everything is fine, I'm sure when he writes another book explaining more about peak demand and how all those people who used to have jobs are actually much happier now with all their free time, people will believe that too.

[Arthur75]

thought it was Obama?

lol, otherwise one thing for sure that can be said about the "peak oil movement", is that it isn't at all a movement, in the sense that no policies (besides homesteading and survivalism) is put forward, like puting a directly redistributed high volume based tax on fossile fuel for instance ...