PEAK OIL A HOAX

It's hard to say. All information on this could have been easily compromised. Even data that Chris collected and uses in his presentations. It's hard to know what the truth is when we get so many conflicting reports about everything.

A story always has 2 sides, and 1 is a lie. Do your own research as well, and make your own decisions. It's all you really can do. The truth is getting harder to find by the minute.

For instance, hopefully we can pay attention to global warming before we are underwater

 

Mayor oil companies like TOTAL have publicly stated that they have supplied less oil in 2007 than in 2006! Peak oil is about supply, not about demand or price. At this state of affairs nobody can predict how demand will go, and hence nobody can predict how the price will evolve and how many years of supply we have left. But supply has peaked: it is not a theory, it is not hoax, it is a fact!

I would say the possibility of this is virtually nil.  There are many retired oil geologists who worked in the industry for 40-50 years who have looked at the data and agree that peak oil is real and is here now.  These folks have nothing to gain by continuing to mislead the public, as they are retired and no longer drawing paychecks from the oil companies.

Do your own observing. How many oil fields have been abandon in California? In Texas, In Oklahoma? How much oil comes from the fields in Pennsylvania? If those fields were still producing, why would we have drilled offshore for much more expensive oil? I live in New Mexico and when I go up towards Farmington from Albuquerque, I see many pumps standing idle while others nearby are pumping. I see small storage tanks here and there that have no pump anywhere near them. It is apparent that the big oil field up there is shutting down gradually. Ordinary common sense tells you that no oil field can last forever and therefore must have a half life.

 

Why is Mexico exporting less and less oil to us when they are in financial straits? Could it be because they are running out of oil? Chris's stats are easy enough to verify on the web. Why is Canada developing its tar sands if it still has lots of oil to pump in its ordinary oil fields? No business develops more expensive ways to do business unless it has no alternative. Even if there is some oil left in the many fields around, just the fact that more expensive alternatives are being and have been developed tells you that extraction has become so costly that other alternatives offer a better return. If you think that peak oil is a hoax, then go buy yourself a couple of Hummers and celebrate. As for me, I am convinced just on the evidence of my own observations, and I was even before I took the Crash Course.

 

pwoody

The oil is naturally occuring from methane trapped deep below. The only catch is that it requires deep drilling. making it more expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm

There are many retired oil geologists who worked in the industry for 40-50 years who have looked at the data and agree that peak oil is real and is here now.  These folks have nothing to gain by continuing to mislead the public, as they are retired and no longer drawing paychecks from the oil companies.

I wouldn't accuse them of dishonesty or challenge their data. Their problem is that they weren't looking for abiotic oil which has a different geology and is much deeper.

 I really hope it is true, in fact totally true. I have posted on here many times how I detest our total dependence on oil. But considering that Brazil just found a pretty large offshore oil field, and we don't have the technology for ultra deep oil drilling at sea, as well as the fact of undiscovered land based oil, or ultra deep land drilling, Peak Oil may have some arguments.

 

 

Oh, and one more thing. There are thousands of sites on the web that disagree with CO2 being the cause of global warming and that even question if global warming is taking place. I agree with a series of articles I have found that say that the world has been warming about 1/2 degree per century for the past 1200 years and that it is caused by the sun increasing the amount of radiation it is producing and not by CO2. For a disagreement example:

 

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.45

 

I happen to think that Al Gore's inconvenient truth was a ploy to try and get the world working on alternative fuel sources without creating the kind of panic that declaring that the world from here on was going to have to do with less energy. The hope was that by the time the truth was known, the alternatives would be in place. Trouble is they started at least 10 years too late.

 

pwoody

Peak Oil IS a hoax - just like the CO2 scare.

There is oil enough for the whole world and for hundreds of years. For a fuller explanation and in order to start your surfing, go to

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Ge...

 

I would read Chris's own book suggestion 'The Party's Over' for some in depth talk about Peak Oil. We're very near it, if not already there. It may take some time, perhaps a few years before we actually realize it. Bottom line: it's going to get ugly and fast once everyone realizes it.

I find it fascinating that people are ready to disagree with the enormous weight of evidence produced by independent scientists all over the world which supports the reality of both peak oil and climate change because of an article or two they find on the internet.  

On the Six Stages of Awareness that Chris posted a while back, this type of argument is just another form of denial.  I believe that the people who advance these unproven theories (i.e. that CO2 is not responsible for climate change and that peak oil is a myth) are causing serious harm by offering people yet another reason to sit back and do nothing.  That's the last thing we need.

Abiotic oil is a theory that has very little support outside of Russia.  Failing to take action on peak oil because of a belief that oil supply is limitless is analogous to smoking three packs a day because you read a few studies on the internet demonstrating that tobacco isn't carcinogenic. 

Likewise, the vast majority of serious scientists (more than 95%) around the world believe climate change is being accelerated by human activity - specifically, by the release of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere. 

If you wish to disagree with this consensus and the overwhelming amount of evidence behind it, please provide enough legitimate, peer-reviewed evidence to support your claim if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise it's just more internet noise.

 

 

First off, I wholeheartedly agree with the above posting by Switters, so I won't recap any of that.

When someone says that Peak Oil Theory is a hoax I first wonder to myself on what level do they believe that.

For example, are such individuals arguing that spefically we aren't up against PO now in the next decade or so but that it will be ocurring at some point? This kind of argument would posit that only the timing part is the hoax. They may still believe that oil is a biogenic substance of limited reserve. In fact, this is one of the primary soft-peddling approaches I notice regarding PO. Essentially that real PO is so far down the road that humanity will be saved by innnovation and the fact that we are so reliant on it is more or less a moot point (however true it may be). Clearly, one could argue that humans are utterly dependent on air but that there's no air shortage, so our dependence on air isn't necessarily some terrible thing to remedy.

Another rung on the PO-is-a-hoax ladder is that there's some global government/big business conspiracy that focuses on bad data to trick everyone into thinking that there is a supply issue. I won't even bother repudiating this whisper in a hurricane.

Yet another version is the abiotic one advanced in the article that Selinko links to above. The problem with this counterarguemnt is that even if it is true it doesn't solve any of the complementary problems that deepen the fundamental issue of supply. For example, even if oil is abiotic (or if some oil is abiotic) the infrastructure of the oil industry is still in disrepair and in need of hundreds of billions/trillions of dollars of investment. Not to mention the completely new infrastructure of these journey-to-the-center-of-the-Earth rigs that will need to be built/created to reach the abiotic deposits. I love when people say, "It's there but it's really deep." Talk about faith.

This point is absolutely critical. So even if there's abiotic oil in deep reserves that would increase by 100 fold our supplies, there's still a monumental problem of retrieval. We'd still be facing serious supply issues over the next two decades or so. This would also apply to newly discovered supposedly biogenic supplies.

I consider the abiotic position equal to that of creationism.

Further problems with the abiotic position.

1. Just because oil is abiotic doesn't necessarily mean that it's limitless. What if the Earth produces it at a rate slower than our consumption? Supply/demand factors would still be an issue.

2. The abiotic position doesn't address the global warming aspect of oil use. Is the argument really, "Oh, goodie. Oil is abiotic so let's burn all the oil we can get our hands on for the next several decades." 

Very well stated, mainecooncat.  Thanks for elaborating on my rather terse response.

Yet another point I would add to your excellent analysis: even if oil was abiotic, and even if we could design a way to extract it faster than we use it, where will the money and energy come from to build, operate and maintain such machinery? Regardless of what you think about abiotic oil, we are very close to a peak (if not past it) in "conventional" oil production. And since oil is what we'd need to use to build and run the machines to access and process the mythical abiotic oil, this presents a serious problem.

The other rather significant challenge to this plan is the fact that the economy is imploding around us and companies just aren't in the multi-trillion dollar investing mood right now.  There are numerous recovery projects that are much less ambitious than those that would be required to access abiotic oil that have already been stalled due to lack of credit and the low price of oil.  

In short, forget about abiotic oil.  It's a worthless dead-end. 

 

I have serious doubts about many of the crises being advanced today since there is money to be made and fear to generate. Some of those are peak oil, global warming, bird flu, aids tied to hiv, and the ever-popular war on terror. The dissenting voices receive little in the way of hearings. I become especially suspicious once mainstream really picks up the baton as they have with global warming. The effect of these crises is fear and if people are living in fear, it is easy or easier to control them.9/11 had many effects, but primarily this event terrorized the citizens and garnered support for the eternal war on terror.

So who profits from the crises?? Peak oil means shortages (I suspect manipulated shortages) good for control of the commodity and very good for overturning environmental restrictions. Global warming and peak oil kind of go together - now when the price is $3 or $4 or $5 or higher, we should just pay - after all it is in short supply and we are contributing to the warming of the planet for goodness sake. Yep, I am a skeptic. If these situations truly exist, there is little being done to alleviate them by govts. Oh yes, a carbon tax - that would really help. It would be a real cash cow for some. Just as our current financial meltdown is a tremendous opportunity for some to obtain very desired assets for pennies on the dollar. I spent several years studying peak oil and was a true believer - but no longer - I think the data is not there to support peak oil. Why? Because as Matt Simmons says, the data on oil reserves on the globe is not verified - (he does support the theory of PO) . We don't even have sufficient data of the amount of oil in the reserve fields since many countries keep the info from public disclosure. So,is peak oil a reality - Time will tell.Keep in mind, those who don't support this theory will not receive much play in the media.

As always, the question is:  Who Benefits???

If you are interested, here is one video presenting another side on global warming.

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/453.htm...

Switters, where did you get this information? Also it's a logical fallacy to say that because a large number of people believe something to be true, it is true. From my experience it usually is the majority that are wrong and the minority that are right about a given issue.

"Likewise, the vast majority of serious scientists (more than 95%) around the world believe climate change is being accelerated by human activity - specifically, by the release of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere. "

"If you wish to disagree with this consensus and the overwhelming amount of evidence behind it, please provide enough legitimate, peer-reviewed evidence to support your claim if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise it's just more internet noise."

Here's a couple days worth of info for you to look through. BTW there is no such thing as a scientific concensus.

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Popular_Technology/index.php?showtopic=2050

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus..."
- Michael Crichton, A.B. Anthropology, M.D. Harvard

Peak Oil and Man Made Global Warming are two completely different things, oil is a finite resource that if continued to be used  will run out some day, hence Peak Oil at some point in time is a fact. I have seen much more evidence that the Sun is responsible for the temperture on the Earth than I have that man is responsible, take away the Sun and the Earth is a block of ice.

Some perspective...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/07/some-planetary-perspective/

First, I did not claim that because the majority believes something, it is therefore true.  In fact I maintain a blog dedicated to challenging mainstream myths on nutrition, health and disease so I am quite familiar with "the tyranny of the majority".  

I did say that if there is an abundance of solid peer-reviewed evidence supporting a particular theory, this evidence must be discredited or new conflicting evidence must be presented and reviewed in order for another theory to be taken seriously.

For example, it has long believed that eating cholesterol raises cholesterol levels in the blood.  As it turns out, that's not true. But in order to prove that, I first must point out the flaws in the evidence supporting the cholesterol theory, and then present evidence which contradicts it.

The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) states:

Note that the phrase "very likely" used above reflects a probability of more than 90%.  In this context, the term "scientific consensus" represents the position generally agreed upon at a given time by most scientists specialized in a given field.  It doesn't mean that the position is definitive, or that all scientists are unanimous.  It means that a group of scientists looked at the same data and arrived at the same conclusion.

The data of the IPCC has been verified and reproduced by countless independent organizations around the world.  Perhaps it may turn out that they were all wrong.  But as of yet I have not seen enough data to disprove their conclusion. I will look at the link you sent me and see if that changes my mind.

The fact that some companies and groups stand to gain from peak oil and climate change is not evidence that they are conspiracies.  

I recognize the difference between peak oil and climate change as theories.  Someone earlier in the thread said "peak oil is a hoax, just like the idea that CO2 is responsible for warming."  I was addressing both claims.

 

 

John Michael Greer, author of The Long Descent, just published an excellent post on his blog called "Arguments from Ignorance".  I think it is relevant to this discussion.  Here's an excerpt:

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2...

Read the entire post here: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2008/10/arguments-from-ignorance.html 

hewittr wrote "The oil is naturally occuring from methane trapped deep below. The only catch is that it requires deep drilling. making it more expensive."

Sorry, but this is chemical nonsense....  you can turn oil into gas, but you can't turn gas into oil!  Gas IS oil that has been 'cracked' because of the greater depth and heat.  Gas always occurs deeper than oil.  Therefore at great depths it is not possible for oil to be generated.  Simple chemistry.

EVEN IF abiotic oil was being created from the bowels of the Earth, it's plain to see from the production numbers that the Earth cannot keep up with our voracious demand! 

To say Peak Oil is a hoax simply flies in the face of the data and the facts.  We are consuming the stuff at five times the rate it is being found, and accelerating.

Get over it.

Mike. 

Oh, and one more thing. There are thousands of sites on the web that disagree with CO2 being the cause of global warming.

So what?  The web's full of bullshit too.....  you need a bullshit filter!

Mike 

mc wrote: "If these situations truly exist, there is little being done to alleviate them by govts."

And why is this so?  Maybe it's because there is NOTHING that can be done about it.  Now THAT is the truly scary part....

We'll just all have to adapt, just like we have....  and I sure am not looking back, my life's improved out of sight!!!

 http://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/

 

The sad thing about Peak Oil denial is that the people that refuse to accept or undertake the required investigation into the peak oil problem are robbing themselves of the limited time left in which to prepare for the imminent and worsening problems associated with energy decent.

 Sure, you can prepare for a recession or a depression however if you understand and accept peak oil then you will know that you have to prepare for a new way of living rather than a temporary situation which most associate with recessions and depressions.

This current crises was triggered by peak oil.  In 2005 the global production rate of oil started a plateau which has hovered around the same production rate till this date.  Whilst at the same time the global economy was growing and wanted more oil. Thus supply did not meet demand and the price tripled very quickly.  The first section of the global society to feel the pinch (in the 1st world anyway) were the subprime mortgagees whom where already doing it tough and then oil prices tripled which raised the price of everything so these subprime mortgagees defaulted enmass.

The global economic system was always going to fail just like building a house of cards however it turned out that liquid energy was the trigger/tipping point.  If it wasnt oil it would likely be phosphorous or someother peaked out limited resourse!

By understanding peak oil, we can realise that what "we" are doing is fundamentally unsustainable and so we should use our intellegence to choose a lifestyle and economic system that does not rely on growth but TRUE sustainability.

However, without getting too deep into what "we" should do, first we have to survive the coming "transition period".

 Good luck all.

 

 

 MiK

"Morpheus: You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. (a red pill is shown in his other hand) You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."

 

I'd like to add that Peak Oil is not a problem.... it is the solution to all of our other problems!

For example, I dont think our politicians would have ever agreed to reduce carbon emissions to the degree that they are likely going to be reduced due to the financial collapse of the global economy.  Sure it isnt a total collapse YET however if oil production rates are anywhere near the 9.1% the IEA have recently suggested there will be a total collapse.

 Also, forests, fisheries etc are likely to be spared as the costs of processing timber and chasing fish with trawlers becomes too great due to costs of liquid energy (oil).

 Peak Oil is probably one of the best things that could have happened for mother earth.  It will allow her to begin the process of healing the damage we have caused.  Peak oil is bad news for human civilisation as we know it however in the long run I believe the world will be a better, more local and happy place.  At least it could be if we learn from our mistakes.

 

Mik

 

"Morpheus: You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. (a red pill is shown in his other hand) You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes." 

There is indeed enough oil to meet our needs for hundreds of years.

But sadly, Peak Oil has nothing to do with how much oil there is in the world, ie the reserves, they just tell you when the oil will run out.

Peak oil is not about oil running out.

Anybody that uses the reserves as a reason why peak oil won't happen doesn't understand peak oil.

Peak oil is about the flow rates of oil that is affordable to consume and profitable to produce when used as a source of energy. Not all the oil in the world meets these exacting criteria so in reality our needs will have to shrink not grow.

Peak oil is not an energy problem, it is primarily a transport problem for the ~10% of the world's population that uses cars and aeroplanes as an integral part of their daily lives. It is an especially big problem for countries that import most of their oil.

I think MMGW (man made global warming) is a propaganda tool to get people to conserve energy which is a good idea but could be done by higher energy costs too. Here's some of the main reasons why I don't believe in MMGW.

Have you noticed that your local weather man can't even get it right for three days much less what's going to happen ten years from now?

People don't seem to remember that it's "Global Warming", just because your town has a record hot day does not mean the whole globe is hotter too.

To get an accurate global average temperture there would have to be thousands of properly located (not affected by other sources) weather stations  around the globe that don't just take the high and low temperture of the day but an average taken at consectutive intervals for the day. This is not being done. This is the first thing that needs to be done to make sure we are not just chasing our collective tails.

C02 increases lags temperture increases, so how does this indicate that C02 causes temperture increases.

The Sun is a million times bigger than the Earth and no one can deny it is the source of heat energy to the Earth, so any small increase or decrease in it's output would have an effect on the Earths global temperture.

Water vapor affects the greenhouse mechanism much more than C02 but I have seen no data to suggest an increase in the amount of water vapor.    

 

 

10,000 scientists would disagree with you.

"10,000 scientists would disagree with you."

 10,000 scientists on the Global Warming dole would I'm sure

 BTW- That is not an argument, 10,000,000 Germans voted for Hitler, does that make right?

Of course not.  As Anatole France said, even if 50 million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean that the conclusion reached by 10,000 scientists from around the world looking at the same data can be easily dismissed by a few comments on internet forums.  Show me the data that conclusively disproves the theory that climate change has been accelerated by humans.  I haven't seen it. 

Switters, I guess you didn't like the website I directed you to, or the peer reviewed articles located there.

Don't get me wrong, I think people should conserve and not be wasteful, but like I said in an earlier post, you have to take accurate measurements worldwide before you can fix something that might not be broken, and that has not been done yet.

Also, how do you account for the large number of scientists that do not believe that it's a problem?

MOSCOW, October 29 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will decrease its oil production by
1-1.5% next year, the vice president of LUKoil, Russia's independent oil
producer, said Wednesday.

"Next year knowing in view of companies' plans, production will decline 1-1.5%,"
Leonid Fedun told a UBS conference in Moscow.

Fedun also said Russia could join the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting
Countries.

"Cooperation has started between Russia and OPEC. Maybe we are even talking
about Russia joining OPEC. LUKoil and Rosneft heads are due to take part in the
next OPEC session in December," he said.

Fedun said LUKoil believes capital investment by Russian companies needs to
reach $100 billion annually for Russia to maintain its current levels of oil
production.

The Russian Energy Ministry forecasts in 2008 oil production in Russia will drop
1 million tons, or 0.3-0.4% to 490 million tons against last year.

Earlier Fedun said that LUKoil planned to increase oil production by 1.5% with
gas output rising by 3-4% in 2009.

However, Fedun said that the global financial crisis could force the company to
cut investment in 2009 which would affect its drilling program and plans to
modernize oil refineries.
http://en.rian.ru/business/20081029/118019151.html

You're using the same style of argument you just (rightfully) criticized in your previous post.  The fact that there are a large number of scientists who don't think it's a problem doesn't prove anything.  A lot of scientists at one time thought the world was flat.  They were wrong.

I do appreciate the link you sent me, and will go through it.  However, it will take some time as it's a lot of information.

 

  BTW- That is not an argument, 10,000,000 Germans voted for Hitler, does that make right?

And how many voted for Bush...?

There's no accounting for stupidity, I'll grant you that, but I'll bet virtually not one of those scientists would have voted for either Hitler or Bush..... 

 I was showing that there are many scientists who disagree too, hardly the same argument, if everyone agreed about MMGW then I would be on their side unless I had some piece of information that could prove them wrong.I have read a great deal about it on both sides and my choice is to be skeptical, I ,like Chris can change my mind if the evidence warrants it.

 

"There's no accounting for stupidity, I'll grant you that, but I'll bet virtually not one of those scientists would have voted for either Hitler or Bush..... "

Maybe Obama? I think he will turn out at least as bad as Bush. BTW- I voted Libertarian, wasted my vote ;-) 

You do realise that most of the scientists who are skeptics are NOT climate scientists.  One of the most famous skeptic (whose name escapes me right now but is all over you tube) is a geologist.  HIS particular reasoning I have seen totally pulled apart by someone who has far better credentials at climate science....

 Questioning peak oil does not equate to stupidity it equates to questioning the theory of peak oil. We just do not have the data to know at this point - in my opinion. I am not going to base my life style on unlimited and cheap oil - I use about 2 gallons per week, but I think the manipulations of economies, commodities, war, terrorism, etc. is real and scams abound. It is very sensible to question any of the so-called crises especially without adequate knowledge.

This from How Stuff Works:  "Eventually, we will run out of oil. It takes at least 10 million years, specific geological processes and a mass extinction of dinosaurs and other ancient creatures to create crude oil -- making it the definition of a nonrenewable resource. But it's impossible to tell exactly when we will run out of oil, since we can't look into the Earth's mantle to see just how much is left. - (outside sources do not audit individual countries to verify reserve oil data)

...Pulling the last drop of oil on Earth from the ground may be a long way off by anyone's measure. There are a variety of oil sources that have been discovered and are not yet being exploited. There are also a number of undiscovered sources of oil that experts assume exist. A much more pressing concern is this: Will we continue to have enough oil?..."

And we do not have enough information from our fellow humans on what is or is not contained in oil reserves. So, the comparisons to "flat-earthers" is a bit premature. This is not a freakin religion - or I did not think it was. It is a theory and the data is not in yet no matter what the grand archdruid says. I have doubts that PO has been reached - and I suspect there may be enough oil and certain ptb know this. Again inmo.

So, opinions may differ - that is all that can be said.

 

 

And your comment is not the truth, it's not a lie, it's an opinion.

That's the problem, too many opinion's and not enough truth!

That's another cloud over our society. The fact that none of us can get to any truth's easily, or if at all. It can be manipulated, reversed and modified in any way fit to serve someones agenda.

And that is the only real truth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sigh. 

Once again, peak oil has nothing to do with how much oil is actually left in the ground.  It simply the point at which we are no longer able to produce as much as we were before.  When we reach that point (if we haven't already), there will still be billions upon billions of oil in the ground.  Nobody disputes that.  The point it that it gradually becomes more and more difficult and expensive to extract that remaining oil, and thus production and supply begin an irreversible decline.

Here's an excerpt from a recent article by Tom Whipple published on The Energy Bulletin:

Always keep in mind the basic proposition of peak oil that the world is still burning oil at the rate of 31 billion barrels a year. Seventy five million barrels a day are coming from currently producing fields that with each passing year will produce anywhere from 4 to 8 percent less oil. It is simple arithmetic to show that with current production declining, fewer new oil producing projects under construction, and major declines in demand a dubious proposition, shortages are in the offing. Thanks to the worsening economic situation the effects of declining oil production - much higher prices and shortages - look to be even closer and more severe than before the financial crisis emerged. Falling prices at the gas pumps are only a temporary distraction: the real troubles are getting closer all the time. 

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47049  

In a world of declining investment in exploration, fewer new projects under construction, old oil rigs in disrepair, decreases in production and increases in worldwide demand peak oil is as much an economic problem as a resource problem.  

But make no mistake - it's a problem.  A big one. 

 

Excuse me for intruding into someone else's arguments, but anyone who can stand to be disabused of the notion that the relatively stable climate of the past few centuries is normal should look no further than the June 3, 1999 issue of Science and read the article on findings from the Antarctic ice cores. In the last 400,000 years we have experienced major ice ages and interglacial warm periods, such as the present. It has been both much colder and much warmer in the past. CO2 rises during the warm periods and falls during the ice ages. Its rise trails, rather than leads, the temperature increases. Forget opinions, look at the historical climate records.

This doesn't prove that more CO2 might not warm the earth, but with the CO2 absorption bands in the infrared already near saturation it isn't likely to do much in a direct way. It is the possible feedback mechanisms that might have serious consequences, but they are not understood well enough to afford any credibility to any of the present general circulation models for earth climate. One disaster at a time here. MMGW gets plenty of play elsewhere.

 

I am a qualified Environmental Health Officer with a Bachellor of Science in Environmental Health and I have spent the past 2 years + trying to disprove Peak Oil and all I have managed to do is convince myself of just how much trouble we are in.   Why spend so long trying to disprove something?  Because if it is true it destroys not only my dreams and future I had planned but everyone's around me including my family and friends, in other words I wanted it to be not true.  Instead of simply wishing it away I thought I would disprove it with evidence however the evidence overwhelmingly supported the peak oilers, unfortunately.

If Peak Oil is what is claimed (and proven) then of course the natural instinct for all of us is to be skeptical when we first find out.  Being skeptical of things is good however when something is so important to your future such as understanding Peak Oil you really should investigate with an open mind.  If it is true, and you discover this with e