On 9/14/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Leigh, this is not real information. To have a reporter say that someone says > something is happening does not always convey anything new. In this case it > did not. > > Can we drop this unless you or anyone else has something new & informative.
"Heinberg says world production of regular crude oil actually peaked in May 2005. He also says production in 33 of the 48 largest oil producing countries is in decline, and that global oil discoveries peaked in 1964." If he has the numbers to prove it (see below for endorsements et al) THAT would be 'informative' (I guess you mean the normative, conform-ative 'informative'...) Then we can stop calling it "Peak Oil" and call it "The End Of The Petrochemical Age" instead... THAT would be new... I think you are trying to shut down the issue because it's contentious, not because there is no new information, there is precious little information being allowed here before one is told theire is nothing new. You knew this?: "The world will produce 118 million barrels of oil a day, up from its current 85 million barrels per day, just to satisfy projected demand by 2030, according to the Energy Information Agency." > >"That's never going to happen," said Richard Heinberg, a research fellow >at the Post Carbon Institute and author of three books on peak oil. It may not be *new information* however, that I would tend to agree with Mr.Heinberg. FWIW, I've always noticed a positive correlation between denial/rationalization of almost ANY issue, and, with some lag, the eventuality. You apparently are saying because we can't mathematically place that point of the 'lag' where our total petroleum supply currently resides on some curve, there is no new information? Am I understanding your point correctly? If that is so: Can you mathematically, with any accuracy, predict anything that has not occurred before? Is that a requirement for 'informative' discussion? It seems a lot of people, from ALL aspects of the petroleum industry, and it's observers, believe a peak has, or will quite shortly occur. This particular gentleman whom I've posted writes policy documentation endorsed by such folks as: <http://www.richardheinberg.com/endorsements/oildepletionprotocol> Lester R. Brown, President, Earth Policy Institute Jerry Mander (gotta love that name...), founder, International Forum on Globalization David Orr, Paul Sears Professor of Environmental Studies at Oberlin College [Is he the 'Ward Churchill' of environmental studies?] Herman E. Daly, Professor, School of Public Policy, University of Maryland (ibid) Chris Skrebowski, Editor of Petroleum Review, ODAC Board Member The Rt. Hon. Edward Schreyer is former Premier of Manitoba, Governor General of Canada, and High Commissioner to Australia and the South Western Pacific AND: Michael Klare, Professor of Peace & World Security Studies, Hampshire College I think the CNN story, if nothing else, presents the issue from a NON-SURVIVALIST perspective. (and at least one person on this list so far has ignorantly and incorrectly correlated 'peak oil' belief with 'survivalists', a nasty, illegitimate smear... has that person considered employment with "the Israel lobby'?). The CNN article is a balanced point of view regarding an EVENTUALITY (sooner... not later, that's what the consensus seems to be.) ...and exactly WHEN will so-called 'progressive' economists see fit to start working on some new energy economics models? Is it 'on the to-do list'? ... or perhaps just wait till some one PAYS them to model it? To teach that model? Enquiring minds want to know...
