So OK, what I don't get is how you can say no more discussions, but then include your own argument "If I were to bet, I would guess that a relatively near peak would be more likely...." ?
Which certainly demands a response, like: What would make you willing to bet on that? Is it a hunch, like betting on a horse based simply on its name? Something I've done, and even won on, but I wouldn't care to base my current or future eating habits on . Or like picking 6 numbers at random and betting $1 that your 1 chance in 126 million will win you $30 million, $15 mill if you elect lump sum, before taxes? Something I've done, but never won on, and which, irrational/rational man that I am, I know is more an expression of defeat, hopelessness than optimisim, hopefulness? The bet is kind of Sabri's trillion dollar challenge-- go ahead gather the money, and then we'll talk. Sabri bets no one will take the bet. I bet with my equally imaginary 1 trillion, that he could never syndicate a loan for $1 trillion even on the "sure thing" of peak oil; that no ones will ever put money towards that 1 trillion dead lock cinch. Those in the betting game have SHORTER, MORE DEMANDING, MORE LIMITED time horizons when they put down their trillion-- which by the way, is one of the reasons hurricanes drive up oil futures in the short run. Take the cash, don't let them pay you in kind. That, the betting based on ill-defined inputs, is kind of the whole basis, and problem with peak oil. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Perelman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2007 3:02 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The 'Bone of Contention' -or- Why no one cares to discuss 'Peak Anything' > No more peak oil here for a while. This discussion is mostly between two people. > Leigh says it will happen right away; David says no, but the discussion is not going > forward. > > I do not have the certainty of either. I know enough about economists' record on > predictions to realize that you should never assign a date to your predictions. > > You can talk about trends, but trends can change. > > As I mentioned before, as long as you accept that the total supply of oil is fixed, > a peak is a mathematical certainty at some time in the indefinite future. We can > google all we want for evidence to support a quick peak or one decades in the > future, but that does not constitute proof. > > If I were to bet, I would guess that a relatively near peak would be more likely, > but like the philosopher, Donald Rumsfeld, I am aware of the possibility of unknown > unknowns. > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu > michaelperelman.wordpress.com >
