Even if one doesn't accept peak oil or man made climate change as dangerous realities that require major change in the way we live, I believe other dangerous tensions in social and economic realms are ample evidence in themselves that major change is needed - that the way we live is way out of kilter. Perhaps that belief stems from my holistic perspective on reality.

So having established that I agree with the thrust of your article (although not the plug for nuclear until disposal is solved), I want to focus on your central point - "It's pure defensive reaction against something they simply can’t stand to think about!". If that is the case, changing peoples' minds is not in the first instance about education but about addressing the fears that cause them to shut down.

I think many people are scared of losing what they have invested in - their home, their job, their lifestyle.

We should recognise and address those fears, especially when we know that when China and India come on board, resource and energy levels are bound to skyrocket. Wealth and jobs will have to be shared around much more equitably, so our wellbeing will not be able to depend on resources, energy and competition as has been the case since at least industrialisation.

It would be optimistic in the extreme to think that technology will save us by providing our consumer lifestyle for everyone on the planet.

We should respectfully face the fears people have first of all, then promote carefully thought through ways that we can all enjoy a good life.

In the interest of identifying the fears so we might then find solutions I have seeded some ideas on a public space where anyone can add to and vote. The address is http://www.allourideas.org/forclimateskeptics
Regards
Chris Baulman
@landrights4all

Sam Powrie

As Spindoc says and as Sir Vidor should know but apparently does not, peak oil was recently declared dead by Citibank oil analysts a couple of weeks back, thanks to recent changes in the technology for extracting shale oil.. Now the declaration has been kicked around quite a bit, and is by no means uncontested, but your learned analysis should really start from that point, rather than a doubtful (albeit interesting) anthropological analogy.

If you think Citibank is wrong very well, what are your counter arguments? If you think the extensive debate over oil reserves to date is lacking in some way what improvements would you suggest? If you can think of some alterantive to the market mechanism that would not make things worse then what would you recommend?

Please bear in mind that the original peak oil concept was never intended to apply to the total oil supply, only to easy-lift oil (the stuff in the big reservoirs), and even in that its application is very doubtful.

The Hubbert curve has also been kicked around quite a bit but with exactly one arguable success to its name, its only used by a few devotees these days..

Sir Vivor: "The worst of them pay millions of dollars to undermine the work of climate scientists and others who understand and model and carefully argue the subtleties of energy and materials flows in a finite world."

You do realise, I hope, that the sole 'incriminating' Heartland document has been exposed as a clumsy fake?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/20/the-heartland-institute-sends-legal-notices-to-publishers-of-faked-and-stolen-documents/

Hasbeen and Spindoc I see you are not only deniers of man-made global warming but also (not surprisingly) of peak oil. Why are you such passionate aplogists for the fossil fuel industry? Do you have connections with them? Or is it just that you can't envisage a world without that magic energy supply we've all prown up with? OK the changes we will have to make distress me too but we still have to bite the bullet and start making them!

Deniers can always find some 'facts' to support their arguments, but so can the scientific mainstream so I won't leave your assertions unanswered.

Try reading the January 26, 2010 issue of 'Nature', which is a reputable, peer reviewed intenational science journal. It will show you not only that not only are have we been 'bumping along a peak' of oil production for several years, production is inelastic in relation to price i.e. higher prices not longer mean higher production.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481433a.html.

To see the graph you'll have to get hold of a copy of the magazine or
or go to the ASPO website: www.ASPO-Australia.org.au

PS Who the hell is Gary Hunt? A Web reference please?

Protestations in the mainstream media that we need not worry about a peak in the rate of world oil production anytime soon are suddenly coming fast and furious.

I am reminded of Gandhi "First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they attack you. Then you win."

So, it appears that we are now in stage three of a four-stage process.

The main problem was that the media was simply ignoring the issue. It just didn't fit any category which the vast majority of reporters recognised. That was followed by a period of ridicule from oil industry representatives, economists, and a few writers on blogs, like this site, but almost no one in the mainstream media.

Now we have come to the point where there are open attacks in the mainstream media. There have been attacks before, mostly in specialised sites and blogs on the Internet. Now, we have the equivalent of that with the publication of a major piece in 'Nature', a respected scientific journal, but one that mere mortals are able to read.

The piece in question has the reactionary forces in full attack mode. Far from being discouraged by the rash of peak oil denunciations in the media lately, I am invigorated by it. I am now on offense; detractors are on defence.

The opposition has to explain why oil production has been flat since 2005 despite high prices and the twisted logic and demonstrably false assertions most of you offer will provide ever better opportunities to trump you again and again.

I suggest you all read our Federal Government’s recently leaked (BITRE 117) report which (optimistically) calculated peak oil around 2017, followed by permanent decline. Interestingly there was no reference to this report in the draft of the Energy White Paper which was released in late 2011.

Geoff your Gandhi quote is right on for the global warming fraud, & this is becoming more obvious by the day. The shrillness of their death throws are deafening.

Roses I have a very close connection to the fuel industry. It happens every time I fill a car, tractor or pump with fuel which is costing me more each time I do.

This is not because of any shortage, but because people like you have given governments like ours, yes the sort you like, an excuse to rip me off, each time I need fuel. Do they pay you well for this service? They sure pay their scientific lap dogs well.

Useful idiots do more damage to their fellow man, than any other class of people, particularly the sort who quote from once great, but now doubtful & dying sources. I include Nature & the ABC very high in such groupings. The Guardian doesn't make it up that high.