Only if you screw your eyes up and squint really, really hard, BAYGON...

>>Some have asked for Coulter to substantiate his predictions - these are contained in the article - the Club of rome report from 1972 was dismissed as being alarmist - forty years later we find that their projections were accurate<<

If you actually look at the referenced CSIRO report by Dr Turner, he first pretends that the Limits to Growth was not, in actual fact, intended to predict anything at all...

"The World3 model was not intended to be predictive or for making detailed forecasts..."

http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf

...and then proceeds to find "evidence" that supports those predictions that it, apparently, did not make.

The incongruity of this contradiction does not seem to disconcert the author at all. Which is more the behaviour of a politician, than a scientist.

Forbes magazine nailed it beautifully:

"So if we’re not running out of metals and minerals but we are substituting metals and minerals for fossil fuels then the idea that actually, the Club of Rome were quite right looks a bit odd, doesn’t it? In fact, that one assumption obviates everything else that Turner wants to tell us. For he’s just assumed the exact opposite of what we’re all already doing."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/04/09/the-club-of-romes-limits-to-growth-updated-entirely-bizarre/

Limits to Growth remains a highly flawed document. Here Mr Coulter uses it as a platform to promote the pipe dreams of his Sustainable Population Party...

"...a society based on renewable sources living a dynamic steady-state economy"

Apart from the fact that these policies amount to no more than an exhortation to stagnation and universal mud-hut poverty, his entire argument rests on an internal contradiction of embarrassing proportions.

The other trick is to dismiss GDP as an effective measurement tool, and instead utilize hearsay:

"many media commentators seem not to understand that GDP is a very poor measure of human welfare"

... which encourages people like BAYGON to write:

>>...since 1974 our GDP has kept steadily increasing whereas our quality of life has been decreasing<<

Decreasing? Sez who?

John J, what seems ridiculous you, ie all that gas cannot overcome
oil decline, becomes obvious when you look into it in a bit more detail.

First, cracking shale gas requires very large amounts of water.
Can we afford to allow the Great Artesion Basin to be used for cracking ?

The cost of shale oil and gas at the well is a lot greater than conventional oil & gas.
There are a number of articles on http://www.resilience.org/

The main problem is as conventional cheap oil declines it is mixed with
the much more expensive shale and oil sands output at $100+ a barrel.
Even Saudi Arabian conventional oil requires about $80 to $100 a barrel.
Other conventional oil seems to be about $40 a barrel.

I read an article, on which site I cannot remember, that we appear
to be on the verge of unaffordability of oil & its refined product.

Australia's particular problem is that we are closing ALL our refineries.
This means our production of about 400,000 barrels a day will all be
exported.
WE then will import 100% of our petrol & diesel.

We will then be at the mercy of international dealers for even
emergency supply.
Any sort of blow up in the Middle East could mean rationing the next day in Australia.
Remember it is not the US Navy that will resolve such a problem but the insurance companies.

It is true that gas can subsitute for petrol but the cost of
converting the vehicle fleet would be prohibitive, to say nothing of
converting all the service stations.

Whichever way you look at it we really are in a bind and we cannot
rely on politicians to act in any realistic way.

It's a general human failing not to appreciate exponential growth, let alone a political one.

Every time they say that the consumption of a resource has continued to double, it doesn't just imply that we have just used twice as much, it means that we have just used more than the combined total ever used.

There are more people alive on the planet today than the sum total of everybody who has ever lived and died in all of recorded history.

Next time it "doubles" we will have 14 billion squabbling over what remains of the resources we are now wasting be like?

What will being one of 100 billion by the end of the century be like?

Maybe we should just party on now and let those future suckers worry about it!

At least, that's the general attitude today.

Thought I would share this quote with you on oil decline & shale oil;

Current optimism about tight oil production increases is like the crew
of the Titanic bragging about how fast the ship was pumping water out.

So correct..no more wishful thinking and lies from those who base their business model on importing more people ! Ralph

You may wish to check out the BBC's More or Less program from 3 February 2012, wobbles... in which they looked at the 'zombie statistic' claim that, "There are more people alive on the planet today than the sum total of everybody who has ever lived and died in all of recorded history."

The Population Reference Bureau expert's opinion was clear on the difficulties and assumptions involved but concluded that there are probably 15 dead for every person alive.

"Maybe we should just party on now and let those future suckers worry about it!"

Did you mean "those suckers in the future", since I got the impression from your post that 'we' are the ones sucking up their future?