"Hubbert ACCURATELY predicted the peak of CONVENTIONAL oil production in 1956...."

Well no he didn't. He predicted peak oil production. Only later, when it became obvious to even the dullest of the peak oil cultist that they were wrong, did they start talking about convention oil.

Those who said the peak oilers were wrong said that new sources of oil or new techniques for extraction would be found as the price of oil rose. The peak oilers said that was rubbish. Then later, when it became obvious that peak oil was wrong, the peak oilers started saying we were only wrong because we didn't know that new sources of oil or new techniques for extraction would be found as the price of oil rose.

Its fairly common among cultists and carpet-baggers that, when their predictions become laughably wrong, they retrospectively change the nature of their prediction. Their prediction became about conventional oil only after their prediction about oil was shown to be wrong.

Well not just wrong....laughably, pathetically wrong.

Michael Manne and his 'team" proved his own "hockey stick" graph wrong? As they sang on "Dad's Army", "Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Green?" According to Plimer, Manne originally refused to even co operate with the Canadian scientists who wished to check his facts and methodology. He slapped a lawsuit on Mark Steyn when Steyn called the "hockey stick" a "fraud", which it obviously was. The IPCC dropped it like a hot potato once it realised that too many people had figured out it was self evidently wrong.

But on the grounds of no publicity is bad publicity, the IPCC had the satisfaction of knowing that western governments had used this graph to frighten their own electorates into submitting to more government regulations and more taxes. The graph was also used in school textbooks in Canada to brainwash children into accepting the left's new religion.

Now you are telling me that it has been resurrected by a new bunch of scientists who are using other methods to get the same hockey stick? ? That would not surprise me at all. The hockey stick graph was so successful as HIGW propaganda that the left will do anything to bring it back. I will bet that the graph that Wiki used to claim that the Little Ice Age was no big deal is in fact the graph you are mentioning? I would opine that the HIGW cultists will get as much mileage out of it as they can again, until somebody did what they demanded of Manne, hand over the facts and methodology for examination.

To summarise so far.

1. Q. Is the climate changing? A. Yes, the climate has always changed.
2. Q. Did man play a part? A. Probably a small part.
3. Q. Is it a crisis? A. Possibly, but nobody knows.
4. Q. Can anything we do now make any significant difference? A. No. all we are doing is wasting money and hurting poor people.
5. Who is profiting from this scare? A. All of the people promoting it.

LEGO
>1. Q. Is the climate changing? A. Yes, the climate has always changed.
True and false. Yes the climate has always changed in both big and little ways — the earth formed, high volcanism lead to super-greenhouses (that killed a lot of life), continents moved, asteroids struck causing nuclear winter, etc. But then human beings arrived about 200k years ago and have been beaten about by ice ages. Then a stable period arrived 10k ago, and we've been enjoying it ever since.
Until now, when we started to wreck it.

>2. Q. Did man play a part? A. Probably a small part.
All the other forcings in answer to Q1 above are pretty well understood and negligible. Only CO2 is driving this warming. See IPCC and thousands of peer-reviewed reports AND EVERY NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE ON THE PLANET!

>3. Q. Is it a crisis? A. Possibly, but nobody knows.
Definitely, as the climatologists have presented the possible changes to economists and it's bad for agriculture, geopolitical stability, etc.

>4. Q. Can anything we do now make any significant difference? A. No.

Crap! We can do what the French ALREADY did and have a big build out of clean emission free nuclear power, electrify transport, and convert larger vehicles to synthetic fuels. (We will have to do this anyway when fossil fuels run out, so the best time to start is now.)

>all we are doing is wasting money and hurting poor people.
Crap! Stern & Garnaut & countless climate papers show that the interface of global warming and economies always hurts the poor.

>5. Who is profiting from this scare? A. All of the people promoting it.
A grade bullsh$t! Fossil fuel companies earn $10 TRILLION a year and get $500 BILLION in kickbacks. They don't want this pesky scientific thing called 'climate change' hurting their budgets, so they con people like you and Altrav into doing their dirty work and spreading misinformation online. Koch even fund Deniers going into churches and retirement villages

MHAZE,
I’m happy to grant that technology has vastly improved access to deep sea oil reserves that were probably not even on Marian King Hubbert’s radar when he presented his 1956 paper, AND that non-conventional shale oils will stretch the peak WELL past the CONVENTIONAL CRUDE OIL PEAK of 2006.

But dude, again I have to ask, did you EVEN READ THE BASIC WIKI?

“1956, Hubbert correctly predicted that production of oil from conventional sources would peak in the continental United States around 1965–1970.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

While his famous talk touched on all the fossil fuel resources at some point or other, when talking about CRUDE he meant CRUDE!
“Crude Oil and Natural Gas.— The comparable data for world crude-oil reserves are presented in Figure 15. Here the distinction must be borne in mind between crude oil or petroleum and total “liquid hydrocarbons” or “petroleum liquids •” In. the early stages of the petroleum industry, the usable products were crude oil and natural gas, and most petroleum statistics still pertain to those two products. During recent decades, however, due to improved technology there has been an increasing yield of the so-called “natural-gas liquids” obtained as a by-product of natural gas. Statistics on total petroleum liquids, or liquid hydrocarbons, comprise both crude oil and natural-gas liquids. Since the production curves here considered are of crude oil only, then the pertinent reserve data must also be limited to crude oil.”
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-03-08/nuclear-energy-and-fossil-fuels/
Figure 21 is American CRUDE production in 1970, which was SPOT ON! Graphs here.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080527233843/http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf

So MHaze you’re “not just wrong....laughably, pathetically wrong.”

AND even YOUR link above shows EXACTLY WHAT I SAID that production might increase for the next “generation” (or as I said, 20 or so years). Then what? What happens to non-recyclable mineral resources?

Bell curve. Peak.

So your assertion that we’ve “never run out of a resource” is just retarded. Easily accessible crude has already peaked. Dirtier non-conventional shale oils and tar sands will also. They’re NOT regenerating!

Again, you’re “not just wrong....laughably, pathetically wrong.”

But uranium from seawater can last billions of years.

Max, still you push your version of things.
Picking at random, some of your fictional comments.
You denounce the fact that many of us have asserted that we have NEVER run out of a resource, and fossil fuel is just another.
I did not know we have run out of oil, good bad or otherwise.
Oil, not shale or heavy or bunker or light crude; OIL!
It's frustrating having discussions with the like of yourself and your running mates.
I will accept your objection to LEGO'S comment about never running out of oil, when, we run out of OIL!
Until then just keep it to yourself because we haven't yet.
Q1; LEGO's answer was correct, no one asked for an explanation in a vane attempt at debunking this question.
The answer was NO! End of.
Q2; The answer is, If they did it is insignificant. No-one can prove anything because there has never been accurate and CREDITABLE stats and figures on what went on from the beginning of time.
We do however know that the planet has seen much worse and more catastrophic times, which render today's understanding of times past to be of little use.
Q3; Definitely NOT! Anyone saying otherwise is either a YES man or are gaining something from it.
Q4; The answer is clearly NO! There is NO major apocalypse about to happen, ANYWHERE, anytime soon.
So scaremongering works on fools like yourself and Co, and that's why we have to continually rebut your stupid childish subjective opinions on this topic, instead of looking into them, and reading between the lines, asking the hard questions, then and only then will you learn the truth, and not continually quote references to people of like mind in a sad and mad attempt at winning an argument at ALL cost.
Here's some related info, you WILL learn something from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMF9aMI-9ek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTXdhTwO320

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzLFZBb-n5U

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEBeF_Rz1MU

There are more, but I didn't want to over tax your brain too soon in the long road to detox and re-education

ALTRAV, I've kinda stopped reading your posts ever since you started back-slapping your Denialist girlfriends in here, and then trying to engage me with various trite little attempts. You remind me of a hyperactive kid waving his arms around yelling "Look at me! Look at me! I can do grown up words too!" Please stop smooching LEGO, it's embarrassing. Just don't try, this is way over your head.