Max, is this how you conduct your daily life?
Are you really this shallow?
I am on a journey of conversation and debate, and more often than not find myself hijacked into a spur line topic of conversation, but even though I use some of the most colourful language (Australian) here, I am always front and centre, if the topic calls me.
If not you will find, unlike you, I do not comment on so many topics for whatever reason, mostly I don't care or am not familiar or conversant with the article in question.
You on the other hand, well I don't know what to make of you.
Your rhetoric and demeanor exhibit a somewhat irrational and petulant mind, which is incapable of having a rational conversation.
I don't mind as long as I know the devil I'm dealing with, I can adjust my comments accordingly to accommodate you.
What I can't/wont do is attempt an adult conversation with someone with the mental acumen of a pre-pubescent on drugs.
Thank you for giving me your position and stance on my attempt at responding to your comments.
I will refrain from directing my comments to you directly should I feel the need to respond to anything you may say.
I will in fact make it a broadcast comment, for everyone else to read, thereby sparing you the mental and emotional anguish of attempting to string more than two words together, as I understand how painful it must be for someone with your level of intellect and social standing.

President Eisenhower. January 17, 1961.

"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex." " ... we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger, that public policy itself could become captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Since all of the modern world's infrastructure is based upon fossil fuels, a scientific and technological elite are saying that the world must give it all up or very bad things are going to happen, very soon. The scientific and technological elite who comprise the Climate Industrial Complex, want to completely up end the western world in order to redistribute the world's wealth and create global equality. Where have I heard that one before, comrades?

Interview with Dr Ottmar Endenhofer, IPCC, co-chair of working group 3, November 13, 2010,

"We (UN-IPCC) redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy..... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..."

The New York times writes that earth's population needs to panic.

"Panic might seem counterproductive, but in the case of climate change, we are at a point where alarmism and catastrophic thinking are valuable. The looming catastrophe demands a global response, now.

The Washington Post. 2019 "AOC claims the world will end in 12 years unless we do something now."

So, unless the western world does not panic and completely destroy itself by adopting an impossible Quixotic dream of a modern society without fossil fuels, and redistributes it's wealth, right now, we are all gunna die in 12 years,

President Trump has tweeted that global warming is "fake science". He withdrew funding for renewable energy and withdrew the USA from the Paris accord. No wonder the left who represents the elites hates Trump with such a passion it will do anything to get rid of him. I agree with Dr Endenhofer, this has little to do with the environment. It is simply a tactic to panic the public into accepting Socialism 2

LEGO,
Cortez cares about HIGW, and unfortunately wasn't watching her sound-bytes. The 12 years isn't how long till the world ends, but how long we have at currently increasing rates of fossil fuel consumption (on a best PROBABILITY modality MHAZE!) before we commit to 1.5 degrees.

Even 2 degrees of warming isn't the end of the world, that we know of anyway. IF we have our Climate Sensitivity right. Check this summary from the UN, which outlines just how much worse 2 degrees will be over 1.5 degrees. What a difference half a degree makes!

http://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/statement/2018-10-08/statement-secretary-general-ipcc-special-report-global-warming-15-%C2%BAc

But here's the thing. I'm very mindful of the fact that Climate Sensitivity has such a dangerous range in forecasts. Their most probable scenarios give us 12 years, but we could already be committed to 2 or 3 degrees if the models are too 'right skewed' as NASA put it. We might already be over the "legal limit", so to speak. (I often use the blood alcohol legal limit to explain CO2 to people who have tiny brains and think a tiny percent of something can't have a powerful effect. But just as being 0.05% or 500 ppm blood alcohol can be deadly, so too with climate change.)

Max,

Just a few more points for you and then I'll leave you in peace.

1. Using Wikipedia on issues such as this is insane. Read about how William Connelly bastardised Wikipedia on all things climate to understand that you just can't trust Wikipedia on this at all. For example they include the word conventional in your quote to try to vindicate Hubbert. But he didn't include 'conventional' in his prediction because there was basically nothing but conventional at the time.

2. He was wrong. He said US oil production would peak in 1970. But right now the US is producing more oil than in 1970. And next year more again. and more again.

3. He was wrong about the world peaking in 2006.

4. He utterly failed to have the imagination to understand that as prices for oil rose, the incentive to look for more oil and use better technology would increase. Others, like Julian Simon, knew and explained why the peak oilers were wrong. Simon was right. Hubbert and all those who fell for his doomsaying were utterly wrong. That's why they now need to use weaselly words like to 'conventional' to try to hide their error.

5. Based on current known reserves, the world has over 500 years worth of oil still accessible even at projected higher demand. Based on estimated reserves it has 2000 yrs left.

/cont

/cont
6. But only those who have no understanding of history or economics think we'll be still using oil to fuel the economy by then. Oil will probably be an historic curiosity before the end of this century. Replaced by who knows what. 100 years ago there was no solar, wind, wave or nuclear power. Imagine the next 100 years. (well not you, but someone who can think outside the box).

7. "So your assertion that we’ve “never run out of a resource” is just retarded." So you say, but I note that you can't give an example of a resource we've ever run out of. You see Max, what seems to be too hard for you to understand is that human ingenuity outpaces resources. Sure, if we just keep using oil for the next 1000 years, it'll run out. But long before then we'll be using something else. Always been thus. I fail to understand why that's too hard for the dullards to understand. Someone once said..."The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones, and the oil age won't end because we run out of oil".

8. " They’re NOT regenerating!" Well many scientists think they are. I'm agnostic on that. Check out Abiogenic petroleum.

Finally Max, I note that you are trying very hard to ignore my taunts about your claimed expertise in peak oil. Just making up claims of expertise to support a failing argument puts you in the same league as the moronic Mr O. Until you withdraw I will continue to taunt you about it.

Mhaze,
I agree that one must always check sources on wikipedia but it’s a good introduction. You made assertions about M K Hubbert’s 1956 speech that showed you were not even familiar with the wiki. I stand my my quote from the wiki and his original 1956 speech. I also think that if you're gong to state something about it, maybe you quote from the original source document to prove your assertions?

I stand by the quote I offered above and this new one also from his speech, discussing AFTER peak oil.

>>“This does not necessarily imply that the United States or other parts of the industrial world will soon become destitute of liquid and gaseous fuels, because these can be produced from other fossil fuels which occur in much greater abundance.”
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-03-08/nuclear-energy-and-fossil-fuels/

Again, 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

I know it’s complex, but there’s more to this story than just ‘oil’. There’s different kinds. Just rinsing and repeating your original assertion DOES NOT remove what has come to light by investigating the actual speech!

Continued later…