MHAZE,
Also check Figure 20 — Ultimate WORLD CRUDE oil production. He predicted 2000 and the IEA said CRUDE peaked in 2006. Not all categories — just crude. These days the IEA predict a mid 2020’s peak for ALL categories. http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/IEA-Peak-Oil-Demand-Is-Less-Than-A-Decade-Away.html#

I haven’t bothered following the data around the actual date of peak oil for years — my activist days in 2005 helped culminate in the Federal Senate peak oil enquiry which had a number of key findings. No, I’m not a geologist. I have repeatedly said I’m not a scientist but only have an Advanced Diploma in Social Science! All I did was READ about it obsessively for a number of years. I published one print magazine article and ran a group that ran a few presentations to State politicians a while back. (I’m being ambiguous on purpose.)

Having read so much about it I found your inflammatory assertion that we’ll NEVER RUN OUT of oil just made me wince — and so very tired. And yet you contradict yourself by being agnostic about Abiogenic oil? It’s one or the other.

Meanwhile, we’ll just continue to build out an oil based civilisation and transport system while you make up your mind on whether or not this resource is renewable, shall we?

It’s troublesome to me that there are smart people like you out there that are so intentionally stubborn and unwise in their worldviews.

But I don’t care about the actual date of the peak. What I care about is the vision of the long decline the other side, never again able to meet demand. What will that bring? Add nationalism and geography to the mix! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model

Meanwhile, I’m not a peak oil doomer — I saw that cause a suicide. I met the father. I HATE it!

But I’m a realist. One day we WILL run out, but with HUMAN INGENUITY (on this we agree!) we can substitute oil with nuclear power and do some things differently. We can build New Urban communities that are more walkable, intimate and attractive, we can electrify transport, use synfuels, etc.

To ALTRAV

To hot button your links, take the "s" out of "https" after you cut and paste the address.

Hi Max.

Another reason why global warming is losing support from the public is because it is yet another cause advanced by the loony left. Even the Gaian Goddess Greta and her mother and father have been photographed wearing ANTIFA T-shirts. It is a funny old world when the privileged sons and daughters of the middle class want to overthrow the free market democracies they all want to live in, and replace it with some Brave New World of a carbon free regurgitated Socialism. A Socialism which failed in every county that ever had the collective stupidity to adopt it.

But unfortunately for you and your latte sipping, chardonnay sucking, public servant friends doing unproductive non jobs in the public service, the tax paying peasants are revolting. From the yellow vests of France, to the farmers in Holland, to the Brexiteers, to the deplorables in the USA, and the miners who gave Bob Brown and his caravan of trendies two fingers full of righteous indignation in Queensland, the left has lost the working class.

HIGW is not just another cause that the left uses to destroy the western world that they despise, but want to live in. Increasingly, it is being seen as THE defining cause of the loony left. The more the loonies super glue themselves to roadways, disrupt meetings and shout down speakers, and generally act like the fascist little bustards they really are, the more they are undermining public support for their central, cherished ideal of HIGW.

The western world is turning right, Max, away from you and your comrades cherished ideals. The left has done it's best to destroy Europe and so right wing parties are in the ascendant in Europe everywhere. Because Europeans can see with their own eyes how leftist policies on immigration and open borders has destroyed their peaceful communities and wrecked their economies, and they won't let the loonies do more damage with HIGW.

LEGO,

First, reality isn’t democratic, is it? So even if we were all really dumbass Deniers, the number of people that believe something doesn’t make it true.

Second, the number of people qualified to comment mostly agree. There are a few dumbasses that are just cantankerous old men and women, but most agree.

Third, most scientific ORGANISATIONS agree. The peer-reviewed process operates on strict empirical guidelines. The truth will out! Every National Academy of Science on the planet, etc. They all agree!

Fourth, where the heck do you get the idea we are losing support? That’s about as dumb and uninformed as denying HIGW in the first place!

“Compared with a decade ago, more Americans today say protecting the environment and dealing with global climate change should be top priorities for the president and Congress.”
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/19/how-americans-see-climate-change-in-5-charts/

“Two-thirds of Americans believe climate change is either a crisis or a serious problem, with a majority wanting immediate action to address global heating and its damaging consequences, major new polling has found.”
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/sep/15/americans-climate-change-crisis-cbs-poll

“We’ve been doing nationally representative surveys of over 1,000 Americans twice a year for more than a decade. We’ve found that the United States is now at an all-time record high in terms of people accepting that climate change is real and that it’s caused by human beings. Worry levels are at an all-time high, and public support for many policies are at or near highs.”
http://hbr.org/2020/01/what-do-people-really-believe-about-climate-change

A majority of Americans think action needs to be taken right now to address climate change. Most consider it at least to be a serious problem — including more than a quarter who say it is a crisis.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-poll-most-americans-say-climate-change-should-be-addressed-now-2019-09-15/

Fifth, I’ve seen plenty of free market solutions proposed for climate change and a few that just say we should do what the French did and just Nationalise the ELECTRICITY SECTOR and roll out the nukes. But that's it! That's one sector, hardly a command economy in everything. What’s your evidence that climate science has a secret Socialist agenda? Because I'm really bored now. You need to put up or shut up.

Max, maybe you'll listen to first hand experts, and not second hand anecdotal graphs.
Try these videos, they have real experts telling us the real truth about CC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZdm-w6FmHo

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

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

I have others, but I don't need any more convincing about the truth surrounding this CC fraud.
And as for this continual bombardment of having to "do something about CC", NO WE DON'T!
We just need to get on with our lives and ignore all this, as it is a distraction caused by people who only have their own interests at heart, not ours.

To Max.

I find it ironic that you claim that just because the majority of people believe in something, does not make it true. Then claim that the polls maintain that the majority of people believe in HIGW.

If climate change was so important to most people, why did Shorten, with his "50% renewables", lose the Australian election? I would opine that the shrill support for HIGW comes from two demographics, the urban elites plus our brainwashed youth, and has little support outside of those two demographics. If the middle classes and upper classes took HIGW seriously, then why have not coastal real estate prices all over the planet plummeted?

Second, I disagree that all of science is behind HIGW. The world's tiny community of paleoclimatiscists may mostly be behind it (Tim Ball is not), But the number of "sceptic" vids on Youtube just keeps growing, and the presenters are physicists, astrophysicists, historians, and geologists.

Third. If peer review was so accurate, how was it that even your own side is admitting that there were significant errors in Michael Manne's infamous and iconic "hockey sick" graph? According to Plimer, the NAS claimed that "peer review" of Manne's work was the problem. They noted that the Paleoclimatic science discipline is very small and they all know each other. Having people from only a small peer group "rigorously" review their own mates work on a subject they all have a vested interest in, involving government policy, and spending trillions of dollars, should hardly be recommended.

Fourth, I get the idea that your side is losing support because the number of sceptic sites on youtube is growing fast. Even five years ago, there were no more than a half dozen and now every time I research, I keep finding a lot of new ones. One that I found only today, was of noted author and once prominent HIGW advocate Michael Crighton (Jurassic Park) , saying that he no longer believed that CO2 was the primary problem in global warming.

Perhaps you would like to listen to what he says?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0&t=385s

LEGO,
>I find it ironic that you claim that just because the majority of people believe in something, does not make it true. Then claim that the polls maintain that the majority of people believe in HIGW.

It’s sad that you cannot see how both my statements above are complementary, not contradictory. It only takes a small group of scientists to discover a new fact about the universe and overturn generations of thought, so majority opinion does not equal truth. Yet it is ALSO a fact that with something as complex as climate change most people are not qualified to decide themselves and should be humble enough to be guided by the majority peer-reviewed scientific process.

Tim Ball is a cantankerous old geologist who loves to sell his books. His claims are just sad and have been repeatedly debunked by climate experts who know better.

What to DO about it can be very controversial as well, but just because mad people come along and hitch their wagons to a movement does not make the science itself invalid.

Because there were no nuclear parties in the last election I kinda lost interest. I understand Labor lost because they were perceived as walking in on another’s turf in Queensland and threatening jobs, when here in NSW Berejilkian is being retarded and opening more coal mines that total more than Adani!

If we go nuclear, retraining and even relocation should be offered to all coal workers put out of work. But that’s a comment on the “doing”, on the climate policy - not the validity of the original science.
“Our side” is the science, the actual legit science, not the quacks like Tim Ball. “Our side” has been growing, see links above.

FINALLY, I REPEAT!
What’s your evidence that climate science has a secret Socialist agenda? Because I'm really bored now. You need to put up or shut up.