Armchair critic - if you want me to take you seriously try to calm down and get control of your emotions and language. I answered you with respect last time, honestly attempting to back every one of my claims with credible links. I suggest a reciprocal approach or you will sound like just another Dogma-Driven-Denier - congratulating each other on your latest insults for peer-reviewed science when you should all be ashamed of the petty little echo-chamber you’ve created here.
"You'd be dead in a fortnight if it wasn't for fossil fuels you dimwit."

Don't tell your grandpa how to suck eggs. I've published in magazines on the fundamental importance of fossil fuels in our food system, and indeed tried to explain the Haber Bosch process to *you*. You were the one just *denying* it – or does your memory not stretch back that far? Inconsistent much?

It's precisely *because* I get the importance of oil to food security and our way of life that I want us to wean off it slowly over the next few decades - before the stuff peaks and becomes economically impossible to obtain! This can happen *fast* - way before peak oil is the real problem. The "Export Land Model" shows how fast producers can become importers. It’s not that the oil runs out, but that the international supply of it dries up.

To sum up I’ll leave you with a few points from the 2007 Australian Senate Committee into peak oil:-
“Exactly when it occurs (which is very uncertain) is not the important point. In view of the enormous changes that will be needed to move to a less oil dependent future, Australia should be planning for it now…
…Initiating a mitigation crash program 20 years before peaking appears to offer the possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast period.”

You support Russia? Why am I bothering with you then?

Just down in Sydney for a week, judging by the number of cars on the roads,
Paul1405,
And, I suppose you walked all the way because you didn't want to support those oil merchants ?

[Cont.]
"There are tens or hundreds of billions in stranded assets and super investments out there."

You're so much at war against fossil fuels you don't like the idea that 1 cent might be benefiting an industry you oppose.

- Your opinion is biased.

"Instead, why didn’t Australia tax fossil fuels in their heyday and create a constitutionally protected sovereign wealth fund for all future generations?"

Your talking out of both sides of your mouth.
You don't want the fossil fuel industry supported, but you do want to take the money from it to pay for the things you want.

Maybe you should support banning superannuation.
The job of superannuation funds is to create returns for their clients, and with gas 4 to 10 times the price it was before Europe shot itself in both feet, I'd say people who are invested in those sectors are probably doing quite well.

And as for your hatred of non-democratic 'regimes'
- Just the loss of coal and other exports to China could've probably paid for all the things on your climate-change wish list.

Go clean out the baked beans from between your ears and get back to me when you start thinking sensibly.
As a result of your climate religion you're demonstrating some really poor leaps of logic.

Speaking of which, you complain about the term climate-religion...
- But your kind of people really are no different to many religious people.
All you've done by way of your beliefs is lose all sense of yourself and tied your brain into knots.
(Sorry Josephus, any insult to you or the other religious people here is unintended)

I never denied the Haber Bosch process, if you believe I did, then show me.
I said I don't understand how you conflate that as meaning it takes 10 units of input to produce 1 unit of output.
Tell me how does a 10kg dog shite 6.5 tonnes a year?

And yes I could tone down my emotions a little, but what attitude do you really expect from me when you are advocating through your climate religion that we all eat lab-grown crap?

You may not realise you're doing it, but you are insulting me just as much as you believe I'm insulting you.

Forced to choose, I'd rather cop all the abuse under the sun, than be forced to eat any of that crap, and don't forget that people of your ilk are just as responsible for increasing the cost of my fuel and electricity bills,

i.e helping yourselves to the money in my wallet.

Tell me Max, who is insulting who?

"You support Russia? Why am I bothering with you then?"

Yes, that's right.
I don't support sanctions as it's collective punishment on entire nations, and I don't support liberal interventions - US overthrows.

And that's what caused this mess.
I blame the West, and I'm sorry that you cannot comprehend my reasoning.

I don't try to cancel you because you want me to eat frankenslop do I?
Your 'cancel' idealogy is childish and you should grow up.

'Deniers'; 'Spreaders of Russian propaganda';
It's all the same BS.

Also, I understand you're probably running low on daily replies
- So I won't in any way be offended if you don't respond,
You will need to also respond to others, so use them wisely.

Thanks for raising the issue of electric trucks and for the discussion.

"as far as I can remember he was talking about conventional oil because at the time that was the only oil in consideration."

Ahhh, that's rather the point. When the doomsayers claimed we were going to run out of oil, the more enlightened opined that as then-current oil resources became more difficult to get at, human ingenuity would find alternatives. They knew this to be true because it had happened so often in the past. The optimistic view was ridiculed by the doomsayers who asserted that no such additional resources existed or would ever exist.

Then when the fracking revolution occurred the doomsayers, rather than admit error, invented the 'conventional oil' claims. The optimists said new resources would be found. The doomsayers said they weren't wrong because no one could have known that new resources would be found.

T'was always thus. From Malthus all the way through the Club of Rome, Hubbert, Ehrlich and a host of other doomsaying futurists. They like AGW catastrophists have been consistently wrong , and always for the same reason.

" I'm not bothered by your response enough to go and read his original paper"

Excellent idea....ignorance is bliss.

Yes mhaze the Max Greens of this world have to be very careful what they read. The facts would destroy the whole basis of their ideology.