Tiny CO2

In ecology and economics exploitation of a limited resource is usually recognised as following a log-normal distribution.

Human behaviour adds extra uncertainty, but the fundamental pattern remains.

Why do you regard fossil fuels as an exception?

Regularly when I visit you are arguing with somebody and almost never with a warmist. I've stopped posting stuff because it will be buried under a mass of comments by you misinterpreting everyone else. You're a more succesful troll than EM and Raff put together. Whether you intend to insult doesn't negate the fact that you do insult. That 'interesting' sounded like a scientist examining a slime sample under a microscope. You may not have seen the things that others have seen but by dismissing them until we've proved it is tantamount to saying we're lying. And I can defend anyone who I think deserves it.

TinyCo2.
1. golfCharlie wrote about "green myths", it was to that I was responding. I saw no reason to emphasize "green".
2. I did not set out to insult gC, and I'm sure that if I had he/she would have told me so.
3. When did it become your responsibility to protect gC from imagined insults?
4. The impression you gave was that I had lied to you (not insulted). Do you now declare that I haven't?
5. I have never seen a claim that we have reached global peak oil. Claims have always been for the future (although some projected times have come and gone). If you have reference to having already reached global peak oil, I would be interested to learn of it.

The fact that misinformed people might have suggested we have already reached peak oil is not pertinent at BH where presumably all are rational about the subject.

Lastly you flash the troll card without justification so very readily. Trollish behaviour in and of itself?

"How the ignorant misconstrue it is not my concern"

It is when the subject under discussion is myths.

AK, you wrote “gc. Why are peak oil and peak coal green myths? You don't believe there will come a time when the use of coal or oil will reach maxima, beyond which use will irretrievably decline? Interesting.”

At that point you didn’t emphasise ‘green’ but you suggested that gc was dumb enough to think FF wouldn’t some day decline. It was that part that I responded to, as did EM, so I was not alone in interpreting your insult that way.

I then pointed out that there was (past tense with no time stamp) a myth that we’d already reached peak. It has cropped up in various scare stories over the years, sometimes with a green vein sometimes not. At each point reality proved it was a myth and we hadn’t reached peak. I have told you I have seen examples where environmentalists have said that we should swap to renewables because we were at peak FF. Just because other environmentalists don’t think we have reached peak FF doesn’t mean they all think the same way and neither option precludes the possibility those who said we were at peak FF were lying.

Anyone but a troll would have accepted that there were myths surrounding peak fossil fuels, the potential timing and that sometimes they were promoted by the greens. You argue for the sake of it. I'm probably not alone in having partly left this site because of it.

TinyCO2.
BTW. Peak oil has never been about "running out " of a resource. It's about what it says on the tin. How the ignorant misconstrue it is not my concern.

To all that believe that Peak Oil is a busted flush - its credibility forever destroyed by the advent of shale gas and oil, I suggest you 1) consider the experience of Poland (which supposedly had the best shale resources in Europe but no success in converting them to reserves) and 2) the views of Shalebubble.org that should provide a reality check about the hype surrounding the US situation. Shale oil and gas both seem to have reached production peaks in the USA, but whether these are ultimate peaks or not remains to be seen.

I remain a believer in peak oil, but probably not in the sense that TinyCO2 means it - whatever that is.

Tiny CO2. I'm trying desperately hard to work out where I have called anyone a liar*. Perhaps you might enlighten me.

I wonder if you might be confusing greens' views on peak hydrocarbons with their desires to promote such states of affairs by political or economic means - these are very, very different. I can also assure you ii was using the term peak oil and coal in the commonly accepted manner and deliberately not using it in the way it evolved when it began to incorporate concepts such as peak demand.

* perhaps from this you might consider that there was no intention here, but then if you were to accuse me of lying.....

gc, what the specialists know and when it arrives in the MSM are not the same. It takes even longer to filter down to the public and stick. In the meantime a new scare story can trigger the old 'knowledge'. It's only with the advent of fracking in the news that people have started to realise that there are more FFs than originally talked about. Prior to that, renewables and nuclear were pushed as the answer to dwindling fuel supplies. 'Peak x' was widely used to mean something was about to run out entirely. Technical details about viability or new techniques were rarely mentioned.

Supertroll, I forgot about oil running out before 1980. It was no longer a panic. Economics proved that more oil, and now shale gas, could be recovered, if the profit margin was there.

As a Country Bumpkin, I am not wild about oil and gas drilling rigs, but I would prefer to see one out of the window doing something useful, than a windturbine doing nothing useful, but still earning someone taxpayer subsidies.

So you were calling us liars AK. And still deliberately misinterpreting what we've written. Interesting.