3 ms·

I can't help but feel the views of the author are carefully crafted to support the agenda of lobbyists and pro fossil fuel groups. The logic is really quite wea

I can't help but feel the views of the author are carefully crafted to support the agenda of lobbyists and pro fossil fuel groups. The logic is really quite weak and doesn't support the current situation. The author also posted articles that are anti-vax. A comment left on this blog post: Interesting that we think we can substitute millions of years of natures energy (fossil fuels) with a few techno gimmicks; solar wind, nuclear. Similarly we think we can substitute millions of years of immune system natural evolution with a techno gimmick; mRNA injections. Both are woke ideas from the asleep who rule over us. The author responded Good way of putting the problem.

pxi 5y ago
Yeah these people are no better than Guy McPherson. Let's all give up and become mars. I say we fight like Zelenskyy and try to solve the climate crisis.
cribbles 5y ago
As the original submitter, I will one-up your ad hominem by pointing out that the blogger was an enthusiastic booster of peak oil theory in the mid-00s (as one might infer from the domain name). I don’t endorse her analysis, but I nevertheless found the data compelling and was interested to hear others’ perspectives.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  Isn't that an obvious red flag? Given the hundreds of years of oil reserves available in the oil sands, peak oil theory is complete bunk now, and only slightly less obviously so 20 years ago.
  - invalidname 5y ago
    The theory didn't say we'd run out of oil. It said we'd run out of "cheap" oil that's easy to get to. Sands are harder to extract oil from at an affordable cost. They only became financially viable as the cost of oil rose. Technology improved in drilling and exploration so the theory is less relevant today. Still the current cost of oil (due to politics mostly) is pretty much that.
    - bryanlarsen 5y ago
      That's not at all what the theory said, that's just pure goalpost shifting to the point of uselessness. Tar sands are profitable with $50 oil.
      - invalidname 5y ago
        I guess you're younger than I am. I recall reading the articles about how the world will collapse with $40 oil...

pxi 5y ago

Yeah these people are no better than Guy McPherson. Let's all give up and become mars. I say we fight like Zelenskyy and try to solve the climate crisis.

cribbles 5y ago

As the original submitter, I will one-up your ad hominem by pointing out that the blogger was an enthusiastic booster of peak oil theory in the mid-00s (as one might infer from the domain name). I don’t endorse her analysis, but I nevertheless found the data compelling and was interested to hear others’ perspectives.

bryanlarsen 5y ago
Isn't that an obvious red flag? Given the hundreds of years of oil reserves available in the oil sands, peak oil theory is complete bunk now, and only slightly less obviously so 20 years ago.
- invalidname 5y ago
  The theory didn't say we'd run out of oil. It said we'd run out of "cheap" oil that's easy to get to. Sands are harder to extract oil from at an affordable cost. They only became financially viable as the cost of oil rose. Technology improved in drilling and exploration so the theory is less relevant today. Still the current cost of oil (due to politics mostly) is pretty much that.
  - bryanlarsen 5y ago
    That's not at all what the theory said, that's just pure goalpost shifting to the point of uselessness. Tar sands are profitable with $50 oil.
    - invalidname 5y ago
      I guess you're younger than I am. I recall reading the articles about how the world will collapse with $40 oil...