Quote from: TheFlemishDuck on November 23, 2019, 12:58:20 AM
Lol what nonsense is this? After you making an unwarrented connecection between socialism and enviromentalism which was easily scrutinised, you know ask me a question that comes from absolutly nowhere. this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, just you who want to stigmatise youre most hated ism's?

Seriously? Look up what the Green New Deal is, it has absolutely nothing to do with the environment! Note the word "Green". Hell, look up the party platform of Green Party.
Guess where the term Green got it's start? Gorbachev's Green Cross movement, which he just so happened to kick off here in San Franfreako.

QuoteLol its not really a byproduct of oil. I guess you can think that because you extract gas from oil i you heat it high enough. That doesn't make it a by product.  Rather it's (mostly) carbon which you can have in various "aggregated conditions". Pretty much all elements on earth can exist in all 3 aggregate conditions (solid, fluid and gas) and the difference simply is temperature. If the earths surface had been several hundred degrees higher then what exists as oil reserves today would actually be gas reserves and we would need to cool the gas to make some sort of oil of it. Yes turning around the process works too though you'd need to add what otherwise get secreted, that wouldn't nessecarily make oil a by product of gas in that case right?

You might call that semantics but in technical terms it's called" knowing what youre talking about". It would be similar to a argument that "water is a product of ice", and "vapor a product of water", it's all water but depending on the temperature it's either solid, a fluid or a gas.

My, the idiocy is strong with this one Obewan.
First you claim it's not a byproduct of oil, then go about explaining how it is.

QuoteI said that "arguably we already hit peak cheap oil"

And I said prove me wrong!

QuoteAlso, typicly the charts for oil price are inflation adjusted aswell.

If you're trying to prove a point, you need a chart that isn't 6 years old.

QuoteNope, i mentioned that consumption would logicly increase over time, but i had to use numbers to make a calculation and for the context of proving that it wouldnt last "10000 years" it was perfectly functional enough to take a consumption rate which was lower than the actual current one and likely lower than the future one as it would only strenghten my point if the argument would have been made that consumption would be higher.

Matters not, they have been claiming "Peak Oil" since the 60s, and every consecutive decade that followed proved said claims wrong, pushing said date even further down the road.

QuoteThats lubrication oil, tottaly irrelevant for this discussion. Were talking about the oil that gets combusted and thereby expended.

No, you mmay have nbeen, I was talking about all oil consumption. Stop with the moving of the goal poost or this discussion ends now!

QuoteBut you argued we'd never need energy alternatives, just oil as there was more than enough to last millenia as you'd claim. In that case consumption would likely be higher now and increase faster, past trends would support that prediction as the logical one by Occam's razor.


Prove it. Well you cant. Youre numbers are nonsense and you have provided nothing to back it up. You made the claim that oil is cheaper than ever which it clearly isn't, and you made the claim that it would last for 10000 years which is just rediculous. ANd yet you just can't admit that this were some pretty stupid claim.

And still, you assume we'll always need oil to burn, when nothing could be further from the truth. Think nuclear. There is no reason we need to burn oil at the rates we've been, when nuclear could cut its use by 80% alone if we decided to finally go that route.
As you pointed out yourself with France. Just imagine if the world moved to nuclear, all those dooms day claims of oil running out would disappear over night.
My point in making the claim of 10 thousand years is based on a reality that nuclear will inevitably occur.
Do you even know why the US is not full on nuclear? It's because the oil companies don't want to ruin a good thing, they love cheap and easily accessible oil, so they've used lobbyists to make certain nuclear costs too much to consider.

Oh, and use the damn spell check, your posts look like a 1st graders spelling test full of red marks.

Is this Belgian science?

Quote from: taxed on November 23, 2019, 05:18:33 PM
Is this Belgian science?

Liberal math...

Quote from: Solar on November 23, 2019, 05:32:29 PM


Liberal math...

I honestly can't fathom how anyone can think we're running out of oil.  It really speaks to how some people are dumb enough to believe anything.

Quote from: taxed on November 23, 2019, 05:55:54 PM
I honestly can't fathom how anyone can think we're running out of oil.  It really speaks to how some people are dumb enough to believe anything.

Well, they brainwashed them into believing man made global warming, that white people are privileged and that Conservatives are the reason for everything wrong with the country.
We have an uphill battle undoing all the lies of Marxists, but we can do it.

Quote from: Solar on November 23, 2019, 06:45:49 PM
Well, they brainwashed them into believing man made global warming, that white people are privileged and that Conservatives are the reason for everything wrong with the country.
We have an uphill battle undoing all the lies of Marxists, but we can do it.

These idiots have no perspective on how big the earth is.  We're not even a hair on a gnat's nutsack to the earth.

Quote from: taxed on November 23, 2019, 05:55:54 PM
I honestly can't fathom how anyone can think we're running out of oil.  It really speaks to how some people are dumb enough to believe anything.

Well, the left says we only have enough to last 46 years, but the left also says we will only last 12 years, ( I think it's down to 11 years now but the left still claims 12.....can the left not subtract), so using the lefts own numbers, we have almost 4x's the oil needed to last until the end times.  We're all good here!

If the end is so near, why does the left even push this argument?

Quote from: taxed on November 23, 2019, 11:38:38 PM
These idiots have no perspective on how big the earth is.  We're not even a hair on a gnat's nutsack to the earth.

No to forget we don't know what future technology will enable us to do. Also, there are untold reserves of our coats that we are not utilizing right now.

Quote from: s3779m on November 24, 2019, 02:20:26 AM
Well, the left says we only have enough to last 46 years, but the left also says we will only last 12 years, ( I think it's down to 11 years now but the left still claims 12.....can the left not subtract), so using the lefts own numbers, we have almost 4x's the oil needed to last until the end times.  We're all good here!

If the end is so near, why does the left even push this argument?

Quote from: supsalemgr on November 24, 2019, 05:15:13 AM
No to forget we don't know what future technology will enable us to do. Also, there are untold reserves of our coats that we are not utilizing right now.

Stop that Sup, this is an emotional issue, an issue that has no room for reality.

That was a point I raised earlier about deep pockets of shale oil. At this moment Ca has a deposit of shale that the State has already blocked, reports state that at current consumption levels it could easily last 10 thousand years.
Ca is so antidevelopmment that they put a halt to any further exploration and ordered the research wells sealed. Even after being told there was no way to tap it at current technology levels.
I've been trying to find info on it, but strangely enough it seems to have been "Disappeared".

Quote from: Solar on November 22, 2019, 06:19:18 PM
Both quotes, I didn't see them anywhere and I know one wasn't from the article.

I did not lift those from quotes. More so this in information I have picked up along the way. But, I can find quotes to support them.

Quote from: ConservativeInCT on November 25, 2019, 05:18:24 AM
I did not lift those from quotes. More so this in information I have picked up along the way. But, I can find quotes to support them.

FWIW, always link to quotes, or in the least explain where they came from, most assume they came from the OP or within the thread.
Validation is important at this forum. Other wise anyone could make up anything and wrap it in quotes.

Quote from: taxed on November 21, 2019, 09:50:37 PM
Imagine if CA started cranking up more nuclear power plants.  Their water and electric problems would be over.

That's truth!

I saw a Fusion plant going online the other day, where was that?

S. Korea?

Quote from: Solar on November 25, 2019, 05:57:15 AM
FWIW, always link to quotes, or in the least explain where they came from, most assume they came from the OP or within the thread.
Validation is important at this forum. Other wise anyone could make up anything and wrap it in quotes.

I will do so for any other information. While I am not new to the forum, I guess I am not immune to error 

Quote from: Solar on November 20, 2019, 06:38:58 PM
Same here, Norcal has three huge dams that supply all of the state, the Bay Area has thousands of wind turbines but they turn off the power when the wind blows?
Oh. and yeah, the power is off again.

My cousin had a solution for that. He bought a WW2 Platoon generator and had it wired into the building. When the power goes out, start the generator and flip a lever.

I suppose a Generac diesel would be OK these days.

The later Army generators had a jet engine to start them?

I know bcuz a friend of mine put one on a jetski. Made it a true jet ski.