PEAK OIL A HOAX
Here’s an excerpt from William Kötke’s summary of the 1972 “Limits To Growth” study:
“The scholars programmed the computers so as to double the estimated resource base, they created a model that assumed “unlimited” resources, pollution controls, increased agricultural productivity and “perfect” birth control. None of these or other aversion strategies could take the world system past 2100.
The reason that the world system cannot go on with unlimited growth is because each of the five factors is interactive. If we assume unlimited fuels such as a simple fusion process, this simply drives the growth curves faster. There is more cheap fuel so the wheels of industry churn faster and resource exhaustion comes more quickly, population continues to climb and pollution climbs. If there is more food production, then population climbs and resources are exhausted more rapidly. If population is stabilized, resources still continue to decline and pollution increases because of increased consumption. If the factors of resources, food, and industrial output grow then population grows but the resulting pollution creates the negative feedback of having to maintain cancer hospitals and institutions for the birth defected and mutations caused by pollution as well as pollution damage to factors such as farm crops.”
So, abiotic oil or not, it doesn’t really matter. Indeed, based on the “Limits to Growth” study it seems that more supplies of cheap energy only hastens the inevitable.
Here’s a discussion about abiotic oil from Ugo Bardi:
And the final paragraph from the article:
So, the abiotic oil theory is irrelevant to the debate about peak oil and it would not be worth discussing were it not for its political aspects. If people start with the intention of demonstrating that the concept of “peak oil” was created by a “Zionist conspiracy” or something like that, anything goes. In this case, however, the debate is no longer a scientific one. Fortunately, as Colin Campbell said, “Oil is ultimately controlled by events in the geological past which are immune to politics.”
In summary, I think so-called abiotic oil is nothing more than a red herring that addresses nothing, solves nothing and only distracts us from the real issues at hand.
I think it is worth mentioning that there is a hoax "theory" out there about anything one could possibly imagine, whether peak oil, global warming, 9/11, evolution, the economic crisis, the Iraq War, the landing on the moon, the holocaust, the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Kennedy, Elvis, UFOs, cornfields … even reality itself (yes, there are plenty of people who think reality itself is a hoax, executed by little green spacealiens or whatever … which would of course render all other "hoaxes" somewhat meaningless I reckon). We are swimming in a seemingly endless sea of information, which makes judgement about anything incredibly difficult to achieve these days. One would need the time and passion to go deep into any one of these issues (and this can take years in some cases) in order to really come to some sound conclusions and be able to argue with any of those hoax theorists … and some have very elaborated arguments, their own data or calculations based on data (some more, some less professional). I personally have a lot to do with numbers and data in my job so I know what I am talking about when I’am saying that one can very often squeeze the information out of data that anybody wants to squeeze out … for whatever purpose. Anybody who isnt an absolute expert in my field will never find out, and those who are would have to spend a lot more time than its worth for them to find out that something is not quite sound with the numbers itself, the methodology or the analysis method (most probably someone with a similar opinion as I have will cite my paper for his own arguments sake and so on … those who disagree wont cite me …). Most of the time its simply too complex and time consuming to find out the tiny details that make the difference. If then anybody comes with his own numbers on the same topic and says exactly the opposite, its still 50/50 and average Joe will have basically no chance to decide what is right and what is wrong. The result is that many (not all) people will listen to the or one of the dominant opinions, whether they represent the truth or not doesnt matter … its more a matter of good or bad advertising and some authority behind it. It all comes down to power. If one has the power and passion (and all its constituent ingredients as e.g. money, authority, incentive, etc …) he will dominate the majority of public opinion or will seed some doubts about established knowledge, the campaign just has to be big enough to cast some doubts about anything. There are many examples within and across societies. I will just pick one for each. Climate change debate has considerably changed in the US over the last ten to fifteen years. While in the late 90s there were 2/3 of the population believing in manmade global warming, by now its almost down to 50/50 (see the gallup surveys). From my own experience I can tell (I have lived for quite some time in muslim countries in the middle east and south asia) that the dominant opinion on the streets and in the countryside is that there has never been a holocaust. So there the hoax is believing in the holocaust. In my homecountry Germany and probably most other western countries its the other way around (I am not judging here! only observing). So the commonly accepted narrative and therewith accepted reality is quite the opposite of each other. What I want to say is that the majority of people will probably not prepare for peak oil or climate change or act upon it, because there are too many powerful actors whose interest it is to delay this debate or simply not take it seriously. The other reason might be the structure of the system itself and that very few would be willing to give up the privileges they have now in a world of abundance or the hope for prosperity (as in the developing world). So there is loads of incentive to look into the other direction. Only when society gets hit really hard by reality, so that it is impossible to ignore the problem, because its so bloody obvious and people start suffering they might start to act (… and even then there will be loads of distraction). But then it will be too late. I personally draw my own conclusions from all this, I prepare (quietly and without drawing too much attention … one becomes easily an outcast when refusing the dominant opinion).
Would like to see the Madrid spain presentation,including the Q&A, made available on DVDs.