Submitted on June 5th, 2009 by Earl Killian (not verified)
Does Mr. Schwartz realize that he contradicts himself in the first 30 seconds, and the rest of his remarks don't prove his assertion?
Did we really stop teaching logic in school before Mr. Schwartz's generation?
Mr. Schwartz is really arguing the date of Peak Oil is later than others suggest, not that it doesn't exist. He cites non-transparent reserve data, an argument that cuts both ways, and so does not help us determine the date. He cites technology, but admits it is costly, something that is part of careful Peak Oil problem statements (i.e. we will see in cheap oil soon). Finally, even technology plus additional reserves is not sufficient to disprove the peak oil hypothesis; he would need to show sufficient reserves and technology to continue increased exponential production of oil in the next decade; it is not clear that case can me made convincingly. It is a shame he did not try, as we might have learned something useful, instead being treated to a rant.
In summary, it is a shame that Mr. Schwartz did not present a better case against the appropriate peak oil problem statement, instead of setting up a false strawman to knock down.
Global premier sponsors include
Lead sponsors/partners include
All sponsors | All partners
an argument full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
Submitted on June 5th, 2009 by Earl Killian (not verified)Does Mr. Schwartz realize that he contradicts himself in the first 30 seconds, and the rest of his remarks don't prove his assertion?
Did we really stop teaching logic in school before Mr. Schwartz's generation?
Mr. Schwartz is really arguing the date of Peak Oil is later than others suggest, not that it doesn't exist. He cites non-transparent reserve data, an argument that cuts both ways, and so does not help us determine the date. He cites technology, but admits it is costly, something that is part of careful Peak Oil problem statements (i.e. we will see in cheap oil soon). Finally, even technology plus additional reserves is not sufficient to disprove the peak oil hypothesis; he would need to show sufficient reserves and technology to continue increased exponential production of oil in the next decade; it is not clear that case can me made convincingly. It is a shame he did not try, as we might have learned something useful, instead being treated to a rant.
In summary, it is a shame that Mr. Schwartz did not present a better case against the appropriate peak oil problem statement, instead of setting up a false strawman to knock down.