Complacency monger exposed.
durable at earthlink.net
Fri Feb 14 09:29:43 MST 2003
>...supposed insights into the scarcity of oil. In 1976, Hubbert
>was proposing 1983-1986 as the peak and falloff date for the production of
>oil. When that period came and went, Hubbert predicted 1995 as the peak and
>falloff date. 1995 went and so did Hubbert (he was dead). His follower, Mr
>Ivanhoe, coordinator of the M. King Hubbert Center at the Colorado School of
>Mines, stuck his neck out, picked up the torch and predicted 2000 as the
>peak/falloff date for oil production. And when that went? 2003. So much
>for the erudition, the scholarliness of the scarcity theorists.
Here's one great reply that got nowhere with David,
>If you accept the fact that oil resources are finite as you do, then the
>question really comes down to how soon? Does it really make any difference
>here if we're talking 5 years or 20 years? If Mark errs on the side of
>being overly-apocolyptic, what of it really? Do we sit on our asses and
>postulate until 11:59 p.m. before the apocolypse? Besides, he clearly has a
>wealth of facts from reliable resources to support his theory. But then,
>like I said, I'm pretty simple minded.
Margaret is far from simple minded. So what if the date is
uncertain. Whether 1, 10 or 100 years we (anyway one defines we)
don't have too long to make a plan.
I for one don't wish to waste time reading or responding to such "challenging"
diversions as provided by David. Yes, David has a lot to contribute. So does
Rush L., but to what, confusion? Some may find complacency mongering
challenging, but for me its just irritating, and not worth any response.
>That it may lend itself to austeritymongers,
>cataclysmists, etc. despite his obvious
Is that a decent thing to say to Mark? We should
all thank Louis for ending the disruptions. What
is a complacency monger?
There is something fishy about this whole thing.
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
More information about the Marxism