The Magical Thinking of a Peak Oil Skeptic

by: Heather on 08/26/2009
Posted in: Peak Oil

What absolute rubbish. I can't believe that drivel such as Michael Lynch's ‘Peak Oil' Is a Waste of Energy is still being given credence anywhere. It may only be an Op-Ed piece, but if I were the New York Times I would be embarrassed to feature such shoddy "research" and arrogant dismissal of climate science anywhere in my pages. Here's a sample:

Like many Malthusian beliefs, peak oil theory has been promoted by a motivated group of scientists and laymen who base their conclusions on poor analyses of data and misinterpretations of technical material.

Actually, Peak Oil is based on the irrefutable fact that oil resources are finite and declining.

How about:

A careful examination of the facts shows that most arguments about peak oil are based on anecdotal information, vague references and ignorance of how the oil industry goes about finding fields and extracting petroleum.

Yes, well perhaps you'd like to explain that to M. King Hubbert, who first introduced us to the view from Hubbert's Peak in the 1950's, and whose model has been consistently shown to be basically accurate in the five decades since he proposed it.

Happily Mr. Lynch's arguments are well and truly dissected and thoroughly discredited in the comments - which are the one section of the article well worth your time.

Now that I've got that off my chest, here are some of my favourite titles on adapting to a Post-Peak world. Click on the cover images to learn more.

Thoughts on the New York Times article? Sound off in the comments below!

Depletion and Abundance       Peak Everything

Plan C       The Long Descent

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus