Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Report Blasts "Peak Oil" Theory

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the a-peek-at-the-future dept.

Rei writes "Today, the Cambridge Energy Research Associates released a report dismissing the Peak Oil theory, suggesting that world oil production will continue to increase for the next 24 years, and then only level into a plateau. The report, which suggests that world reserves are enough to last 122 years at our current rate of consumption, also blasts Peak Oil theorists for repeatedly making unscientific predictions and then shifting them whenever their predictions fail to materialize."

5 of 640 comments (clear)

  1. Who pays their bills? by John+Jamieson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone know who they really speak for? Do they have an agenda?

    1. Re:Who pays their bills? by thrillseeker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Make of that what you will..

      I can't imagine why an energy research organization would actually seek out and listen to national energy secretaries in developing energy analysis - can't they just publish some near-term doom-and-gloom conclusions with only selective data like everyone else?

    2. Re:Who pays their bills? by cnelzie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's most definatly usefull.

          The past has proven time and time again that reports provided by people backed by certain corporations, such as Cigarrette Manufacturers, Oil Firms and both the RIAA and MPAA are filled with half-truths, straight lies, clear misrepresentations of data (once the data is brought out into the public space), as well as a number of other "Dirty Pool" tactics.

          Simply because of who is backing this report, the publishers of the report have a tremendous amount of work that they must perform in order to be taken as anything other than what any "corporate shill" will say.

          If they are not 100% open with the methods they used, the data they collected as well as with the stastical analysis they performed, their work is going to be suspect. Perhaps their first line would be to see if they can get their report published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

          Personally, I would be far less skeptical of a piece that could make it into a peer-reviewed medical journal.

      --
      If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    3. Re:Who pays their bills? by SEMW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >I can't imagine why an energy research organization would actually seek out and listen to national energy secretaries in developing
      >energy analysis - can't they just publish some near-term doom-and-gloom conclusions with only selective data like everyone else?

      So when a single company with stated links to oil-producing countries comes up with the conclusion that we should continue to rely on oil, that's "seeking out and listening... in developing energy analysis", but when "everyone else" (and that does include pretty much everyone) comes to opposite conclusion, that's "doom-and-gloom... with only selective data"? That's some good, objective critical thinking skills you got there...

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
  2. They are supposed to be debunking peak oil theory? by AmazingRuss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Looking at that chart, the only difference I can see between their line and the one they are "debunking" is that their line wobbles for a while before the downtrend is clear.

    Both theories look equally valid, as presented, and both have pretty much the same implications, with a 20 year time difference. Short term thinkers are the only ones that will be impressed by this.