Peak Oil Deniers

[Seth King]

This article is total bullshit. I'll pick it apart when I'm in the mood.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming9.1.1.html

[helio]

I enjoyed the article.  Looking forward to your rebuttal.

[Seth King]

Here you go. 

http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/04/09/many-austrians-are-wrong-about-peak-oil-theory/

[dpalme]

Oof, long article. I'll have to save that one for the morn'.

[kunkmiester]

Like so many things, we attack the wrong part.  There are plenty of issues with peak oil, but dismissing the envirowacko left takes more work than this.  More after I've slept.

[braindead0]

Nice rebuttal.

Regarding sustainable energy, solar energy is finite.. the sun will eventually die..  True sustainable energy would require a perpetual motion machine.

[Seth King]

Nice rebuttal.

Regarding sustainable energy, solar energy is finite.. the sun will eventually die..  True sustainable energy would require a perpetual motion machine.

That's what I was talking about when I said he could bring up the strawman argument. He could say that 10 billion years from now the Sun will die. But that's going beyond reasonable timelines.

[braindead0]

Nice rebuttal.

Regarding sustainable energy, solar energy is finite.. the sun will eventually die..  True sustainable energy would require a perpetual motion machine.

That's what I was talking about when I said he could bring up the strawman argument. He could say that 10 billion years from now the Sun will die. But that's going beyond reasonable timelines.

I fail to see how that's a straw man argument.  One could certainly say that solar power will likely last as long as it makes sense to inhabit this solar system, however calling it's finite nature a logical fallacy is incorrect.

[Seth King]

Nice rebuttal.

Regarding sustainable energy, solar energy is finite.. the sun will eventually die..  True sustainable energy would require a perpetual motion machine.

That's what I was talking about when I said he could bring up the strawman argument. He could say that 10 billion years from now the Sun will die. But that's going beyond reasonable timelines.

I fail to see how that's a straw man argument.  One could certainly say that solar power will likely last as long as it makes sense to inhabit this solar system, however calling it's finite nature a logical fallacy is incorrect.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't the definition of a strawman argument taking things to a logical extreme? Sure, logically the Sun will stop being a source of energy for us. But that day is in such an extreme future that bringing it up is essentially meaningless.

[braindead0]

Nice rebuttal.

Regarding sustainable energy, solar energy is finite.. the sun will eventually die..  True sustainable energy would require a perpetual motion machine.

That's what I was talking about when I said he could bring up the strawman argument. He could say that 10 billion years from now the Sun will die. But that's going beyond reasonable timelines.

I fail to see how that's a straw man argument.  One could certainly say that solar power will likely last as long as it makes sense to inhabit this solar system, however calling it's finite nature a logical fallacy is incorrect.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but isn't the definition of a strawman argument taking things to a logical extreme? Sure, logically the Sun will stop being a source of energy for us. But that day is in such an extreme future that bringing it up is essentially meaningless.

No, a strawman argument is arguing against a weaker position that the other person didn't take, creating a 'straw man' to fight.  It often can be noticed by an opponents stated position being an extreme of what the other person is actually stating.  I think it's this that got me:

I think it’s safe to say that solar energy is an inexhaustible resource

inexhaustible is already an extreme.. I "attacked" your stated position, no straw man involved.

I realized however that I didn't offer any constructive suggestions either..  perhaps:

I think it’s safe to say that solar energy is a n inexhaustible reasonably sustainable resource

It just needs a weasely word in there to make it less 'infinite' ;-)

[Seth King]

I stand corrected. Well done!

[braindead0]

I stand corrected. Well done!

I'm a professional nitpicker... some of the software/hardware I work on could be dangerous if I misplace a decimal point or the like ;-)  So I notice these things.....

[Seth King]

I stand corrected. Well done!

I'm a professional nitpicker... some of the software/hardware I work on could be dangerous if I misplace a decimal point or the like ;-)  So I notice these things.....

Can you do me a favor? Can you comment on that article and tell me exactly which words you would have removed, or used differently to make it correct?

[braindead0]

I stand corrected. Well done!

I'm a professional nitpicker... some of the software/hardware I work on could be dangerous if I misplace a decimal point or the like ;-)  So I notice these things.....

Can you do me a favor? Can you comment on that article and tell me exactly which words you would have removed, or used differently to make it correct?

No problem, done.

then I make a type-o...  missed space...  I'm sure you'll catch that though.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

I disagree with the conclusion that we have to limit the sun to being "reasonably sustainable." If we do that, then we might as well throw out the entire concept of sustainable or renewable energy. Technically, the amount of useful energy in the universe is decreasing as it becomes more dispersed. So as the universe expands and entropy increases and eventually it's all cold as hell, and there's no useful energy left for us to do work, we'll find that none of our resources were truly sustainable. So everything is doomed to die. But what's the point of considering this when going on in everyday discussion. When the sun runs out, earth is condemned, so the sun is renewable and sustainable for any reasonable scenario you can think of.