Talk:Hubbert peak theory/Archive 4

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between August and November 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Hubbert Peak/Archive05. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. HereToHelp (talk) 02:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

message: I removed this language from the article:
The inclusion of these 'implications' is the subject of an NPOV dispute.  See Talk:Hubbert Peak.  Other factors, such as climate change, Mideast conflict and energy equity, drive the search for alternatives to oil combustion as a source of power.  To state these 'implications' as if they were supply-side implications alone is a POV that seems to deny that these other compelling factors exist, and that they will the cause the shift earlier:  most scientists agree that burning all the oil presently known to exist would destabilize the climate to an unpredictable degree.  Only if they were wrong would these 'implications' follow:
The reason is that articles are supposed to avoid self-referential language.  If anyone feels that a caveat needs to be in the article, the proper way to do it is with a NPOV template.  Johntex 19:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Self Referential Language in Article

message: The Introduction to this article states that Hubbert's theory "predicts the rate of decline for world oil production to be as steep as the rate of increase, and cites 1989 as the peak year."  Both of those points are inaccurate.  If you look at Hubbert's original paper of 1956 you see graphs of oil production in Ohio and Illinois that peak, but the down slope is not as steep as the up slope.  Those graphs need to be included in consideration of his theory as much as the pretty bell shaped curve.  
Also, in that 1956 paper, Hubbert showed a graph with the year 2000 as the year for the peak in world oil production.  He later modified that prediction to a range from 1995 to 2000.  He always recognized that changes in oil consumption rates and other factors could change that curve.  
Aside from that, the Introduction also claims that Hubbert "further defines oil depletion as the point at which more energy is reqired to extract the oil than the energy contained in the oil."  Hubbert doesn't talk about that in his paper of 1956.  If he talked later about the point when the net energy turns negative, it had nothing to do with the peak of production.  The point when net energy turns negative is the point at which production ends.
The way the Introduction is currently written creates straw man arguments from which one can later claim that Hubbert's theory has been "proven to be false."  I don't have the time to edit it right now, but we have some serious distortion going on here. Jkintree 19:48, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  serious problems with introduction 

message: I belive that the article introduction is too lengthy.  Wikipedia editing guidelines state the intro "...should establish significances, large implications and why we should care."      
My last attempt to cut down the intro met with criticism that I took too much out.  I will make a second attempt at a short summary that still introduces the  main topics.  Johntex 20:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations.  The Introduction is now much more neutral, and a more accurate statement of Hubbert's peak theory.  Well done. Jkintree 11:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lengthy Intro

message: Predicts oil increase as far as it goes - well beyond anything covered By Hubbert.
I've seen the chart a hundred times - it's geniune DOE issue. That is a hugely respected source which runs directly counter to the sky is falling cult. Is that not enough of a citation to demonstrate that Hubbert's theory is disputed at the highest levels? Since they are in fact disputed claims, the article needs to be written in the "disputed voice" that is it should not assert "This is true regardless" which it did BTW. Benjamin Gatti
:Well that's one, but it is contradicted by many also. Our goal is to represent the facts and accurately characterize the debate, but your edits aren't approaching that. Maybe people would take you a little more seriously if you didn't replace text in the article with blatantl POV. I'd quote specific examples, but I think they're obvious enough. - Taxman Talk 20:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I think we'd be a lot better off reverting back to the version before you started pulling stuff out , but keeping a few of the changes that are actually improvements. I'll do it, but I'd like to get some other people's input first. - Taxman Talk 20:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
:My position is that the article needs to be trimmed some, but the recent sweepin edits are more like clear-cutting than trimming.  I think we need to take a slower pace to allow discussion and reach consensus.  Johntex 20:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The US DOE Chart citation 

message: Here's to Gazpacho for breaking out an important section and bringing us closer to a manageable article focused on the above titled cause.
*Support Benjamin Gatti
Johntex, if the "implications" are split off to an article on oil shortage then none of the content has to be removed. Sure, the implications are relevant to the peak theory, but that doesn't mean this article has to include them inline vs. linking them. They're relevant to demand spikes and embargos too. Gazpacho 00:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oil depletion might possibly be an acceptle title.  Let's discuss that suggestion for a bit.  The way you have currently written Oil depletion, you say "When this occurs and why it will occur are matters of broad speculation." and you list 3 other causes that you seem to be saying are reasons for oil depletion other than Hubbert's peak.  For example, one of these is "Environmental constraint".  I don't see how the hypothetical reduction of oil consumption for environmental reasons has a bearing on Oil depletion.  Therefore, on its current path, I think Oil depletion is still mixing in other topics besides "running out of oil".  If the new article is going to deal with running out of oil, what would be wrong with the title Hubbert peak implications?  Johntex 02:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can support Oil depletion as a compromise under the promise that non-depletion scenarios are removed (a link to non-depletion scenarios should be OK if done correctly).  Also, I still maintain that we need what I would call a "medium" amount of "implication" material to remain here because it is so important to this article.  By "medium" I mean less than we have now for "implications", but more than we have for "alterantives to oil" which is just a sentence and a link to a different article.  For implications, we need about 2 sentences on each major scenario (catastrophe, recession, market solution,...)  We may also be able to merge some - for example, maybe we can cover "fuel efficiency" under "market solution"...   Johntex 17:44, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support for splitting Implications 

message: I recommend all "further reading" links be moved into "sources".  Then we may agree to prune some redundant ones.  Johntex 00:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there has been no discussion on this point, I went ahead and consolidated the further reading, external links etc.  This removes some artifical distinctions and reduces the length of the table of contents as well.  I kept Sources seperate because presumable we do cite all those sources - I haven't compared them all to the current article.  We need to trim this section if we can agree on which links are deserving of being tossed out.  Wikipedia is not a link farm.  I'll leave removal of links for another time.  Johntex 02:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there any reason for "Further Reading" to be seperate from "Sources" 

message: "A significant percentage of today's resource use is based upon lifestyle choice rather than unalterable human needs."
In what chapter of Hubbert's essay do I find this gemstone? Benjamin Gatti
*As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the article is not limited only to what Hubbert said.  I don't know who put that sentence in.  I've trimmed that section some but I'm still working on it. Ideally the sentence you cite should be sourced (who says? what percentage? how do they definine 'unalterable') but there is lots of stuff in here that is still unsourced.  And I think no one would argue that consumption (at least in the West) could not be curtailed to one degree or another.  Johntex 01:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random incoherent Sentence 

message: "However, others will note that an increase in fuel efficiency may in fact compound the problem. This phenomenon is referred to as the Jevons paradox, which states that as technological improvements increase the efficiency with which a resource is used, total consumption of that resource may increase, rather than decrease."
::I missed the page where Hubbert meets Jevon. It strikes me as quite original research to suggest that Hubbert's theories include conjectures into the applications of jevon's paradox - made more incredible given the differences in time. This article has become a virtual cesspool of disconnected energy angst having nothing in common but a shared prophet. Remember Israel and Palestine both claim Abraham as their father. Benjamin Gatti
:::Well, I don't know what to say except that you gave me a good chuckle.  Johntex 01:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are choosing to be dense on the point of this article not being about Hubbert's theory but instead a theory named after him I have no real illusion that this post will help yet I persist.  Lots of people have lots of things named after them. Some of the people were even dead when the naming happened.  Even if your false analogies get worse and worse, the non sequitur about Abraham was amusing. Dalf | Talk 18:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stream of (random) consciousness 

message: How about [someone] show me the raw (provable) science behind this Theory. I'm beginning to think "Theory" is the wrong word. Theories are subject to experiment and falsification, Hubbertism is not subject to falsification, its proof-hardened. Any "Evidence" that it is clearly wrong results in a True believer digging deeper into the pages of the prophet and finding where - in his wisdom, he forsaw that "certain" things could affect the shape of the future, and no test is valid because it contains those certain things. This is such manure!
:personal attack removed by RSpeer 18:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Give me a falsifyable theory - otherwise we drop the pseudo-science overtones, and settle with "movement". In fact I like that. The Peak oil movement, popularized by King Hubbert. Benjamin Gatti
::Well, the theory of peak oil is based on the evidence that the planet's fossil fuels were formed over millions of years, millions of years ago.  Therefore, the amount of ultimately recoverable oil has a geological limit.  If someone could show that there are vast quantities of non-fossil oil available, then the theory could be proven false. Jkintree 17:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Science does encompass making predictions.  An economist might say "rising interest rates will cool the housing market" and an oceanography might say "rising global temperatures will cause fish to die off".  Of course, either could be wrong.  That is why we should try to attribute the comments to specific people, rather than hand-wringing about how much we like or don't like their predictions.  Johntex 18:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show me da Science 

message: Proposal is to 
#Take the existing contents from Hubbert peak implications and paste it over the existing content at Oil depletion
#Redirect Hubbert peak implications to Oil depletion
#Place a pointer to Oil depletion in the "Implications" section of this article
#Shorten the "Implications" section of this article significantly, but still leaving enough content so that visitors here will understand why people get so worked up over this theory
#Redirect Peak oil to Oil depletion Johntex 20:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - I appreciate your support for a compromise.  Johntex 00:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I am opposed to moving content to "Oil depletion."  The way I found this article was by doing a Wikipedia search on "peak oil."  The primary organization working to educate the public about the issue today is known as the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO).  In some ways, "Oil depletion" is ambiguous because an oil field begins to be depleted as soon as oil is first pumped from it.  Our concern is the peak in the world's production of oil, and the phrase "peak oil" is pretty clear about that.  Giving Hubbert credit with a subsection and a link to the  M. King Hubbert article would be appropriate.  Renaming the article "peak oil theory" would eliminate opposition to including more up-to-date support for the theory as done by ASPO and people such as Matthew Simmons.  Jkintree 20:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Checking for consensus on a content move to [[Oil depletion]]

message: is a very green newbie who is eager to make contributions to Wikipedia related to peak oil.  One of his first contributions, Doomer, is now on AFD primarily for being a neologism.  I have suggested there that this article, with it's more than 48k of bloat, might be fairly ripe for diffusing into several subtopics.  Things like post peak oil scenarios and social responses to peak oil, etc. come to mind,          though other suggestions are welcome.  He seems to like this idea, but of course it deserves some discussion in this community and he will need some help getting things going and conforming to Wikipedia standards.  He does seem to be of a reasonable sort in discussion and believe his participation should be encouraged, even if his namesake website is somewhat strongly POV.  Dragons flight 20:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with concept of break-up.  If you look above, there are many of us who agree to some form of break-up or redistribution of this article's content.  We are having trouble agreeing exactly how to do it.  I did even create some seperate articles (see above) based on what seemed like a consensus at the time. Johntex\talk 20:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now removed content from this article that is duplicated at Implications of peak oil.  Johntex\talk 00:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking this up / Eclipsenow.org 

message: Peak oil is a subject that has interested me for nearly a year now.  
I can see from the arguments going back and forth here that a consensus among you will be highly elusive.  I think the problem here is that the facts themselves are in dispute--Peak Oil is based on a geo-economic model that may or may not verify.  
Here is my suggestion.  Edit the Hubbert's Peak article down to include only Hubbert's core theory.  If Hubbert didn't say it, it gets cut.  No doomsday scenarios, no rebuttals to doomsday scenarios, just the theory, as postulated by Hubbert, that oil production in individual fields and therefore countries roughly follows a bell-shaped curve.
Then, create a second article entitled "Peak Oil Controversy."  After all, the debate really has ranged far beyond Hubbert's original assertions, and this is a controversy if ever there were one, so I think that title would be spot-on.  In the controversy, I see three core perspectives: One, Peak Oil is false, oil production will not peak (or at least won't peak for a long time) and Peak Oil is Chicken Little reheated.  Two, Peak Oil is true, but won't have a severe impact because other energy sources will be brought online to supplement and ultimately replace oil.  Three, Peak Oil is true, viable alternatives to oil do not exist, and, in the words of Bob Dylan, "A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall."  
One writer, or group of writers, will lay out each of the three perspectives.  We place a word and external link limit on each perspective.  We write a NPOV intro paragraph to the effect that everything that follows is speculation and theory, itself based on a theory, and none of it can be objectively, conclusively proven (which is true).  The fact is that there are PLENTY of external sites that spin out all the ramifications of each of these three perspectives.  We don't need lengthy essays on how suburbia sucks, the imminent fall of civilization, how we're going back to the Stone Age, or how the whole Peak Oil controversy is a conspiracy by liberals to take away Americans' SUVs.  That kind of rhetoric is already extant, in abundance, elsewhere on the Net.
Comments?
BenjaS 20:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: This is Rafaelbn's first ever contribution to Wikipedia. Welcome! Johntex\talk 09:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspective of a Neutral Observer 

message: User:71.131.20.191 just reworded the opening to "The Hubbert hypothesis..." from "The Hubbert peak theory".  I've reverted simply because the article's named after the latter; if we want to call it a hypothesis, we'd need to move the article instead of just rewording the opening.
That said, I believe "theory" is valid in this case.  As I understand it, a "hypothesis" becomes a "theory" once it's been successfully tested—which in this case is evident from the fact that a majority of countries worldwide now show clear production peaks. —JwandersTalk   10:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory vs hypothesis 

message: Looking at the discussion above, it appears that a move to "Peak oil theory" reached a consensus but was never actioned. This would address Benjamin's concern as well as being more in line with the common usage.  Unless anyone opposes, I'm happy to do the move. —JwandersTalk   07:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to moving the article to "Peak oil theory" as long as people who search for "Hubbert peak theory" and for "peak oil" will still be able to find it. Jkintree 11:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Peak oil theroy" 

message: 1. hubbert was a environmentalist hippie liberal and taught at hippie university aka Berkley M._King_Hubbert (during the early 1970's no less, dear god can you imagine the scene there?)
2. anything from a real economist including oil is fungible, supply elasticity :) and other basic ideas
3. your windmills and hippie liberal hybrid cars will only increase the useage of oil jevons paradox haha! oh the delicious irony!
4. marxists and hippie liberals have been predicting doom and gloom since the 1800's the crash but peak oil is SO DIFFERENT! it's from a renowned Berkley college professor 
5a. The idea that oil supplies in amercica aren't exhausted.  
5b. It's just not economically viable to pay rich americans to pump them out anymore.  
5c. It's just cheaper to pay a 3rd world peasant to do our pumping for us.
"Growth, growth, growth -- that's all we've known . . . World automobile production is doubling every 10 years; human population growth is like nothing that has happened in all of geologic history. The world will only tolerate so many doublings of anything -- whether it's power plants or grasshoppers." -- M. King Hubbert, 1975.
''
Oh, noes!!! the sky is falling!!  i wuv wittle wasshoppers! don't bogart that reefer!
or to quote richard pryor, "There's too many people on the earth!  I'll have no room to ride my horsey!"
i left one extra criticism of the quote out for the discriminating conservative to find for him or herself, hint blank ≠ blank
lollerskates don't drink and post!--Capsela 03:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that calling people you disagree with hippies or Marxists is either accurate or relevant.  By the way, Jevons also thought that recessions were caused by sunspots.--Jack Upland 04:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 5 things you won't see in the wikipedia article 

message: There is a distinction between peak oil production and oil depletion which the article (and this discussion) isn't clear about.  The existing oil depletion article is a bit thin and maybe the discussion about oil depletion could be shifted there.--Jack Upland 04:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peak oil production and oil depletion