So now we have to prepare for instability in the one Arab country the Arab Spring passed by. 
OK. Not why I was citing it, but since the futures price for oil is on a steady decline to about $80/barrel through 2021 or so and since the US is projected to potentially be net exporter by 2030 and export more than the Saudi’s by 2020, we may not give a shit.
I daresay we’ll still give a shit about Israel. Whoever comes to power in SA might decide to finally walk the talk. This, understand, is a country where the Wahabbists are still a powerful sect and don’t think the royal family is Islamist enough.
Unless the Republicans are in charge. Then nary a peep.
I think this post summarizes the main answer to the OP. For years the peak oil chicken littles have been telling us that the end of American civilization is at hand. They’ve assured us that global oil production can only go down. When fracking and shale oil were mentioned, they responded that such things would never amount to much. Moreover, they put dates on it. Kunstler and Goldstein and others told us, back in the middle of the last decade, that the global peak had arrived and that production would decrease rapidly from here on out.
Needless to say, they were entirely wrong. New technology unleashed vast reserves of oil that previously hadn’t been counted as reserves. Production in American has increased. In all their infallible scientific predictions, the peak oil chicken little never predicted such a thing.
I refer you to The Waste Makers, by Vance Packard, 1960. Predicted we’d run out of every resource he could think of before 1990.
This book predicted shortages of food, water, most raw materials, including timber, copper, aluminum and iron; solar power will be too expensive to anticipate, nuclear power is “a gigantic fizzle,” we will be inundated with crushed cars, junk yards, and piles of cans, not to mention piles of wasteful, starving people.
Vance Packard’s future was quite bleak, even in the short term.
Because it isn’t a “bell-curve”. You obviously don’t understand it, either.
I’m just a boy whose intentions are good . . .
It’s bell-shaped. How is it not a bell curve?
Bell curves are gaussian distributions that have certain characteristics. Not sure if peak oil does or doesn’t qualify but I’d be surprised if there is any kind of rigorous mathematical underpinning for it
Well, I’m sure Hubbert knew his math, among other things.
Being a scientist doesn’t prevent you from being a quack any more than being a doctor does.
No, of course not, but peer review does, and Hubbert was no quack.
Sure, whatever you say. Anyone who can’t foresee the evolution of technology is at least intellectually impaired then because if you can’t see that far ahead, then you’re about as smart as the head of the patent office in the 1800’s who made the asinine comment to the effect that everything had been invented already and his office should be shut down. :rolleyes:
No one can. Review golden-age SF, or old issues of Popular Mechanics – they’re full of technological predictions which, for one reason or another, never worked out, and almost nobody predicted the Internet. We can predict technological progress will happen so long as the incentives and funding exist, but nobody, not even a scientist or engineer, can predict what courses it will take, because we never know what will work until we’ve tried it.
You really are anxious to get off topic aren’t you.
I’m not going off topic in any sense.
OK. As soon as you provide a cite that shows that Hubert intended the peak oil distribution to have the same properties as a gaussian distribution, I’ll be happy to believe that.
edit: Oops, never mind - just found a cite for the negative of that proposition
I do not believe the bell curve is descriptive of the process, or alternatively that it is irrelevant. Because 1) the price point at which alternative and abundant energies can be produced is below that which is sufficient for modern society to keep running – if oil increases too much we’ll just switch to something else; 2) we are becoming increasingly more energy efficient, so that it matters less if for instance oil increases in cost, if the amount of oil needed to do the same work decreases on par; 3) we’re not going to be using oil for much longer. Who here thinks he’ll be heating his house with oil in 2025 or buy a gasoline car in 2030?
I think it’s great that oil has increased in price, and the ideal scenario will be a slow but steady increase over the next decades. This will offer the best incitement for investment into alternative and better energy forms. Oil, like coal, should be relegated to the Victorian age.
Look up “normal distribution”. “Bell Curve” has a very specific mathematical meaning. It doesn’t just refer to any ‘up then down’ graph.
ETA: I see someone responded for me, already. Carry on…