That's the stupidest idea I've heard in a while... You do know that fluctuations in the orbits of planets often send asteroids from that very same place towards us, right?

You want me to beg for an apology. And then you compare me to that guy who can't eat a cookie without almost choking to death and who falls off a bike when his training wheels come off?

Oh and note that you acknowledge that you're wrong but refuse to apologise for insulting me. You're damn arrogant, you know

Be my guest, young padawan

Here.

The only thing that came close to a rebuttal of Peak Oil is the "somebody-will-think-of-something" solution. This does not look encouraging.

I'll bite on the global warming vs global cooling thing. It's a controversial issue and there are good arguments on both sides of the debate. Still, the global warming fans don't take into account things like air pollution and natural cycles in planet's life, sun activity, orbital fluctuations, etc.

As for the Bush administration... You know, they claimed that there are WMDs in Iraq too. Still haven't found any. But it MUST be true because even THEY said it, right?

Behold! The power of Google!

One.
Two.
Three.

And you, in your profound ignorance, would have us believing that nobody uses such things as dams! Even the Hoover dam would be... a mere tourist attraction and nothing more! Holy crap, Batman! We've been fooled!

And those pie charts, man? They don't exist! They simply don't exist! It's the Matrix trying to fool us, man! Clean power is used absolutely NOWHERE! No, no! Everything works on oil!

The environment is here to support human life. That's how much I care about it

Dear god... somebody close this thread

Especially when certain people employ the "broken record" and "blinders" styles of 'argument'

Technically, there is no real rebuttal for Peak Oil because oil is a limited resource on Earth. Second, one can show that for the past 30+ years world-wide oil production has not followed the traditional Hubbert's curve, making timeline estimates difficult.

However, one can rebut that a catastrophe will occur. I'm fairly certain that there are economic models that predict the rise of alternative fuel sources and avoiding a big catastrophe of some kind. Perhaps those interested in economic models can find them by googling. Even without the benefit of economic modeling, my experience in a capitalistic society has demonstrated the power of economic incentive, and so I have full confidence in the development of alternative sources as oil becomes more scarce. It could be that though the more wealthy countries in the world are the most heavily dependent on oil, they are also the best positioned to transform their energy infrastructure.

Also keep in mind that the Exxon-Mobils are fully aware of this problem. To be sure, they are not planning to die in the energy business in 30-40 years from lack of oil.

Elver, stop being sarcastic and insulting and then being insulted when someone does the same to you..

It seems to me that the facts are that oil is limited, we have no foolproof method of disposing of nuclear waste and that alternative methods of energy production are still too limited to satisfy demand.

Oh, and that global warming is mostly accepted by scientists.

Scientists haven't been aware nearly that long. And we are already seeing the symptoms of global warming (see my post earlier in this thread).

Once again a statement with no facts. Power today mainly comes from one of 5 sources: coal, oil, nuclear, hydro or gas. So which are those other alternative sources that amount to large percentages of world power production?

At least I can apologise when I'm wrong... (See Weight thread.)

Oil is limited in my opinion, though you'll have a minority of scientists on your back for saying that. Then again, as Plucky said it, alternative energy sources will prevail in a capitalist society if we ever do run out of primary ones.

Nothing is ever foolproof, but there are better methods available to us than just burying the crap.

Alternative methods of energy production are available to us. Water and wind have been used for energy production for thousands of years and still amount to large amounts of today's energy production. Go see the piecharts I referenced above. To satisfy demand completely? No. Not yet.

The Earth used to be flat too... But I digress. It's still a controversial issue and we don't know enough about our past to predict our future. The models we currently have are not detailed enough to make such predictions. We can't plot straight lines on a temperature chart or approximate with some odd function. There are too many factors to account for. That said, I still believe that if "global warming" is correct, the result will be "global cooling". Besides, we've been setting new temperature records here in Estonia during the past few years. That includes both upper and lower temperatures. The winters are getting harsher and the summers warmer. Anyone wanna guess why the winters are getting harsher when there's global warming looming about? No? Didn't think so.

Hydro not "alternative" and "green" enough for you?

Wonderful thing, that semantics. Especially when it comes to "alternative" and "primary."

As for Rash's completely valid point about cars not being able to run on much else but fuel cells and electricity as the alternate power sources then yes, that's the truth. The main problem nowadays is not being able to build batteries that can hold enough charge. Believe me, that's one thing the scientists are tackling right now. Personally, I'm sick and tired of seeing laptops with batteries that won't last more than half an hour.

Which part of your argument is physics, exactly? I'd say everything about this peak thing of yours is economics.

Water yes, wind no.

Among other things, gulf stream effects and general current changes. Besides the average temperature increasing, one of the expected effects of global warming is more extreme climates overall...

Once again, no.

Son of a m**********r!

Can't you people STFU when I'm at work? I can't believe I read all that ... mind you, I still don't feel very enlightened. You people argue too much ...

Them charts again! Thems not exist, man!

Ah-ha! So you admit that global warming does create cooling in parts of the world, nay?

Now you're just trolling. Hydro is green, safe, non-polluting and widely used. I think it qualifies as a good source of energy, doesn't it?

An alternative to the polluting ones, definitely

Oh, that. We'll have to let the science people work it out. I'm sure there are alternatives to using oil in everyday products. One example. Plastic bags are being replaced by paper bags and the latter are not made from oil.