You're such an illiterate. I think we can find a consensus that your bullshit model derived from bullshit postulates is irrational.That is a bit misleading. Actually we did cover this before, as in you asked me basically the same question and I gave you basically the same answer. The fact that you haven't seen any possible solutions presented here should tell you something. Perhaps there are no solutions as I said before.
My bleak outlook has certainly not been a secret. My bleak outlook is founded on the evidence. The dilemma rests in the lack of available options and the extremely short timeline.
For the 3rd time, the answer is no.
I meant it is undeniable by rational people.
---Futilitist
The Etp Model Has Been Empirically Confirmed
- Thread starter Futilitist
- Start date
- Status
It's like you are trying to solve for Force using the equation F=ma but only know the mass. That's like, how silly you are.
You'd don't have the scholarship to pass judgement on exchemist scholarship. You've convinced everybody you're a scientific illiterate.I am glad you see what I mean about the general level of the debate practiced on this so called science forum. However, I think you may be over estimating exchemist:
This is what people who can't make serious arguments do. They childishly attempt to make fun of their opponent.
ad ho·mi·nem
ˌad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
adverb: ad hominem; adjective: ad hominem
- (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
Of course, this desperate attempt at derision really amounts to a circular argument as far as the validity of the Etp model is concerned.
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.
Exchemist clearly has the cart before the horse! In order to make fun of the Etp model, he must first prove it is invalid. He must say why it is so worthy of derision. I submit that he has not accomplished that. Not even close.
---Futilitist
So you are saying "It's worthy of derision because it's bullshit nonsense derived from bullshit postulates." How is that a proof of anything? It's just more derision. And it certainly isn't scientific. Can you even understand that?
Russ_Watters and exchemist failed to make any substantive arguments against the validity of the Etp model. You have failed, as well.
I am sure you could find such a consensus here on this so called science forum. It would prove nothing.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
I did not ask for a consensus. I asked for a good argument that could show that the Etp model is somehow invalid.
Once again, it doesn't matter what the majority here think. That is not how science is done. You really should know that. It looks like you are the scientifically illiterate one.
Exchemist is not an accepted authority on anything. He just pompously pretends to be. Exchemist needs to directly address the questions he keeps dodging. His scholarship is very much in question until he does this.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Science tries to describe small parts at a time. Inasmuch where variables can be known or sufficiently estimated.
You just stick your head in the sand and don't listen cause your pride has blinded you. Such low self esteem eh? Cannot possibly admit you're wrong. It's futile trying to educate you.
:EDIT:
Didn't you say once that the second law of thermodynamics describes the whole universe?
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
If, as a society, we realistically come to terms with what we are facing in advance, surely we will react better than if we just blindly hope for the best. Hope for the best, but plan realistically for the worst. To plan realistically, you have to have the best information available. Doesn't that make sense? ---Futilitist
And now that we have the "best information available", how would you "realistically" plan for the worst, so that we can hope for the best?
Perhaps build underground cities (stable temparatures) and use the air circulation system for local transport of goods and people through air tubes?
Just throwing out some sci-fi stuff here, but I am not sure if you are even inclined to consider solutions to the problem, instead of saying:
Last edited:
First, I would get the best possible assessment of the actual situation. After that, I don't know.
But just because I can't figure out a solution, that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one, or at least one better than I can come up with.
So why don't you accept the oil depletion forecast given by the Etp model and see if you can come up with something?
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
First, I would get the best possible assessment of the actual situation. After that, I don't know.
But just because I can't figure out a solution, that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one, or at least one better than I can come up with.
So why don't you accept the oil depletion forecast given by the Etp model and see if you can come up with something? ---Futilitist
I just did, but of course that would take time and, according to your model, there is no time left.
As usual Carlin hit the nail on the head.
I already mentioned thorium, ethanol and electric cars...
But if the apocalypse happens on Halloween, as Billy T suggests, maybe I'll just eat candies.
But if the apocalypse happens on Halloween, as Billy T suggests, maybe I'll just eat candies.
Too little, too late.Beer w/Straw is a Troll said:
Good. You fully understand the dilemma. Now you have to decide if you will believe what you want to believe, or what you suspect might be true. You'll have to look deeper at the Etp model.
There isn't "no time left". There is always now.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
The reality for you is everybody thinks you're full of crap. There's a reason for that regardless what you think. You're a scientific illiterate because you're touting a theory which is derived from bullshit postulates and don't have the scholarship to recognize it. A real Dunning and Kruger candidate. Where you fail is not recognizing you're touting a bullshit theory derived from bullshit postulates. I know you don't understand what I'm saying because firstly you don't want to and secondly you're scientifically illiterate. You couldn't do a real analysis if your life depended on it. Pun intended. exchemist can do a real scientific analysis. All you're doing is trying to talk down to folks who know you're a scientific illiterate based on your bullshit analysis which you claim will absolutely result in the end of civilization by 2021. You're a doomsday crank spewing pschobabble in this public forum. You could never answer my comments because you don't possess the tools to show your postulates aren't bullshit. Continuing this is why you're a crank.So you are saying "It's worthy of derision because it's bullshit nonsense derived from bullshit postulates." How is that a proof of anything? It's just more derision. And it certainly isn't scientific. Can you even understand that?
Russ_Watters and exchemist failed to make any substantive arguments against the validity of the Etp model. You have failed, as well.
I am sure you could find such a consensus here on this so called science forum. It would prove nothing.
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
I did not ask for a consensus. I asked for a good argument that could show that the Etp model is somehow invalid.
Once again, it doesn't matter what the majority here think. That is not how science is done. You really should know that. It looks like you are the scientifically illiterate one.
Exchemist is not an accepted authority on anything. He just pompously pretends to be. Exchemist needs to directly address the questions he keeps dodging. His scholarship is very much in question until he does this.
---Futilitist
*plonk* LOL.
Last edited:
What a bunch of hot air. You are obviously just bluffing. You don't seem to realize how dumb you sound. If you have enough time to write so many abusive declarations of scientific authority, you should certainly have the time to make a decent serious argument and just settle the matter once and for all. But yet, for some reason, you guys never manage to do that. I wonder why?
Why don't you explain, in the most scientifically literate way you possibly can, why the Etp model is supposedly invalid? Go for it Mr. Science.
Where the hell did exchemist go anyway?
---Futilitist
First, I would get the best possible assessment of the actual situation. After that, I don't know.
But just because I can't figure out a solution, that doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one, or at least one better than I can come up with.
So why don't you accept the oil depletion forecast given by the Etp model and see if you can come up with something?
---Futilitist
Notice where Futilitist altered the heading of you response to him. He added "is a troll: said"to Beer/Straw. I wonder if that's considered appropriate behavior at sciforums?
I told you. The postulates you derive your theory from are bullshit. My guess is the attention you've been getting has vacated the premises.What a bunch of hot air. You are obviously just bluffing. You don't seem to realize how dumb you sound. If you have enough time to write so many abusive declarations of scientific authority, you should certainly have the time to make a decent serious argument and just settle the matter once and for all. But yet, for some reason, you guys never manage to do that. I wonder why?
Why don't you explain, in the most scientifically literate way you possibly can, why the Etp model is supposedly invalid? Go for it Mr. Science.
Where the hell did exchemist go anyway?
---Futilitist
*double plonk*
Normally it shouldn't be appropriate, but in this case, it happens to be true, so I think it is acceptable. A quick review of the thread would confirm that Beer w/Straw is acting as a persistent troll.
Here are two recent examples:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...rically-confirmed.152487/page-35#post-3330067
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/th...rically-confirmed.152487/page-34#post-3329876
I can find lots more.
I was right. You are just bluffing. I asked you to clarify your position, not repeat it. Your statement is completely vacuous. What postulates? Why are they supposedly bullshit? You have to be specific or you are just spouting meaningless gibberish. "The postulates you derive your theory from", that sounds all scientific but it isn't. It is nothing.
And we aren't talking about 'my postulates' or 'my theory'. We are talking about the Etp model. It is an oil depletion engineering report based on the second law of thermodynamics.
The second law of thermodynamics is not bullshit.
---Futilitist
Last edited:
You're right thermodynamics is a science not bullshit. What you think it means is bullshit. What's even more bullshit is your prediction that what you think it means will result in an extinction event in 2021. You're a fool.Normally it shouldn't be appropriate, but in this case, it happens to be true, so I think it is acceptable. A quick review of the thread would confirm that Beer w/Straw is acting as a persistent troll.
I asked you to clarify your position, not repeat it. Your statement is completely vacuous. What postulates? Why are they bullshit? You have to be specific or you are just spouting meaningless gibberish. "The postulates you derive your theory from", that sounds all scientific but it isn't. It is nothing.
The second law of thermodynamics is not bullshit.
Ence
---Futilitist
*triple plonk*
That is just a vague statement of your personal opinion. You must now justify that statement by saying specifically why what I think it means is bullshit. Otherwise you are the one who is full of bullshit.
Once again, you just keep forcefully restating your personal opinion without giving any support.
And I think you are a fool, too. But technically, my opinion of you, by itself, is not a valid proof of anything. Do you understand?
---Futilitist
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
I have no idea what you just said there. Suspecting that something is true IS believing.Too little, too late.
Good. You fully understand the dilemma. Now you have to decide if you will believe what you want to believe, or what you suspect might be true.
Other than your specific proposition, what deeper context is hidden in your proposition?---Futilitist
The Laws of Nature (gods) conspiring to eradicate mankind, or just functioning as they must and can be seen throughout Nature.
Everything that happens in the universe is in accordance to 32 constants. This simplicity is the very reason why our maths work so beautifully. The Law of Thermodynamics is one of those 32 constants.
But let me ask, is the Fibonacci Sequence (another constant) in any way related to the price of a daisy?
And indeed it is. The greater the number of petals the more valuable the daisy becomes. But that is going pretty deep into the maths of the Fibonacci Sequence to make a case for the price of a flower, which in one variety is considered a weed .
Last edited:
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
My difficulty with your arguments is that you seem to assume predictions and mechanisms from crank sources or groups with a political agenda. I can find no reference to this Steve Ludlum bloke, other than on some blog or site called Doomstead or some such. I'm not an economist so and not in a position to argue the toss about debt cycles, so I prefer to rely on the opinions of recognised economic authorities, rather than some chap from Virginia with no apparent credentials. (Though I would observe that debt finance taken on by oil companies involves them paying interest on the loans, so they evidently think they will make money out of the drilling. Are they all strategically incompetent at the businesses they run?). But this is an arguments about economics, not thermodynamics, so whatever the truth of it, at any rate the 2nd Law of TD is not being stupidly dragged into it. I am thankful for that much at least!
Equally, your prediction of how much oil the word will need comes from some site called Minnesotans for Sustainability. I have already posted BP's forecast (you might think BP would have some idea, since it is their entire business and they employ thousands of specialist engineers, geologists and economists on it), but you have ignored that, preferring these Minnesotans, whoever they are, instead.
I do not think we can profitably discuss this much further, so long as you choose to rely on information sources that I cannot take seriously. Which is a pity, because you seem to be someone with whom one can have a constructive debate.
Last edited:
This is the argument from authority. It is a logical fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Argument from authority, also ad verecundiam and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy.[1]
Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[4][5][6] as authorities can come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts.
It is fallacious to use any appeal to authority in the context of logical reasoning. Because the argument from authority is not a logical argument in that it does not argue something's negation or affirmation constitutes a contradiction, it is fallacious to assert that the conclusion must be true.[10] Such a determinative assertion is a logical non sequitur as the conclusion does not follow unconditionally, in the sense of being logically necessary.[22][23]
This argument from authority is based on the notion that oil companies wouldn't be in the oil business if it were known to have only have a limited future. But this is silly. The oil industry was still growing until 2012. Then the situation suddenly changed. Oil companies are currently doing the best they can in a bad situation. But there is still oil to produce and at least some money left to be made as the industry winds down. That is what the Etp model forecasts. And that is exactly what is happening.
Here is a relevant example about trusting industry experts:
The captain of the Titanic was an industry expert. Yet he did not insist on having enough lifeboats for all onboard. He was trying to meet a very tight schedule and maintain the public image of his company. He did not expect to hit an iceberg. He did not expect to sink. He ended up going down with the ship. It is not always sensible to rely on industry experts.
You are thankful about that because it should be easier for you argue about economics than physics. But you are still failing to produce a decent argument.
Argument from authority again. And the fallacious suggestion that oil industry people must have the best handle on things. And the naïve notion that BP would produce absolutely honest forecasts for public consumption, when this could potentially turn needed investors away.
Automatically rejecting data from Minnesotans for Sustainability is fallacious. Claiming they are cranks is just an ad hominem. People who support sustainability are not necessarily cranks, unless you get all your information from FOX news. Claiming that Minnesotans for Sustainability publishes bad data because they have some sort of agenda conveniently ignores the fact that BP obviously has an agenda. BP's agenda is producing oil and making a profit. Minnesotans for Sustainability seem to want to promote sustainability. Everyone has an agenda. So what?
Besides, you act like Kondratieff is using them as some kind of an authority, like you are doing with BP. That is not what he is doing. He is just constructing a logical argument in the hopes that you will honestly debate that argument. I don't think you understand what a logical argument is. Or you just don't care.
Once again, another argument from authority. And yet another dodge. You expressed relief that you didn't have to embarrass yourself by faking a physics argument, yet you can't even fake a good economic argument! Totally lame.
What a disappointment for Kondratieff, who took the time to construct some very good arguments, only to have you weasel out of the debate. Just like you did with me.
This is both very disrespectful and inherently dishonest.
Kondratieff said:
Score another correct prediction by Futilitist.Futilitist said:
---Futilitist
Last edited:
- Status