Jim Manzi, at the Corner:
This is pure emotionalism. Global warming doesn't come close to threatening “a whole way of life”. Its expected impact is to make a much richer world 100 years from now ~3 percent poorer. Protecting ourselves against the outside risk of much worse effects mostly requires some prudent investments in fallback technologies as insurance. Crude oil production will reach a maximum at some point in the future. I don't know when that will happen, and the record of those who have tried to forecast this not been very good over the past 70 years or so. When that happens, the price will probably rise. We will develop technological alternatives and find substitute fuels. (emphasis mine)
There's plenty to mock in this, but I wanted to look at the part in bold. As you probably know, in 1956 a geologist with Shell Oil named M. King Hubbert made a forecast that oil production in the United States would peak sometime in the late 1960s or early 70s. Oil production in the United States did peak in 1970, so it isn't really defensible to say that nobody knows when world oil production will peak. The only thing holding back a reasonable prediction, it would seem, is the reluctance of autocracies like Saudi Arabia to release accurate data about production, reserves and remaining supply.
Oh, and since oil now costs over $120 a barrel, does that mean oil has peaked, Jim? It never ceases to amaze me how willing people are to ignore the realities of simple arithmetic and lazily assume that technology will save us all. And no, I don't think the world is going to end because of high oil prices, but I don't think it can be denied either that the transition from the carbon-based economy is going to be a fundamental one.
--Mori Dinauer
