Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(28,678 posts)
3. Lol... no, I don't think that's it.
Thu May 17, 2012, 12:34 PM
May 2012

It certainly isn't the case that "peak oil has already happened" is a generally accepted fact.

Heck... AGW is generally accepted and we still get plenty of threads discussing it... but would it survive as an active group?

I think it's just that there isn't a sizeble enough population here interested in that as an ongoing active forum (as opposed to occasionally seeing a related piece here or in GD). OTOH, I miss the daily drumbeat posts here and go there to pick them up... but there's hardly ever any conversation about it.

On edit - BTW, I'm not doubting that the concept of peak oil is well established. It's irrefutable. But there's significant and legitimate reason to doubt that the peak has already occured (even with recent spin revising earlier claims). I remember debates I had years ago on TOD with some of the regulars insisting that it's now well established that peak natural gas in the U.S. is long-gone. We now know for certain that they were dead wrong. That doesn't mean that there will never be a peak in natural gas... it just means that attempts to pin it down were overly pesimistic.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I don't think there ever was any such enthusiasm. FBaggins May 2012 #1
I think the reason the Peak Oil group doesn't get traffic... GliderGuider May 2012 #2
Lol... no, I don't think that's it. FBaggins May 2012 #3
You're probably right. GliderGuider May 2012 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author bananas May 2012 #5
I don't recall anyone calling for an antinuclear activism group, but that might be a good idea. bananas May 2012 #6
That is about as good of an idea if ever there was one madokie May 2012 #15
My original remarks kristopher May 2012 #20
Start a petition and let's do this XemaSab May 2012 #21
And what of those who want both? FBaggins May 2012 #23
My idea RobertEarl May 2012 #43
And here we have a classic example of almost unbelievable disruption: Nihil May 2012 #45
Whoa RobertEarl May 2012 #47
How come you never made me a host? bananas May 2012 #7
Let's hear your campaign speech. FBaggins May 2012 #8
Do we have 20 hosts? kristopher May 2012 #9
Do we need 20 hosts? FBaggins May 2012 #10
What does it matter if we "need" 20 hosts? kristopher May 2012 #11
The reason is pretty obvious. FBaggins May 2012 #12
You want a campaign speech? bananas May 2012 #13
I assured you that I wouldn't lock threads that were on topic XemaSab May 2012 #16
The thread was on-topic, as you later conceded bananas May 2012 #32
I think this highlights the need for another group XemaSab May 2012 #33
It highlights the fact that you can't be trusted. nt bananas May 2012 #34
What about the OP do you find disingenuous? XemaSab May 2012 #35
Count me in madokie May 2012 #14
Oh, yeah, now I remember XemaSab May 2012 #17
Who has to be convinced? Procedurally, what has to happen? phantom power May 2012 #18
I think all that needs to happen is for someone XemaSab May 2012 #19
What was suggested: "Energy and Environment in a World of Nuclear Power" kristopher May 2012 #22
The Environment/Energy forum is going to stay as it is XemaSab May 2012 #24
Then if the nuclear club wants a safe haven... kristopher May 2012 #25
I have no idea what you're talking about XemaSab May 2012 #26
The "nuclear club" neither wants nor needs a "safe haven". FBaggins May 2012 #27
It isn't "opposing views" that is the problem here. kristopher May 2012 #28
Who do you think the disruptors are? XemaSab May 2012 #30
Same pro nuke article made the rounds today @ D Kos and DU FogerRox May 2012 #31
Not an appropriate question. FBaggins May 2012 #38
And a question for you: XemaSab May 2012 #41
No. Of course not. FBaggins May 2012 #48
I agree XemaSab May 2012 #49
That would be nice... FBaggins May 2012 #36
I'm saying this as your friend: XemaSab May 2012 #37
It sounds like it would just become two echo chambers NickB79 May 2012 #29
We'd be fine if E&E was more E and less E. joshcryer May 2012 #39
I meant "globalization" there, but I'm leaving that. joshcryer May 2012 #40
Nah ... it had too many letters ... Nihil May 2012 #44
To the extent that this group becomes more about E and less about E GliderGuider May 2012 #46
We need a poll RobertEarl May 2012 #42
I started a petition: XemaSab May 2012 #50
Is your intention to shunt antinuclear discussion into that group? kristopher May 2012 #51
Kick for visibility XemaSab May 2012 #52
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Whatever happened to the ...»Reply #3