I asked the question of you, and instead of answering it, apparently you're just going to act like it's beneath you.

If you're going to act like you're so above me, why not show how awesome you are and explain how global energy demand surpassing energy supply is a concept that is either fundamentally wrong or irrelevant.

Are you disputing that global demand for energy has surpassed man's capacity to bring it to market? Or just that it doesn't matter?

Squawking words to the affect of "you're too dumb for me to explain it to you" is doing nothing for your position. What in God's name IS your position then?

I answered the question. You not understanding it is no reason to insult.

And by the way, just because I was talking about your logic doesn't necessarily mean I want to talk about the underlying question. It definitely doesn't mean I want to REFUUUUUUUTE you.

No, you didn't answer it. In fact, you admit so below.

And you insulted others from the moment you entered the discussion in post 536. But, as we've learned, it's different when your team does it.

Yes, better to just assert "that's dumb," and act too cool to explain why.

Because, ultimately, you're incapable. For the same reason you can't "refute" the IMF, the IEA, the Joint Chiefs and the DoE on the topic here.

Sorry, I answered the question. That you don't like the answer, or want to argue something else, or don't understand the answer, that's another thing.


Again, I've explained why. Twice I think...

LMAO. Wow...so I say I don't want to argue something, and what do you do? Assume a side for me, assume an argument for me, and then try to prove you're right.

Whatever floats your boat, pal.

I'll try this again, for the fourth time, and perhaps you'll address it rather than pretend you did:

- has global demand for energy outstripped mankind's capacity to produce it?

Do better than lofting unsolicited "conspiratard" insults, then acting butthurt when it's given right back to you. ... "pal"

I'll try this again, for the fourth time, and perhaps you'll understand the answer (but I'm not going to hold my breath).

Regardless of what you do, however you try to goad me into arguing with you, I choose not to. Please stop the REEEEEEEFUUUUUUUUTE ME! type postings.

If you want the answer to the question you originally asked, which I did answer (using the phrase "supply > demand" shows either a careless or lack of knowledge of economics).

Of course not. Demand=supply at the current price. Economics 101.

You're incapable of being honest. I reviewed the exchange, and that was not my original question to you at all, liar. This is you being held accountable for your unsolicited troll-ish behavior, and defensively retreating.

I asked you, simply, if you disagree with the basic premise that demand has surpassed supply for world energy flow rates. You NEVER answered it. All you did was act like "demand > supply" was too simplistic and I'm too dumb to engage. Nevermind that I've elaborated on that underlying theme a half dozen times throughout this thread.

Obviously, I was breaking it down for brevity this time around, but being the forum fraud that you are, you're pretending it's my first commentary on the topic. Either answer the question, or run along.

The longer you stall, the more you come off looking like someone who desperately wants for it all to not be true, but can't find the data.

Somewhere in this equation you're leaving out global recession that comes with said price.

You: Demand = supply, where growth doesn't matter.

Me: Demand = supply, where growth is everything, yet is devastated.

Acknowledging global recession while insisting "demand = supply" doesn't counter the peak assertion. It underlines it.

The cessation of growth rate IS the very ramification of the peak condition.

Defensive retreating? LIAR. I never said one thing about the conclusion, I was *always* talking about the logic. But please, keep referring to 'only addressing what I was originally discussing' as 'defensively retreating'. It's good for laughs.

And I've told you, simply, that I wasn't discussing it, nor did I have any interest in discussing the conclusion. BTW, that quoted stuff isn't 'too simplistic', it's 'wrong'.

Translation: Jiggs: even though you said you didn't want to argue this, I'll continue to demand you REFUUUUUUUUUTE ME!

Wow. I've only said what, five times now, that I wasn't talking about your conclusions. Nice try at the REFUUUUUUUTE ME! attempt though. If you keep it up, some feeble minds might actually think you're 'winning'.

I'm not leaving anything out, or commenting on anything you write above. I am simply saying that "supply has outstripped demand" is a nonsensical statement.

You were challenged to flesh out your position that sparked your riducule in the first place, and you refused. In fact, you continue to say it's "wrong," but can't explain why you feel its wrong.

If you're going to run your mouth and troll for reaction, at least have the stones to roll up your sleeves and address the subject material. Don't run away. Show us all how it's "wrong," and you might actually come off looking like the awesome poster you tell yourself daily that you are.

I've said it what, six times now? saying "demand outstripped supply" or "supply < demand" is, as mjkidd also says, a nonsensical statement. But please, keep saying I haven't said the above many times. And keep making statements about me that are blatently false. It just shows that statements like this:

are also just made up.

LOL. Especially when you can just ignore all perspective behind what it means.

Very well. The global economy doesn't require infinite growth I guess.

You entered the thread pretending (obnoxiously, as you do) that my hypothetical position on Obama's task force is why I believe peak is true. Peak is instead true for the countless documents and stories provided throughout this entire thread and others.

Once that was corrected, you punted to try and save face.

Now you're clinging desperately to your rock, and refusing to let go.

Imagine if you offered an axiom in the 9/11 thread, and I just called it "nonsensical" and ducked from explaining why I felt that way. Or said, "even an ally of mine feels the same!!!" LOL

LMAO. Keep thinking that if it is what makes you happy. It also will keep you thinking that you actually understand economics. Unfortunately (for you) neither is true.

BTW, the reason I explained it in the way I did was that someone who understands economics correctly would have immediately realized their mistake/sloppiness and said something like 'oh, come on, you know I mean XXXXXX'. Someone who didn't understand economics would carry on as you have. I wanted to see which possibility was correct. As I said, either you were being very sloppy or didn't understand economics. I have my answer.

You keep thinking that as well, if that's what you need to slink away from this direct challenge.

I understand it just fine. You, on the other hand, have ZERO idea how global energy works, nor how energy availability dictates to economics.

White flag accepted. Bai

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Abdolutely hilarious. You claim victory because your goading me into an argument with you didn't work????

You really like your REFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTE ME! arguments, don't you?

LOL. Dude, get over yourself. An intellectually honest debater would just cut out the perpetual haughty, pretentious blabber and cut to the chase. Your CYA ploy is failing badly.

Until you explain how it's "wrong" or doesn't matter, you fail.

It's simple economics. Learn it.

It's also something I 'cut to the chase' with, as long as you understand rudimentary economics. Just because I didn't teach you stuff from the second week of econ 101 is no reason to say I didn't cut to the chase or that I was playing a CYA ploy. Sorry.

Please... Based on the smarmy style in which you post, if you had an angle, you would take great joy in pointing out how the fundamental premise of mine is so "nonsensical." ... For you to suddenly act as though it's all beneath you screams that you're trying to get out of this challenge and still save face.

The opportunity is right there for you to show how badly I somehow miss the point when it comes to economics and energy. But instead of earning your stripes and putting Jiggs away once and for all, you're running from the discussion entirely and just saying "you're too dumb to understand."

LOL

Like I said, I'll let you off the hook then if you can't do the work. But if that's the case, then my point stands unchallenged: Global supply for cheap energy can no longer keep up with global demand for cheap energy, and the fallout from that reality is resulting in major economic dislocation and upheaval, from nation states all the way to individuals' finances.

Ah, so again, you go back to your REFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTE ME! arguments. Look, to explain this slowly and in small words--I was talking about your logic, not your conclusion. For the nth time, I have no desire to be dragged into debating something I have no interest in debating with you. So please just stop your petty attempts at it, ok?

BTW, talking about the demand for cheap energy just shows further lack of economic knowledge. So if you do find someone who has had 3+ weeks of intro econ to explain your first misstatement to you, ask them about the mistake you made in your last paragraph too.

I'm the "petty" one in this exchange? LOL. That's rich.

If you have no desire to debate the thread SUBJECT, why enter the thread in the first place? Oh, that's right... To be petty, and rifle off a series of haughty "BWAHAHAH" e-laughter and nothing deeper.

LOLGTFO

So you have no argument with my conclusion, just that the logic I use to reach that conclusion is flawed and you can't flesh out why? Oh. ... You sure can't paraphrase, but you're excellent at semantics.

Run along.

Wow. So I can't come in and make a comment in the thread without you forcing me to debate you on whatever it is you want me to debate you on? Let me quote you:

LOLGTFO

BTW, thread subject isn't PEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAK oil, it's energy briefs. So you're not trying to debate the thread SUBJECT either. But hey, it's ok, because that's what you wanted to talk about.

****ty logic means one can't place any faith at all in the conclusion drawn using the argument. It might be true for other reasons, it might be false. But ****ty logic is useless. If you want to keep using useless things, be my guest.

BTW, for the seventh? time, I have told you why. You'd fail the first three weeks of Econ 101. But please, for your own sanity and delusions, keep ignoring what I'm saying and believing that I "can't flesh out why".

U mad.