If people like "the voice of reason" have stupid answers, what will we do if everybody gets stupid like that?

Question

"the voice of reason" In 1955 the head oil reserves investigator for Shell said, after finding the Saudi oil fields, " we have drilled, capped or are on the last crude oil reserves to be discovered in the North America, which is why we were looking overseas, even with the discovery of the Saudi fields, at the rate we are using crude surplus in the world we will run out of crude by the year 2040. I have the recording of the Discovery Channel show, just tell me where to send it or look it up on your computer before you accuse others of not being factual. By the way, you should have your email open for responses if you are saying people are not being factual. Peace

Answer 1

So a quote from an oil driller in 1955 is accurate to suggest that we'll be out of oil in 2040?  I doubt anybody will dispute the factuality of the fact that this guy said this, and that it was indeed on the Discovery Channel.  That's really not at issue.  Oil reserves are a very complicated issue, and what is a viable reserve changes with technology and oil prices.  We will never run out of oil- we'll just have a curve where it will be more and more expensive to find and produce to the point where we wont use it (at least for mundane things like motor fuels).

While I'm not familiar with 'the voice of reason,' I'd suggest that you take a strong look at yourself before criticizing others.  Lots of people give unsatisfactory sounding answers because there is, to a given question, no satisfactory or definite answer.  Your quote from the discovery channel is a perfect example of what causes people to think others have lousy answers.  

You say- This guy in 1955 said it.  Therefore it is true.  If you disagree you are stupid, because I have the tape.

Other people say-

Well, who was this guy?  

How informed was he about new trends in drilling technology and new discoveries?  

How informed was ANYBODY about that in 1955?  

What has changed in our knowledge since then?  

Did the producers of the program of which you so proudly hold a copy have a reason to pick a quote from that particular individual?  

Where else could we corroborate that information?  

That information conflicts with other stuff I've found, how can we reconcile that?

I can see how people with a pet point they want to prove, or who want a simple definite answer, can be frustrated with the above responses, and that the path from this frustration to calling them idiots, liars or disingenuous may be short.  Unfortunately for them, truth is gray.  The world is not simple cause and effect- causes have many effects and effects have many causes.

Again, I don't know anything about 'voice of reason.'  They may very well have stupid answers.  They may not.  But, given your vehement support for a rather peculiar piece of evidence (not immediately bad or wrong, just dated and in need of more modern corroboration), I'd suggest that you take a step back and consider how your arguments look to others and what contributes to you thinking that others have stupid answers.