Perhaps...

...not everyone is as clever as you.

[ad hominem snipped - Andrew]

You what? Andrew Orlowski is now not only moderating posts in response to his articles (can you say "conflict of interest"?!) he is also *EDITING OUT* bits that he doesn't like.

It seems that it is ok for HIM to call people names, but when the boot is on the other foot he can't take it.

Talk about an abuse of power!

Ah, the movable goalposts are out of storage...

[ad hominem snipped - Andrew]

So let me try again, Andrew: Please will you answer the following regarding the creation of synthetic crude:

How much biomass or energy is used to create that synthetic crude?

Will it be self-sustaining?

Will it require turning more and more of the planet's ecosystem over to growing the biomass needed?

And please don't try to fob off the questions with "don't you worry your pretty little head, we'll come up with some clever technology sometime to deal with it" nonsense this time.

As I said in another post "Now hopefully, yes, we will come up with a new technology that will solve the problem but until then, how about we just start acting a little more sensibly and try to use the energy that we produce in a more *efficient* manner to put off that crisis point a bit?"

Again I ask "Is that too hard to accept as a reasonable argument without resorting to personal attacks?"

How about some answers, Andrew?

Re: "We can synthesize crude already"...

"You need to think in terms of available energy and how well we can harness it, and turn it into useful things."

Please, Andrew, tell us the difference between *available* energy and *usable* energy. (Hint: An atomic bomb produces LOTS of energy, but exactly how much of that is usable?)

It's all very well posting clever pictures of "this is how much energy we use and this is how much is available", but it doesn't say how much energy we will have to *expend* in order to get that, does it?

"Now we may or may not be doomed - but we're certainly doomed if we follow you. We wouldn't be here today if our ancestors had. Simple, really."

Oh dear, Andrew, another personal attack, one of many you use when you have no way of countering an argument that you don't like.

You keep making comments about "bedwetting" (do you really think they add anything to the validity of your points?) yet you keep reaching for your security blanket of "we'll be able to sort this all out eventually" and pulling it over your head in the hope that it will make the nasty bogeyman of increasing usage versus limited production go away and stop scaring you.

What my argument actually is (as opposed to your Straw Man caricature of it) is that we, as a species, are using more and more energy and at some point we *WILL* reach a point at which demand will exceed supply.

Now hopefully, yes, we will come up with a new technology that will solve the problem but until then, how about we just start acting a little more sensibly and try to use the energy that we produce in a more *efficient* manner to put off that crisis point a bit?

Is that too hard to accept as a reasonable argument without resorting to personal attacks?

Misunderstanding the point

How many extra Social Workers would that £224 million pounds have paid for along with the £44 million running costs every year?

*THAT* is what this money should have been spent on and it would have meant that the overworked and underpaid and demoralised people who are trying to do their job with totally inadequate resources and backup might be able to protect the children who so desperately need someone to look after their needs, rather than a Big Brother database which can record in exquisite detail how the system failed them...

Your point...

"My point is that the transition to synthetics will not require us to live in yurts, or whittle, as the Peakers want"

... is a ridiculous Straw Man argument.

You might like to look it up on http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html and, at the same time, look at some of the (many) other fallacies ("bedwetting" = Ad Hominem) that you've managed to use in place of actual reasoned debate.

Do you really think that that sort of thing adds any credibility to your arguments?

That's amazing...

... I've got the same combination on my luggage!

@Uhm... No.

I think you need to re-read that with your Irony Detector switched on...

"We can synthesize crude already"...

... but what that site *doesn't* say is how much biomass or energy is used to create that synthetic crude. Will it be self-sustaining? Will it require turning more and more of the planet's ecosystem over to growing the biomass needed?

Perhaps Andrew Orlowski could take time out from making ridiculous ad hominem attacks and address the errors in his logic?

Yes and...

... commentards shouldn't be allowed to post on El Reg's forums if they don't have the faintest idea of what they're talking about either!

Whilst most people are watching...

... a bunch of over-paid prima donnas getting kicked out of the World Cup...

... the roads should be nice and clear, so I'll be having an enjoyable bimble along the twisty bits :-)

Mine's the bike jacket...

The Brown Note is a myth...

... as Mythbusters demonstrated.

Begins with s...

... sheep...?

"Assembly is the reverse of disassembly..."

... so that tiny spring will *leap* from wherever it vanished to under the car/ workbench/ dog and land neatly in place...

@Teenagers

I suggest you look up the expression "post hoc ergo propter hoc".

So, no answers yet...

... three up votes, one down vote (Why, FFS? Just because I asked??) but nobody can actually *tell me* what I need to know.

Ho hum, looks like I'm stuck with XP.

@Idiot

Are you one of those selfish people who think that signs saying "No Mobile Phones" and "No headphones" in the Quiet Carriages on trains don't apply to you? And then get all stroppy when somone points out that sign as if the person *complaining* about the selfish idiot is doing something wrong??

It's just a shame that the Guards on these trains don't actually bother to "walk through the train" as they claim they'll be doing and do their job of telling selfish idiots to move or shut up.

Smart move??

"After the massive investment there are few savings to be made by scrapping it because the cash has gone."

That sounds as ridiculous Alan Johnson's argument that the Coalition should not scrap the ID card scheme because of all the money that has been spent on it already...

@Henry Wertz 1

"britain is not free and civilized either"

I don't think the previous poster said that (or implied it), especially since Britain certainly isn't until we get rid of nonsense like the OPA, Dangerous Pictures (and Cartoons) Acts and redefine the job of the BBFC to stop being nannies who will order nasty bits of films cut out and simply *classify* the films according to content.

Sorry...

... this is El Reg, not the Socialist Worker...

Or perhaps some coffeee...

... Percolate! Percolate!