Again, you're not talking about the same thing as me, or you're not understanding what I'm saying. When they make a projection on when oil will run out, it's based on usually three key pieces of information: proven oil reserves, rate of consumption, and expected change in consumption rate based on the current trend line. Then there are many lesser factors that might be considered, like speculation on finding new reserves or changes in technology that allow greater access to difficult to access oil. The projection is just a number based on the three main pierces of information that let us estimate how long our oil supply will last. If that number happens to be 100 years, they're not claiming to be projecting what the oil situation will be in 100 years, they're simply saying that oil will last 100 years if nothing changes.
Then it is not even a prediction, just idle talk at taxpayer's expense
1) it doesn't have to be taxpayer's expense. There are plenty of think tanks and public policy groups, not to mention corporations and university economics programs, all publishing these studies.
2) projections are not "idle talk."
3) you're still displaying a non-understanding of what a projection is by saying that "well-founded projections and calculated assumptions" are fine, but projections are "idle talk" at the same time. The methodology is largely the same for projections, so you're arguing both for and against it at the same time. Either you don't realize this, or you need to explain your point better so it's not a steady stream of contradictions.
Whatever you call it, it still doesn't make much sense (let alone reliable assessment) in respect to what might and will actually happen in the so distant future. It is the same assumption (aka "turkey's delusion") that you will live forever just for the fact that you have already lived on long enough (i.e. things don't change). I'm curious why this has ever become a point of debate...
You seem to have an idiosyncrasy of proving yourself right at any time at any cost, even if you're wrong, lol
I have an tendency of pointing out when you're not making sense or fundamentally misunderstanding something you're proclaiming expertise in, which just happens to be the majority of the time. You've flip flopped yet again. Projections are well-founded, they're just idle talk; back and forth, back and forth. Here's an idea: before you engage in debate, figure out what you believe first. Then write things that support what you believe.
Once again, and see if you can follow it this time, a projection is not a prediction of what will happen.
It is an mathematical extrapolation of an event based on all of the known information we have. When the information we have changes, the projections change. A prediction, by comparison, would be that a projection is either incorrect or correct based on unproven hypotheses or ideas, but the projection is merely an exercise in mathematics.
