|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
SpaceBuddy008 (206 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-05 04:38 PM Original message |
Hey Folks, it's a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs. |
Hey Folks, it's a Coercive Hoax. stOp. (S)HriLL (O)iL (S)hiLLs.
author: CultureJamCleveland RePort @ http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/313421.shtml Deceit UNveiled: -'Peak' is PreText ' PiLL' Forcing the 'UNavoidable' ? die-off Plan/Scam ~One theory is backed by a massive body of research representing fifty years of intense scientific inquiry. The other theory is an unproven relic of the eighteenth century. ~So which theory have we in the West, in our infinite wisdom, chosen to embrace? Why, the fundamentally absurd 'Fossil Fuel' theory, of course -- the same theory that the 'Peak Oil' doomsday warnings are based on. ~The notion that oil is a 'fossil fuel' was first proposed by Russian scholar Mikhailo Lomonosov in 1757. ~Two and a half centuries later, Lomonosov's theory remains as it was in 1757 -- an unproved, and almost entirely speculative, hypothesis. Returning once again to the Wall Street Journal, we find that, "Although the world has been drilling for oil for generations, little is known about the nature of the resource or the underground activities that led to its creation." A paragraph in the Encyclopedia Britannica concerning the origins of oil ends thusly: "In spite of the great amount of scientific research ... there remain many unresolved questions regarding its origins." ~Does that not seem a little odd? We are talking here, after all, about a resource that, by all accounts, plays a crucial role in a vast array of human endeavors (by one published account, petroleum is a raw ingredient in some 70,000 manufactured products, including medicines, synthetic fabrics, fertilizers, paints and varnishes, acrylics, plastics, and cosmetics). By many accounts, the very survival of the human race is entirely dependent on the availability of petroleum. And yet we know almost nothing about this most life-sustaining of the earth's resources. And even though, by some shrill accounts, the well is about to run dry,.... Put the Kibbosh On It ....no one seems to be overly concerned with understanding the nature and origins of so-called 'fossil fuels.' We are, rather, content with continuing to embrace an unproved 18th century theory that, if subjected to any sort of logical analysis, seems ludicrous.... ~ great quantities of oil are found in deeper wells that are found below the level of any fossils. How could then oil have come from fossils, or decomposed former living matter, if it exists in rock formations far below layers of fossils - the evidence of formerly living organisms? It must not come from living matter at all! ~ There has not been enough true "formerly living matter" through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleum that has been consumed to date. ~It was made to be thought a "Fossil" fuel by the Nineteenth oil producers to create the concept that it was of limited supply and therefore extremely valuable. This fits with the "Depletion" allowance philosophical scam. ~The people that the 'Peak Oil' pitchmen are fronting for are deadly serious about selling 'Peak Oil' to the masses -- and not just in theoretical terms, as a cynical ploy to raise prices and increase profits. No, it has become clear that the real goal is to actually cut off most of the world's oil supplies under the ruse that the oil simply no longer exists. The desired result is massive social unrest, widespread famine, and endless war. The majority of the world's people will not survive. Those that do will find themselves living under the overtly authoritarian form of rule that will quickly be deemed necessary to restore order. ~The truth is that such a future awaits us only if the claims of the 'Peakers' are true, or, more importantly, if we allow ourselves to be convinced that the claims are true when they most certainly are not. It is vitally important, therefore, that the people of the world be given the opportunity to thoroughly review all sides of this issue. After all, if the Peakers are right, then all of our lives are very much on the line. ~But the Peakers also claim that these military ventures have been motivated by America's desire to seize what will soon be the last drops of the world's precious reserves of oil -- and that is entirely untrue. ~But the Peakers also claim that this global "die off" will be a regrettable, but quite natural, and entirely unavoidable, consequence of the world's oil taps running dry. And that is the really big lie. ~One of Ruppert's "unimpeachable sources," Colin Campbell, describes an apocalyptic future, just around the corner, that will be characterized by "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens." ~The message there seems pretty clear: once the people understand what is at stake, they will support whatever is deemed necessary to secure the world's oil supplies. And what is it that Ruppert is accomplishing with his persistent 'Peak Oil' postings? He is helping his readers to understand what is allegedly at stake. ~It seems to me that, in the final analysis, what the 'Peak Oil' crowd is selling looks very much like what the Bush administration is selling: control of popular opinion through fear. The methodology and the goals (justifying endless war and openly fascistic domestic policies) appear to be the same. The only difference that I can see is that Team Bush sells the agenda through fear of phantom terrorists, while Team 'Peak Oil' sells it through fear of a phantom apocalypse just over the horizon. ~I think the deception speaks directly to the issue of whether 'Peak Oil' is real. Why all the deception about the true origins of oil, and about who is behind the concept the viability of alternative energy sources? There has to be a reason why the idea is being sold with so much deception. ***** PROGRAMMING FAILING DUE TO IGNOMINIOUS SATURATION, in a free-thinking Nation: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- shiLLs ToiL in scam for RoyaLs 'Peak OiL' Mind SoiLed Atmosphere BoiLs KundaLini CoiLs FOIL Peak OiL by Being Peace LoyaL 'all cards on the tabLe' According to HoyLe. ***** CliffNotes, HighLights by CuLtureJamCLeveLand ~For the last couple of decades, the theory has been accepted as established fact by virtually the entire scientific community of the (former) Soviet Union. It is backed up by literally thousands of published studies in prestigious, peer-reviewed scientific journals. ~The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins is not controversial nor presently a matter of academic debate. The period of debate about this extensive body of knowledge has been over for approximately two decades (Simakov 1986). ~Hasn't the conventional wisdom been, for many decades, that oil is a 'fossil fuel,' and therefore a finite, non-renewable resource? Since when has it been an intelligence community secret that a finite resource will someday run out? ~Could it be that many of the world's oil fields are refilling themselves at nearly the same rate they are being drained by an energy hungry world? ~"there new data and interpretations strongly suggest that the oil and gas in the Eugene Island field could be treated as a steady-state rather than a fixed resource." ~ And how does the fossil fuel theory explain the continuous, spontaneous venting of gas and oil? ~Eugene Island is rapidly refilling itself, perhaps from some continuous source miles below the Earth's surface. That, they say, raises the tantalizing possibility that oil may not be the limited resource it is assumed to be. ~Dry oil wells spontaneously refilling? Oil generation and migration systems? Massive oil reserves miles beneath the earth's surface? Spontaneous venting of enormous volumes of gas and oil? ~Why do we insist on retaining an antiquated theory that is so obviously contradicted by readily observable phenomena? Is the advancement of the sciences not based on formulating a hypothesis, and then testing that hypothesis? And if the hypothesis fails to account for the available data, is it not customary to either modify that hypothesis or formulate a new hypothesis -- rather than, say, clinging to the same discredited hypothesis for 250 years ~I mention that because of something else I read on Ruppert's site. Listed as #5 of "Nine Critical Questions to Ask About Alternative Energy" is: "Most of the other questions in this list can be tied up into this one question: does the invention defy the Laws of Thermodynamics? If the answer is yes, then something is wrong." http://www.fromthewilderness.com Well then, Mr. Ruppert, I have some very bad news for you, because something definitely is wrong -- with your 'Peak Oil' theory. Because here we have a published study, subjected to peer review (thus assuring the "validity" of the study), that demonstrates, with mathematical certainty, that it is actually the 'fossil fuel' theory that defies the laws of thermodynamics. It appears then that if we follow Ruppert's Laws, we have to rule out fossil fuels as a viable alternative to petroleum. ~But is there really any doubt that those who own and control the oil industry are well aware of the true origins of oil? How could they not be? Surely there must be a reason why there appears to be so little interest in understanding the nature and origins of such a valuable, and allegedly vanishing, resource. And that reason can only be that the answers are already known. The objective, of course, is to ensure that the rest of us don't find those answers. Why else would we be encouraged, for decades, to cling tenaciously to a scientific theory that can't begin to explain the available scientific evidence? ~Maintaining the myth of scarcity, you see, is all important. Without it, the house of cards comes tumbling down. And yet, even while striving to preserve that myth, the petroleum industry will continue to provide the oil and gas needed to maintain a modern industrial infrastructure, long past the time when we should have run out of oil. And needless to say, the petroleum industry will also continue to reap the enormous profits that come with the myth of scarcity. ~Because, you see, we first have to go through the charade of pretending that the world has just about run out of 'conventional' oil reserves, thus justifying massive price hikes, which will further pad the already obscenely high profits of the oil industry. Only then will it be fully acknowledged that there is, you know, that 'other' oil. ~ I have been struggling to come up with an explanation on my own and the only one that I've got so far is that the corporation might be involved in some kind of conspiracy to manufacture an artificial shortage of a crucial commodity. ~Saudi officials announced on April 28 that the Kingdom's estimate of recoverable reserves had nearly quintupled ! ~Note that the oil reserves claimed by Saudi Arabia alone (1.2 trillion barrels) exceed what the Peakers claim are the total recoverable oil reserves for the entire planet. Let's pause here for a minute and think about the significance of that: one tiny patch of land, accounting for less than than 1/2 of 1% of the earth's total surface area, potentially contains more oil that the 'Peak' pitchmen claim the entire planet has to offer! Is there not something clearly wrong with this picture? And make no mistake about it: the future that has been scripted by the architects of 'Peak Oil' is not going to be pretty. Massive population reduction has always been a key component of the 'Peak Oil' agenda. Ruppert first acknowledged that fact in an e-mail to this website in March of this year. This is what he wrote at that time: "I advocate an immediate convening of political, economic, spiritual and scientific leaders from all nations to address the issue of Peak Oil (and Gas) and its immediate implications for economic collapse, massive famine and climate destruction (partially as a result of reversion to coal plants which accelerate global warming). This would, scientifically speaking, include immediate steps to arrive at a crash program - agreed to by all nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and ethical principles - to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a painful choice made by all of humanity." ~Now the question is: do we want to do it nice or do we want to do it nasty? The world has chosen to embark on a path that is the worst Nazi nightmare ever seen. It will be bloody, it will be violent, it will involve population reduction by the most brutal, venal, underhanded methods. So ultimately what I have to say to you is that, as I look at this, and as I've studied this, and as I've worked for 26 years to unravel this -- this covert mechanism that governs our lives, I'm firmly convinced that what we are now faced with is a choice offered to us by our creator: either evolve or perish. Thank you. Thank you. ~So what is Ruppert telling us here ... other than that "our creator" is now apparently now demanding that we evolve? What exactly is this "world" of which he speaks -- this "world nightmare ever seen"? I don't think that it is the people of planet Earth that have collectively chosen to take this path. And I doubt that it is the planet itself that has chosen this path. Isn't it really the case that this path was forced upon the world by the global elite and their paid stooges? Is Ruppert telling us that we are all facing a violent, bloody death, so we might as well start taking care of the job ourselves -- in a less "nasty" and more, uhmm, "nice" manner? Are those the only two options available? Why is a "bloody," "brutal," "violent" and "venal" future taken as a given? To be sure, we are certainly heading in that direction, but we needn't necessarily continue to do so, unless we blindly accept the manufactured reality as an objective, and inevitable, reality. Of course, Ruppert and his fellow 'Peakers' seem to be working very hard to guarantee the arrival of that "Nazi nightmare" future. ~But of course they are. That, you see, is precisely the point. What I was trying to say is that the notion of 'Peak Oil' is being specifically marketed to the anti-war crowd -- because, as we all know, the pro-war crowd doesn't need to be fed any additional justifications for going to war; any of the old lies will do just fine. And I never said that the necessity of war was being overtly sold. What I said, if I remember correctly, is that it is being sold with a wink and a nudge. ~The point that I was trying to make is that it would be difficult to imagine a better way to implicitly sell the necessity of war, even while appearing to stake out a position against war, than through the promotion of the concept of 'Peak Oil.' After September 11, 2001, someone famously said that if Osama bin Laden didn't exist, the US would have had to invent him. I think the same could be said for 'Peak Oil.' I also need to mention here that those who are selling 'Peak Oil' hysteria aren't offering much in the way of alternatives, or solutions. Ruppert, for example, has stated flatly that "there is no effective replacement for what hydrocarbon energy provides today." ~Another telling sign of 'Peak Oil,' according to Ruppert and Co., is sudden price hikes on gas and oil. Of course, that would be a somewhat more compelling argument if the oil cartels did not have a decades-long history of constantly feigning shortages to foist sudden price increases on consumers (usually just before peak travel periods). Contrary to the argument that appears on Ruppert's site, it is not need that is driving the oil industry, it is greed. ~Hasn't the conventional wisdom been, for many decades, that oil is a 'fossil fuel,' and therefore a finite, non-renewable resource? Since when has it been an intelligence community secret that a finite resource will someday run out? ~My favorite figure is the one labeled, in one posting, "Yet-to-Find." That figure, 150 billion barrels (a relative pittance), is supposed to represent the precise volume of conventional oil in all the unknown number of oil fields of unknown size that haven't been discovered yet. Ruppert himself has written, with a cocksure swagger, that "there are no more significant quantities of oil to be discovered anywhere ..." ( http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/013004_in_your_face.html) A rather bold statement, to say the least, considering that it would seem to be impossible for a mere mortal to know such a thing. ~The wholesale promotion of 'Peak Oil' seems to have taken off immediately after the September 11, 2001 'terrorist' attacks, ***** ***** ~DECEPTION,DISDAIN & DISREGARD FOP SOUND ARGUMENTATION AND DEBATE PROTOCOLS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED IN THIS EXCHANGE, really blow their own cover http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr53.html ***** ~I was a little worried that those in the Ruppert camp would be smart enough to not respond to my last newsletter. Those worries were quickly put to rest, however, as it took less than 24 hours for me to receive an ill considered, vitriolic response ~I learned that, although underground coal fires are a common phenomenon, most people are completely unaware that they occur. How common are they? At any given time, thousands of coal veins are ablaze around the world. In China's northwestern province of Xinjiang alone, there are currently about 2,000 underground coal fires burning. Indonesia currently hosts as many as 1,000. ~ In other words, the world's leading coal exporter loses more coal to underground fires than it produces for export. ~This raises, in my mind at least, one very obvious question: how is it possible that nature has been taking an extremely heavy toll on the globe's 'fossil fuels' for hundreds of thousands of years (at the very least), without depleting the reserves that were supposedly created long, long ago; and yet man, who has been extracting and burning 'fossil fuels' for the mere blink of an eye, geologically speaking, has managed to nearly strip the planet clean? Is it not perfectly clear that that is a proposition that is absurd on its face -- so much so that it is remarkable that the 'fossil fuel' myth has passed muster for as long as it has? Nevertheless, that entirely illogical myth is the cornerstone on which an even bigger lie - the myth of 'Peak Oil' - is built. Go figure. ~More generally, it is argued, "all giant fields are most logically explained by inorganic theory because simple calculations of potential hydrocarbon contents in sediments shows that organic materials are too few to supply the volumes of petroleum involved." ~Recently, numerous publications have appeared warning that oil production is near an unavoidable, geologically-determined peak that could have consequences up to and including "war, starvation, economic recession, possibly even the extinction of homo sapiens" (Campbell in Ruppert). The current series of alarmist articles could be said to be merely reincarnations of earlier work which proved fallacious, ~Hubbert himself published no equations for deriving the curve, and it appears that he only used a rough estimation initially. In his 1956 paper, in fact, he noted that production often did not follow a bell curve. ~most nations' production does not follow a Hubbert curve. In fact, Campbell (2003) shows production curves (historical and forecast) for 51 non-OPEC countries, and only 8 of them could be said to resemble a Hubbert curve even approximately. The authors initially responded to this weakness by arguing the Hubbert curve could have multiple peaks, which of course means it would not follow a bell curve at all, and destroys the explanatory value of the bell curve. ~Opaque Work, Unproven Assertions The lack of rigor in many of the Hubbert modelers' arguments makes them hard to refute. The huge amount of writing, along with undocumented quotes and vague remarks, necessitates exhaustive review and response ... Perhaps because they are not academics, the primary authors have a tendency to publish results but not research. In fact, by relying heavily on a proprietary database, Campbell and Leherrere have generated a strong shield against criticism of their work, making it nearly impossible to reproduce or check. Similarly, there is little or no research published, merely the assertion that the results are good. ~But consumer groups are charging that big oil companies are largely responsible for the current upward spiral in gasoline costs, saying they have deliberately withheld supplies and reduced storage capacity. ~Public Citizen, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog organization, is preparing to release a report later this week charging that the oil industry deliberately consolidated in the 1990s so that it could withhold supplies and reduce storage capacity. ~"The problem is not crude oil," Cooper said. "It's inadequate refinery capacity and inadequate stockpiles, all of which are the result of decisions made by the oil companies to tighten the market." ~The United States has allowed multiple large, vertically integrated oil companies to merge over the last five years, placing control of the market in too few hands. The result: uncompetitive domestic gasoline markets. Large oil companies can more easily control domestic gasoline prices by exploiting their ever-greater market share, keeping prices artificially high long enough to rake in easy profits but not so long that consumers reduce their dependence on oil ... ~The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concluded in March 2001 that oil companies had intentionally withheld supplies of gasoline from the market as a tactic to drive up prices -- all as a "profit-maximizing strategy." These actions, while costing consumers billions of dollars in overcharges, have not been investigated by the U.S. government. ~"I think you should know about 'Resource Denial Theory.' It's a sub-section of Geopolitical Theory, so beloved of the Bushite and Zbigniew Brzezinski crowds, and states you must take control of areas where strategic resources are located - like oil - and prevent rivals from entering. Your power derives from the control of these resources." ~In other words, it's not about seizing the resources that we need to survive; it's about denying our 'enemies' the resources that they need to survive. ~We are hearing doomsday predictions of the demise of man. Human civilization as we know it is in its final hours. And we have, apparently, simply thrown up our hands in despair. Why bother looking for new sources of petroleum? Why bother double checking old sources of petroleum? Why bother giving any consideration to any alternative sources of energy? Why bother doing anything at all? Clearly, there is something very, very wrong with this picture. ~I have already posed a series of questions for the 'Peak Oil' crowd, all of them pertaining to the deception employed to sell the concept: Why are we being deceived about the true origins of oil and gas? Why are we being deceived about who is really behind the notion of 'Peak Oil'? And why are we being deceived about the viability of various alternative energy sources? ***** A True Story.....,@ http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/313421.shtml ***** (3) "...the understanding that peace is both inner and outer. It is a condition of consciousness, a state of being and becoming which involves cognition, conation and affection. In its integral stage it has a contentment and fulfillment because it is its own witness and has a calm and a repose and a balance of the intelligence of the head and the heart, an intuitive understanding that is born of wisdom and compassion, a harmony that transcends opposites or contraries and says without speaking, knows without looking, and is without doing. Peace in the integral being is consciousness of love and light." (contributed by Dr. Vasant V. Merchant, Editor, The International Journal of Humanities and Peace), and lastly (but not finally), (4) To be enduring, peace must include minimally, the following attributes: resource sufficiency, cooperation, freedom from ignorance and illiteracy; personal and communal opportunities, compassion and caring for others, behaviors and actions that result in all parties "winning", renewable, sustainable energy--sufficient hope, love and prosperity for all, and prospects for the "good life" for all. We now have an expanded (albeit, not exhaustive) global, spiritual, meta-physical, physical, philosophical, biological, anthropological, economic, social, political, natural and operational definition of peace. Peace is defined as being a normal, natual and essential condition for the continued and continuing progression of all humanity toward 100% success. Like perennial wild flowers given the right conditions of climate and nature, peace is ever-recurring at various times and places--in greater and lesser degrees--throughout the human community. Peace and its constituent qualities of sufficiency, altruism, cooperation, hope, love and serenity remain life-sustaining and anti-entropic--our teacher of the "ways", our "beacon" for success and survival--our preferred and natural state. http://www.geni.org/energy/issues/global/myths/scarcity/dog1.htm Achieving Peace, A New Paradigm(Part 2): Scarcity vs. Plenitude http://www.geni.org/energy/issues/global/myths/scarcity/paz.htm ***** **** *** ** ! "Why do we insist on retaining an antiquated theory that is so obviously contradicted by readily observable phenomena? Is the advancement of the sciences not based on formulating a hypothesis, and then testing that hypothesis? And if the hypothesis fails to account for the available data, is it not customary to either modify that hypothesis or formulate a new hypothesis -- rather than, say, clinging to the same discredited hypothesis for 250 years?" homepage: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com some help @ www.gasbuddy.com |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
sui generis (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-05 04:42 PM Response to Original message |
1. why do these keep popping up here today? |
did ya'll get the same memo?
|
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Career Prole (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-05 05:01 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. Peak Prozac is clearly no myth. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
eallen (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-05 04:45 PM Response to Original message |
2. Lest anyone think the Olduvai Gorge crowd are the nuttiest group on oil. |
You provide links to even nuttier folks on the other side. Thanks for the entertainment.
:bounce: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hatrack (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-05 05:17 PM Response to Original message |
4. Sorry about scrolling down to the end so quickly . . . |
But it didn't really take that long to get to the "point" of this post.
So, why is it again that you aren't personally raking in the big bucks with your "abiotic oil" trendspotting? Shouldn't you be able to tell the majors where to drill? :eyes: |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DireStrike (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-05 05:20 PM Response to Original message |
5. Go make some oil, then. |
:eyes:
|
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cestpaspossible (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Mar-15-05 05:29 PM Response to Original message |
6. When the whole world believes the earth is round, |
and you believe it is flat, you might want to consider the possibility that you are wrong, lol.
|
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Wed May 08th 2024, 09:31 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC