Mike Ruppert is a stooge

by **human** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:39 pm

Sorry Human -- Your attitude in condemning the apparant reality of Peak Oil simply because you refuse to accept the projected consequences of our institutionalized dependency on an ever-abundant supply of cheap oil is a major reason WHY the crisis predicted by Peak Oil is essentially inevitable -- It's a classic case of 'What ME Worry???' apparently, "reality" is a sham. my point is, we create reality. believe in a peak oil apocolypse, and get yourself just that. if the solution to any "crisis" is a "final solution", you are damn right, i refuse to accept it. and i hope enough of you do to that we can prevent it. Most people actually have an attitude like yours -- they realize for all practical purposes they can't affect the big picture, so they're not gonna worry about it. I'd argue that 'worry' is a waste of effort and emotion anyway, but that's a moot point. thats not what im saying at all. in fact, that is the whole premise of "Peak Oilers" who rank up there with "Planet Xers" on a scale of lethargy. pro active peak oilers advocate eugenics and so when im presented with a theory that either calls for lethargy or eugenics im not into it. let me re iterate, i am 100% for alternative energies and reduction of CONSUMPTION, not population. In the absence of a concerted, immediate, collective and cooperative crash-program to address the seriousness of the consequences of Peak Oil, the trend of price increases, resource wars, economic refugees, environmental deterioration, global warming, famines, inflation, increasing militarism, inflation and severe economic crises will just keep getting worse. The downside of Peak Oil for the last 20 years has ALREADY shown itself to those observant enough to recognize the true cause for a lot of the political, economic and military positioning by leading global-stage players. It's just gonna get worse BECAUSE people can't bear to deal with it -- it upsets their complacent apple-cart. They'd be more courageous and honest if they recognized their motives for denial. no. how do you like that for denial. no. courageous & honest is calling bullshit what it is. did Hitler impliment his "Final Solution" because of Peak Oil? did Stalin? did the Catholic Church? this genocide stuff is nothing new, and its para politics, not materialism. But perhaps you're not amenable to reason -- Frankly, I find this position of yours at-odds from the pretty-sharp individual who made posts and comments on other threads. But I DO understand the reluctance to grasp the seriousness of what Peak Oil portends. I'd rather not deal with it either -- But I can't just ignore it. im not ignoring it at all. whenever it is brought up, i do my best to show people that its not real. i grasp the seriousness. global genocide. and i will have no part in it. my position on this is far from at odds with my position on other topics. i think "science" is BS. i think there are forces on this planet manipulating death and destruction & fear because they feed off of it, psychic vampires with no honor... and i always, always, always, let it be known when i smell bullshit. every nation ever built has been destroyed, im aware. but i also know who the destroyers are. one human?

by **wolf pauli** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:56 pm

Prac, you're right that the impact of rising oil prices on the economy deserves more attention; it's actually an instance -- maybe the most dramatic instance today, but just one instance among others -- of a a more general phenomenon, viz. as the value of natural resources rises, wages and interest are driven down toward the level of bare subsistence. As Henry George said, "Wherever the value of land is relatively low, wages and interest are relatively high; wherever land is relatively high, wages and interest are relatively low". (Note that by "land" he meant "all natural opportunities or forces", which covers natural resources and much else besides, e.g., railroad rights of way, aquifers, easements, orbits for commercial satellites, spectrum assignments associated with telecom licences, etc.) When things are seen in this way, the underlying cause of our endless cycles of boom and bust, industrial depressions, pauperism side by side with progress, etc. becomes transparent. This phenomenon (minus the high-tech applications -- but they are only applications) had been identified and studied before the first barrel of oil was extracted for commercial purposes in Pennsylvania in the mid-19th century. There's already a pretty strong sense of it in the work of Francois Quesnay and the physiocrats, followed by full recognition in the work of Ricardo (mentioned by Anon above), A.R. Wallace, Henry George and others. Sadly, most economists today willfully ignore it, with a few notable exceptions such as Mason Gaffney, Michael Hudson, Allen Manvel, and Steven Cord -- indeed, exposing this willful ignorance was one of the principal motives behind Gaffney's book The Corruption of Economics. (BTW, it was Michael Hudson who figured out long ago that many countries are stuck with servicing American debt, because their central banks are so crammed with greenbacks and US Treasury instruments that if they stop bailing America out, they'll bankrupt themselves -- a point to which many intelligent people remain completely blind, though you can bet it's not lost on the central bankers.) There's a simple, unitary solution to all these problems; you'll find it in George's Progress and Proverty, but don't expect it to be implemented any time soon. Those with the lion's share of wealth and power could easily create equity while retaining plenty for themselves -- the problem is they want it all.

by **sunny** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:30 pm

"Those with the lion's share of wealth and power could easily create equity while retaining plenty for themselves -- the problem is they want it all." So true, Wolf Pauli, you alway's post comments that cut right to the heart of the matter. In contemplating Peak Oil or no Peak Oil, I wonder which circumstance would benefit the elites more? Seems to me it wouldn't matter, as they would land on their feet like feral cat's, either way. The question is, should we prepare for the possibility of running out of oil? Seems to me it couldn't hurt.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **heath7** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:50 pm

From some of the comments that I've read, despite what I've wrote, I feel compelled to point out that some of these peak-oil-exists comments are ignoring some facts. For example, when mentioning that the US peak occurred in the 1970s as predicted by Hubbert, then ignoring that there are literally trillions of barrels of oil still in the ground in the US, as well as in Canada, you defeat your argument (and please, don't pretend to know anything about getting it out of the ground, its like saying you KNOW about UFOs, one can only speculate. Unless you're an uncorrupted hydrocarbon extraction scientist at the forefront of research, I won't believe you). It bothers me when people insinuate that I'm not rigourously wrapping my head around the problem, when they are obviously not being too rigourous themselves. I don't pretend to KNOW anything, I only offer perspectives that seem relevant. It seems too easy for many of us to KNOW what we are talking about. Ruppert IS a stooge. That doesn't mean he has to be accomplishing something for the oil companies or anybody else. It means that he's subjective to a fault, a fault that would only benefit oil barons if, hypothetically speaking, Ruppert were the pope while telling his billions of followers that peak oil is coming and one-third of mankind must elect to kill themselves, and there ARE ABSOLUTELY NO ALTERNATIVES.... which is what Ruppert does. He doesn't ever speculate that extraction research and technologies may be being held back; he doesn't ever mention switch grass, which can be grown on untold amounts of marginal lands around the world and here in the US, and can power the same engines we use today (good for easy changeover). Nobody KNOWS that abiotic oil doesn't exist, but Ruppert does (as do some of the commenters in here, how rigourous). Seriously, beware disaster profiteers.

by **Starman** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:06 pm

Prac posted: "But if its so obvious why is no-one (on the left or right, top or bottom) interested in teasing out its significance. We pan Ruppert, castigate the oil companies, whatever, depending on the ideologies to which we are disposed. "But the fact is that our corporately dominated world has been shaped for a long time, in large measure, by Big Oil wealth and power. And the health of our Economies and more importantly our individual, family, and community wellbeings have been tossed about for a long time with crude oil price variations. "Lets tease this out rather than accusing and counter accusing eachother of disinfo, or worse." ****** I don't follow your point at all -- The economic consequences of the west's reliance on abundant, cheap oil is a major consideration of what Peak Oil is all about --This issue is well-represented in the discussion, criticism and analysis re: Peak Oil. It's also a major reason why Peak Oil isn't 'just' a gimmick created by mega oil corporations, big banks and western governments --as their longterm interests are also greatly at-risk from the secondary effects of spiraling oil-prices due to a 3-5 percent shortfall between supply and demand. To a great extent, economic dependence on cheap oil has led to the current debt crisis, unprecedented imbalance-of-trade, and the looming housing-bubble debacle, as well as the institutionalized corruption and fraud by which mega-corporations are attempting to avoid bankruptcy, reorganization or accountability for poor management. Re: The Whole International Modern Banking System is Dependant on Cheap Oil The global financial system is entirely dependent on a constantly increasing supply of oil. Since as explained above, all modern economic activity from transportation to food production to manufacturing is dependent on oil supplies, money is really just a symbol for oil. Commentator Robert Wise observes: "It's not physics, but it's true: money equals energy. Real, liquid wealth represents usable energy. It can be exchanged for fuel, for work, or for something built by the work of humans or fuel-powered machines. Real cost reflects the energy cost of doing something; real value reflects the energy expended to build something. "Nearly all the work done in the world economy -- all the manufacturing, construction, and transportation -- is done with energy derived from fuel. The actual work done by human muscle power is miniscule by comparison. And, the lion's share of that fuel comes from oil and natural gas, the primary sources of the world's wealth." As Dr. Colin Campbell writes in "The Financial Consequences of Peak Oil," the continued expansion of this wealth is only possible so long as the oil supply continues to grow: "It is becoming evident that the financial and investment community begins to accept the reality of Peak Oil, which ends the First Half of the Age of Oil. They accept that banks created capital during this epoch by lending more than they had on deposit, being confident that Tomorrow’s Expansion, fueled by cheap oil-based energy, was adequate collateral or Today’s Debt. "The decline of oil, the principal driver of economic growth, undermines the validity of that collateral which in turn erodes the valuation of most entities quoted on Stock Exchanges." Consequently, a declining supply of oil must be accompanied by either a declining supply of money or by hyperinflation. In either case, the result for the global banking system is the same: total collapse. This financial collapse will, in turn, further devastate our ability to implement alternative systems of energy. Any crash program to develop new sources of energy will require a tremendous amount of capital, which is exactly what will not be available once the global monetary system has collapsed. Thus, the aftermath of Peak Oil will extend far beyond how much you will pay for gas. If you are focusing solely on the price at the pump, more fuel-efficient forms of transportation, or alternative sources of energy, you aren’t seeing the bigger picture. * <a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/4404.html">www.energybulletin.net/4404.html</a> The effects of this will be frightening. As former oil industry insider Jan Lundberg recently pointed out: The scenario I foresee is that market-based panic will, within a few days, drive prices up skyward. And as supplies can no longer slake daily world demand of over 80 million barrels a day, the market will become paralyzed at prices too high for the wheels of commerce and even daily living in "advanced" societies. There may be an event that appears to trigger this final energy crash, but the overall cause will be the huge consumption on a finite planet. The trucks will no longer pull into Wal-Mart. Or Safeway or other food stores. The freighters bringing packaged techno -toys and whatnot from China will have no fuel. There will be fuel in many places, but hoarding and uncertainty will trigger outages, violence and chaos. For only a short time will the police and military be able to maintain order, if at all. The collapse will be hastened by the fact that the US national debt will become completely unsustainable once the price of oil gets into the $100 range <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020923&s=greider).">www.thenation.com/doc.mht...=greider).</a> Once this mark is passed, the nations of the world will have no choice but to pull their investments out of the US while simultaneously switching from the dollar to the euro as the reserve currency for oil transactions. Along with the breakdown of domestic transportation networks, the global financial shift away from the dollar will wholly shatter the US economy. If you're wondering why the mainstream media is not covering an issue of this magnitude 24/7, now you know. Once the seriousness of situation is generally acknowledged, a panic will spread on the markets and bring down the entire house of cards even if production hasn't actually peaked (<a href="http://deconsumption.typepad.com/deconsumption/2005/03/the_most_import.html).">deconsumption.typepad.com...ort.html).</a> In summary, we are a prisoner of our own dilemma: 1. Right now, we have no economically scalable alternatives to oil. (Emphasis placed on economic scalability, not technical viability.) 2. We won't get motivated to aggressively pursue conomically scalable alternatives until oil prices are sky high; 3. Once oil prices are sky-high, our economy will be shattered, and we won't be able to finance an aggressive switch-over to whatever alternative sources of energy are available to us. Without cheap oil, and without economically scalable alternatives, we will basically be "dead in the water." 4. An aggressive conservation program will bring down the price of oil, thereby removing the incentive to pursue alternatives until it is too late. 5. Any attempt to secure the energy and raw materials necessary to power a large-scale transition to renewable forms of energy is likely to be met with fierce competition, if not outright warfare, with China, which has a million man standing army fully-indoctrinated to hate the US (<a href="http://news.ft.com/cms/s/454b9d94-7fbf-11d9-8ceb-00000e2511c8.html).">news.ft.com/cms/s/454b9d9...1c8.html).</a> ** "What About All the Various Alternatives to Oil? Can't We Find Replacements?" Many politicians and economists insist that there are alternatives to oil and that we can "invent our way out of this." Physicists and geologists tell us an entirely different story (<a href="http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/PageTwo.html).">www.lifeaftertheoilcrash....Two.html).</a> The politicians and economists are selling us 30-year old economic and political fantasies, while the physicists and geologists are telling us scientific and mathematical truth. Rather than accept the high-tech myths proposed by the politicians and economists, its time for you to start asking critical questions about the so called "alternatives to oil" and facing some hard truths about energy. While there are many technologically viable alternatives to oil, there are none (or combination thereof) that can supply us with anywhere near the amount of net-energy required by our modern monetary system and industrial infrastructure. People tend to think of alternatives to oil as somehow independent from oil. In reality, the alternatives to oil are more accurately described as "derivatives of oil." It takes massive amounts of oil and other scarce resources to locate and mine the raw materials (silver, copper, platinum, uranium, etc.) necessary to build solar panels, windmills, and nuclear power plants. It takes more oil to construct these alternatives and even more oil to distribute them, maintain them, and adapt current infrastructure to run on them. Each of the alternatives is besieged by numerous fundamental physical shortcomings that have, thus far, received little attention. [ more ] ** <a href="http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/031305-peak_oil_or_peaked_o.php">www.uncommonthought.com/m...aked_o.php</a> Peak Oil or Peaked Oil? Well if the fact that pump prices are rising again after never really having returned to "normal" doesn't give you a clue that we are at or past the peak, then read Global Corp. by Michael Ruppert. He starts on the cheery note: Peak Oil is no longer on the way. It is here. Forget for a moment whether or not global oil production has actually begun (see below) its hopelessly irreversible decline. We will not know that for certain until sometime after it happens. The political fact, however, is that global inertia in response to Peak has driven our species, all of it, past the point of no return. There is no changing course for us. We have committed to a path of bloody destruction that can no longer be postponed or evaded. Energy investment banker Matthew Simmons - long a smoke alarm for Peak Oil - has said repeatedly, "The problem is that the world has no Plan B." Simmons is right. We have discussed and brainstormed together on this site about peak oil. The implications are massive and catastrophic. We all know that. It is likely that we are past peak oil. Every day the news gets clearer that the global oil "reserves" are largely fantasy, and that consumption is escalating at an incredible rate. The time frame of reaching peak oil have moved from 2080 to 2050, to 2020, to 2012, to 2008, to we are past the peak. A map of the world's top ten countries with oil reserves shows a bleak scenario - and the future and present conflicts. What it doesn't show is the top consumers do not overlap with the top reserves. The U.S. has been the top consumer (and still is per capita), but China and India are on a surge. China's oil consumption is expected to increase by one third this year alone (Ruppert). The issue will be (and already is) the high cost of oil and the effect on the economy. However, that is a foolish piece of news with the end of oil clearly within sight. High prices will wreck economies and lives; loss of oil will destroy societies and kill billions. That is the story that no one wants the public thinking about. You can utilize peak oil to legitimate war after war for resources, but the end of oil calls for very different solutions. It calls for global and societal transformations. Believe me, it is going to take more than hybrid cars, or even hydrogen powered cars, to make a dent. We quite simply cannot continue on the path we are on. Within months, the U.S., whose trade imbalance is at record levels will feel the crunch of escalating oil prices. Those imports are going to cost more - much more. So will food, and everything based on the oil economy (which is virtually everything at this point). The rest of the world which has been driven in to the global import-export dependent economy will see the same issues. The U.S. is not ready ... and neither is the world. There is no quick technological solution here. The one strategy that might give us breathing room is written off as politically and economically unpalatable - dramatically decrease consumption. The U.S. certainly doesn't want to do that, and developing China and India are fighting for their right to increase consumption as part of development. Development, I might mention, which is pointlessly oil dependent in the face of what is looming in front of the world. Some might say that we should follow the Bush "energy plan" of dramatically increasing exploration and exploitation of existing reserves (or hoped for reserves). That is, at best, an very short term solution. The U.S. could save more from modest reductions in consumption than from what is now anticipated in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. We can scrabble for increasingly hard to extract oil, or we can be blunt about the global situation we are facing. We can engage in military action to control remaining oil and eliminate competitors (such as China) and effectively start a global war, or we can work together to change paths. We can lie and deny, or we can face squarely the situation we are in. Lying and denying means death to a significant portion of the population (including in the U.S. - you might want to check out Congress Mulls Cutting Food Aid to Poor). We have created a "global economy" totally based in a petroleum economy. Through global institutions and economic colonialism we have undermined the ability of virtually all nations to survive disconnected from that economy. Global agreements such as GATT limit nation's ability to even respond to domestic catastrophes by limiting emergency food supplies and fuel reserves. While this strategy has hooked nations into the global economy through forced interdependence, it has also created a very fragile environment for survival in the current situation. "Go nuclear" some would say. Unfortunately, there are numerous problems with that approach. The known problems with nuclear power aside, one of the (purported) cornerstones of U.S. complaint with North Korea and Iran are their nuclear power plants. One of the by-products of nuclear energy is the material needed to create nuclear weapons - including "dirty bombs." Ruppert argues we are past the point of being able to avert disaster. Perhaps he is right. However, I believe (or at least hope) that there is time to change in a less chaotic and destructive fashion. Politicians have a doubly vested interest in pretending oil is not an issue. On the one hand, they believe their citizen constituencies would vote them out of office if they do what needs to be done. On the other, they are beholden to the companies and financial institutions and industries that benefit from oil. Citizens can certainly change at least one side of that equation. Do nothing and you will be voted out of office. We are facing interlinked catastrophes as this point. The collapse of the oil-based economy and the collapse of the earth's climatological systems. Don't you think it is well passed time when that news took the place of the Michael Jackson trial? ************ <a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/86.html">www.energybulletin.net/86.html</a> --excerpt-- It is possible that from the beginning the inflated reserve projections for the Caspian were never more than a strategic ploy in a US effort to exert downward pressure on OPEC oil prices. It is also possible that some strategists hoped that developing a US dominated petroleum industry in the Caspian would act as a block against any Russian move to gain control over Iranian hydrocarbon resources. These strategic maneuvers however do not mean that at some times over the past decade some in the oil industry did not take the exaggerated USGS figures seriously; hope springs eternal. Still US energy strategy has basically been unwavering since the 1970s. This strategy is two pronged: 1) to find and invest in oil outside OPEC’s control (for example US investments in Nigeria and Libya); 2) and always in the lead, a US determination to maintain control of Middle Eastern oil at all costs and by any means.(19) Five Persian Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates and Iran hold approximately 65% of the world’s known oil reserves and because by now the world has been fully seismically mapped for oil there is no realistic prospect that this fact will change. World oil discoveries peaked in the 1960s and the number of new finds has been decreasing since. Also, newly discovered oil fields have been smaller as time progresses and more costly to exploit. (20) Kazakhstan’s offshore oil discoveries are significant within this context of diminished world availability, and thus are “vast” or “rich” in terms of potential corporate profitability. They are not, however, “vast” in the context of real energy geopolitics. Readers from outside the oil industry, seeing glowing El Dorado appraisals of Caspian resources, may understandably confuse these two quite different contexts; but this is a serious mistake. After Saudi Arabia, Iraq holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Probably the United States invaded Afghanistan, primarily, not because of a possible Afghanistan/Caspian pipeline route, but because the Taliban government represented a center for unifying Islamic fundamentalist resistance to US control of the Middle East. It is significant also that after its bombing of Afghanistan the US did not turn its military might on Kazakhstan, although the Kazakhstani government is not “democratic” and has not been entirely compliant to western corporate interests.(21) Instead, there was the invasion of Iraq. Often repeated ‘truths’ are not necessarily true. It is important that each ‘truth’ be examined with as much critical energy as possible. ************** <a href="http://www.kitwatkins.com/index_truth.htm">www.kitwatkins.com/index_truth.htm</a> from James Howard Kuntsler in 'The Long Emergency' --quote-- The few Americans who are even aware that there is a gathering global-energy predicament usually misunderstand the core of the argument. That argument states that we don't have to run out of oil to start having severe problems with industrial civilization and its dependent systems. We only have to slip over the all-time production peak and begin a slide down the arc of steady depletion. The term "global oil-production peak" means that a turning point will come when the world produces the most oil it will ever produce in a given year and, after that, yearly production will inexorably decline. It is usually represented graphically in a bell curve. The peak is the top of the curve, the halfway point of the world's all-time total endowment, meaning half the world's oil will be left. That seems like a lot of oil, and it is, but there's a big catch: It's the half that is much more difficult to extract, far more costly to get, of much poorer quality and located mostly in places where the people hate us. A substantial amount of it will never be extracted. . . . Now we are faced with the global oil-production peak. The best estimates of when this will actually happen have been somewhere between now and 2010. In 2004, however, after demand from burgeoning China and India shot up, and revelations that Shell Oil wildly misstated its reserves, and Saudi Arabia proved incapable of goosing up its production despite promises to do so, the most knowledgeable experts revised their predictions and now concur that 2005 is apt to be the year of all-time global peak production. It will change everything about how we live. . . . The circumstances of the Long Emergency will require us to downscale and re-scale virtually everything we do and how we do it, from the kind of communities we physically inhabit to the way we grow our food to the way we work and trade the products of our work. Our lives will become profoundly and intensely local. Daily life will be far less about mobility and much more about staying where you are. Anything organized on the large scale, whether it is government or a corporate business enterprise such as Wal-Mart, will wither as the cheap energy props that support bigness fall away. The turbulence of the Long Emergency will produce a lot of economic losers, and many of these will be members of an angry and aggrieved former middle class. -- I urge you to read the entire article excerpted above. Info links: • Peak Oil Primer <<a href="http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050204132153814>">www.911truth.org/article....132153814></a> from EnergyBulletin.net MUST-SEE DOCUMENTARIES: • The End of Suburbia <<a href="http://www.endofsuburbia.com>">www.endofsuburbia.com></a> • The War for Oil <<a href="http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/BBC%20MONEY%20PROGRAMME_Oil%20War.htm>,">www.thedossier.ukonline.c...0War.htm>,</a> BBC, >>> stream <<a href="http://www.indybay.org/uploads/bbc_war4oil.ram>">www.indybay.org/uploads/bbc_war4oil.ram></a> or download <<a href="http://www.indybay.org/uploads/bbc_war4oil.rm>">www.indybay.org/uploads/bbc_war4oil.rm></a> • The Oil Factor <<a href="http://www.theoilfactor.com/>">www.theoilfactor.com/></a> WEB SITES: • PeakOil <<a href="http://www.peakoil.net/>">www.peakoil.net/></a> • EnergyBulletin <<a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/>">www.energybulletin.net/></a> • FromTheWilderness <<a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com>">www.fromthewilderness.com></a> • Life After the Oil Crash <<a href="http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/>">www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/></a> <<a href="http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/>•">www.powerswitch.org.uk/>•</a> PowerSwitch.org.uk <<a href="http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/>">www.powerswitch.org.uk/></a> <<a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com>•">www.fromthewilderness.com>•</a> WolfAtTheDoor <<a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com>•">www.fromthewilderness.com>•</a> OilCrisis <<a href="http://www.oilcrisis.com/>">www.oilcrisis.com/></a> ARTICLES: • $4 A Gallon <<a href="http://informationclearinghouse.info/article8804.htm>">informationclearinghouse....e8804.htm></a> by Michael Ventura • The Long Emergency <<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7203633>">www.rollingstone.com/news...d/7203633></a> by James Howard Kunstler • Last Chance for Civilization <<a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/crisis/05/010_ep.html>">www.democraticunderground...0_ep.html></a> by Ernest Partridge • Oil Peak? Uh-Oh <<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0508-24.htm>">www.commondreams.org/view...08-24.htm></a> by Clay Evans • Saudi Oil Infrastructure Rigged for Self-Destruction <<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/2005/05/embargoed-book-claims-sau_1.html>,">www.huffingtonpost.com/th...u_1.html>,</a> Gerald Posner • Analyst Fears Global Oil Crisis in 3 Years <<a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/5654.html>">www.energybulletin.net/5654.html></a> by John Vidal • An Oil Supply Tsunami Alert <<a href="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GE04Dj01.html>">www.atimes.com/atimes/Glo...Dj01.html></a> by Kjell Aleklett • The Energy Crunch to Come <<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0322-31.htm>by">www.commondreams.org/view...-31.htm>by</a> Michael T. Klare • Carter Tried To Stop Bush's Energy Disasters - 28 Years Ago <<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm>">www.commondreams.org/view...03-22.htm></a> by Thom Hartmann • Peak Oil is Already Here <<a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/5896.html>">www.energybulletin.net/5896.html></a> by Kevin Potvin • No Escape from Dependency <<a href="http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2053>">www.tomdispatch.com/index...?pid=2053></a> by Michael Klare • The End of Oil? <<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/02/issue/review_oil.asp?p=0>">www.technologyreview.com/...l.asp?p=0></a> - MIT's TechnologyReview.com • Peak Oil Puts Us in a Different Reality <<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0328-22.htm>">www.commondreams.org/view...28-22.htm></a> by Marvin Gregory <<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7203633>•">www.rollingstone.com/news.../7203633>•</a> We Need the Oil, Right? So What's the Problem? <<a href="http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/021405Y.shtml>">www.truthout.org/docs_200...05Y.shtml></a> by Ray McGovern • Today's Charade is Simply About Iraq's Oil <<a href="http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0130-07.htm>">www.commondreams.org/view...30-07.htm></a> by Linda McQuaig • When the Last Oil Well Runs Dry <<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3623549.stm>">news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/scien...23549.stm></a> by Alex Kirby, BBC • Cold War Crisis in Ukraine <<a href="http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/112604Chin/112604chin.html>">www.onlinejournal.com/Spe...chin.html></a> by Larry Chin • Cold Turkey <<a href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/cold_turkey/>">www.inthesetimes.com/site...d_turkey/></a> by Kurt Vonnegut • Over a Barrel <<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2004/11/10_401.html>">www.motherjones.com/news/..._401.html></a> by Paul Roberts SOLUTIONS / TOOLS: • A Community Solution to Peak Oil: An interview with Megan Quinn <<a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/5721.html>">www.energybulletin.net/5721.html></a> by Aric McBay • InTheWake <<a href="http://www.inthewake.org>">www.inthewake.org></a> • CommunitySolution <<a href="http://www.communitysolution.org/>">www.communitysolution.org/></a> • SurvivingPeakOil <<a href="http://www.survivingpeakoil.com/>">www.survivingpeakoil.com/></a> BOOKS: • The Long Emergency <<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0871138883>">www.amazon.com/exec/obido...871138883></a> by James Howard Kunstler • The Party's Over <<a href="http://www.museletter.com/partys-over.html>">www.museletter.com/partys-over.html></a> by Richard Heinberg • Crossing The Rubicon <<a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/index.shtml>">www.fromthewilderness.com...dex.shtml></a> by Michael C. Ruppert • Powerdown <<a href="http://www.museletter.com/Powerdown.html>">www.museletter.com/Powerdown.html></a> by Richard Heinberg • The Coming Oil Crisis <<a href="http://www.oilcrisis.com/campbell/>">www.oilcrisis.com/campbell/></a> by Colin Campbell • The End of Oil <<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618239774>">www.amazon.com/exec/obido...618239774></a> by Paul Roberts • Limits to Growth <<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1931498512/>">www.amazon.com/exec/obido...31498512/></a> by Meadows/Randers/Meadows

by **wolf pauli** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:19 pm

Starman, you deserve the Mahatma Gandhi award for patience, and the Marcel Proust Award for length. :) Human said: apparently, "reality" is a sham. my point is, we create reality. ... i think "science" is BS. And in an earlier post: facts, once again are subjective. there is no such thing as a "fact" seperate from the observer, essentially a "fact" is your projection of emotion.... While I'm 100% certain it wasn't your intention to provide cover for totalitarianism, I'm afraid those are very much the ideas on which totalitarianism depends. No one saw this more clearly than George Orwell. A passage from Orwell's essay 'Looking Back on the Spanish War' (1943): "A British and a German historian would disagree deeply on many things, even on fundamentals, but there would still be that body of, as it were, neutral fact on which neither would seriously challenge the other. It is just this common basis of agreement, with its implication that human beings are all one species of animal, that totalitarianism destroys. Nazi theory indeed specifically denies that such a thing as ‘the truth’ exists. There is, for instance, no such thing as ‘Science’. There is only ‘German Science’, ‘Jewish Science’, etc. The implied objective of this line of thought is a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past. If the Leader says of such and such an event, ‘It never happened’—well, it never happened. If he says that two and two are five—well, two and two are five. This prospect frightens me much more than bombs ... "Against that shifting phantasmagoric world in which black may be white tomorrow and yesterday’s weather can be changed by decree, there are in reality only two safeguards. One is that however much you deny the truth, the truth goes on existing, as it were, behind your back, and you consequently can’t violate it in ways that impair military efficiency. The other is that so long as some parts of the earth remain unconquered, the liberal tradition can be kept alive. Let Fascism, or possibly even a combination of several Fascisms, conquer the whole world, and those two conditions no longer exist." A passage from Orwell's essay 'The Prevention of Literature' (1945/6): "From the totalitarian point of view history is something to be created rather than learned. ... Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth. ... A totalitarian society which succeeded in perpetuating itself would probably set up a schizophrenic system of thought, in which the laws of common sense held good in everyday life and in certain exact sciences, but could be disregarded by the politician, the historian, and the sociologist. "At this stage of history, even the most autocratic ruler is forced to take account of physical reality, partly because of the lingering-on of liberal habits of thought, partly because of the need to prepare for war. So long as physical reality cannot altogether be ignored, so long as two and two have to make four when you are, for example, drawing the blueprint of an aeroplane, the scientist has his function, and can even be allowed a measure of liberty. His awakening will come later, when the totalitarian state is firmly established." These days, it's trendy in certain leftist intellectual circles to profess a taste for relativism and the works of Martin Heidegger. What accounts for their willingness to overlook his Nazi past? Maybe the feeling that if they say ‘It never happened’—well, it never happened.

by **Starman** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:36 pm

Wolf Pauli - Thanks for the 'award' ( ; -- I'll treasure it! But I DO recognize that sometimes providing too much info can be counterproductive. In this case, I tried to make it as easy as possible for those not convinced of certain unambigious and compelling facts re: the reality of oil industry that are well-researched and corroborated in credible industry publications, to have the information conveniently near-at-hand and not have the 'excuse' of it being too hard to find. Thanks for addressing the issue of 'truth' and 'facts' as having an actual, demonstrable basis in a provable and testable reality, and not just having a feigned significance depending on context. I was too stunned by such a flip self-serving dismissal of the practical utility of reason to consider how best to address it, or even if it was worth it. I too was struck by the sheer vapidity of an 'argument' claiming 'facts' are ambiguous and fickle since they're based on emotion -- and that there IS no real difference between reality and fiction. Clearly, logic and reason can have no purpose or value in discussing issues with someone holding such a faith-based concept of truth. It sounds suspiciously like the doctrine Commander Dubya holds to, in which evidence that contradicts his deeply-held beliefs about life-and-death issues and true-or-false issues simply have no relavnce or meaning. This entirely-muteable concept of what is 'real' or 'not-real' is evident in the whole cadre of Bush-gang warhawk neocons, perhaps most dramatically evident in the Sec. Defense Rumsfeld -- who simply holds to his personally-invested position regardless of whatever mass of testimony, evidence, proven facts, or verified data would, in a rational world that understood the meaning of scientifically-tested validity, readily disprove it. The wonder is that Human apparently shares the same notion of personally-convenient 'truth' that Rumsfeld holds -- and it doesn't bother him a bit. Starman **** <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2005/06/rummy_watch_II.html">www.motherjones.com/comme...ch_II.html</a> Rummy Rules Commentary: A shifting, ill-defined coda based on double-talk and double-standards where fictions become facts and Rummy reigns supreme By Nick Turse . . . Since then, I've kept on the case and have found our man in the Pentagon remarkably consistent in his inconsistency. Rummy has continued to evade tough questions, avoid straight answers, feign ignorance, claim not to have seen already public Pentagon reports, distort reality, denigrate the press, and rewrite history with little challenge from any corner. Like a mafia don or perhaps that other the Donald -- who's obsessed with a different type of empire -- and as the ruler of the most powerful single sector of our government, Donald Rumsfeld creates his own realities and makes his own rules to suit his own tastes, whims, and dreams. Quite simply, he lives by Rummy Rules ? a shifting, ill-defined coda based on double-talk and double-standards where fictions become facts and Rummy reigns supreme. . . . The SECDEF lives enveloped in a reality based solely on Rummy rules and he wants us all to have the pleasure of joining him. There's just one caveat -- we must suspend disbelief and live by the credo: "In Rummy We Trust." And trust we must or else none of it makes sense. Sometimes Rummy can't read. Other times he seems to refuse to do so. He's at war with the press and members of Congress who dare to question him. He seems to have taken up his boss's attitudes toward the media with a passion. He's happy -- in fact, delighted -- to alter history to suit his needs. He's remarkably uninformed, except on Argentina, and astonishingly forgetful when it comes to alleged U.S. military actions against Axis-of-Evil hot-spots with grave global implications. His statements often fly bravely in the face of reality, not to speak of credulity. For instance, while terrorist attacks around the world have spiked so high (from 175 in 2003 to 651 in 2004) that the Department of State was forced to stop issuing its "Patterns of Global Terrorism" statistical report (which it had published every year from 1980 onward), Rummy contends that the U.S. is "doing pretty well" in the global war on terror. But when questioned about Osama bin Laden -- the man his boss declared was "Wanted, Dead or Alive" way back in September 2001 -- Rummy explained the administration's progress on that front this way, "I don't think -- When you're hunting for someone and you haven't found them, you haven't found them." Sage words from a wizened old pro. Rummy's double-talk; non-answers, and general evasiveness can leave you scratching your head. Is it total incompetence or gross malfeasance? Could he really be out of the loop on so many critical issues? Or is he instituting Rummy rules in Washington, rules so bizarre yet so consistent as to ensure, in the Bush administration's endless face-off with the press, that Rummy always rules?

by **human** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:41 pm

when i start to get compared to donald rumsfeld.... i know im on the right path. reality and fantasy are the same. awaken into the dream my friends. and do it with love. thats my only message, really. one human?

by **wolf pauli** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:55 pm

Starman, I forgot to mention, thanks for all the informative material and links. Even a convinced "peakster" like me can benefit from more material, though as you said, its primary importance is for the "yet-to-be-convinced-sters". Sunny, thanks for the kind words, but all I do is stand on the shoulders of giants -- that's why even a jerk like me can see a thing or two. :) You wrote: In contemplating Peak Oil or no Peak Oil, I wonder which circumstance would benefit the elites more? Seems to me it wouldn't matter, as they would land on their feet like feral cat's, either way. The question is, should we prepare for the possibility of running out of oil? Seems to me it couldn't hurt. Definitely. I think Starman made clear that there are different ways we could try to prepare, and some ways are a lot saner than others. Without going into tactical details, I'd hope we could all agree on a few overall points of strategy. Basically we have two choices: (1) International cooperation and rational commitment to sharing knowledge and expertise in the quest for the best solution, or (2) International competition and irrational commitment to fear-mongering and aggression in the quest to be the last nation (regime?) left standing. I'd also hope we could all agree that (A) We ought to be pursuing (1), but (B) Our leaders are pursuing (2). Option (1) won't remove all the potholes from our road, but it's certainly preferable to the alternative -- the road to Cheneyville -- which is the sure way to perdition. Like Human said, "do it with love".

by **anotherdrew** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:02 pm

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer In waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny imrpoetnt tihng is that frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

by **peoplenotsheeple** » Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:10 pm

Fire Suppressant Agent 333 (FSA 333 for short) was originally created as a means to put out difficult fires, such as oil fires. Naturally—because, after all, we’re talking about Troy Hurtubise here—Diet Coke is one of its main ingredients. I'm sure it makes a great solvent, but --eew--I hope the guy doesn't actually drink the crap. That's a good way to give yourself <a href="http://proliberty.com/observer/20040604.htm">Rumsfeld's Disease</a>. Heath7 pointed out the many forms of clean energy. Amazing, isn't it, that we live in a world that's awash in energy--indeed, made of energy. Yet the best energy source we can come up with to run the modern world is burning hydrocarbon gunk from beneath the earth. Whether or not the stuff is dead dinosaur soup, it is still pretty primitive.

by **maggrwaggr** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:12 am

Here's an analogy regarding Peak Oil. Say I'm driving a car, happy-as-can-be, toward a cliff. I don't know I'm driving it toward a cliff. Other people say "hey, you know what? If you don't turn the wheel, you're going to fall five hundred feet, your skull will be crushed, your brains will splat out of your body, your spine will break into twenty different pieces, and your dead body will probably burn to a crisp when the fuel in your car explodes and burns whatever's left of your mangled corpse". You, driving the car, have a choice. You can say "hm, maybe I should TURN THE WHEEL." Or you can say "you know what? That sounds awfully negative to me. I have FAITH, since I'm feeling so great right now, that if I just put out positive vibes, that everything will be fine. But perhaps I should tell everyone that we shouldn't drive over cliffs." Or you might think "gosh that person is being AWFULLY DRAMATIC". Even though they're describing exactly what will happen IF you drive over the cliff. We're headed for a cliff, folks. The reality of what will happen if we drive pell-mell over the cliff is PRETTY FUCKING SCARY. Like it or not, it's DAMNED SCARY. Which is why we need to get our heads out of our asses and figure out a way to turn the fucking steering wheel. On edit: I am reminded of how, now that I am 43 years old and have kids, of just how childish so many people can be. Many seem to get stuck at certain ages as they go through their lives. My two year old son would probably drive right over that cliff. He wouldn't know, he wouldn't have any freaking idea. Those of us who are old enough to know a little about the laws of physics and what will happen if we drive a car over a 500 foot cliff know better. That's why we get that adrenaline rush if we get kinda close to something like that. The world seems to be filled with two year olds these days. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=maggrwaggr>maggrwaggr</A> at: 6/11/05 12:14 am

by **human** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:57 am

or perhaps its like..... Say I'm driving a car, happy-as-can-be, toward a cliff. I don't know I'm driving it toward a cliff. Other people say "hey, you know what? If you don't turn the wheel, you're going to fall five hundred feet, your skull will be crushed, your brains will splat out of your body, your spine will break into twenty different pieces, and your dead body will probably burn to a crisp when the fuel in your car explodes and burns whatever's left of your mangled corpse". You, driving the car, have a choice. You can say "hm, maybe I should TURN THE WHEEL." Or you can say "you know what? That sounds awfully negative to me. I have FAITH, since I'm feeling so great right now, that if I just put out positive vibes, that everything will be fine. But perhaps I should tell everyone that we shouldn't drive over cliffs." Or you might think "gosh that person is being AWFULLY DRAMATIC". Even though they're describing exactly what will happen IF you drive over the cliff. and then you wake up, safe and comfortable in your bed.... a little shaken, but no sweat, it was just a dream.. perhaps you should check what the two year olds are saying... we call it peep game... one human?

by **OnoI812** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 4:18 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You, driving the car, have a choice. You can say "hm, maybe I should TURN THE WHEEL."<hr></blockquote> Now why in the world would I have a choice?....you yourself said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>I don't know I'm driving it toward a cliff.<hr></blockquote> Here's Estulins latest take , for those who care; Peak Oil An American Bilderberger wondered what it would take for the oil prices to go back to $25 a barrel. Another American Bilderberger, believed to be Allan E. Hubbard, assistant to the president for Economic Policy, laconically stated that the general public does not realize that the price for cheap oil can be the bursting of the debt bubble. Cheap oil slows economic growth because it depresses commodity prices and reduces world liquidity. There is a strong indication, based on the information reported from the Bilderberg 2005 meeting in Rottach-Egern, that the Federal Reserve is extremely concerned about the debt bubble. An American Bilderberger reported that if the price of oil is to go down to its previous low of $25 a barrel, the debt-driven asset bubble will explode. Martin S. Feldstein, president of National Bureau of Economic Research, added that $50 a barrel involves greater cash flow. According to publicly available information, the United States consumes daily approximately 20 million barrels of oil out of a total world consumption of 84 million barrels. At $50 a barrel, the aggregate oil bill for the US comes to $1 billion a day, $365 billion a year, about 3 percent of the 2004 US gross domestic product (GDP). About 60 percent of US consumption is imported at a cost of $600 million a day, or $219 billion a year. A short, stout man asked if the surging oil price would influence economic growth. Someone sitting in the front row noted that higher energy prices do not take money out of the economy, they merely shift profit allocation from one business sector to another. An American Bilderberger wondered what an oil price increase can mean for the general public. A tall, skinny gentleman reportedly mused that expensive oil means reduced consumption in other sectors, unless higher income can be generated from the increased cash flow. A French Bilderberger noted that in western society, higher income translates into longer working hours, which often results in lower standard of living. Someone raised a question about the impact of a sharp rise of energy prices on asset values. A German Bilderberger responded that the net effect is a de facto depreciation of money, misidentified as growth. A US general noted that war spending helps jump start the economy, noting that the trick to keeping the opposition at bay is to limit collateral damage to foreign soil. A British Bilderberger noted that oil at $120 a barrel will greatly benefit Britain and the US, but that Russia and China would be the biggest winners. An expert in International relations and policy studies noted that for the Chinese this would be a real bonanza. The Chinese import energy not for domestic consumption, but rather to fuel its growing cheap exports, a cost that would duly be passed on to foreign buyers. A European banker pointed out that Russia could effectively devalue the dollar by re-denominating its energy trade with Europe from dollars into euros, forcing Europe's central banks to rebalance their foreign exchange reserves in favour of the euro. Jean-Claude Trichet, governor of the European Central Bank was present during the debate. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/9ymx4">tinyurl.com/9ymx4</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p097.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=onoi812>OnoI812</A> at: 6/11/05 2:34 am

by **maggrwaggr** » Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:24 pm

To say that because people are getting richer when the price goes up is sort of a tautology. Anyone who's ever talked about Peak Oil has not denied that when oil gets more scarce the price will go up, and those who control it will get even more fantastically rich than they already are. To say that a. prices are up. b. those who control the supply are getting even richer because prices go up means that c. the whole thing is a fraud doesn't make any logical sense. Of COURSE as demand outstrips supply, the price will go up, and those who are "lucky" enough to be in control of the supply will capitalize on the shortage. Doesn't mean it's all a big scam. It's the only reason there have been rich Saudis for the last 50 years or so. Before that they were running around the desert on camels, living in tents.

Mike Ruppert is a stooge

reverse, meanwhile...

Re: Another try for some Rigorous Intuition

Re: Another try for some Rigorous Intuition

Re: Another try for some Rigorous Intuition

re: Another try for Rigorous Intuition

Re: reverse, meanwhile...

'Subjective Truth' vs 'Objective Belief', ie. Rummy's Rules

lol

Re: Subjective Truth' vs 'Objective Belief', ...

^_^

diet coke?

An analogy

or perhaps

Re: An analogy

there's no logic there

Who is online