Mike Ruppert's in trouble

by **eric144** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:13 am

and you can counter the analysis with...? You can't spell disparate or research. "not a hard science, which is what i am assumin' you are gettin' at." Yes it is. I think you're bullshitting. Collating information and understanding it are two very different things. In addition, all this raw data will have come from oil companies, it's their ball it's their game. My brother is a microbiologist, I have a maths degree and I don't understand his research papers because my maths isn't good enough apart from my total ignorance of the subject.

by **eric144** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:27 am

as a postgrad in physical sciences Convince me that's the case. I have no intention of looking at the data becuase all of it comes from the oil industry and it's way beyond my ability to know if I've been duped or not. Campbell is as mad as Ruppert, in fact he paints even more apocalyptic scenarios of starvation, rioting, total anarchy and the like. The oil industry and the whole OPEC cartel is a complete and utter farce of the highest degree and the idea that oil companies and producers are arguing against a perception of scarcity leading to higher prices is monumentally ridiculous and naive. For the children following the Peak Oil pied piper, this is politics, a perception of oneself having a particular stance. Well, I'm more left wing than a whole city of liberal Americans and I think Bush and his oil mates are a lot smarter than you are. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=eric144>eric144</A> at: 10/16/05 10:48 pm

by **wrench in the machine** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:28 am

"" and you can counter the analysis with...? You can't spell disparate or research. I think you're bullshitting." ayuh. rigorous. enlightening. and a thousand things other than 'scientific' as you are so adamant in holding my posts to. well from one bullshitter to another, and here's the beauty, it really doesn't matter what i have come to consider the crux of the biscuit, nor does it matter that your ability to refute it is non-existant. the future will unfold as it always has. some will have read the tea leaves, and others will have been snookered. let us all hope that you have the inside track on the lay of darjeeling, because if i am any where near correct........ ps forgive me for not using spell check, i'm too busy collating information and lack understanding of how to turn on javascript and use the shiny button.... yorp.

by **eric144** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:44 am

"the future will unfold as it always has" Yes, the strong will no doubt exploit and deceive the weak. We will never know who carried out 9/11 or murdered JFK or whether Peak Oil was a scam or real whatever happens. The reason is that the catastrophe will not unfold as described by Campbell. Supplies would be restricted. If 20% of oil supplies stopped tomorrow, Americans would have to get a train to work or perhaps perspire a little more in the summer. That would extend its life.

by **maggrwaggr** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:00 am

People think that oil becoming scarce is going to merely inconvenience a few people, and that life will go on normally otherwise: "take a train to work and perspire more". No, they won't take a train to work because they won't have jobs. In fact, there won't be any food in the stores for them to eat, either. Also they probably won't have homes because they're going to be evicted when, after a period of unemployment, they are unable to make their mortgage payments or pay the rent. Our economy is based 100% on free-flowing oil. When the oil is no longer a free-flowing river, the economy stops. And guess what, folks? The "Peak Oil" issue, if you want to call it that, is nothing new. I first learned about it in 1979. Back then, after much study, I figured we had about 40 years to go before it hit. I was off by a few years, I neglected to take into account the more recent exponential growth in demand, something that blows my mind, seeing as how I was aware this was coming back then and I sorta assumed that somebody, somewhere, was smart enough to start doing something about it. Jimmy Carter was, and look what they did to him. You people who are in denial about this are just plain idiots IMHO. No amount of facts is going to change your minds. You have a level of cognitive dissonance that I have only seen in Freepers and their ilk. You believe what you want to believe, and, well, we can't stop you from that.

by **eric144** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 8:13 am

It is completely idiotic to believe that the only smart people in the world are people like you. Are you trying to tell me that the US government which has a vehicle wandering around Mars as I type is so dumb it can't see what you can ? If you are then you're as mad as Ruppert. The first rule of propaganda is to make the messenger sound credible, that's why a conspiracy theorist like Ruppert has been employed to promote peak oil. Edward Bernays was the master of this. Here are some more scams - George Galloway (he used to be my MP and he's every bit as dodgy as Ruppert), global warming (as promoted by Her Majesty's Government), the Downing Street Memo (as promoted by Michael Smith who wrote the definitive history of MI5 and MI6 and is employed by Rupert Murdoch). Those facts weren't made public. The Spying Game A Secret History of British Espionage Michael Smith is Defence Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph. His previous books include Odd Man Out: The Story of the Singapore Traitor, Station X, Foley: The Englishman who saved 10,000 Jews and The Emperor’s Codes. He lives in Henley. The complete history of MI5 and MI6 <a href="http://www.signaturebooks.co.uk/cgi-bin/ai.cgi?ISBN=1842750046">www.signaturebooks.co.uk/...1842750046</a> Michael Smith is Defence Editor of Britain's Daily Telegraph. With acclaimed books such as the number one bestseller Station X, The Spying Game and The Emperor's Codes, Michael Smith is firmly established as one of the world's leading authorities on the compelling world of espionage. <a href="http://www.eyespymag.com/staff.htm">www.eyespymag.com/staff.htm</a>

by **woo woo** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:30 am

"The first rule of propaganda is to make the messenger sound credible, that's why a conspiracy theorist like Ruppert has been employed to promote peak oil." So when did credibility become the lead trait of persons espousing conspiracy? Isn't it usually the case where conspiracy theories are met with extreme skepticism? Wouldn't adoption of PO by the mainstream media be a much more likely to convince the masses of resource scarcity? Methinks you need to think through your position before spouting off anymore.

by **eric144** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:17 pm

"Wouldn't adoption of PO by the mainstream media be a much more likely to convince the masses of resource scarcity?" The media doesn't outright propagandise on its own behalf, it needs other people's words to report. Ruppert was on the fringe until he took up Peak Oil then he got an invitation to the prestigious San Francisco Commonwealth Club and to be a lecturer with the cancer cure criminals at PQI. The people he followed at the Commonwealth Club (and mentioned in his opening address) were CIA Director James Woolsey, two members of the Kean Commission on 9/11: Slade Gorton and Richard Ben-Veniste, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Liberman and Madeleine Albright. I think that's an incredibly mainstream bunch of people. <a href="http://blogs.it/0100206/stories/2004/10/17/lattoDaccusaDiMikeRuppert.html">blogs.it/0100206/stories/...ppert.html</a> "Methinks " Never mind. You didn't get it. If the oil industry itself had promoted the peak oil scam, people would have been extremely supicious. Colin Campbell is always described as a geologist, not a senior executive including chairman of an oil company. The irony is that it was his little dog Ruppert that gave the game away. <a href="http://www.countercurrents.org/peakoil300304.htm">www.countercurrents.org/p...300304.htm</a>

by **woo woo** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:34 pm

"Colin Campbell is always described as a geologist..." of course this has nothing to do with the fact that his Phd is in geology. nothing. nope. no connection whatsoever. <sigh>

by **woo woo** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:36 pm

"The media doesn't outright propagandise on its own behalf" because everyone knows the editorial page is just a rehash of what everyone has already said. yup. unhuh.

by **eric144** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:39 pm

Is Bill Gates described as a computer programmer ? Is Colin Powell described as a soldier, Bill Clinton a lawyer ? No sighing at the back now children, it's not big and it's rude.

by **woo woo** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:50 pm

ask yourself a simple question: if you have oodles of something, and you have oodles of people that are ready to partcipate in the consumption of that something, what would be the purpose of undertaking a massive operation of deception to represent a surplus as a scarcity? none, that's what. you can hypothesize about the delta in capital gains over the lifespan of that resource in the two scenarios, but the fact remains that modern economics does not have a model for doing what you are claiming is the case.

by **Dreams End** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>if you have oodles of something, and you have oodles of people that are ready to partcipate in the consumption of that something, what would be the purpose of undertaking a massive operation of deception to represent a surplus as a scarcity?<hr></blockquote> To raise the prices. See also: Enron.

by **woo woo** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 1:56 pm

...what modern economics is good at is expoilting a resource until it is utterly depleted, charging an ever increasing price for that reality, maximizing profits through systematically reducing operating costs, and then denying any culpability in having screwed you and the rest of the world in the process.

by **eric144** » Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:00 pm

Perceived scarcity raises the price, it's happened several times this year already. Supply and demand. If global warming by CO and peak oil are true, the only sensible thing to do would be to limit production which will automatically raise the price as it does every time OPEC cut output.

Mike Ruppert's in trouble

Re: Who are you who are so wise in the ways of science?

Re: ..

not using spell check equals bullshit artist

Re: not using spell check equals bullshit artist

what gets me about the Peak Oil "denial" crowd

Re: what gets me about the Peak Oil "denial" crowd

logic gap

Re: logic gap

re:logic gaps

re:logic gaps

Re: re:logic gaps

rubber hitting the asphalt fo PO denial

Re: rubber hitting the asphalt fo PO denial

rubber and asphalt

Re: rubber hitting the asphalt fo PO denial

Who is online