David McGowan, March 30, 2004
Here is how the Peak Oil War of Words between Dave
McGowan and Michael Ruppert began. In Dave's funny but insightful rant in
his January 30, 2004
NEWSLETTER #49 he was commenting on some
of the current "myths that seem to have taken root in the 'progressive'
community." Bear with the myths that lead up to peak oil, I think it's worthwhile to get the drift of his thinking and
writing by looking at the full list:
Myth #1: A "neocon" cabal has hijacked the Bush
administration's foreign policy, setting America on a new and
dangerous course.
I should first mention here that, although it may have escaped many
readers' attention, the word "neocon" has never before appeared in
one of these newsletters. That is because I like to, as much as
possible, focus on things that actually exist. And that is also
because I haven't felt the need to find some elaborate way of
explaining the alleged change in U.S. foreign policy, primarily
because I haven't been able to detect a noticeable change in U.S.
foreign policy. The change that others perceive is based on several
more myths, beginning with:
Myth #2: Team Bush set a dangerous new precedent by introducing the
notion of 'preemptive' wars.
And that is, I guess, in stark contrast to our past military
ventures, which have been, I suppose, purely defensive actions
(self-defense being the only legally defensible reason for
undertaking military actions against another sovereign state) --
like when we defended ourselves against Serbia. And Bosnia. And
Somalia. And Panama. And Grenada. And Vietnam. And Laos. And
Cambodia. And all the other countries that apparently attacked us
first, or at least seriously threatened to, although I can't, off
the top of my head, recall the specific attacks that we were
responding to in any of those cases.
To be sure, under Team Bush we were fed lies to garner our support
for two (yes, two) unprovoked, illegal, unjustified wars. But what
exactly is new about that?
Myth #3: Team Bush's disdain for international treaties and
agreements is unprecedented.
Not by any objective standard, although it may seem that way to
those who until very recently viewed America as some great and
benevolent force in the world. Wake up and smell the coffee, folks:
the U.S. did not suddenly abandon its previous role as international
do-gooder and become an international menace overnight. The record
is very clear: America has been, for a very long time, the single
greatest impediment to the establishment of international human
rights standards, international arms control agreements, and an
International Criminal Court. Consider the following excerpts from
Amnesty International's landmark 1998 report, "United States
of America - Rights for All":
-
"There are only two countries in the world that
have not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child. One
is the collapsed state of Somalia which has no recognized
government - the other is the USA."
-
"(T)he USA is also one of only a handful of
countries that have not ratified the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination against Women."
-
"The first UN human rights treaty ratified by the
USA was the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide. It ratified the Convention in 1988, 40 years
after signing it and after 97 other states had already ratified
it."
-
"The USA took 28 years to ratify the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination, after 133 other states had already ratified it."
-
"At least 71 other states ratified the Convention
against Torture before the USA."
-
"It was only in 1992, after 109 other states, that
the USA ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), 26 years after its adoption by the UN General
Assembly."
-
"The ICCPR is one of two principal treaties
protecting human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. The other - the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - has still not been ratified
by the USA."
-
"(T)he USA has refused to recognize any regional
human rights treaties: it has not ratified the American Convention
on Human Rights, adopted by the OAS (Organization of American
States) in 1969, and has not even signed the Inter-American
Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, the Inter-American
Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons and the
Inter-American Convention to Prevent, Punish and Eradicate
Violence against Women."
And that is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
George Bush's 'liberal' predecessor did nothing to rectify any of
those, uhmm, 'oversights.' He also presided over the rejection of a
major international arms agreement and openly flaunted an
international ban on the use of landmines by introducing a new
$50,000,000 landmine program not long before said ban was to go into
effect.
Myth #4: The "neocons" have taken a new, hardline stance in support
of Israeli aggression. By some accounts, Israel now dictates U.S.
foreign policy, through Jewish "neocons" like Wolfowitz and Perle.
The truth is that the United States has always taken a hardline,
pro-Israel stance, and has always looked the other way while Israel
commits egregious human rights violations in the occupied
territories. In fact, the U.S. has made a habit of being the only
nation to consistently side with Israel and defend its actions in
the face of worldwide opposition. In 1981 alone, many years before
the 'neocons' took the reins, the U.S. was Israel's sole defender
during UN voting on 11 different resolutions. As many as 141
countries voted against the U.S./Israeli positions.
And so, once again, we see that what has been portrayed as a radical
change in course is, in truth, the perpetuation of an historical
pattern. America has always armed, protected and quietly supported
Israel -- which is essentially an enormous, nuclear-armed, Western
military outpost in the Middle East. Israel, to put it bluntly, is a
tool of the West, not the other way around.
"But wait," you say, "isn't America fighting Israel's war in the
Middle East?" No. America is fighting for the same thing America
always fights for: the advancement of American corporate interests.
Those interests happen to be shared by the corporate/political elite
of Israel.
Myth #5: The policies of Team Bush have antagonized and alienated
many of our closest allies, straining relationships with many
previously friendly nations.
It would be far more accurate to say that the brazen criminality of
the Bush team, as opposed to the more covert criminality of
preceding administrations, has forced other world leaders to
occasionally distance themselves from the U.S., lest they incur the
wrath of the people. But said leaders will always be quick to kiss
and make-up if provided with the slightest hint of political cover
(such as the capture of Saddam Hussein).
As I have said before, I do not believe that the heads-of-state of
other 'Western' nations have many significant differences with
their American counterparts with regards to motive or agenda. The
difference is one of strategy, due to the fact that a population
with knowledge of history and a reasonably accurate view of current
events forces a certain amount of restraint upon the actions of
national leaders. U.S. leaders, on the other hand, can operate
virtually without restraint.
In other words, while Bush has certainly done a fine job of
provoking legitimate outrage among the world's people, he has only
provoked staged outrage among the leaders of the 'Western world.'
Indeed, behind the scenes there could well be much admiration for an
administration so transparent in its motives, and so brazen in its
lies, and yet so successful at maintaining legitimacy.
Myth #6: The European Union is going to rise up as some kind of
counter-force to the U.S. military machine.
Sorry, but I just don't see that happening. The EU is fully
complicit in the drive for global fascism, and all of Europe will
ultimately adopt the police-state blueprint being drafted in
America, albeit on a somewhat different timetable. There will be no
meaningful foreign opposition, and there will be no place to run and
hide.
Myth #7: The current war in Iraq was drafted in 1998 by the "neocon"
cabal operating as the "Project for a New American Century."
By 1998, the war against Iraq had already been underway for many
years, following a script that was obviously written before the
first George Bush began military operations by pummeling Iraq from
the air. That was, for the memory impaired, followed by years of
crippling sanctions and the enforcement of illegal 'no-fly zones'
that were created specifically to provide a pretext for intermittent
bombings that continued for well over a decade.
None of that was intended to 'contain' Saddam Hussein, or to force
his compliance with cynical UN resolutions; the goal was always to
weaken the nation's defenses and demoralize the civilian population
as preparation for a military occupation that was in the cards long
before "Little George and the Neocons" came to town.
Myth #8: The real reason for the war in Iraq is concern over "Peak
Oil."
The notion of "Peak Oil" seems to have been carefully seeded
throughout the 'progressive' community, most prominently by Michael
Ruppert, but by many others as well. Personally, I ain't buying it.
It positively reeks of bullshit. What the "Peak Oil" promoters are
essentially saying is: "I am outraged by the fact that Team Bush has
waged a war of aggression motivated solely by the pursuit of oil ...
but (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) it's a damn good thing that they did,
because the world is quickly running out of oil and if we don't grab
it now, we're going to be in big trouble, and soon."
Now don't get me wrong -- I really want the "Peak Oil" thing to be
true. I can't really think of a better scenario, at this point, than
the world running out of oil. The entire global fascist system (or
GFS for short, which is kind of like the NWO, only different, since
the NWO is usually pitched as some sort of global
communist/socialist system), you see, runs on oil. The military
machine can't operate without it. The global corporate
infrastructure can't run without it. It is the life-blood of global
capitalism. So there would be a certain poetic justice if those who
had toiled so long to achieve their dream of world domination were
to suddenly find themselves - on the eve of declaring game, set and
match - unable to operate the empire they had created. We would then
be forced, alas, to start over -- to rebuild and restructure.
It would be nice if that were true. It would save the American
people, and the world's people, a lot of work. But I don't see it
happening. And, yes, I am aware that 'experts,' with far more
knowledge in the field than I, have warned of "Peak Oil." But I am
also aware that if the right people consult with the right
'experts,' those 'experts' will say pretty much anything they are
asked to say.
Myth #9: The (fill in the blank) scandal is going to bring down the
House of Bush, or key members within it.
Some writers seem to have an obsession with predicting the imminent
demise of Team Bush (I'm thinking here again, for some reason, of
Michael Ruppert), as one scandal or another supposedly threatens to
overtake the, uhmm, "neocons" -- as though the dissemination of
deliberately leaked 'limited hangouts,' and other damage control
measures, somehow indicates that the media has suddenly decided to
do its job.
The Plame scandal was, according to many, the one that was going to
bring Team Bush down. It gave a lot of lefties a chance to express
outrage over the outing of a CIA asset, and to absurdly claim that
such an outing threatens our national security, when all that is
really threatened is both the success of various covert operations
aimed at expanding the Western empire, and the well-being of the
assets involved in those operations.
Personally, I would like to see Team Bush expand on this new policy.
In fact, I think the names of all CIA assets around the world should
be published. Let the chips fall where they may. I'm guessing that
more than a few outed assets would be shipped home in roughly the
same condition as Charles Dean. I'm not suggesting here, mind you,
that Charles was, you know, a CIA asset or anything like that, even
though his ultra-conservative family has long been deeply connected.
Charles just happened to be backpacking around Laos at the time that
a genocidal war was being covertly waged there. I'm sure that a lot
of pleasure-seekers were backpacking around Laos at the time. And
I'm also sure that little brother Howard, being the 'liberal,'
'anti-war' candidate that he is, never had any affiliation with the
CIA. No, he has turned his back on his family's money and politics
-- not unlike, I suppose, that Osama bin Laden guy. But here I
digress ...
Myth #10: Team Bush's militarism and domestic repression is driven
by a 'crisis' of global capitalism.
This school of thought holds that Team Bush's resort to more overtly
fascist rule is a desperate attempt to keep a failed system propped
up. In essence, this is yet another attempt to explain what is
portrayed as a significant break in the continuum of U.S. foreign
and domestic policy. But here again I must ask: what has really
changed?
With a 'liberal,' pre-9/11 administration in place, we launched
unprovoked cruise missile strikes on two sovereign nations (Sudan
and Afghanistan). We intermittently bombed, throughout the entire
8-year administration, the nation of Iraq, while simultaneously
'sanctioning' hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians to early
graves. We launched an unprovoked war of aggression against Serbia,
justified with stories of genocide and ethnic cleansing that turned
out to be - surprise! - lies. We openly flaunted international law
and then charged our victims with war crimes, even while openly
celebrating our own war crimes. We meddled covertly in the affairs
of countless nations. We enthusiastically embraced 'globalization,'
'free markets' and 'free trade.' We cheered welfare 'reform,' just
as many of us now cheer Medicare 'reform.' We doubled the nation's
prison population. We expanded the use of the death penalty and
expanded the reach of the FBI and the CIA. We experienced
'terrorist' attacks at both the World Trade Center and the Oklahoma
City federal building, and those attacks were followed by
legislation that vastly expanded the repressive powers of the state,
setting the stage for the even more repressive Patriot Act.
So what has changed? Very little, except that the volume has been
turned up. And it will continue to be turned up. Because the bitch
of it is, you see, that within a few years, the way things are today
won't seem all that bad. But for the 'powers that be,' that hardly
represents a crisis. To the contrary, it represents progress.
Now that was fun, wasn't it? Direct, lucid, honest, and untroubled by
sacred cows or worse, sacred progressive icons. You see, progressives can
be as much sheeple as the rest of the flock, ready to be razzled and
dazzled by seemingly well-prepared and, well..... progressive folks who
have established their credentials with limited hangouts that pass for
anti-establishment investigation and reporting.
I don't often get into such groups and my experience with a crowd of
progressive sycophants attending a lecture by David Barsamian is all that
I can call upon at the moment. I recall the middle aged women swooning at
every word as though it were the most precious substance on the planet. No
one commented on his lack of comment about the anomalies in the evidence
regarding 9-11. He is a close associate of Noam Chomsky, another swoonable
icon of the progressive left. Both Barsamian and Chomsky keep the focus on
the horrific results that accrue to a nation that causes so much suffering
around the world . While that is a truism, it is NOT an explanation for
the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
To my chagrin, I chose to remain silent in fear of the deadly damage
possible at the hands of these worshipful groupies.
Mostly we think of propaganda as the ham-handed work of dull fascists
or bright, amoral neoconservatives and boot-licking journalists protecting
their paychecks and prerogatives among the lower level agents of the
Illuminati and the New World Order. Their focus was defined by George
W. Bush, joking at a Gridiron Club dinner, Washington, D.C., March 2001:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones
you want to concentrate on."
The rest are probably leftists and progressives who consider themselves
too smart to fall for the crap that comes out of Townhall, Newsmax,
WorldNetDaily, National Review or The Weekly Standard not to
mention the mainstream corporate news. These come with so many
holes in their facts and information that any fairly well informed
progressive intellectual can easily see through it. When it has more holes
than Swiss cheese and its twice as moldy as Limburger, I don't need it. If
it was in my fridge I would get rid of it before it stunk up the house. If
it's full of holes and can't be held up to the light, I call it a lie.
When it stinks, I hold my nose and scold the liar who brought it in.
Progressive liars are more elegant, more subtle, cerebral. By
constantly referring to our responsibility to change the way we interact
with the world, the Gate Keepers of the Left attempt to control the debate
and focus the action to maintain the fracas. Huey Newton, Abbie Hoffman
and Jerry Rubin were among those icons of the 70's who would lead their
followers into protest after protest to set up the reaction that Spiro
Agnew could sneer about or the police could crack down upon with a vengeance.
Hard hats against college kids, National Guard rifles against innocent
students. This set the visual memory of a generation and factionalized
America. Divided we are conquered. Set into opposing camps and stirred
with incendiary rhetoric we vent our anger against our countrymen while
the Hand of the Illuminati steals our life, livelihood, and freedom one
paycheck at a time and quietly runs a monetary scam that would be the envy
of any counterfeiter or conman.
Now is a good time to notice who among the
progressives is really a shill for the Illuminati agenda to establish a
New World Order. Three years ago we had the opportunity to sort out the
hidden hand from among the "progressives" and the "left." Those who
blindly followed the Official Conspiracy Theory with limpid qualifications
stood out like a sore thumb. Progressive icons like Democracy Now's Amy
Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Norman Solomon, Counterpunch, and many others could
be seen as the self-appointed Gatekeepers of the Left. You could recognize
them instantly from their insistence on Arab hijackers despite the lack of
evidence and the improbability that hijackers would do their training in
the US, raise such a ruckus as to be noticed, manage to get the United
Stats Air Force to stand down while four jumbo jets careened around the
skies and headed toward restricted airspace for over an hour. These
"progressive journalists" had no difficulty accepting the likelihood that
a passionate, suicidal Muslim would abandon his Koran in a trash can at
such a crucial time in his life or that when everything else was crushed
and hammered to powder a passport of Mohammed Atta would miraculously show
up in the street near Ground Zero.
Alternative/progressive news sites on the Internet
are entering the political fray in seemingly blind support of John Kerry
regardless of his actual stance on many substantive issues and his record
of performance in Congress. He is not anti-war. He voted to allow Bush to
choose war and has expressed the possible need to renew the draft. He is
not a freedom fighter. He voted for the Patriot Act and has been involved
in reducing constitutional protection under the rubric of fighting
terrorism. He has not been a vocal critic of the Official Conspiracy
Theory that was supposed to explain 9-11. Kerry has not sincerely searched
for the truth. He covered up the drug dealing at the Mena Airport by not
calling witnesses who had evidence to show that Bush and Clinton were both
involved. Stephen Zunes has written:
Senator Kerry has also been a big supporter of the neo-liberal model of
globalization. He supported NAFTA, despite its lack of adequate
environmental safeguards or labor standards. He voted to ratify U.S.
membership in the World Trade Organization, despite its ability to
overrule national legislation that protects consumers and the environment,
in order to maximize corporate profits. He even pushed for most-favored
nation trading status for China, despite that government's savage
repression of independent unions and pro-democracy activists.
Published on Friday,
March 5, 2004 by CommonDreams.org
Kerry is a Zionist and he has told his Zionist
audiences so He has pledged to continue Bush administration policy of
vetoing any United Nations Security Council resolution seen as one-sided
against Israel. He has hidden his Jewish bloodlines and allegiances to
Zionism very well. And Zionism and America do NOT express the same ideals.
Zionism is NOT democratic. Zionism is racist and elitist. Zionism is NOT
Judaism. Many traditional Jews have been fighting the blasphemy and heresy
of Zionism for over a century. Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Weiss, spokesman for
Neturei Karta International has said,
Zionism refuses to accept our status as
people in exile. This is metaphysical impudence. It is the task of world
Jewry to remain patriotic citizens of the lands of their dispersion and
pursue peace with all people. In the Holy Land, this means welcoming
Palestinian sovereignty over the land. Accordingly, the rejection of
Zionism is the only path to peace.
John Kerry is the white knight riding in to
rescue us in this electoral charade set up to manipulate us into a fervor
of support for the left hand of the Illuminati agenda. It happened before
and we got continued attacks on Iraqis, the death of several hundred
thousand Iraqi children, the bombing of Serbia and Kosovo, "depleted"
uranium use in the Balkans that will poison the land for 4 billion years,
NAFTA, executive orders that tightened the grip of the New World Order,
and a carnival of leering old men distracting the national attention over
Bill and Monica.
The world becomes less free and safe with
each seesaw of the sham political freedom foisted upon the world as the
more palatable of choices, democracy. The Illuminati understood democracy
well: a medium by which they can manipulate people into choosing their own
chains and ignoring the loss of freedom AND security. Huxley described
this over half a century ago in the foreword to Brave New World:
"A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the
all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers
control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because
they love their servitude. To make them love it is the task assigned, in
present-day totalitarian states, to ministries of propaganda, newspaper
editors and schoolteachers .... The greatest triumphs of propaganda have
been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing.
Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is
silence about truth."
What Americans and the rest of the world needs is
honest, thorough reporting about BOTH sides of the Illuminati agenda, the
left AND the right. "Anybody but Bush!" is a recipe for more and more of
the same creep toward totalitarianism and slavery. Falling for the same
electoral tricks plays precisely into the hands of the controlling
"elite." We've done that throughout history. Little wonder the Illuminati
look upon us as "goy," mere chattel dumbed down and ignorant enough to be
corralled in a pasture of their choosing, prodded and enticed to
do their bidding, and carted off to the knackery when no longer
useful.
Now we have another litmus test thanks to Michael
Ruppert: Peak Oil. As thorough as Mike Ruppert has been in providing
investigation, analysis and reporting on a grand scale and as clean as his
credentials seem to be, this sent a shiver up my spine when I saw what
Mike says he advocates--convening world leaders to take "immediate steps
to arrive at a crash program" ... " to arrive at the best possible and
most ethical program of population reduction" as a response to Peak Oil.
This is almost directly out of the ominous warnings in Limits to Growth
from the Club of Rome. From the Rockefeller--funded work of Paul Ehrlich
at Zero Population Growth comes their book:
The
Healing Planet - Strategies For Resolving The Environmental Crisis,
Paul and
Anne Ehrlich write:
"In this century, humanity has become a truly planetary ecological
force, its effects going far beyond the transformation of the landscape
to include altering the composition of the atmosphere globally,
interfering with planetary nutrient cycles, modifying climate, and
exterminating other life forms. In historical perspective, the switch -
from a modest to an overwhelming scale of impact, and from a positive to
a negative impact on carrying capacity - was almost instantaneous and
monumental: human activities now appear to be lowering the long-term
carrying capacity and incurring risks on a scale unimaginable less than
a lifetime ago."
And, also, later in the book:
"Controlling population growth is critical. We cannot emphasize too
strongly that significant resources must be directed into programs that
limit population growth both in the United States and abroad. Because of
the built-in time lags, unless the surge in human numbers is halted soon
and a gradual population shrinkage begun, there is no hope of
solving the problems discussed in this volume."
Now Michael Ruppert and his fans are talking about a crash program. Can
you think of a crash program that would ethically reduce population in the
next forty to fifty years? I can think of a lot of methods that could be
utilized if one were unethical and despotic. But wait! The World Health
Organization has come up with some real nifty methods to reduce the
population growth in the Third World. Here are the known facts
concerning the World Health Organization tetanus vaccination campaigns in
Mexico and the Philippines:
* Only women are vaccinated, and only the women between the ages of
15 and 45. (In Nicaragua the age range was 12-49.) But aren't men at
least as likely as young women to come into contact with tetanus? And
what of the children? Why are they excluded?
* Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) hormone has been found in the
vaccines. It does not belong there -- in the parlance of the O.J.
Simpson murder trial, the vaccine has been "contaminated."
* The vaccination protocols call for multiple injections -- three within
three months and a total of five altogether. But, since tetanus
vaccinations provide protection for ten years or more, why are multiple
inoculations called for?
* WHO has been actively involved for more than 20 years in the
development of an anti-fertility vaccine utilizing hCG tied to tetanus
toxoid as a carrier -- the exact same coupling as has been found in the
Mexican-Philippine-Nicaragua vaccines.
Allied with the WHO in the development of an anti-fertility vaccine (AFV)
using hCG with tetanus and other carriers have been UNFPA, the UN
Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, the Population Council, the
Rockefeller Foundation, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and a
number of universities, including Uppsala, Helsinki, and Ohio State. The
U.S. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (part of NIH)
was the supplier of the hCG hormone in some of the AFV experiments.
see
http://www.thinktwice.com/birthcon.htm
Third World population is already being manipulated unethically without
their consent. By establishing a rationale for population limitation,
Ruppert et al are giving aid and comfort to the enemy among us who have
their own ideas about depopulation. But if Peak Oil is a hard reality,
shouldn't we be doing SOMETHING about our dilemma? Yes, but what if Peak
Oil is based upon a fallacy, an unproved assumption of the finiteness of
our primary energy source--the so-called "fossil fuels." What if oil is
NOT a one-time, millions of years ago process involving accumulation of
dinosaur goo? In a 1999 paper
written
by
Thomas Gold on
Recharging of oil and gas fields
he states:
There have been numerous reports in recent times, of oil and gas
fields not running out at the expected time, but instead showing a
higher content of hydrocarbons after they had already produced more than
the initially estimated amount. This has been seen in the Middle East,
in the deep gas wells of Oklahoma, on the Gulf of Mexico coast, and in
other places. It is this apparent refilling during production that has
been responsible for the series of gross underestimate of reserves that
have been published time and again, the most memorable being the one in
the early seventies that firmly predicted the end of oil and gas
globally by 1987, a prediction which produced an energy crisis and with
that a huge shift in the wealth of nations. Refilling is an item of the
greatest economic significance, and also a key to understanding what the
sources of all this petroleum had been. It is also of practical
engineering importance, since we may be able to exercise some control
over the refilling process.
The debate about the origin of all the petroleum on Earth lies in the
center of the subject. If we really knew that it is only biological
materials, which, in their decay, could produce hydrocarbons, then the
quantities that could ever be produced would be limited by the biological
content of the sediments. But then the clear and strong association of
petroleum with the inert gas helium would have no explanation; the
finding of hydrocarbon gases, liquids and solids on most other planetary
bodies in our solar system which have surface conditions quite
unsuitable for surface life, could not be understood; the presence of
hydrocarbons which we now find in abundance in basement rocks would also
remained unexplained.
If we accept the fact, now known full well, that hydrocarbons are a
common constituent of the cosmos and the planetary condensations that
formed in it, then we have a totally different viewpoint. Hydrocarbons
are stable down to great depths and the high temperatures there,
contrary to many statements that have been made that the temperature
reached at depths between 30,000 and 40,000 ft would dissociate most of
the hydrocarbons. But these calculations are seriously in error, because
they ignored the strong stabilizing effect of pressure at depth, that
had been calculated by Soviet (Ukrainian and Russian) thermodynamicists.
Professor Gold concludes:
How much more than the original content of a hydrocarbon field can be
produced in any one case will depend on numerous details of the
formation, but present indications are that it is often at least double.
The present global gas and oil glut appears to be due to this effect,
and we have not yet seen the end of it, or any indication that it will
end soon. Gas fields will be subject to faster refilling than oil
fields, and moreover the volumes of gas in lower domains will in general
be greater due to the higher pressures there and the higher
compressibility of gas. Gas will thus become more plentiful than oil for
this reason alone, but gas seems to be generally more plentiful and more
widespread than oil. The environmental advantages of changing from coal
or oil to gas, by far the cleanest of all combustible fuels, are very
large, and the changeover is at present still handicapped by the
mistaken belief that the supplies of gas will run out soon.
Professor Gold is by no means a lonely voice in this field. The issue
of the origin of petroleum is fundamental to any
determination about the end of petroleum. Ruppert et al not
only do not address this issue, they fly into a hissy fit when the
question is raised. This raises even more questions about their motivation
as well as their fitness to represent important issues to the public. What
if petroleum is not fossil fuel but a continually
replenishing resource? We have grown up with the belief system of finite
resources and fossil fuels. Where is the proof or even the evidence of
this? Is there evidence to the contrary? Why have we not heard the full
story? Why does the Ruppert group go ballistic when someone asks such a
simple question? This suggests another agenda than waking the town to tell
the people. Next is Dave's Newsletter # 52 in which Michael Ruppert
attacks.
Originally published at
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr49.html
More research that punches a big
hole in the Peak Oil hysteria
New:proof of the oil Non-Crisis by Lindsay Williams
April
13, 2004
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
This material is copyrighted by its original publishers.
It is reprinted by
The Seventh Fire
News without permission, solely for purposes of
criticism, comment, and news reporting, in accordance with the Fair Use
Guidelines of copyright material under
§ 107 of U.S.C.
Title 17.
The world gets crazier and crazier everyday, doesn't it? The world that many
of us thought was there, isn't. The bottom has dropped out of everything. The
illusions have been revealed, we have found out who has been pulling the strings
behind the scenes. Millions have lost their jobs, have mortgage
problems, and
foreclosure. What can be done? Amazingly, we have been mislead. We have been
taught that we can control government by voting. The founder of the Rothschild
dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer, told the secret of controlling the government
of a nation over 200 years ago. He said, "Permit
me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its
laws." Get
the picture? Your freedom hinges first on the nation's banks and money system.
It's all about 'commerce'. Freedom is connected with Debt Elimination for
each individual. Not only does this end
personal debt, it places the people first in line
as creditors to the National Debt ahead of the banks. They don't wish for
you to know this. It has to do with recognizing WHO you really are in A
New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles, an informational study. Is
your credit rating bad for reasons that seem out of your control? There are
ways of credit repair,
so you can men those broken fences too. Do you want to keep your children protected
from outside forces, there are ways of protecting
your children. Do you want
to keep your sons and daughters free from 'the draft'? Check this out.
Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses,
and information in the articles, stories and commentaries posted on this site
range from cutting edge hard news and comment to extreme and unusual perspectives.
We choose not to sweep uncomfortable material under the rug - where it can
grow and fester. We choose not to censor skewed logic and uncomfortable rhetoric.
These things reflect the world as it now is - for better and worse. We present
multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information. If
you have more information on a certain subject that verifies it, challenges
it or make a comment on it, please e.mail
us.
Journalism is (or used to be) the profession of gathering and presenting a broad panorama of news about the events of our times and presenting it to readers for their own consideration. We believe in the intelligence, judgment and wisdom of our readers to discern for themselves among the data which appears on this site that which is valid and worthy...or otherwise. See full legal disclaimer
 |
|
