[MattSavinar]

Let sayyou wanted to scare Saudi Arabia into pumping at max capacity.

How would you do it?

Whatever your idea is, it is subject to one restriction: can't damage the oil fields or the oil infrastructure.

Matt

[Soft_Landing]

You create market panic by targeting oil personel in Saudi.

Oil prices rise because of a risk premium.

Saudi would certainly pump at maximum because:

- inflated prices would be extremely tempting

- inflated prices encourage marginal amounts of substitution, and potentially hurt Saudi economy over the medium term. It is in Saudi medium term interest to keep oil price low to moderate, esp. if they have as much oil as they say they do.


Are you thus implying:

Sceptical CIA analysts artificially create a temporary risk premium to test Saudi's claims of surplus capacity? Or attempt to expose Saudi surplus capacity to the


Maybe I'm reading too much into your 'hypothetical challenge', but I think it really important that peak oil advocates really refrain from advocating extremely speculative points of view like those I have outlined above.

I'm a recent investigator of peak oil, and i discovered it when searching the net for 'conspiracy theories' to pop holes in. It's a past-time I very much enjoy, my favourite fruit of the modern world. To my chagrin, I was unable to flaw the reasoning; the only weakpoint, i believe, if one exists, is in the validity of the raw data.

However, my friends are proving decidedly hard to open to peak oil possibilities. Whilst they have oft delighted in my pointing out problematic reasoning in other domains, they are more prone to see peak oil as 'the conspiracy theory I cannot defeat' (i.e. It's still wrong, I just can't figure out why...). I have struggled to understand the line of reasoning they follow, and it is clear.

What are the consequences?

Very very bad.

Therefore impossible.

Therefore conspiracy theory.


And who could blame them. Do a search on the internet and peak oil theories are often intimately tied to other more speculative, conspiracist type theories (i.e. recent CIA plotting coup article).

Let me make it clear - I'm not saying these theories are wrong, just that they are speculative; the evidence is not conclusive. Peak oil is potentially a conclusive argument, when various consequence speculation is removed from the crucible.

Perhaps I have rambled but I am lost on this one. It seems all too clear that peak oil has suffered from being associated with conspiracy theories, and perhaps (data validity dependant) it has suffered for too long. It seems much too much to ask for people to refrain from making conspiracy sized claims - because the implications really are that big!!! But how can these ideas enter the sober (drunken?) world of news media when the ordinary implications appear so unbelievable, so outlandish???

A brief moment of depair.

It aint over till the fat lady sings.

[OilBurner]

I am with you 100% friend.

We, as a community should be very careful talking about political issues and certainly should never speculate over matters of conspiracy or data that cannot be validated.

If we fail to do this the it is not surprising that our ideas will not be taken seriously and grouped in with the UFO believers and lizards as world leaders looneys.

Peak Oil is about energy. Yes, politics is involved but aren't we more concerned in proving that Peak Oil is real and a genuine problem than whether the government is hiding the issue?

Is we can continue to help prove Peak Oil is real and help promote the issue through this forum then that will help us all understand the problem better and the issue has a chance of standing up and not being buried with the actual crap out there on the net that people indulge in.

[MattSavinar]

Here is the problem as I see it:

As soon as anybody raises the possibility that maybe, just maybe, things aren't quite what they seem, somebody throws out the "Conspiracy" or "Ufo" thing around.

Nero burned down rome = conspiracy fact.

The US sank the USS Maine = conspiracy fact.

The Nazis burned down the Reichstag = conspiracy fact.

The CIA planned to hijack American airliners in 1962 and blame it on Cuban terrorists to provoke a war with Cuba = conpiracy fact, as documented by articles on "Operation Northwoods" that have appeared in both the Baltimore Sun and on ABC News (google search will turn them up).

But the moment somebody suggests that maybe, just maybe some of the recent "attacks" aren't what they appear, he gets the following responses:

"That is a conspiracy theory"

or

"We don't want people to think we believe in aliens, so lets not discuss the possibility that our government has decided it is willing to murder us so it can deal with Peak Oil."

What our government plans to do to deal with this situation should concern us all.

Matt

[MattSavinar]

One more thing:

The standard 9-11 story is a "conspiracy theory" that cannot be validated. Give me one piece of evidence for the standard story that has not come from government sources.

The idea that 20 guys "conspired" to conduct the attacks - that is a conspiracy theory in of itself.

Matt

[MattSavinar]

As far as theories not being conclusive - that is true for everything in life.

In court for instance, the standard of proof for a civil case is 51% - far from what I would consider "conclusive."

Matt

[OilBurner]

Matt, I respect you a lot but I think you're missing the point a little.

For someone like you who is coming into contact with the media, publishing information on which people learn about Peak Oil and may be seen as a key person to quote on the issue of Peak Oil, you need to retain credibility otherwise what you have to say on Peak Oil also loses credibility.
Therefore it is not in your interest or the greater interests in promoting an understanding of the concept of Peak Oil, if you are seen to be making left field suggestions about the government, the CIA or any other organisation that frequently draw attack from crackpots and paranoid delusionals.
That's not to say what you're accusing (or suggesting) the CIA or US Government of doing isn't true or doesn't have strong evidence - on the contrary, what you suggest is perfectly possible - conspiracies do sometimes exist. The point is, you need to focus on the Peak Oil issue and not on speculative politics that are difficult to prove and easy to dismiss.

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm trying to tell you how you should behave - it's more than a little arrogant of me, I admit. The problem is, we all need people like you who stand up and say "This is wrong - look at what is happening" and because of the position you have taken, you are now important to the cause and you should be extra cautious about what you say because that is where your reputation will be built or crushed.

To put it another way, people who have great respect from the public and their colleagues tend to be guarded, cautious and stay focused on the issue that they're trying to raise awareness on or change attitudes on.
I may be wrong (and I frequently am!) but I'm worried you're losing that focus.

Best wishes and thanks for putting so much energy into everything you've done so far!

[Guest]

Don't you think Matt Savinar himself deserves at least some of the blame? After all, he seems to have suggested on radio that September 11 was an "inside job".

[MattSavinar]

Oilburner,

Have you read the Northwoods document?

If I was in court trying to prove the government had a role in the attacks I would be droooling over that document.

The 9-11 story is so full of holes that no moot court proffesor would ever use it as set of facts for his law students. Why? Because it would guarantee the side defending the government would lose.

Matt

[MattSavinar]

I didn't suggest it.

I said it was.

Matt

[MattSavinar]

Oilburner:

That our government may have resorted to murdering its' own citizens in order to cope with declining oil production, is very much relevant.

You have to worry about $7.00 gas.

You have to worry about unemployment.

You have to worry about declining food production.

And on top of all that, you have to worry that your own government may be willing to murder you or your fellow citizens to deal with the situation.

I think this needs to be a key issue when discussing Peak Oil.

Matt

[Joram]

matt,

I think that Oilburner has a good point.
If you only tell people who know nothing about peak oil and the facts they have already difficulties to accept this.
If you gonna throw in the conspiracy government points they have even more difficulties accepting peak oil.

Although your book is really good, it makes too much points about killing Iraqi ppl with depleted uranium, and attacks on 9-11 who where helped by the government.
The connection 'army US in Iraq' vs 'peak oil' is quickly made but people don't see that 9-11 thing very easily in connection with peak oil.
That is the reason why i don't have asked anybody yet to read your book. I now they are going to dismiss it as 'end of the world stuff'. And just another conspiracy theory.

Don't get me wrong i believe the things you wrote in your book but other people have lot of difficulties accepting those extra facts about government, depleted uranium etc.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e, as a community should be very careful talking about political issues and certainly should never speculate over matters of conspiracy or data that cannot be validated.

If we fail to do this the it is not surprising that our ideas will not be taken seriously and grouped in with the UFO believers and lizards as world leaders looneys.

[Guest]

Matt Savinar is not helping but actually seriously hurting the chances of timely public awareness of the Peak Oil problem.

[MadScientist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', 'a')ctually seriously hurting the chances of timely public awareness of the Peak Oil problem.

[OilBurner]

Matt,

I happen to find there is reason to see that what you say about 9/11 has a ring of truth about it - however whether it's true or not, or whether I agree with you or not really matters not a bit.
The problem is, as I see it, that you are setting yourself up as a person exposing Peak Oil and the politics behind it but you are doing so in a manner that makes it easy to write you off as a crackpot - which I assure you, I don't believe you are!!
You may not like it, but by bringing yourself increasingly into the public eye, you are representing everyone here and a whole range of views and facts - therefore you reflect on all of us. I urge you to use moderation, caution and common sense in doing so otherwise you are wasting your time and allowing this very serious issue to be sidelined and degraded. i.e. stick to proven and undisputable facts in your arguments, not documents that only provide circumstantial evidence, like the Northwood documents.
You claim to be a trained lawer - in your current position it would be easy for people to claim you are a drop out and a failure, trading off the back of the money earner that is Peak Oil publishing. That is not my opinon of you, nor should you care what I think of you, but I am merely suggesting how others can easily categorize you - rightly or wrongly.
Note that respected and widely quoted people like Colin Campbell do not indulge in the speculative politics of peak oil - he knows only too well how easily that would tarnish his image.
Unlike MadScientist, I do believe that educating people will have some benefit and is meaningful, after all everyone who posts here and accepts some or all aspects of Peak Oil Theory will have previously have been unaware of it but now understand it. That's progress and maybe will help save lives or avert a potentially worse disaster that we must have to face. Yes - that is optimistic and I see nothing wrong in that.

p.s. Matt, could you please change your site so that you don't have to click on the image of a gas pump to enter - it doesn't work for text only and blind users. Thanks.

[MadScientist]

hey man , I'm all for educating people. I was introduced to peak oil myself through matt's site. I spend an hour or two daily typing posts here.
The crucial difference is that I realize only about 1% of people are open minded enough to be capable of "getting it". No sense slamming my head against the wall trying to help the other 99% who DONT WANT HELP. Most people's receivers only capture mainstream moderate viewpoints. Everything else conveniently falls into "leftwing" "rightwing" or "nutball conspiracy".

Chances are the 1% person who is gonna respond and accept PO will only need a link or a short reference conversation anyway.

Anyways, Ive been trying to make this point since I came to this board, and it isnt exactly catching on. So go ahead and censor matt for not being PO correct enough. And continue on planning to save the world in a timely manner with activism and technology. Ill focus my energy on other areas.

[OilBurner]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to censor Matt, I just think he's shooting himself (and us) in the foot by going off into dubious subjects. He can say exactly what he likes (at the minute), thank God!!

I agree with you a certain amount - most people really don't want to know about anything that challenges their world view and that's exactly why we need to make it easier for them to accept the Peak Oil idea.
The more political things get wrapped up with it, the more our core message is being lost.
Fact is, supply is almost certainly not going to meet demand and demand must therefore fall.
Whether the US Gov. is forcing it's own airliners into skyscrapers really doesn't have any bearing on that fact - it's a periphery and talking about it and other extreme possibilites (and facts) will scare more people away.

I'm sorry you think we're wasting our time on so many of our friends and families. I think there should always be hope. Once, slavery was the norm and acceptable to many people. They didn't want to hear about it being wrong, too many vested interests were at stake. But times change, and I believe we can only move forward if we present our arguments in a moderate, fact driven manner. Otherwise we will be ridiculed in years to come, just as Alien believers often are now and that's shame because it may yet turn out that we are being visited and the message was lost because of people degrading the content of the message with clear nonsense. I fear that could happen here too.

[Pops]

OB, I gotta laugh, you talk about political conspiracy theories hurting the acceptance of Peak Oil, then bring up UFO's!

[OilBurner]

Sorry - tongue was firmly in cheek there!!!

I guess that's my credibility shot to peices then...if I had any..

[Doctor Doom]

News flash: the Saudis are already pumping at capacity. We don't need to "scare" them; they're plenty scared already. If they let civilization tank, they will be flattened by the machinery of war coming from the US, PRC, or both.