Learning about Peak Oil

by **smiley** » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 17:21:09

I'll have to go with Philbiker here. I have to admit that I haven't read Crossing the Rubicon, but from the various excerpts and editorials that are floating around I decided that there are far better ways to spend my money.

What Ruppert writes is fiction. Ruppert is the Dan Brown of peakoil. Only Dan Brown is a better writer.

by **chargrove** » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 17:31:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')I have to admit that I haven't read Crossing the Rubicon

by **NevadaGhosts** » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 17:53:02

I just love how some people here are dismissing Ruppert and others as nut cases when THEY HAVEN'T EVEN READ MOST OF THOSE AUTHOR'S WRITINGS. HOW CAN YOU DISMISS SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T EVEN READ?

by **threadbear** » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 18:02:38

Nevada, Most of those who criticize Ruppert haven't read ANYTHING he's written, let alone most of what he's written. This is the sad, and for them, embarrassing truth.

by **Nano** » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 18:04:04

Sheesh, why do some of you feel so strongly about the question of Rupperts sanity? It seems to me this discussion has become a letting-off-of-steam within the greater question of the imminent disasster we are facing. Is that it? If so, carry on by all means! :razz:

by **threadbear** » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 18:15:30

Nano, The question of Ruppert's sanity is central to peak oil. If he's insane, his analysis of peak oil, and how it relates to 911 has to be taken with a grain of salt. If he's sane, and "Crossing the Rubicon" is essentially true, I personally have to consider leaving Canada if the infection of criminal govt. spreads here and we become co-opted into the Matrix. (There, I used the term).

This isn't letting off a little steam, it's deadly serious and if you can't appreciate that , you won't understand the greater problem and it's implications.

It implies that if there is a technological fix, these dudes won't allow it to see the light of day and they can use the patent office and national security as a way of controlling implementation of new technologies at home, and whatever it takes overseas.

by **PO_TimeCr0ss** » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 18:24:58

While I haven't read Rupperts work, I have read some of the links Phil posted. Interesting stuff.

However, if it is true that he is being critisized in here by people who have not read his work, isn't that similar to PO and the rest of the world?

by **smiley** » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 18:32:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')evada, Most of those who criticize Ruppert haven't read ANYTHING he's written, let alone most of what he's written. This is the sad, and for them, embarrassing truth.

by **threadbear** » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 18:44:46

Smiley, Please explain WHY the article you linked to on Ruppert's site looks like fiction to you, rather than just labelling it as such. This type of "scholarly analysis" of Ruppert's work, is exactly what's being held up to well deserved scorn here.

And please--"Well jeez--because it looks kind of kooky." doesn't cut it.

by **Nano** » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 18:48:25

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'I')t implies that if there is a technological fix, these dudes won't allow it to see the light of day and they can use the patent office and national security as a way of controlling implementation of new technologies at home, and whatever it takes overseas.

by **threadbear** » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 19:23:54

Nano, Didn't many of the Dutch have similar feelings about cozying up to Nazi Germany during the war? Your post indicates you have defaulted to an "us or them" philosophy. This is particularly scary in light of emerging fascism. Those in power use this kind of fundamentalism when they pose questions of a practical and philosophical nature to their constituents. It serves to narrow the possibilites of response, and it's repetetive use can frame issues in such a way that they help usher in totalitarianism.

Your belief about what is possible in terms of alternate tech is a bit beside the point. For purely practical matters, a clear assessment of whether or not the American govt. will be able and willing to suppress new technologies, should they arise in the future, has to be made--ANd the earlier the better.

Ruppert's book, Crossing the Rubicon, describes a criminal cabal that wouldn't be morally restrained from manipulating peak oil situation and impeding funding to useful technologies that show promise while funding distractions, like hydrogen technology. This is key for me personally. I'm trying to get a guage on just how bad these dudes are, and just how far they're willing to go.

by **smiley** » Tue 12 Apr 2005, 19:50:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')miley, Please explain WHY the article you linked to on Ruppert's site looks like fiction to you, rather than just labelling it as such. This type of "scholarly analysis" of Ruppert's work, is exactly what's being held up to well deserved scorn here.

by **erl** » Wed 13 Apr 2005, 00:45:15

Anyone who hosts a website and, first thing, hawks his or her book and/or pats himself on the back is due for some suspicous looks. It raises at least the inference that they are profiting from Peak Oil fears.

It doesn't mean they are kooky or even wrong. It just means there will be, and should be, some raised eyebrows.

Caveat emptor.

erl

by **SupplyConcerns** » Wed 13 Apr 2005, 01:18:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PO_TimeCr0ss', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PhilBiker', 'W')elcome aboard.

Matt's "Life After The Oil Crash" is a bit extreme. types.

by **PO_TimeCr0ss** » Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:49:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('erl', 'A')nyone who hosts a website and, first thing, hawks his or her book and/or pats himself on the back is due for some suspicous looks. It raises at least the inference that they are profiting from Peak Oil fears.

It doesn't mean they are kooky or even wrong. It just means there will be, and should be, some raised eyebrows.

Caveat emptor.

erl

by **Nano** » Wed 13 Apr 2005, 03:51:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'N')ano, Didn't many of the Dutch have similar feelings about cozying up to Nazi Germany during the war? Your post indicates you have defaulted to an "us or them" philosophy. This is particularly scary in light of emerging fascism.

by **Doly** » Wed 13 Apr 2005, 04:56:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nano', 'I') don't believe in a technofix because I don't believe in the existence of a *cheap* alternative to oil. *cheap* means *simple*, in my book, and I presume simple alternatives have all been thoroughly investigated and found wanting. That leaves the hightech and undiscovered alternatives, and they will likely never be cheap.

by **PhilBiker** » Wed 13 Apr 2005, 09:13:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'I')f I remember right, Phil, you haven't even read most of what Ruppert has to say

by **threadbear** » Wed 13 Apr 2005, 13:01:55

Biker, If you've read Ruppert's site thoroughly and concluded he's a paranoid nutcase, fair enough. The stuff about his girlfriend, who was supposedly a mind controlled asset for the CIA does sound particularly looney, I'll grant you that. It's beneficial to have a background in intelligence, or a very thorough understanding of mind control projects to make a proper assessment of that particular situation.

Truth is stranger than fiction when it comes to this realm, though. So, Ruppert's story may seem outlandish, but have merit. You should read some books by people who you can trust, who have studied the intelligence community. The truth is often hidden in off the record areas that can't be easily verified or dismissed. It's a dilemna.

Personally, I think being paranoid gives a person an analytical advantage--it's just a matter of how paranoid and about what and getting the details straight.

Nano, Didn't mean to call you a Nazi, but there is a natural human tendency to be unwittingly and unnecessarily coralled into fundamentalist thinking. I realize now that in your post, you were just trying to be detached and pragmatic, and that's fair. But there are likely several ways of resolving the Middle East oil situation without resorting to "them or us".

Political parties all over Europe seem to be taking advantage of the backlash from their relaxed immigration policies, to usher in ultra conservatives who will align themselves more closely with the neo-conservatives in the US. Not a good sign. It dovetails neatly with nurturing a strong adversarial model of East versus West and helps over simplify everyone's thinking, including the Islamic population.

If the situation CAN only be solved by this kind of simple equation, so be it. One has to choose sides. But only after something the size and scope of the Manhattan project to find some kind of alternative source of energy is undertaken. I hope hydrogen is it, and that fusion, or some kind of harmless fission, if that's possible, will do it. The neo-cons are funding hydrogen only because it seems to them to be the least likely option, imho. The joke would be on them, if it turned out to be the answer. Ironic and serendipitous. Perfect.

Political parties all over Europe seem to be taking advantage of the backlash from their relaxed immigration policies, to usher in ultra conservatives who will align themselves more closely with the neo-conservatives in the US. Not a good sign

I agree with you that cheap energy from new tech isn't going to happen, nor should it. We should pay a premium for having the luxury of living on this beautiful planet. Cheap energy on a finite planet would be a complete disaster.

by **Nano** » Wed 13 Apr 2005, 18:18:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'I') agree with you that cheap energy from new tech isn't going to happen, nor should it. We should pay a premium for having the luxury of living on this beautiful planet. Cheap energy on a finite planet would be a complete disaster.

Learning about Peak Oil

Who is online