Corsi is either an idiot or he counts on the people who read and believe his stuff being idiots. His latest article - I guess that he is trying to sell his book - is titled "Finally, an international conference on abiotic oil"
here's the link
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47551
In the article, he touts the AAPG Origin of Petroleum Conference on this past June as being about abiotic oil. But, he obviously didn't even read most of the abstracts for the conference (very interesting by the way - http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/docum ... /index.htm) almost all of which document evidence that petroleum is mostly biogenic, e.g:
http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/docum ... /mello.htm
Petroleum scientists have always searched for new trustful technologies to provide valuable evidences regarding the origin of hydrocarbons found in sedimentary basins and metamorphic areas around the globe. Present-day analysis of petroleum systems, when performed integrated with direct geochemistry, remote sense and high resolution geochemistry technology (HRGT), can provide irrefutable proof that 99.99999% of all the oil and gas accumulations found up to know in the planet earth have a biologic origin. The technologies can be so accurate and useful that they can predict pre-drilling insights regarding the quality and potential volumes of hydrocarbons to be found, including deep gas reservoirs, oil versus gas prone areas, degree of oil and gas cracking and of mixture of hydrocarbons derived from different sources, from different petroleum systems.
You don't get any sense of the true nature of the conference from Corsi's article. As Bugs Bunny would say "What a maroon!"
PeakOil is You
THE Jerome Corsi Thread (merged)
Re: Jerome Corsi Versus PeakOil.com
by VMA131Marine » Wed 23 Nov 2005, 14:45:44
Last edited by VMA131Marine on Wed 23 Nov 2005, 16:57:27, edited 1 time in total.
-
VMA131Marine - Peat
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Mon 05 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Jerome Corsi Versus PeakOil.com
by Free » Wed 23 Nov 2005, 15:29:31
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('VMA131Marine', 'C')orsi is either an idiot or he counts on the people who read an believe his stuff being idiots. His latest article - I guess that he is trying to sell his book - is titled "Finally, an international conference on abiotic oil"
Let's just call them abiots, that says it all, it's a worse insult and we can't be sued.
"Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave."
Karl Kraus
Karl Kraus
-
Free - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1280
- Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Europe
Greg Palast has joined the ranks of Jerome Corsi
by BO » Tue 23 May 2006, 13:59:53
Greg Palast, whom I used to respect, has written a hitpiece on peakniks that Jerome Corsi, and Peter Huber would be proud of. Some Gems:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n his 1956 paper, Hubbert wrote: On the basis of the present estimates of the ultimate reserves of world petroleum and natural gas, it appears that the culmination of world production of these products should occur within a half a century [i.e., by 2006].
So get in your Hummer and take your last drive, Clive. Sometime during 2006, we will have used up every last drop of crude oil on the planet. We’re not talking “decline” in oil from a production “peak,” we’re talking “culmination,” completely gone, kaput, dead out of crude—and not enough natural gas left to roast a weenie. In his 1956 treatise, Hubbert wrote that Planet Earth could produce not a drop more than one and a quarter trillion barrels of crude.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n his 1956 paper, Hubbert wrote: On the basis of the present estimates of the ultimate reserves of world petroleum and natural gas, it appears that the culmination of world production of these products should occur within a half a century [i.e., by 2006].
So get in your Hummer and take your last drive, Clive. Sometime during 2006, we will have used up every last drop of crude oil on the planet. We’re not talking “decline” in oil from a production “peak,” we’re talking “culmination,” completely gone, kaput, dead out of crude—and not enough natural gas left to roast a weenie. In his 1956 treatise, Hubbert wrote that Planet Earth could produce not a drop more than one and a quarter trillion barrels of crude.
Talk about disengenuous, he literally lies about what hubbert was saying, claiming the "we're running out" bullshit, and using the word "culmination", which Hubbbert is referring to maximum production, not running out, obviously.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n all fairness to the Hubbert Heads, there’s a more sophisticated, updated version of Hubbert’s theory. This is where the “peak” concept comes in. In this version of the Hubbert scripture, we ignore his dead wrong prediction of total crude available and look only at the up and down shape of his curve, the “peak.” The amount of oil discovered each year, Hubbert posited, will stop rising by 2000, then will crash rapidly toward zero when we will have used up our allotted 1.25 trillion barrels. We haven’t crashed or even peaked. Oil production has risen year after year after year and discoveries have more than kept pace.
Nevertheless, like believers undaunted by the failure of alien spaceships to take them to Mars on the date predicted, Peak enthusiasts keep moving the date of the oil apocalypse further into the future. In the new, revisionist models of Hubbert’s prediction, the high point in the curve of discoverable oil on our planet will come in a decade or so. Though we have a reprieve, goes the new theory, still, we’re running out of crude, dude! There’s only another twenty years left in proven reserves! Oh, my! “It’s true that there’s only twenty years’ supply left—and that’s been true for the last hundred years,” Lewis Lapham told me over a decent sauterne at Five Points. (He more often sups at Elaine’s, but I don’t rate that.) Lapham of Harper’s magazine is the only editor in the hemisphere with hard knowledge of the petroleum market, insight he inherited legitimately: His family helped found Mobil Oil, the back half of what is now Exxon Mobil.
What is so egregious, is that he doesn't just lie about the theory, he basically claims "reserve growth" to be tantamount to "production", and, of course, his "expert" is a journalist from Harper's magazine. What a bunch of crap, he hasn't even done a cursory examination of the data, since he actually said:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')il production has risen year after year after year and discoveries have more than kept pace.
Really funny stuff: [url=http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2295/No_Peaking_The_Hubbert_Humbug]/url]
Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.
-Edward Abbey
http://permanentlyindignant.wordpress.com/
-Edward Abbey
http://permanentlyindignant.wordpress.com/
-
BO - Peat
- Posts: 111
- Joined: Fri 02 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
![[smilie=sign12.gif]](https://udev.peakoil.com/forums/images/smilies/sign12.gif "sign12")
)