Musings from Murph.

PEAK OIL AND MY ALUMINUM FOIL HAT.

I am addressing this to all of you that are being accused of extremists positions and holding tin foil had conspiracy theories. Oh yes, you are being alarmists, you know who you are and you know the effect you are having on people around you when you take to your soapbox and espouse all these nonsense ideas that are obviously un American and will not solve any hypothetical problems you may put forward anyway. Oh yeh, very un American to say the least, and very socially disruptive and just get the hell out of the way, I’m on my way to Wal Mart you commie sympathizer. Whoops, excuse me, I get carried away with paraphrasing the opposition I guess. Sorry.

Lately, along with several web sites that are dedicated to debunking the peak oil concepts, there has appeared on a personal contact level, increased resistance to the concept and its impact. After all, all the frenzy about oil going up to $100 per barrel hasn’t happened and please fill-up my hummer while you’re at it. I find it interesting that I have been running into more and more resistance in the generalized form that ‘technology and inventiveness will save the day’, or at least it well never be allowed to get as bad as some people are concerned that it will. The consequence of this disagreement about the concept is starting to throw all the doom and gloom projections into the tin foil hat extremists box and discounted as such. I have been poking into the debunking web sites periodically and it appears to me that the controversy is not about interpretation of data that anyone can look up, but is rather a disagreement of the validity of the data itself. The debate, primarily, does not seem to be any longer over whether oil is a finite resource, (except of course for the abiotic oil advocates) but rather how much longer we have enough of it to keep things running as they are now and with the increased demand of the developing countries. The disagreement over when peak oil happened, if it has at all, is pointed to as flawed data, and is used to support the concept that we are at minimum 15-50 years from any kind of peak, which the recent CEMA report tried to substantiate. To top it off, even if and when we reach a peak, it will level off and not decline. (WHAT? You mean it will last forever?) My god, talk about interesting ways to manipulate data and use of unverifiable suppositions. Like the 9-11 questions concerning the official account, I have some question concerning the non peak oil accounts. If those in charge of things worldwide are indeed not concerned with peak oil because we have so much of it left to exploit, why are we engaged in all these national wars over the stuff? If you believe that these conflicts have nothing to do with oil and we are killing people on a rather large scale in order to save them from repressive governments, I have a one-size-fits-all-foil-hat waiting for you too. That foil hat is starting to feel real comfortable on me.

I tend to think that most of this debate is distracting us from the more immediate and extreme problems we are facing. Not that either running out of oil or its becoming so expensive that we have to power down is not a serious problem, but we do have some more immediate things that do need to be addressed. I suspect that this distraction is deliberate. But of course my tin foil hat has been amplifying those voices in my head lately too.

So, for me anyway, any arguments that wants to radically extend the pool of below ground hydrocarbons is immediately suspect, either that or the world controllers are thinking within some very long term plans. Again, in either case, we are going to run out of the affordable stuff, and the way we live will, sooner or later, change rather dramatically

One of the justifications that is being used for nearly everything that is going on, to the point of ridiculousness, is the terrorist threat argument. Most of what we call ‘terrorist’ activities against the US are reactions to some big government’s policies, (namely the US Israel and England), not an aggressive unprovoked act. After all, what does a smaller and weaker society have to fight back with when a big powerful country leans on them? Any direct confrontation is immediate annihilation. (The Iraq military as an example) In any case, it sure looks to me that all of the policies, domestic and international, that have been enacted around terrorism qualify as false flag operations, and that is to conceal the national need for below ground hydrocarbons. And, I would sure be interested if anyone can find an official government definition of ‘terrorist’ or ‘terrorism’. I suspect that is also on purpose because no matter how you define it, the US does it. I’m going to keep the foil hat on for this issue I guess.

.

So, let’s take a look at some of the more immediate problems I alluded to above. We have, in my opinion and with the information I have, a serious economic problem that is world wide, and that is fast approaching a truly catastrophic event. I have yet to see ANY economic projections that advocates everything is hunky dory that does not lean on the doctored figures indicating low inflation, low unemployment, and active and healthy stock and commodity markets. Outside of the inane statements by Bush and the Federal Reserve and the lay people on the street, the people actively engaged and involved with economics say we are in big trouble. So the sole reason given for why we shouldn’t be concerned about the economy and to take off our tin foil hats, is based on known and documented false data. Unemployment is up, not down; inflation is much more than the government released information (10% last I read); and the stock and commodity markets figures are known to be manipulated. What the true state of affairs in all three areas is, is up for grabs, but it sure isn’t what the government and its spokesman are saying. So I think I will keep my foil hat on for this issue too.

Another of the really pressing problems is the changing weather cycles. What I am reading that is debunking the man made global warming idea may or may not be true. But that weather cycles are changing is for sure happening. This is causing all kinds of havoc world wide and this havoc is not being addressed with any policy. Instead, we are addressing the issue of whether it is man made or not. Now, it may indeed be true that sun activity causes periodic and severe weather changes. And, it may or may not be true that mans activities are making the problem worse. Because all we have is statistical data concerning this, we are not able to demonstrate with absolute certainty on causative affects. But we simply seem to be unwilling to address the FACT that it is happening, and we have no national agenda on the issue. We all know damned well that even if we could prove conclusively that man’s activities were the cause or a contributing factor, we have neither the political or social will at this time to do anything significant about it. Thank you, but I will retain the foil hat on this issue also.

Of immediate concern is the perpetuating of more war, for whatever ostensible reason. If we really aren’t preparing for more war, what in the hell are we doing sending so much heavy weight war machinery to the areas in question, primarily Iran? How interesting that Iran holds so much in oil reserves. Of course we are told that if Iran puts in nuclear reactors of any kind, they will immediately make weapons and then we can expect bombardment of American cities. We also sure don’t like the fact that Iran may,-MAY-, be helping the insurgents in Iraq against the American occupation. The gullibility of the American public concerning this is amazing. You mean to tell me that if Canada or Mexico or countries in Western Europe were being occupied that we wouldn’t help an insurrection? We have done the same all over the world. One of the more recent examples is Afghanistan against the Russians. Why would anyone think that Iran or any other Muslim country wouldn’t do the same for Iraq? We can spend all day talking about the probable outcomes of bombarding Iran. None of them are going to be good for me or you. There are going to be people that will benefit from another invasion, but the consequences will be worse than anything that has come about in Iraq for most of us. Of course if you have invested heavily in war industry stocks, you will benefit in the immediate future. So, do I think there is collusion and conspiracy involved in this war preparation? You Bet! And, oh yes, supporting the troops. You been listening to interviews with members of the military? Rather mixed response it appears, but weighted with the pro policy interviews. At the risk of offending some people I am going to assert that the reason our military is in Afghanistan and Iraq is to make money and keep power for the elites, , and not to preserve our rapidly disappearing freedoms and the Bill of Rights. (Which is asserted constantly and being blown up our collective asses) People, that means our military and its leaders are either in collusion with the elites on this issue or have been taken for chumps. I’ll keep the foil hat on this subject also.

Of major concern in any argument concerning domestic and national events and planning is the known FACT that our government lies all the time. Let’s go back a number of years when Clinton lied to us about CAFCA and NAFTA. He at least was honest enough to let us know that the outcomes would be dependent on how we dealt with the issue, but he never did lay out what the negative consequences could be, and that is exactly what has happened, a whole bunch of negative consequences for all but the very wealthy to begin with. Would the American public have been willing to go along with this if the government had laid it all out and not just the projected rosy consequences? Probably not. Of course, we might argue that the government would never get anything done if they laid out the negative consequences beforehand. People would not stand for that. So they lie to us to get us to go along with policies that benefit very few to the detriment of many. I remember back in the 70’s having the John Birch Society warning us in no uncertain terms about the Federal Reserve. Well, they were branded extremists, racists, conspiritists and tin foil hat people. I am not a lover of that group, but were they right, at least on this issue? Back in 1913, there were a lot of warnings about the Federal Reserve System and was finally pushed through by (hold on here) a Democrat, President Wilson. Makes you proud to be a liberal doesn’t it? My head is listing to the side by the weight of all the foil hats being piled on.

So, overall, I guess I’m going to keep the foil hats on for the time being. I find it to be an interesting set of company I keep. How about you?