by proldic » Thu Sep 08, 2005 3:13 pm
What is it with all the insults about cut and paste? Am I the only one cutting and pasting, and also commenting at the same time?<br><br>You tell us average joes "how can you talk about it, you're nobody?", but then when I do try cogently express my views in one place, through digging up various sources, and exposing respected voices and views on the subject to make my point, you denigrate me as having simply "mastered cutn'paste". That's not right, man. <br><br>I spent a lot of time reading about peak oil, on the net, listening on the radio, and I also own many modern pro-peak oil books including The Party's Over, Powerdown, Crude, Crossing the Rubicon, Resource Wars, and Blood & Oil. And Defeynes' latest is on the way. <br><br>In addition, I've also either interviewed, had personal discussions with, or been privy to discussions with, these very people you are referring to as "misintepreted".<br><br>Now I know you don't agree with my theory that the concept of "Peak Oil", as expressed by its main proponents, is a "big lie" -- or that it's main proponents are "pied pipers" leading us into "planned shrinkage" and "forced downsizing". <br><br>And I know you don't believe that PO is a "natural" excuse for conscious, willful, conspiratorial "petroleum eugenics", to effect a massive de-population of potentially-revolutionary populations, and concurrently "downsize" the politico-economic power of US workers. <br><br>Just because you don't agree with me, however, doesn't mean I didn't research the subject. Should I have taken the time to re-translate all those great quotes and well-written pieces into my own words? Even though back then, as a discussion board newbie, I hadn't discovered the ezcodes quote function, I did try to clearly identify who was saying what, with quotation marks and double spaces, and I always stated who was speaking. <br><br>And I did give my own analysis, and arranged the sources in a logical order, and gave them context. <br><br>I'm sorry if that's not at your intellectual level. Sorry I didn't have the time/was not able to write my own PO book, but that wasn't my point in posting that piece. Shouldn't we welcome earnest attempts to debate these subjects, even if they are coming from less educated people, or should I be excluded, so as to keep the standards up as you decree them? Sound like more PO-type elitism to me.<br><br>My point <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>was</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to make a point with other people's words, and also with my own commentary, too. And I did site and/or quote extensively from real, primary documents and credible writers from many political stripes. I quoted the PO people themselves (Simmons, Campbell, Heinberg, and Klare), a highly-esteemed power-structure researcher, a well-respected environmentalist, a writer for the Economist magazine, an Australian human-rights activist, a leader of indigenous groups in Latin America, a leader of the modern women's health movement, a consortium of well-respected journalists active around Africa, a "Public Citizen"-sponsored consumer rights group, two mainstream science journals, The Wall Street Journal, Dutch state radio, Ramparts magazine, Mother Jones, The LA Times, the Scotsman, Publisher's Weekly, The Washington Quarterly, Foreign Affairs Magazine, a Club of Rome study, a US Army study, a Penatgon study, and a National Security Council memorandum. <br><br>I claimed, for the 1st time on this board, that the '70's "Oil Crisis" -- the last time the PTB were telling us that prices shocks were due to the fact that we were running out of oil (Meadows, Hardin, Lovins, et al) -- was a total scam. And that the Oil cartels are supressing supply and capping active wells today, again, first time mentioned on the board. I guess the fact that it had not been mentioned yet in the PO discussions was no big deal to you, but I thought it was a very important missing piece of the puzzle.<br><br>It discomforts you that I looked into the background of the key PO proponents, and questioned why we should be giving them <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>any</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> credibility. <br><br>I showed Matt Simmons for who he is. Do you have any discomfort knowing he was the "Paul Revere" of PO in the US, possibly the most influential of the PO cheerleaders? I do. And if you don't, then I'd say the your "rigorous" side is outweighing your "intuitive" side. More info that was not previously in the mix. I<br>suppose you didn't think <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>that</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> was relevant to the discussion? Nobody needed to bother themselves with those facts, either, huh? So you can tell folks I'm "misrepresenting" poor 'ol Matt Simmons and gang. <br><br>You say <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"[you] used very selective quotation and snide comment to 'prove' your points...and blatently misrepresent many."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>First, I was being snide to <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>public figures</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> like Heinberg, Campbell, and Simmons. In contrast, you were being snide to me. (ex: <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"A long, long post it certainly is, but in it Proldic shows nothing except that he's mastered copynpaste (needs to work on fixing the formating afterwards tho). So much nonsense where to start."</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> or <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"But say it enough times and its true eh proldic & prac. By Rightthinks works shall we know it." </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->). <br><br>So what right do you have to call anyone out on being snide? <br><br>You claim there's "so much nonsense" you don't know where to begin, but don't really show any good examples of "nonsense". Maybe you could just disagree, as opposed to dismissing it as non-sensical. Because, to me, it makes an awful lot of sense. <br><br>More importantly, where's the misrepresentation you claim? I misrepresented not one iota. I'm sure they wouldn't appreciate me distilling their views to those telling points, but, since I, and many others, think they <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>are</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> their key points, tough cookies. Can't be called <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>misrepresentation</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, though. <br><br>If you need any clarifying on any quotes, I'll go site the exact page numbers if you wish. <br><br>What I said regarding those pro-PO'ers is no lie, misprepresentation, or exageration at all. What I said about Simmons and Campbell misrepresents them not a wit. What I said about Klare is spot-on. What I said about Heinberg is 100% true.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>"... E.g. to claim that Heinberg is against distributed solar PV and wind generation is a flat lie, and i'm fairly sure he has never said 'doomsday' (your word) was inevitable..."<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'll take it you've never read any Heinberg, then. I refer you to his books, and copious writing. After reading them, you will see how he rules out any hope for a citizen-led campaign to democratize, re-regulate, and control our energy sources. You will see that he rules out any realistic hope of any mass conversion to solar and wind in time. If that's not "against" solar and wind as an alternative and political battle, I don't know what would be considered such from the pro-PO'ers. As far as "doomsday" not being inevitable, I again refer you to his books "The Party's Over" and "Power Down", in addition to his extensive writings on the web, in the "End of Suburbia" movie, and in his speeches to ASPO. If after reading all that, you can tell me with a straight face he's not saying it's going to be "doomsday" for many, many people, then you're simply being disingenuous, and that's not right.<br><br>My point about the reality of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>abiotic</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> origins of oil, was that it directly challenges over 50 years of popular taught and received wisdom in the west, which goes right to the heart of the PO "big lie"-- that oil is a "fossil fuel". Just ask anybody on the street. Have they heard of, none the less believe in, the truth of, the abiotic origns of oil? Could it be there are other "big lies" about "fossil fuels" out there?<br><br>It's very telling how the prime PO cheerleaders changed their tune over the last two-three years, from hysterically claiming abiotic oil was a <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>total</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> lie and we were irresponsible maniacs for telling people it was real, to today's grumbling acknowledgement that it "may be true, but --harumph -- it means nothing, my boy". <br><br>As far as the connection of PO to pop reduction is clear and uncontestable, and the rest of my essay deals with the reality and danger of that. <br><br>"It's also bullshit about Campbell refusing to debate Lynch, they regularly appear at same conferences, but theres little to debate - Lynch believes absolutely in the USGS 2000 'statistical estimation' method of determining reserves, faith based science rules again. "<br><br>Guess you'll have to ask the parties directly, as I have. Just being at the same conferences does not equal a willingness to debate in a formal public setting with rules, etc. Lynch has been challenging Campbell repeatedly, in public, to debate him for more than a year now. Just 2 1/2 weeks ago, in an interview on VFR, he repeated that challenge once again. First it's been said Campbell claimed it was because Lynch called him a "neo-malthusian", and he was simply so offended he couldn't be on the same stage as him. Now, according to you, his excuse is that "...theres little to debate - Lynch believes absolutely in the USGS 2000 'statistical estimation' method of determining reserves...". Well, we can't let the audience decide for themselves, can we? Hmm, what is so compelling about Lynch's take on things to the audience, that Campbell is refusing to debate him in public? Maybe after all this public exposure and shame, Campbell, or any of the other PO cheerleaders, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>will</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> end up debating Lynch soon. But if so, let's not forget how they (esp Campbell) stonewalled for years.<br><br>Bottom line, I assume that if you're on this board, you believe this "crash" is coming, too. It's just that when it does come, the people who listen to you will end up blaming it on the "natural law" -- the "inevitability" of Peak Oil. <br><br>Whereas I, and the people who listen to me, will place the blame squarely where it belongs: on the conspiratorial mechanics of the capitalist system. <br><br>" peak oil might be depoliticising for some (not necesarily a bad thing), but it is & will increasingly be radicalising for all "<br><br>And, to me, that says it all as far as you and PO supporters as a whole are concerned -- <br><br>I'm fighting the "radicalising", at least the way you and Matt Simmons mean it. To be really radical is to stay and fight (if you ever were <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>fighting</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->), not abandon ship in your priviledged white "lifeboat". <br><br>You don't think it's bad that people "depoliticize". And to me, that's 'nuff said indeed. <p></p><i></i>
