David McGowan, March 18, 2004
The official response is now in from Michael Ruppert, and
it is a doozy. Although Ruppert's missive is filled, as was Chin's, with
juvenile insults, misrepresentations, and completely unfounded
accusations, I will, out of respect for my readers (though certainly not
for Ruppert, who has earned no measure of respect from me), make every
effort to take the high road here (several of you have written to caution
me not to let these people provoke me into losing my cool, and that seems
to be sound advice).
I will first present Ruppert's formal reply in its entirety (another
suggestion from some of you), so that readers can get the full flavor of
how this man operates. In many ways, his missive requires no commentary
from me, for he has done a fairly respectable job on his own of revealing
what he is, how he operates, and what his agenda is. Nevertheless, there
is much here that I cannot let pass without comment.
Here then, exactly as it was received, is Ruppert's formal response to my
counter-proposal for a public debate. I have added only a bit of subtle
emphasis, because I felt certain that Ruppert would want to ensure that
one point in particular gets across loud and clear:
Mr. McGowan:
How interesting and how revealing that in posting your onerous rebuttal
and pseudo-acceptance of my debate challenge, you sent it out to
everyone but me. This is quite revealing as I sent my challenge directly
to you personally. I guess you were assuming that either: a), I am an
avid reader of your web site, or; b) that I would be unaware of your
postings so that you could then misinterpret my non-response as some
kind of evasive behavior. The psychology of your move is quite
revealing. It shows that you have no faith in your own arguments and
that you are interested only in holding a public stage and my time for
as long as you possibly can or until your apparently insatiable ego is
gratified. You know what my email address is.
In the two-plus years since 9/11 an increasingly sophisticated body of
researchers has become aware of tactics intended to stall and distract,
rather than educate. Your recent postings seem to indicate that this
argument is to be won by the sheer number of words that can be thrown at
the subject as opposed to arguments addressing an issue of the utmost
importance to mankind. Not only have I, but a great many others, become
wise to such tactics, we have learned to counter them. The debate you
have assumptively proposed (as opposed to the one I challenged you with)
is one which will allow you to occupy center stage for endless hours
while engaging in the most insidious and duplicitous kinds of sophistry
which would never be permitted in a courtroom or in a properly moderated
debate, governed by rules of critical thinking and analysis.
You have employed dishonesty, straw arguments, and libelous character
assassinations instead of addressing the only question that matters to
anybody.
That question - Is abiotic petroleum and natural gas readily available
and making its way into commercial use in sufficient quantities to
establish that there is no imminent energy shortage? - is rightly the
only question any of us should give a damn about. That is the question
for debate.
Instead you are dancing around the issue with falsehoods which are
typified (as only one example) by your statement that I and a number of
petroleum scientists argue that oil is derived from dinosaurs. Neither I
nor any reputable scientist - especially those who are warning of Peak
Oil -- has ever made such a claim. We all gagged as you put these words
in our mouths. Yet it suits your purpose to falsify our statements and
then defeat words which we never uttered to prove a point and thus boost
your ego. You remind me of Norman Solomon. I don't participate in these
kinds of debates. The Arabs have a saying that one should never argue
with a fool or a liar because people might not be able to tell the
difference.
You have also attacked me and others as being part of some kind of
covert operation intended to promote infinite war yet you ignore several
facts:
1. Instead of advocating war I oppose it. Anyone who has attended any of
my more than 35 lectures in eight countries (more than 15,000 live
audience members) will know, of a certainty, that my position on
solutions is absolutely clear. I advocate an immediate cessation of all
military conquest and imperialism by the US government and
industrialized powers; an end to the war on terror. I advocate an
immediate convening of political, economic, spiritual and scientific
leaders from all nations to address the issue of Peak Oil (and Gas) and
its immediate implications for economic collapse, massive famine and
climate destruction (partially as a result of reversion to coal plants
which accelerate global warming). This would, scientifically speaking,
include immediate steps to arrive at a crash program - agreed to by all
nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and ethical
principles - to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best
possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a painful
choice made by all of humanity. It would also include arrival at a
painful, but absolutely necessary, plan to implement a global program of
"contraction and convergence" whereby consumption, rampant economic
growth based on globalization, and corrupt economic practices is
reversed in favor of a planned and executed program intended to reduce
the size of a world economy which is inherently linked to the
consumption of hydrocarbon energy. In stating this position I have made
it clear that nothing of any real significance will be changed at all
until a complete revision is made in the way money works -- on a global
and local scale -- because it is financial activity and monetary policy
which will dictate how any contingency plans are implemented and paid
for.
You have attacked those who have warned of the dangers of Peak Oil as
being employees of oil companies. Yet you ignore the fact that Heinberg,
Darley, Deffeyes, Aleklett, Klare and Goodstein - to name only a few -
are academics. Yes, Deffeyes once worked for Shell but he got out when
he saw what was coming many, many years ago and his long tenure at
Princeton and the fact that his income is derived from there speaks
volumes. Neither Heinberg, Darley, Klare, Goodstein (Vice Chancellor of
the California Institute of Technology), Dale Allen Pfeiffer or I have
ever worked for the petroleum industry in any way, shape or form.
You also ignore the fact that peer review is only one of nine critical
questions FTW has posed. If one paper has received peer reviews
supporting it that does not, in fact, prove that the subject matter is
true. It only states that the science is theoretically sound and that it
may or may not be accurate when applied. Another peer reviewed paper was
published in the late 1890s by Professor Langley who proved
mathematically that man could never fly in heavier-than-air craft. That
was a fine example of peer reviewed science, wasn't it?
The fact is that the advocates of abiogenic oil and gas keep refusing to
appear in public to defend their work. No one has produced verifiable
production data (even in the papers you cite) proving the theory.
Nothing has been produced anywhere showing that any significant
quantities of abiogenic hydrocarbons have ever entered productions
streams. Thomas Gold's fabled Eugene Island is today a dry hole. (See
below) In fact, the best scientific data available has just confirmed
that for more than twenty years, mankind has consumed more oil than has
been discovered and that last year - for the first time since the 1920s
- there was not a single discovery of a field over 500 million barrels.
The supposed increases in Mid East reserves which occurred in the 1980s
were the result of pencils and erasers rather than any actual change in
oil in the ground. Those restatements came as the US sought a way to
bypass OPEC production quotas (based on reserves) so as to flood the
markets with cheap oil and destroy the Soviet economy. What the reserve
figures show is that all Mid East nations revised their reserve
estimates upward except Abu Dhabi which remained constant (because they
were already selling all they could produce). Argue this point and then
you will have to prove that God and science somehow partially refilled
everyone else's tank but that the laws of your science were somehow
suspended in the case of poor Abu Dhabi.
As for "Peak Groceries" you again distort because groceries can be
located by a mere phone call or internet order. Oil must be found at
great cost and developed at even greater cost. Why then is the oil
industry laying off its exploration geologists and why are these
curricula being phased out of academic instruction?
I am certain that you will find some point in your last diatribe that I
did not respond to and state that this is proof that I am defeated. Not
true. I never agreed to debate you on your terms. I never said that I
was handing you an open microphone and unlimited amounts of my time. You
are not worth it. I handed you a challenge which is clearly spelled out
below. Either accept it or reject it.
TERMS OF DEBATE
I am more than willing and happy to engage in a face-to-face debate. It
should take no longer than 90 minutes in a public forum to settle the
question. I do not have time for the months and endless hours you intend
to suck out of me and the poor readers to keep us from focusing on
important work. I am willing to put my money and my reputation on it.
However, in order to avoid your unethical argumentative protocols,
distortions, and sophistry I will insist upon several conditions. They
include:
1. You and I will both put into escrow the sum of $1,000 before the
debate. Your refusal to do this indicates that you do not believe you
can win by ethical means. I want you to put a personal piece of you into
this, as I am willing to do, immediately if you agree to the other terms
set forth below.
2. The live debate will be judged and moderated by a panel of three.
This panel will also determine the winner of the debate according to
standard debating procedure and rules and award the prize. They will
also enforce penalty points for ad hominem attacks, obfuscation, evasion
of the issues and straw-man arguments. This panel of three can be
selected from high school or college debate coaches or lawyers in the
area. I am also willing to pay half of the expense for their
compensation.
3. I am assuming that you live in the Bay Area. I will come to the
Bay Area at my own expense for the debate, which will be well publicized
and open to the public.
4. The panel of judges mutually agreed to by you and me, can be
selected from the Bay area. There is a large pool from which to choose
and this should not be a difficult prospect.
5. The sole question to be debated will be: "Is abiotic petroleum and
natural gas readily available and making its way into commercial use in
sufficient quantities to establish that there is no imminent energy
shortage?"
I have too much respect for my readers' time - apparently more so than
you for yours - to believe that they would be interested in reading
hundreds of pages of back and forth, especially when you resort to such
childish and uncritical tactics. I also refuse to let you invade and
occupy my productive hours when this is a question that can be settled
in ninety minutes of direct, face-to-face, ethical and well-policed
discussion.
I have attached below a response I posted earlier today to another
kindred spirit of yours on the subject of abiotic oil. As far as I am
concerned this ends my participation with you until such time as you
show the integrity to accept the challenge as I have laid it out for
you.
Sincerely,
Michael C. Ruppert
Mr. Ruppert,
There is quite a bit of ground to cover here, so it is difficult to
know where to begin. One thing, however, really seemed to jump out at me,
so I suppose we should begin there. Obviously, I was mistaken when I said
that you offered little in the way of solutions. I stand corrected. Thank
you very much for clarifying that. And thanks for removing any doubt about
what your true agenda is. I am sure that many readers will appreciate
that.
I believe very strongly that you need to get that message out there more
prominently. It appears that some of your readers aren't getting it. I
believe that to be the case because one of them just wrote to me with the
following comments: "Thank you so much for the 'peak oil' rant. I
subscribed to FTW for one year and never could get a line on what he's
saying." The reader (thanks, Joan!) explained that she got the 'we're
running out of oil' concept, and she understood the 'there are no
alternatives' part, but she didn't really understand what comes next. The
problem, clearly, is that she did not pick up on the program of "ethical"
population reduction.
You really need to pound away at that one. Why do you limit such critical
information to just the 15,000 people in eight countries that have
attended the lectures that you never tire of mentioning? Why not splash it
across your home page in bold print? Or better yet, you might consider
renaming your website The Center for the Study of Ethical Population
Reduction - or something along those lines.
Before we move on, I have a few quick questions that maybe you can answer
for me, when you can find the time: do you have a specific eugenics
program in mind at this time, or are you still working out the details? Do
you think we should start with all the non-white people? Will getting rid
of the non-white people be enough, or will some of 'us' have to go as
well? What exactly is your target population level? What do you think the
criteria will be? My driver's license says that I have blond hair and blue
eyes, but I am still wondering: is there anything more that I can do to
increase the chances that I will be a 'keeper'? And one last question:
have you considered showing true leadership in these troubled times by
becoming the first person to volunteer for euthanasia? If we have to thin
the herd here, Mike, I think you are missing a golden opportunity to set
an example for your flock.
I think that covers all my questions on that topic (I realize that you are
not going to answer any of these questions, but I am going to ask them
anyway), so let's move on to other things. One of the most remarkable
aspects of your missive is that you have repeatedly accused me of making
libelous statements about you, even while you, at the very same time,
shamelessly libel me by accusing me of: employing "tactics intended to
stall and distract, rather than educate"; "engaging in the most insidious
and duplicitous kinds of sophistry"; employing "dishonesty, straw
arguments, and libelous character assassinations"; "dancing around the
issue with falsehoods"; employing "childish and uncritical tactics"; and
utilizing "unethical argumentative protocols, distortions, and sophistry."
You have also strongly implied that I am partial to the use of "ad hominem
attacks, obfuscation, evasion of the issues and straw-man arguments."
That is a remarkable list of charges to levy against someone, especially
considering that you do not offer a single concrete example to support any
of the charges that you have made. Not one example of "sophistry." Not one
example of "dishonesty." Not one example of employing a "straw argument."
Not one example of a "libelous character assassination." Not one example
of an "unethical argumentative protocol." Not one example of a
"distortion." And not one example of an "ad hominem attack," an
"obfuscation," a "childish and uncritical tactic," or even an "evasion of
the issues."
You did attempt to provide an example of a "falsehood," and that pathetic
attempt of yours is quite revealing. Your one shining example of my use of
falsehoods is my supposed "statement that [you] and a number of petroleum
scientists argue that oil is derived from dinosaurs." There is only one
problem with your example, but it is kind of a big problem: I never said
that. And since you obviously read my posting, then you know full well
that I never said that. In other words, your one example of a supposed
"falsehood" on my part is, in reality, an outright lie on your part --
because we both know that what I really said was that I was raised to
believe that oil came from dinosaurs. For the record, let's take a look at
the actual excerpt:
As anyone who stayed awake during elementary school science class knows,
oil comes from dinosaurs. I remember as a kid (calm down, folks; there
will be no Brady Bunch references this week) seeing some kind of 'public
service' spot explaining how dinosaurs "gave their all" so that we could
one day have oil.
It is quite clear that I never said - in any way, shape or form - that
you, Michael Ruppert, or any "petroleum scientists," claim that oil comes
from dinosaurs. To the contrary, the origins of oil seems to be a subject
that you prefer not to talk about at all.
Early on in your missive, you comment on the "psychology of [my] move." I
found it rather odd that you would purport to be able to analyze my moves
when you don't actually have, as far as I am aware, any training in that
area. I found it odder still that you would do so when condescendingly
addressing someone who actually does have a degree in psychology. Why
don't we then take a fun look at the psychology of one of your moves? When
you told the lie about what I supposedly said, you actually embellished
that lie with a completely fictitious story about an alleged physical
reaction that you supposedly had to something that never even happened.
That is not simply a lie; it is a sign of a pathological condition. For
that reason, I am not expecting an apology anytime soon for what was
clearly a lie on your part -- and a lie that was intended, ironically
enough, to paint me as a liar.
As for your overall attempt to paint me as a disreputable charlatan, here
is the situation as I see it: you pored over a 10,000-word essay that I
composed, desperately seeking any example of a lie, distortion or
misrepresentation, but you came up empty handed. That much we can safely
infer from the fact that you resorted to making something up (as did your
inept attack dog, Larry Chin). And then, armed with nothing but a lie, you
proceeded to falsely accuse me of committing a number of egregious sins -
and all the while, you actually had the gall to claim that it is your
character that is being assassinated. You have also used your false and
completely unsupported allegations to cast me as a lying egomaniac
unworthy of the time required for a real public debate, thus enabling you
to slip away even while claiming to take the high road. That would be a
very clever maneuver -- except that you haven't even come close to pulling
it off.
Let's turn now to some other accusations that you have leveled at me. You
claim that I have attempted to "invade and occupy [your] productive
hours." You have also accused me of showing a lack of integrity by not
accepting your "challenge" as you have "laid it out," as though I am under
some kind of obligation to debate you only under the strictly defined
conditions that you have unilaterally imposed. At the same time, you
dismiss my counter proposal as some kind of ego-driven publicity stunt,
referring to it dismissively as "the debate that [I] assumptively
proposed."
I think it would probably be instructive here to briefly review the
chronology of recent events. As you know, I have a small, non-commercial
website - otherwise known as a vanity website - just like millions of
other people across the country, and around the world. On that site, I
post my thoughts and opinions on a wide range of topics. I also send out
mailings to a small, private mailing list composed of people who have
expressed an interest in receiving my writings. That is the extent of my
Internet activities (and what your acolyte has disturbingly described as
"misusing the Internet"). I do not post to, nor participate in, any news
or discussion groups. I post only to my own private website. Despite the
accusations of both you and Chen, I have never conspired with anyone, in
any way, to smear your character. As I said before, I am not affiliated in
any way with any groups or movements, and certainly not with any other
individuals or groups who have served as critics of yours (your apparent
attempt to connect me with the Solomon/Corn crowd, I must say, is
particularly pathetic, given my frequently voiced, and well documented,
opinion of that bunch).
As you recall, this all began when you took offense at an opinion that I
had expressed on my own website. At that time, you invaded my space,
issuing a belligerent and uninvited challenge. Prior to that, I had little
interest in you or your website. I had never, by any stretch of the
imagination, come close to invading your "productive time." I had never so
much as sent you a single e-mail. I rarely even visit your site. So it
seems that it was not I who invaded your space, but rather you who invaded
my space. And you did so by issuing a boorish challenge that you feel I
was somehow instantly obligated to either accept, or reject and quietly
slink away. Instead, I did what I always do, which was to air my argument
in the only public venue available: my website. And at that time, as we
both know, your people became completely unhinged.
I did not bring this fight to you as some attempt to bask in your
reflected glory (and I'm the one looking to "boost [my] ego"?); I did not
bring this fight to you at all. You bullied your way into my space,
attempting to force me into playing the game by your rules, as though you
have some kind of divine right to do so (and I'm the one with the
"insatiable ego"?). There is a very clear pattern of intimidation here.
One of the most telling aspects of your response is that it is actually a
cut-and-paste form letter. I know that because, for reasons known only to
you, you chose to attach a response that you sent to someone else who
challenged your theories, and that response was a somewhat different
version of the very same form letter. There are other indications as well,
such as the redundant passages, and the numbered paragraphs that never get
past the number 1. The fact that it is a form letter is very significant,
for a number of reasons.
Based on my experiences of the last couple of weeks, I have concluded that
this is how your machine operates: whenever anyone is presumptuous enough
to question your almighty wisdom, you immediately swoop in and try to
intimidate them into backing off by issuing a demand (you can't really
call it a request) for a formal debate. If they take you up on it, then
they get the form letter imposing the restrictions and strictly limiting
the scope of the debate to a false argument. When they, quite naturally,
refuse your 'offer,' you then cast them as cowards and charlatans for
'ducking' the debate.
What this means, of course, is that anyone who you feel threatened by, and
who you send the form letter to, is routinely accused of being a lying,
disreputable glory-seeker whose behavior must be policed -- regardless of
their personal standing or the validity of their challenge. My guess is
that the "example" is a fill-in-the-blank kind of thing, and in my case,
you didn't have anything legitimate to fill in the blank. Nevertheless,
you left all the unsupported accusations in the form letter and simply
filled in the blank with a figment of your imagination.
You have accused me of attacking you "as being part of some kind of covert
operation intended to promote infinite war." Your associate has implied
that I have attacked you as being a shill for the Bush administration. I
have never said, explicitly, that you are any such thing. But I will say
that there is no question but that your tactics closely mirror those of
the Bush administration (or pretty much any other U.S. presidential
administration).
First and foremost is what we might call the "cat-calling-the-kettle-black
syndrome." You engage in reprehensible character assassinations, even
while claiming to be a victim yourself. You accuse your critics of
employing tactics to stifle you, even as you employ those very tactics to
stifle them. You accuse your critics of libel, even as you viciously libel
them. You accuse your opponents of dodging a real debate, even as it is
you who are dodging the real debate. You accuse your critics of being
unable to stick to the issues and construct an ethical argument, even as
you dodge the real issues through the use of unethical arguments.
Then there is your habit of unilaterally issuing uninvited, bullying,
unreasonable, take-it-or-leave-it ultimatums, and then claiming that it is
the other party's fault when the 'offer' is refused. I am thinking of
Rambouillet here, but there are also numerous other examples that could be
cited. So while I obviously cannot definitively say if there is someone
pulling your strings, I can say that Karl Rove himself couldn't run a more
well-oiled machine.
My mailbox is bursting at the seams with incoming mail, much of it from
other writers/researchers who have never before written to me. Many of
them are your acolytes working to cajole/intimidate/co-opt/misdirect me.
One e-mail that I received, from an alert reader, was clipped from a
discussion thread. The tone of the discussion was: look at the lengths
"they" are willing to go to discredit the honorable Michael Ruppert. Now
"they" have set up a website for the express purpose of attacking him, and
"they" have deliberately named the site so as to create name confusion. I
wonder, Mr. Ruppert, who would start such wildly misleading discussion
threads?
Let us turn now to the inherent fraudulence of your debate "challenge."
The biggest problem, and the most telling aspect of the 'offer,' is with
the framing of the question. You have chosen (and this isn't the original
topic of debate, by the way, but one that you came up with after you read
my critique): "Is abiotic petroleum and natural gas readily available and
making its way into commercial use in sufficient quantities to establish
that there is no imminent energy shortage?"
The interesting thing about that question is that it presupposes that your
side of the argument has already been proven, even though we both know
that that isn't true. It is interesting to note here that whenever people
such as you and Mr. Chin mention abiotic petroleum, you are usually quick
to claim that it is a "disputed" theory. However, you never attach such
qualifiers to mentions of 'fossil fuels.' Don't you find that odd,
considering that it is actually the reverse that is true?
You have admitted that petroleum can be produced abiotically (in your
response to my "kindred spirit"). In fact, no one with any credibility can
deny that fact. It has been demonstrated in the laboratory and verified
with unchallenged mathematical models. It is a fact. The 'fossil fuel'
theory, on the other hand, cannot be verified and is disputed by, at the
very least, a large community of Soviet and Ukrainian scientists. Since
abiotic petroleum is not disputed and is verifiable, the logical
presumption, until proven otherwise, is that all the natural gas and
petroleum in commercial use, and in the ground, and in storage tanks, and
anywhere else, is abiotic oil and gas.
Your chosen question then is an entirely fraudulent one, selected so as to
protect you from having to establish the basic foundation of your
argument. Just as with Mr. Chin, you want to skip right over that and
start building your 'Peak Oil' theory. It doesn't work that way, and all
of your sophistry cannot change that fact.
A few other aspects of the debate 'challenge' seem problematic as well.
You claim that you assume that I live in the Bay Area, when you know very
well that I live in the Los Angeles area, just like you. You may pretend
otherwise, but you have met me. We were introduced after an event in Santa
Monica in 2002. You tried to engage me in conversation, but I wasn't
interested and wandered off (or is that perhaps something that I have
conjured up in my imagination to feed my ego?).
Why then the Bay Area? Perhaps the answer lies in condition number 4, and
the "large pool" of judges that you seem to be familiar with. I don't
happen to know anyone in the Bay Area, except for my cousin, and I doubt
that he is part of that pool of judges. Your obsession with a purse is
another problem, and an obvious attempt to discourage acceptance of your
proposal (and judging by your response to my "kindred spirit," you don't
pay up when you lose anyway). All I am going to say about this issue is
that, unlike you, I am not in this for the money.
How much have you made, by the way, off the September 11 attacks? I know
you claim to have doubled your subscribers, to 10,000. That's 5,000 new
subscribers at $35.00 per year (more for the hard copy), or a minimum of
$175,000 per year. Then there are the speaking fees and the reimbursed
travel and living expenses. Then there are, of course, all the 9-11
related books and videos that you hawk. Then there are the donations that
you solicit. So how much is it, in total, over the last two-and-a-half
years? Around a half mil? More? Why don't we do this: each of us will
contribute to the purse all the money that we have made off the 9-11
attacks. You will put up your proceeds, and I will put up mine. Does that
sound fair?
Before wrapping this up, I need to address several more brazen
misrepresentations and specious allegations that you have made. You have
claimed that I have attempted to win this argument "by the sheer number of
words that can be thrown at the subject." The truth though is that I have
written exactly one article that challenges what you are selling. You, on
the other hand, have littered the Internet with dozens of hysterical, and
sometimes quite lengthy, missives on the subject. Again I would have to
say that the 'cat-calling-the-kettle-black syndrome' clearly applies here.
You have claimed that I must be "assuming" that you are a reader of this
site (my ego again, I presume). But we both know that you are a reader of
this site. Why else would you have responded with warp speed not only to
my abiotic oil posting, but to the posting that first caused your testes
to draw up tighter than a newborn baby's? And I noticed, in reading
through some of your material, that you have written things that appear to
be direct responses to things that I have written (oops, there goes my ego
again!). I will be commenting on that, and providing a clear example, in a
future newsletter. As for your claim that I was hoping that you would
somehow be unaware of my posting, we both know that that is absurd.
You claim that I have "attacked those who have warned of the dangers of
Peak Oil as being employees of oil companies," but I said no such thing. I
did identify the various geochemists quoted in news reports that I cited
as "shills for the petroleum industry," but they were, in fact, identified
in those reports as employees of various oil companies. It was nice of you
though to volunteer the information that one of your experts once worked
for Shell. And I would tend to agree that Deffeyes "long tenure at
Princeton and the fact that his income is derived from there speaks
volumes."
You are now claiming that, "If one paper has received peer reviews
supporting it that does not, in fact, prove that the subject matter is
true." But when you previously wrote that "peer-reviewed articles ensure
the validity of science," you gave no hint that that statement was
conditional. For the sake of accuracy, should you not go back and change
the posting to read "peer-reviewed articles ensure the validity of
science, unless the conclusions reached contradict the theories that I am
selling"?
You also claim that I "ignore the fact that peer review is only one of
nine critical questions FTW has posed," but it is you who ignores the fact
that your theory is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics, which
you identify as the most critical of the nine questions (the one that
"Most of the other questions in this list can be tied up into").
You claim that "advocates of abiogenic oil and gas keep refusing to appear
in public to defend their work" (not unlike the way that you claim that
your critics refuse to appear in public to debate you). But Dr. Kenney and
some of his Soviet colleagues have said that that is an egregious lie, and
I am more prone to believe them than you. They have also complained about
news reports claiming that they were "unavailable for comment," when no
one had made the slightest attempt to contact them.
You have written: "As for 'Peak Groceries,' you again distort because
groceries can be located by a mere phone call or internet order." To say
that this is a bizarre rebuttal would be quite an understatement. It has
nothing to do with my argument, which concerned the consolidation of
various industries. And for the record, I can buy a can of oil with a
phone call or an internet order as well. So what? Is this one of those
"straw arguments" you were so concerned about?
Finally, you have written that you are "certain" that I will find
"something" in my argument that you "did not respond to and state that
this is proof" that you are defeated. "Not true. I never agreed to debate
you on your terms." As you are well aware (and as anyone reading this will
be well aware), you responded toalmost nothing in my "diatribe." Instead,
you sent me a bullying, childish form letter filled with entirely
unfounded allegations and pompous self-importance. And for the record, it
is I who never agreed to, and was never obligated to, 'debate' you on your
terms.
You have declared that you are through with me. And that is fine. No one
ever invited you to this party to begin with. And you obviously have
nothing of substance to contribute anyway.
Originally
published at
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr54.htm
More research that punches a big
hole in the Peak Oil hysteria
New:proof of the oil Non-Crisis by Lindsay Williams
April
13, 2004
There has not been enough true "formerly living
matter" through all of creation to account for the volume of petroleum
that has been consumed to date
This material is copyrighted by its original publishers.
It is reprinted by
The Seventh Fire
News without permission, solely for purposes of
criticism, comment, and news reporting, in accordance with the Fair Use
Guidelines of copyright material under
§ 107 of U.S.C.
Title 17.
This is a crazy world. What can be done? Amazingly, we have been mislead. We have been taught that
we can control government by voting. The founder of the Rothschild dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer,
told the secret of controlling the government of a nation over 200 years ago. He said, "Permit me
to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Get the picture?
Your freedom hinges first on the nation's banks and money system. Freedom is connected with Debt Elimination for each individual. Not only does
this end personal debt, it places the people first in line as creditors to the National Debt ahead
of the banks. They don't wish for you to know this. It has to do with recognizing WHO you really
are in A
New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles, an informational study.
Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The myriad of facts, conjecture, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information in the articles, stories and commentaries posted on this site range from cutting edge hard news and comment to extreme and unusual perspectives. We choose not to sweep uncomfortable material under the rug - where it can grow and fester. We choose not to censor skewed logic and uncomfortable rhetoric. These things reflect the world as it now is - for better and worse. We present multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information.
Journalism is (or used to be) the profession of gathering and presenting a broad panorama of news about the events of our times and presenting it to readers for their own consideration. We believe in the intelligence, judgment and wisdom of our readers to discern for themselves among the data which appears on this site that which is valid and worthy...or otherwise. See full legal disclaimer
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. (attributed to Voltaire), but certainly embodies what the 1st amendment of the constitution refers to as the freedom of speech
Bill of Rights
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Queen
Victoria
