Monday, March 25, 2013

William Engdahl on The Fracked-Up USA shale gas bubble, Vera Blake on "Muslim convert" false-flag patsy James Holmes

Mon.  3/25/13, 3-5 pm Central,  American Freedom Radio  (archived here.) Call-in: 218-339-8525
First hour: Author William Engdahl is one of the world's leading experts on energy/currency geopolitics and the New World Order.  His new article The Fracked-Up USA shale gas bubble begins:

At a time when much of the world is looking with a mix of envy and excitement at the recent boom in USA unconventional gas from shale rock, when countries from China to Poland to France to the UK are beginning to launch their own ventures into unconventional shale gas extraction, hoping it is the cure for their energy woes, the US shale boom is revealing itself to have been a gigantic hyped confidence bubble that is already beginning to deflate. Carpe diem!

"I converted to Islam at the (post-hypnotic) suggestion of my hypnotherapist"
Second hour: The pseudonymous "Vera Blake" recently authored an excellent, detailed article on the evidence that James Holmes was no "lone nut Batman shooter."  Now we're told that Holmes has "converted to Islam in order to re-define his shooting spree as jihad."  Yeah, RIGHT! That's about as plausible as "we threw Osama's body in the ocean according to Islamic burial custom."  If this doesn't prove Holmes was a mind-controlled patsy run by the same creeps who orchestrated 9/11 to launch the global war on Islam...well, what else possibly could?

10 comments:

  1. Kevin,

    Principia Scientific International (principia-scientific.org) publishes articles and papers by scientists who refute the hypothesis of a planet-warming Greenhouse Effect caused by increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2, or methane gas released into the atmospher from warming arctic regions.

    According to the scientists at PSI, there is no science whatsoever supporting the slightest degree of alarm about Anthropogenic Global Warming, or Global Climate Change caused by the past, present, or future burning of naturally occurring hydrocarbon fuels: petroleum, natural gas, coal.

    Lukewarmist Global Climate Change sceptics like David Evans allow the alarmists to get away with begging the question, by needlessly granting the false hypothesis of a planetary Greenhouse Effect caused by alleged atmospheric "greenhouse" gasses, such as methane, and carbon dioxide.

    You need to get some real Greenhouse Effect deniers from Principia Scientific Internationl on Truth Jihad Radio!

    ReplyDelete
  2. he embraced Islaam, really ?!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Kevin,
    I was listening to the Monday podcast with William Engdahl. It was a pretty good show.

    I should probably "apologize" for razzing you on the global warming issue in the past. It's becoming ever clearer to me that "good people" often don't understand everything and honestly hold views that sometimes -seemingly- make them seem to be sabateurs to the greater good of total truth.

    The latest argument "for" CO2/global warming/climate change (which you brought up) ... seems to center on the idea that CO2 generated from burning surface hydrocarbons is probably ok because this just recycles the CO2 in exchange for O2 production from plant life ... but ... that when we start burning hydrocarbons pulled out of the earth, we are doubtlessly going to upset that balance by releasing too much CO2 into the atmosphere and then the heating will go rampant (or something else, like global freezing might happen too).

    Well, as I've mentioned in the past, CO2 is heavier than air and probably over 90% of the CO2 released into the air ... never gets into the atmosphere at all. It hugs the ground and then gets dissolved into water or moisture. Think of the balance between CO2 and O2: since all of our O2 is derived FROM CO2 (by photosynthesis) ... there SHOULD be about the same amount of both gases in our atmosphere. The fact that there are 200,000 ppm of oxygen ... but only 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere ... shows immediately -(or should)- that almost all of the CO2 from burning hydrocarbons ... is disappearing somewhere and NOT going into the atmosphere.

    But, getting into the abiotic source of oil theory ...

    This is a very, very interesting concept/theory. I'm not absolutely convinced of it myself, yet ... but it certainly sounds feasible.

    If it happens to be true ... and we "mine" this source of hydrocarbons ... would it REALLY upset the CO2 balance in the atmosphere?

    I was talking to a geologist friend the other day on this subject. We were discussing the vast blobs of methane, laying at the bottom of the ocean like huge balls of snot ... and I suggested to him that this might actually be CO2 absorbed into the ocean, being converted into the most basic of hydrocarbons through pressure and heat. (kind of a reversal of entropy by adding work to a process).

    He said 'no' ... that this methane is the result of dead ocean life decomposition.

    Well, he's probably right but then that raises another question: how did this sea life come into existence in the first place? Isn't it because of OXYGEN? Their metabolism and life depends on oxygen, doesn't it? So it comes right back to the CO2/oxygen cycle again.

    If abiotic oil is a fact, how does it come into existence? Well, I think it's quite feasible that CO2 is dissolved into the ocean(s), maybe goes through a chain of development involving ocean life but turning into methane ultimately ... which then gets converted into the heavier hydrocarbons through heat and pressure from ocean depths, earth depths and HEAT. In this case, it wouldn't be photosynthesis but rather, raw energy and pressure from the earth itself.

    We know that plants grow better with more CO2. They pump the stuff into greenhouses after all ... to make plants grow properly.

    We also know that the level of O2 was higher in the past than it is today.

    And, if I'm not mistaken ... the earth in the past ... was more temperate and Eden-like than it is today.

    I think there's a good chance that we actually have too little unlocked CO2 available for optimal climate conditions! Bringing the oil out of the ground and burning it ... might actually improve climate overall.

    -V

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, I hope you're right!

    I lean towards the Gaia hypothesis - obviously earth's almost 20% oxygen atmosphere is being maintained by life, and so presumably is the temperature. The carbon cycle seems to be a key part of how life regulates earth's temperature. Mess with life by cutting down the rain forests etc. etc. etc., and mess with the carbon cycle by vastly increasing atmospheric carbon by burning underground hydrocarbons, and you're asking for trouble.

    No species can live in its own waste. All organisms have population boom-bust cycles. The most likely possibility is that we're setting ourselves off for a big die-off, possibly through climate change of some kind.

    But I don't know enough about these things to be sure.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Given the extent to which vested interests attempt to manipulate public opinion with lies, spin and propaganda, it's hardly surprising that many intelligent, independent thinkers reject the conventional wisdom and the consensus reality promulgated through mainstream media and establishment institutions.

    Personally, I approve of and applaud those who challenge sacred cows and look beyond the superficial "official" narratives that appeal to popular sentiments but invariably fail to explicate the issues they seek to address.

    However, the rejection of conventional wisdom alone is not of itself a basis for sound or compelling argument. Logic, reason and empirical evidence are essential components of any challenge to entrenched opinion.

    The issue of peak oil and oil depletion is an example of a controversy where intelligent scepticism challenges conventional wisdom and popular sentiment.

    On one side we have petroleum geologists and industry experts who base their opinions on empirical evidence and scientific reasoning, while on the other side we have independent thinkers who reject the experts' opinions, based on the presumption that the experts are mere puppets of the establsihment.

    While the latter position is generally justified by past experience, it cannot be reasonably sustained in the absence of empirical evidence in support of an alternative explanation. Rejection of a well established scientific theory in favour of an arcane hypothesis, must be based on something a little more substantive that mere scepticism or distrust of the conventional wisdom.

    I have studied the issue of peak oil extensively over the last ten years or more, including the abiogenic oil hypothesis, and I have found no solid evidence or sound reasoning to support the claims made by F. William Engdahl. Rather, it seems to me that biogenic oil, peak oil and oil depletion are logical and reasonable inferences drawn from abundant empirical evidence.

    All known oil fields are associated with sedimentary basins, all known oil fields exhibit a production cycle that rises to a peak and then declines. No oil fields replenish themselves over human time scales. The complex hydrocarbons that constitute petroleum contain biomarkers that are readily destroyed at the temperatures found in the earth's mantle.

    The biogenic oil theory has repeatedly and successfully predicted economically viable oil deposits in sedimentary basins and source rocks corresponding to specific geologic epochs. By contrast, the abiotic oil theory has not predicted a single economic oil deposit anywhere in the world.

    If abiogenic oil does occur, it does not accumulate in the earth's crust at a rate significantly greater than that attributed to biogenic oil, otherwise it would have become apparent to geologists who study oil, long before now.

    While I respect Engdahl's credentials, I think he is going out on a limb and jeopardising his credibility by promoting the abiotic oil hypothesis and dismissing peak oil.

    Peak oil does not mean we're about to run out of oil, anymore than noon means the sun is about to set. Peak oil is not a theory, anymore than noon is a theory. Peak oil is a phenomenon, as is noon. We can have a model, or a concept, or a theory about why we have noon - eg the sun goes round the earth, or the earth rotates on its axis - and the theory might be right or wrong, but noon still exists. So it is with peak oil.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kevin,

    You say you lean toward accepting the Gaia hypothesis that life has regulated Earth's temperature for eons by influencing the carbon cycle.

    But this idea begs the question that CO2 and methane and water vapor in the atmosphere really do have a warming effect like a greenhouse.

    This officially approved "science" is just as demonstrably false as the official "science" of steel-framed buildings collapsing to the ground at free-fall speed, and largely turning to fine dust, due to a few of the lightest upper floors being heated by a smokey kerosene fire for a few minutes.

    You are just as capable of understanding the science that refutes the CO2 Greenhouse Effect hypothesis, as you are of understanding the physics that refutes planes knocking down the twin towers. It not terribly complicated.

    The false science of the CO2 Greenhouse Effect really has been insidiously promoted by some of the same political forces that instigated, covered up, and benefited from the false-flag attacks of 9/11/2001.

    Power plants burning coal cause horrendous mercury poisoning, which the EPA under the Obama administration continues to "study."

    Fracking and production of natural gas

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/15282-thousands-of-gallons-of-pollution-recovered-from-oil-and-gas-spill-in-colorado Thousands of Gallons of Pollution Recovered From Oil and Gas Spill in Colorado Saturday, 23 March 2013 00:00 By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report Cleanup continues at the site of an underground spill of thousands of gallons of pollution related to the oil and gas industry in the heart of Colorado's fracking country. The underground leak is located near the town of Parachute and has threatened to contaminate Parachute Creek, which flows into the Colorado River. State officials continue to report that buffers have kept the creek safe, so far.

    ReplyDelete

  8. Kevin,

    The justification for ignoring the abiotic origin of oil is not based on ignorance and arrogance but rather a "CONTROLLED" argument for scarcity and, you guessed it, higher prices. Even though the planet is drowning in oil, western governments, media and oil companies have successfully convinced the public that oil reserves have a life expectancy of under one hundred years. (Michael Ruppert...controlled opposition?)

    This scenario adds to the ongoing public hysteria (always helpful) and provides the foundation for:
    (1) high short term oil prices
    (2) high gasoline prices (which will never return to true market levels)
    (3) crony capitalism based public investments in speculative alternative energy (note the crash in bio-fuels, wind farms and solar panels, where the technology is sound but the purpose is to capture suckers in ponzi schemes and NOT produce effective supplies of energy)
    (4) arguments for climate change to preserve the MANUFACTURED competition between energy production and environmentalism without a concern for either
    (5) SUBSIDIZED exploitation of dirty and technically challenging oil reserves now rather than later (see tar sands, shale and deep water horizon)
    (6) preservation of easily accessible reserves for future exploitation at guaranteed higher prices


    On a different note, you may want to watch the documentary "By Any Means Necessary" which describes the struggle of the Buffalo River Dene people to preserve their land rights against the demands of the Canadian government and voracious energy companies. The documentary was produced in 2006 and talked about the pending environmental and social disaster of exploiting oil reserves with a capacity of thirty years in a land occupied by a people, who had used the land to hunt, fish and survive for thirty thousands years.

    Since that time, the exploitation of the tar sands has been in full swing.
    If you look at the extraction sites, you will discover multiple effluent waste pools the size of Manhattan.
    Its all about money and maximum exploitation without concern for the environmental consequences or the rights of indigenous people.

    Trailer for "By Any Means Necessary (go to 1:39 to hear concerns raised in a public forum back in 1974)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7f6dCusPwc

    The true cost of oil: Garth Lenz @ TEDxVictoria (photographs of the effluent pools)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84zIj_EdQdM

    Maps.Google. Location of Ft. McMurray Alberta Canada (effluent pools are located 45 minutes north of town; Black River Dene lands are downstream of both the effluent pools and Ft. McMurray)

    http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fort+McMurray,+AB,+Canada&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x53b03aeeff1a4459:0x5c8133330dca74b7,Fort+McMurray,+AB,+Canada&gl=us&sa=X&ei=--tTUbG9Gc7migLFioCgBA&ved=0CIYBELYD

    Additional news links, exactly what the Dene worried about in 1974 and in the documentary "By Any Means Necessary"
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2010/12/22/alberta-suncor-oilsands-dumping-fine.html


    PS:
    If the tipping point is real, I guarantee that it will be exploited for profits and not addressed in manner to protect humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My comment is in reference to James Holmes supposed conversion (or 'reversion', 'embracement', blah blah) to Islam.

    First - this all rumors at this point, originally created by the National Examiner.

    Second - if true, it's hardly 'news'. A lot of prison inmates become muslims. What's the big deal?

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is a complex scientific issue. I'm surprised at how many people have a strong opinion without much scientific background. Personally I'm convinced that life is maintaining earth's surface temperature by regulating the atmosphere through a homeostatic mechanism, and the carbon cycle is obviously a big part of that. So radically increasing the carbon in the atmosphere is likely to have some kind of major effect on climate. How major, and what effect, are open questions. Maybe the CO2 will heat the oceans, and the water vapor and CO2 will heat the planet for awhile, then cloud formation and increased snowfall at the poles will overcome the CO2/water vapor greenhouse effect and chill the planet into another ice age? The only two things I'm sure of are (1) putting all that carbon into the atmosphere all at once has GOT to be destabilizing, and (2) the feedback loops are so complex that nobody can predict how it will play out.

    ReplyDelete