The Drax campaigners well out of line

[paul wright]

They say it's so polluting and giving out greenhouse gases. I'm sure a conversion to low energy lightbulbs would be a help - I've got them and they seem to last a long time
Ruppert says peak oil and we're all doomed
Some say the greenhouse gases given out in the Mount Helena explosion equalled the total output from the Industrial Revolution but still the Earth managed to resolve that in a few years
AJ says the climate change is a natural part of the cycles of warming and cooling, and that the environmentalists are a part of the crackdown with responders in your cars and payment by the mileage. Surveillance and control by the environmental cause
I was charged with being a Rockefeller-funded environmentalist once, and I'd agree I was in that particular case, though having no access to Rockefeller funds, unfotunately
Is the Climate Change camp symptomatic of a clampdown on personal freedom?
Why do I find that the uprate of the Schumann resonance might be a better explanation of global warming than the greenhouse gas effect?
Why do I find the smoking ban an abhorrent intrusion on personal freedom while finding the tobacco and oil and other exploitive corporations guilty of corruption and complicity?
Why do I find a comrade saying that the thousands of years half-life nuclear is must to avoid all that gw?
Why is this pissing me off so much?

[Dr Doom]

The problem with peak oil is, all the crucial data required to determine whether it is a real imminent danger, or a manufactured scam is confidential. So there is no way of proving one way or the other.

At school I remember being told that we were forecast to run out by 2050, peak oil fits in with that fact, assuming what they said is true.

I read Mike Ruppert's book about 18 months ago, and it was quite a shocking read for me to be quite honest, when you hear Alex Jones say these elites are insane, they want to kill 85% of us, he makes it easy to dismiss him. But when you see the bare facts, behind why these elites might decide they need to kill 85% of the worlds population it is quite a scary thought.

Another thought I had was that maybe we are running out of oil, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the oil industry has been responsible for suppressing alternative technologies for the entire time that they have monopolised cheap energy, obviously Rockefeller has been a key player in this area from the beginning.

It does seem like an awfully convienient excuse to plunge the world into the dark depths of WW3, and consolidate the global population into a size managable under a new world order system.

[wepmob2000]

Dh,

My gosh I actually find myself agreeing with you. I wonder about the near future, say 2015, when all our cars have these transponders, supposedly put in place at least partly for environmental reason. Conveniently the government and god knows who else can track your whereabouts 24/7. What if then a new clean technology with zero environmental consequences is invented to power cars (as is often mooted). The uptake is massive and everyone can enjoy unlimited motoring with no guilt concerning the environment (although personally I've never had any guilt anyway). Will the government then decide to stop the transponder scheme, hmmm, I wonder? The green lobby has often struck me as having autocratic tendencies, being very good at telling people what they should and should not do, dressed up of course in a politically correct cloak. Is it all part and parcel of the same thing? I mean if you reduce the mobility of the masses, surely your control of them increases correspondingly?

[uselesseater]

Even if you think that Co2 is causing global warming it's clear that the government plans to use it as an excuse to track and trace us through a high tech control grid costing billions to set up and maintain. It's a great way for them to steal our money and give it to their corporate masters who will get the lucrative contracts while forcing the poorest off the roads and others out of jobs onto welfare. I think it's called the techno-feudal society.

I don't doubt that phoney environmental agendas have been pushed while the real ones like GM is hardly mentioned.

Apparently the ultimate goal is to enshrine environmentalism as a one world relegion thereby instituting a kind of social darwinist, brave new world type system which permits any violation against the individual.

[wepmob2000]

Definitely. When I researched 'Global Warming' in the 1990's the results were.... inconclusive. There was no agreement amongst the scientific community as to what was happening, why it was happening or even if it was happening at all.

It does however provide Mr Blairs government with an awfully convenient excuse to keep track of people and eventually reduce their mobility, ultimately restricting transportation to the elite. It goes cap in hand with many of the other sub-plots perpetrated by this, the worst government in British history. For example their policy of squeezing the housing market by allowing in far too many immigrants, people are so busy paying their mortgages they have no time to think about everything else. Their policy on crime reduction, their education policies, I could go on.

I used to be a sceptic, but things are becoming clearer.....

[marky 54]

i totally disagree that the draxx campaigners were out of line. by the time the power produced reach our homes from these powerplants two 3rds of the energy is lost, which means they are not as efficent as you might think, the goverment dont seem to be making these stations more efficent yet are the only ones who can. draxx emits 20million tons of co2 a year, and with only one 3rd of that power reaching our homes roughly 13million tons of co2 a year are being added to the problem of global warming which is just wasted. if the goverment worked to make them more effcient they would cut 13 million tons of co2 in that one power station alone as all power produced would reach us with no wastage, meaning less coal would need to be burnt and making our energy stockpile last longer. technology is there to make what we have more efficent thus doubling the outage capacity of draxx whilst halving the c02 output. the goverment needs to take responsibility to, not all co2's are down to peoples bad choices in lifestyle, some things we carnt avoid unless the goverment pull there finger out to, same with companies who profit from products that pollute our planet. or are we saying the only responsibility lies with those who have no power and little money, and didnt build these damned things in the first place.

[James C]

I believe that peak oil is happening now and I don't agree that the proof of this is being covered up. The figures are out there for all to see, it's just that the politicians and mainstream media as usual will not discuss it. There is a great website called oildrum which looks at each new piece of data very carefully and some of its conclusions are stark.

Peak oil theory has been around since the mid 1950's since Hubbert invented it. The US peaked in supply in 1970 and now produces half of what it once was able to. The UK peaked in 1999 and most other countries have peaked except for the Middle East. The CIA went public with their findings that the Middle East would peak in oil production sometime at the turn of the new millenium - the only thing was that they revealed this information at public hearings in congress during the Watergate scandel so few people were listening (Source: Twilight in the Desert (book) by Matt Simmons). That time of course is now.

I don't believe that this event is being used as a convenient reason for hiking up prices and plunging the world into chaos although I agree that the oil companies will exploit it for all it is worth. I think it's quite simply greed and denial which has led us to create a situation where drastic measures are called for by politicians who do not want to lose face and be accused of inaction over the past years despite the warnings from geologists and petroleum engineers of this problem. Basically its too late to react effectively to falling oil production and the world's leaders know it. Fighting for oil and creating subterfuge using the 'war on terror' tagline to prevent too much public outcry is now their only choice.

Peak oil theory is not about oil running out - there's masses of the stuff (far more than we've consumed already). It's about production being limited by geology. Basically, the world has consumed most of the easy to extract oil (sweet crude) and only the hard to extract, difficult to refine oil is left (sour crude) which although plentiful cannot be turned into usuable oil fast enough to cope with demand. And when demand outstrips supply, economies across the globe will suffer and wars will begin. 9/11 was, in my mind, the first calling shot in the great oil war which will dominate everything for the next 50 years or so. This is not to condone the 9/11 event since it wasn't done for the benefit of the US people but for the benefit of the US elite who without oil would be nothing.

Unfortunately, climate change is another problem which will compound the oil wars. In reality, coal will probably make a big come back to cope with the shortfalls created by peak oil and this will add further to climate change. Either way, the future does not look too rosy.

[Dr Doom]

James C,

I largely agree with what you say, except there isn't conclusive proof
that it is an imminent threat.
Go to any peak oil meeting, and the researchers say this themselves,
the data just isn't available to know anything with any degree of certainty.

I can see where guys like Alex Jones and Greg Pallast are coming from when they say that it is an oil company conspiracy.
There are documents that Pallast dug up stating that invading Iraq was to quote "enhance OPEC".

Another very suspicious thing about the peak oil movement is Matt Simmons is a CFR member,
which is central to most Illuminati conspiracy theories.

Having said that there are huge gaps in Jones & Pallasts "proof"
that peak oil is a wholly manufactured scam.
Just because the objective in Iraq was control of the oil,
does not automatically mean peak oil isn't real.

From watching Jones interview Pallast they really didn't seem to get
Peak Oil at all. Judging by when they said we've got loads of (heavy)
oil. Peak oil, is not about running out of oil, it's about running out of
reasonably cheap oil.

At the end of the day, whether we really are in an unsolvable energy
situation, which requires WW3 and 85% population reduction,
or elites are just making it up for fun.

It's entirely their bloody fault, they had the power to invest money and
resources into alternative technologies, and they could also have changed
peoples' attitudes using the media which they also control.

[THETRUTHWILLSETU3]

Since I found out about 911, I have as a result discovered that we are being lied to about many other things such as Cancer, Aids, UFO's, Aspartame and the money system.

At school in religious education we are taught creation, then in the biology class we are taught evolution (both cannot be right).

My recollection from school is that oil was formed from the dead bodies of various creatures over millions of years.

This now puzzles me because most of the oil is miles under the ground - how did these creatures manage to die there or in some instances miles below the sea bed. I believe that this is a lie.

The centre of the earth is still molten as evidenced by volcanic eruptions,
we all know that the pressure of the earth can create diamonds - then why can these forces not produce oil? This would explain the mystery of why some oil reserves appear to be self replenishing.

Has anybody heard any other theories?

And please - no answers saying I'm a nutter - I already know that

[blackcat]

There are lots of people who believe that oil is not formed from decaying plant/animal life.

http://discussion.newyouth.com/index.php?topic=1914.0

[Justin]

Centralised control by a global fascist government is at the heart of proposed green authoritarianism. Just a few Greens are aware of this - the rest are blissfully ignorant. The jury is quite definitely out as regards global warming. IMHO it is a cycle the planet is going through - ask any geo-archaeologist. As regards oil, there is plenty still out there and 'they' know it - more to the point are the suppressed clean and free technologies and 'who' is doing the suppressing. Still, look on the bright side, once people are aware of what really happened on 9/11, the unraveling will begin and the house of cards will collapse. That's my penny's worth anyway!

[ian neal]

For what it's worth here is my twopenneth

1) The issues of peak oil have been discussed at some length on this thread

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=746&highlight=oil

As those who have followed 9/11 and Mike Ruppert/Oilempire will know Peak oil is potentially a devisive issue amongst 9/11 campaigners, so it is worth reiterating that both peak oilers and non-peak oilers are v welcome here

2) Setting aside abiotic oil theories and working within the mainstream, I agree with Dr Doom that whether or not we face imminent peak oil really depends on whose oil reserves data you believe. Given the level of uncertainty and secrecy around oil reserve data and its global significance, demanding greater transparency as Simmons does, must be a priority.

Peak Oil is rising up the agenda. I know DFID have started taking an interest in the issue and there was a BBC radio 4 programme, driven by oil, just yesterday focussing on it

3) As for climate change, I (along with the vast majority of scientific opinion) reckon that man-made climate is a real enough phenomenon. Indeed I tend towards the belief that the risks of climate catastrophe are being greatly under played. There is mounting evidence to support the very real risk of sudden onset, runaway climate change and a precautionary approach demands urgent and radical action to reduce our impact on the climate.

In particular I draw your attention to the potential for global warming to generate “surprises”, or what IPCC refers to as “large-scale singular events”.

The House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs report on ‘The Economics of Climate Change’ addresses this issue highlighting the consequences of the ‘gulf stream’ shutting down. One reason for being concerned about surprises, apart from their potential for large scale impacts, is that evidence suggests that some past climate change has occurred within very short periods of time.

In his evidence to the committee, Sir David King thought this shut-down process might take only a decade and that the temperature might fall by -20C in this country. He suggested the tipping point would be the disappearance of the Greenland ice sheet and estimated a global temperature rise of just 2C would cause this. Given that a sample of leading models averages a typical increase of 3C by 2100, this is surely grounds for serious concern.

4) However you look at it, the PTB will use crises (both real and manufactured) to try to drive forward their agenda, restrict our freedoms and increase their control.

Oil and energy is at the heart of their plans. Peak oil and energy insecurity(artificially created through the war on terror) pushes prices up and serves their agenda.

Oil is a curse both on the environment and on people especially in poor countries where it fuels corruption and war. Whether you accept imminent peak oil or human induced climate chaos as a reality, does not change the fact that we should move away from oil towards decentralised sustainable energy solutions that we have greater control over

The solutions are out there in technologies that have been suppressed by oil interests and approaches and thinking that moves us from battling with nature to living in harmony with it.

The key to making this shift is removing the power mad, fascist, globalist psychos from power and exposing the true depth of their lies and corruption to the wider public. 9/11 is a key, maybe the key, to kick starting this domino effect.

[James C]

[James C]

[Dr Doom]

[marky 54]

its in the news today that they found an oil field in the mexican gulf and one in india wont be ready till 2009 as they were hoping it would be 2008, just wondering what implications this news has on the oil peak claims is it good news or bad news because of global warming

[James C]

[ian neal]

[James C]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

Haven't they found oil offshore in Cuba? will this, if true, be the end of the Cuban organic agriculture experiment now they can afford chemical pesticides and artificial fertilisers? Might Bush now dust off the 'Operation Northwoods' file?