Kill Your Children! Hardcore Environmentalists In Ascendancy, Eugenics, “Peak Oil” And Social Control

Last decade, the term Peak Oil entered the mainstream.  To be expected, the media stymied a calm and reasoned public discussion, informed by science.  We were treated to distracting interpretations of what Peak Oil means, such as the silly notion that we are going to run out of oil.  We will never run out of oil.  We will, however, face ever rising cost of production and eventually, negative return on energy invested to produce oil.  If it takes more energy than the equivalent contained within a barrel of oil to produce a single barrel of oil, that’s not a sustainable operation by definition.
Controlling Carbon Has More To Do With Controlling Resources And YOU, Not Climate Change.
The powers that be have a major problem.  Peak oil is real.  But they incorrectly assume we, the masses, are not capable of dealing with the ramifications of Peak Oil.  Indeed, nasty challenges are on the horizon.  Fearing mass panic, a decision has been made to advance the control over the next best thing:  carbon dioxide output created by the burning of fossil fuel. Read More

Comments

  1. In the last few years we have seen the business cycle being driven by the price of energy.  Cheap oil fuels business activity and growth, but when the price of oil gets too high, business suffers and oil demand falls until the price gets low enough to start a new cycle. 

  2. Hmmm   I heard KLUMMAC say he wanted to consult his Bio-Ethicist in regard to certain aspects of his carbon tax proposal. Bio ethicists are those special people who spend all day thinking about how to cull the human population, who is fit to live and who should be exterminated and all that eugenicist Hitlerian happy happy joy joy crap. 

    • Funny that these cretins ALWAYS pick themselves and their friends as being worthy of survival with absolutely no testing data of any kind to verify their selection.  Of course, if they had to provide some data, they would make it up, just as do many of the so-called “climate scientists” out there.
       
      As to carbon… Eric is 100% right on this issue.  What is carbon?  Carbon is food.  Carbon is energy.  Carbon is life.  No wonder the death cult we call liberalism hates it so.
       
      As for facts, methane is about 23 times more conducive to global warming than is CO2; which is to say that 23 tons of CO2 has the same global warming potential as 1 ton of methane.  Only problem is, there is a MUCH larger amount of methane produced by nature than by humans.  All critters, including termites and cows, that eat cellulose emit methane as a by-product of their digestion.  Yes, cow farts WILL burst into flames if an ignition source is provided.  Same for termites but they are so small that this is difficult to arrange.  Thing is, though, that there are trillions of termites on Earth and their methane production is substantial due to their huge population.  In spite of the fact that methane (STRONG!) affects the Earth’s atmosphere FAR more than does CO2 (puny), it is CO2 that is blamed for global warming because that is a way for those who desire political power over their fellows to get it.  This IS political, folks, and has zip to do with any kind of global warming.  Interestingly enough, none of the so-called global warming science can explain why the planet Mars is also warming.  Not too many SUVs, spray cans, or panic de jure on Mars but what the hell?  Who needs science, reason, or logic when one is in full-throated screaming hissy-fit panic mode?
       
      As a side note, real scientists follow the creed of TRUTH.  Truth matters to scientists more than anything else and especially politics.  It is by following a procedure called “the scientific method” by which hypotheses are offered and then data collected from experiments in order to support or disprove the hypotheses.  If the hypotheses hold up, then more extensive experiments are run, larger sample sizes taken, and eventually the work is reviewed by independent scientists in a procedure called “peer review”.  This is a critical step for any hypothesis to pass if it is to be taken seriously.  In many, certainly not all, but in many cases, these steps are skipped.  Worse yet, data is “mined” by those with an agenda other than Truth and scientific enlightenment.  Data mining is the selection of small amounts of data that specifically support a predetermined scientific position / hypothesis.  Most data sets include data that is not good.  Perhaps an error was made during the measurements.  Perhaps something else was occurring at the same time that affected the data collection.  Perhaps the testing equipment itself was not properly calibrated, installed, or verified as working correctly.  For these and dozens of other reasons, data can be faulty.  When it is, it should be so proved, annotated, and then discarded from the data set that has been scientifically verified as being accurate.  Data should not be discarded simply because it does not support a pet theory or pre-assumed scientific position.  For these and multiple other reasons, the entire anthropogenic (human caused) global warming theory is highly suspect and, IMO, those who are pushing this scientifically invalid theory as if it had real merit are not scientists, regardless of what academic credentials they may hold.
       

    • @Ed_B:  20 years ago I was a card carrying member of many green organizations.  I was about as green as one could get.  But I stated noticing that public policy was in an ever increasing way being shaped by junk science advanced by what I call the institutional environmental community (organizations run like businesses and political empires while the rank an file act more like they are religious believers rather than schooled by biology, etc.).  Now, this problem can be seen everywhere.  We have public policy on science-related issues driven by “public relations science,” not real science.
       
       
       

    • Water, Ozone, CFC’s and Nitrous Oxides are also greenhouse gases and are much stronger than CO2. Our NOx and SOx are also by products of combustion and are WAY stronger greenhouse gases than CO2. They also contribute to acid rain and CFC’s also contribute to Ozone delpetion.
      It’s all about balance. Right now our nutrient cycles are out of whack…including carbon. Climate change is a more appropirtate term than global warming due to the changes in precipitation and temperature on a global scale.

    • @Flying Wombat
       
      Many of us go through this stage when we lack knowledge but still believe that “something MUST be done!”.  Unfortunately, we often do not have the intellectual capacity, education, or experience to distinguish what the real problems are or what the viable solutions to them might be.  Those short-comings are often rectified by time and effort.
       
      The term “junk science” is one of those oxymorons.  There is science and then there is something else that is not science but that can be presented as if it was science.  An interesting facet of this is that many of the things that affect the climate of the Earth are 100% natural.  Not all of them but a lot of them.  All the fuss over CFCs in spray cans was ridiculous.  Apparently, some people do not know that anaerobic decomposition of seaweed produces millions of tons of chloro-, bromo-, and iodo-methanes that then go into the atmosphere and do pretty much the same things as do CFCs.
       
      Many of these policies have devastating results and are a long way from being harmless.  It is likely that the World Trade Center towers would still be standing had the support girders been coated with 1/4″ of asbestos.  But noooo, we can’t use that, it’s not safe.  This was common practice in the past because architects and engineers are WELL aware that fire is a serious hazard in high-rise buildings and a large part of the hazard lies in the fact that over-heated steel girders rapidly lose their strength and ability to support the massive weight placed upon then.
       
      Then, of course, we have the space shuttle Challenger.  It exploded because the plastic O-rings used between the booster stages got too cold, became brittle, failed, and allowed a super-hot jet of exhaust gas to contact the unburned fuel in the stage above where the leak occurred.  An asbestos gasket would not have failed like this and has been used in MANY rockets and missiles previously.  I would imagine that the US military still uses asbestos gaskets between the booster stages of their missiles because they work and plastic may or may not.
       
      Asbestos in and of itself is not particularly hazardous.  What IS hazardous is the combination of asbestos and smoking.  The asbestos fibers can become embedded in lung tissue, where they stick up like little antennas.  Smoke particles entering the lungs cling to these fibers, condense into a carcinogenic tar, that then drips down the fiber and onto the lung tissue that is irritated by the presence of the fiber. This provides the very toxic combo of a highly carcinogenic material (tobacco smoke tars) and irritated delicate tissue.  This can result in lung cancer when neither the asbestos nor the tobacco smoke alone would have been sufficient.  There are large areas in the US Southwest where natural asbestos occurs in surface rock formations.  Erosion of these surface asbestos deposits create dust that then mixes with other small particle debris to form the dust that blows around in those locations.  The health data from those areas of the US do not show a significant difference between the rate of lung cancer than in other parts of the country that do not have any natural asbestos.
       
      We also have Halon fire extinguishers that are incredibly effective fire extinguishers that can be used around computers and other sensitive and expensive electronic equipment without damaging it.  This is especially critical on board aircraft where one cannot simply pull over to the curb, get out, and deal with a fire.  Thanks to the ozone depletion argument, Halon fire extinguishers are severely limited these days and as a result more people and equipment will be lost to fires due to the use other less effective types of extinguishers.
       
      The list of these anti-science incidents is long and freely available to anyone who has any interest in reading about them.  I won’t go into all of them here, as that would be the work of a good sized book and I am not in that business.  All I ask of people is to use their minds, educate themselves, think critically when they consider possible explanations for the phenomena we observe, and then make up their minds as to what is or is not happening on our planet.  Having an open mind is critical because new information is developed on a routine basis that can support or oppose what we now believe to be true.  Science advances our understanding, so as we learn more, we are better able to formulate more accurate explanations of the phenomena in the world around us.
       
      The best part of the debate about the environment is that it is raising our consciousness about environmental stewardship, which is a very good thing.  I am a strong proponent of sustainable development, recycling, and the efficient use of all our resources.  By being aware of the problems and costs associated with bad environmental behavior, we can help point people and industries in new and better directions.  But let’s be very careful with this and make sure that what we are doing is based on sound science and not on ignorance, politics, or hysteria.
       

    • @Ed_B:  “The term ‘junk science’ is one of those oxymorons.”
      You’re right!  Thank you.  I will never use the phrase again.

    • @Flying Wombat
       
       
      “You’re right!  Thank you.  I will never use the phrase again.”
       
      You’re welcome.  I feel the same way about the term “junk silver”.  Silver is GOOD stuff and in just about any form imaginable.  Junk?  Hardly!  ;-)
       
       
       
       

       

  3. Why does EROI decrease? Because it’s harder to get out of the ground!
    Climate change is real and I really don’t get the argument that keeps being made here?
    Our fossil fuel based economy is a problem AND so is climate change! It’s not about social control. Far from it in fact! I would have to say most people (mainly boomers and older) still do not believe in climate change or take steps to reduce waste unless imposed onto them.

    • Climate change is an oxymoronic phrase that replaced “global warming” as the cause celeb for public relations purposes.  The case supporting anthropogenic global warming was salted with data removed from final NGO documents (that’s what that chart shows – the original data and the huge spike period of higher temperatures occurring long before industrial man).  It’s a total lie that there is a consensus among scientists that man is the primary causal factor behind shifting aggregate temperatures.  

    • It is a scientific fact that the Earth’s climate is not static.  It can and does change, most often in repeating cycles, and virtually always due to changes in solar output.  One of these cycles is the occurrence of ice ages approximately every 100,000 or so years.  The geologic record contains evidence of this happening many times in the past, as do deep polar ice core samples.  In between these times of natural global cooling we have what are called periods of inter-glacial warming.  We are living in one of those periods now… and thank God for that!  I certainly have no desire to live on a frozen ball of ice instead of a living breathing planet with liquid water and temperatures sufficiently mild that food crops can be grown in places other than at the equator.  Human beings cannot appreciably affect something as massive as the Earth or even something as massive as the Earth’s atmosphere.  When a single volcano erupts, it can put more air pollution into the atmosphere in a day than all of human industrial activity can in a year… and volcanoes often erupt for weeks, months, and even years.
       
      This is not to say that humans should not do all we can to care for the planet and its resources.  But our resources are limited and if we waste them by addressing the politically expedient rather than the pollution that we create, we are doing a terrible disservice to both the Earth and to humanity.  Water pollution, for example, is a very serious problem, particularly in the developing parts of the world.  It needs to be addressed so that people and other living creatures can co-exist and have clean water to drink and in which to live, find food, transport goods, and do other things that are necessary for life and prosperity.
       
      It is good that we are developing our environmental conscience and consciousness but we should not abuse either of these by tilting at windmills, wasting precious resources on that which is truly beyond our ability to affect, or by ignoring real problems when we discover them.  Doing this correctly requires a rigorous scientific debate and we have had that insofar as climate change is concerned.  But much has been said and done to “prove” the validity of the global warming theory that is simply not scientifically valid.   One example of this is that a graph of average global temperature for the past 200 years shows that it is virtually identical with a graph of the sun’s output for that same time period and only very poorly correlates with the average CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over than same time period.  The best data so far shows that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration follows a climate warming period, it does not precede it; and it would have to precede it to be causing it.  Other data shows that the average temperature on Earth peaked a couple of decades ago and has been falling ever since.  Add to that, the warmest year on record was 1932.  That was at a time when world industrial activity was MUCH less than it is today, our population was smaller, and far less fossil fuel was consumed.  If those activities were causing the Earth to warm, why is it not much warmer today than it was in 1932?
       
      I can recommend the following web site to anyone who is truly interested in the science of global temperature change and many other matters and not merely the politics of the expedient:
       
      http://www.accesstoenergy.com/
       
       

    • How on earth was earths average temperature measured in 1932? How does that compare to how we take measurements today?
      We are destroying our ecosystems and squandering our natural ressources. We could have used our oil and natural gas much more  efficiently. When future generations look back at what we are doing… what will they think?

  4. We will never run out of oil?  That’s an interesting concept.  Maybe the author means there will always be oil somewhere in the crust of the earth that is inaccessible?  Because we certainly will reach a point at which fossil fuels of every type will no longer be a viable source of energy.  And unless we come with alternative methods of fertilizing crops, producing essential chemicals, and getting people and goods from place to place, billions of lives will be in jeopardy.  Sometimes I get the feeling humans are no more able to conserve and plan for the future than bacteria on a Petri dish.  Does anyone remember what happens after a logarithmic growth phase?

    • “Like”- Good post! In the United states demand has outpaced new discoveries since 1970. This was accurately predicted by the Hubbert curve back in the late 50′s. The same is true on a global scale. Hence decreasing EROI. The oil sands in Canada are only at best 1:1.5 EROI. Same is true for biofuels. Old massive oil wells that fueled the industrial revolution had EROI’s of about 1:16.
      Furthermore renewables (wind, hydro, solar) only make up at best about 20% of global energy supply. Nowhere near what is required to replace fossil fuels. Riding a bike has an EROI of about 1:2. Pretty damn good!

    • MrBoompi – read the statement about never running out of oil in the context it was written.  It should be very clear I made that statement as a juxtaposition to the propaganda bullshit the mass media used to distort and attack the messengers warning about peak oil.  Constantly, the silly rebuttal was that peak oil advocates were warning about oil running out in the not too distant future.  That was a “straw man” argument used to distort the public debate.  As you apparently know, the reality is that less and less easy, readily available oil would be had because much of that higher EROI oil was indeed already found and pumped out (or fracked, etc.), as part of the declining EROI phenomena. 
       
      So, yes, there will come a day when it will not be economically viable (nor in  terms of invested energy) to extract the remaining sources of oil, at which time we will have arrived at stasis, where there will STILL BE OIL of various forms and even some forms very close to the Earth’s surface.  Thus, we will never run out of oil.

      Thanks for the note.
       

      Eric Dubin / Flying Wombat

  5. The green movement is THE patsey for eugenics. Has been for a decade.
     

  6. I don’t think anybody should be saying that suggestiing human activity as a possible major cause of global warming is a ploy. We don’t know enough, but to fail to act is irresponsible. According to German astronaut Ulf Merbold, the Earth’s atmostphere is shockingly thin. If the earth were apple sized, the atmostphere would be comparable in thickness to an apple skin. Don’t tell me that burning all this fossil fuel shit whilst cutting down all the trees that might have absorbed some of the resulting carbon dioxide doesn’t have a huge impact. I’m a trained scientist, and even I can smell the bullshit. I have 1960s textbooks that show two polar ice caps. Go have a look at Google Earth. One ice cap is almost gone, and the other is shrinking fast. The most illogical thing in the world is to fail to act. Thank God for peak oil, IMHO.
    If this slanted editorial is being touted as ‘news’, then I won’t be consuming it. I don’t mind pro silver talk. That’s what I come here for, but don’t try to convince me of anything else.

    • I am also a trained scientist and a very good skeptic. I have work published in the Canadian Journal of Microbiology.
      Beyond climate change… the tons of xenobiotics that enter our natural systems have  profound effects on the development of living organisms including humans. For example endocrine distruption and the fact that male sperm count has decreased 50% over the last 50 years. 
      “to fail to act is irresponsible”
      I agree and this includes being less wastefull, using alternative forms of energy, transportation and eating a variety of healthy naturally grown foods that are not  completely douced with pesticides.
       

    • I’m with you, @CanadianStacker,

  7. Global warming and climate change has some pretty good marketing, I’ll give it that.  Recall back about 35 years ago the big rage was Global Cooling   We were at the edge of a new ice age. ISYN.  When Carter was sitting in the WH with his little middy-sweater telling us that the era of the USA was over and we need to get used to the new normal—mediocre economy and colder temperatures. his idea was to turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater. WHAT AN INCREDIBLY STUPID IGNORANT SIMPLETON.
    When the elites heard that 2 mile high glaciers were going to flatten Manhatten, it was game over.  The idiots spewing the global cooling  were fired and a new marketing team was brought it.   This time the sales job has to have teeth. This time is was global warming.  Given that the temperature of the planet hasn’t changed much in a few hundred years, these goobers were relentless.  Failure was not an option.  They had to get control of the idiot masses who wouldn’t know cold from hot. Anf if they did not believe that we were going to devolve into a crap storm of sweatyness there would be hell to pay. Believe or you will be dealt with harshly. Ask the people who have been thrown under the bus because they did not become true believers.
    I give them this. With Clinton and Gore piling on to this hogwash, going all in and making about $100,000,000 each for their efforts, don’t forget that this type of marketing always has a big payback for the true believers, zealots and those who trade in climate change b*******.   Once Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs got on board with carbon credit it was game over for the cooler heads. This was really big money considering they will dabble in rigging base metal storage fees for a $5 billion payday. But I digress.

    There is one thing that can be taken from this and it is when a bad policy and bad science merges, hammered long and strong enough, it is virtually impossible to get the government off that track. The body count can be in the millions, as the Chinese found out with Mao’s Great Leap Forward and all that Communistic idiocy. 30,000,000 people died for the loony tune economic policy.
    They invest into it and, like bad policy, they never let go until the government dies. Bad investments and bad policies are probably the biggest impediments to human evolution since we climbed out of the trees.
    Keynesian economics, Communism and Global cooling are just the lastest leading examples of this garbage.

    Control is always underying this idiocy. Control by elites and governments who have a vested interest in capturing the hearts and mush brained minds of sheeple would have trouble connect two thoughts together with a bucket of super glue. If a government waves a shiny object in front of these clueless masses they follow it like a rube at the carnival.
    That they are brain damaged idiots, and I INCLUDE MYSELF IN THAT GROUP,is immaterial. People have the right to be stupid. Even the Constitution allowed for that. If my version of Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness is being a Dumb ass, then so be it. If I don’t inflict that on others, then leave me alone!!!
    But the government will always go this route, sticking their nose into our business, taking advantage of this tendency so as to cull the herd.

      That does not include people on this site who have the reasoning abilities to see that there is CHANGE but nonetheless it is unlikely that climate change will result in the gloom and doom that the talking heads would have us believe.

    But the government, bioethicists and eugenics specialists will never relent. any more than Hitler relented in his plans to form a perfect Aryan race with his relentless Final Solution unleashed on innocents so that he could see his notion of the super race evolvement and how it could be improved by eugenics.  
    Failing that, running 12,000,000 into the death camps was the other option.  He was all over the enviromental movement BS that was nothing more than a cover for control and culling the population. Obama has his people, Cass Sunstein, Cloward and Piven and the like who consider a death count of 25,000,000 Americans as an acceptable number to make this a perfect little world for these lunatics. 

    • Yes, but still…

    • Even evil money-grabbing scum can be right once in a while. To be against something because one doesn’t like its proponent isn’t the most logical stance to take, IMHO. I wouldn’t be surprised if polar ice cap melting is one of those “hyperbolic” events. A singularity. When there are no polar icecaps to reflect the heat back, what are we all going to do? Paint our roofs white? Paint the asphalt? Stretch big shiny tarps over the sea where the ice used to be?  :O/
      I hope SDNews isn’t all going to be like the editorial. I’ll defect to Zero Hedge and the Drudge Report. I will… I will…

    • This guy has made a rational argument:
       
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zORv8wwiadQ
       
      I can’t fault it.
       
       

  8. @A  well said.
    cheers

Speak Your Mind