What's going to make headlines in 2006 or How the fuck did I get so old?

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

This is a short list of stories that will continue to make headlines, but am not sure as to how they'll get resolved, so be prepared to watch how they play out in the long-term:

1. The US Will Continue Making the Case For War Against Iran and Syria. War is coming, with either nation or both, by 2007. One analyst with contacts in Israel says the strike on Iran's nuclear facilities is coming as early as March of 2006. I think there will be a limited pre-emptive strike on Iran, but that has the potential of mushrooming into something big. As I had predicted, we will see the US resurrect information the Bush administration has kept hidden to make its case against both nations. That's easy to do since the US already has the intel and has been keeping it under wraps -- even at the expense of taking a beating over the lack of WMD in Iraq. That tells volumes about the conspiracy to attack other nations as part of a larger agenda, as opposed to merely targeting Saddam Hussein. They are obvious picking their own timing for attack -- that's the only variable.

2.Obstacles to Israeli "Peace Process" Sellout. At least two unforeseen events have temporarily blocked globalist plans to undermine Israel's security through the phony "peace process:"

1. The stroke and imminent death of sellout architect and phony right-wing leader Ariel Sharon; and
2. The election win of terrorist radicals from Hamas, who now control the semi-sovereign Palestinian Authority and the Gaza Strip. The latter is supposed to be the showpiece of trading land for peace -- an endeavor which is not working.

3. Domestic Spying By the President Will Reach Its Intended Conclusion. The PTB are unnecessarily making this an issue. The government has been doing illegal spying for decades. The only purpose in bringing this issue to a crisis is to gain the Supreme Court's approval -- and make government tyranny under the guise of "national security" forever legal.

4. The Far Left Will Consolidate Control Over Latin America. Latin America will continue to move to the left, although disunity and infighting will remain. Only Colombia, Paraguay and Peru currently remain under American globalist influence, and Peru will most likely fall to the left this year as well. Brazil and Chile are playing along with the Americans, but they are fully intending to betray that trust after garnering all they can from loans, trade and technology transfers. Watch for Venezuela's Hugo Chavez to move forward with his Latin American loan bank proposal and energy sharing projects -- joining forces with Bolivia and Brazil -- to buy favor among other leftist controlled nations.

Nevertheless, the US will not surrender all influence in the region. The US still has its dark-side projects in Paraguay (a new military base), Brazil (CIA/NSA listening posts in the Amazon), and billion dollar payoffs to Colombia's President Uribe under the cover of anti-drug warfare. The US also has an amazing ability to bribe leftist leaders into playing along economically with the IMF. Uruguay's Tabare Vasquez is talking about accepting free trade offerings from the US (after being stung by Kirchner's Argentine piquetero bridge blockages in an environmental dispute). Even bad boy coca grower champion Evo Morales (the newly elected President of Bolivia) shows signs of partially playing along, after secret meetings with US diplomats.

5. Something Significant Will Happen in North Korea This Year.The US is increasingly viewed by leftist controlled South Korea as a hostile negotiating partner in the North Korean nuclear standoff. Indeed, South Korea may finally break with US policy itself. I think the US will finally find a way out of its hardline stance on NK nuclear weapons and broker a major breakthrough. I expect some kind of dramatic unification agreement this year that will bring North Korea out from the cold -- without having to give up its nuclear weapons program (though it may appear to do so). All this will be just as phony as the "fall of communism" in Russia.

6. China Will Continue to Build a Huge Energy and Military Nexus in the Far East. Just as Iran is forced to look eastward to China for protection and alliances, so will Saudi Arabia and India. The politics of oil and gas pipelines will win out over US pressure and bribes (nuclear technology to India). Pakistan is still caught in the middle of having been the CIA's whore for a decade. Now it is looking for a way out. Everyone in the Middle East is waking up to the fact that the US intends to betray them someday. There's still a lot of blackmail going on as the US tries to keep the old secret energy network intact.

 

[quietfanatic]

You appear to be pretty sure about this stuff. You should have said, 'here are some stories that you might all find interesting and my personal predictions'. I am too busy for details right now.

1. What has Syria done recently to give an appropriate pretext?

2. Sharon is still alive, but should be politically dead as a leader if anything at all. It looks like there will be little progress as Hamas doesn't want to talk, but they'll have to eventually.

3. Don't see the point of legislation that will meet so much opposition. Who would push for it anyway?

4. The contradiction sounds excessive.

5. Unification. Huh! More conspiracy theory garbage by the sound of it.

6. Saudi Arabia and India are still pretty snug with the West. Why would China be better anyway?

 

[Sander]

And you're the guy claiming that you're not big on all of those conspiracy theories but rather adress everything logically? Hah! Everything isn't and cannot be a conspiracy, mr. Jerko.

 

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

The first bits of the hidden evidence that Syria took possession of Iraq's WMD just before the Iraq war has now been allowed out -- even though I believe the US government knew about the transfer before the Iraq invasion. A NY Sun article reports, "The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed. The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, Saddam's Secrets, released this week. 'There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,' Mr. Sada said... Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam 'transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria.'"

With the CIA's integral intel sharing relationship with Israel's Mossad, the US has known about this for a long time. The US even has satellite photos of the Russian trucks moving WMD's to Syria. Why not reveal this evidence earlier? Why would Bush admit to not finding WMDs in Iraq when he could have pointed to this and other evidence? I think the answer is that this evidence had to be saved and revealed later in order to justify yet another war, with Syria. Either that, or it's all made up.

Meanwhile, the threat of war with Iran continues to loom larger. France's Jacque Chirac took aim at Iran this past week in his threat to use tactical nuclear weapons on terrorist states. Iran promptly repeated its intent to retaliate as it began to move its financial assets out of Europe in anticipation of Security Council sanctions.

Military analyst Michael Chussodovsky predicts a time line for an attack on Iran as early as this spring: "For the last year or so, the United States, Israel and Turkey have been preparing an aerial bombing of Iran. This went into the planning stage back in November of 2004. In other words, it's over a year now and essentially this operation is using the pretext of Iran's nuclear program to bomb its nuclear facilities. In fact, what is actually being planned is a [broader] nuclear war and that nuclear war has nothing to do with Iran. We are not talking about surgical strikes. That's what's being presented to public opinion. [I disagree with this; it's too early for WWIII. It will be only surgical strikes.]

"But what is now very disturbing is that actually the timeline for this operation has already been announced -- March of 2006. In other words, in the next two or three months. This (timeline) has been confirmed by the Israelis. Prime Minister Sharon has made the statement. His political opponents, in particular Benjamin Netanyahu, have confirmed that they are also in agreement with this posture -- that they will wage surgical strikes against Iran. But if you look at it in a broader context, you will realize that this is not strictly an Israeli operation. It's an operation which involves the United States, Turkey, and Israel as the main military actors but which is firmly supported by America's coalition partners in NATO. In other words, NATO has given its approval to this military operation. There are no dissenting voices within the Atlantic military alliance as occurred prior to the war in Iraq and in effect, I think that there won't be many dissenting voices in the United Nations Security Council, and eventually a pretext will be built that Iran is a threat to global security in view of its nuclear program, and that is of course a very controversial issue. But as to whether this is up for civilian use or for military use, but there is no evidence that Iran at this stage is developing nuclear weapons. [I think there is, and the US has even helped them along, and thus is partly responsible.]" [End of Chussodovsky quote.]

The US and the EU continue to pursue sanctions as a necessary diplomatic prelude to war, and are only awaiting assurances from Russia or China that they will not veto such a move. If Russia and China allow the sanctions to pass unchallenged, it will be a sign that they are also in collusion to use Iran as a catalyst for future war (although for different reasons than the Anglo-American establishment).

But now the US and Russia are playing a funny little game. President Bush laid out conditions this week for what the US would consider an "acceptable alternative" for Iran: "That the material used to power the plant would be manufactured in Russia, delivered under IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspectors to Iran, to be used in that plant, the waste of which will be picked up by the Russians and returned to Russia." But Iran has said repeatedly that it would reject such a proposal, insisting on its right under the non-proliferation agreement to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Why? Russia is Iran's partner in crime. It would be more than simple for Iran to agree with this ruse and then to continue the secret nuclear work as Iran and Russia have done all along. It's almost as if Iran is looking for a fight. Time will tell.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

We ordinary Americans are being led, step by step, down the road to a dictatorship more evil and all-pervasive than that of the late Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party of the German aristocracy. — Sherman H. Skolnick

Start supporting the second amendment, because all of our liberal gun control talk is about to take a big ironic shit in our mouth.

 

[John Uskglass]

We ordinary Americans are being led, step by step, down the road to a dictatorship more evil and all-pervasive than that of the late Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party of the German aristocracy. — Sherman H. Skolnick

You can't believe this. It's too absurd.

1) Another mediocre year for Bush, Republican party hurts in both Senate and Congress, hopefully beginning of revitalization of Centrist Democrat and Centrist Republican groups after years of partisan bullshit.

2) While the apeshit nations of South America abandon Democracy and Liberty for Welfare and Populist crooks, movement towards Liberalism in Europe becomes more and more apparent as the Social Democrats continue to flaunt their lack of spine in the face of the Islamic World, including the recent tensions in Denmark (that will just get a hell of a lot worse before anyone forgets about it).

Long term: possible revitalization of European Union under liberalizing governments combined with French population growth.

3) Eventually, news will begin to focus upon the PRC's faults as much as it's success, including monthly environmental disasters, disease, increasing demand for civil liberties and a non-existant service sector.

4) Oil prices begin to fall a little more. Peak oil is bullshit. Hybrids become new SUV in USA, spread to most postindustrial economies. Environmental focus shifting to China.

5) Radiohead will release a new CD, and I will go to their Chicago concert in the summer.

 

[welsh]

I am actually leaning more towards Jerks predictions, because, well they are kind of obvious.

That said, my own secret prediction is that the Israelis find some way to preserve Sharon's brain in a glass cylinder buried deep under Masada. Connected to a computer, Sharon's brain will continue to influence a perpetuation of the Israeli-Arab conflict and so the evil continues.

Come on, admit it, that would be kind of cool.

 

[DirtyDreamDesigner]

Actually, Jerkos list makes more sense than yours, Johnnee....

ED IT: Damn, welsh beat me to it...

 

[Brother None]

The first bits of the hidden evidence that Syria took possession of Iraq's WMD just before the Iraq war has now been allowed out -- even though I believe the US government knew about the transfer before the Iraq invasion.

*looks at the large pile of evidence stacked to prove Iraq never had any WMDs, including, ooh, say, the lack of WMDs in Iraq*

*stares at the small pile of "intelligence" to prove Iraq does have WMDs*

Boy, you sure suck at this whole "logic" thing, don't you?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Peak oil is bullshit.

Yes, especially since it has been scientifically proven.

A dozen times over.

 

[Wooz]

leftist controlled South Korea

Le woutfe? Since when and exactly how is South Korea "Leftist"?

 

[John Uskglass]

Yes, especially since it has been scientifically proven.

A dozen times over.

Just like you where right when you predicted Global Peak in 1989 and 1995. OMG WE RAN OUT OF OIL 16 YEARS AGO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO!?

 

[Lazarus Plus]

I'm increasingly convinced that your only goal in posting here is to create a black hole of grammar. Indeed, a nexus of paragraphs and an unholy conflagaration of adjectives.

Indeed, your only goal is to create an unbridled WORD ARMAGEDDON.

Sometimes you make sense. All too often it simply descends into a whirling morass of illogical connections from one conspiracy to another.

 

[Tannhauser]

This was a nice article about peak oil. In any case, you are quite the broken record Ratty.

Dr. Jerkoholic isn't worth addressing (perhaps we should merge his threads into a conspiracy theory potluck).

 

[Ozrat]

Peak oil is bullshit.

Yes, especially since it has been scientifically proven.

A dozen times over.

Thank you so very much for stating this and saving me the trouble of doing it myself.

PS - You might be interested to know that I met Richard Heinberg, author of MuseLetter and a couple of books on Peak Oil, a couple of times over the summer.

 

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

Regarding #3:
Last week saw several administration officials, including the President, defending the indefensible: a blatant disregard for law and the Constitution, all in the name of "national security." Yesman Attorney General Gonzales essentially told Americans, in a defense of the administration's warrantless spying program, that the President can do anything he wants in a time of national emergency. Everyone, including the President, continues to advance the lie that this warrantless surveillance is very limited and targets only those who dial known terrorists. The fact that the press doesn't expose this lie indicates more than journalistic cowardice. There are at least half a dozen people in the know who claim that the NSA traps every communication it can -- all the time.

In a speech at the National Press Club, former NSA chief General Michael Hayden said if the program had been in place before the Sept. 11 attacks, it may have detected some of the 9/11 hijackers. Baloney. It had been in place. Besides, the government had all the hijackers in their files anyway -- and did nothing to stop them. According to sources at the Press Club, "Hayden gingerly sidestepped the question as to whether the President has the authority to authorize warantless surveillance, but he stressed again that NSA's post 9/11 programs have been 'very focused' and 'limited.'" John Pike, a US military analyst with the Pentagon, disputes this: "Most people just don't understand how pervasive government surveillance is. If you place an international phone call, the odds that the National Security Agency is listening are very good. If it goes by oceanic fiber-optic cable, they are listening to it. If it goes by satellite, they are listening to it. If it is a radio broadcast or a cell phone conversation, in principle, they could listen to it. Frankly, they can get what they want."

Editor and Publisher Magazine takes apart Gen Hayden's claim that the surveillance is in line with the Fourth Amendment. Jonathan Landay, a well-regarded investigative reporter for Knight Ridder, posed the last question to Hayden at the conference. It proved to be too hot for the General. E&P reports, "Hayden repeatedly referred to the Fourth Amendment's search standard of 'reasonableness' without mentioning that it also demands 'probable cause.' Hayden seemed to deny that the amendment included any such thing, or was simply ignoring it. Here is the exchange...

"QUESTION: Jonathan Landay with Knight Ridder... my understanding is that the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution specifies that you must have probable cause to be able to do a search that does not violate an American's right against unlawful searches and seizures. Do you use --

"GEN. HAYDEN: No, actually -- the Fourth Amendment actually protects all of us against unreasonable search and seizure.

"QUESTION: But the --

"GEN. HAYDEN: That's what it says.

"QUESTION: But the measure is probable cause, I believe.

"GEN. HAYDEN: The amendment says unreasonable search and seizure.

"QUESTION: But does it not say probable --

"GEN. HAYDEN: No. The amendment says --

"QUESTION: The court standard, the legal standard --

"GEN. HAYDEN: -- unreasonable search and seizure." [End of quote.]

Who's right? Landay was right. Here's the Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Insight Magazine claims, "A coalition in Congress is being formed to support impeachment," and that a "prelude to the impeachment process could begin with hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee in February." Of course those hearings would be controlled by JFK assassination cover-up artist Sen. Arlen Specter. I have my doubts the Republican controlled Congress would vote to impeach or that the Senate would convict. More than likely one or more of the pending lawsuits on the matter will end up in the Supreme Court, which I believe will rule in the President's favor, making this tyranny fully legal. That's the plan.

Returning to #2:

The US and Israel tried to save Fatah from election defeat in the Palestinian Authority, but Fatah lost anyway. The US poured in millions in aide and even sent in US election specialists at the last moment to stem the tide of public dissatisfaction with Fatah, which is notorious for its financial corruption and its secret deals with the Israeli left and their globalist backers. Israeli temporary PM Ehud Olmert tried to offer more promises of West Bank land to the PA if Palestinians would support Fatah. (He even allowed Marwan Barghouti, the jailed Palestinian terrorist who is running for election from his Israeli prison cell, to give a televised interview for broadcast. Barghouti will no doubt have to be released now because he is now an elected official of the Palestianian terrorist state.) How ironic, that those claiming to be fighting a war on terror (US and Israeli governments) reward the very terrorists (PLO-Fatah) who killed American and Jews. Fatah was playing along with the West only recently, and had entered into a deal with the globalists to sell out Israel's security. Now, with the victory of Hamas in the elections, the plans have come crashing down.

This puts the US and Israeli negotiators in a real bind. The US and Israel had bragged to the world that Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza would lead to negotiations and peace. Now they have a semi-autonomous state run by unrepentant terrorists who got elected on the platform of not giving up the fight against Israel. President Bush said, "Hamas cannot be a partner for Middle East peacemaking without renouncing violence." He also claimed that the US will "not deal with Palestinian leaders who do not recognize Israel's right to exist." We've heard that before, but the US always finds a way to do so.

Now, if Hamas is smart, they will fake their repentance and play along like Fatah did. However, Hamas is filled with so many hateful firebrands, it is doubtful they would be able to pull this off. Hopefully, they won't. Only then will the Israeli government be forced to confront the new threat for what it is -- real live war in the offing.

More research is surfacing about temporary Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The cigar chomping former Mayor of Jerusalem has got a longer history of political and personal corruption than Ariel Sharon.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Just like you where right when you predicted Global Peak in 1989 and 1995. OMG WE RAN OUT OF OIL 16 YEARS AGO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO!?

Obviously you have no clue about this topic.

Peak Oil has been scientifically proven. Marion King Hubbert discovered it in 1956. Marion King Hubbert, PhD. Yes, you read right - PhD, as in Philosophiae Doctor and not Pimple-faced Internet Nerd. Universities everywhere have been teaching Hubbert's Peak theory for decades now. Ask any geophysics professor or pick up any book about oil extraction and they will tell you the exact same thing I am telling you now.

Hubbert predicted that the global oil production and US oil production would peak in 2000 and 1970, respectively. The veracity of his theory was confirmed in 1971 and later years, when the US oil production peaked and began its steady decline. The same occurence was recorded in a number of other countries, further reinforcing the credibility of Hubbert's theory. The global peak didn't occur as predicted, however. Why? Because in 1970s the actual oil consumption was lower than the projected consumption because of OPEC oil shocks. This difference caused a delay in global oil production peak, which didn't occur in 2000 as originally predicted, but in 2005.

Look, I know you are a right-wing American fundamentalist. And I know your sort is typically immune to things such as "reason" and "common sense". I also know your ideology is founded upon a number of dogmas, one of which is that every American has an unalienable God-given right to own two SUVs, an air-conditioner, two computers, three video game consoles, a boat, an airplane, a plasma TV and a plenty of other expensive gadgets. Now, this may come as a shock to you, but *those things don't power themselves*. They consume energy, and lots of it. The main source of that energy is oil. And - here comes another shock - *oil doesn't exist in infinite quantities*. One day, there will be no more extractable oil left on Earth. It will be gone, permanently. No, God won't replace it with a new, fresh supply of oil. Neither will Uncle Sam. Or Superman. Or Captain America. Or Davey Crockett. Face it, oil will be gone and party will be over.

Has the realization sunk in?

Good.

Now, what Mr. Hubbert discovered is that the function which describes oil production in relation to time isn't monotonous. Rather, it is a bell curve, described with the following equation:

OIL_PRODUCTION = 1/(2+2*cos(ht))

Here's what the curve looks like:

What does that all mean? Well, it means oil won't run out all of a sudden. It means John Tweedledum won't just wake up on a seemingly normal day, drive his gas-powered SUV to a gas station as he does every morning and discover that the station, like all other stations in America, is out of gas - permanently. Rather, oil will just become increasingly difficult to extract. Its production will peak (or rather "has peaked", since global Peak Oil has already happened) and begin to steadily decrease. How will that affect our John Tweedledum? Well, he will wake up on a normal day, drive his gas-powered SUV to a gas station as he does every morning and discover that the station, like all stations in America, is selling its gas at a *slightly* higher price than the day before. The exact same thing will happen the day after, and the day after that. Eventually, the extraction of remaining oil will be so excruciatingly difficult and energy-intensive that oil industry (or rather, what's left of it) will deem it economically unviable. At that point, oil production will stop. However, our John Tweedledum won't care, because he will be driving around in his *fusion-powered flying* SUV and laughing in the face of all naive pessimists.

That is, if you believe the naive optimists.

 

[Dr. Jerkoholic]

I smell a rat here.
Do tell me, how can someone discover such an abstract notion as "Peak Oil"? Invent would be a better word. And his knowledge base is over 50 years old. No wonder he failed to predict things...

For that theory to make sense one first has to prove that petroleum is a fossil fuel. And to this day there has been no scientific proof for this. On the contrary, many things seem to indicate that it's of abiotic origin. Someone smell a conspiracy here?

With recognition that the laws of thermodynamics prohibit spontaneous evolution of liquid hydrocarbons in the regime of temperature and pressure characteristic of the crust of the Earth, one should not expect there to exist legitimate scientific evidence that might suggest that such could occur. Indeed, and correctly, there exists no such evidence.

Nonetheless, and surprisingly, there continue to be often promulgated diverse claims purporting to constitute “evidence” that natural petroleum somehow evolves (miraculously) from biological matter. In this short article, such claims are briefly subjected to scientific scrutiny, demonstrated to be without merit, and dismissed.

The claims which purport to argue for some connection between natural petroleum and biological matter fall into roughly two classes: the “look-like/come-from” claims; and the “similar(recondite)-properties/come-from” claims.



The “look-like/come-from” claims apply a line of unreason exactly as designated: Such argue that, because certain molecules found in natural petroleum “look like” certain other molecules found in biological systems, then the former must “come-from” the latter. Such notion is, of course, equivalent to asserting that elephant tusks evolve because those animals must eat piano keys.

In some instances, the “look-like/come-from” claims assert that certain molecules found in natural petroleum actually are biological molecules, and evolve only in biological systems. These molecules have often been given the spurious name “biomarkers.”

The scientific correction must be stated unequivocally: There have never been observed any specifically biological molecules in natural petroleum, except as contaminants. Petroleum is an excellent solvent for carbon compounds; and, in the sedimentary strata from which petroleum is often produced, natural petroleum takes into solution much carbon material, including biological detritus. However, such contaminants are unrelated to the petroleum solvent.

The claims about “biomarkers” have been thoroughly discredited by observations of those molecules in the interiors of ancient, abiotic meteorites, and also in many cases by laboratory synthesis under imposed conditions mimicking the natural environment. In the discussion below, the claims put forth about porphyrin and isoprenoid molecules are addressed particularly, because many “look-like/come-from” claims have been put forth for those compounds.



The “similar(recondite)-properties/come-from” claims involve diverse, odd phenomena with which persons not working directly in a scientific profession would be unfamiliar. These include the “odd-even abundance imbalance” claims, the “carbon isotope” claims, and the “optical-activity” claims. The first, the “odd-even abundance imbalance” claims, are demonstrated to be utterly unrelated to any biological property. The second, “carbon isotope” claims, are shown to depend upon measurement of an obscure property of carbon fluids which cannot reliably be considered a measure of origin. The third, the “optical-activity” claims, deserve particular note; for the observations of optical activity in natural petroleum have been trumpeted loudly for years as a “proof” of some “biological origin” of petroleum. Those claims have been thoroughly discredited decades ago by observation of optical activity in the petroleum material extracted from the interiors of carbonaceous meteorites. More significantly, recent analysis, which has resolved the previously-outstanding problem of the genesis of optical activity in abiotic fluids, has established that the phenomenon of optical activity is an inevitable thermodynamic consequence of the phase stability of multicomponent fluids at high pressures. Thereby, the observation of optical activity in natural petroleum is entirely consistent with the results of the thermodynamic analysis of the stability of the hydrogen-carbon [H-C] system, which establish that hydrocarbon molecules heavier than methane, and particularly liquid hydrocarbons, evolve spontaneously only at high pressures, comparable to those necessary for diamond formation.

If liquid hydrocarbons might evolve from biological detritus in the thermodynamic regime of the crust of the Earth, we could all expect to go to bed at night in our dotage, with white hair (or, at least, whatever might remain of same), a spreading waistline, and all the undesirable decrepitude of age, and to awake in the morning, clear eyed, with our hair returned of the color of our youth, with a slim waistline, a strong, flexible body, and with our sexual vigor restored. Alas, such is not to be. The merciless laws of thermodynamics do not accommodate folklore fables. Natural petroleum has no connection with biological matter.

 

[Wooz]

[offtopic]

I predict that the Superbowl is going to make headlines this year.

[/offtopic]

 

[Ozrat]

Excellent summary Ratty. Little Johnny's heart is going to be broken sooner or later if he doesn't get wise now.

*snip*

You would humor me if you weren't trying so hard.

Care to explain why domestic oil in the US peaked way back in the 1970's like Hubbert predicted then? And no, strategic oil reserves do not count as an increase. Even if petroleum is not explicitly a "fossil" fuel as you claim, it certainly is not a renewable energy source. What are you going to do, wait for these "abiotic biomarker meteorites" to start crashing through the atmosphere from outerspace and burrowing themselves into the earth where they can make oil just for us again? And you still have yet to make the connection between this "abiotic" oil and how it disproves Hubbert's curve as you claimed.

For a conspiracist such as yourself, you have failed to come to the obvious conclusion: renewable energy is homeland security.