alternative news


November 20, 2011 By Joseph P. Farrell

There's been a debate out there in recent years over "peak oil" and even over whether or not oil even is a "fossil fuel" or whether oil is "abiotic," some sort of natural planetary "lubricant" having nothing to do with decaying dinosaurs and plants. Well, I'm one of those enfants terribles who was a perpetual pain in-the-you-know-what to my teachers growing up. I once asked a teacher in the third grade, who was trying to explain evolution with a picture in a textbook of a giraffe straining to reach tree leaves - you know the old argument: giraffes evolved longer necks to reach tree leaves (seriously folks, that's how bad evolutionary instruction can get) - anyway, I once asked the teacher using the "giraffe argument" why the trees didn't just evolve into taller trees, out of the reach of the giraffes. Well, such exposure of circular argumentation wasn't very welcome, so I had to spend the next hour in the principal's office explaining why I had been "disruptive". I did that: asked the uncomfortable questions - "What if Einstein was wrong?" "What if the Bible is wrong?" What if Darwin is wrong?" - well...I wasn't a popular kid, let me tell you.

Well, yet another example of my youthful gaffs came after one of those films we all saw as kids in school, with an animated section showing dinosaurs dying and decaying into the goo we know as petroleum. To be honest, I found the idea laughable then, and - here comes the heresy - still do. At the time, I asked my science teacher, skepticism dripping from my voice, "Were there really that many dinosaurs?" At the time, of course, I knew nothing about how the Rockefailures interests had promoted the very concept of "fossil fuels" to promote the idea of scarcity...a convenient way to manage prices and perceptions, and keep everyone focused on a physics and finance of closed systems.

This has become the conceptual basis for the idea of "peak oil", essentially an extrapolation from the "bell curve" familiar to any oilman or engineer of what happens when a new field is opened: there is a period of rising production, then falling production as a field is finally exhausted.Extrapolation from one field to all fields leaves a pretty dismal picture: "Peak oil", according to which we have now entered the period of declining petroluem reserves while the world's energy demands are expanding.  And of course, this is more grist in the globalist mill for why we have "too many people" and "not enough energy" with all the globaloney plans for "population reduction."

Funny thing though, such models always assume the linear progression of technology (if they account for it at all), whereas technology is now rendering the whole argument the farrago of nonsense and globaloney it always was:

More Proof the \"We\'re Running Out of Oil\" Crowd Is Dead Wrong

Of course the Chicken Littles and Henny Pennys in the fear-porn crowd that considers itself the global elite will do their best to "explain" all this away; they'll tinker with their arguments and spin, but the fact remains, new technologies will open up long "dead" fields, and new energy technologies and the physics underlying them will ultimately make the whole problem a moot one anyway.  Sit back and enjoy the silence from the banksters and oil companies on this one (have you noticed how "nice" and "cooingly reassuring" their commercials have become lately?). I might even get some popcorn for this one!