Ironin av alla ironier måste väl ändå vara att mänskligheten aldrig tidigare har varit eller har haft möjligheten att informera sig som idag, samtidigt som den civilisation den befinner sig i stått vid ett sådant avgrundsdjup. En del säger, ”2 grader till och uppvärmningen är oåterkallelig”, andra säger, ”jorden tål inte ytterligare befolkningstillväxt”, ytterligare några säger, ”det finns inte tillräckligt med resurser för att upprätthålla vår livsstil”.

Av: 9-2

Läs artikeln här

Angående Peak Oil så tror jag inte att vi har slut på olja ännu. Dock så tror jag att Eliten drar åt på oljan så samma relsultat är att vänta.

Fri energi skulle ta bort maktens alla möjligheter att exploatera andra. Dock så är det just det sista som vi kommer att få av eliten.

oljan har alltid hållit på att ta slut.. ett umärkt sätt att hålla priset högt.

Hej Alla

Jag vill göra ett förtydligande, oljan kommer aldrig att ta slut. Någonsin! Den kommer dock slutligen bli för dyr att extrahera. Så här kommer det att gå till; länder med olja och som nu exporterar olja kommer att upptäcka att deras resurser blir allt mindre att göra så. Man kan då väljka mellan att fortsätta att exportera olja och tjäna pengar på den(Burma) eller behålla den för sitt eget bruk. Det senare är svårt därför att landet har gjort sig beroende av inkomsterna från oljan (Saudi Arbaien, Mexico, Venezuela m.fl.) Därför kommer vi förmodlingen att se allt större oro i dessa länder då makthavarna sätter sin egen rikedom och makt före folkets väl.

Många av de stora oljeexportörerna upplever för tillfället en nedgång i sin produktion, Mexico är en av de viktigaste då landet förser U.S.A. med 33% av dess förbrukning. De finns de som hävdar att Mexico kommer att tvingas till importer av olja inom fem år bara för att klara den egna förbrukningen.

Allt hänger nu på om Saudierna kan tänka "tillgångstappet", det produceras cirka 85 miljoner fat om dagen i världen, behovet ligger förnärvarande runt 88 miljoner fat och den siffran ökar med minst 3% varje år samtidigt som tillgången minskar.

9-2

Hej alla, igen.

Noterade att jag gjort en del stavfel, "väljka" skall naturligtvis vara välja och "Saudierna kan tänka" skall vara Saudierna kan täcka och ingenting annat. Övriga stavfel och grammatiska oriktigheter får ni leva med.

Lev väl.

9-2

Mycket bra artikel! Håller fullständigt med författaren.

Till Emil322:

Priset på oljan är ganska lågt (just nu 95,24 per fat) om man tänker på att det var 2 år sedan vi passerade peaken och om vi hade en verkligen fri marknad som är lika utopisk som kommunismen själv. Priset trycks ner (inte upp som du säger), men nu kan Saudi Arabien inte längre spela swing producer och manipulera priset (deras reserver minskar drastiskt), och alla andra utanför OPEC peaker ena efter den andra. Folk vill inte ha dollar heller, så det börjar bli svårt för USA och oss i väst. De har inte fått igång IRAKs produktion heller. Då kan de som vägrar sälja olja i dollar kräva vilket pris som helst (de är Ryssland, Iran och Venezuella). Ändå är det många konsumenter som har slagits ut för de är inte med i dollar-kartellen, men detta är "ointressant" att visas på media. De som har dollar eller får mycket dollar genom att sälja någonting intressant för marknaden, de kan köpa olja också, men sådana är väldigt få i en global omfattning. Sen finns de med "kloka" påståenden att "oljan började ta slut när vi tog upp första fatet", att "vi gick inte ur stenåldern för att stenarna tog slut", men dessa filosofiska slutsatser kommer aldrig ur munen av en geolog, ekolog, fysiker eller vilken vetenskapman som helst som har med naturvetenskap att göra. Sådana retoriska "klokheter" kan man höra från ekonomer och inte minst okunniga politiker. Ekonomer och politiker utbildas i att inte se på verkligheten, de är hjärntvättade med kronisk optimism. Självklart finns det undantag. De är inte så populära i sin bransch. Så det är inte så enkelt längre att manipulera oljapriset, inte för världens mäktigaste land heller. Hittils har de lyckats hålla det någorlunda lågt. Men tänk efter storindustrin och deras globala karteller - de har intresse för förtsatt ekonomisk tillväxt och inte för ett högre oljapris. Högre olja pris betyder mindre tillväxt för alla, sämre levnads standard, sämre vinster för företagen. Oljebolagen köper upp sina egna obligationer... så det är illa för branschen i verkligheten och det är ingen som manipulerar till ett högre oljepris genom peak oil. Det är cbara sanningen som börjar komma fram så småningom och försent som vanligt.

Läs mer på energikris.nu

Mitt tips slår ut allt Olja, mat (protein) kläder, bilar , plast U name it.)

Och detta är sant fram till 1880 var skolbökerna i hampa.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc ... o=0&type=search&plindex=9


http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc ... o=0&type=search&plindex=1

http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc ... o=0&type=search&plindex=0

sen kan man få roligt på kupen :)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4272808368969628460

Tyst i klassen.

Ju mindre information som sprids ju bättre skulle världen sett ut. Punkt.

Oljan tar aldrig slut. Den produceras i jorden konstant och följer sina regler, balans.

Peak oil är fabricated.

Rast.

Skojar du? Annras borde du kanske ifrågasätta dina egna kunskaper i geologi, för visst produceras olja i marken hela tiden, men som sagd det tar 150 000 000 år tills nästa gång vi har något färdigt att pumpa ut, något som är lönsam och går ut under trycket av sin egen massa. Alltså 150 000 000 år tid att produceras och ca 150-200 år att konsumeras. Är det det du kallar naturlig balans? Ibland måste man ta in information innan man gör slutsatser. Du tror väl inte att folk skall ta för sanning allt en säger fast utan argumentation och fakta. Så kan resonera en präst eller religös människa, men ingen logiskt tänkande fri individ.


www.peakoil.net

Sen inget företag har intresse att oljan går upp i pris, inte ens oljebolagen. Detta minskar vinsterna och tillväxten i alla branscher för alla är beroende av oljan. Oljebolagen har högre kostnader för investeringar efter en oljebrunn har nått sin top (peak) än vad det får ut i vinst, för stora oljebolag måste bibehålla sina reserver för att aktiekurserna skall kunna stiga. Det är fysiskt omöjligt. Sen är det ju ganska upp till individen att göra sig beroende av olja. Jag bor i en stad, en lägenhet och odlar på en kolonilåt, har aldrig ägd en bil och handlar i den närmaste butiken och åker buss till jobbet eller går. I mitt hemland hade vi till och med elbussar och spårvagnar (som också drivs med el). Så man kan välja till en viss del till vilken utsträckning vill man bli oljeberoende. Jag har aldrig blivit van med solresor, exotisk mat, prylar och en massa svamel och onödig konsumtion, fast jag har råd med det. Så det ligger mycket i individens egna val. Om alla vägrade konsumera i samma utsträckning, skulle företagen inte producera och kunna sälja lika mycket. Men folk är primitiva, lättmanipulerade får som man lurar lätt. Man måste ifrågasätta förändringar - behöver jag det eller inte? Gör du detta? För det som jag känner och ställer sig den fråga är väldigt få människor, en liten minoritet, oftast idiotförklaras av flocket.

MVH

Quote:

Nu har du varit och gluttat i "läroböckerna"... - vem ger "kunskaper i geologi"... fundera på det.

Blir du råolja när du dör? Eller sig att du och andra blir begravda på en strand efter en tsunami, kan man utvinna olja där då efter 150 000 år?

Peak Oil är givetvis en fabrikation.

Så du tror alltså att du är infödd med allt möjlig kunskap och att vi kan kollektivt förneka allt vetenskap samlat hittils av mänskligheten? Det blir då som att övertala de kristna under medeltiden om att jorden inte är platt. Eller enkel sagt - ingen idéer att vi diskuterar.

MVH

Quote:

Vad andra gör kollektivt bryr inte jag mig om.

Det inverkar inte på fakta och Sanning, eller hur?

Själva idén om crude oil från begravda djur och växter är absurd.
Den som är insatt kan försöka hitta siffror på hur mycket olja som pumpas upp under ett år, och vad det kan tänkas innbeära i volym om det skulle funnits magi till att göra olja av det.

Kunde man gått på denna staplade hög ända till månen...?

Jag tror att du har missförstått någonting. Jag har aldrig påstått att olja skapas BARA av döda djur och växter. Det är lite mer avancerat än så. Det handlar om alger och solenergy och en massa anndra fakturer. Jag gillar inte att hänvisa till info fårn Wikipedia, men det skulle bli konstigt att skicka dig böcker och PDF filar kanske? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum

Det är en unik process som många vetenskapsmän tvivlar på att det kan upprepas i planetens framtid, men framtiden kan man bara spekulera om. Jag pratar om det som är bevisat och om den oljan som vi känner idag, hur den har skapats. Jag vet inte vad du pratar om och jag kan inte läsa dina tankar. Det är kanske bättre att du berättar vad och hur du menar. Du skriver bara fragmeter som inte är direkt logiskt kopplade till varandra. Men ändå känns det mer trovärdigt att höra fakta från folk som har egnat sitt liv om att undersöka och samla informaiton om oljan och naturresurserna, än att höra en massa slutsatser utan argument och fakta bakom. Visst kan vi ju gissa och spekulera om mycket, men man borde ändå läsa lite förr.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

statistik finner du också på www.masternation.com

du svarade icket på min fråga, jag ställer den igen - vill du förneka hela vetenskapen och vad har du för fakta bakom ditt påstående. Hänvisa gärna till en källa.

MVH

Ja jag förnekar bestämt hela vetenskapen, det är en religion.

Lite info då:

Vakna...

The Myth Of Peak Oil
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm

Peak Oil and the Inflation Lie
US government, Wall Street hide energy shortage and crisis with deceptive indicator
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5697

Peak Oil is a Corrupt Globalist Scam
http://www.prisonplanet.com/Pages/Oct05/041005oil.htm

___


Russia Proves 'Peak Oil' is a Misleading Zionist Scam

While Moscow invests heavily in unlimited oil production for the future, New York squanders America's dwindling oil profits on fast cars and fast women
http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html

_______________________

NEWSLETTER #64
August 17, 2004
Whoa, Dude! Are We Peaking Yet?



"The Club of Rome, a non-profit global think tank, said in the 1970s that we'd hit peak oil in 2003. It didn't happen." So said Kevin Kelleher, writing for Popular Science magazine in August of this year. But it did indeed happen, according to Michael Ruppert and his band of resident 'experts,' who collectively insist that the planet is now at the point of 'peak' oil production.
(Kevin Kelleher "How Long Will the Oil Age Last?" Popular Science, August 2004)


It appears then that today's 'Peak Oil' crowd has some pages in their propaganda playbook that were lifted directly from the Club of Rome, which raises the obvious question: what exactly is the Club of Rome? Who is it that has handed Michael Ruppert and company the baton? The initial membership list of the Club of Rome, as it turns out, contains some interesting names:


David Rockefeller: Bilderberger, cofounder of the Trilateral Commission, former chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, scion of the world's most prominent oil dynasty, and all-around bad guy.
John J. McCloy: Former advisor to the Mussolini regime who had the honor of sitting in Adolf Hitler's private box at the Berlin Olympic games; later served as High Commissioner of Germany, during which time he signed an order freeing the majority of the Nazi war criminals that had been convicted at Nuremberg; still later, served on the infamous Warren Committee.

Averell Harriman: Skull and Bonesman and high-level political operative through several presidential administrations; together with members of the Dulles family and the Bush/Walker family, established various business entities engaged in providing funding to Nazi Germany, even after the United States had entered the war.

Katherine Graham: Longtime publisher of the Washington Post and longtime CIA asset who once famously said, while speaking at the CIA's Langley, Virginia headquarters: "We live in a dirty and dangerous world. There are some things the general public does not need to know and shouldn't. I believe democracy flourishes when the government can take legitimate steps to keep its secrets and when the press can decide whether to print what it knows."

Quite a distinguished cast of characters, I have to admit -- although not necessarily the type of people whose lies and spin most dissidents/progressives would accept as good coin. But guess what? If you are buying (or selling) the 'Peak Oil' bullshit, then you already have.


* * * * * * * * * *


On June 21, the Los Angeles Times ran a story that the ever-growing 'Peak Oil' crowd seems to have missed. The article concerned the Shell oil refinery in Bakersfield, California that is scheduled to be shut down on October 1 -- despite the fact that the state of California (and the nation as a whole) is already woefully lacking in refinery capacity.

Now why do you suppose that Shell would want to close a perfectly good oil refinery? It can't be because there is no market for the goods produced there, since that obviously isn't the case. And it isn't due to a lack of raw materials, since the refinery sits, as the Times noted, atop "prolific oil fields." The Scotsman recently explained just how prolific those fields are:

The best estimates in 1942 indicated that the Kern River field in California had just 54 million barrels of remaining oil. By 1986, the field had produced 736 million barrels, and estimates put the remaining reserves at 970 million barrels. (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=578462004)

Of course, just because there is a strong demand for a product, and a ready source of raw materials with which to produce that product, does not mean that any corporate entity is obligated to bring that product to market. In the corporate world, the only thing that ever matters is the "bottom line," because corporations exist for one purpose only: to generate profits. So the only question, I suppose, that really matters, is: can the refining of gasoline and diesel fuel at this particular facility generate profits for the corporation?


One would naturally assume, given Shell's decision to close the refinery, that the answer to that question is "no." But that would be an entirely wrong assumption, since the truth is, as L.A. Times reporters discovered when they got their hands on internal company documents, that the refinery is wildly profitable. How wildly profitable? The Bakersfield plant's "profit of $11 million in May [2004] was 57 times what the company projected and more than double what it made in all of 2003." (Elizabeth Douglas "Shell to Cut Summer Output at Bakersfield Refinery, Papers Say," Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2004)

Go ahead and read that again: "more than double what it made in all of 2003." In a single month! And 2003 wasn't exactly what you would call a slow year at the Bakersfield refinery. According to Shell documents obtained by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, "Bakersfield's refining margin at $23.01 per barrel, or about 55 cents profit per gallon, topped all of Shell's refineries in the nation."
(http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=114-04062004)


Let's pause briefly here to review the situation, shall we? There is a product (gasoline) that is in great demand, and that will always be in great demand, since the product has what economists like to call an "inelastic" demand curve; for many months now, that product has been selling for record-breaking prices, especially in the state of California, and there is no indication that that situation will change anytime soon; there are abundant local resources with which to produce that coveted product; and, finally, there is a ridiculously profitable facility that is ideally located to manufacture and market that product.


Given that situation, what response would we normally expect from that facility's parent corporation? Sit back and let the good times roll? Attempt to increase production at the facility and rake in even greater profits? Sell the facility and make a windfall profit? Or, tossing logic and rationality to the wind, shut the facility down and walk away?


That last one, of course, is what Shell has chosen to do. And this story, believe it or not, gets even better:
The internal documents obtained by the Times, including a refinery output forecast, indicate that Bakersfield will soon be producing far less than its capacity. After relatively high output rates in May and early June, Shell plans to cut crude oil processing about 6% in July and another 6% in August, according to the forecast. Those two months are when California's fuel demand reaches annual peak levels.
Aamir Farid, the general manager of the Bakersfield refinery, was asked the reason for the plan to reduce output at the time of peak demand. Farid claimed that he was not aware of any such plan, but he added that if there was such a plan, "there is a good reason for it." However, he also added that, "off the top of my head, I don't know what that good reason is."

And why would he? Certainly the manager of the refinery can't be expected to know why his facility is planning to dramatically reduce output, can he? The best explanation that Farid could come up with was to speculate that there "could be maintenance planned or projections for a shortfall of crude." Neither of those scenarios are very plausible, however.


Bakersfield, whose suburbs include Oildale and Oil Junction, won't likely be facing a shortfall of crude anytime soon. And as for the notion of planned maintenance, I doubt that anyone actually believes that Shell plans to perform two months worth of maintenance work on a facility that will be permanently shuttered just one month after that work is completed.


To be fair, I suppose it could be the case that Shell, being the benevolent giant that it is, wants to get the place in tip-top shape for the new owners -- except that there are no new owners, primarily because "Shell didn't search out potential buyers for the refinery once it decided to shutter it." Indeed, Shell actively avoided finding a buyer for the plant (which became a fully-owned Shell asset just three short years ago), since any new owner would probably object to the bulldozers and wrecking balls that Shell plans to bring in just as soon as the refinery's doors have closed. ("FTCR uncovered a timetable showing decommissioning and demolition are set to begin immediately after the refinery's shut down date." http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=114-04062004)


Can any of you 'Peak Oil' boosters out there think of any legitimate reason why a purely profit-driven corporation would acquire an outrageously profitable asset and then proceed to deliberately destroy that asset? ... because I have to tell you, I have been struggling to come up with an explanation on my own and the only one that I've got so far is that the corporation might be involved in some kind of conspiracy to manufacture an artificial shortage of a crucial commodity. I know that 'Peak Oil' theory holds that we don't need the refinery capacity because, you know, we're running out of oil and all, but that doesn't explain why a tremendously profitable refinery isn't being kept in operation at least until all the local wells have run dry, does it?


Shell will, by the way, continue to operate its Martinez, California refinery -- for now at least. The Martinez facility is also wildly profitable, showing a "net profit of $34 million in May." That tidy profit was, as it turns out, "just shy of Shell's profit expectations at Martinez for all of 2004." Strangely enough, the Martinez facility, like the one in Bakersfield, "cut crude processing in July, by nearly 10%, a reduction attributed to planned heavy maintenance."


It's always a good idea, I suppose, to schedule heavy maintenance work during times of peak energy demand. That's the kind of intelligent business decision we would expect from a corporate giant with decades of experience in the energy business.

On July 8, the LA Times, armed with yet more internal company documents and an unnamed company whistleblower, revisited the story of the Bakersfield refinery. As of July 1, it was discovered, Shell had "reduced crude oil processing at the refinery to levels 19% below capacity" -- more than triple the unexplained reduction that had been planned for the facility.
(Elizabeth Douglas "FTC Probing Shell's Plan to Shut Refinery," Los Angeles Times, July 8, 2004)


According to both company documents and the unnamed employee, "there were no problems with the plant's equipment," and no other explanation was offered for the radical reduction in processing -- undoubtedly because there is no legitimate reason for the decreased output. So obvious is the company's intent to artificially tighten gasoline and diesel supplies that the FTC was obliged, for the sake of appearances, to step in and pretend to launch an investigation. Shell's response to the investigation has been to delay the closing of the refinery for a few months while it goes through the motions of pretending to find a buyer.


In completely unrelated news, a July 31 LA Times report announced that "profit at ChevronTexaco Corp. more than doubled during the second quarter ... echo[ing] the strong quarterly results reported by other major U.S. oil refiners this week." ChevronTexaco's profit jumped from $1.6 billion to $4.1 billion. Not too shabby. Three days later, the Times reported that Unocal's earnings for that same quarter had nearly doubled, from $177 million to $341 million.
(Debora Vrana "Chevron Profit Soars," Los Angeles Times, July 31, 2004, and Julie Tamaki "Unocal's Earnings Nearly Double," Los Angeles Times, August 3, 2004)


Nobody should conclude from any of this, of course, that inflated fuel prices are attributable to rampant greed and the quest for obscene profits. No, clearly rising fuel prices are a sign of 'Peak Oil.' Just ask Mike Ruppert and Mark Robinowitz. Or better yet, bypass the flunkies and go directly to the scriptwriters at Halliburton and the Club of Rome.


* * * * * * * * * *


Speaking of Ruppert, I thought that I should, as a favor to you, big Mike, point out what appears to be a slight inconsistency in your research methodology. I do this to provide you with an opportunity to correct the problem, so that people don't get the impression that you are the kind of guy who doesn't let the truth get in the way of advancing an agenda.


While attempting to justify your unwavering refusal to focus any attention whatsoever on the so-called 'physical evidence' portion of the 9-11 skeptics' case, you have loudly proclaimed that pursuing that approach "will never penetrate the consciousness of the American people in a way that will bring about change. What will penetrate, from my experience, is taking non-scientific reports that most people instantly accept as credible, whether news reports or government statements or documents, and merely showing that they are lies. That opens the wedge, and removes any reliance upon expert or scientific testimony which is typically used to confuse simple facts."

I trust that you remember penning those words. And I trust that you also remember penning these words, which you felt compelled to send on their merry way to my mailbox: "I challenge you to an open, public debate on the subject of Peak Oil ... I challenge you to bring scientific material, production data and academic references and citations for your conclusions like I have .. I will throw more than 500 footnoted citations at you from unimpeachable sources. Be prepared to eat them or rebut them with something more than you have offered."

Do you see the problem here? It almost sounds like you are saying that there are completely different rules for conducting 9-11 research than there are for conducting 'Peak Oil' research. By my reading, what you seem to be saying is that sometimes you want to avoid the scientific stuff at all costs and instead focus solely on demonstrating that "news reports or government statements or documents ... are lies," because that will "penetrate the consciousness of the American people." But at other times, you want to rely exclusively on all that expert scientific testimony - the kind that is "typically used to confuse simple facts" - and you want to pretend that the media reports and government statements that you are citing are "unimpeachable sources."

I have to admit that it is all very confusing to me, but luckily we have a seasoned, world-class investigator out there who knows, intuitively perhaps, which of the two completely contradictory techniques to employ in a given situation. The rest of us, I suppose, lacking invaluable LAPD training, can only aspire to such greatness.


* * * * * * * * * *


So ... I was taking care of some important business the other day, and being a multi-tasking kind of guy, I was also idly leafing through a copy of one of Uncle John's Bathroom Readers. Now, Uncle John is not normally one of my primary sources of information, but I happened to stumble across a subject that immediately caught my attention: underground coal fires (I later conducted a Google search on "underground coal fires" to verify the information provided by Uncle John).

I learned that, although underground coal fires are a common phenomenon, most people are completely unaware that they occur. How common are they? At any given time, thousands of coal veins are ablaze around the world. In China's northwestern province of Xinjiang alone, there are currently about 2,000 underground coal fires burning. Indonesia currently hosts as many as 1,000.


Some of these fires have been burning for thousands of years; Burning Mountain Nature Reserve, for example, in New South Wales, Australia, has been aflame for an estimated 5,500 years. Other coal fires are of more recent vintage, often started through the actions of the notoriously destructive human species. But underground coal fires long predate mankind's proclivity for starting them, and many of the fires burning today are due to entirely natural causes.


New Scientist noted, in February 2003, that "coal seam fires have occurred spontaneously far back into geological history." ("Wild Coal Fires are a 'Global Catastrophe'," New Scientist, February 14, 2003) Radio Nederland added that "Geological evidence from China suggests that underground coal fires have been occurring naturally for at least one million years." (Anne Blair Gould "Underground Fires Stoke Global Warming," Radio Nederland, March 10, 2003)


And how much coal, you may be wondering, do these fires consume annually? No one can say with any certainty, but it is estimated that in China alone, some 200 million tons of coal go up in smoke every year. That's a hell of a lot of coal. More coal than China exports, in fact. In other words, the world's leading coal exporter loses more coal to underground fires than it produces for export.


"Very interesting," you say, "but what does any of this have to do with 'Peak Oil'?" Glad you asked. Coal is, you see, a member of the same hydrocarbon family as oil and natural gas, and it is, like gas and oil, claimed to be a 'fossil fuel' created in finite, non-renewable quantities at a specific time in the earth's history (when the stars were, I'm guessing, in the proper alignment). And yet this allegedly precious and limited resource has been burning off at the rate of millions of tons per year, year in and year out, for at least a million years, and probably much longer.


This raises, in my mind at least, one very obvious question: how is it possible that nature has been taking an extremely heavy toll on the globe's 'fossil fuels' for hundreds of thousands of years (at the very least), without depleting the reserves that were supposedly created long, long ago; and yet man, who has been extracting and burning 'fossil fuels' for the mere blink of an eye, geologically speaking, has managed to nearly strip the planet clean?

Is it not perfectly clear that that is a proposition that is absurd on its face -- so much so that it is remarkable that the 'fossil fuel' myth has passed muster for as long as it has? Nevertheless, that entirely illogical myth is the cornerstone on which an even bigger lie - the myth of 'Peak Oil' - is built. Go figure.


* * * * * * * * * *


I have much more 'Peak Oil' stuff yet to come, but for now I have to get back to watching the Olympics. The games thus far have been a thrill to watch, and the commentary is ... well, what can I say about the commentary? About the best thing I can say, I suppose, is that it is at times unintentionally hilarious. The best advice that I could offer to Costas and Co. would be to maybe try a slightly less arrogant and nationalistic approach -- especially while America's athletes are being outclassed pretty much across the board, even in sports that we invented. One nice change in the coverage this year, by the way, is that we aren't having the "medal count" constantly shoved in our faces. I wonder why that is?

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr64.html

______________

Annat- detta är från mail jag sänt... därför står det som det gör...

Kan komplettera med en lite äldre artikel som visar på att det är uppvärmning i hela solsystemet - eller det är denna gång mars det gäller, vilket ocksdå tidigare sagts här.
Uppvärmning på mars på grund av CO2 på jorden... dumma CO2 - vakna.

Climate change hits Mars
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

_____


Hoaxet om man made global warming:

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/20 ... ming-will-kill-6-billion/

Alex Jones har aldrig kommit fram med några fakta. Allt han säger är bara gissningar. Han låter väldigt mycket som en sektledare. Ibland tycker jag synd om honom, men jag har mycket svårt att ta honom på allvar.

Vetenskap är ingen religion. Hur kom du på det och kan du förklara hur du hittar kopplingen mellan de två så olika sakerna, för jag kan definiera skilnaderna direkt (fast jag känner att jag slöser bort min tid)? Det är lite barnsligt att komma med sådana påståenden. Du vägrar ta in information och ifrågasätta den informaitonen du har.

Ja, ryska ekonomer påstår att deras gasresurser är oändlig, men det är ett faktum att deras olja peakade 1986 och 3 år efter var sojvetblockets ekonomi (som var ett slutet system) helt förstörd. Inte minst det, men Regan halverade dollarvärdet på en natt, så Ryssland fick ingenting för det lilla oljan de kunde exportera. Jag ser ingen anledning att ta ekonomer på allvar för de är aldrig objektiva. Ryssland precis som USA är ett döende imperium som försöker vakna upp, så ta dina källor med Alex Jones i spetsen med en nypa salt

MVH

Another problem for me is defining Science and Religion. In order to have a discussion about the apparent differences, we may overlook the similarities. Science has (in my worldview) two meanings. These two meanings correspond in form to (in analogy) a verb and a noun. There is the "body of knowledge" which is accepted by "scientists," and there is the philosophy, which is narrower in scope and less understood. I will regard the "accepted body of knowledge" version here.

To most "lay people" (whatever that means) science IS a religion. They have accepted the "facts" of the experts without doing their own empirical studies, and accept the stories as "true" just as in older times, people accepted the stories and proclamations of priests. Naturally, they require faith to do this. In no way am I suggesting that this process is "wrong." I, too, accept many things on faith proclaimed by experts. We have to, really, but it is better to be conscious of the process and importance of faith in this realm.

For example, if someone says "man evolved from the apes" and they have not investigated the idea for themselves, or attempted to understand the theory of evolution in any depth, then surely they are practising in essence, religion?

Many cultures do not divide wisdom and thought in this artificial way at all (science/religion). I regard science as "myth" in that science tells stories (builds models) of the world as myth has always done. Science tells stories which many people accept as good because they allow us to manipulate the world, especially the material world, but they may be incomplete stories because they don't tell us why we shouldn't. Myth in some cultures has always told a more complete story which included "religion," art, morality and wisdom of other kinds.

Man har en "Tro" pånågot så länge det funkar...

It is biased to focus upon Darwin's theory whilst excluding all other scientific theories in the debate. As far as one can tell the whole argument hinges on the premise that a theory that fits all the facts may not be true and a supernatural influence is the actual answer. For this reason I have included gravity in the discussion as it illuminates the whole argument. Newton's theory of gravity was demonstrated to be incorrect - so the most current theory of gravity, by Albert Einstein, is used as a very serious example. It is the example that gives modern science its own creation story (the big bang), so I feel it is the most important theory to discuss. (Others may wish to include quantum mechanics or electromagnetism - all theories that just happen to fit observations amazingly well!) Astrophysicist 11:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[...]

All of these are abstract concepts that are accepted on faith. That is, consensual definitions. Truly, they are effective. Truly, they achieve things. Truly, they do not exist in the entire cosmos except as the result of the human mind. They are abstractions. They posses no physical reality. They do not exist in the material universe. This is precisely the objection that so-called scientists have to religion.

They object that the fundamental premises of religion are faith based and they do not exist in the material world. Show me god, they say. Show me the spirit, they say. I say show me a 5. No, not the symbol of a 5. No, not 5 things. These are indirect and are not 5 itself. Show me 5. You can not. It does not exist. Except for one instance: I and you accept that it exists and begin our operations based upon that consensual agreement.

It is the epistemological basis of all language. Humans can not separate themselves from the cosmos and objectively analyze it. It is impossible. Nice goal, but it isn’t going to happen. You are a part of the experiment. You bring your entire civilization’s collective consciousness with you.

And the worst expression of this is the dogmatic scientists. The corporate scientists. I equate a corporate scientist with the ugliest most disgusting fundamentalist evangelical mega-church figurehead; paid, with an agenda: to make money. To advance a dogma, not to discover a truth. To these people, truth is subservient to the Bottom Line. Science becomes nothing more than a rhetorical tool to advance a goal. Marketing. Public Relations. Just like the worst kind of religion. It advances a dogmatically determined social structure. Posits it as the only possible alternative and then bases all of its findings off of that pre-determined conclusion.



This is both the opposite of science and the opposite of religion. I defend neither religion nor science. I dispute the need for neither science nor religion. Both are effective and useful. But I do not care how many iterations of checking and double checking, confirmation and verification you do, you still have premises that are based on Abstractions of the Human Consciousness. Whether you are a Scientist or a Priest, you can not escape that. And, therefore, you have no claim on Absolute Truth. You only have claim on a Perspective.

So do not try to tell me there is absolute scientific evidence of anything. We knew how to make fire long before we understood combustion. And understanding combustion does not mean we understand light or energy. We have a perspective. You have a perspective. That is all. You are welcome to the arrogance of thinking it is more than that, but do not expect me to be fooled.



And do not try to tell me there is an absolute word of god. All you have is words that you have interpreted. Like as not, you do not even have the experience that informs those words. You have a perspective. That is all. In your spiritual Pride, you can tell me what right is and what wrong is, but you do not know the ultimate consequences of all things. So pretend to your arrogance.

But, again, I am not fooled.

The end of science?
by Theodore Schick Jr.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Why do many now view science as a failed ideology rather than as an epistemological ideal? Should science be viewed that way?

A little over six years ago, I attended the twenty-fifth annual Nobel conference, the only program outside of Sweden and Norway sanctioned by the Nobel Foundation. It was entitled, "The End of Science?" John Horgan, senior writer for Scientific American, has recently written a book of the same name (Horgan 1996). The subject of both of these inquiries is not the impending solution of certain scientific problems, but the impending dissolution of science itself. What prompted these projects is the growing belief that science is not the royal road to the truth. There is a view abroad in the land that science is more of an ideology than a methodology, and thus that it cannot legitimately claim to have a corner on reality. No one expresses this view more pugnaciously than the late philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend. He writes:

Science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without ever having examined its advantages and its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should be left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution. Such a separation may be our only chance to achieve a humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realized. (Feyerabend 1975, 295)

In Feyerabend's view, science is a religion, for it rests on certain dogmas that cannot be rationally justified. Thus, accepting it requires a leap of faith. But just as government has no business teaching religion in the public schools, it has no business teaching science either. In a truly democratic society, people would be as free to choose their epistemology as their political party.

The Nobel prize-winning physicist Sheldon Glashow spoke at the twenty-fifth Nobel conference in an attempt to counter these sorts of claims. His response consisted of the following "cosmic catechism": "We believe that the world is knowable, that there are simple rules governing the behavior of matter and the evolution of the universe...[and that] any intelligent alien anywhere would have come upon the same logical system as we have to explain the structure of protons and the nature of supernovae. This statement I cannot prove, this statement I cannot justify. This is my faith" (Glashow 1989, 24). Instead of refuting Feyerabend, however, Glashow vindicated him. For he admitted that his belief in the objectivity of science is simply a matter of faith. It's no wonder that science's stock has fallen so precipitously in recent years.

Scientists' ignorance of the philosophical underpinnings of their enterprise has not gone unnoticed. In 1986, biology Nobelist Sir Peter Medawar commented:

Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be, and he will adopt an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare. (Quoted in Theocharis and Psimopoulos 1987, 595)

Scientists are a philosophically naive lot. But this naiveté does not come without a price. Because most scientists can't justify their methodology, Feyerabend's claims have gone largely unanswered. As a result, Feyerabend's position has become prominent in both academia and the public at large. This has arguably led not only to the rise of pseudoscience and religious fundamentalism, but also to a shrinking pool of scientific jobs and research funds. As physicists T. Theocharis and M. Psimopoulos lament in their article "Where Science Has Gone Wrong":

Having lost their monopoly in the production of knowledge, scientists have also lost their privileged status in society. Thus the rewards to the creators of science's now ephemeral and disposable theories are currently being reduced to accord with their downgraded and devalued work, and with science's diminished ambitions. (Theocharis and Psimopoulos 1987, 595)

The rise of Feyerabend's view of science, they claim, is the "most fundamental and yet the least recognized cause" of the decline in science funding in the West. So don't let anyone tell you that philosophy has no practical import. If Theocharis and Psimopoulos are right, philosophy has put a number of scientists out of work.

Feyerabend once proclaimed that scientists "have more money, more authority, more sex appeal than they deserve, and the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size, and to give them a more modest position in society" (Feyerabend 1975, 304). It appears that he has done just that.

How did this happen? Why is science increasingly viewed as a failed ideology rather than as an epistemological ideal? Let's take a closer look at the arguments underlying Feyerabend's position.

Popper, Induction, and Falsifiability

Ironically, one of those most responsible for the diminished view of science is one who was firmly convinced of its superiority: Sir Karl Popper. Although Popper believed that scientific theories were better than nonscientific ones, he argued that the traditional inductive conception of science was mistaken.

According to inductivism, scientific method consists of three steps: (1) observe, (2) induce a hypothesis, (3) confirm the hypothesis through additional observations and tests. Popper objected to all three of these steps on the grounds that scientists do not - and cannot - follow them.

Popper found the notion that scientific inquiry begins with an observation ludicrous. He writes:

Twenty-five years ago I tried to bring home the same point to a group of physics students in Vienna by beginning a lecture with the following instructions: "Take pencil and paper; carefully observe, and write down what you have observed!" They asked, of course, what I wanted them to observe. Clearly the instruction, "Observe!" is absurd. (It is not even idiomatic, unless the object of the transitive verb can be taken as understood.) Observation is always selective. It needs a chosen object, a definite task, an interest, a point of view, a problem. (Popper 1965, 46)

For Popper, a scientific investigation begins with a hypothesis. For without a hypothesis to guide research, scientists would have no way of distinguishing relevant from irrelevant data.

Popper also objected to the view that enumerative induction was used to generate scientific hypotheses. Many theories, such as the atomic theory, the genetic theory, and the gravitational theory, postulate entities or forces that are not mentioned in their data. Consequently, they cannot be arrived at through enumerative induction.

Finally, he claimed, no universal generalization can be conclusively confirmed, for we can never be sure that we have examined all the relevant data. It is always possible that we will discover something that will overturn even the most well-established theory. Thus, he viewed science as the attempt to falsify rather than verify hypotheses. Besides, he thought, finding confirming instances of a theory is far too easy (Popper 1990, 104-10).

The most significant problem for inductivism, however, was first recognized by eighteenth-century empiricist David Hume. Hume noted that enumerative induction rests on the principle that the future will resemble the past. But this principle cannot be proven deductively, for it cannot be deduced from self-evident truths; and it cannot be proven inductively, for that would beg the question. So if science rests on induction, it rests on a dogma. And if it rests on a dogma, it is not a purely rational enterprise. So there may be more to Feyerabend's position than mere posturing.

By construing science as the attempt to falsify rather than verify hypotheses, Popper thought that he could avoid the problem of induction and distinguish real science from pseudoscience. The success of a test does not entail the truth of the hypothesis under investigation. But, he believed, the failure of a test does entail its falsity. So if science is viewed as a search for refutations rather than confirmations, the problem of induction drops out and the mark of a scientific theory becomes its ability to be refuted. Thus we have Popper's famous demarcation criterion: a theory is scientific if it is falsifiable. If there is no possible observation that would count against it, it is not scientific.

It was soon realized, however, that hypotheses can no more be conclusively falsified than they can be conclusively verified, for a hypothesis cannot be tested in isolation. Physicist-philosopher Pierre Duhem and logician Willard Van Orman Quine have convincingly demonstrated that hypotheses have testable consequences only in the context of certain background assumptions. If a test fails, it is always possible to maintain the hypothesis in question by rejecting one or more of the background assumptions.

Moreover, Popper's demarcation criterion is far too weak to distinguish science from pseudoscience. According to Popper, a theory is scientific as long as there is some possible state of affairs whose actual occurrence would refute the theory. By this criterion, however, astrology, creationism, and Immanuel Velikovsky's theory of planetary development would all be scientific theories, for they all imply propositions that could turn out to be false. Popper's demarcation criterion, therefore, lets in too much; it grants scientific status to theories that don't seem to deserve it.

Thus we have arrived at an impasse. We can't establish science's superiority by viewing it as an attempt to verify theories through induction, and we can't establish its superiority by viewing it as an attempt to falsify theories through deduction. Perhaps Feyerabend is right that there is no way to prove the superiority of science.

Kuhn, Paradigms, and Relativism

Philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn and Feyerabend argue that neither verification nor falsification can establish the objectivity of science because both assume that data are independent of theory. They claim, on the contrary, that all observation is theory-laden, for all perception involves conceptualization. Since each theory manufactures its own data, there is no neutral data that can be used to adjudicate among competing theories. As a result, theories are "incommensurable."

Kuhn and Feyerabend see science primarily as a puzzle-solving exercise. The rules for solving particular puzzles are contained in a "paradigm." A paradigm defines for scientists what sorts of puzzles are worth solving and what sorts of methods will solve them. From time to time, however, certain puzzles or "anomalies" arise that cannot be solved within the existing paradigm. When the cognitive dissonance created by these puzzles becomes too great, the scientific community undergoes a "paradigm shift." Kuhn describes the effects of a paradigm shift this way:

Examining the record of past research from the vantage of contemporary historiography, the historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them. Led by a new paradigm, scientists adopt new instruments and look in new places. Even more important, during revolutions scientists see new and different things when looking with familiar instruments in places they have looked before. It is rather as if the professional community had been suddenly transported to another planet where familiar objects are seen in a different light and are joined by unfamiliar ones as well. Of course, nothing of quite that sort does occur: there is no geographical transplantation; outside the laboratory everyday affairs usually continue as before. Nevertheless, paradigm changes do cause scientists to see the world of their research engagement differently. In so far as their only recourse to that world is through what they see and do, we may want to say that after a revolution scientists are responding to a different world. (Kuhn 1970, 111)

In Kuhn's view, scientists don't discover the nature of reality; they create it. There is no way the world is, for each paradigm makes its own world. It's easy to see why such views raise questions about the end of science. If there is no truth with a capital "T," then, of course, it makes no sense to say that scientists have a monopoly on it.

To determine whether we should we accept this view of science, we need to examine its implications.

If what we perceive is determined by the paradigm we accept, then it should be impossible to perceive anything that doesn't fit our paradigm. But if it's impossible to perceive anything that doesn't fit our paradigm, it's impossible for there to be any anomalies. And if it's impossible for there to be any anomalies, it's impossible for there to be any paradigm shifts. So if we accept Kuhn and Feyerabend's theory of perception, we must reject their history of science.

Moreover, recent neurophysiological research has shown that all perception does not involve conceptualization. Psychologist Edward Hundert explains:

If someone loses the primary visual cortex (say, because of a tumor), they lose their vision; they go almost totally blind. But if they just lose the secondary or tertiary visual cortex, they manifest an unusual condition called visual agnosia. In this condition, visual acuity is normal (the person could correctly identify the orientation of the "E's" on an eye chart). But they lose the ability to identify, name, or match even simple objects in any part of their visual field...This model can be translated into psychological terms as endorsing a functional distinction between "perception" (input analysis) and "cognition" (central processing)...

It is easy to see the evolutionary advantage of this whole scheme, with its "upward" input analysis: if our transducers were hooked directly to our central systems, we would spend most of our time seeing (hearing, etc.) the world the way we remember, believe, or expect the world to be. The recognition of novelty - of unexpected stimuli - has extremely obvious evolutionary advantage, and is made possible only by the separation of transducers and central systems by "dumb" input analyzers. (Hundert 1987, 413, 420-21)

Neurophysiological research suggests that not all observation is theory-laden, for there are two types of observation: discrimination and recognition. Recognition may involve the use of concepts, but discrimination does not. For if it did, we could never perceive anything new.

Finally, if all research is conducted within a paradigm, then Kuhn's and Feyerabend's research itself must have been conducted within a paradigm. But if their research was conducted within a paradigm, its results cannot be considered to be universally true. We can say of Kuhn's findings, then, what Feyerabend says of science in general, namely, that "it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology." The proper response to a Kuhnian or a Feyerabendian, then, is the one that philosopher Alan Garfinkle gives to the relativists in his philosophy classes: "You may not be coming from where I'm coming from, but I know relativism isn't true for me" (quoted in Putnam 1981, 119).

Much more could be said on this topic. But it's important to realize that scientists need not recite a catechism when faced with claims of the sort made by Kuhn and Feyerabend.

Science, Justification, and Belief

Can science be shown to be a superior means of acquiring knowledge? Yes it can, but only by showing that it is more likely to yield justified beliefs than any other methodology. Thus the real issue is not whether a belief is scientific or pseudoscientific but whether it is justified or unjustified.

We are justified in believing something to be true when it provides the best explanation of the evidence. Science is superior to other methods of inquiry because it usually provides better explanations than they do. The goodness of an explanation is determined by the amount of understanding it produces, and the amount of understanding an explanation produces is determined by how much it systematizes and unifies our knowledge. The extent to which an explanation does this can be determined by appealing to various criteria of adequacy such as simplicity, scope, conservatism, and fruitfulness. No one wants to hold unjustified beliefs. The problem is that most people never learn the difference between a good explanation and a bad one. Consequently they come to believe all sorts of weird things for no good reason.

Must science come to an end? Not necessarily. But unless scientists become more philosophically sophisticated, their apologetics will continue to ring hollow. And unless our educational system focuses more on teaching students how to think than on what to think, our populace will become increasingly credulous. Scientists and educators alike need to realize that the educated person is not the person who can answer the questions, but the person who can question the answers. In our age of rapidly changing information, knowing how to distinguish truth from falsity is more important than knowing what was once considered true and false. Only a person who knows the difference between a justified and an unjustified belief can truly appreciate the value of scientific inquiry.

References

Feyerabend, Paul. 1975. Against Method. London: Verso.

Glashow, Sheldon. 1989. We believe that the world is knowable. New York Times, October 22.

Horgan, John. 1996. The End of Science. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.

Hundert, Edward. 1987. Can neuroscience contribute to philosophy? In Mindwaves, edited by Colin Blakemore and Susan Greenfield. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Popper, Karl. 1965. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

-----. 1990. Science: conjectures and refutations. In Philosophy of Science and the Occult, edited by Patrick Grim. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Putnam, Hilary. 1981. Reason, Truth, and History Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Theocharis, T. and M. Psimopoulos. 1987. Where science has gone wrong. Nature 329 (October).

Theodore Schick Jr. is a professor of philosophy at Muhlenberg College, Allentown, PA 18104, and co-author (with Lewis Vaughn) of How To Think About Weird Things. He received his B.A. from Harvard University and his Ph.D. in philosophy from Brown University. He has published numerous articles on epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, and ethics in such journals as Skeptic, International Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Idealistic Studies, Thought, The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, The Journal of Aesthetic Education, and Dialog.

Man kan kolla i denna tråd för att läsa om "Peak oil" och petroleums ursprung.

http://vaken.se/modules/newbb/viewtop ... ASC&type=&mode=0&start=10

Mitt bättre hälft Noxax och 9-2 postar där en del om det (9-2 har inget usernamn kvar där såg jag)

I do not agree with "your" definition of science. Science is not a constant. Knowledge has been developed and completed all the time. The process is the base for sicence and it is supposed to continiue to infinity. If someone comes with more convincing arguments, with more facts and proofs, a previous scientific statement can be cancelled with a new one, or be developed in another direction. However religion is a constant where reformation is highly unacceptable. Whenever someone has tried to reform a religion, this person had been murdered or just this person created a "new religion". As simple said as possible - sicence change and is based on development, while religion is a constant and conservative system of statements where argumentation and proof are not needed.

Men varför i hel... skriver du på engelska? Har du kopierat och klistrat någon annans tankar eller har du själv kommit på det och det bara poppade ut på engelska Never mind!

Ha det bra!

Quote:

Det är som du förstår vad andra sagt/skrivit.

Kommentarer om DET...

Näää, jag har faktiskt lite svårt att förstå vad du menar ibland.

Jag kan inte fröstå vad har Bilderberggruppen med trovärdigheten av Michael Ruppert att göra. Vad vill du säga? Vad har det med Peak Oil och den geologiska argumentaitonen att göra? Skillnaden mellan M. Ruppert som jag respekterar mycket, sett massor med föreläsnngar och läst Crossing the Rubicon är att han är en person som samlar och lägger fram fakta. Han sitter inte och gissar och hittar på. Det är skillnad mellan tro och vetande. Det M.Ruppert lägger fram som fakta är ganska obekvämt för Bilderberggruppen, så jag vet inte alls hur du kommer till dessa konstiga och ologiska slutsatser. Han pratar inte så mycket om Bilderbergsgruppen och frimurarna för det finns alldeles för lite fakta (bevis) om deras verksamhet som man kan lägga fram och då är det inte trovärdigt att han sitter och gissar som Alex Jones. Jag ifrågasättar inte att dom finns, men du måste väl ha nog med ekonomiska kunskaper för att fatta att ingen av dessa hemliga organisationer/klubbar har intresse av Peak Oil. TVÄRT OM!

Sen att ta fram exemplar med enskilda rafinaderier är ganska löjligt. En rafinaderi kan stänga av hundra olika orsak. Jag fattar verkligen inte vart vill du komma och vad vill du säga. Försök att vara lite konkret och kortfattat. Du ger mig ingen ny information, om du vill överaska mig på något sätt, så du vet. Men som sagt, jag är lite skeptisk mot gissningar.

Och till sist, vad av allt du skrev vill du att jag skall kommentera om?

MVH