Author Dave McGowan refutes the "Peak Oil" scam ala Ruppert...

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr52.html

On February 29, 2004, I received the following e-mail message from Michael Ruppert of From the Wilderness:

<snip>
I challenge you to an open, public debate on the subject of Peak Oil; any time, any place after March 13th 2004. I challenge you to bring scientific material, production data and academic references and citations for your conclusions like I have. I suggest a mutually acceptable panel of judges and I will put up $1,000 towards a purse to go to the winner of that debate. I expect you to do the same. And you made a dishonest and borderline libelous statement when you suggested that I am somehow pleased that these wars of aggression have taken place to secure oil. My message all along has been, “Not in my name!”
Put your money where your mouth is. But first I suggest you do some homework. Ad hominem attacks using the word “bullshit”, unsupported by scientific data are a sign of intellectual weakness (at best). 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.

<snip>

y question is: if Ruppert is not selling the necessity of war, then
exactly what is the message that he is sending to readers with such
doomsday forecasts? At the end of a recent posting, Ruppert quotes
dialogue from the 1975 Sidney Pollack film, Three Days of the Condor:
(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/013004_in_your_face.html)
Higgins: ...It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In 10 or 15
years - food, Plutonium. And maybe even sooner. Now what do you think
the people are gonna want us to do then?

Hit the link for the complete, albeit long, article...

I love dave, he totally rocks.

All I can say is, I hope Dave is right.

Another layer of the onion?

his body of work speaks for itself.

But this article which supposedly "refutes" Peak Oil is a bunch of crap. Bascially McGowan is arguing that oil isn't a fossil fuel by arguing that, theoretically, oil can be formed inroganically. Yes, theoretically speaking, oil can be formed inorganically. However, the world's supply of cheap oil is of organic origin. The supply that we depend on for cheap energy is of organic origin. It is being depleted. Oil prices will rise dramatically. The theoretical possibility of inorganic petroleum will not prevent this inevitability.

... I find his claim that the Russians have proven to their own satisfaction that oil is not organic to be pretty convincing.

What he did fail to spell out is how long it takes for oil to be created by the processes he cites. Just because it doesn't take dinosaurs doesn't mean it doesn't take a very very long time .

http://www.changingworldtech.com/home.html

HOWEVER, you are correct in stating that such technologies would never be able to keep up with the already massive and increasing demands for organic petroleum that we face in the present and near future.

you linked to a site that promotes bio-derived oil, right??

I was simply pointing out that there have developed other means for extracting it. Being able to generate oil from waste of any kind would be a great thing -- but we are still deluding ourselves if we think that it will solve our energy needs.

You are correct in stating that we do not have technologies for actually manufacturing oil.

have been doing their homework about peak oil for some time now. Their linked supporting data is substantial.

If you are looking for a "message" being sent by Ruppert, you are looking too hard. What peak oil represents is a single valid constant which can stand as an underlying motive and explanation for much of the global geopolitical strife of the past 25 years.

Nothing else goes so far as to providing an understandable paradigm which encompasses everything from 9.11 to Enron to our gov't's conflicts w/ Venezuala.

Ruppert is to be applauded for all of his efforts over the years.