Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak oil debate

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Armageddon » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 11:58:11

I didnt even think of Matt Savinar. I think George Noory listened to my idea. He asked Matt to come back for a round table debate last night with Corsi. Corsi told me he would do another debate anytime. Sounds like fun. Get ALL your facts togather Matt, because Corsi is a good debater. Corsi tried to pull that oil doesnt come from dinosaur crap against Rupport, so tell him DUH !!!!. I gave round 1 to Corsi when he went against Rupport. Corsi's BS shined through on that occasion.
Last edited by Armageddon on Fri 19 Jan 2007, 18:38:09, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5399
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby MattSavinar » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 14:22:27

armegeddon wrote:I Sounds like fun. Get ALL your facts togather Matt, because Corsi is a good debater..



Facts? There is really only one central to this debate: 40,000 oil fields across the world and not a single one shows any sign of refilling.
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby MD » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 14:31:15

MattSavinar wrote:
armegeddon wrote:I Sounds like fun. Get ALL your facts togather Matt, because Corsi is a good debater..



Facts? There is really only one central to this debate: 40,000 oil fields across the world and not a single one shows any sign of refilling.


There is that one down in the gulf that is refillling from a deeper reservoir...it got the abiotic folks all creamy, remember?
Damn exceptions always getting in the way, eh?
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4951
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby NEOPO » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 14:35:14

So how did it go?
I am not paying AM coast to coast to listen to it 8)
It is easier to enslave a people that wish to remain free then it is to free a people who wish to remain enslaved.
User avatar
NEOPO
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3589
Joined: Sun 15 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: THE MATRIX

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby MattSavinar » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 14:38:57

MD wrote:
MattSavinar wrote:
armegeddon wrote:I Sounds like fun. Get ALL your facts togather Matt, because Corsi is a good debater..



Facts? There is really only one central to this debate: 40,000 oil fields across the world and not a single one shows any sign of refilling.


There is that one down in the gulf that is refillling from a deeper reservoir...it got the abiotic folks all creamy, remember?
Damn exceptions always getting in the way, eh?


You mean Eugene Island 330? it's production is down 85% since it peaked 30 years ago.

Go here and scroll till you see the graph:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Abiotic.html

"Damn that google images search engine" I hear the abiotic duo(Jerome and George) crying.
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby MattSavinar » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 14:43:24

armegeddon wrote:I didnt even think of Matt Savinar. I think George Noory listened to my idea. He asked Matt to come back for a round table debate last night with Corsi. Corsi told me he would do another debate anytime. Sounds like fun. Get ALL your facts togather Matt, because Corsi is a good debater. Corsi tried to pull that oil doesnt come from dinosaur crap against Rupport, so tell him DUH !!!!. I gave round to Corsi when he went against Rupport. Corsi's BS shined through on that occasion.


I will not debate Corsi. He is a neocon operative tied directly to Bush and Cheney.

Bush and Cheney likely saw Ruppert as an immerging threat. They dispatched Corsi to debate him.

Same for Scott Ritter.

I'm not looking to tread in those waters.

Alex Jones, somebody I respect (unlike Corsi), also believes in abiotic oil. I would be glad to debate/discsuss the matter on air with him.

If I whip Jerome's ass he might go crying to Dick Cheney and you know what he does to attorneys. (I'm joking but not entirely.)
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby MD » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 14:50:16

MattSavinar wrote:
MD wrote:
MattSavinar wrote:
armegeddon wrote:I Sounds like fun. Get ALL your facts togather Matt, because Corsi is a good debater..



Facts? There is really only one central to this debate: 40,000 oil fields across the world and not a single one shows any sign of refilling.


There is that one down in the gulf that is refillling from a deeper reservoir...it got the abiotic folks all creamy, remember?
Damn exceptions always getting in the way, eh?


You mean Eugene Island 330? it's production is down 85% since it peaked 30 years ago.

Go here and scroll till you see the graph:

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Abiotic.html

"Damn that google images search engine" I hear the abiotic duo(Jerome and George) crying.


Yeah that's the one that got 'em all hot when it didn't behave normally, even after it was clearly shown why.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4951
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Armageddon » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 17:37:44

MattSavinar wrote:
armegeddon wrote:I didnt even think of Matt Savinar. I think George Noory listened to my idea. He asked Matt to come back for a round table debate last night with Corsi. Corsi told me he would do another debate anytime. Sounds like fun. Get ALL your facts togather Matt, because Corsi is a good debater. Corsi tried to pull that oil doesnt come from dinosaur crap against Rupport, so tell him DUH !!!!. I gave round to Corsi when he went against Rupport. Corsi's BS shined through on that occasion.


I will not debate Corsi. He is a neocon operative tied directly to Bush and Cheney.

Bush and Cheney likely saw Ruppert as an immerging threat. They dispatched Corsi to debate him.

Same for Scott Ritter.

I'm not looking to tread in those waters.

Alex Jones, somebody I respect (unlike Corsi), also believes in abiotic oil. I would be glad to debate/discsuss the matter on air with him.

If I whip Jerome's ass he might go crying to Dick Cheney and you know what he does to attorneys. (I'm joking but not entirely.)


You told George lastnight you would have a roundtable debate with Corsi. But, you are entitled to change your mind.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5399
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby MattSavinar » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 18:06:47

armegeddon wrote:
MattSavinar wrote:
armegeddon wrote:I didnt even think of Matt Savinar. I think George Noory listened to my idea. He asked Matt to come back for a round table debate last night with Corsi. Corsi told me he would do another debate anytime. Sounds like fun. Get ALL your facts togather Matt, because Corsi is a good debater. Corsi tried to pull that oil doesnt come from dinosaur crap against Rupport, so tell him DUH !!!!. I gave round to Corsi when he went against Rupport. Corsi's BS shined through on that occasion.


I will not debate Corsi. He is a neocon operative tied directly to Bush and Cheney.

Bush and Cheney likely saw Ruppert as an immerging threat. They dispatched Corsi to debate him.

Same for Scott Ritter.

I'm not looking to tread in those waters.

Alex Jones, somebody I respect (unlike Corsi), also believes in abiotic oil. I would be glad to debate/discsuss the matter on air with him.

If I whip Jerome's ass he might go crying to Dick Cheney and you know what he does to attorneys. (I'm joking but not entirely.)


You told George lastnight you would have a roundtable debate with Corsi. But, you are entitled to change your mind.


That was before you said he's supposedly going to debate Ritter. Bush admin and others with an interest in Iran see Ritter as a major threat. Apparently when they see somebody as a threat they dispatch Corsi as their errand boy on the late-night battlefield.

(It's sad they can't find somebody a bit swifter and smoother than Corsi for this task.)
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Armageddon » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 18:16:38

It wasn't before, but either way is fine.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5399
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby MattSavinar » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 18:28:15

armegeddon wrote:It wasn't before, but either way is fine.


Just recommend me and Alex. That would actually be a lot more interesting. And better for ratings I suspect. Personally I'd be thrilled to be on with Alex.
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Armageddon » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 18:33:23

MattSavinar wrote:
armegeddon wrote:It wasn't before, but either way is fine.


Just recommend me and Alex. That would actually be a lot more interesting. And better for ratings I suspect. Personally I'd be thrilled to be on with Alex.


Sounds good, I will e-mail George right now. George loves Alex.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5399
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby firestarter » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 18:40:24

MattSavinar wrote:
I will not debate Corsi. He is a neocon operative tied directly to Bush and Cheney.




Jim Puplava quoted his (Corsi's) views regarding Irag/Iran during last week's show admiringly. Puplava really came off as neoconinsh in the show. Had me scratching my head.
User avatar
firestarter
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1171
Joined: Sun 19 Mar 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Armageddon » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 18:40:30

MattSavinar wrote:
armegeddon wrote:
MattSavinar wrote:
armegeddon wrote:I didnt even think of Matt Savinar. I think George Noory listened to my idea. He asked Matt to come back for a round table debate last night with Corsi. Corsi told me he would do another debate anytime. Sounds like fun. Get ALL your facts togather Matt, because Corsi is a good debater. Corsi tried to pull that oil doesnt come from dinosaur crap against Rupport, so tell him DUH !!!!. I gave round to Corsi when he went against Rupport. Corsi's BS shined through on that occasion.


I will not debate Corsi. He is a neocon operative tied directly to Bush and Cheney.

Bush and Cheney likely saw Ruppert as an immerging threat. They dispatched Corsi to debate him.

Same for Scott Ritter.

I'm not looking to tread in those waters.

Alex Jones, somebody I respect (unlike Corsi), also believes in abiotic oil. I would be glad to debate/discsuss the matter on air with him.

If I whip Jerome's ass he might go crying to Dick Cheney and you know what he does to attorneys. (I'm joking but not entirely.)


You told George lastnight you would have a roundtable debate with Corsi. But, you are entitled to change your mind.


That was before you said he's supposedly going to debate Ritter. Bush admin and others with an interest in Iran see Ritter as a major threat. Apparently when they see somebody as a threat they dispatch Corsi as their errand boy on the late-night battlefield.

(It's sad they can't find somebody a bit swifter and smoother than Corsi for this task.)


Heinberg also said he wants no part of a debate with Corsi. He doesn't have much respect for him becasue of all the swift boat crap.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5399
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby entropyfails » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 19:10:43

Well who ever does this should make sure to listen to the broadcast with Ruppert and Corsi and prepare better than Ruppert did. Some pointers may be...

1) The audience is comprised of people who think we didn't go to the moon and that drinking silver gives you a nice complexion. You have to keep your facts simple. They have to be memorized.

2) The audience also also believes that they are stupid because evil forces keep them stupid. Instead of appealing to the credibility of Peak Oil, you have to emphasize that Corsi and Abiotic people are supported by "da gubment!" Point to the EIA numbers and claim, "The gubment is the liar. Corsi is a paid operative." Point out any corporate denial of Peak Oil and then claim it as the gospel truth BECAUSE of their denial. You cannot underestimate how far this tactic will go on this show.

3) If you debate Corsi, he'll have 101 folksy little stories about him and his dad and how that proves he knows about oil. Make sure to have your own folksy story to counter with. Or ridicule him for patronizing the audience with something like, "You know Corsi. Your folksy little story about you and your Dad mean nothing in a debate about THE TRUTH! I'm here to discuss THE HIDDEN TRUTH that you want to cover up with your story about your Dad. Talk about facts please."

4) If you debate Alex Jones... good luck. He'll keep talking about how he "has hundreds of newspaper articles proving Peak Oil to be bunk." He'll talk about how "the corporate elite" want you to think there is less oil but Jesus gave us all the oil we need. He'll talk about abiotic oil by him endlessly repeating quotes to you from some horrible newspaper article promoting the idea.

Do you know how to argue with newspapers that do not exist?
Do you know how to argue against how much oil Jesus gave us?
Can you refute "Your facts are wrong because this article says so," repeated endlessly?

I'd FAR rather debate Corsi. He doesn't ever believe a single word that comes out of his own mouth. He would be ridiculously easy to debunk because he's bright enough to respond to facts. It is obvious that he enjoys manipulating the truth, so you can just beat him at his own game.

Alex Jones, on the other hand, is a died-in-the-wool true believer. You could stick his head in an empty oil field and he'd tell you that "the elite" moved it to "hide the truth." To Jones, "GOD gave MAN the right to rule the world and gave him endless bounty to do it." It would be like debating a bible.

Anyway, that's my thoughts on the issue. I'd like to hear what you guys end up doing, either way. Be sure to make a lot of noise about this so I don't miss the appearance.
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby Armageddon » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 19:20:23

Alex Jones, on the other hand, is a died-in-the-wool true believer. You could stick his head in an empty oil field and he'd tell you that "the elite" moved it to "hide the truth."

==================================

LOL, I almost fell of my chair laughing at this one. It is so true. I like Alex, and he is right about most things, but he is missing the boat on PO. I just think he hasn't done enough homework about PO. I think be believes the world has lots of oil, which it does, but he just doesn't quite get what 'peaking' actually means.
User avatar
Armageddon
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5399
Joined: Wed 13 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: St.Louis, Mo

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby entropyfails » Fri 19 Jan 2007, 19:53:26

armegeddon wrote:Alex Jones, on the other hand, is a died-in-the-wool true believer. You could stick his head in an empty oil field and he'd tell you that "the elite" moved it to "hide the truth."

==================================

LOL, I almost fell of my chair laughing at this one. It is so true. I like Alex, and he is right about most things, but he is missing the boat on PO. I just think he hasn't done enough homework about PO. I think be believes the world has lots of oil, which it does, but he just doesn't quite get what 'peaking' actually means.


*grin* Glad I could entertain!

But it isn't just an issue of getting Jones to understand the concept of 'peaking' because peaking means "Civilization is running out of something." So that contradicts Jones' basic premise of "Jesus put enough of everything on Earth for people." You'd have to get him to face the fact that civilization is facing an existential crisis. Jones just thinks that civilization is facing a CHARACTER crisis. He worries that we will end up with a civilization run by "the bad guys." He simply cannot accept facts that would contradict his basic premise that civilization will run forever.

And that is why it surprises me that Matt would want to debate Jones. Matt often talks about how "People will not accept something that their entire social and economic status depends on." But Alex's conservative audience has such a strong basic premise of civilization behind it that he would lose his show if he ever hinted at any sort of complete existential civilization crisis. By Matt's own argument, Alex is completely incapable of understanding Peak Oil.
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby MattSavinar » Sat 20 Jan 2007, 00:52:22

entropyfails wrote:
armegeddon wrote:Alex Jones, on the other hand, is a died-in-the-wool true believer. You could stick his head in an empty oil field and he'd tell you that "the elite" moved it to "hide the truth."

==================================

LOL, I almost fell of my chair laughing at this one. It is so true. I like Alex, and he is right about most things, but he is missing the boat on PO. I just think he hasn't done enough homework about PO. I think be believes the world has lots of oil, which it does, but he just doesn't quite get what 'peaking' actually means.


*grin* Glad I could entertain!

But it isn't just an issue of getting Jones to understand the concept of 'peaking' because peaking means "Civilization is running out of something." So that contradicts Jones' basic premise of "Jesus put enough of everything on Earth for people." You'd have to get him to face the fact that civilization is facing an existential crisis. Jones just thinks that civilization is facing a CHARACTER crisis. He worries that we will end up with a civilization run by "the bad guys." He simply cannot accept facts that would contradict his basic premise that civilization will run forever.

And that is why it surprises me that Matt would want to debate Jones. Matt often talks about how "People will not accept something that their entire social and economic status depends on." But Alex's conservative audience has such a strong basic premise of civilization behind it that he would lose his show if he ever hinted at any sort of complete existential civilization crisis. By Matt's own argument, Alex is completely incapable of understanding Peak Oil.


You're absolutely correct in your analysis of Alex. However, Corsi is simply vile.

Anything is better than Corsi.
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby entropyfails » Sat 20 Jan 2007, 13:59:10

MattSavinar wrote:You're absolutely correct in your analysis of Alex. However, Corsi is simply vile.

Anything is better than Corsi.


I really do understand that sentiment Matt. Talking with Corsi would be like talking with the "Evil Death Ball" from The Fifth Element. You'd probably end up sweating black goo.

However, given the amount of name recognition that you've got, I say the best career choice would be to go for the big target. And wouldn't it feel much better to completely destroy Corsi in an argument than to win against Alex?

With Corsi, you can dismiss the entire argument in a few short minutes. And then you can do "folksy" versions of the argument to further prove your point like,
"Listen, just because we can find some oil like residue in strange places doesn't mean that oil fields are everywhere. YOU don't think that your bathtub is full because there is a puddle outside your house do you?!?"

You can destroy the Russian Scientists credibility too with things like,
"Near the end of the Cold War, the Russian Scientists were under enormous pressure to conform to doctrine. Russia was nearing their own Peak Oil but scientists that said so got sent to the Gulags. Russian doctors had to pretend that DNA didn't exist! YOU wouldn't want to have a Soviet Doctor cure your cancer would you?"

You can take on the "refilling fields" with,
"One time, my water heater busted and my basement got filled with water. But I don't claim that water heaters caused the water to form. Oil fields are really like tanks of water buried in the dirt. Some times one busts and fills another."

Tis up to you of course. I personally think it would be easier to prepare for and easier to win the debate if you took on Corsi. That victory seems like more of a win to me. But slime is hard to get off, so I do understand.

Regardless, use the water metaphor. People don't understand oil, but they do understand water.
EntropyFails
"Little prigs and three-quarter madmen may have the conceit that the laws of nature are constantly broken for their sakes." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
User avatar
entropyfails
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postby MattSavinar » Sat 20 Jan 2007, 14:49:19

entropyfails wrote:
MattSavinar wrote:You're absolutely correct in your analysis of Alex. However, Corsi is simply vile.

Anything is better than Corsi.


I really do understand that sentiment Matt. Talking with Corsi would be like talking with the "Evil Death Ball" from The Fifth Element. You'd probably end up sweating black goo.

However, given the amount of name recognition that you've got, I say the best career choice would be to go for the big target. And wouldn't it feel much better to completely destroy Corsi in an argument than to win against Alex?

With Corsi, you can dismiss the entire argument in a few short minutes. And then you can do "folksy" versions of the argument to further prove your point like,
"Listen, just because we can find some oil like residue in strange places doesn't mean that oil fields are everywhere. YOU don't think that your bathtub is full because there is a puddle outside your house do you?!?"

You can destroy the Russian Scientists credibility too with things like,
"Near the end of the Cold War, the Russian Scientists were under enormous pressure to conform to doctrine. Russia was nearing their own Peak Oil but scientists that said so got sent to the Gulags. Russian doctors had to pretend that DNA didn't exist! YOU wouldn't want to have a Soviet Doctor cure your cancer would you?"

You can take on the "refilling fields" with,
"One time, my water heater busted and my basement got filled with water. But I don't claim that water heaters caused the water to form. Oil fields are really like tanks of water buried in the dirt. Some times one busts and fills another."

Tis up to you of course. I personally think it would be easier to prepare for and easier to win the debate if you took on Corsi. That victory seems like more of a win to me. But slime is hard to get off, so I do understand.

Regardless, use the water metaphor. People don't understand oil, but they do understand water.


EF,

You're absolutely correct. And those are some awesome analogies. I intend to use them. Will I be giving you credit? Absolutely not!

[smilie=cachas.gif]
User avatar
MattSavinar
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1918
Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests