Conspiraloon extraordinaire, Michel Chossudovsky, who runs the site Global Research.com is featured on conspiracy-friendly TV station, Russia Today, to explain that rabbits are eating his face!*
Actually, I think he's saying that World War Three is just around the corner when the US finally attacks Iran with nuclear weapons as he and others have been predicting since 2004. Like the boy who cried wolf he is destined to not be believed if he carries on saying the same thing so I thought I'd repost it here so no one can complain about me ignoring his alarmism like the NWO-controlled mainstream media.
* I stole that expression from somewhere but can't find the origin. If someone knows the origin, or is the originator, please tell me and I'll credit them with it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
One of my favorite regulars at globalresearch.ca is F. William Engdahl who thinks that oil is abiotic and oozes up from the earth's creamy nougat center. He claims that Vietnam, China and Russia all posses the technology (magic powers) to extract abiotic oil from deep inside the earth. He also claimed that we're militarily occupying Haiti to get at their magi- err abiotic oil.
It's a thoroughly entertaining site. Also, I don't understand how people can accuse the US and British governments of every crime under the sun and then turn around and embrace Russia as some kind of beacon of freedom.
I love Putin for various reasons, but I'm not naive enough to think he doesn't engage in dirty tricks when he needs to.
I don't understand how people can accuse the US and British governments of every crime under the sun and then turn around and embrace Russia as some kind of beacon of freedom.
Because the MSM say that the UK and the US are the bad guys. If I can prove that they're the bad guys and the Russians are the good guys then I'm smarter!
Whoops! Messed up that comment.
Because the MSM say that the UK and the US are the bad guys. If I can prove that they're the bad guys and the Russians are the good guys then I'm smarter!
Should be:
Because the MSM say the UK and the US are the good guys...
Re: abiotic oil.
I've heard this mentioned before but don't know much about it. Apparently there's quite a debate on it according to this Wikipedia page.
Is it taken seriously by any mainstream scientists?
Is it taken seriously by any mainstream scientists?
As far as I can tell, it's taken about as seriously by geologists as Intelligent Design is by biologists.
Maybe that's a stretch, but its a fringe idea. There is methane on some of Jupiters moons which suggests that there are hydrocarbons that form by non-organic means but what we call petroleum is most certainly biologic in its origin.
The prevailing theory is that petroleum was formed tens and even hundereds of millions of years ago when seas containing lots of plant matter get caught between converging tectonic plates. The force from the plates "cooks" the plant matter forming oil which then rises through the ground. Some special places have rocks that absorb a lot of this oil (sandstone being the best) and formations that trap it (like salt domes). The Persian Gulf has all of these things making it ideal for petroleum formation, presumably because God is a Muslim. Central Asia is another good example of this as it used to be a vast inland sea. Of course there's oil all over the damn place like in the North Sea and Texas far from active fault lines where the petroleum was probably formed through a similar process but much farther back in time when those areas where actually subjected to the right kind of force.
In case you couldn't tell, I have something of a fascination with geology :-)
The real profound (at least I think it is) process behind the formation of petroleum is that photosynthesis turned hundreds of millions of years of sunlight and carbon-dioxide into hydrocarbons which were then refined by tectonic forces into an ultra-rich energy source. That petrol* we put into our cars is older than most of the species alive on earth today.
One of the major implications is that all that CO2 that was in our ancient atmosphere was trapped below the earth over billions of years and we're re-releasing a substantial portion of it in a geologic nano-second. That's why even though I don't like Al Gore, the possibility for rapid climate change seems very real to me. Thanks for letting me ramble off on tangents as usual!
*Isn't that what you guys call gasoline?
I'd heard the term "abiotic oil" before and wasn't sure if this was the name of some other substance. When I've asked people who I thought might know what I'm talking about they've usually looked blank. Maybe it's a bit like asking chemistry professors whether they've got any closer in turning base metals to gold yet.
One of the major implications is that all that CO2 that was in our ancient atmosphere was trapped below the earth over billions of years and we're re-releasing a substantial portion of it in a geologic nano-second. That's why even though I don't like Al Gore, the possibility for rapid climate change seems very real to me.
Hmmm... the problem I have with climate change is that the terminology and the claims keep changing.
I have to confess that I've not really followed the debate much either through laziness or because I don't understand the science.
From what I can see the claims of climate change/AGW proponents should be falsifiable and yet whenever some of the claims are, in fact, falsified the goalposts tend to get moved. Obviously climate change is a difficult one because there are no additional Earths on which the experiments can be run but what do you find to be the most convincing claims?
*Isn't that what you guys call gasoline?
Yes, but don't you put it in automobiles?
:-D
Marylander: He also claimed that we're militarily occupying Haiti to get at their magi- err abiotic oil.
In fact, that is what Steven Jones is claiming now. I don't know if he thinks the oil is abiotic but has decided that the Haiti earthquake may have been engineered.
Also, David Ray Griffin has ominous words about Sunstein and Richard Gage ends with what sounds like a weirdly culty send-off.
This is part of their celebration of the 1000 people who have some connection to an architect or an engineer roadshow.
In case you couldn't tell, I have something of a fascination with geology :-)
Have you ever seen <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kL7qDeI05U>this?</a>
Is it a joke?
At about 0:53 into it he claims "there is a kind of conspiracy of silence among certain scientists, they know but are not telling you bla bla bla the simple truth is simply too upsetting to too many apple carts"
When I hear people speak like that it usually sets off alarm bells. As Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
As far as AGW goes, I'm very skeptical about what our governments have to say on it. What they're proposing would simply involve too much control over the worlds economies. Weather patterns are so incredibly complex, the idea that they have it all figured out is offensive. "The debate is over!" as Al Gore says. No it's not. There is no conclusive equation whereby %change in CO2 = %change in global temperatures.
Thankfully, the Chinese "Communists" saved capitalism from itself... haha.
Weather patterns are so incredibly complex, the idea that they have it all figured out is offensive. "The debate is over!" as Al Gore says. No it's not.
Yes, I agree. I have trouble with anyone making claims like that. The problem is that when I look at a lot of articles or videos by those who don't believe in AGW they tend to say, "This is pure science!" as if a scientist would need to say such a thing and then something like, "Using pure science we have conclusively proven that the fluctuations in temperature and climate are completely normal and there is no AGW...etc...etc..." Both sides seem to be guilty of this and this is not the way that scientists are supposed to talk.
Conspiracy theorists tend to use that kind of language declaring that "unless the laws of fizziks got all broken there's no way that can happen!" Real scientists (and I exclude those who learnt about structural engineering using Google) tend to be so much more tentative that they're the ones who sound unsure. They talk in terms of probability which conspiracy theorists then leap on as if the scientists were fudging or revealing a weakness, "Aha! So there is a chance our harebrained theory is correct?"
"Well, yes but it's extremely unli..."
"Aha! This scientist guy admits it could be true."
Marylander,
Sorry, I realize now that you were talking about the "Expanding Earth" video that I had posted before in which the narrator talks about a "conspiracy of silence".
I really can't work out whether or not the video is a wind-up. It's bizarre because I don't know how anyone can propose that the Earth is literally EXPANDING and that as its expansion pushes the continents apart the rest of the Earth which is only fractionally lower than the rest of the surface suddenly fills up with sea (and where did that come from?). There's no explanation of what makes up the ever greater size of the Earth.
Serious?
Ah!
Your friend is here on Russia Today.
The best part of that video is the anchor-chick. She's okay-looking but she spends most of the interview doing very weird things with her face. Pause her at almost any moment and she's got some kind of weird expression. In fact when the video ends she looks like she's modelling for Picasso.
:-D
Oh of course its Wall Street's fault. It has nothing to do with the Greek retirement age being set at 60 nor their obscenely generous social programs that even Germans find excessive. The Germans just raised their retirement age from 65 to 67, the Greeks protest in the streets at the prospect of it going to 63. I have absolutely no sympathy for the Greeks. They should be expelled from the Eurozone and left to become just another worthless 3rd world country.
While we're at it, can we put the Germans in charge of American entitlement programs?
OK so I feel bad for being so harsh on the poor Greeks. Their problems are, unfortunately, not unique but symptomatic of the entire Western industrialized world. Greece just happens to be the most extreme case, exacerbated by widespread corruption and very poor accounting. I've heard more than a few commentators say that Greece probably didn't belong in the EU in the first place. Perhaps it is unreasonable to expect the entire continent to have German fiscal discipline?
I've heard that in addition to Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Spain and Greece, France and even the UK and Belgium could run into similar problems. I'm a big fan of the EU but this will be quite a test of their resolve.
The United States, my dear country, has horrendous public finances as well. We want the government to provide everything for us but we don't want to pay for it. We're the only industrialized country that does not have a nation-wide value-added tax. Suggesting such a policy would be political suicide because we're so damn immature. Instead politicians say "we'll just tax the rich and cut taxes for 95% of everyone else!" This is literally what Obama pledged in his campaign. Obviously he hasn't gone through with it since it's an insane policy but I'm sure he'll find a way to out do his profligate predecessor one way or another.
So yes. Sorry Greece, but get your act together =)
But, but, but... doesn't this kind of thing make people more skeptical of greater integration, continental blocs and common currencies. How is it that the NWO, who control everything about the world economy would let people lose so much faith in its eventual goals?
Clearly the NWO is trying to fool us and lull us into complacency!
Seriously though, I've heard some rather ominous warnings from some legitimate people worrying about the very survival of the Euro. The most recent issue of Foreign Policy has a story about how 2010 might be the year the WTO dies.
I think Globalization as we knew it in the 90's might be on hold, but regional blocs will continue to develop. I'd keep my eye on ASEAN and Japan. Also theres talk of a tripartite agreement between South Korea, Japan, and China. That would be huge. Both China and Japan agree on integration of the Pacific Rim, but neither wants to let the other be the leader! Ah global politics, how I love thee!
Have you heard anything about these agreements? I'm always going off on tangents, sorry!
Post a Comment