http://educate-yourself.org/lte/peakoilbeliever15apr05.shtml
April 15, 2005

----- Original Message -----

From: Eugene Duran <durane@loslunasnm.gov>
To: Editor@educate-yourself.org
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 6:36 AM
Subject: Oil

If the only two credible (questionable) people against what is perhaps hundreds of experts then I’ll side with the majority of “Qualified experts”. I find Dave’s arguments to be… fundamentally flawed. Apparently Dave understands nothing about the Laws of thermodynamics. No worry, he will learn, as the rest of us will, soon enough. That will shut him up and make him the scorn of many. Every days news item chips away at Dave. Chip, Chip, Chip

***********

From: Editor [mailto:editor@educate-yourself.org]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 1:48 PM
To: Eugene Duran <durane@loslunasnm.gov>
Subject: Re: Oil

Dear Eugene,

At the time I put the page up, I only knew of Dave McGowan and Joe Vialls articles, but there are many more now I'm sure. It's not like I got on google and did an exhaustive search on people debunking the peak oil scam because I undoubtedly would have found plenty of other writers who debunk the scam because the story is so full of holes.

However, since you seem to be a true believer, why don't you present your case instead of taking cheap shots at Dave McGowan?

1. You say Dave's arguments are "fundamentally flawed". OK, show me how Dave's statements are fundamentally flawed.

Dave took Ruppert's peak oil statements and rebutted them one by one. Can you do the same or is your intellectual prowess limited to name calling and mocking taunts?

2. You said Dave "understands nothing" about the Law of thermodynamics. Fine, what doesn't Dave understand about the "law" of thermodynamics?

So Mr. Critic, let's read what YOU have to say to support your criticisms (or is this little burp the sum total of your persuasive skills?).

Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: Eugene Duran <durane@loslunasnm.gov>
To: Editor
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 2:08 PM
Subject: RE: Oil

Challenge accepted! Statements like “I’m sure”, and “would have”, sure shore up your arguments. You ask for my case and yet say the story is so full of holes without presenting any evidence to the contrary. Hmmm.

Ruppert is no oil expert. Perhaps Dave should argue with Colin Campbell or Mathew Simmons ( Bush’s own economic advisor and member of Chaney’s energy task force.) Mathew has some of the scariest writing on the topic of oil depletion. There was no name calling. Just math. It takes 2100 calories to keep a human healthy and alive on this planet. Without Oil we only have enough energy for @ 2 – 3 billion people. ( many variables) Where do you suppose we are going to get this extra energy from when the oil is gone. Careful how you answer. All the alternative energy sources have been exhaustively explored. But I’m sure you have some secret perpetual motion machine you are hiding in order to defeat the laws of thermodynamics. I would wage that for every Dave there are 10 real experts opposing him. It takes 10 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food. That’s like putting 10 dollars in the bank and when you later check there remains only 1 dollar. Are you disputing even this now well accepted scientific fact.

*********

----- Original Message -----
From: Editor
To: Eugene Duran <durane@loslunasnm.gov>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: Oil

Hi Eugene,

Well, I was hoping to hear YOUR arguments, not a suggestion for Dave to debate someone else. You are the person who said that McGowan's statements were flawed, remember?

When I said that the peak oil scam story was full of holes, I was referring to the fact that Dave McGowan had ALREADY punched the holes in Ruppert's contrived story. You are questioning McGowan's writings, remember?

All the same, I think Dave McGowan would be THRILLED to have an opportunity to openly debate Colin Campbell or Matthew Simmons. If their track records for veracity are as tattered as their boss's, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel.

By the way, is this the extent of your arguments? Is this all you can offer to rebut all that Dave McGowan has presented on peak oil - one paragraph dominated by a high school science lesson on burning calories?

Instead of supporting your assertion that McGowan is full of beans, you want to debate me on what you characterize as "well accepted "scientific fact that amounts to a review of 2nd grade math.

I don't have the time to debate people, but if I did have the time, I can assure you that I wouldn't waste it on a flyweight like you.

Sincerely, Ken

© Copyright 2005 Educate-Yourself.org  All Rights Reserved.