From: monsta666
Was reading the blog Our Finite World when I came across this comment Gail put up that made me think of you:
Gail Tverberg says:
March 14, 2018 at 9:07 am
So let's move on to talking about a different issue. The silliness of talking about a transformation to renewables is beyond crazy.
Has this changed your stance on Gail? That particular comment was made towards another poster on her article titled: Our Latest Oil Predicament
If I understood correctly what she is saying in the above quote, she alleges that there is no way that Renewable Energy can TOTALLY EVER REPLACE fossil fuels AND MOCKS, by using the word, "silliness", those who advocate for a world powered exclusively by Renewable Energy.
If I understood what she said incorrectly, and she was actually taking a position that we need to get off fossil fuels, like YESTERDAY, and DO the transition to Renewable Energy intead of "talking" about it, then I would be pleased and genuinely surprised that she finally is smelling the
Catastrophic Climate Change coffee.
But I doubt that she has woken up to
climate change reality yet, so I think she is engaging in typical Pro-polluting status quo propaganda.
Has this changed your stance on Gail?
No. Gail has always been a stalking horse for the Fossil Fuel Industry "business model" AND a staunch defender of Nuclear Power as well. The irony of coming up with a name like "This finite World" for her forum has never been lost on me. She must have studied Orwellian discourse.
Of course we will EVENTUALLY run out, but not anywhere close to the (
rather convenient for fossil fuel profits) artificial scarcity timetable Gail and her fellow Pro-Fossil Fuel Propagandists wail and moan about.
Since the beginning, her entire pitch has consisted of creating the impression that we are "running out" of fossil fuels for the express purpose of making them appear more valuable to readers. THAT IS, convincing we-the-people that we must pay MORE for that crap.
Of course she won't admit that is her greedy motive for harping on the "increasing scarcity" of fossil fuels. She claims she is just "telling us we are going to run out of our precious and prized 😇, high energy density oil and gas for our own good".
Many posts I have made cover the fact that this is an old propaganda technique the fossil fuelers have used, not only in regard to the peak oil meme, but for the rather convenient price shocks during rather convenient wars, and other cheap excuses (hurricanes, oil spills, OPEC, etc. ad nauseum). It's all bullshit, but it has worked because so many governments work hand in glove with these greedy profit over people and planet bastards.
I have posted the following now and then. It happened
nearly thirty years ago.
Yet, the same crooked game continues to be played against us. Gail is an active participant in this very profitable, totally unjustified, "game"
the polluters play.
She has ALWAYS defended fossil fuels as being the "cheapest and most efficient" energy option. That is bullshit. I have no respect for her at all.
I have been occasionally posting the following hard truths here and there since 2014:
Here's a little something to throw at the liars and prevaricators that defend fossil fuels as being the "cheapest and most efficient" energy option.
It's a historical (and peer reviewed) fact. This grand larceny on behalf of fossil fuels is STILL going on.
The DIRTY ENERGY SOURCES have a long history of profiting from our blood and treasure while they despoil the biosphere.
The following quote from a peer reviewed book is of extreme importance to all Americans:
Dilworth (2010-03-12). Too Smart for our Own Good (pp. 399-400). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
"As suggested earlier, war, for example, which represents a cost for society, is a source of profit to capitalists. In this way we can partly understand e.g. the American military expenditures in the Persian Gulf area. Already before the first Gulf War, i.e. in 1985, the United States spent $47 billion projecting power into the region. If seen as being spent to obtain Gulf oil, It AMOUNTED TO $468 PER BARREL, or 18 TIMES the $27 or so that at that time was paid for the oil itself.
In fact, if Americans had spent as much to make buildings heat-tight as they spent in ONE YEAR at the end of the 1980s on the military forces meant to protect the Middle Eastern oil fields, THEY COULD HAVE ELIMINATED THE NEED TO IMPORT OIL from the Middle East.
So why have they not done so? Because, while the $468 per barrel may be seen as being a cost the American taxpayers had to bear, and a negative social effect those living in the Gulf area had to bear, it meant only profits for American capitalists. "
Note: I added the bold caps emphasis on the barrel of oil price, money spent in one year and the need to import oil from the Middle East.
This totally unjustified profit, never mind the needless lose of lives, then increases the power of the fossil fuel corporations to perpetuate a biosphere harming dirty fuel status quo. How? By "funding" politicians with rather large "donations" to keep renewable energy from competing with dirty energy.