Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [political-research] Re: Global warming - Strange science [FT]

Expand Messages
  • Sean McBride
    I was thinking about peak oil long before I heard of Michael Ruppert. For me, Ruppert is irrelevant to the truth or lack thereof in the analyses of peak oil
    Message 1 of 12 , Nov 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      I was thinking about peak oil long before I heard of Michael Ruppert.  For me, Ruppert is irrelevant to the truth or lack thereof in the analyses of peak oil advocates.
       
      Nor have I been the least impressed by Hopsicker's assaults on Ruppert regarding Ruppert's alleged ties to various bad guys.  I think Ruppert's new book contains some useful analysis and speculations about what happened on 9/11.  He is certainly a clearer and more reliable thinker than Hopsicker, and more knowledgeable about the larger political context in which 9/11 and its exploitation occurred.
       
      Please don't try to paint me as a blind Michael Ruppert supporter: I was the first person on another list to raise questions about some of his assertions, and was attacked at the time for doing so.  I stood my ground the entire time on the issues in dispute.
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: erici44
      Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:30 AM
      Subject: [political-research] Re: Global warming - Strange science [FT]



      "You can't automatically assume that they are all operating from bad
      or greedy motives."

      True, but Dr Campbell's replies to Ruppert had a  comic book
      character bordering on the actually comical. Let me be blunt.  As a
      professional conspiracy theorist, Ruppert is not a solid individual
      to have on your team and that makes me deeply suspicious of the whole
      operation.

      Let's imagine Ruppert was quoted in the NY Times. How easy would it
      be to completely ridicule him way beyond what Hopsicker did.
      Remember, Ruppert admitted working with the people Hopsicker accused
      him of. Then there's CIA and drugs, Cheney and 9/11, Vreeland and
      Russbacher. The list is virtually endless.

      Nine out of ten residents of a mental hospital would be more
      credible  advocates for peak oil in the mainstream press than Mr
      Ruppert. I just don't understand what this is about - why was he
      invited to speak at the commonwealth club   Why has he made enemies
      of virtually everyone in the alternative community ?





      --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, "Sean McBride"
      <smcbride2@y...> wrote:
      >   I am suspicious of peak oil because Dr Campbell is such a very
      senior figure in the oil industry and the restriction of supply would
      substantially increase profits in the long term.
      > One would expect big oil to be resistant to a political regime
      based on peak oil assumptions, since it would lead to the crash
      development of alternative energy technologies that could threaten
      the very existence of big oil.
      >
      > Also, I think a few top level oil executives -- certainly not all
      or most -- are capable of thinking about the long-term well-being of
      the human race when it comes to really big issues like peak oil and
      global warming.  You can't automatically assume that they are all
      operating from bad or greedy motives.
      >
      ><SNIP>







    • erici44
      Sean I wasn t alluding to your opinions in any way, but to Dr Campbell s alliance with Mr Ruppert. ... Ruppert. For me, Ruppert is irrelevant to the truth or
      Message 2 of 12 , Nov 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Sean

        I wasn't alluding to your opinions in any way, but to Dr Campbell's
        alliance with Mr Ruppert.



        --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, "Sean McBride"
        <smcbride2@y...> wrote:
        > I was thinking about peak oil long before I heard of Michael
        Ruppert. For me, Ruppert is irrelevant to the truth or lack thereof
        in the analyses of peak oil advocates.
        >
        > Nor have I been the least impressed by Hopsicker's assaults on
        Ruppert regarding Ruppert's alleged ties to various bad guys. I
        think Ruppert's new book contains some useful analysis and
        speculations about what happened on 9/11. He is certainly a clearer
        and more reliable thinker than Hopsicker, and more knowledgeable
        about the larger political context in which 9/11 and its exploitation
        occurred.
        >
        > Please don't try to paint me as a blind Michael Ruppert supporter:
        I was the first person on another list to raise questions about some
        of his assertions, and was attacked at the time for doing so. I
        stood my ground the entire time on the issues in dispute.
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: erici44
        > To: political-research@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 2:30 AM
        > Subject: [political-research] Re: Global warming - Strange
        science [FT]
        >
        >
        <SNIP>
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.