“It’s the fifth time to my count that we’ve gone through a period when it
seemed the end of oil was near and people were talking about the exhaustion of
resources,” said Daniel Yergin, the chairman of Cambridge Energy and author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of oil, who cited similar concerns in the 1880s, after
both world wars and in the 1970s. “Back then we were going to fly off the oil
mountain. Instead we had a boom and oil went to $10 instead of $100.”
In my opinion this isn't journalism... it's an obvious & embarrassing attempt to obscure the truth in pursuit of short-term profits.
The argument over when peak oil occurs is a legitimate question which is by no means resolved.
But repeating the "End of Oil" red-herring, seems to intentionally misstate the peak oil argument.
Mike, CERA, Yergin & The NYT Staff listen up.
Peak Oil is about the mid-point of global oil production... NOT about running out of oil.
All four are well aware of this fact... especially Mr. Lynch, since he is a peakoil.com member, with hundreds of posts to date.
In my opinion Mr. Lynch, CERA, Yergin & the NYT's intentionally use this false description to deceive their readers into dismissing peak oil as a serious concern.
I am continually amazed that the NYT's & others allow these kinds of disingenuous statements to embarrass them publicly.
Arguments about URR and when the production mid-point occurs are valid & at the core of meaningful arguments concerning hydrocarbon depletion...
But republishing the "End of Oil" idea seems to be a "straw-man" argument specifically included to obscure the topic.
And is therefore not only quite lame, but seems like a self-serving, disinformation campaign specifically designed to separate you from your money.
Yergin seems to be a corporate puppet who's opinions are for sale to the highest bidder.
Same appearance for Lynch.
While both may indeed have valuable observations to make concerning our energy future, the "End of Oil" straw-man tactic discredits anything else they may say or publish.
How can you trust a source which knowingly misrepresents the facts?
Simple... you can't.
Shame on all of you for this apparent continued tactic.
Your mom's would not approve.
Greed is an ugly thing... so is lying to exploit others.
We will all pay for the kind of hubris we see here... & the cost will be measured in our children's blood & tears.
I'd wish people like this would burn in hell... but that's awfully unfair to the folks already there.
At least that's my opinion, of what seems to be, an allegedly intentional tactic, to lie for profit... apparently... in my opinion.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Intended to Mislead? (NYT)
Posted by Aaron Dunlap at 6:30 AM