I really loved Crash Course. Much of it was info I kinda knew but never so well pieced together. I have looked into the veracity of it and it seems to be okay, although optimists will quibble all day about unconventional oil reserves and the like.
However, looking up Chris Martenson, I do find two conflicting things. His wikipedia page describes him thusly:
He performed research for many years in biochemistry, neurotoxicology, applied pharmacology and in vitro techniques. Martenson was Consultant In Business Development and Strategies atPfizer, Inc. Later he became the Vice President of the company, and later still – a Vice President of Science Applications International Corporation's Life Sciences Division, which position he held till July 2005.
However, this article on Llew Rockwell site, purportedly written by Chris Martenson has this line:
Chris really doesn't come across as a cop, but was this a career change or is this a mistake? Just would like some clarification, thanks.
That post wasn't written by CM, it was written by thc0655 (another CM'r).
It was a "guest post" or picked up by Lew and turned into one with credit driven back to CM's site.
Usually they contact the author directly, his guys did when they ran my stuff that was published on FSN originally.
And then there are the realists.
An optimist who believes in “unconventional oil reserves” will likely soon likely realize that they were really a delusionalist and then turn realist.
We are well below 1:10 (1 barrel to get 10). Then there are other resources and waste products. You can Google Peak Water by Jim Quinn for starters. You can Google Gasland to get tuned into shale.
Glad you found the blog, you might want to become immersed in it.
Oh, okay, I googled the title and the original article makes it more clear that it's written by someone else:
Thanks for the clarification and other info. I actually got recommended Chris Martenson's presentation at the Gold & Silver Meeting in Madrid on Youtube on Reddit a few weeks back which is how I'm getting all this.
I already knew about Peak Oil and seen Dr. Albert Bartlett's exceptional lecture 5+ years back but it never clicked that it was so, well, in my lifetime, tbh.
You might want to watch "A Crude Awakening".
Really the entire PO debate is at the PP point right now. We put out about 82MM b/pd and the globe sucks down 87 MM b/pd. We're at peak demand. Thanks to Globalization which gave China our jobs, and with thos wages they bought MCs and cars. In 1990 there were 168 miles of paved highway in China and 5.5 million CARS. In 2011 there were 53,000 thousand miles of paved highway and 219,000,000 VEHICLES that used gas/diesel. When Bernanke started QEIII hints China decided not to sit on its hands like a potted plant, in February their imports of oil were 39% higher YoY.
That took a lot of oil off the market.
Personally I see the risk in PO being as high as the risk of all hell breaking out as nuclear countries vie for limited reserves. Until then I'm sure we'll increase the 1m2 rate of cancer in men and the 1 n 3 rate of cancer in women by fracking shale with 596 carcinogens’ that we then dump into "evaporation" pits.
& PS it is NOT about peak resources----it IS all about population.
Weight Answers - A Desire Of Every Person That Is Overweight
that also the Best Weight Loss Product
How to Pick Out Supplements for Gaining Muscle Mass
Floor and then put your foot in and the sock
Diabetes today you get all the