Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The Origins of the “Global Warming” Scare
http://alethonews.blogspot.com/2009/10/origins-of-global-warming-scare.html
Did you know, that the “Human caused Global Warming” hypothesis didn´t originate in the 1980s, but actually in the 1880s? Although, until the late 1970s, the hypothesis was considered “a curiosity”, since it contradicted observed events.
Did you further know, that at first this hypothesis wasn´t publicly promoted by scientists or even environmentalists, but by a UN ambassador and a very ambitious British Lady politician?
It’s snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever. And that’s just the news of the past week. Truly, it never rains but it pours – and all over our global warming alarmists.
Time’s up for this absurd scaremongering. The fears are being contradicted by the facts, and more so by the week.
- wrote Andrew Bolt in the Australian Herald Sun last April.
Then he goes on to debunk many of the main claims most “Global Warming” (renamed “Climate Change”) believers will cite in public:
-like the claim that
the earth is rapidly warming at the moment.
The facts, however, are
that according to data from Britain’s Hadley Centre, NASA’s Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre
the fall in temperatures from just 2002 (until 2009) has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century.
(See also: Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered)
-or the claim that
the polar ice is rapidly melting.
The facts, however, are
that a British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last (April) confirmed
ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years.
-or the claim, that
the oceans are warming up
The facts, however, are
according to Josh Willis, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who evaluated
a five years study (done using) a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries:
“There has been a very slight cooling”…
-or the claim that
sea-levels are rising dramatically.
The facts, however, are
according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado, that
for almost three years, the seas have stopped rising,
-or the claim,
that world-wide devastating storms (cyclones) are getting worse.
The facts, however, are
according to Ryan Maue of Florida State University, who
recently measured the frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes and cyclones to compile an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index.()
The energy index is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.
-or the absolutely ridiculous claim by World Vision boss Tim Costello that Asia was a “region, thanks to climate change, that has far more cyclones, tsunamis, droughts”.
The facts are
(besides that Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes)
according to a 2006 study by Indur Goklany, who represented the US at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
“There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severity of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
Most of the myths, which are now slowly being debunked by scientists through intensive research, have once been created by “scientists”.
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has for several decades now employed “scientists” who claim
that human activities are responsible for nearly all earth’s recorded warming during the past two centuries.
writes David R. Legates in “Breaking the “Hockey Stick”
A widely circulated image used by the IPCC dramatically depicting these temperature trends resembles a hockey stick with three distinct parts: a flat “shaft” extending from A.D. 1000 to 1900, a “blade” shooting up from A.D. 1900 to 2000, and a range of uncertainty in temperature estimates that envelops the shaft like a “sheath.”
This image was produced by Michael Mann, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes
(other colleagues working with Mann on his subsequent “climate change” research-papers were Philip D. Jones and Gavin Schmidt)…..
However, five independent research groups have uncovered problems with the underlying reconstructions by Mann and his colleagues in their 1998 and 1999 work that have persisted through his most recent collaborative efforts, calling into question all three components of the “hockey stick.”…
Mann and Jones indicate that globally- and hemispherically-averaged air temperatures from A.D. 200 to 1900 were nearly constant. Missing from their timeline, however, are the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850).
Most proxy records from around the globe show these climatic events, as Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas and I concluded in a 2003 paper published in Energy and the Environment.
For instance:
* In such widely disparate regions as Argentina, Chile, southern Peru, southern Africa and northern China, records indicate a marked warming at the beginning of the last millennium followed by extreme cold during the middle centuries.
* Historical proxies for temperature – such as tree rings, ice cores and bore holes – in New Zealand, Australia and California also confirm widespread, significant warming and cooling trends…..
(Scientists) Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick..().. contend that Mann and his colleagues in their 1998 and 1999 papers unjustifiably truncated or extrapolated trends from source data, used obsolete data, made incorrect calculations, and associated data sets with incorrect geographical locations….
More recently,(scientists) David Chapman, Marshall Bartlett and Robert Harris identified methodological problems in a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters study by Mann and G. Schmidt.
Specifically, Mann and Schmidt eliminated specific proxy records (data from bore holes) they thought were inaccurate. Chapman et al. showed that Mann and Schmidt had unjustifiably excluded the bore-hole data and concluded that their methods were “just bad science” and that they presented a “selective and inappropriate presentation” of results..….
Jan Esper, David Frank and Robert Wilson () further argued that the fatal flaw with Mann, Bradley and Hughes’ temperature reconstruction is its incorrect representation of longer-term trends.
They observed that the statistical methods used inappropriately remove trends over long time periods..…
But the meteoric rise of the “Global Warming – bad science” into a global dogma and from there into the legislation of, by now, most nations on earth, did not originate with scientists at all.
Richard Courtney, founding member of the European Science and Environment Forum and technical adviser to several members of the British Parliament as well as to some British members of the European Parliament wrote the 1999 article “Global Warming: How It All Began” in which he explores the history of this particular pseudo-science.
The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1°C by 1940, and it had not.
Then, in 1979, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue…..
Courtney goes on to explain, that in 1979 Thatcher actually did not yet have a much stature abroad or at home. In Britain her only claim to fame as an Education Secretary in the Heath administration that collapsed in 1974 was as ‘Milk Snatcher Thatcher’ due to her policy of ending distribution of milk to British school-children.
It was Britain´s Ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Crispin Tickell, who suggested she should use the issue of “Global Warming” as a means to gain national and international credibility.
He also suggested, that Thatcher with her education, a degree in chemistry, could easily win debates on scientific subjects, since most other politicians were “scientifically illiterate” .
As an aside, there are quite interesting parallels between the British “Iron Lady” of the 1980s and the German “Iron Lady” of today.
Like Thatcher, Angela Merkel was not widely known before she was put into office by her party.
(Why they chose her is rather a mystery. Merkel was actually loosing votes for her conservative Christian Democratic Party, with her pro-Iraq-war position, when practically the whole German nation was opposed to it, and the seeming inability to produce a single genuine smile reaching the eyes, which gave her a definite lack of public charisma.)
Like Thatcher, Merkel also has degree in science, a doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) for her thesis on quantum chemistry.
Like Thatcher, Merkel is busy cutting down on workers´ rights and on the German social safety net. Merkel, the pro-corporate and anti-union German chancellor, is also a strong supporter of carbon tax legislation, both in Germany and in Europe, as well as a mandated global reduction in CO2 to combat “Global Warming”.
Margaret Thatcher went for Ambassador Tickell´s “Global Warming” to strengthen her prominence. Her Conservative Party went for it, to weaken the British coal-miners labor union. “Global Warming” would then give the nuclear industry a push, since now coal-fueled power-stations could be replaced by nuclear power-stations for “environmental” reasons. Britain´s nuclear industry urgently needed that kind of a push since the Three Mile Island accident had damaged public confidence in nuclear technology.
The other rationale for why nuclear power should be used instead of coal, the alleged cost benefit, was being destroyed, when privatization of the Britain’s electricity supply industry exposed that British nuclear power was produced at four times the cost of electricity produced in coal-fueled power plants.
And, writes Courtney,
the Conservative Party wanted a large UK nuclear power industry for another reason. That industry’s large nuclear processing facilities were required for the UK’s nuclear weapons programme and the opposition Labour Party was then opposing the Conservative Party’s plans to upgrade the UK’s nuclear deterrent with Trident missiles and submarines.
Subsequently the “Global Warming” issue was promoted by large government grants and funds. Scientists fell in line through peer pressure and for fear of losing their research funding and not because they actually were convinced by the argument.
In 1992 Greenpeace International conducted a survey of the world’s 400 leading climatologists. Greenpeace had hoped to publicize the results of that survey in the run-up to the Rio summit, but when they completed the survey, they gave very little publicity to its results. In response to the survey, only 15 climatologists were willing to say they believed in global warming, although all climatologists rely on it for their employment.
Though not all scientists sold out their integrity for funds:
Following the Leipzig Climate Conference in November 1995,
the Leipzig Declaration disputes the IPCC assertions about man-made global warming. It was drafted and has been signed by over 1,500 scientists from around the world.
Today the “Global Warming” and “Climate Protection” issue is being sold to the public as being a liberal or even a left-wing concern. Forgotten is it´s very much right-wing, anti-union corporate and militarist origin.
Green and environmental minded people also seem to have forgotten the connection between “Global Warming” and the nuclear power-industry, and anti-war activists never seem to register, that “Global Warming” was actually used to create more weapons of mass-destruction.
The fact that the “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” issue isn´t really about environmental protection is clearly shown, for instance, by the US Climate Change Bill, promoted by the new US Obama Administration and his “progressive” Democratic Party.
Atheo News writes about the bill in Dr. Chu’s Energy Bait and Switch
The congressional mandates “are very weak and really will not require any additional renewables beyond what states already are doing,” says Mark Sinclair of Clean Energy States Alliance. “It will be meaningless. It’s just a gesture.”
Marchant Wentworth of the Union of Concerned Scientists came to a similar conclusion, seeing that absolute requirements for renewables, after allowances, would be as low as 8 percent of total electric power generation for each utility. This is hardly a challenge for most utilities in a nation that in 2006 generated almost 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydro power.
In other words, the proposed renewable sources requirements amount to little more than shallow symbolism. The current public subsidies and underwriting for nuclear power already make the nuclear choice more economically viable for utilities to maximize return on utility investment. The legislation is, in fact, a thinly veiled mandate for building new nuclear power plants, or to increase output from existing ones.
Republicans are offering a different plan that simply calls for building 100 new nuclear plants within the next twenty years.
These plans mirror similar policies across the Atlantic where the government in Britain is rushing a new generation of nuclear power plants, with a goal to begin construction within four years. Both ‘energy independence’ and climate change were cited as rationales by policy makers there as well.
Obama’s Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu, from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is a staunch advocate of nuclear power, citing it as “essential” due to global warming while at the same time ignoring the carbon emissions of the “nuclear cycle” that are produced from the mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication and disposal of spent fuel. The new appointee described nuclear power as “carbon free” at his confirmation in January.
While the “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” skeptics (sometimes called “deniers”) are often accused of being paid assets of the oil industry, the economical and political advantages of the “Global Warming” pseudo-science for the nuclear power industry cannot be denied any longer.
There is, however, an even stronger and even less publicly known connection of the “Global Warmers” with another industry, as Aletho News reports:
The new Democratic climate change bill , introduced in the Senate by Barbara Boxer and John Kerry, contains more advantages for nuclear power than even the legislation which passed in the House of Representatives last June. Included are waste management, financing and loan guarantee arrangements, regulatory risk insurance, as well as R&D and training programs. Joseph Lieberman is understood to be preparing the fine print for the bill which is presently “short on details”…..
As with other major pieces of legislation under consideration by the current Congress, the financial industry is a central actor, venture capitalists “are ready to pour multibillions of dollars into clean energy” if Congress passes “some kind of bill that talks about energy independence and climate change,” Boxer said.
How deep the connection between the “Climate Change” movement and the financial industry actually is, and how important the matter is for the elite of this industry, and how this even is connected to the issue of Iran´s civilian nuclear energy program, will be the subject of part two of this report.
Part Two:
Where "Global Warming" and "Peak Oil" meet
That place, of course, is the world´s financial market.
"Human Caused Climate Change" is a financial scam, so is the "Peak Oil" paradigm of catastrophic energy shortages in the near future.
Oil and natural gas are not scarce, but actually abundant energy resources. They are also most likely of non-biological origin, as Russian scientists and oil companies have shown for over 50 years.
While the myth of "Global Warming" is used to create new revenues for the financial elites, the myth of a limited supply of "fossil fuels" had been used for creating large profits in the past.
The western financial elites hope to secure those profits in the future by regulating the use of oil, gas and coal through internationally agreed upon CO2 reduction measures, carbon trade agreements and by monopolizing tomorrow´s nuclear energy market. This is one reason why Iran´s civilian nuclear energy program is being so severely opposed by all the governments of the western world that seek to dominate export markets for nuclear installations from India to Brazil. A primary reason also is Israel's demand that it retain technological superiority.
As we have seen in the last post, the theory of "Catastrophic Human Caused Global Warming" neither originated from a large group of scientists nor from environmental grass-roots organizations. Instead it was a long discarded 19th century hypothesis, which was taken out of the dustbin and then proposed by the 1979 British UN Ambassador, who "tickled" the ambition-streak of Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister at the time.
We also saw, that the main argument for a human caused Climate Change, the so-called "Hockey-Stick", has been scientifically discredited for years.
Using mostly official IPCC charts and other research done by the UN "Global Warming" scientists themselves, Dr.David Evans of Science Speak points out that, while there is evidence for some warming of the planet in the last century, there is indeed
No Evidence
that carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of the recent global warming
And with this conclusion Evans stands in agreement with over 650 leading scientists who, while attending the UN Climate Conference in Poland,
scoffed at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.
Those international scientists are then quoted in a US-Senate EPW Minority report.
But in spite of more and more counter arguments by the scientific community, especially from climatologists, the "Climate Change" bills, mandating carbon reduction for individuals and industries are rammed through practically all parliaments in the industrialized world.
We once again have to look at the money trail to explain the reasons for this paradox:
The New York Times, reported on November 12, 2008
Goldman Sachs Buys Into Carbon Offsets
Goldman Sachs has recently bought pieces of two carbon-offset companies, in the latest sign of investment banks’ interest in the area......
Carbon offsets are projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions — thus potentially counterbalancing a rise in emissions elsewhere. Planting trees are the most obvious offset; but other examples include capturing methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from a coal mine, or undertaking a qualified energy-efficiency project. Offsets are used in the European carbon dioxide cap-and-trade system, but have been slow to catch on in this country, where carbon trading is largely voluntary.
And on February 26, 2008 Chris Morrison from the Green Beat branch of the investment website Venture Beat writes:
Will carbon-trading happen? Goldman hopes so, backs APX
APX, a Silicon Valley company that certifies carbon and emissions offset certificates, and which is well-placed to support carbon-trading markets when they emerge, has gotten backing from Goldman Sachs in a $14 million investment, VentureBeat has learned.
Carbon trading is a growing business that could someday come to resemble the world’s largest financial markets.
Today’s emissions markets are generally small and fragmented. In regional U.S. energy markets, utilities are already required to buy electricity from alternative energy sources like geothermal, solar or wind. To prove their use of alternative energy, they’re required to file a certificate tracking their acquisition of the energy units. So this is the beginning of a “transfer” regime that could grow into more.
Meantime, carbon offsetting markets, that corporations buy credits from, are currently voluntary, but in anticipation of future government regulation, they often require similar certifying schemes. However, the source of offsets can vary widely, from alternative energy generation to tree planting projects.
APX acts as part of the intermediary chain between buyer and seller, doing the work of tracking serial numbers on these certificates and the accounts they go into. It’s not glamorous, but having an efficient, scalable back-end will be one of the requirements for building a multi-billion dollar market, as emissions trading may well become.
As today’s small, scattered emissions trading markets grow, they may come to resemble the complex business and regulatory ecosystems of the futures and equities markets, which include various behind-the-scenes businesses similar to APX.
Another indicator that some very serious businesses are becoming involved is one of the new investors in the company’s latest funding: Goldman Sachs, a heavyweight in the New York financial markets.
The largest financial corporation in the world buys into both the "carbon-offset" as well as into the "carbon-trading" market, which is expected to become a multi-billion dollar business.
The reduction of the use of hydro-carbon energy will make large profits to be funneled once again into the financial markets, which then will substitute for the profits the oil companies, in cohorts with the oil producing countries, used to make. While energy demand is fairly inelastic, a generalized increase in end user cost will enrich the well placed.
Why, if "human caused climate change" is a scam, is this substitution necessary?
Because slowly but certainly the knowledge emerges, that these large oil-profits of the past had also been based on a scam - the scam of "resource depletion" caused by over-exploitation of resources due to "exponential global population growth".
The myth of" increasing and catastrophic resource shortages" was initially promoted by the Rockefeller associated "Club of Rome".
Nowadays this scam is most often called the "Peak Oil" problem.
The "Peak Oil" propagandists tell us that oil, as well as natural gas-production, has either already peaked or will in the very near future. After reaching the peak of production a fast decline would make "cheap energy" increasingly scarce. As a consequence, the global economy, dependent on "cheap energy", would contract and eventually crash. This would then cause wide-spread devastation for most of us. And for billions of people all over the globe it would cause constant food-shortages and even starvation.
The catastrophic consequences to global food-production by shortages of oil and gas as energy resources is the first false paradigm promoted by the "Peak Oil" myth.
The second one is, that the world´s economic production is vitally dependent on energy being "cheap".
The reality is, that it isn´t the world´s real, physical economy but the global financial markets which are dependent on energy-resources being "cheap". For today´s actual consumers of energy, for private, industrial or public consumers, oil and gas aren´t actually that "cheap".
It is the large difference between production costs and consumer prices of oil and gas, which for a long time have kept the snake-oil sellers of the big financial corporations afloat. This high price/cost difference in oil production in the past was forced unto global consumers by the monopoly power the large oil-corporations had on the business and the coercive power their main shareholders had on governments all over the world.
The same "monopoly" game is now being started with nuclear energy production, as Dutch researcher Rudo de Ruijter points out in
US-Iran: Raid on nuclear fuel market
In the background of the political joust about Iran, a few countries are reshaping the world. They are taking possession of the global nuclear fuel market. New IAEA regulations should keep newcomers away.
The US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan will become the world’s nuclear filling stations. Under the auspices of the IAEA these suppliers will dictate the rules, the prices and the currencies they want to get paid in.
Iran has become the pretext and test case for their plans.
However, like the "man-made Global Warming" myth, the "Peak-Oil" myth is now being contradicted by the facts, which even part of the mainstream media can no longer ignore:
On January 18, 2008 the British Times reports:
World not running out of oil, say experts
A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.
Peter Jackson, the report's author, said: “We will be able to grow supply to well over 100million barrels per day by 2017.” Current world oil output is in the region of 85million barrels a day.
But not only do western experts now concede, that there is far more oil in the ground, than they have previously admitted to, but there are also a growing number of western geologists who finally are starting to challenge the 18th century theory of "fossil" fuel, something the Russians have done over half a century ago.
William Engdahl writes about this in his "Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer"
Engdahl explains that for the Soviets it actually was "Necessity" which became "the mother of invention"
In the 1950’s the Soviet Union faced ‘Iron Curtain’ isolation from the West. The Cold War was in high gear. Russia had little oil to fuel its economy. Finding sufficient oil indigenously was a national security priority of the highest order.
Scientists at the Institute of the Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences began a fundamental inquiry in the late 1940’s: where does oil come from?
In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir’yev announced their conclusions: ‘Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.’ The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They called their theory of oil origin the ‘a-biotic’ theory—non-biological—to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins.
If they were right, oil supply on earth would be limited only by the amount of hydrocarbon constituents present deep in the earth at the time of the earth’s formation. Availability of oil would depend only on technology to drill ultra-deep wells and explore into the earth’s inner regions. They also realized old fields could be revived to continue producing, so called self-replentishing fields. They argued that oil is formed deep in the earth, formed in conditions of very high temperature and very high pressure, like that required for diamonds to form. ‘Oil is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via ‘cold’ eruptive processes into the crust of the earth,’ Porfir’yev stated. His team dismissed the idea that oil is was biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains as a hoax designed to perpetuate the myth of limited supply.
The Soviets then started to tailor their oil-explorations accordingly:
Following their a-biotic or non-fossil theory of the deep origins of petroleum, the Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geophysicists and chemists began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. After a tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations.
A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent. The size of the field discovered compared with the North Slope of Alaska. By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered successful with a ten percent success rate. Nine of ten wells are typically “dry holes.”...
While the American oil multinationals were busy controlling the easily accessible large fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and other areas of cheap, abundant oil during the 1960’s, the Russians were busy testing their alternative theory. They began drilling in a supposedly barren region of Siberia. There they developed eleven major oil fields and one Giant field based on their deep ‘a-biotic’ geological estimates. They drilled into crystalline basement rock and hit black gold of a scale comparable to the Alaska North Slope.
They then went to Vietnam in the 1980s and offered to finance drilling costs to show their new geological theory worked. The Russian company Petrosov drilled in Vietnam’s White Tiger oilfield offshore into basalt rock some 17,000 feet down and extracted 6,000 barrels a day of oil to feed the energy-starved Vietnam economy. In the USSR, a-biotic-trained Russian geologists perfected their knowledge and the USSR emerged as the world’s largest oil producer by the mid-1980’s.
With the fall of the Iron Curtain the Russian oil-theory became far more available to scientists and lay people in the western world. Enthusiastically embracing free-market doctrines in the 1990s the Russian oil experts initially offered to share their expertise with the western world. But they were rebuffed in their overtures.
Obviously a theory which contradicts the scarcity myth would cut into the profits of the western oil-corporations.
The Russian oil-companies at home, however, kept on working the same way they had done for nearly half a century. Well after the dissolution of the USSR, in the early 1990’s, they went on using the a-biotic petroleum theory
to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than forty-five years, to be geologically barren—the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the region between Russia and Ukraine.
And while the well-paid scientists of the western oil-companies rejected the theory, others did not. Raymond J. Learsy quotes the western proponents of the abiotic oil-theory in the Huffington Post:
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins recognizes that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which has been erupted into the crust of the Earth. In short, and bluntly, petroleum is not a "fossil fuel" and has no intrinsic connection with dead dinosaurs (or any other biological detritus) "in the sediments" (or anywhere else)...
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of petroleum is based upon rigorous scientific reasoning, consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry, as well as upon extensive geological observation, and rests squarely in the mainstream of modern physics and chemistry, from which it draws its provenance.
Much of the modern Russian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum genesis developed from the sciences of chemistry and thermodynamics, and accordingly the modern theory has steadfastly held as a central tenet that the generation of hydrocarbons must conform to the general laws of chemical thermodynamics, - as must likewise all matter.
In such respect, modern Russian-Ukrainian petroleum science contrasts strongly to what are too often passed off as "theories" in the field of geology in Britain and the U.S.A.
The wall western multinational oil-companies had put up against scientifically based research to save their scarcity paradigm is obviously crumbling as was to be expected at least since the fall of the Iron Wall. More and more western scientific research supporting the long established and well tested Russian theories is now being published, as in the right-wing WorldNetDaily, which cites geologist and researcher Giora Proskurowski who, in a study published in Science Magazine
presented new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil...
While organic theorists have posited that the material required to produce hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock came from dinosaurs and ancient forests, more recent argument have suggested living organisms as small as plankton may have been the origin.
The abiotic theory argues, in contrast, that hydrocarbons are naturally produced on a continual basis throughout the solar system, including within the mantle of the earth. The advocates believe the oil seeps up through bedrock cracks to deposit in sedimentary rock. Traditional petro-geologists, they say, have confused the rock as the originator rather than the depository of the hydrocarbons....
Lost City is a hypothermal field some 2,100 feet below sea level that sits along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the center of the Atlantic Ocean, noted for strange 90 to 200 foot white towers on the sea bottom.
In 2003 and again in 2005, Proskurowski and his team descended in a scientific submarine to collect liquid bubbling up from Lost City sea vents.
Proskurowski found hydrocarbons containing carbon-13 isotopes that appeared to be formed from the mantle of the Earth, rather than from biological material settled on the ocean floor.
Carbon 13 is the carbon isotope scientists associate with abiotic origin, compared to Carbon 12 that scientists typically associate with biological origin.
Proskurowski argued that the hydrocarbons found in the natural hydrothermal fluids coming out of the Lost City sea vents is attributable to abiotic production by Fischer-Tropsch, or FTT, reactions.
The Fischer-Tropsch equations were first developed by Nazi scientists who created methodologies for producing synthetic oil from coal.
"Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water and moderate amounts of heat," Proskurowski wrote.
The study also confirmed a major argument of Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold, who argued in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" that micro-organisms found in oil might have come from the mantle of the earth where, absent photosynthesis, the micro-organisms feed on hydrocarbons arising from the earth's mantle in the dark depths of the ocean floors.
Another piece of evidence for the abiotic origin of oil, are several experimental studies done recently:
Alexander Goncharov, a geophysicist at the Carnegie Institution ()
and his colleagues in Russia and Sweden have experimentally shown for the first time that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be produced under the pressure and temperature conditions of the upper mantle, the slightly viscous layer of the earth directly below the crust. Their research was published () in Nature Geoscience.
"Our results provide a link which was previously missing or was doubtful because of a lack of in situ measurements ... for the upper mantle conditions," Goncharov said. "Thus, our work suggests there is a possibility for the [abiogenic] oil formation in the deep earth and that there is a potential to find more oil fields than expected if one assumes that oil could be formed only biogenically."
The researchers used a diamond anvil cell and a laser heat source to subject methane -- a primary component of natural gas -- to conditions that mimic the earth at 40 to 95 miles deep...................
Under those conditions, the methane reacted and formed petrochemical feedstock ethane and propane and butane, which are used as fuels, as well as molecular hydrogen and graphite. When the ethane was subjected to the same conditions, it formed methane, suggesting heavier hydrocarbons could exist deep under the earth's surface.
Barry Katz, a geochemist at Chevron Corp., agreed.
"I don't disagree with the idea," Katz said. "I disagree with the idea of commercial quantities. There's no question that it's coming out of the system. However, it's not coming out in commercial quantities."
Katz is acting like a true corporate hack. Russian, Ukrainian and Vietnamese oil producers have proved that there is indeed oil to be found at great depth and in commercial quantities.
Did you know, that the “Human caused Global Warming” hypothesis didn´t originate in the 1980s, but actually in the 1880s? Although, until the late 1970s, the hypothesis was considered “a curiosity”, since it contradicted observed events.
Did you further know, that at first this hypothesis wasn´t publicly promoted by scientists or even environmentalists, but by a UN ambassador and a very ambitious British Lady politician?
It’s snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever. And that’s just the news of the past week. Truly, it never rains but it pours – and all over our global warming alarmists.
Time’s up for this absurd scaremongering. The fears are being contradicted by the facts, and more so by the week.
- wrote Andrew Bolt in the Australian Herald Sun last April.
Then he goes on to debunk many of the main claims most “Global Warming” (renamed “Climate Change”) believers will cite in public:
-like the claim that
the earth is rapidly warming at the moment.
The facts, however, are
that according to data from Britain’s Hadley Centre, NASA’s Aqua satellite and the US National Climatic Data Centre
the fall in temperatures from just 2002 (until 2009) has already wiped out half the warming our planet experienced last century.
(See also: Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered)
-or the claim that
the polar ice is rapidly melting.
The facts, however, are
that a British Antarctic Survey, working with NASA, last (April) confirmed
ice around Antarctica has grown 100,000 sq km each decade for the past 30 years.
-or the claim, that
the oceans are warming up
The facts, however, are
according to Josh Willis, of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory who evaluated
a five years study (done using) a network of 3175 automated bathythermographs deployed in the oceans by the Argo program, a collaboration between 50 agencies from 26 countries:
“There has been a very slight cooling”…
-or the claim that
sea-levels are rising dramatically.
The facts, however, are
according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado, that
for almost three years, the seas have stopped rising,
-or the claim,
that world-wide devastating storms (cyclones) are getting worse.
The facts, however, are
according to Ryan Maue of Florida State University, who
recently measured the frequency, intensity and duration of all hurricanes and cyclones to compile an Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index.()
The energy index is at its lowest level for more than 30 years.
-or the absolutely ridiculous claim by World Vision boss Tim Costello that Asia was a “region, thanks to climate change, that has far more cyclones, tsunamis, droughts”.
The facts are
(besides that Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes)
according to a 2006 study by Indur Goklany, who represented the US at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
“There is no signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severity of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.”
Most of the myths, which are now slowly being debunked by scientists through intensive research, have once been created by “scientists”.
The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has for several decades now employed “scientists” who claim
that human activities are responsible for nearly all earth’s recorded warming during the past two centuries.
writes David R. Legates in “Breaking the “Hockey Stick”
A widely circulated image used by the IPCC dramatically depicting these temperature trends resembles a hockey stick with three distinct parts: a flat “shaft” extending from A.D. 1000 to 1900, a “blade” shooting up from A.D. 1900 to 2000, and a range of uncertainty in temperature estimates that envelops the shaft like a “sheath.”
This image was produced by Michael Mann, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes
(other colleagues working with Mann on his subsequent “climate change” research-papers were Philip D. Jones and Gavin Schmidt)…..
However, five independent research groups have uncovered problems with the underlying reconstructions by Mann and his colleagues in their 1998 and 1999 work that have persisted through his most recent collaborative efforts, calling into question all three components of the “hockey stick.”…
Mann and Jones indicate that globally- and hemispherically-averaged air temperatures from A.D. 200 to 1900 were nearly constant. Missing from their timeline, however, are the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850).
Most proxy records from around the globe show these climatic events, as Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas and I concluded in a 2003 paper published in Energy and the Environment.
For instance:
* In such widely disparate regions as Argentina, Chile, southern Peru, southern Africa and northern China, records indicate a marked warming at the beginning of the last millennium followed by extreme cold during the middle centuries.
* Historical proxies for temperature – such as tree rings, ice cores and bore holes – in New Zealand, Australia and California also confirm widespread, significant warming and cooling trends…..
(Scientists) Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick..().. contend that Mann and his colleagues in their 1998 and 1999 papers unjustifiably truncated or extrapolated trends from source data, used obsolete data, made incorrect calculations, and associated data sets with incorrect geographical locations….
More recently,(scientists) David Chapman, Marshall Bartlett and Robert Harris identified methodological problems in a 2003 Geophysical Research Letters study by Mann and G. Schmidt.
Specifically, Mann and Schmidt eliminated specific proxy records (data from bore holes) they thought were inaccurate. Chapman et al. showed that Mann and Schmidt had unjustifiably excluded the bore-hole data and concluded that their methods were “just bad science” and that they presented a “selective and inappropriate presentation” of results..….
Jan Esper, David Frank and Robert Wilson () further argued that the fatal flaw with Mann, Bradley and Hughes’ temperature reconstruction is its incorrect representation of longer-term trends.
They observed that the statistical methods used inappropriately remove trends over long time periods..…
But the meteoric rise of the “Global Warming – bad science” into a global dogma and from there into the legislation of, by now, most nations on earth, did not originate with scientists at all.
Richard Courtney, founding member of the European Science and Environment Forum and technical adviser to several members of the British Parliament as well as to some British members of the European Parliament wrote the 1999 article “Global Warming: How It All Began” in which he explores the history of this particular pseudo-science.
The hypothesis of man-made global warming has existed since the 1880s. It was an obscure scientific hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would increase CO2 in the air to enhance the greenhouse effect and thus cause global warming. Before the 1980s this hypothesis was usually regarded as a curiosity because the nineteenth century calculations indicated that mean global temperature should have risen more than 1°C by 1940, and it had not.
Then, in 1979, Mrs. Margaret Thatcher (now Lady Thatcher) became Prime Minister of the UK, and she elevated the hypothesis to the status of a major international policy issue…..
Courtney goes on to explain, that in 1979 Thatcher actually did not yet have a much stature abroad or at home. In Britain her only claim to fame as an Education Secretary in the Heath administration that collapsed in 1974 was as ‘Milk Snatcher Thatcher’ due to her policy of ending distribution of milk to British school-children.
It was Britain´s Ambassador to the United Nations, Sir Crispin Tickell, who suggested she should use the issue of “Global Warming” as a means to gain national and international credibility.
He also suggested, that Thatcher with her education, a degree in chemistry, could easily win debates on scientific subjects, since most other politicians were “scientifically illiterate” .
As an aside, there are quite interesting parallels between the British “Iron Lady” of the 1980s and the German “Iron Lady” of today.
Like Thatcher, Angela Merkel was not widely known before she was put into office by her party.
(Why they chose her is rather a mystery. Merkel was actually loosing votes for her conservative Christian Democratic Party, with her pro-Iraq-war position, when practically the whole German nation was opposed to it, and the seeming inability to produce a single genuine smile reaching the eyes, which gave her a definite lack of public charisma.)
Like Thatcher, Merkel also has degree in science, a doctorate (Dr. rer. nat.) for her thesis on quantum chemistry.
Like Thatcher, Merkel is busy cutting down on workers´ rights and on the German social safety net. Merkel, the pro-corporate and anti-union German chancellor, is also a strong supporter of carbon tax legislation, both in Germany and in Europe, as well as a mandated global reduction in CO2 to combat “Global Warming”.
Margaret Thatcher went for Ambassador Tickell´s “Global Warming” to strengthen her prominence. Her Conservative Party went for it, to weaken the British coal-miners labor union. “Global Warming” would then give the nuclear industry a push, since now coal-fueled power-stations could be replaced by nuclear power-stations for “environmental” reasons. Britain´s nuclear industry urgently needed that kind of a push since the Three Mile Island accident had damaged public confidence in nuclear technology.
The other rationale for why nuclear power should be used instead of coal, the alleged cost benefit, was being destroyed, when privatization of the Britain’s electricity supply industry exposed that British nuclear power was produced at four times the cost of electricity produced in coal-fueled power plants.
And, writes Courtney,
the Conservative Party wanted a large UK nuclear power industry for another reason. That industry’s large nuclear processing facilities were required for the UK’s nuclear weapons programme and the opposition Labour Party was then opposing the Conservative Party’s plans to upgrade the UK’s nuclear deterrent with Trident missiles and submarines.
Subsequently the “Global Warming” issue was promoted by large government grants and funds. Scientists fell in line through peer pressure and for fear of losing their research funding and not because they actually were convinced by the argument.
In 1992 Greenpeace International conducted a survey of the world’s 400 leading climatologists. Greenpeace had hoped to publicize the results of that survey in the run-up to the Rio summit, but when they completed the survey, they gave very little publicity to its results. In response to the survey, only 15 climatologists were willing to say they believed in global warming, although all climatologists rely on it for their employment.
Though not all scientists sold out their integrity for funds:
Following the Leipzig Climate Conference in November 1995,
the Leipzig Declaration disputes the IPCC assertions about man-made global warming. It was drafted and has been signed by over 1,500 scientists from around the world.
Today the “Global Warming” and “Climate Protection” issue is being sold to the public as being a liberal or even a left-wing concern. Forgotten is it´s very much right-wing, anti-union corporate and militarist origin.
Green and environmental minded people also seem to have forgotten the connection between “Global Warming” and the nuclear power-industry, and anti-war activists never seem to register, that “Global Warming” was actually used to create more weapons of mass-destruction.
The fact that the “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” issue isn´t really about environmental protection is clearly shown, for instance, by the US Climate Change Bill, promoted by the new US Obama Administration and his “progressive” Democratic Party.
Atheo News writes about the bill in Dr. Chu’s Energy Bait and Switch
The congressional mandates “are very weak and really will not require any additional renewables beyond what states already are doing,” says Mark Sinclair of Clean Energy States Alliance. “It will be meaningless. It’s just a gesture.”
Marchant Wentworth of the Union of Concerned Scientists came to a similar conclusion, seeing that absolute requirements for renewables, after allowances, would be as low as 8 percent of total electric power generation for each utility. This is hardly a challenge for most utilities in a nation that in 2006 generated almost 10 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydro power.
In other words, the proposed renewable sources requirements amount to little more than shallow symbolism. The current public subsidies and underwriting for nuclear power already make the nuclear choice more economically viable for utilities to maximize return on utility investment. The legislation is, in fact, a thinly veiled mandate for building new nuclear power plants, or to increase output from existing ones.
Republicans are offering a different plan that simply calls for building 100 new nuclear plants within the next twenty years.
These plans mirror similar policies across the Atlantic where the government in Britain is rushing a new generation of nuclear power plants, with a goal to begin construction within four years. Both ‘energy independence’ and climate change were cited as rationales by policy makers there as well.
Obama’s Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu, from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, is a staunch advocate of nuclear power, citing it as “essential” due to global warming while at the same time ignoring the carbon emissions of the “nuclear cycle” that are produced from the mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication and disposal of spent fuel. The new appointee described nuclear power as “carbon free” at his confirmation in January.
While the “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” skeptics (sometimes called “deniers”) are often accused of being paid assets of the oil industry, the economical and political advantages of the “Global Warming” pseudo-science for the nuclear power industry cannot be denied any longer.
There is, however, an even stronger and even less publicly known connection of the “Global Warmers” with another industry, as Aletho News reports:
The new Democratic climate change bill , introduced in the Senate by Barbara Boxer and John Kerry, contains more advantages for nuclear power than even the legislation which passed in the House of Representatives last June. Included are waste management, financing and loan guarantee arrangements, regulatory risk insurance, as well as R&D and training programs. Joseph Lieberman is understood to be preparing the fine print for the bill which is presently “short on details”…..
As with other major pieces of legislation under consideration by the current Congress, the financial industry is a central actor, venture capitalists “are ready to pour multibillions of dollars into clean energy” if Congress passes “some kind of bill that talks about energy independence and climate change,” Boxer said.
How deep the connection between the “Climate Change” movement and the financial industry actually is, and how important the matter is for the elite of this industry, and how this even is connected to the issue of Iran´s civilian nuclear energy program, will be the subject of part two of this report.
Part Two:
Where "Global Warming" and "Peak Oil" meet
That place, of course, is the world´s financial market.
"Human Caused Climate Change" is a financial scam, so is the "Peak Oil" paradigm of catastrophic energy shortages in the near future.
Oil and natural gas are not scarce, but actually abundant energy resources. They are also most likely of non-biological origin, as Russian scientists and oil companies have shown for over 50 years.
While the myth of "Global Warming" is used to create new revenues for the financial elites, the myth of a limited supply of "fossil fuels" had been used for creating large profits in the past.
The western financial elites hope to secure those profits in the future by regulating the use of oil, gas and coal through internationally agreed upon CO2 reduction measures, carbon trade agreements and by monopolizing tomorrow´s nuclear energy market. This is one reason why Iran´s civilian nuclear energy program is being so severely opposed by all the governments of the western world that seek to dominate export markets for nuclear installations from India to Brazil. A primary reason also is Israel's demand that it retain technological superiority.
As we have seen in the last post, the theory of "Catastrophic Human Caused Global Warming" neither originated from a large group of scientists nor from environmental grass-roots organizations. Instead it was a long discarded 19th century hypothesis, which was taken out of the dustbin and then proposed by the 1979 British UN Ambassador, who "tickled" the ambition-streak of Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister at the time.
We also saw, that the main argument for a human caused Climate Change, the so-called "Hockey-Stick", has been scientifically discredited for years.
Using mostly official IPCC charts and other research done by the UN "Global Warming" scientists themselves, Dr.David Evans of Science Speak points out that, while there is evidence for some warming of the planet in the last century, there is indeed
No Evidence
that carbon dioxide emissions are the main cause of the recent global warming
And with this conclusion Evans stands in agreement with over 650 leading scientists who, while attending the UN Climate Conference in Poland,
scoffed at doomsday reports of man-made global warming - labeling them variously a lie, a hoax and part of a new religion.
Those international scientists are then quoted in a US-Senate EPW Minority report.
But in spite of more and more counter arguments by the scientific community, especially from climatologists, the "Climate Change" bills, mandating carbon reduction for individuals and industries are rammed through practically all parliaments in the industrialized world.
We once again have to look at the money trail to explain the reasons for this paradox:
The New York Times, reported on November 12, 2008
Goldman Sachs Buys Into Carbon Offsets
Goldman Sachs has recently bought pieces of two carbon-offset companies, in the latest sign of investment banks’ interest in the area......
Carbon offsets are projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions — thus potentially counterbalancing a rise in emissions elsewhere. Planting trees are the most obvious offset; but other examples include capturing methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from a coal mine, or undertaking a qualified energy-efficiency project. Offsets are used in the European carbon dioxide cap-and-trade system, but have been slow to catch on in this country, where carbon trading is largely voluntary.
And on February 26, 2008 Chris Morrison from the Green Beat branch of the investment website Venture Beat writes:
Will carbon-trading happen? Goldman hopes so, backs APX
APX, a Silicon Valley company that certifies carbon and emissions offset certificates, and which is well-placed to support carbon-trading markets when they emerge, has gotten backing from Goldman Sachs in a $14 million investment, VentureBeat has learned.
Carbon trading is a growing business that could someday come to resemble the world’s largest financial markets.
Today’s emissions markets are generally small and fragmented. In regional U.S. energy markets, utilities are already required to buy electricity from alternative energy sources like geothermal, solar or wind. To prove their use of alternative energy, they’re required to file a certificate tracking their acquisition of the energy units. So this is the beginning of a “transfer” regime that could grow into more.
Meantime, carbon offsetting markets, that corporations buy credits from, are currently voluntary, but in anticipation of future government regulation, they often require similar certifying schemes. However, the source of offsets can vary widely, from alternative energy generation to tree planting projects.
APX acts as part of the intermediary chain between buyer and seller, doing the work of tracking serial numbers on these certificates and the accounts they go into. It’s not glamorous, but having an efficient, scalable back-end will be one of the requirements for building a multi-billion dollar market, as emissions trading may well become.
As today’s small, scattered emissions trading markets grow, they may come to resemble the complex business and regulatory ecosystems of the futures and equities markets, which include various behind-the-scenes businesses similar to APX.
Another indicator that some very serious businesses are becoming involved is one of the new investors in the company’s latest funding: Goldman Sachs, a heavyweight in the New York financial markets.
The largest financial corporation in the world buys into both the "carbon-offset" as well as into the "carbon-trading" market, which is expected to become a multi-billion dollar business.
The reduction of the use of hydro-carbon energy will make large profits to be funneled once again into the financial markets, which then will substitute for the profits the oil companies, in cohorts with the oil producing countries, used to make. While energy demand is fairly inelastic, a generalized increase in end user cost will enrich the well placed.
Why, if "human caused climate change" is a scam, is this substitution necessary?
Because slowly but certainly the knowledge emerges, that these large oil-profits of the past had also been based on a scam - the scam of "resource depletion" caused by over-exploitation of resources due to "exponential global population growth".
The myth of" increasing and catastrophic resource shortages" was initially promoted by the Rockefeller associated "Club of Rome".
Nowadays this scam is most often called the "Peak Oil" problem.
The "Peak Oil" propagandists tell us that oil, as well as natural gas-production, has either already peaked or will in the very near future. After reaching the peak of production a fast decline would make "cheap energy" increasingly scarce. As a consequence, the global economy, dependent on "cheap energy", would contract and eventually crash. This would then cause wide-spread devastation for most of us. And for billions of people all over the globe it would cause constant food-shortages and even starvation.
The catastrophic consequences to global food-production by shortages of oil and gas as energy resources is the first false paradigm promoted by the "Peak Oil" myth.
The second one is, that the world´s economic production is vitally dependent on energy being "cheap".
The reality is, that it isn´t the world´s real, physical economy but the global financial markets which are dependent on energy-resources being "cheap". For today´s actual consumers of energy, for private, industrial or public consumers, oil and gas aren´t actually that "cheap".
It is the large difference between production costs and consumer prices of oil and gas, which for a long time have kept the snake-oil sellers of the big financial corporations afloat. This high price/cost difference in oil production in the past was forced unto global consumers by the monopoly power the large oil-corporations had on the business and the coercive power their main shareholders had on governments all over the world.
The same "monopoly" game is now being started with nuclear energy production, as Dutch researcher Rudo de Ruijter points out in
US-Iran: Raid on nuclear fuel market
In the background of the political joust about Iran, a few countries are reshaping the world. They are taking possession of the global nuclear fuel market. New IAEA regulations should keep newcomers away.
The US, UK, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan will become the world’s nuclear filling stations. Under the auspices of the IAEA these suppliers will dictate the rules, the prices and the currencies they want to get paid in.
Iran has become the pretext and test case for their plans.
However, like the "man-made Global Warming" myth, the "Peak-Oil" myth is now being contradicted by the facts, which even part of the mainstream media can no longer ignore:
On January 18, 2008 the British Times reports:
World not running out of oil, say experts
A landmark study of more than 800 oilfields by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (Cera) has concluded that rates of decline are only 4.5 per cent a year, almost half the rate previously believed, leading the consultancy to conclude that oil output will continue to rise over the next decade.
Peter Jackson, the report's author, said: “We will be able to grow supply to well over 100million barrels per day by 2017.” Current world oil output is in the region of 85million barrels a day.
But not only do western experts now concede, that there is far more oil in the ground, than they have previously admitted to, but there are also a growing number of western geologists who finally are starting to challenge the 18th century theory of "fossil" fuel, something the Russians have done over half a century ago.
William Engdahl writes about this in his "Confessions of an “ex” Peak Oil Believer"
Engdahl explains that for the Soviets it actually was "Necessity" which became "the mother of invention"
In the 1950’s the Soviet Union faced ‘Iron Curtain’ isolation from the West. The Cold War was in high gear. Russia had little oil to fuel its economy. Finding sufficient oil indigenously was a national security priority of the highest order.
Scientists at the Institute of the Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Geological Sciences of the Ukraine Academy of Sciences began a fundamental inquiry in the late 1940’s: where does oil come from?
In 1956, Prof. Vladimir Porfir’yev announced their conclusions: ‘Crude oil and natural petroleum gas have no intrinsic connection with biological matter originating near the surface of the earth. They are primordial materials which have been erupted from great depths.’ The Soviet geologists had turned Western orthodox geology on its head. They called their theory of oil origin the ‘a-biotic’ theory—non-biological—to distinguish from the Western biological theory of origins.
If they were right, oil supply on earth would be limited only by the amount of hydrocarbon constituents present deep in the earth at the time of the earth’s formation. Availability of oil would depend only on technology to drill ultra-deep wells and explore into the earth’s inner regions. They also realized old fields could be revived to continue producing, so called self-replentishing fields. They argued that oil is formed deep in the earth, formed in conditions of very high temperature and very high pressure, like that required for diamonds to form. ‘Oil is a primordial material of deep origin which is transported at high pressure via ‘cold’ eruptive processes into the crust of the earth,’ Porfir’yev stated. His team dismissed the idea that oil is was biological residue of plant and animal fossil remains as a hoax designed to perpetuate the myth of limited supply.
The Soviets then started to tailor their oil-explorations accordingly:
Following their a-biotic or non-fossil theory of the deep origins of petroleum, the Russian and Ukrainian petroleum geophysicists and chemists began with a detailed analysis of the tectonic history and geological structure of the crystalline basement of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. After a tectonic and deep structural analysis of the area, they made geophysical and geochemical investigations.
A total of sixty one wells were drilled, of which thirty seven were commercially productive, an extremely impressive exploration success rate of almost sixty percent. The size of the field discovered compared with the North Slope of Alaska. By contrast, US wildcat drilling was considered successful with a ten percent success rate. Nine of ten wells are typically “dry holes.”...
While the American oil multinationals were busy controlling the easily accessible large fields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and other areas of cheap, abundant oil during the 1960’s, the Russians were busy testing their alternative theory. They began drilling in a supposedly barren region of Siberia. There they developed eleven major oil fields and one Giant field based on their deep ‘a-biotic’ geological estimates. They drilled into crystalline basement rock and hit black gold of a scale comparable to the Alaska North Slope.
They then went to Vietnam in the 1980s and offered to finance drilling costs to show their new geological theory worked. The Russian company Petrosov drilled in Vietnam’s White Tiger oilfield offshore into basalt rock some 17,000 feet down and extracted 6,000 barrels a day of oil to feed the energy-starved Vietnam economy. In the USSR, a-biotic-trained Russian geologists perfected their knowledge and the USSR emerged as the world’s largest oil producer by the mid-1980’s.
With the fall of the Iron Curtain the Russian oil-theory became far more available to scientists and lay people in the western world. Enthusiastically embracing free-market doctrines in the 1990s the Russian oil experts initially offered to share their expertise with the western world. But they were rebuffed in their overtures.
Obviously a theory which contradicts the scarcity myth would cut into the profits of the western oil-corporations.
The Russian oil-companies at home, however, kept on working the same way they had done for nearly half a century. Well after the dissolution of the USSR, in the early 1990’s, they went on using the a-biotic petroleum theory
to drill for oil and gas in a region believed for more than forty-five years, to be geologically barren—the Dnieper-Donets Basin in the region between Russia and Ukraine.
And while the well-paid scientists of the western oil-companies rejected the theory, others did not. Raymond J. Learsy quotes the western proponents of the abiotic oil-theory in the Huffington Post:
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins recognizes that petroleum is a primordial material of deep origin which has been erupted into the crust of the Earth. In short, and bluntly, petroleum is not a "fossil fuel" and has no intrinsic connection with dead dinosaurs (or any other biological detritus) "in the sediments" (or anywhere else)...
The modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of petroleum is based upon rigorous scientific reasoning, consistent with the laws of physics and chemistry, as well as upon extensive geological observation, and rests squarely in the mainstream of modern physics and chemistry, from which it draws its provenance.
Much of the modern Russian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum genesis developed from the sciences of chemistry and thermodynamics, and accordingly the modern theory has steadfastly held as a central tenet that the generation of hydrocarbons must conform to the general laws of chemical thermodynamics, - as must likewise all matter.
In such respect, modern Russian-Ukrainian petroleum science contrasts strongly to what are too often passed off as "theories" in the field of geology in Britain and the U.S.A.
The wall western multinational oil-companies had put up against scientifically based research to save their scarcity paradigm is obviously crumbling as was to be expected at least since the fall of the Iron Wall. More and more western scientific research supporting the long established and well tested Russian theories is now being published, as in the right-wing WorldNetDaily, which cites geologist and researcher Giora Proskurowski who, in a study published in Science Magazine
presented new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil...
While organic theorists have posited that the material required to produce hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock came from dinosaurs and ancient forests, more recent argument have suggested living organisms as small as plankton may have been the origin.
The abiotic theory argues, in contrast, that hydrocarbons are naturally produced on a continual basis throughout the solar system, including within the mantle of the earth. The advocates believe the oil seeps up through bedrock cracks to deposit in sedimentary rock. Traditional petro-geologists, they say, have confused the rock as the originator rather than the depository of the hydrocarbons....
Lost City is a hypothermal field some 2,100 feet below sea level that sits along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the center of the Atlantic Ocean, noted for strange 90 to 200 foot white towers on the sea bottom.
In 2003 and again in 2005, Proskurowski and his team descended in a scientific submarine to collect liquid bubbling up from Lost City sea vents.
Proskurowski found hydrocarbons containing carbon-13 isotopes that appeared to be formed from the mantle of the Earth, rather than from biological material settled on the ocean floor.
Carbon 13 is the carbon isotope scientists associate with abiotic origin, compared to Carbon 12 that scientists typically associate with biological origin.
Proskurowski argued that the hydrocarbons found in the natural hydrothermal fluids coming out of the Lost City sea vents is attributable to abiotic production by Fischer-Tropsch, or FTT, reactions.
The Fischer-Tropsch equations were first developed by Nazi scientists who created methodologies for producing synthetic oil from coal.
"Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water and moderate amounts of heat," Proskurowski wrote.
The study also confirmed a major argument of Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold, who argued in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" that micro-organisms found in oil might have come from the mantle of the earth where, absent photosynthesis, the micro-organisms feed on hydrocarbons arising from the earth's mantle in the dark depths of the ocean floors.
Another piece of evidence for the abiotic origin of oil, are several experimental studies done recently:
Alexander Goncharov, a geophysicist at the Carnegie Institution ()
and his colleagues in Russia and Sweden have experimentally shown for the first time that ethane and heavier hydrocarbons can be produced under the pressure and temperature conditions of the upper mantle, the slightly viscous layer of the earth directly below the crust. Their research was published () in Nature Geoscience.
"Our results provide a link which was previously missing or was doubtful because of a lack of in situ measurements ... for the upper mantle conditions," Goncharov said. "Thus, our work suggests there is a possibility for the [abiogenic] oil formation in the deep earth and that there is a potential to find more oil fields than expected if one assumes that oil could be formed only biogenically."
The researchers used a diamond anvil cell and a laser heat source to subject methane -- a primary component of natural gas -- to conditions that mimic the earth at 40 to 95 miles deep...................
Under those conditions, the methane reacted and formed petrochemical feedstock ethane and propane and butane, which are used as fuels, as well as molecular hydrogen and graphite. When the ethane was subjected to the same conditions, it formed methane, suggesting heavier hydrocarbons could exist deep under the earth's surface.
Barry Katz, a geochemist at Chevron Corp., agreed.
"I don't disagree with the idea," Katz said. "I disagree with the idea of commercial quantities. There's no question that it's coming out of the system. However, it's not coming out in commercial quantities."
Katz is acting like a true corporate hack. Russian, Ukrainian and Vietnamese oil producers have proved that there is indeed oil to be found at great depth and in commercial quantities.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
THE A.D.L. vs. FAITH AND FREEDOM
By Rabbi Nachum Shifren
November 30, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
How the ADL is working to destroy America
It is difficult to write about Jewish traitors, but I have the obligation to do so. My life as an American and a Jew is rooted in one miracle: individual liberty and freedom of speech and conscience. We are living in dangerous times, times when men of good will are afraid to speak out. There are some things you cannot say in America today.
I will say them anyway.
For years, I have noticed something curious about religion in America, Israel, and elsewhere. When I go into an establishment to pray, I notice how thick the carpet is. The gold and silver on doors and paneling's. The "honorees" abounding with their plaques and pictures adorning walls and halls. I have prayed in many different shuls (synagogues) throughout the world, and I admit a proclivity toward those humbler, more "hamish" (homey) environs, with the simple wood benches and plain floors.
For me, it is in a place surrounded by holy books, next to the Torah, with those dust-coated windows, that I find solace with the Creator of Heaven and Earth. No games here, no power trips — and you are only as good as your cleaving and yearning to be a part of His world. I reckon there's lots of folks out there who feel the same, regardless of their beliefs.
Our history as a people has been divided, roughly, into two camps.
There is one camp that stood at Mt. Sinai, witnessed great miracles, received an awesome legacy, and despite the most horrific of human travails — pogroms, inquisitions, crusades, and more — decided to hand down that legacy from generation to generation.
It is because of that meritorious Jewish tradition that I am here today and am able to write these words.
There is a second camp — a more sinister group, that has done more damage to the Jews and caused more murder and destruction than all of Israel's enemies combined. To this troika belong Jews and non-Jews, and our Jewish heritage has been irrevocably altered by this movement.
This second camp is about control of human beings. It holds a vision of a One World Order, together with Marx, Trotsky, and Lenin — an evil that, to date, has claimed nearly two hundred million souls.
With these international bandits and mind-control wizards stands the ADL (Anti-Defamation League). Now, if anyone else would say this, that person would be labeled an anti-Semite. But as anyone that knows me will tell you, I am a Jew who strives always to do good, give to charity, and am diligent in study and prayer. Of my many shortcomings, anti-Semitism is not one of them.
There are things that for a Jew, there is no excuse. One aspect is the unrelenting war waged by radical Islam against the Jewish people (they say they're not anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist).
But far worse are those who aid and abet this satanic force. For the leftist control-freaks of the ADL, there cannot be a Land of Israel! That would mean they'd be out of a job! They thirst on dissention and division — anything that will drive up their stock. Their support from the outset of a two-state solution means the destruction of the Jewish homeland.
Period.
No amount of agreements with terror and those who support it, will buy peace. The ADL, in a very real sense, is anathema to the survival of the Jewish people. Moreover, they never cared about the survival of the Jewish People!
The ADL’s agenda is simple: anything that will increase their power and control is good. Anti-Semites could never have destroyed the Jewish people. Only Jews can destroy the Jewish People.
The entire world, including Christians of all faiths, knows and understands that there is only one people in the world that was given the Land of Israel as an eternal inheritance: the Jews. The only people in the world who rebel against this eternal truth is the ADL and their communist comrades and enablers. Why?
In order for there to be a ONE WORLD ORDER, man's spirit and soul must be brought low, be subjugated to the level of the beasts. This was the communist credo, to claim that we are no better than animals that must be controlled. G-d must be destroyed, faith debauched, and religion — ALL RELIGION — extinguished.
In this camp we find the ADL. Let's be clear: The ADL has nothing to do with Judaism, Jews, or Jewish Survival. It is a collection of communists, anarchists, Jewish 60's drop-outs, bitter about their nothing status and eager to spread their venom about a socialist paradise at which they believe only they can succeed. (The earlier Bolsheviks and Trotskyite's, they assure us, just didn't get it right.!)
It's more than interesting how Obama has surrounded himself with these same radical leftist rejects from the 60's. Interesting also, is how the ADL and the present administration are working hand in glove to make us safer with insane, counter-productive “Hate Crime” legislation.
Now, the ADL is on the warpath again, this time advocating for a federal data bank to be housed (with them?) in Washington, where each American can be monitored and pursued, for ever having said anything "hateful."
And what is the definition of "hateful," you ask? Simple, whatever the ADL dictates. And how, you'll ask can that possibly happen here in the land of the Free, the home of the Brave? Again, simple: just play the anti-Semitic race card, and you will have people tripping all over themselves to acquiesce to your every whim. The facts are:
not one Christian today in America dare read the Bible, with it’s exhortation against bestiality and homosexuality without looking over their collective shoulders to see if the ADL is monitoring.
So why would the ADL, an organization supposedly founded for the purpose of helping Jews in peril, be spending their capital railing and ranting about Christians and what they do in the privacy of their churches. Interesting, how the ADL could care less about groups like ACORN, ISLAMIC JIAHAD, HAMMAS, CAIR — could it be because they're people of "color?" Or maybe it's because they are necessary in their scheme of ONE WORLD ORDER, neutralizing the fabric of America, getting it ripe for a takeover in which the ADL can take part.
Why is the ADL, supposedly the "sentinel" of the Jewish people so disposed to the rights and whims of radical gay and lesbian groups? Is this the pervue of the ADL? The answer lies in one simple concept: power and control. What the Soviets could not do in Russia, the ADL will attempt to do to America.
Witness the ADL at work:
1- advocating federal statutes and punishment for just "saying" something negative about Gays, essentially making every Christian a law-breaker in America today.
2- storing thousands of files on suspected "haters," including names, addresses, and phone numbers to be shared with both local and federal police whenever these "haters" get out of hand by saying what they believe.
3- advocating massive censorship where media and films must pass a litmus test before being called "kosher"
4- proposing legislation for simply expressing "seed ideas" (Biblical in origin), concepts or utterances that “stimulate” or “cause friction” against targeted groups.
5- lobbying Canada to pass hate crime legislation: $5,000 misdemeanor, serving up to 2 years in prison.
6- working 24/7 for their new "messianic" legislation: HR 262, the “Hate Crimes Bill,” where the ADL will be positioned to establish a massive, pervasive and fascist bureaucracy that will monitor every single American and impose in this country Nazi Germany-style control — the ultimate vision of the leftist ADL.
The far-reaching consequences are: no church director will ever be able to utter the word of G-d! Is this not the communist “utopia” coming to fruition? Massive mind control about bias is even now, being established in education — inculcating our youth from kindergarten through college about politically correct speech. Churches that do not hire homosexuals will be closed down. Preachers will be jailed. Here in California, our insane legislature just passed such a bill, a bill that will fire faculty or expel students that make a slip of the tongue.
Isn't it amazing? We're not allowed to have the Ten Commandments in our schools. No "minute of prayer" allowed. No mention of G-d allowed. But plenty of mind control about how the White Christians have destroyed the earth and must be neutralized. The Day of the multiculturalists is here, aided and abetted by the ADL, using "hate speech" as the Trojan horse that will destroy our once-great America.
I find a certain peace in getting back to that earlier mention of the plain synagogue, permeated with an aura of stark truth and humility, the sometimes shaky rafters and squeaky doors giving testimony to a simplicity lending itself to truth and the eternal peace.
How this contrasts with the monstrous and ostentatious ADL building in New York! A skyscraper pointing to heaven, symbolically raising its accusing finger at the Master of the Universe. No, the tons of glass and concrete here cannot mask a horrifying lie and evil intent for this country.
I find myself having crossed the political Rubicon. As a conservative, passionate advocate of America's freedom for individual liberties and speech, I have become a pariah in the Jewish community. Who knows, maybe the ADL is monitoring this very message?! But one thing is clear: I stand on the shoulders of many great Americans who have given their lives for this great land. I will not shirk from my responsibility as an American, as a beneficiary of this grand and blessed legacy. I hope that my urgent words are heeded and that people will wake up about those alien forces threatening our very lives.
To all my friends throughout America: G-d bless you, and G-d bless America
Related Articles:
1- ADL Blasts "Paranoid" Right
© 2009 Nachum Shifren - All Rights Reserved
E-mail This Page
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
Rabbi Shifren is a southern California native. He graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a degree in Spanish and German literature. He has been a language teacher in LA City schools since 1992. He is also fluent in Hebrew.
Rabbi Shifren received his ordination in Jerusalem in 1990 and is a talmudic scholar. Having lived in Israel for nearly a decade, he has been an observer and commentator of developments in Israel, the Israeli and foreign press, and the recent rise of Islamic Jihad.
He is also the dirctor of "surf and soul" surfcamp, where teens learn self-discipline, proper attitude, and physical fitness. A Malibu surfer since 1962, he is known universally as the surfing rabbi. Through his seminars and classes, he has taught thousand the challenge and thrill of wave riding and the postive aspects of the surfing life style.
Rabbi Shifren has declared his candidacy for the Calif. State Senate in 2010, and is the only candidate to openly pledge to oppose the advent of Sharia law in the United States. He is a tireless supporter of individual freedoms and preserving the distinctive greatness of America, her language, and culture. Known for his no-nonsense approach to education and prison reform, Rabbi Shifren is in his own class of patriotism and staunch conservative values.
Rev. Jesse Lee Petersen said: "If we had 10 more teachers like Rabbi Shifren, we could turn America around tomorrow.
November 30, 2009
NewsWithViews.com
How the ADL is working to destroy America
It is difficult to write about Jewish traitors, but I have the obligation to do so. My life as an American and a Jew is rooted in one miracle: individual liberty and freedom of speech and conscience. We are living in dangerous times, times when men of good will are afraid to speak out. There are some things you cannot say in America today.
I will say them anyway.
For years, I have noticed something curious about religion in America, Israel, and elsewhere. When I go into an establishment to pray, I notice how thick the carpet is. The gold and silver on doors and paneling's. The "honorees" abounding with their plaques and pictures adorning walls and halls. I have prayed in many different shuls (synagogues) throughout the world, and I admit a proclivity toward those humbler, more "hamish" (homey) environs, with the simple wood benches and plain floors.
For me, it is in a place surrounded by holy books, next to the Torah, with those dust-coated windows, that I find solace with the Creator of Heaven and Earth. No games here, no power trips — and you are only as good as your cleaving and yearning to be a part of His world. I reckon there's lots of folks out there who feel the same, regardless of their beliefs.
Our history as a people has been divided, roughly, into two camps.
There is one camp that stood at Mt. Sinai, witnessed great miracles, received an awesome legacy, and despite the most horrific of human travails — pogroms, inquisitions, crusades, and more — decided to hand down that legacy from generation to generation.
It is because of that meritorious Jewish tradition that I am here today and am able to write these words.
There is a second camp — a more sinister group, that has done more damage to the Jews and caused more murder and destruction than all of Israel's enemies combined. To this troika belong Jews and non-Jews, and our Jewish heritage has been irrevocably altered by this movement.
This second camp is about control of human beings. It holds a vision of a One World Order, together with Marx, Trotsky, and Lenin — an evil that, to date, has claimed nearly two hundred million souls.
With these international bandits and mind-control wizards stands the ADL (Anti-Defamation League). Now, if anyone else would say this, that person would be labeled an anti-Semite. But as anyone that knows me will tell you, I am a Jew who strives always to do good, give to charity, and am diligent in study and prayer. Of my many shortcomings, anti-Semitism is not one of them.
There are things that for a Jew, there is no excuse. One aspect is the unrelenting war waged by radical Islam against the Jewish people (they say they're not anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist).
But far worse are those who aid and abet this satanic force. For the leftist control-freaks of the ADL, there cannot be a Land of Israel! That would mean they'd be out of a job! They thirst on dissention and division — anything that will drive up their stock. Their support from the outset of a two-state solution means the destruction of the Jewish homeland.
Period.
No amount of agreements with terror and those who support it, will buy peace. The ADL, in a very real sense, is anathema to the survival of the Jewish people. Moreover, they never cared about the survival of the Jewish People!
The ADL’s agenda is simple: anything that will increase their power and control is good. Anti-Semites could never have destroyed the Jewish people. Only Jews can destroy the Jewish People.
The entire world, including Christians of all faiths, knows and understands that there is only one people in the world that was given the Land of Israel as an eternal inheritance: the Jews. The only people in the world who rebel against this eternal truth is the ADL and their communist comrades and enablers. Why?
In order for there to be a ONE WORLD ORDER, man's spirit and soul must be brought low, be subjugated to the level of the beasts. This was the communist credo, to claim that we are no better than animals that must be controlled. G-d must be destroyed, faith debauched, and religion — ALL RELIGION — extinguished.
In this camp we find the ADL. Let's be clear: The ADL has nothing to do with Judaism, Jews, or Jewish Survival. It is a collection of communists, anarchists, Jewish 60's drop-outs, bitter about their nothing status and eager to spread their venom about a socialist paradise at which they believe only they can succeed. (The earlier Bolsheviks and Trotskyite's, they assure us, just didn't get it right.!)
It's more than interesting how Obama has surrounded himself with these same radical leftist rejects from the 60's. Interesting also, is how the ADL and the present administration are working hand in glove to make us safer with insane, counter-productive “Hate Crime” legislation.
Now, the ADL is on the warpath again, this time advocating for a federal data bank to be housed (with them?) in Washington, where each American can be monitored and pursued, for ever having said anything "hateful."
And what is the definition of "hateful," you ask? Simple, whatever the ADL dictates. And how, you'll ask can that possibly happen here in the land of the Free, the home of the Brave? Again, simple: just play the anti-Semitic race card, and you will have people tripping all over themselves to acquiesce to your every whim. The facts are:
not one Christian today in America dare read the Bible, with it’s exhortation against bestiality and homosexuality without looking over their collective shoulders to see if the ADL is monitoring.
So why would the ADL, an organization supposedly founded for the purpose of helping Jews in peril, be spending their capital railing and ranting about Christians and what they do in the privacy of their churches. Interesting, how the ADL could care less about groups like ACORN, ISLAMIC JIAHAD, HAMMAS, CAIR — could it be because they're people of "color?" Or maybe it's because they are necessary in their scheme of ONE WORLD ORDER, neutralizing the fabric of America, getting it ripe for a takeover in which the ADL can take part.
Why is the ADL, supposedly the "sentinel" of the Jewish people so disposed to the rights and whims of radical gay and lesbian groups? Is this the pervue of the ADL? The answer lies in one simple concept: power and control. What the Soviets could not do in Russia, the ADL will attempt to do to America.
Witness the ADL at work:
1- advocating federal statutes and punishment for just "saying" something negative about Gays, essentially making every Christian a law-breaker in America today.
2- storing thousands of files on suspected "haters," including names, addresses, and phone numbers to be shared with both local and federal police whenever these "haters" get out of hand by saying what they believe.
3- advocating massive censorship where media and films must pass a litmus test before being called "kosher"
4- proposing legislation for simply expressing "seed ideas" (Biblical in origin), concepts or utterances that “stimulate” or “cause friction” against targeted groups.
5- lobbying Canada to pass hate crime legislation: $5,000 misdemeanor, serving up to 2 years in prison.
6- working 24/7 for their new "messianic" legislation: HR 262, the “Hate Crimes Bill,” where the ADL will be positioned to establish a massive, pervasive and fascist bureaucracy that will monitor every single American and impose in this country Nazi Germany-style control — the ultimate vision of the leftist ADL.
The far-reaching consequences are: no church director will ever be able to utter the word of G-d! Is this not the communist “utopia” coming to fruition? Massive mind control about bias is even now, being established in education — inculcating our youth from kindergarten through college about politically correct speech. Churches that do not hire homosexuals will be closed down. Preachers will be jailed. Here in California, our insane legislature just passed such a bill, a bill that will fire faculty or expel students that make a slip of the tongue.
Isn't it amazing? We're not allowed to have the Ten Commandments in our schools. No "minute of prayer" allowed. No mention of G-d allowed. But plenty of mind control about how the White Christians have destroyed the earth and must be neutralized. The Day of the multiculturalists is here, aided and abetted by the ADL, using "hate speech" as the Trojan horse that will destroy our once-great America.
I find a certain peace in getting back to that earlier mention of the plain synagogue, permeated with an aura of stark truth and humility, the sometimes shaky rafters and squeaky doors giving testimony to a simplicity lending itself to truth and the eternal peace.
How this contrasts with the monstrous and ostentatious ADL building in New York! A skyscraper pointing to heaven, symbolically raising its accusing finger at the Master of the Universe. No, the tons of glass and concrete here cannot mask a horrifying lie and evil intent for this country.
I find myself having crossed the political Rubicon. As a conservative, passionate advocate of America's freedom for individual liberties and speech, I have become a pariah in the Jewish community. Who knows, maybe the ADL is monitoring this very message?! But one thing is clear: I stand on the shoulders of many great Americans who have given their lives for this great land. I will not shirk from my responsibility as an American, as a beneficiary of this grand and blessed legacy. I hope that my urgent words are heeded and that people will wake up about those alien forces threatening our very lives.
To all my friends throughout America: G-d bless you, and G-d bless America
Related Articles:
1- ADL Blasts "Paranoid" Right
© 2009 Nachum Shifren - All Rights Reserved
E-mail This Page
Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
Rabbi Shifren is a southern California native. He graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a degree in Spanish and German literature. He has been a language teacher in LA City schools since 1992. He is also fluent in Hebrew.
Rabbi Shifren received his ordination in Jerusalem in 1990 and is a talmudic scholar. Having lived in Israel for nearly a decade, he has been an observer and commentator of developments in Israel, the Israeli and foreign press, and the recent rise of Islamic Jihad.
He is also the dirctor of "surf and soul" surfcamp, where teens learn self-discipline, proper attitude, and physical fitness. A Malibu surfer since 1962, he is known universally as the surfing rabbi. Through his seminars and classes, he has taught thousand the challenge and thrill of wave riding and the postive aspects of the surfing life style.
Rabbi Shifren has declared his candidacy for the Calif. State Senate in 2010, and is the only candidate to openly pledge to oppose the advent of Sharia law in the United States. He is a tireless supporter of individual freedoms and preserving the distinctive greatness of America, her language, and culture. Known for his no-nonsense approach to education and prison reform, Rabbi Shifren is in his own class of patriotism and staunch conservative values.
Rev. Jesse Lee Petersen said: "If we had 10 more teachers like Rabbi Shifren, we could turn America around tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)