By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's paper

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's p

I do buy one based on world leadership steering all ships of state into the toilet though....

I fear that toilet is going to get plugged. We're going to need one Monster Toilet Plunger.

[rabot10]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's paper

COLLAPSE

BY ROGER EBERT / December 9, 2009
Rating: 4 Stars (4 is the highest rating) - Running time: 82 minutes.

If this man is correct, then you may be reading the most important story in today's paper.

I have no way of assuring you that the bleak version of the future outlined by Michael Ruppert in Chris Smith's "Collapse" is accurate. I can only tell you I have a pretty good built-in B.S. detector, and its needle never bounced off zero while I watched this film. There is controversy over Ruppert, and he has many critics. But one simple fact at the center of his argument is obviously true, and it terrifies me.

That fact: We have passed the peak of global oil resources. There are only so many known oil reserves. We have used up more than half of them. Remaining reserves are growing smaller, and the demand is growing larger. It took about a century to use up the first half. That usage was much accelerated in the most recent 50 years. Now the oil demands of giant economies like India and China are exploding. They represent more than half the global population, and until recent decades had small energy consumption.

If the supply is finite, and usage is potentially doubling, you do the math. We will face a global oil crisis, not in the distant future, but within the lives of many now alive. They may well see a world without significant oil.

Oh, I grow so impatient with those who prattle about our untapped resources in Alaska, yada yada yada. There seems to be only enough oil in Alaska to power the United States for a matter of months. The world's great oil reserves have been discovered.

Saudi Arabia sits atop the largest oil reservoir ever found. For years, the Saudis have refused to disclose any figures at all about their reserves. If those reserves are vast and easy to tap by drilling straight down through the desert, then ask yourself this question: Why are the Saudis spending billions of dollars to develop offshore drilling platforms?

Ruppert is a man ordinary in appearance, on the downhill slope of middle age, a chain smoker with a mustache. He is not all worked up. He speaks reasonably and very clearly. "Collapse" involves what he has to say, illustrated with news footage and a few charts, the most striking of which is a bell-shaped curve. It takes a lot of effort to climb a bell-shaped curve, but the descent is steep and dangerous.

He recites facts I knew, vaguely. Many things are made from oil. Everything plastic. Paint. There are eight gallons of oil in every auto tire. Oil supplies the energy to convert itself into those byproducts. No oil, no plastic, no tires, no gas to run cars, no machines to build them. No coal mines, except those operated by men and horses.

Alternative energies and conservation? The problem is the cost of obtaining and using it. Ethanol requires more energy than it produces. Hybrid and battery cars need engines, tires and batteries. Nuclear power plants need to be built with oil. Electricity from wind power is most useful near its source. It is transmitted by grids built and maintained by oil. Wave power is expensive to collect. Solar power is cheap and limitless, but we need a whole hell of a lot more solar panels and other collecting devices.

Like I say, you do the math. Ruppert has done his math, and he concludes that our goose is cooked. He doesn't have any answers. We're passing the point of diminishing returns on the way to our rendezvous with the point of no return. It was nice while it lasted. People lived happily enough in the centuries before oil, electricity and steam, I guess. Of course, there were fewer than 6 billion of us. In this century, Ruppert says, there will be a lot fewer than 6 billion again. It won't be a pretty sight.

I'm not going to mention his theories about global warming, because that's a subject that inflames too many zealots. About peak oil, his reasoning is clear, simple and hard to refute.

So you can stop reading now. That's the heart of Ruppert's message, delivered by a calm guy who could be Wilford Brimley's kid brother, lives alone with his dog and is behind on his rent.

I was fascinated by some of the directions peak oil takes him into. For him, he says, it was the key to understanding many seemingly unconnected geopolitical events. The facts he outlines are known to world leaders, who don't talk a lot about them in alarmist terms, but they explain why Bush/Cheney were happy to have an excuse to invade Iraq. And why our embassy compound in Baghdad is the largest we've ever built, larger than Vatican City. And why we're so much more worried by Iran than North Korea. They may also explain Obama's perplexing decision to increase troops in Afghanistan. An undeclared world war for oil is already under way.

I don't know when I've seen a thriller more frightening. I couldn't tear my eyes from the screen. "Collapse" is even entertaining, in a macabre sense. I think you owe it to yourself to see it.

Vitagraph Films presents a documentary directed by Chris Smith. Featuring Michael Ruppert. Running time: 82 minutes. No MPAA rating.

Note: Through local cable providers, "Collapse" is available now via on demand. Check local listings and movies on demand channels.

http://onebigtorrent.org/torrents/75...-Collapse-2009

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...IEWS/912099993

Just the truth, it has always been just simple math

[Ghent12]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's p

Good comment Jay. Agreed that we tend to underestimate the power of our scientists and engineers to come up with newer, better ways of doing things.

I don't buy a collapse based on oil. I do buy one based on world leadership steering all ships of state into the toilet though....

I think this is a point worth emphasizing. The "collective brain" of humanity only grows, and it's growing faster than ever (and always will, seemingly).

You may be wrong about world leadership, however. Well, partially wrong. I see them as trying to simply slow things down in a futile search for "stability." As more and more of the world becomes more democratic, things will only get worse from a leadership perspective, at least if one is concerned about liberty, productivity, or prosperity.

[Jay]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's p

I think this is a point worth emphasizing. The "collective brain" of humanity only grows, and it's growing faster than ever (and always will, seemingly).

You may be wrong about world leadership, however. Well, partially wrong. I see them as trying to simply slow things down in a futile search for "stability." As more and more of the world becomes more democratic, things will only get worse from a leadership perspective, at least if one is concerned about liberty, productivity, or prosperity.

One of my pet personal theories, and one that gives power players more insight and foresight than most will, is that the disgusting display of wanton energy inefficiency and abuse in the US was designed to reveal peak cheap oil early and therefore enable the power structure to use conservation, now a very low hanging fruit indeed, as a way to give them that time to "slow things down." It actually makes a lot of sense to me, especially if you are willing to grant the power structure that foresight. I do. But then again I am of the mind that many innocuous looking things around us have more meaning than most realize and that Edward Bernays only honed a very old craft.

[Roughneck]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's paper

When I was younger all these dire predictions of doom and gloom used to get me going. I was worried about all these things beyond my control. Take some advice from a semi seasoned citizen. Things are never as bad as folks make it out to be or as good. But one thing I know for sure. We ALL will die. Hug your wife and kids,appreciate the simple things in life. Enjoy it while you can,it goes by fast.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's paper

When I was younger all these dire predictions of doom and gloom used to get me going. I was worried about all these things beyond my control.

We can't stop forces far larger than ourselves, but we can adapt, be prepared, and survive.

I have a deep seated belief that the better I understand (whether that be intellectually, intuitively, emotionally, instinctively, physically or spiritually) the world about me, then the better I can serve my own destiny and the better I can serve the higher purposes of this world.

It's not about "oh no, we're doomed!" It's about better understanding.

Now I'll grant you that this "Collapse" video with Michael Ruppert may well not lay on the path to better understanding. When I first viewed it, perhaps a year ago, I was quite impressed. Now it feels to me like fear mongering, perhaps by quite fraudulent intent.

[Roughneck]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's paper

From my experience the truth usually resides somewhere in the middle. Do I think we will run out of oil and the world revert to a mad max existence? No. Is everything going to be honky dory? No. Oil prices will rise people will use less. Hopefully we will transition to a different transportation model,perhaps CNG for commercial and personal vehicles or hybrid electric. There is intense research on algae biofuels. If we can transition away from gasoline as the major transportation fuel this would be the most important step. Being aware of the issues and trying somewhat to prepare for an uncertain future is not a bad thing.But, I get a kick about all these yuppies who talk about susatinable living. It's a hard life. Most of them wouldn't last a week.

[Mn_Mark]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's p

1. I can provide many links and a simple google search can lead to many documents, some have even been declassified. But you will bat them down as leftist drivel. So I just as this question, knowing the CIA has been involved in murders its not a stretch to assume they would be involved in other illegal activity.
2. Not that trivial, especially to the US government who went to great lengths to cover up the story...
5. Sadly it is, to many.
6. Really? would say at the very least its debatable.
7. meh, after the bush administration I would say its a tie. No one expanded the wlefare state as much as they did in over 30 years. 2 wars, government expenditures exploded, civil liberties los (patriot act) and complete mismanagement of the crisis (with huge leftist like bailouts included). Obama has just continued this policies.

7. My point is that the far-left Dems and right-wing Repubs are not interchangeable. I wouldn't place the Bush administration on the right end of the political spectrum. They were fiscal liberals, as you noted, and were in many respects social liberals too - they were in favor of an amnesty for illegals, for instance. Bush was against "nation building" until after 9/11. But let's not get into the whole how-bad-was-Bush argument. Most think he was bad, though for different reasons.

As for the CIA, it's a big organization. I can believe that there were/are elements in it that got power-drunk and cynical or even criminal and decided to act on some pretty stupid, illegal plans like smuggling drugs for some purpose. I don't doubt they've assassinated foreign political enemies, though I don't have as much objection to that as long as they assassinate the right people...if someone had assassinated Hitler or Stalin early in their careers, we'd all have been better off. And if I had the power I would dramatically slash the entire national security apparatus' budgets by something like 90%. But I believe that the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people working in national security, including the leadership, actually are good people trying to do well a job that is important and that they believe in and for which they are widely and unfairly demonized. What I object to is people like that character in the movie who want to characterize the CIA by these fringe operations...as though that accurately sums up what the CIA is - a bunch of venal, sinister criminals. I think that is left-wing fantasy stuff. I don't think it reflects reality.

So yeah, maybe there was some group in the CIA that thought smuggling drugs served some purpose. Yeah, maybe some part of the military complex thought covering up Pat Tillman's death was a good idea. Some of those things probably happen in every large military organization around the world and through history. But do they fairly characterize the essence of those organizations? No, I don't think so. That's been the "gift" of the left wing to this country since the 1960s: the almost complete destruction of Americans' belief in the honesty and rightness of the people whose job it is to protect us. All this conspiracy bullshit, all the movies about crooked spies in the national security apparatus...when was the last time you saw a movie where the national security people were shown as good guys? They're always involved in nefarious, illegal, venal acts...

And this doofus in the Collapse movie, whose qualifications for having an entire documentary made about his rantings are a bachelor's degree in political science from UCLA in 1973, being a cop, writing two books ("one of which is in the Harvard Business School library" - what, did he sneak in and put it on a shelf?) and spending thirty years writing left wing conspiracy rants for left wing publications, starts out by talking about how the CIA tried to get him to smuggle drugs and then tried to kill him...well, I say bullshit to that.

[reggie]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's p

There is absolutely nothing that comes out of Mike Ruppert's mouth, re: the OP, that is in the public's interest.

We can't stop forces far larger than ourselves, but we can adapt, be prepared, and survive

The force is us. I agree that better understanding is the key, but that only happens when we take off our blinders.

1. The CIA has been involved in illegal operations for many years, including drug smuggling, it would be naive not to believe this...

Intelligence services run ALL drug production & distribution globally. It is a key element to social management.

6. The Iraq war was for oil

Yup, but for the opposite reasons that I think you think. The war was designed, in part, to shut down oil production, not steal oil.

[bcassill]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's p

Having watched the first ten minutes of this movie now, I begin to understand why the lefties find it so credibly alarming. I find it unintentionally hilarious.

The "expert" being interviewed in the movie starts out by establishing his credentials: the CIA tried to recruit him to smuggle drugs into the country in the 1980s, and he refused, so "they started shooting" at him. Riiiiiiiight. But I guess to lefties, if you've claim to have been involved with nefarious CIA (cue doom music) doings, you must be a man who knows the real scoop, the stuff that's being hidden from us.

So far, that's all this guy has to put forward as his credentials for being interviewed on this subject. That the CIA tried to get him to smuggle drugs. Oh, and he's done a lot of reading. So believe him when he says civilization is about to end, with no possible way out!!!!

Oh, and EVIL EVIL DICK CHENEY had a super-secret energy task force! See? If EVIL EVIL DICK CHENEY was involved, you know there's got to be something fishy going on!

Jeeze Louise, I get so tired of hearing left vs. right dogma anymore. If you don't believe the peak oil argument you need to watch "Crude Awakening" and read Twilight in the Desert by Matt Simmons which speaks of the coming decline of Saudi oil production (BTW they own 25% of the world's oil). I would also suggest you read Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon." Now I believe human ingenuity can tackle a lot of things, but it takes between 10 and 30 years to develop and deploy a new energy infrastructure. One of the main assertions in the movie is that if we had started preparing in the 1970's we wouldn't be up against the wall. But if you are a large oil company, there just isn't much coin in alternative energy. You need to understand that oil drives everything in modern economy. Food production, transportation, plastics, etc. Sure, in the long term we can find alternatives for all these, but the short term can be very very painful. I also suggest you listen to Jeff Rubin, one of Canada's top economists in the following clip speak about the end of cheap oil and what it means for globalization:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuLjGQQ-jg

As for the CIA running drugs, of course they did. It was main stream media back in the 1990's or maybe you just happen to miss that decade. Why don't you just have a gander at the following...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5ERlo1YnLU&NR=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBh_h...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADTbY...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ9fg...feature=search


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xOtG...eature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6dHq...eature=related


This time with Bush + Barry Seal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIEUh...eature=related


These are all on youtube. All you need to do is type in "CIA drugs" and a whole bunch of stuff comes up.

As for our fearless presidents, Bush and Cheney were shills for the oil interests and that is why we invaded Iraq and have bases all over the Middle East. It's all about the oil. Barak H Obama is a shill for the Wall Street crowd. I would strongly suggest that you quit worrying about Left vs. Right and begin to understand that they are just two sides of the same coin. The Department of Homeland Security doesn't exist to protect your freedoms. The 850,000 people employed in intelligence work (please see the recent Washington Times article http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/) are there to keep tabs on you and me via data mining of the vast amounts data from facebook, email, phone records, credit card transactions, etc. They have access to all of it. Why would they possibly want to do this? Those with the money want to protect all that has been stolen and keep you in your place when the SHTF as will eventually happen.

I hope you have your gun and a couple of cans of pork and beans. Your gonna need it.

[tsetsefly]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's p

7. My point is that the far-left Dems and right-wing Repubs are not interchangeable. I wouldn't place the Bush administration on the right end of the political spectrum. They were fiscal liberals, as you noted, and were in many respects social liberals too - they were in favor of an amnesty for illegals, for instance. Bush was against "nation building" until after 9/11. But let's not get into the whole how-bad-was-Bush argument. Most think he was bad, though for different reasons.

As for the CIA, it's a big organization. I can believe that there were/are elements in it that got power-drunk and cynical or even criminal and decided to act on some pretty stupid, illegal plans like smuggling drugs for some purpose. I don't doubt they've assassinated foreign political enemies, though I don't have as much objection to that as long as they assassinate the right people...if someone had assassinated Hitler or Stalin early in their careers, we'd all have been better off. And if I had the power I would dramatically slash the entire national security apparatus' budgets by something like 90%. But I believe that the truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people working in national security, including the leadership, actually are good people trying to do well a job that is important and that they believe in and for which they are widely and unfairly demonized. What I object to is people like that character in the movie who want to characterize the CIA by these fringe operations...as though that accurately sums up what the CIA is - a bunch of venal, sinister criminals. I think that is left-wing fantasy stuff. I don't think it reflects reality.

So yeah, maybe there was some group in the CIA that thought smuggling drugs served some purpose. Yeah, maybe some part of the military complex thought covering up Pat Tillman's death was a good idea. Some of those things probably happen in every large military organization around the world and through history. But do they fairly characterize the essence of those organizations? No, I don't think so. That's been the "gift" of the left wing to this country since the 1960s: the almost complete destruction of Americans' belief in the honesty and rightness of the people whose job it is to protect us. All this conspiracy bullshit, all the movies about crooked spies in the national security apparatus...when was the last time you saw a movie where the national security people were shown as good guys? They're always involved in nefarious, illegal, venal acts...

And this doofus in the Collapse movie, whose qualifications for having an entire documentary made about his rantings are a bachelor's degree in political science from UCLA in 1973, being a cop, writing two books ("one of which is in the Harvard Business School library" - what, did he sneak in and put it on a shelf?) and spending thirty years writing left wing conspiracy rants for left wing publications, starts out by talking about how the CIA tried to get him to smuggle drugs and then tried to kill him...well, I say bullshit to that.

But his credentials shouldn't matter if what he says is true.
I mean geithner, summers and bernanke have great credentials does that give validity to what they do?

I dont know if he meant the bullets started flying as if they literally shot at him, I understood it as a metaphor.

I mean alot of what he says I cant disagree with and the story's he broke should give him some credentials. As to what he says:

1. Peak Oil
2. Fiat money is bad
3. Buy and hold real gold

[bobola]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's paper

Simple things like using a bike for transport can make a change. I've commuted to the office 17 times this month. I've cut my transport costs and am much healthier for it (24 miles each time I ride). Dishes get hand washed, which uses a lot less hot water. We only use the dishwasher when we host a diner party. Attic fan and open windows move a lot of air through the house, which curtails the need for AC until it gets into the 90's. When we need AC, we turn it off in the house and a portable 120 vac AC unit window unit cools the bedrrom at night. I expect the electricity savings to pay for the portabale in about 5 years. Entertainment center electronics are plugged into an outlet that is turned on/off with a wall switch. No wasted 'vampire' electricity usage. Made a hot water insulton jacket with a few old bed sheets and spare insulation. Outside AC unit coils gets a thorough spray cleaning in the spring to keep it running efficiently.

It's the simple basic things done every day that will make a difference in the way we use energy.

[Starving Steve]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's paper

I don't like the entire way of thinking presented in this thread. As I have said before, the way for the world to dig out of this mess is to use MORE energy, not less. The standard of living of the world's population has to be RAISED, and then fertility rates will DROP.

To begin the process of digging-out, MORE energy has to be provided through heavy oil development, hydro-electric power, and atomic power. This means getting off of our duffs and constructing these projects.

I am not interested in bologna-sausage (B.S.) about total energy use. That is eco-fraud rubbish.

The way to STARVE and join the turd world is to burn dung, burn wood, live in sewage, live with locusts, pray all day, flock all night, and hope that some miracle might happen in with solar power, wind power, rainfall in the Sahara, etc.

We know how to dig-out, so let's get on with it: LOWER THE COST OF ENERGY AND RAISE THE STANDARD OF LIVING for everyone on Earth.

[Starving Steve]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's paper

Let me put the question in numbers for the slow-thinkers here: Is it going to be 7cents per kwh for atomic power and hydro-electric power and electric power from natural gas-fired power plants? Or is it going to be well over 19cents per kwh for wind power and well over 71cents per kwh for solar power?

You decide.

For motor vehicles, there is no shortage of heavy oil to be extracted from tar sands in Alberta. There is also no shortage of light oil to be drilled from the ocean's depths. There is also no shortage of cheap natural-gas that can power motor-vehicles..... Or is it going to be more oil from hostile nations like Iran and Libya and Pakistan?

You decide.

[rabot10]

Re: By Roger Ebert: If this man is correct, you may be reading the most important story in today's paper

Let me put the question in numbers for the slow-thinkers here: Is it going to be 7cents per kwh for atomic power and hydro-electric power and electric power from natural gas-fired power plants? Or is it going to be well over 19cents per kwh for wind power and well over 71cents per kwh for solar power?

You decide.

For motor vehicles, there is no shortage of heavy oil to be extracted from tar sands in Alberta. There is also no shortage of light oil to be drilled from the ocean's depths. There is also no shortage of cheap natural-gas that can power motor-vehicles..... Or is it going to be more oil from hostile nations like Iran and Libya and Pakistan?

You decide.

Steve one of us is a retard!! Hope it's Me