Matthew Simmons as a Source

Reading articles on infowars.com today, I learned some things about Matthew Simmons that I didn't know before. The article "Oil Industry Insider and CFR Member Predicts Gulf Evacuation" dated June 24, 2010 by Kurt Nimmo states:

. . . Matthew Simmons is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and subscribes to the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth propaganda. He is also a proponent of Peak Oil, the scarcity theory exploited by globalists to push for depopulation and a systematic dismantling of modern civilization.

Many scientists now believe oil is abiotic — continually generated deep within the earth — and is not finite and produced from organic material. . . .

I think these things need to be weighed when interpreting public statements that Matthew Simmons makes. What is his agenda?

"many scientists now believe oil is abiotic" Mary, don't know where this came from as those "many scientists" aren't on record saying that. I believe oil is abiotic also, but I'm not a scientist. There is a scarcity of info out there on abiotic oil and Wikipedia describes it almost as a conspiracy theory.

Aha! I knew something would surface.

I was talking about how the secrets always reveal themselves just yesterday.

And today, I become aware that Simmons is CFR???

Well, that shoots red flags up all over the place.

Now I know what's going on. We are being hoodwinked.

This really is a classic shell game after all.

Originally posted by freedom12
"many scientists now believe oil is abiotic" Mary, don't know where this came from as those "many scientists" aren't on record saying that.

There is an article on globalresearch.ca from 2007 by F. William Engdahl, who I believe is a very reliable source, entitled "War and 'Peak Oil' - Confessions of an ‘ex’ Peak Oil believer." He writes about Russian scientists.

[edit on 7/22/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 7/22/2010 by Mary Rose]

He just wants to sell books and speaking engagements like the others who latch on to the latest big story to keep themselves relevant.

Originally posted by liveandletlive
He just wants to sell books and speaking engagements like the others who latch on to the latest big story to keep themselves relevant.

Although I wish you were right, and you may be; but I have this notion that there may be a little more to it than that.

I think there is a good chance someone is pushing him or *nudging* him to say these things. It's not an unreasonable theory. It may even be likely.

We will find out soon enough.

Kurt Nimmo has another article dated today on the subject entitled "Ocean Energy Institute Founder Says New Hurricane Will Require Gulf Evacuation":

The U.S. National Hurricane Center has warned that a weather system near Cuba, centered between islands of Acklins and Great Inagua, may move into the Gulf of Mexico this weekend, reports Bloomberg this morning. “I am still worried about how it will move the oil slick into the coastal areas of Louisiana and Mississippi,” meteorologist Jim Rouiller said.

In response to the approach of the tropical cyclone, BP workers in the Gulf of Mexico have stopped drilling a relief well and are preparing to evacuate, reports the BBC. On Wednesday, National Incident Commander Thad Allen said a tropical storm in the area could push back the timetable 10 to 14 days.

Matthew Simmons, founder of the Ocean Energy Institute, told Bloomberg on Wednesday that a leak near the Deepwater Horizon site may require an evacuation of the Gulf coast if a hurricane strikes the area. “Some five to ten miles away is what the NOAA research vessels have proved is a deep oil leak that is growing by the day and it is very toxic oil and its gases are very lethal and basically if we have a hurricane now we need to evacuate the Gulf coast,” Simmons said.

Simmons also said BP has covered up the severity of the oil gusher and if they had told the truth “they would all go to jail.” . . .

I think that two things we need to keep in mind are weather modification technology, and, the desire of the powers that be for a carbon tax, which will be devastating.

This is not to say that naturally occurring hurricanes are not a concern and that the spill is not dangerous - especially the gases and the dispersant. But where should we get our information from?

[edit on 7/22/2010 by Mary Rose]

Originally posted by freedom12
"many scientists now believe oil is abiotic" Mary, don't know where this came from as those "many scientists" aren't on record saying that.

I was incredulous at that particular phrase as well.

Some, sure. But 'many'?

please provide links, support, evidence, etc.

thanks!

reply to post by justadood


Did you read this reply that I already posted?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by freedom12
"many scientists now believe oil is abiotic" Mary, don't know where this came from as those "many scientists" aren't on record saying that.

There is an article on globalresearch.ca from 2007 by F. William Engdahl, who I believe is a very reliable source, entitled "War and 'Peak Oil' - Confessions of an ‘ex’ Peak Oil believer." He writes about Russian scientists.

Here's another link: "Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum."

reply to post by Mary Rose


I did.

I guess you and I have a different definition of 'many'.

i take it to mean a substantial portion of the larger whole. Not just 'some'.

reply to post by justadood


No, we don't have a different definition of "many." Sometimes, people don't read threads in their entirety before responding.

And how about the second link?

And have you done a search of your own?



[edit on 7/23/2010 by Mary Rose]

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by justadood

 

No, we don't have a different definition of "many." Sometimes, people don't read threads in their entirety before responding.

And how about the second link?

And have you done a search of your own?



[edit on 7/23/2010 by Mary Rose]

Ma'am or sir, you posted tow links with a handful of 'scientists' names on them. We do indeed disagree about the definition of 'many'. I also did and DO read the whole thread.

There are hundreds of thousands of people who can be called 'scientists' in the world. perhaps more. You listed a relatively VERY small handful. Your statement was inaccurate.

Two articles listing a few 'scientists' does not constitute 'many scientists', as your initial post claimed.

I am not disputing or supporting the theory of 'abiotic oil'. I'm not a scientists and know very little about it. I'm disputing the level of relative popularity of the theory.

Have a great day

[edit on 23-7-2010 by justadood]

Originally posted by justadood
There are hundreds of thousands of people who can be called 'scientists' in the world. perhaps more. You listed a relatively VERY small handful. Your statement was inaccurate.

So, what is an acceptable number of scientists that will satisfy your original request that links be provided to you?

The OP was about Matthew Simmons as a source. I posted it because the article pointed out that he is CFR and a proponent of the depopulation push emanating from the Club of Rome. The article mentions abiotic oil, which did not surprise me, because I have heard that discussed on an alternative talk radio program and had seen the Engdahl article, which references Russian scientists.

Regardless of the number of scientists involved, how might abiotic oil fit in to what's going on in the Gulf? And how might Matthew Simmons' public statements fit in with the implications of abiotic oil?

He is a retired chairman on an energy-industry investment banking firm Simmons & Company International, correct?


[edit on 7/23/2010 by Mary Rose]

[edit on 7/23/2010 by Mary Rose]

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Here's another link: "Dismissal of the Claims of a Biological Connection for Natural Petroleum."

From the home page of the website that contributed this article, which is the website of the Gas Resources Corporation:

The public-access pages on this site are presently being built to provide easy reference to various publications involving modern petroleum science. Modern petroleum science, - or what is called often the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins, - is an extensive body of knowledge which has been recorded in thousands of articles published in the mainstream, Russian-language scientific journals, and in many books and monographs. However, effectively nothing of modern petroleum science has been published in the U.S.A. . . .

The unfamiliarity with the Russian-language scientific literature has been further worsened by the bizarre circumstance that modern Russian petroleum science has been subject to the most extensive attempt at plagiarism . . .

The articles on this site have been put here to accommodate the many requests for reprints and further information, received during the past few years following the publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. of an article formally enunciating the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins and demonstrating the high-pressure genesis of petroleum. . . .

One should understand that these papers cannot give justice to the immense literature of modern Russian petroleum science. . . . For example, V. A. Krayushkin has published more than two hundred fifty articles on modern petroleum geology, and several books.

In light of the extensive literature of modern Russian petroleum science, questions inevitably arise among persons reading of it for the first time: Why has there been nothing published on this body of knowledge in the English-language (or American) journals which purportedly deal with matters involving petroleum ? Why have there never been Russian or Ukrainian petroleum scientists invited to address a meeting of, e.g., the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (A.A.P.G.) ? . . .

Such lack of reporting has not happened by accident. . . .No reader should entertain an illusion that the publishing of these articles, in first-rank scientific journals such as Physical-Chemistry/Chemical-Physics, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, has been welcomed by the British/American petroleum geo-phrenology brotherhood. . . .