---

To: kick_adss_marketing@yahoogroups.com; latvian_medical_journal-owner@yahoogroups.com; Math4u-owner@yahoogroups.com; nevada@yahoogroups.com; newrepublican2@yahoogroups.com; notetraders@yahoogroups.com
CC: libertarianmedia@yahoogroups.com; ladiesofthestockmarket@yahoogroups.com; lazyaffiliate@yahoogroups.com; liberty-and-justice@yahoogroups.com; limited-offer@yahoogroups.com; mainstreetannex@yahoogroups.com; make_money_at_home_4@yahoogroups.com; make_money_at_home@yahoogroups.com; mortgage101@yahoogroups.com; mortgagenet@yahoogroups.com; owcforum@yahoogroups.com; pacelinerei@yahoogroups.com; paranoidtimes@yahoogroups.com; partnerships_for_profits@yahoogroups.com; payyoutobuyrealestate@yahoogroups.com
From: salvadorsantayana@...
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2008 21:04:56 -0800
Subject: [LSD Testing] Global Warming means Doomsday

To be very blunt & wake you up: you are about to die & you still do not know why & how.
 
Global Warming means DOOMSDAY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =4psUkHvcFO8
 
REPEAT: JUST to be clear: Global Warming means DOOMS DAY. Because if the planet can go out of axis, this planet can go out of orbit and be a meteor.
 
Global Warming is about reducing this planet into a pile of rubble or meteors. Is that possible? How? Let me explain. But first: Vote NOT a Democrat. They have been lying to us. They are DUI. Proof: 911. Both Manhattan and Boston are Democrat stronghold and they did nada. This coming election is another Presidential election and if this coming President will resist Clinton and the IRA or Great Britain or the Rockefellers and their Foundations, I'm pretty sure the next target will be Hoover Dam. When that happens, the casinos will not get hit because as I was told they do not rely on Lake Mead for water. That means they got wells. So except for Ron Paul & Obama I will not recommend that you vote a Democrat nor a Republican. Vote an Independent or a Libertarian or whatever. Just do not abstain. Because if you do, because it is computerized, they will easily do the voting for you.
 
DUI = driving under the influence
What influence? Rockefeller & 7 sisters or the Oil Monopoly and OPEC. Rockefeller & The Federal Reserve. Rockefeller and the Senate Intelligence Committee or the CIA, or the Global Intelligence Industry which includes = all. They have killers and thugs, licensed to kill. Meaning they own us. Owner is best described if you got a dog. The dog can ran, bark, pee and shit all he wants but you the owner can take him to the dog pound and have him killed.
 
DO YOU WANT TO GIVE UP THAT POWER? The Rockefellers and US Politics does not. Because they have been denying that Global Warming is real when in fact they know better. They have the websites removed that will better help explain Global Warming and the pending global catastrophes.
 
How did they get involved? For over 30 - 70 years now we have been pumping oil at a rate of no less than 30 million barrels of oil a day.
 
How big is a barrel of oil? Usually, it is about the size of ONE car train. Have you seen a train? One of that. BUT in the Rockefeller oil industry, because they want to get all the oil they can get in the Middle East and ran, ran as fast as they can, the size of one barrel is = the bigger the better.
 
That means this planet has a lot of air inside or lots of empty pockets making it weigh much much less than 30 years ago. BUT it does not end there. If you will kindly look at a World Map, you will notice that MOST of the pumping is done on the upper ride side of the map creating or destroying the correct balance of the planet forcing the planet to seek its own center of gravity sending the north and south pole out of the true north and south pole. That means Earth is out of its own correct axis or revolving the wrong way. Result: mid ocean ridge & Global Warming
 
BUT it does not stop there. Earth travels around the sun. Because it is much much lighter than 30 years ago, it can also go out of its natural orbit around the sun. That means this planet can become a meteor. When it does, that's the time of DOOMSDAY.
 
How? First it has to break-up into several pieces. And this process have started and they call it mid ocean ridge.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Mid-ocean_ridge
 
Mid Ocean ridge: they can call it anyway they want but this is how our planet have responded to oil mining by breaking up into several pieces.
http://volcano.und.nodak.edu /vwdocs/vwlessons/volcano _types/spread.htm
 
Mid Ocean ridge was first called underwater volcanos. I don't know but then later on they decided to call it mid ocean ridge in 2001 when a volcano was spotted forming 100 miles off the shores of Oregon. And then they took off the website they were using to illustrate these weird cracks on the ocean floor. Maybe because they realized they were not looking at a volcano. And then all the lies started perhaps to cover or hide the criminal responsible for this - death of mankind, the Rockefeller & Oil Monopoly.
 
Can we still prevent this. We can try. We can change our engines from gas engines to water engines. We can and should vote down the Oil Monopoly or the Rockefellers by NOT voting a Democrat. Can you do that? I do not think so. That's DUI. 
==============================================================
On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 6:32 PM, Roger <election_volunteer_1@...> wrote:
This concern suggest that they are not bothered if oil mining can ruin earth's structure, integrity, center of gravity, rotation and orbit. This explains why we got Global Warming. This is totally irresponsible.
============================== ========
 
Debate brews: Has oil production peaked?
Wayne <kb0syf@gmail.com> wrote:
Since the world turns on an axis, what is going to happen when they
pump out all the oil and ...?
-- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, Roger <election_volunteer_1@...>
wrote:
>
> This concern suggest that they are not bothered if oil mining can
ruin earth's structure, integrity, center of gravity, rotation and orbit. This
explains why we got Global Warming. This is totally irresponsible.
> ============================== ========
>
> Debate brews: Has oil production peaked?
> By David J. Lynch, USA TODAY
> Almost since the dawn of the oil age, people have worried about
the taps running dry. So far, the worrywarts have been wrong. Oil men
from John D. Rockefeller to T. Boone Pickens always manage to find new
gushers.
> Indonesian workers arrange barrels of oil in
Jakarta, Indonesia, in June. By Tatan Syuflana, AP
> But now, a vocal minority of experts says world oil production is
at or near its peak. Existing wells are tiring. New discoveries have
disappointed for a decade. And standard assessments of what remains in
the biggest reservoirs in the Middle East, they argue, are little more
than guesses.
> "There isn't a middle argument. It's a finite resource. The only
debate should be over when we peak," says Matthew Simmons, a Houston
investment banker and author of a new book that questions Saudi
Arabia's oil reserves.
> Today's gasoline prices are high because Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita disrupted oil production in the Gulf of Mexico. But emergency
supplies from strategic oil reserves in the United States and abroad
can largely compensate for that temporary shortfall. If the "peak oil"
advocates are correct, however, today's transient shortages and high
prices will soon become a permanent way of life. Just as individual
oil fields inevitably reach a point at which it gets harder and more
expensive to extract the oil before output declines, global oil
production is about to crest, they say. Since 2000, the cost of
finding and developing new sources of oil has risen about 15%
annually, according to the John S. Herold consulting firm.
> As global demand rises, American consumers will find themselves in
a bidding war with others around the world for scarce oil supplies.
That will send prices of gasoline, heating oil and all
petroleum-related products soaring.
> "The least-bad scenario is a hard landing, global recession worse
than the 1930s," says Kenneth Deffeyes, a Princeton University
professor emeritus of geosciences. "The worst-case borrows from the
Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: war, famine, pestilence and death."
> He's not kidding: Production of pesticides and fertilizers needed
to sustain crop yields rely on large quantities of chemicals derived
from petroleum. And Stanford University's Amos Nur says China and the
United States could "slide into a military conflict" over oil.
> Rising global demand for oil
> There's no question that demand is rising. Last year, global oil
consumption jumped 3.5%, or 2.8 million barrels a day. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration projects demand rising from the current 84
million barrels a day to 103 million barrels by 2015. If China and
India — where cars and factories are proliferating madly — start
consuming oil at just one-half of current U.S. per-capita levels,
global demand would jump 96%, according to Nur.
> Such forecasts put the doom in doomsday. Many in the industry
reject the notion that global oil production can't keep up. "This is
the fifth time we've run out of oil since the 1880s," scoffs Daniel
Yergin, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his 1991 oil industry history The
Prize.
> In June, Yergin's consulting firm, Cambridge Energy Research
Associates (CERA) in Cambridge, Mass., concluded oil supplies would
exceed demand through 2010. Plenty of new oil is likely to be found in
the Middle East and off the coasts of Brazil and Nigeria, Yergin says.
> "There's a lot more oil out there still to find," says Peter
Jackson, a veteran geologist who co-authored the CERA study.
> Based on current technology, peak oil production won't occur
before 2020, Yergin says. And even if it does, oil production volumes
won't plummet immediately; they'll coast for years on an "undulating
plateau," he says.
> Debate growing sharper
> Both sides in the peak oil controversy agree that oil is a finite
resource and that every year, the world consumes more oil than it
discovers. But those are about the only things they agree upon.
> As the debate has persisted, it's grown personal. "Peak oil"
believers disparage those who disagree as mere "economists" in thrall
to the magic of the marketplace or simple-minded "optimists" who
assume every new well will score.
> Yergin emphasizes that the CERA study was developed by geologists
and petroleum engineers, not social scientists. Of Simmons, Yergin
says: "He's wonderful at stirring up an argument and slinging around
rhetoric. ... For some of these people, it seems to be a theological
issue. For us, it's an analytic issue."
> When they're not trading insults, the two sides disagree fiercely
over the likelihood of future technology breakthroughs, prospects for
so-called unconventional fuel sources such as oil sands and even the
state of Saudi Arabia's reserves.
> The world's No. 1 oil exporter, in fact, is at the center of
Simmons' new book, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock
and the World Economy, which has reinvigorated the peak oil argument.
> Simmons says it's impossible for global production to keep up with
surging demand unless the Saudis can increase daily production beyond
today's 9.5 million barrels and continue pumping comfortably for
decades. And, indeed, Yergin is counting on the Saudis to reach 13
million barrels a day by 2015.
> Yet while the oil reserves of U.S. firms are verified by the U.S.
Geological Survey, the Saudis — like other OPEC countries — don't
allow independent audits of their reservoirs. So when Riyadh says it
has 263 billion barrels locked up beneath the desert, the world has to
take it at its word.
> Simmons didn't. Instead, two years ago, he pulled about 200
technical papers from the files of the Society of Petroleum Engineers
and performed his own assessment. His conclusion: The Saudis are
increasingly straining to drag oil out of aging fields and could
suffer a "production collapse" at any time.
> Yergin is more optimistic both about the Saudis and the industry's
prospects in general. If the past is any guide, technological
breakthroughs will reshape both demand and supply, he says. In the
1970s, for example, the deepest offshore wells were drilled in 600
feet of water. Today, a Chevron well in the Gulf of Mexico draws oil
from 10,011 feet below the surface.
> Widespread use of technologies such as remote sensing and
automation in "digital oil fields" could boost global oil reserves by
125 billion barrels, CERA says. Already, advanced software and "down
hole measurement" devices to track what's happening in the well have
elevated recovery rates in some North Sea fields to 60% from the
industry average of 35%, Jackson says.
> Technology also won't stand still on the consumption side of the
equation, Yergin says. "By 2025 or 2030, we'll probably be moving
around in vehicles quite different from the ones we drive today. Maybe
we'll be driving around in vehicles that get 110 miles to the gallon,"
he says.
> That's more than a guess. Toyota's 2001-model Prius hybrid got 48
miles per gallon; the 2005 model was up to 55 mpg. If automakers
focused solely on energy efficiency, 110 mpg isn't out of the question.
> Still, breakthroughs don't just happen, and in the late 1990s,
after oil prices fell as low as $12 a barrel, major oil companies
slashed research spending. Some who previously doubted the peak oil
claims now wonder whether the industry is equipped to develop the
necessary innovations.
> "Before 1998, I was on the side that said, 'Technology solves all
problems,' " says Roger Anderson of Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
of Columbia University. "The problem is, after $12 oil, oil companies
responded by merging and firing large portions of their technical staff."
> Now, the International Energy Agency in Paris estimates that $5
trillion in new spending is needed over the next 30 years to improve
exploration and production.
> The limits of technology
> As oil prices — now about $63 a barrel — stay elevated, so-called
unconventional supplies of oil become economically feasible. Exhibit
one: enormous deposits of Canadian oil sands, which could eventually
yield more than 170 billion barrels of oil. On the list of the world's
biggest oil countries, that total puts the USA's northern neighbor
behind only Saudi Arabia.
> That's the good news. The bad news is that wringing oil from the
sludge-like tar sands is difficult and costly, and requires enormous
quantities of water and natural gas — itself an ever-pricier fuel.
> Deffeyes calls talk of substantial tar sands production "the
fantasy of economists," adding: "They believe if you show up at the
cashier's window with enough money, God will put more oil in the ground."
> In recent months, the peak oil camp has received support from some
fairly sober quarters, including the U.S. government. A 91-page study
prepared in February for the Energy Department concluded: "The world
is fast approaching the inevitable peaking of conventional world oil
production ... (a problem) unlike any yet faced by modern industrial
society."
> So far, almost no one in government is calling for immediate
action because of the peak oil argument. But in a recent interview
with USA TODAY, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman sounded less than
sanguine about the future.
> "There's plenty of oil to deal with this over the near term, five
years. But if you look out over the next 20, 25 years, we expect
demand to grow 50% to 120 million barrels a day. I wouldn't want to
opine that's available," says Bodman, a former professor of chemical
engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "It could be,
but I don't know." 
 
 
ww.A1KangenWater.com
 

--
Honestly, at first, I did NOT know that Global Warming meant Doomsday. After reading all the things involved about Global Warming, it became the inevitable consequence. Who knew I would be one of those Doomsday Soothesayers? It's not because I believe but to gather enough people to prevent & redirect destiny. Everything is free will not unless you gave it up. If we are not going to give it a try, who's fault is it? Just tell me how you got started with sex? You tried till you got it right. Nothing different here.

A man's feet should be planted in his country, but his eyes should survey the world.

America is a young country with an old mentality.