That is indeed disgusting as well as a serious threat to the credibility of peak oil theory. Some people on this list site have worried that Matthew Simmons' speculations about $100 oil would discredit peak oil. But in Simmons' case, that fact of rising prices is likely to soften any loss of credibility from missing a dollar target. It's different business entirely with racism and xenophobia. These fringe elements should be seen as the threat they are. The more peak oil commands credibility, the more its opponents will seize on these kinds of claims to shoot it down. Keep in mind that for a while there was a whisper campaign that Simmons was a racist. Stuff like this is effective. For example, a Japanese think tank's report last year on peak oil and Simmons' arguments referred to this rumour without criticism, thereby casting peak oil as a whole in a sleazy light for readers. Because much of the peak oil theory centres on the Saudis' production capacity and credibility, it will tend to be politically vulnerable to charges that it is anti-Arab. To add to the problem by having white separatists write blurbs on peak oil books is, to say the least, foolish.

I can not guarantee for the visions of myself not to mention for the visions of the people I know.

In each movement, organisations or whatever there are people having different interests or trying to use the idea behind that organisations to persue their own goals. Even the army is not monolythic. Basicly I find arguments like this quite impotent - if you can not rule out the argument, rule out the person. Quite distasteful JD.

JD- I never dismissed ethanol - just ethanol from corn. many biomass technologies from switchgrass to sugar cane (and algae and palm oil) are much higher EROIs than corn - somewhere in the middle is an acceptability threshold - pimental never dismissed biofuel - just ethanol from corn.