Whatever, go to back to sleep.
Hi Gobbo,
I don’t necessarily think the abiogenic theory is wrong. In fact, it could very well be right, but I do not know enough to be swayed either way at this stage. As I’ve said before, I am perhaps slightly more interested in the reasons behind your absolutist statements.
Not if you are draining it out of the ground at a much faster rate than it can replenish itself…
I’m not really sure what you mean when you say “surface of the earth”, i.e. do you mean above the oceans? If that is the case, well, the biogenic theory for the production of crude oil is exclusively based on sea dwelling carbonates (as far as I know), and terrestrial lifeforms are responsible for the appearance of coal.
As for the Eugene Island phenomena, it could well be an anomaly. You cannot extend a limited particular to a general case, even assuming induction.
Again projection? When did I project previously? In any case, you assumed that I said “though I doubt it” because you believe that I think you would not back down under effective arguments. No, the reason I said it was because I find it very hard to convince anyone in this kind of forum, so I rarely try and tend to take a kind of back seat and watch, occasionally jumping in with a comment or two. I have read you retract statements before, and it is an admirable quality.
I find this statement curious. If philosophy and science are detached from human subjectivity, which is non-sensical, I might agree. However, when philosophy and science is submerged in the subjective mind, it always becomes a question of right or wrong, true or false, with often very little gray area in between. In the case of logic, the very essence of it is to (attempt to) prove right or wrong in an a priori, unarguable fashion. This coupled with the blinding pride of proponents of certain theories (or other powerful emotive drives), gives the right or wrong mindset a good stronghold in many, many minds, as far as I can tell.
[/code]
Gobbo,
Just out of interest, have you read Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear? It’ about 700 pages long, but should take no more than an hour per 100 pages, if that.
No, but I was reading about it while researching some of this stuff.
Hello Old_Gobbo, are you the pot-head?
Anyways… oh, is that picture you?
Most Opec. producers and people wishing to stay rich within these international oil-oligarchs… see what was done there… instead of, er… buy something strong and long term, like, say american treasury bonds. This keeps interests rates down, pays deficeits in the current-account and pink fluffy toys and wars and stuff. China says look at my ppp and grows while the developed world slips slowly back into stagnation, waiting for it’s Ubermensch to spend again.
Old Gobbo, You may want to explain completely whatever it is you’re trying to say. Make sure you understand exactly who you are accusing.
It’s notable that the price of gasoline has stayed up inconsistent with the hops and dips of the price of oil (“to support exploration”), so the price of a drum is less of an issue than it seems to be.
caused by coal power plants, without modern catalytic converters.
Smog type pollution is down 54% from cars, (because of catalytic reactions) even though we drive 170% more. Some cars (mostly from honda) are rated ZEV even though they have gasoline engines.
As for the SUV’s? people will stop driving less of them as oil continues to trickle up.
That’s caused by a myriad of things, from MTBE (an additive to fuel, that’s supposed to act like an antifreeze, but it’s never been solidly proven that it’s actually needed.) or ethanol (which has been shown to cause diabetes in animals.) to someone changing their own radiator fluid and just letting it go into the ground water drain.
Again though, most modern cars, don’t leak oil for 100’000’s of miles and as long as they avoid trying to self service their car properly (which lets face it most people do.) this will again cut down on ground water pollution.
The biggest source for ground water pollution is probably from poor sewage management though.
hmm, that’s a new one. From what I understand “global warming” will desalinize the ocean and therefore make it less acidic.
Probably not even probable. Even if we ran hummers all day long every day (everyone) we still wouldn’t produce 1/10000th of the carbon in the atmosphere. That comes from animals (us included) and volcanos. The majority of course from volcanos.
Plus if you look at the handy dandy trend graph willem posted in the rant house, you’ll notice that our warming is right on schedule. And that the carbon started increasing dramatically over 50,000 years ago.
Did you also know that the hole in the Ozone is getting smaller?
I agree it’s pretty inefficient way to tool around town.
As for the “electric car conspiracy” it’s complete garbage, what they don’t sell us at the pump they could make up for when we plug the car in to get it charged. At the time, it would’ve been a factor of 100 more expensive per mile to drive that electric car. Not to mention that GM doesn’t have much foresight for the environment. (not completely directed at you Phaedrus.)
And to refute the “peak oil” catastrophe without science, one must say merely one thing.
We will adapt. As prices go up, and stocks go down, they will look into other ways to get oil. Most likely from the tar sands in canada. Or from deeper oil wells.
The ONLY way we will ever free ourselves from oil with CURRENT technology is by having at least 2 nuclear power plants in each state that extract hydrogen for fuel cell cars.
But, Nuclear power is really the key to using less coal and oil for power period, solar power and wind power are not reliable enough and not efficient enough. The epcot center is a 335 acre park, to power it would take 1000 acres of solar panels.
here’s some more equivalency:
To produce the energy in 1 million barrels of oil (about 1/400th of what we use every day.)
250 acres of solar panels is energy equivalent to 1 million barrels of oil.
1700 square MILES of wind farms is energy equivalent to 1 million barrels of oil.
You know OG, instead of complaining that everyone is asleep you could put a little extra work in to answering their objections. Since you’ve done so much research I’m sure this wouldn’t be a lot of trouble for you. What you need to recognize is that people will continue to believe what they believe until pushed really hard. If they aren’t moving you don’t complain about it, you push harder – support your arguments better, answer the objections. “I just can’t believe that all that oil came from earlier life” is not a good argument.
Here’s the reason I find this coverup completely implausible. In the days and weeks that that WSJ article was available (before the omnipotent oil companies made a deal to have it covered up – hmm, I wonder if a simple email shot to the WSJ might fix the bug before we start assuming CIA spooks are at work?) hundreds of thousands of people read it. Millions – it was on page 1. Some of those people are guaranteed to have found this intriguing and potentially lucrative. Some of those people have access to money to make things happen. The oil companies couldn’t stop them if they wanted to. What’s more, from the wikipedia article it says that this theory has been used to find oil in the past! Results like that can’t and aren’t being covered up.
The reason people aren’t drilling everywhere for this new unlimited oil is because the theory is still a theory, and more investigation is still being done to assess the geological and commercial possibilities. A coverup explains nothing except your spooked WSJ page, which is probably just another failure of the imperfect world wide web. I dare you to contact WSJ and ask them what’s up… see if your theory can stand up to some actual inquiry? You know, generation of new data to verify hypotheses?
Aporia, bravo. You wrote and researched where I apathetically chose not to.
Hello F(r)iends,
Gobbo, this is fascinating stuff. In fact, I am almost fully convinced by the articles. I would argue though that there isn’t enough conclusive evidence to actually do anything about it… But all in all, you did a wonderful job selecting your resources.
However, I don’t think there is a conspiracy here. Simply, it’s too early to tell yet.
-Thirst
correction: it shows no such thing…
as for solar power:
with the sun easily being the single greatest power source on earth, it makes perfect sense that we would turn there to supply us with energy in the end…
wow. the sun is on earth.
and I thought it was flourocarbons that caused global warming.
-Imp
sunlight then … sigh 