Global Warming is over. (Really, it is. No joke.)
- Thread starter Adjuster
- Start date
We (here) have hit our high this year and had a heat index of 116*F today which is OUTRAGEOUS for Indiana. Something's going on. :icon_conf
Joel W. said:
Center for Science in the Public Interest gets over 70 percent of its income from subscriptions to its monthly Nutrition Action Healthletter. Accordingly, much of what it promotes as “science” is often geared more toward selling subscriptions than providing wise counsel. And CSPI has learned that you don’t sell subscriptions with a calm, reasoned approach to nutrition.
(I wonder if we should trust what CSPI says?):3d_frown:
Right on, and welcome...Well first off Aaron, I believe they are scientists! Secondly, you are correct as in they do not take money from the oil companies or the government at all with some exceptions from some trade group grants... See below from the wiki 
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is an American not-for-profit consumer organization headed by Michael Jacobson that focuses on issues relating to food and the food industry. Founded in 1971, CSPI's mission statement states that its twin missions are to "conduct innovative research and advocacy programs in health and nutrition and to provide consumers with current and useful information about their health and well-being." The CSPI lists its goals as:
To provide useful, objective information to the public and policymakers and to conduct research on food, alcohol, health, the environment, and other issues related to science and technology;
To represent the citizen's interests before regulatory, judicial, and legislative bodies on food, alcohol, health, the environment, and other issues;
To ensure that science and technology are used for the public good and to encourage scientists to engage in public-interest activities.[1]
CSPI is a section 501(c)(3) corporation exempt from federal income tax. All contributions are tax-deductible as provided by law. The CSPI's chief source of income is its Nutrition Action Healthletter, which has 900,000 paid subscribers and accepts no advertising, and accepts no corporate or government grants, although it does receive grants from some trade groups.[2] [3] Private foundation grants make up approximately 5-10 percent of CSPI's annual revenue of $15 million.[3]
I have checked this with other sources so I am ok with them. :icon_razz
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is an American not-for-profit consumer organization headed by Michael Jacobson that focuses on issues relating to food and the food industry. Founded in 1971, CSPI's mission statement states that its twin missions are to "conduct innovative research and advocacy programs in health and nutrition and to provide consumers with current and useful information about their health and well-being." The CSPI lists its goals as:
To provide useful, objective information to the public and policymakers and to conduct research on food, alcohol, health, the environment, and other issues related to science and technology;
To represent the citizen's interests before regulatory, judicial, and legislative bodies on food, alcohol, health, the environment, and other issues;
To ensure that science and technology are used for the public good and to encourage scientists to engage in public-interest activities.[1]
CSPI is a section 501(c)(3) corporation exempt from federal income tax. All contributions are tax-deductible as provided by law. The CSPI's chief source of income is its Nutrition Action Healthletter, which has 900,000 paid subscribers and accepts no advertising, and accepts no corporate or government grants, although it does receive grants from some trade groups.[2] [3] Private foundation grants make up approximately 5-10 percent of CSPI's annual revenue of $15 million.[3]
I have checked this with other sources so I am ok with them. :icon_razz
Not going over 4 pages of stuff, but you know I was watching the Science Channel the other day.
One of Saturns or Mar's moons is full of LPG. Thats right, its made or propane. Now, if oil is "made" from dino bones, how the crap did dinosaurs get into outerspace.
Yeah thats what I thought.
One of Saturns or Mar's moons is full of LPG. Thats right, its made or propane. Now, if oil is "made" from dino bones, how the crap did dinosaurs get into outerspace.
Yeah thats what I thought.
MDCmotorsports said:
That's better than Nickelodeon Channel Jon. +1 (see post 154)
Saturns moon Titan
IMO. most carbon/fossil fuel on earth come from some form of organic matter. You can make up you own mind what happened there.
Joel W. said:
First, let me say that I knew nothing about "man-made" global warming before reading this thread. Now I know that I REALLY know nothing about "man-made" global warming!
I do however know something about the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and they are not scientists.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) and its founder, Michael F. Jacobson, are not as nice, sweet, and unbiased as CSPI's name might imply. The group routinely uses scare tactics justified by "junk science" and media theatrics as part of their ceaseless campaign for government regulation of your personal food choices.
Jacobson once said: "CSPI is proud of finding something wrong with practically everything."
Officers and supporters- these are the main players in CSPI
Micheal Jacobson- Executive Director-
Jacobson founded CSPI in 1971 with two lawyers from Ralph Nader’s Center for the Study of Responsive Law. He hopes that “regulation through litigation” will result in limits on children’s access to food advertising, extra taxes on foods he considers unhealthy, and government-mandated nutritional information on restaurant menus all across America.
Jacobson is a vegetarian and sits on the national board of the animal-rights-oriented “Great American Meatout.” And he won’t touch a cookie. Indeed, Jacobson will not tolerate any of his employees eating “bad” foods. CSPI’s in-house eating policy is so puritanical that Jacobson once planned to permanently remove the office coffee machine -- until one-third of his 60 staffers threatened to quit.
Although he strives to present himself as the sober arbiter of America’s food choices, Jacobson demonstrates a willingness to do anything for publicity. That includes sending a bag of decayed teeth to the Federal Trade Commission, dressing up as Tony the Tiger to attack sugary breakfast cereals, and whacking at a 50-pound block of vegetable shortening with a hammer and chisel on TV.
Background
President and Co-founder, Center for Science in the Public Interest; National Council member, Farm Animal Reform Movement; Former employee, (Ralph Nader’s) Center for Study of Responsive Law
John Banzhaf III - Legal Advisor - George Washington University law professor
Kelly Brownell- Scientific Advisory Board - Yale psychologist
Caroline Smith-DeWall - Director of Food Safety - former attorney for insurance issues, Public Citizen; Former staff counsel, Voice for Food & Health Policy
George Hacker-Alcohol Policy Project Director- He chairs the Coalition for the Prevention of Alcohol Problems, an organization that conducts anti-alcohol lobbying on the federal level.
Dr. Marion Nestle-Former Advisory Board Member-New York University nutrition professor
Margo Wootan-Director of Nutrition Policy- Could find no credentials
Anne Bancroft-Board Member-Oscar-winning actress
William Corr-Board Member-Executive vice president, Campaign for Tobacco-Free kids
Stephen Havas-Scientific Advisory Board-Professor of epidemiology, University of Maryland at Baltimore School of Medicine
David Hensler-Board Member-Partner, Hogan and Hartson LLP; Former associate general counsel, US Securities & Exchange Commission
Jayne Hurley-Senior Nutritionist-could find no credentials
Mark Ingram-Board Member-President, Ingram CPA Review
David Jacobs-Scientific Advisory Board-Professor of epidemiology, University of Minnesota
Norman Kaplan-Scientific Advisory Board-Professor of Medicine, University of Texas Southwest Medical Center
Myra Karstadt-Senior Staff Scientist-Former toxicologist, US Environmental Protection Agency
Bonnie Liebman-Director of Nutrition-could find no credentials
Diane MacEachern-Board Member-Co-founder & president, Vanguard Communications (DC); author, Save the Planet and Enough is Enough!: The Hellraiser’s Guide to Community Activism
Mark Ordan-Board Member-Founder, Fresh Fields food markets; Owner, Sutton Place Gourmet and Balducci's markets; CEO, Bethesda (MD) Retail Partners LLC; Executive committee member, National Symphony Orchestra Association
Kathleen O'Reiley-President-Executive committee member, the Cultural Environment Movement; Former executive director, Consumer Federation of America; former consumer/legal correspondent, NBC’s Today show
David Schardt-Associate Nutritionist-no credentials found
Bruce Silverglade-Legal Director-no credentials found
James Sullivan-Board Member-Top Scarer at Monsters inc.( just kidding!)-Director, USAID Office of Energy
Deborah Sezekely-Board Member-Health Spa Founder, the Golden Door, Rancho La Puerta, Fitness Resorts; Founder, Combined Arts and Education Council of San Diego; President & CEO, the Inter-American Foundation; Trustee, the Menninger Foundation
The Senior Staff Scientist came from the EPA ! You don't think that the EPA has a vested interest in promoting environmental crisis in order to continue getting their taxpayer funded paychecks, do you?
Seriously, The Center for Science in the Public Interest is a bunch of lawyers and professors and socialist activists who wish to wield power over people by scaring them. This amazingly enough mimics the behavior of many of the "man-made" global warming alarmists in the media today. Coincidence? I think not! I will however research the issue and come to my own conclusion based on logic and reason, not fear . I have added all the books mentioned in this thread to my amazon.com wishlist and will read up as soon as i'm done with The Politically Incorect Guide to Islam and the Crusades.
Thanks for helping me to exercise my brain today!
Bavo! At least you are honest and admit it.Aaron J Williams said:
They might disagree, and that is ok also. It happends.
Your getting this from a law firm website word for word right? "sigh"
Ok ...keep looking and get back to us..
I have not really started to list my experts yet because no one has asked to see them! They (CSPI) were just one orginization that disagreed with the a climate study listed here as proof that GW was a hoax. But at least they are looking at all the data
Everyone has a past and he does not work there any longer.
I would expect nothing less.. Have fun..
Sorry to make your head hurt. Use it or lose it I say!
Joel, you still belive that crude oil is from plankton? (And other assorted decomposed bio mass?)
There is a huge problem with your logic. It's based on bad science theory. It was never PROVEN that crude oil was from decomposed, crushed bio mass. It was a THEORY, nothing more.
When crude oil was first "discovered" and processed into all the nice things we use it for today, they found some leftover bio mass in the oil. It was assumed that because they found these fossils in the crude oil, that crude oil was from fossils, thus the "Fossil Fuel" name that has held up about as long as "The Earth is Flat". (Widely belived to be true for many centuries because of misguided "proof" from various sources.....)
Clearly when we started to use oil, say about 100 years ago, little was known about our solar system, and science has improved many times over since then.
The first predictions of how much oil was in the ground were based on wild guesses of bio mass deposits, and oil exploration was limited to the idea that the largest pools of trapped crude in the earth had to be linked to areas where lots of plankton or weeds and other growing stuff was thought to have died and then been coverred up with mud, rock and compressed over time into nifty deposits of oil we can use later....
Strange, but I have yet to see these large murky swamps full of bio mass being covered up with dirt, rock and then being compressed.... Please explain that to me? I don't see it happening, now, or in the past. It takes time to moe mud and rock, and cover up bio mass in quantities anywhere needed to even produce the level of oil we have used to date, not to mention all the untapped reserves we know about around the planet.
Ok, back on topic with the bio mass. You think crude oil is bio mass because the Wiki guide tells you it is... (The Wiki guide would have said the earth was flat had it been available a few centuries ago...)
Here is what I think is correct today, based on some very good theory, and proven fact.
1) Hydrocarbons are known and proven to be commonplace in our own solar system. (earth included.)
2) The sun is the major factor in all the planets in this solar system, and it drives our weather, and indeed our very existence if you want to get technical.
3) Crude oil is not a fossil fuel any more than my shit is going to turn into bio mass that will someday be drilled into by future races and used as fuel. Biomass decomposes too quickly to be effectively stored up as a future fuel. It's recycled dude. Like everything on this planet in one way or the other.
One more to chew on. They have proven that oil is in rock deeper than the fossil record. PROVEN it. Not a theory. Not my opinion, but proven fact. The technology to drill this deep has only come into being in the last few decades, so the early oil deposits were pretty shallow. The new deeper ones are into rock older than life on this planet. Some rock is 4 billion years old, and there was no bio mass there to rot, fester and be compressed into oil, yet there is CRUDE OIL IN THAT OLD ROCK.
Wiki that one.
The simple truth is that hydrocarbons like crude oil are part of the earth. Just like they are part of Mars, Venus, Mercury and all the other planets and large balls of hydrocarbon gas that go round and round the burning ball of gas we call the sun. (Which it appears, goes round and round more burning balls of gas collected in our galaxy, and there are billions of galaxies with even more billions of "suns" in them so the amount of total hydrocarbons in the known space could be more than we can comprehend if you think about it... Sort of makes paying for this stuff pretty silly don't you think? Seeing how it's so "rare" and all....?)
Come to think of it, priced water in a bottle? We humans will pay for anything if it's marketed to us correctly... Ah progress...!
There is a huge problem with your logic. It's based on bad science theory. It was never PROVEN that crude oil was from decomposed, crushed bio mass. It was a THEORY, nothing more.
When crude oil was first "discovered" and processed into all the nice things we use it for today, they found some leftover bio mass in the oil. It was assumed that because they found these fossils in the crude oil, that crude oil was from fossils, thus the "Fossil Fuel" name that has held up about as long as "The Earth is Flat". (Widely belived to be true for many centuries because of misguided "proof" from various sources.....)
Clearly when we started to use oil, say about 100 years ago, little was known about our solar system, and science has improved many times over since then.
The first predictions of how much oil was in the ground were based on wild guesses of bio mass deposits, and oil exploration was limited to the idea that the largest pools of trapped crude in the earth had to be linked to areas where lots of plankton or weeds and other growing stuff was thought to have died and then been coverred up with mud, rock and compressed over time into nifty deposits of oil we can use later....
Strange, but I have yet to see these large murky swamps full of bio mass being covered up with dirt, rock and then being compressed.... Please explain that to me? I don't see it happening, now, or in the past. It takes time to moe mud and rock, and cover up bio mass in quantities anywhere needed to even produce the level of oil we have used to date, not to mention all the untapped reserves we know about around the planet.
Ok, back on topic with the bio mass. You think crude oil is bio mass because the Wiki guide tells you it is... (The Wiki guide would have said the earth was flat had it been available a few centuries ago...)
Here is what I think is correct today, based on some very good theory, and proven fact.
1) Hydrocarbons are known and proven to be commonplace in our own solar system. (earth included.)
2) The sun is the major factor in all the planets in this solar system, and it drives our weather, and indeed our very existence if you want to get technical.
3) Crude oil is not a fossil fuel any more than my shit is going to turn into bio mass that will someday be drilled into by future races and used as fuel. Biomass decomposes too quickly to be effectively stored up as a future fuel. It's recycled dude. Like everything on this planet in one way or the other.
One more to chew on. They have proven that oil is in rock deeper than the fossil record. PROVEN it. Not a theory. Not my opinion, but proven fact. The technology to drill this deep has only come into being in the last few decades, so the early oil deposits were pretty shallow. The new deeper ones are into rock older than life on this planet. Some rock is 4 billion years old, and there was no bio mass there to rot, fester and be compressed into oil, yet there is CRUDE OIL IN THAT OLD ROCK.
Wiki that one.
The simple truth is that hydrocarbons like crude oil are part of the earth. Just like they are part of Mars, Venus, Mercury and all the other planets and large balls of hydrocarbon gas that go round and round the burning ball of gas we call the sun. (Which it appears, goes round and round more burning balls of gas collected in our galaxy, and there are billions of galaxies with even more billions of "suns" in them so the amount of total hydrocarbons in the known space could be more than we can comprehend if you think about it... Sort of makes paying for this stuff pretty silly don't you think? Seeing how it's so "rare" and all....?)
Come to think of it, priced water in a bottle? We humans will pay for anything if it's marketed to us correctly... Ah progress...!
I think Wiki is one hell of a website, sure it is not perfect and I use it as a referrence and not as fact. I usually check other sites also. Wiki seems to give fair evidence for both sides on all subjects and I admire them for that!
I like you Adjuster so I am going to agree to disagree here. Yes, that is my belief with plankton (carbon based life/plant forms) until I see better evidence. Either way, that does not really matter here, does it?
You have never seen a swamp? hmmm...
I agree with #1 and #2 but you will need to prove #3 for me bud.. Recyclable from what I say? Like this fossil plant in a chunk of coal?
None of what you say proves that MMGW is a hoax so I am done here for tonight. I will do some searching and see what I can come up with for you. It sounds like you should do the same...
If I find evidence that is persuasive enough, I am open minded enough to realize it and change my thought process accordingly. Are you guys?
I like you Adjuster so I am going to agree to disagree here. Yes, that is my belief with plankton (carbon based life/plant forms) until I see better evidence. Either way, that does not really matter here, does it?
You have never seen a swamp? hmmm...
I agree with #1 and #2 but you will need to prove #3 for me bud.. Recyclable from what I say? Like this fossil plant in a chunk of coal?
None of what you say proves that MMGW is a hoax so I am done here for tonight. I will do some searching and see what I can come up with for you. It sounds like you should do the same...
If I find evidence that is persuasive enough, I am open minded enough to realize it and change my thought process accordingly. Are you guys?
I have to say there is some interesting stuff about coal that I find very cool. The fact that it has plant and animal life recorded in it does not prove it's made up of that stuff.
Case in point. Fossil trees are not trees at all, but the space left over from the decomposed tree was filled up with minerals that then took on the appearance of the tree rings and struture.
Coal appears to be more influenced by sub surface movement of methane gas and interation with as yet unknown microbial life. As far as the plants are concerned, I think they are just left over space filled up with the coal, just like the fossilized trees.
If you look at coal deposits, they are closely tied to venting methane gas. The formation of oil deposits also appears to be related to this methane gas as well. (It's theorized that microbes at great depth in the earth can metobolize this methane, and the byproduct of that is crude oil, and coal among other things.)
The existance of oil, coal and other hydrocabons in the upper layers of the earth is not in dispute. The reality is however, that methane gas, crude oil and other forms of hydrocarbons exist at levels much older than the ones that formed the fossil you posted, proving that hydrocarbons are NOT part of the plants, but are part of the earth. The fact that the plants were recorded in hydrocarbons is a moot point.
Hydrocarbons are not fossil fuels. The sooner everyone knows this, the better for all of us. (Well, maybe not for the environmentalists and those who would have use discipline ourselves for the good of all... )
I think if we ever do manage to use up all the hydrocarbons on Earth, technology will have advanced to the point where we are driling for oil on Mars and other planets, or have basicly turned Neptune into a huge gas station in the sky... Or we are using another form of energy that is even more effective than burning hydrocarbons... (I somehow doubt it though.)
Case in point. Fossil trees are not trees at all, but the space left over from the decomposed tree was filled up with minerals that then took on the appearance of the tree rings and struture.
Coal appears to be more influenced by sub surface movement of methane gas and interation with as yet unknown microbial life. As far as the plants are concerned, I think they are just left over space filled up with the coal, just like the fossilized trees.
If you look at coal deposits, they are closely tied to venting methane gas. The formation of oil deposits also appears to be related to this methane gas as well. (It's theorized that microbes at great depth in the earth can metobolize this methane, and the byproduct of that is crude oil, and coal among other things.)
The existance of oil, coal and other hydrocabons in the upper layers of the earth is not in dispute. The reality is however, that methane gas, crude oil and other forms of hydrocarbons exist at levels much older than the ones that formed the fossil you posted, proving that hydrocarbons are NOT part of the plants, but are part of the earth. The fact that the plants were recorded in hydrocarbons is a moot point.
Hydrocarbons are not fossil fuels. The sooner everyone knows this, the better for all of us. (Well, maybe not for the environmentalists and those who would have use discipline ourselves for the good of all... )
I think if we ever do manage to use up all the hydrocarbons on Earth, technology will have advanced to the point where we are driling for oil on Mars and other planets, or have basicly turned Neptune into a huge gas station in the sky... Or we are using another form of energy that is even more effective than burning hydrocarbons... (I somehow doubt it though.)
Adjuster said:
I agree with you to a point here. I think it is a really big clue!!! But most scientists today still believe that if it was not for the carbon based life/plants that got burried in the ground in the first place, the anaerobic bacteria would have nothing to chew on.
Scientists believe that when all these animals and plants died and sank to the bottom of the ancient seas and lagoons, they were covered by layers of sediment (figure 5a). This process happened before they had time to decay in the air. Anaerobic bacteria are thought to have acted on them to start the process of changing them into crude oil or gas. Perhaps there were some chemical reactions between the decaying organisms and the salts in the mud and water surrounding them. We know that there is a difference in the chemicals in oil from different parts of the world. There seems to have been a difference in the way that oil was formed or in the plants and animals from which it was formed.
At least when you see a fossilized tree, you can admit that it was once a tree and I feel we are making some headway here even though we are in the wrong thread...
Bingo... Thank you!!!
Sounds ok to me.. BTW, How is methane produced or made? Even bacteria fart and decaying organic matter still stinks (methane)..
I admit I do not fully understand the processes that turn organics into coal/oil very well. Forces like heat and pressure over time seem to be needed. It's not put here by the exxon god of fuel! Even the scientists admit they do not have all the answers so it is premature for you to do so in my opinion.
This thinking makes me nervous to say the least. I tend to think that if we could burn it all, I don't think we could live here much longer.
I agree fuel is everywhere we tend to look for it in our solar system. Just take our moon for example, There is a lot of stuff there called helium-3 on the moon that could be our next target for mining. I have not been there myself so I have to take the scientists word for it for now..
Again, all this seems to be taking the focus off the real problem here that MMGW is real and is happening at a rate faster than anyone ever could have expected!!.
The only reason people say that "they" are using "scare tactics" is because the outcome is potentially very scary indeed..
Back on topic...
Im not going to type out some long, tedious explination, because I know nobody will read it.
Forests are rapidly shrinking, the ocean is polluted, we are burning more and more forms of oil and coal every day. Levels of carbon dioxide are rising. The ice caps are shrinking. The earth is in a sharp warming trend realitive to historical data.
Call it all unrealated and twist, turn or spin it like Bill O'Reilly if you like..... You arent going to convince me that they arent interrelated.
Forests are rapidly shrinking, the ocean is polluted, we are burning more and more forms of oil and coal every day. Levels of carbon dioxide are rising. The ice caps are shrinking. The earth is in a sharp warming trend realitive to historical data.
Call it all unrealated and twist, turn or spin it like Bill O'Reilly if you like..... You arent going to convince me that they arent interrelated.
Fact. The ice core results show that in the past 300,000 years, the earth has experienced climate change more rapid than today's rates, and along with being rapid, they were extreme, changing the average temps as much as 30f in a few decades. Infact, the graph of this change has huge temp swings with only brief periods of calm..
I suppose it was the exhaust of all those ancient cars and factories that caused the prior warming and cooling trends?
Ok, back to hydrocarbons.
Fact. They are part of the planet. Just like on other planets and moons in our own solar system have hydrocarbons on them, Earth has hydrocarbons on it. Do those hydrocarbons interact with living organisms? Sure. Does it make the results fossil fuels? Not in the least.
Fact. Hydrocarbons are found at depths in the earth older than life. (Hello, explain to me how fossil fuels could do that? Good luck, that SINGLE fact just blew the whole outdated, misinformed idea that plants, plankton and other dead shit become the oil we now refine and burn in our cars etc.)
Fact. Oil deposits the world over are re-filling themselves at rates impossible to comprehend. If these deposits were truely from fossil remains, they would have run dry decades ago. But the oil supplies are not running dry, they are refilling from the underside... You know, down deep where fossil life does not exist...
Energy policy was/is based on the flawed theory of "fossil fuels". It is why the USA has huge salt deposits hollowed out with water, then pumped full of crude oil to keep our military in supply of oil should the need arise. It's why many huge deposits here in the USA have been capped off, and held in reserve. The idea being that when the rest of the world runs out of oil, we will still have enough to run the military and protect ourselves.
Fact. Oil wells that were thought to have been depleted have been found to now have full deposits again, and many have been opened back up and are producing again like brand new...(So, did the little bugs down there decicde that we needed more oil, so they ramped up production and chewed up more fossil waste so we could have more oil.... LOL It's more like the existing oil and gas in the earth has filled up those areas again, so there is oil down there to be pumped to the surface again.)
Have you read "The Deep Hot Earth" by Thomas J Gold yet? Read it and then debate me. He's a smart dude, and he had this figured out in the 70's, but it was so out of the mainstream then, and the establishment "knew" that oil was a fossil remain, that he was crazy to even suggest such an absurd idea.... (Sounds like "You are crazy for even suggesting the Earth is not flat! Deny it, or it's the death by fire for your blasphemy...!" When was that? Only a few hundred years before... We as humans are so smart.. We know everything... LOL.)
I suppose it was the exhaust of all those ancient cars and factories that caused the prior warming and cooling trends?
Ok, back to hydrocarbons.
Fact. They are part of the planet. Just like on other planets and moons in our own solar system have hydrocarbons on them, Earth has hydrocarbons on it. Do those hydrocarbons interact with living organisms? Sure. Does it make the results fossil fuels? Not in the least.
Fact. Hydrocarbons are found at depths in the earth older than life. (Hello, explain to me how fossil fuels could do that? Good luck, that SINGLE fact just blew the whole outdated, misinformed idea that plants, plankton and other dead shit become the oil we now refine and burn in our cars etc.)
Fact. Oil deposits the world over are re-filling themselves at rates impossible to comprehend. If these deposits were truely from fossil remains, they would have run dry decades ago. But the oil supplies are not running dry, they are refilling from the underside... You know, down deep where fossil life does not exist...
Energy policy was/is based on the flawed theory of "fossil fuels". It is why the USA has huge salt deposits hollowed out with water, then pumped full of crude oil to keep our military in supply of oil should the need arise. It's why many huge deposits here in the USA have been capped off, and held in reserve. The idea being that when the rest of the world runs out of oil, we will still have enough to run the military and protect ourselves.
Fact. Oil wells that were thought to have been depleted have been found to now have full deposits again, and many have been opened back up and are producing again like brand new...(So, did the little bugs down there decicde that we needed more oil, so they ramped up production and chewed up more fossil waste so we could have more oil.... LOL It's more like the existing oil and gas in the earth has filled up those areas again, so there is oil down there to be pumped to the surface again.)
Have you read "The Deep Hot Earth" by Thomas J Gold yet? Read it and then debate me. He's a smart dude, and he had this figured out in the 70's, but it was so out of the mainstream then, and the establishment "knew" that oil was a fossil remain, that he was crazy to even suggest such an absurd idea.... (Sounds like "You are crazy for even suggesting the Earth is not flat! Deny it, or it's the death by fire for your blasphemy...!" When was that? Only a few hundred years before... We as humans are so smart.. We know everything... LOL.)
Find something that you know first hand and check it. I have done that a few times. All times in question, main points were wrong.
Hmmm, where have I read that one before...oh that is right, in Genisis.:biglaugh:Joel said:
Fact. Myself and a lot of scientists/climatologist disagree with you here on the ice core data conclusions. :1zhelp:
Fact. You are not doing your research and are again going off of yet another book that has been sold to make money! :nono:
Fact. He has been accused of stealing the abiogenic theory outright from Soviet geologists who first published it in the 1950s :icon_conf
Fact. According to Gold and the Soviet geologists who originated the abiogenic theory, bacteria feeding on the oil accounts for the presence of biological debris in hydrocarbon fuels, obviating the need to resort to a biogenic theory for the origin of the latter. The flows of underground hydrocarbons may also explain oddities in the concentration of other mineral deposits. (lmao):biglaugh:
Fact. Most western geologists and petrologists consider petroleum abiogenic theories implausible and believe the biogenic theory of 'fossil fuel' formation adequately explains all observed fossil fuel deposits. Most geologists do recognize the geologic carbon cycle includes subducted carbon which returns to the surface, with studies showing the carbon does rise in various ways. However, recent discoveries have shown that bacteria live at depths far greater than previously believed. WOW recent discoveries....:naughty:
Fact. I can't even find his book on google books! :cry:
Fact. I will think about believing you when you start to prove your case and stop quoting books for sale. Look out your window and see for your self. Again, who really cares where it came from anyways. I really do not care!
Fact. Life is found almost everywhere we look on earth, even where it should not be able to thrive, there it is. Thriving...
Fact. Someone here is trying to distract us all from the truth with outdated information and unproven theorys. ..:3d_frown:
Fact. You are not doing your research and are again going off of yet another book that has been sold to make money! :nono:
Fact. He has been accused of stealing the abiogenic theory outright from Soviet geologists who first published it in the 1950s :icon_conf
Fact. According to Gold and the Soviet geologists who originated the abiogenic theory, bacteria feeding on the oil accounts for the presence of biological debris in hydrocarbon fuels, obviating the need to resort to a biogenic theory for the origin of the latter. The flows of underground hydrocarbons may also explain oddities in the concentration of other mineral deposits. (lmao):biglaugh:
Fact. Most western geologists and petrologists consider petroleum abiogenic theories implausible and believe the biogenic theory of 'fossil fuel' formation adequately explains all observed fossil fuel deposits. Most geologists do recognize the geologic carbon cycle includes subducted carbon which returns to the surface, with studies showing the carbon does rise in various ways. However, recent discoveries have shown that bacteria live at depths far greater than previously believed. WOW recent discoveries....:naughty:
Fact. I can't even find his book on google books! :cry:
Fact. I will think about believing you when you start to prove your case and stop quoting books for sale. Look out your window and see for your self. Again, who really cares where it came from anyways. I really do not care!
Fact. Life is found almost everywhere we look on earth, even where it should not be able to thrive, there it is. Thriving...
Fact. Someone here is trying to distract us all from the truth with outdated information and unproven theorys. ..:3d_frown:
Nick M said:
Maybe with what you believe in.. 6000 years old huh? lmao...OK...
This is about science, not story time...:aigo:
I just thought I'd throw in a short little bit before I actually put on the thinking cap tomorrow.
To clearify for everyone, an oil / natural gas reservoir is NOT a big pool of fluid or gas; it is a solid rock formation with very VERY tiny pores that are oil and gas permeable.
When people talk about how dry wells magically regain their oil/gas over time, it is the hydrocarbons already present in the formation migrating back into the well-bore (lower pressure area). I over see the cycles that wells (gas and oil) go through in order to maintain a synchronized production with the formation production (petroleum engineer). A dry well is a whole lot different from a dry formation. A well is like the straw and the formation is like an orange (for simple terms).
The fact is that oil production is in actually declining. However, this does not mean that we are going to run out tomorrow (ie: there is an oil field in Russia that can sustain the world for 40 years alone). Moreover, a common misconception is that an oil company stops producing a well because it is out of oil / gas. The only reason they stop producing it is the economic factor; the well can't pay for inself anymore. Often times, oil companies will leave wells with 70% of it's original supply and cement in the well-bores.
On a non-oil related note: Something was said that the earth will move away from the sun eventually due to the universe expanding? This is untrue. The universe may be exanding (many theories also say that it continually expands and contracts over a long period of time), but the solar system itself really wouldn't be. Think of how a solar system forms: gravity. Gravity between the masses pull into each other. The earth's mass has already been "caught" by the sun's mass. There is no physical way possible for the earth to sling out of the sun's grasp without something major happening. In order for the earth to sling away, there either has to be a loss gravity between the earth and the sun (highly unlikely), or an outside force that pulls the earth away from orbit. Yes, the momentum of earth wants to go in a straight line, but the sun's gravity has already overcome that point, thus the earth is spiraling inward (the closer you get, the stronger gravity is).
eh, I'm gonna be paying for this in the morning when I can't get up for work :/.
To clearify for everyone, an oil / natural gas reservoir is NOT a big pool of fluid or gas; it is a solid rock formation with very VERY tiny pores that are oil and gas permeable.
When people talk about how dry wells magically regain their oil/gas over time, it is the hydrocarbons already present in the formation migrating back into the well-bore (lower pressure area). I over see the cycles that wells (gas and oil) go through in order to maintain a synchronized production with the formation production (petroleum engineer). A dry well is a whole lot different from a dry formation. A well is like the straw and the formation is like an orange (for simple terms).
The fact is that oil production is in actually declining. However, this does not mean that we are going to run out tomorrow (ie: there is an oil field in Russia that can sustain the world for 40 years alone). Moreover, a common misconception is that an oil company stops producing a well because it is out of oil / gas. The only reason they stop producing it is the economic factor; the well can't pay for inself anymore. Often times, oil companies will leave wells with 70% of it's original supply and cement in the well-bores.
On a non-oil related note: Something was said that the earth will move away from the sun eventually due to the universe expanding? This is untrue. The universe may be exanding (many theories also say that it continually expands and contracts over a long period of time), but the solar system itself really wouldn't be. Think of how a solar system forms: gravity. Gravity between the masses pull into each other. The earth's mass has already been "caught" by the sun's mass. There is no physical way possible for the earth to sling out of the sun's grasp without something major happening. In order for the earth to sling away, there either has to be a loss gravity between the earth and the sun (highly unlikely), or an outside force that pulls the earth away from orbit. Yes, the momentum of earth wants to go in a straight line, but the sun's gravity has already overcome that point, thus the earth is spiraling inward (the closer you get, the stronger gravity is).
eh, I'm gonna be paying for this in the morning when I can't get up for work :/.
Space and Missile Defense command, missile testing, the company SpaceX and the Davis-Besse nuclear power station are not "things I believe in". Sorry my friend. I was making no refrence to politics/religion (for once) when I stated that.
Funny, you state what you believed true, and when I point out the Bible says the same thing, you call it story time.
Can you bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loosen the belt of Orion?