Ask Me Help Desk - Science - or a close facimile

Science - or a close facimile

Hello:

Apparently, the right wing believes that oil is NOT a fossil fuel, that it's replenished in the center of the earth, and we'll NEVER run out. I suppose if you believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, you'd have to DENY that there's anything older.

Now, if it was JUST the wingnut WND, who would care if they're BONKERS??? But, if you live in North Carolina, and you just suffered TWO major leaks of POISON and HAZARDOUS material, you'd be VERY concerned that the guy in charge of cleaning it up, ALSO BELIEVES the CRAP the WND is shoveling...

excon

WND will rot your brain. Scary to think someone believes the crap they spew. I guess it belongs in the "preaching to the choir" category.

Excuse me, but it is Nancy Pelosi that believes fossil fuels aren't fossil fuels.

Quote:

I’m, I’m, I’m investing in something I believe in. I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels. … These investments in wind, in solar and biofuels and focus on natural gas, these are the real alternatives. -Mimi

Interesting thought that your WND article got it's info from Science Magazine, are they not scientists? Otherwise, MSNBC will rot your brain even more than WND.

FYI, good for the Gov and his guy to be skeptical of climate change. It was the flat-earthers that were the consensus back in the day, the skeptics challenged that consensus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Excuse me, but it is Nancy Pelosi that believes fossil fuels aren't fossil fuels.

Interesting thought that your WND article got it's info from Science Magazine, are they not scientists? Otherwise, MSNBC will rot your brain even more than WND.

FYI, good for the Gov and his guy to be skeptical of climate change. It was the flat-earthers that were the consensus back in the day, the skeptics challenged that consensus.

"Planet earth to McCorory..come in..."

"You have hired a person who promotes pseudo-science to be your Department of Natural Resources"

This isn't an article from the 1st of April... is it?

The abiotic oil hypothesis is hardly a new one ;nor did it originate from some flat earthers . It is indeed a hypothesis no more or less valid than the finite fossil fuel hypothesis . Perhaps it explains how oil and natural gas deposits are being found miles below the surface of the earth ,underneath solid rock formations . There happens to be a lot of organic material deep in the ocean where one would think no life exists . But the vents around the plates create an environment where thermophilic organic life has been found . Who cares if you don't like WND or Corsi as your source ! Perhaps you should look deeper to US World and New Reports . Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring - US News But that's ok ..... As usual we see where 'consensus science' shows it's intolerance of anyone who dare challenge the orthodoxy . .

I can't see the problem with the possibility that the generation of oil is a natural process, I do find it just as hard to believe that there were so many ancient fish, etc that they account for all the oil or the distribution of it and I would like an explanation of how upright tree trunks have been found in coal deposits. We don't know as much about the history of the Earth and the universe as we would like to think we do, so ranting and raving about someone's religious beliefs does not enhance the cause of science ex, you want to rave tell me where all the water came from because I find it hard to believe it came from comets one snowball at a time. You see your belief system, called science, doesn't satisfy my enquiring mind. That same science by the way would tell me that this might be one of the few places in the universe where water is found in the form it is on Earth

shhhh Clete.... you are challenging the orthodoxy ......to the inquisition with you !!!

Again, the source was Science Magazine, not the bible:

Quote:

Abiogenic Hydrocarbon Production at Lost City Hydrothermal Field
Low-molecular-weight hydrocarbons in natural hydrothermal fluids have been attributed to abiogenic production by Fischer-Tropsch type (FTT) reactions, although clear evidence for such a process has been elusive. Here, we present concentration, and stable and radiocarbon isotope, data from hydrocarbons dissolved in hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the ultramafic-hosted Lost City Hydrothermal Field. A distinct “inverse” trend in the stable carbon and hydrogen isotopic composition of C₁ to C₄ hydrocarbons is compatible with FTT genesis. Radiocarbon evidence rules out seawater bicarbonate as the carbon source for FTT reactions, suggesting that a mantle-derived inorganic carbon source is leached from the host rocks. Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat.

Science 1 February 2008:
Vol. 319 no. 5863 pp. 604-607DOI:10.1126/science.1151194

And again, it was the skeptics who challenged the flat-earth consensus, and the consensus seems to have been spectacularly wrong in their predictions for what, 17 years now? Adjusting your models to account for a swing and a miss isn't science, it's pseudo-science.

oh the irony . back in the day flat earth was consensus science and it was the deniers who were proven correct. Does the possibility of abiotic oil dismiss the peak oil theories ? Probably not . For our needs ,the oil supply is still finite and we need to transition away from hydrocarbons .

Tom the inquisition will want to know more than my thoughts on hydro-carbons and hydro, I'm a student of Velikovsky and we know the reception he got, and my religious thought might rattle a cage or two

Tom not denying that we need better systems for supplying our insatiable energy consumption and that getting out of the carbon cycle might be one of them, however being stuck in the present reality, we should concentrate on minimising damage from our activities as much as we concentrate on find new ways to consume. Just reducing the size and engine capacity of vehicles would do much as would losing the obscession with using trucks for long distance transport.

All projects should be assessed on the basis of their net damage, ie, solar panels do not overcome the impacts associated with their manufacture, nor do wind generators but everything is a trade off. Electric vehicles may require more damage than they offset.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The abiotic oil hypothesis is hardly a new one ;nor did it originate from some flat earthers . It is indeed a hypothesis no more or less valid than the finite fossil fuel hypothesis . Perhaps it explains how oil and natural gas deposits are being found miles below the surface of the earth ,underneath solid rock formations . There happens to be a lot of organic material deep in the ocean where one would think no life exists . But the vents around the plates create an environment where thermophilic organic life has been found . Who cares if you don't like WND or Corsi as your source ! Perhaps you should look deeper to US World and New Reports . Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring - US News But that's ok ..... As usual we see where 'consensus science' shows it's intolerance of anyone who dare challenge the orthodoxy . .

Yes, it is a hypothesis, but it isn't a working hypothesis that results in a scientific theory that can make testable predictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Again, the source was Science Magazine, not the bible:

And again, it was the skeptics who challenged the flat-earth consensus, and the consensus seems to have been spectacularly wrong in their predictions for what, 17 years now? Adjusting your models to account for a swing and a miss isn't science, it's pseudo-science.

One would need to see the whole report. What you have posted here is inconclusive.

If evidence of such an oil field exists then that would be reliable evidence. One would need to see the whole study before making a decision.

look, let's get this straight, the planet is a living organism and we are just a virus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Yes, it is a hypothesis, but it isn't a working hypothesis that results in a scientific theory that can make testable predictions.

Vladimir Kutcherov duplicated it in the lab at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. The research is in it's infancy. But I've seen no other explanation for the findings of deposits deep beneath solid rock formations that were there at the time of the dinosaurs. We are talking 30,000 ft below the surface where the deepest known dinosaur fossils are at 16,000 ft. And if you are taking predictions ; Kutcherov has developed a methodology for searching for deep migration channels where abiotic oil might rise to the surface.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Vladimir Kutcherov duplicated it in the lab at the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. The research is in it's infancy. But I've seen no other explanation for the findings of deposits deep beneath solid rock formations that were there at the time of the dinosaurs. We are talking 30,000 ft below the surface where the deepest known dinosaur fossils are at 16,000 ft. And if you are taking predictions ; Kutcherov has developed a methodology for searching for deep migration channels where abiotic oil might rise to the surface.

What we have to date is a number of "mights" and "may".

From the article posted by speech that appears to be a conclusion:

Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons MAY* occur in the presence of ultramatic rock, water and moderate amounts of heat.
* my emphasis

From your above post:

And you are talking predictions; Kutcherov has developed a methodology for searching for deep migration channels where abiotic oil MIGHT* rise to the surface.

Based on cosmology I predict that there MIGHT be a multiverse.

I am not denying the possibility, but going back to the OP - I find it very odd if one decided to base an environmental policy on such predictions.

Actually, come to think of it this sounds exactly like global warming theory. That is to say, basing an environmental policy on a hypothesis that so far as failed to deliver any reliable predictions.

Which also reminds me of a question. Why are you so keen to reject global warming as pseudo science, yet you are prepared to embrace as similar idea when it comes biotic oil?

Don't worry I know the answer.

pseudo science is all around us, no one does serious research anymore they just dream using their computer. It is like some gigantic computer game, an alternate reality. or as suggested a multiverse where all possibilities exist

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

pseudo science is all around us, no one does serious research anymore they just dream using their computer. It is like some gigantic computer game, an alternate reality. or as suggested a multiverse where all possibilities exist

nope ,he duplicated it in the lab. You and I die and decompose ,get eaten by bugs and leave very little remains except some bones . Yet we are to believe that dinosaurs died ,and were converted into a liquid hydrocarbon goo. I'm not saying that's not possible . I just don't summarily dismiss alternate explanations like the "consensus " scientific community does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

nope ,he duplicated it in the lab. You and I die and decompose ,get eaten by bugs and leave very little remains except some bones . Yet we are to believe that dinosaurs died ,and were converted into a liquid hydrocarbon goo. I'm not saying that's not possible . I just don't summarily dismiss alternate explanations like the "consensus " scientific community does.

Tom, dinosaurs have nothing to do with oil deposits. These organic deposits that were to eventually become oil were laid down long before the first dinosaur.

yes I know that ..it's mostly decomposed plankton ,krill ,etc..... and one of the promising technologies is creating fuel from algae . Again that is a fine explanation for oil at certain depths . It doesn't explain the oil being found well below the strata where organic matter would be found.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

One would need to see the whole report. What you have posted here is inconclusive.

If evidence of such an oil field exists then that would be reliable evidence. One would need to see the whole study before making a decision.

I didn't post it as conclusive evidence of anything other than the deceptiveness of the OP, it was his own source.

Endless Oil? - Forbes

Quote:

American geologists might be convinced if the abiotic theorists can find big new oil fields using their methods. Kutcherov has developed a methodology for searching for deep migration channels where abiotic oil might rise to the surface. If he can raise money from investors, he hopes to begin searching for abiotic oil deposits in east Texas.

The proof is billions of barrels of oil, in which for now he is billions of barrels of oil short. I mean he even admits his own experiments have failed to produce the desired results.

Quote:

In the 1980s, he convinced the Swedish government and investors to drill four miles through solid granite in central Sweden. They eventually recovered 84 barrels of oil. Gold considered it a scientific success, even though the project was a commercial failure.
To prove that abiotic oil is possible, in 2002 Kutcherov superheated calcium carbonate, water and iron in a pressure chamber and then cranked it up to produce 30,000 times atmospheric pressure, simulating the conditions present in the earth's mantle. Sure enough, about 1.5% of the material converted into hydrocarbons, according to results in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Most of it was methane and other gases, but about 10% was heavier oil components.

It's a theory with high promise but yet to be proven and too expensive. But you never know.

Quote:

It's a theory with high promise but yet to be proven and too expensive. But you never know

Let's make no mistake about it ...even if there was an endless supply of petro-carbons to exploit ,we still need to transition away from using them . We transitioned away from whale oil when a new technology was discovered and developed ;and the same will happen when the technology is discovered to replace oil.

I can go with that idea, mean while we are stuck with processing and transporting that dirty stuff from Canada so they can make a few bucks. Even sweet crude stinks as its being processed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I didn't post it as conclusive evidence of anything other than the deceptiveness of the OP, it was his own source.

But, wasn't the OP source the WND report and MSNCB interview?

What you posted was AAAS Science and a Wall Street Journal report about global warming. If this is the case then why did you post the AAAS report?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

yes I know that ..it's mostly decomposed plankton ,krill ,etc..... and one of the promising technologies is creating fuel from algae . Again that is a fine explanation for oil at certain depths . It doesn't explain the oil being found well below the strata where organic matter would be found.

Who says that dinosaurs were converted to liquid hydrocarbon goo? Has anyone ever actually made that claim?

I think you can safely cross that one off your possible list.

Who says organic matter cannot be found at any depth, we are ignorant of the conditions below the top layer of skin on this planet, in fact our ignorance is so great we think we can control conditions in the atmosphere

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

But, wasn't the OP source the WND report and MSNCB interview?

What you posted was AAAS Science and a Wall Street Journal report about global warming. If this is the case then why did you post the AAAS report?

Did you the WND article? It was based on the report, I said that in post #3. I'm not going to rehash it all, read it yourself. You're a smart guy and can make the connections.

Quote:

Who says that dinosaurs were converted to liquid hydrocarbon goo? Has anyone ever actually made that claim?

actually yes .. that was the original "consensus "science on the origins of oil .It was taught in schools for years ;and in truth ,a portion of the oil may have originated from dinosaur remains.

Man oh man. You guys keeps dancing in circles. One of the ways material gets deep into the earth is through subduction. It is part of the process that we call plate tectonics that carries parts of the sea floor down to the mantle of the earth. The sea floor is rich in organic materials as well as many other chemicals including H2O. Those plates that have gone under may be returning as minerals in seperate form including oil. It is very possible that the oil supply is not at a finite level as far as being an ongoing process but it is finite in the amounts that can be taken at any given time. Just a thought.

Plate tectonics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

well done dad, there is indeed a process for renewing the resources of the Earth, but of course subduction doesn't fit flat Earth religious views. I like the idea that oceanic waste can be subjected to enormous heat and pressure that melts rocks and can form oil, personally I thought it formed diamonds, but...

getting back to reality, yes our resources are finite as long as we insist on increasing population and consumption at expotential rates and conversion of consumption to some other media is going to run up against the same hurdles. Growth cannot be maintained.

This is not about the need for alternative resources, it's about an agenda that pretends it's scientific while slamming anyone who goes against the consensus. That isn't science, it's groupthink.

Case in point, a Harvard student has called for abandoning academic freedom in lieu of "academic justice," which apparently means only such research that meets our approved worldview may be published.

Harvard Urged to ‘Give Up on Academic Freedom,’ Shut Down Research Not Aligned With ‘Justice’ | TheBlaze.com

Another case in point, according to CNN there is only one side to climate change, the consensus. Anyone that challenges that consensus is not a scientist.

Quote:

The rundown for this Sunday's show – Reliable Sources - CNN.com Blogs

And there are some stories which do not have two sides. The climate change debate is one of them. Nevertheless, many news organizations continue to equate the skeptics with the scientists. This week NBC’s Meet the Press faced criticism for its debate between Bill Nye the Science Guy and Rep. Marsha Blackburn. We’ll talk to Michio Kaku from the City University of New York and CBS News as well as Jack Mirkinson, Senior Media Editor at the Huffington Post.

Excuse me, but I believe the two men that wrote the WSJ column I cited earlier are not only scientists, but participated on the IPCC. If science means ignoring the data, hiding data that conflicts with your view (hide the decline), adjusting your computer models to soften your spectacular fails on predictions, and silencing and impugning those who challenge your failures, then that isn't science. I hope you aren't in charge of any medical schools.

Hello again,

Data, schmata. I'm NOT a scientist. I'm just a guy looking around. I wouldn't know data if it smacked me in the head.. What I DO know, is that the atmosphere is FINITE, just like the oceans are, and just like the land masses are. I KNOW that throwing our trash on the ground isn't good.. I KNOW that throwing our trash into the ocean isn't good..

It DOESN'T take a great deal of scientific knowledge, therefore, to GRASP that throwing our trash into the air, also ISN'T a good thing.

excon

Science is proving your data, and applying it in the real world. And getting people to give you money for it. Research and development isn't cheap. No company is going to take the word of a scientist unless he can show them the money.

You guys are a riot, you argue we must believe the science then say the science doesn't matter. Make up your freakin minds, these fluid values of yours are impossible to understand, but I get it, you lefties just change the rules of the game when your arguments are proven ridiculous.

Its not lefties or righties applying or denying science speech, it's the guys with money who want to make money. Talk to them about your scientific opinions and let me know what they tell you.

Money is reality in THIS world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Its not lefties or righties applying or denying science speech, it's the guys with money who want to make money. Talk to them about your scientific opinions and let me know what they tell you.

Money is reality in THIS world.

So you stick to the money argument and ex can make up his mind whether or not the science matters.

yes this issue goes across ideological divides. The 1st time I heard of abiotic oil was on the Thom Hartmann show. He called the notion of 'Peak Oil ' a conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry to keep prices high.