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.