Truth About Fossil Fuels (environmentalist, cost, vs, retire)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here we go again with this “peak oil” nonsense. We aren’t going to run out, and humans aren’t causing climate change. Climate is cyclical and it also has to do with the sun.
Again, I fully understand temps are getting slightly warmer. But that’s just the way it goes. Also, I’ve posted on this before, but the “green energy gang” is inflating temperatures around the world, and I’m glad Tucker’s guest brought this up. It absolutely is happening. Why? So they can get governments to spend more on green energy and they can get rich.
Here we go again with this “peak oil” nonsense. We aren’t going to run out, and humans aren’t causing climate change. Climate is cyclical and it also has to do with the sun.
Again, I fully understand temps are getting slightly warmer. But that’s just the way it goes. Also, I’ve posted on this before, but the “green energy gang” is inflating temperatures around the world, and I’m glad Tucker’s guest brought this up. It absolutely is happening. Why? So they can get governments to spend more on green energy and they can get rich.
I have never once propagated "climate change" or "green energy" on here. Man man "climate change" is a superstition. "Peak oil" is an immutable fact of geology and thermodynamics.
More abiotic oil delusion. Just because some hydrocarbons may be formed inorganically, does not mean that most or all hydrocarbons are formed inorganically. This is certainly not the case here on earth. And even if abiotic oil were true, it is wholly irrelevant. We are depleting oil infinitely faster than it can ever be "generated." Yes, trees grow from the earth, but that does not mean that deforestation does not exist.
Hahaha. For y’all who always say “follow the science” try following the science yourselves.
From Investors Business Daily:
Quote:
Things are so good, in fact, that Engineering and Technology says "with the use of the innovative technologies, available fossil fuel resources could increase from the current 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent to 4.8 trillion by 2050, which is almost twice as much as the projected global demand." That number could even reach 7.5 trillion barrels if technology and exploration techniques advance even faster.
This information backs up the idea that Earth is actually an oil-producing machine. We call energy sources such as crude oil and natural gas fossil fuels based on the assumption that they are the products of decaying organisms, maybe even dinosaurs themselves. But the label is a misnomer. Research from the last decade found that hydrocarbons are synthesized abiotically.
In other words, as Science magazine has reported, the "data imply that hydrocarbons are produced chemically" from carbon found in Earth's mantle. Nature magazine calls the product of this process an "unexpected bounty " of "natural gas and the building blocks of oil products."
Of course, this was always the more logical view, particularly as oil extraction technology advanced to the point of deep oil drilling, finding oil pools resting at 6,000 feet or deeper down, embedded in rock. This couldn’t possibly be explained as a product of dinosaur carcasses and vegetation decay occurring on the earth’s surface. We’ve been told this bio matter decay becomes petroleum, which then seeps down through 6,000 feet of rock, then collects in these gigantic lakes of oil? It’s a preposterous notion, and always has been, which isn’t remotely scientific. What it is is an incredible story that really makes no rational sense.
The con artists who weave these mainstream narratives that they feed to the masses, are pathological liars, and virtually everything they tell us is actually false.
Of course, this was always the more logical view, particularly as oil extraction technology advanced to the point of deep oil drilling, finding oil pools resting at 6,000 feet or deeper down, embedded in rock. This couldn’t possibly be explained as a product of dinosaur carcasses and vegetation decay occurring on the earth’s surface. We’ve been told this bio matter decay becomes petroleum, which then seeps down through 6,000 feet of rock, then collects in these gigantic lakes of oil? It’s a preposterous notion, and always has been, which isn’t remotely scientific. What it is is an incredible story that really makes no rational sense.
The con artists who weave these mainstream narratives that they feed to the masses, are pathological liars, and virtually everything they tell us is actually false.
Quote:
In other words, as Science magazine has reported, the "data imply that hydrocarbons are produced chemically" from carbon found in Earth's mantle.
The real geologists in the West as well as the OPEC states, the world's primary oil producers and consumers, know this is complete bunk. They have learned through experience that petroleum cannot be found anywhere close to the mantle. And as I have already stated - even if oil is generated abiotically, if the consumption rate exceeds the generation rate, the result is depletion. We have seen this many times with forests and trees.
The real geologists in the West as well as the OPEC states, the world's primary oil producers and consumers, know this is complete bunk. They have learned through experience that petroleum cannot be found anywhere close to the mantle. And as I have already stated - even if oil is generated abiotically, if the consumption rate exceeds the generation rate, the result is depletion. We have seen this many times with forests and trees.
Head you win, tails I lose? That’s the game you’re playing here? The Real geologists? You mean the ones you believe? Is that what makes a geologist “real”, as opposed to what? Geologists who aren’t “real”? What does an “un-real” geologist look like, so I can tell the difference in the future?
Tell me, what evidence do you have to support your theory that a “generation rate” of a process you claim doesn’t even exist, is insufficient to keep up with the demand rate? That’s just grasping at straws to defend your established beliefs. In other words, you’re making it up as you go, to fit a narrative you have accepted as true, while having not one sound piece of evidence to back it up.
Let me give you a little clue about those western geologists and OPEC states … they are in the oil business, or paid by the oil industry. And what do you think benefits the oil industry more … the idea that there is a finite supply of oil, which follows the principles of supply and demand, or that there is an infinite supply of oil that regenerates, and will never run out?
And what would that do to the narratives regarding Man Made Climate Change, as well as the “renewable energy” industry? Lots of people have a vested interest in promoting the false narratives about so called “fossil fuels”, and how these resources are finite and being depleted.
It’s a con job, buddy. But as they say, A sucker is born every minute.
I have never once propagated "climate change" or "green energy" on here. Man man "climate change" is a superstition. "Peak oil" is an immutable fact of geology and thermodynamics.
I wouldn’t call upon “thermodynamics “ if I were you, because it would tend to validate the abiotic nature of petroleum much more than it would to disprove it.
Basically, the concept of thermodynamics is that heat is a source of energy, while the physics of energy insists that one form of energy cannot be destroyed, but can only be converted into another form.
Therefore, since oil is certainly a form of energy, it can only be a product transformed from another energy source, like the heat generated by the earth’s electromagnetic activity … if you want to get all scientific and stuff
We will never "run out" of oil. What will happen is that we will deplete the oil to a level that it is no longer thermodynamically or economically viable to extract. Think about it like this- would you ascend 50 flights of stairs to pick up the quarter on the top floor? Would you travel across the country to pick up a guaranteed $100 lottery ticket?
Too much money at stake for any of these scientists to "change their minds".
We don't have "science" anymore; it's "political science"
I wrote a college paper on climate change several years ago. Dr. Roy Spencer said he had been offered a grant to change his opinion. He said he was not the only one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
