Peak Oil My Ass

Mcdroid wrote:

SPARKY47 wrote:

www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3952

Consider the source... complete drivel.

True say mofo

Drivel eh?
And this?

www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm

If you go to www.gasresources.net you'll see this:

The articles on this site have been put here to accommodate the many requests for reprints and further information, received during the past few years following the publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. of an article formally enunciating the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins and demonstrating the high-pressure genesis of petroleum.

"National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A" ......
Drivel eh?

And this?

"Professor Michael C. Lynch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology"

And...

"There is also a link to an article by Professor Peter Odell of the London School of Economics concerning the common misperceptions connected with petroleum economics."

Drivel.

"Gas Resources Corporation, 11811 North Freeway, fl. 5, Houston, TX 77060, U.S.A."

Drivel.

Lots it seems.

SPARKY47 wrote:

Drivel eh?
And this?

www.gasresources.net/AlkaneGenesis.htm

If you go to www.gasresources.net you'll see this:

The articles on this site have been put here to accommodate the many requests for reprints and further information, received during the past few years following the publication in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A. of an article formally enunciating the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins and demonstrating the high-pressure genesis of petroleum.

"National Academy of Sciences of the U.S.A" ......
Drivel eh?

And this?

"Professor Michael C. Lynch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology"

And...

"There is also a link to an article by Professor Peter Odell of the London School of Economics concerning the common misperceptions connected with petroleum economics."

Drivel.

"Gas Resources Corporation, 11811 North Freeway, fl. 5, Houston, TX 77060, U.S.A."

Drivel.

Lots it seems.

Anyone who uses the denial of global warming as an argumentation scheme is an idiot.

That would depend on whether you refer to man made global warming or global warming as a natural process.
Given there is no evidence linking mans activities to what we perceive as global warming I presume you refer to the latter?
Of course if you've a mind to discount the opinions of over 31000 scientists,( over 9000 of whom hold Ph D's) then I'd have to assume you refer to the former.

Decisions decisions....

No, I refer to the fundamental composition of crude oil [carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and sulfur = e.g. hydrocarbons] and the suggestion that you can create these elements from CaCo3 and Fe2O3 + pressure + heat. That's idiocy...and I have met plenty of 'scientists' who couldn't think their way out of a corner. I'm done with this thread.

I see no problem with the hydrogen,oxygen and carbon, all present.(The attached link specifically mentions distilled water). The sulphur you refer to is removed during processing being unneccessary in the end product.
"The predominant chemical components of crude oil are carbon (C), oxygen (O), and hydrogen (H); these elements occur in crude in a variety of molecular shapes and forms, primarily carbon-chain organic molecules. The process called "refining" separates those chemical components that are best adapted to specific uses into specific crude "fractions" as a means of manufacturing marketable products. Crude oil also contains impurities such as sulfur (S), nitrogen (N), and trace metals. Some of these impurities (especially S) are removed during the refining process, while others are concentrated within specific crude fractions during refining."
Quotation taken from here... www.energy.vt.edu/vept/petroleum/index.asp

(Virginia Energy Patterns and Trends.)

As for regarding the professional opinions of 31000 scientists based on "i have met plenty of "scientists" who couldn't think their way out of a corner", now THAT is idiocy.

For information:
my bad, actually 31,478 American Scientists.
www.petitionproject.org/

(youtube)

SPARKY47 wrote:

That would depend on whether you refer to man made global warming or global warming as a natural process.
Given there is no evidence linking mans activities to what we perceive as global warming I presume you refer to the latter?
Of course if you've a mind to discount the opinions of over 31000 scientists,( over 9000 of whom hold Ph D's) then I'd have to assume you refer to the former.

Decisions decisions....

Oh - interesting - I bet you can't name ten real PhD scientists that will argue there is no evidence of man's effect on the environment. You can stick your head in the sand as long as you like, but the nutters that deny it all do so for one reason - to try and get their name in print! As for the petition - a signature from a dead man doesn't count - no matter how often you use it. Edward Teller died in 2003! And anybody can put down a name and check the PhD box - hardly proof of anything!

Actually even the stuff you refer to is bogus - the chemical formulas require calcium - which is biologically derived, just the same as coal or oil. So unless they can come up with another excuse that generates calcium, they have the same problem! And the interaction of calcium with water has been used for hundreds of years to fuel carbide lamps - it is nothing new!

The South Africans do generate gasoline from coal - the plant is called SASOL, it is just south of Johannesburg.

I did a little research on the "petition" - specifically the people who organized it. Check the picture - this is the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

They only have seven faculty - and three of them are related! Looks like a real high-tech establishment to me!

(youtube)

I would suggest you read the article before commenting. The reactions detailed include Calcium Carbonate (Marble).

" Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy."

Would that criteria suffice?

So you're a former Mining Engineer are you?
We may well have met, I was a member of the underground community too.Ever heard of Lea Hall?

trianglelaguna wrote:

(youtube)

you cant fool me...thats arai and hoghater in the background egging him on.....:laugh: :laugh: