new thread
Hey,
Sorry for all the off-topic posts. I think eventually, sometime during the Winter holidays (which for me began today!) I will do an update related to hair, but for now...petroleum!
Everyone knows that crude oil is a fossil fuel formed by decomposing plants and animals, both under the ocean, and on land, right? Yet this theory, when closely analyzed, fails to explain many scientific observations. Usually theories in science have to adapt to new data, yet this theory, proposed by Lomonosov in 1757, is still widely taught in schools as the ONLY theory. That's what I was taught, and now reading this article I stumbled upon, I realise that I've been brainwashed as a young child in yet another important issue.
In actuality, in the USSR, an alternative theory was developing from 1946. "Stalin, recognizing the importance of oil, and recognizing also that the Soviet Union would have to be self sufficient, launched a massive scientific undertaking that has been compared, in its scale, to the Manhattan Project." Over 50 years of research and hundreds of scientists from many fields have completed a new theory, which says that petroleum cannot be a fossil fuel, and that oil is formed from inorganic matter in the earth's upper mantle 100km underground, in other words - oil is abiotic.
I'm not going to summarise the science, the facts, and the argument here because the link I will provide does it all too well, and with hundreds of references. Read it all, and you won't regret it :)
Whatever it's made from it's running out and no one has a realistic plan for when that happens which will be sooner than we think.
Interesting though.
Kevin
You haven't read the article have you :P
The point is, that the theory suggests oil is continuously made in the upper mantle, and at a fast enough rate to refill places like Eugene Island 330, and other sites are popping up with the same phenomenon. What this effectively means, is that oil ISN'T necessarily running out. If you read the article, it mentions that the new oil that has started coming out in Island 330 has been measured to be drastically younger than the old oil on the surface.
The whole point of that article is that real scientific research that has been going on in Russia for half a century points to the very opposite of a conventionally held belief instituted by Lomonosov 250 years ago and never scientifically tested.
I'm sure Kevin.C can read!
Cheers,
John.B
There's a difference between could and did. Of course he can read, everyone who posts here has to be literate, or else they wouldn't be able to form a cogent sentence. I don't think that he read it though, because it is after all a very long article. It took me quite some time to read and I don't expect everyone to do it, especially if this doesn't interest some people. But if you do read it, I doubt you'll regret it.
Ir seems that the debate is on whether surface deposits are abiotic oil that has leaked upwards, and whether we can exploit seep deposits of abiotic oil, i.e. not whether we will run out of oil, but can we get to it?
FWIW, the article repeats whole chuks verbatim and is on a site populated by crackpots. Have you read some of the other articles? there is a grain of truth in most of them, but they are clearly written by schizophrenics or the like.
I've read some of the other articles and most of them appear quite insane. Even for the usual conspiracy theories they seem over the top. This article seemed completely sane to me, quite well written, and summarised some other research I've been doing (my dad knows about this Soviet research). The only way to link the the article was through that stupid website, so sorry about all the other (mostly) nonsense that appears.
Gentlemen and women of the board! Shhhhh! "Schizophrenics and the like", didja say Elektros? Well, I never! LOL! Hadn't the physicist Albert Einstein said once, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds!", hmn? Hadn't he? Well then.
So, may I invite all here present to JOIN us Educate-Yourselfers? Yes, the site that Kevin "Ken" Adachi got start'd has its own forum group on Yahoo! which y'all can join here (jus' be careful of those hyphens and underscores):
Educate-Yourself_Forum-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
It's quite an active group, peops. Haven't noticed any daft individuals there my(s)elf. Everyone seems to be pretty inform'd albeit a tad opinionated. Catch ya there!
Yours for increasing our knowledge AND our hair length,
Quenyan
Some of the people there are clearly mentally ill. I admit some of there ideas make some sense, but in a way that makes it worse. These are people to whom everything is a conspiracy, so eveb if thre is a REAL conspiracy no-one will believe them.
Thanks for your continued/continuing feedback, Elektros. At least Derf26, whose chosen major as I understand it is economics, brought up the whole abiotic petrol conundrum. Is it dinosaur stew or is it self-generated by the Earth and thus an illimitable not a finite source? Granted, Educate-Yourself.org, begun by a Born-Again Christian, Kevin "Ken" Adachi, does careen all over the place. I'm not so sure abt the whole "Conspiracy" thing, though. Complicity w/ gov't agencies and Uber-crime networks simply demands certain factoids stay out of the public arena.
Which brings me to the most interesting "Conspiracy" website I've yet to come across. Oh boy! Get ready! Based in the U.K., it is the brainchild of one Ben Fairhall. There's his main "Battling the Behemoth", his day-to-day updates call'd "The Daily Behemoth", and a myriad interrelated links:
http://ben-fairhall.blogspot.com
Well, Elektros, ya know what they say, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day!" I'm drawn to reflect on maverick psychologist, R.D. Laing's "The Politics of Experience", popular in the seventies. What REALLY makes someone mad, merely eccentric, or a true creative genius? And where does one draw the line as to what is and isn't daft? These were all points Dr. Laing labor'd over w/ keen scrutiny.
Thanks. You're cool. Best wishes to you and yours in this holiday season. I hope you enjoy Fairhall's address on the information superhighway.
Yours for expanding all of our horizons and hair lengths,
Quenyan
Actually I did read it and thought what Hairy Ken thought but
decided at the time I replied to be polite and say it was interesting yet comment that regardless it won't last long
and we have no real plan for what to do next.
It is a "theory" after all
Besides we're off topic on I didn't want to make this one of
"those" threads but too late. oh well.
You seemed to be offended at my comment, I wasn't trying to offend.
Kevin
Don't worry, I wasn't offended or anything in the least. It's just that for me, the natural conclusion from that article would have been:
"Ok so oil isn't necessarily running out, and for all we know we may have enough of it to last us centuries, but even if oil is a renewable resource, it's still a horrible polutant, and killing the environment by extracting oil, and by using it is a bad idea, so we need to switch to clean resources anyway". What it DOES however mean, is that subsidizing solar power plants that are very inefficient and unprofitable may be better left for the future when the technology will hopefully ameliorate. Remember, if you want something done, make it profitable, not by subsidizing, but through efficiency.
If solar panels and wind power were a profitable alternative, then businesses would be all over it. And i've been toying with the idea of putting solar panels on my own house for a while too, but the time it takes to return one's investment on this in Belgium is more than 25 years. When it becomes 5 years, expect everyone to have their own panels.
My car is pissed. It thought I was feeding it organics.
Bill (now wondering if his scalp oil is organic, and how deep in his head it comes from...)
Good one Bill.
Kevin
Interesting article.
I'd start growing corn and try the old bio fuel instead!
Cheers,
John.B
Abiogenic theory of petroleum origin
Good post! I like the O/T stuff just as much as the T stuff. :-)
Don't we have a rule about off-topic posts? :-)
I was going to post a rebuttal, but then decided that if I don't want to discuss petroleum here, I should start with myself.
So, uh, nice hair!
I agree with the previous comments that the article in question is politically charged. Further, it seems the writer has an ax to grind, so to speak, with Michael Ruppert.
Now, far be it from me to tell anyone what to believe, but I have read up on the Peak Oil theory after having watched the documentary The End of Suburbia. I then frequented the "From the Wilderness" website. I read the following books: Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil by David Goodstein, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy by Matthew Simmons, and The Long Emergency by James Kunstler.
From what I have read, the authors of these books have no political bias that I am aware of. They simply see a problem with our current petroleum fueled boom and ask what we ought to do when that energy flow levels off and begins to decline.
There are those who believe that the Peak Oil theory is part of a conspiracy by the elites who want global domination (Alex Jones, for example). Whatever. I say, do your own in depth research. Read opposing points of view, even the fanatical fringe, and make up your own mind.
Currently reading Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.
The Oil Theory Debate
The Oil Theory Debate
You can believe what you want but we, as a society should still conserve our energy resources, renewable or not.
Bruce
Interesting link. (I'm saying all of this with a smile on my face. ;) For most of my life, I belonged to a religion that very convincingly used logical fallacies, hidden premises, and unproven assumptions to control the hearts, minds, and wallets of over 6 million people. Just last weekend, my mother told me that nothing I could say would ever change her mind about her faith. That's OK, I said, I won't argue religion with my family.
On the internet I've "debated" the existence of god(s), the Theory of Evolution, and the accuracy of the Bible. I came to the conclusion that such "debates" are useless because they are basically arguments that each side claims to win. I've seen the same thing with regards to Anthropogenic Climate Change and Peak Oil Theory. Whatever the reality may be, all the debates and theories of man won't change it. However, what we believe does influence how we act on a personal level. Freedom of belief and conscience is a fundamental human right. All I can say is that I've come to my own conclusions. 'Nuff said. ;)
I've come to the same conclusion. Most internet debates are futile. If someone believes something, more likely than not this belief cannot be broken through evidence or logic or reasoning, because that belief didn't occur through these, but through a deep-seated need to believe.
Freedom of belief is indeed very important, so to me it is appaling that parents will often indoctrinate their children into one particular religion, without giving them any option. Often, parents even vilify other religions to assert their own as the dominant and only "true" religion. Influencing children when they're at their weakest in terms of reasoning. I see it all over the place. At least in western society physical coersion is used to a far lesser extent than elsewhere.
Religion is used by people for two things:
Some religious undertakings are derived from scripture and organized religions and some are not. An example of the latter is the concept that all races are created equal. "God just wouldn't do otherwise," is a thought that underlies the advocacy of this concept, but it is not in the Bible, nor is it in the Constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence, which has no legal effect whatsoever and is not regarded as religious authority by any faith.
Much of what you see on crackpot web sites furnishes further examples of non-scriptural religion.
Religion as wielded against others, scripturally based or not, is part of politics, and when it is taken out of the home or church and into public view, it is nothing more than a branch of politics.
Bill
Interesting. Aren't you using the same logic to explain away religion? Setting up your own parameters as all encompassing and then having solutions that "prove" your statements?
And what of the millions that don't use religion as a scientific ping pong ball. Do we just pretend they don't exist?
I'm not attempting to debate religion, just to debate your (lack of?) logic.
George
...Thanks for your replies! Well said! I just want to clarify that I'm not against debate, real scholarly debate by professionals well versed in their fields of study. One can learn a lot from such discussions.
The important thing is to learn and to develop critical thinking skills.
Recognizing logical (and other) fallacies
Knowing what a "hidden premise" is
knowing when an argument is pointless
Most important of all: Keep it growing! ;)
David L
methods of oil formation are true. It is possible that decaying organic matter is simply adding to abiotic petroleum. If I am not mistaken, hydrocarbons exist in copious amounts on moons orbiting the outer planets in our solar system where life as we know it cannot exist. There is a possibility that liquid (or frozen) petroleum is on TITAN which orbits Saturn. This would support the abiotic theory very well.
Scott
There is therefore a possibility that there are also weapons of mass destruction on Titan, so we should invade it now!
Bill
Lol, and I liked your other comment too Bill :D