Damn!!! Where is that "global warming" when we need it???

[BullKurtz]

both of which are not satisfactory regarding oil formation, plant decay, etc. all the elements needed to make oil.

The Ivans are up there because they know oil IS NOT a fossil fuel but an abiotic resource that is produced in the core of the Earth....they were the first to realize that little if any drilled oil has any organic compounds in it anymore. If you consider a ball fired from a musket at Gettysburg is found a couple inches below the ground, tell me how long plant life would take to get to the 6-7,000 feet most oil is found at today? It never worked that way and the oilmen know it.

Dr. Jon Clarke: .

The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1. The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
2. The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).
3. The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).
4. The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).
5. Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).
6. The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory. The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

more......homework and exercises - Abiotic oil vs the traditional theory of oil deposit formation - Physics Stack Exchange

HORSESHIT! Another "peak oil" bowl of lies.....Hey, BIG OIL is fine with you thinking there is a finite amount of oil in the world and you must pay a premium for them to get it for you. But the cold hard facts are that if oil WAS organic, it would have been gone almost as fast as we had a use for it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

a

Technically not true. The more heat that the refrigeration unit has to remove the hotter the back. So if you leave the door open the back will get hot but the refrigerator inside not so much.

So, I am sorry, comparing the environment to a refrigeration unit does not work.

So is the earth's door open then?

Also, it doesn't really matter. The point was actually that you have no freaking idea what you're talking about, you're making statements based on nothing more than what you think you see, and then claiming that stuff is a load of rubbish. It's called talking complete bull.
I gave you an example of when things can get HOTTER or COLDER even when the temperature overall is changing.

Also, another point is that the temperature on Earth, as a natural temperature would not stay the same. In fact if you look at historical records we SHOULD BE getting quite a bit colder.

We have reached a peak after a large increase in temperatures once every 100,000 years or so. Our one reached a peak and should have seen a massive drop in temperatures.

Now, if you add say a +2 rise in temperatures based on CO2 emissions and you also add a -1.5 drop in the natural temperatures you see a rise of +0.5 degrees.

This doesn't tell you the impact that humans are having on the planet, it doesn't tell you what will happen in the future. Only by looking at everything rather than local changes in temperature, will you see what's going on.

It's like looking at a football match in the fog. Just because you can't see what's going on in the other half, doesn't mean the other team isn't scoring.

 

[frigidweirdo]

With a lot. A fridge works by taking the heat out, and the back of a fridge quite hot. The colder the fridge is on the inside, the hotter it is on the outside.

So imagine that the south of the world is getting hotter in summer, what would you expect to happen on the other side of the world? Now that's just a bit of simple every day physics being applied to the real world. I'm not even saying this is the case, I'm not scientist and I'm not going to say something IS like it is when I don't know for sure, unlike some.

Except that nature didn't put the compressor UNDER the Earth like the geniuses in the refrigerator industry when housewives complained that they wanted the top of it to put stuff on. When the compressor was on top of the unit it worked far better.

And I didn't say that the earth was a giant refridgerator either. I gave an example. But I guess you haven't got much to go on, so you just keep banging away like you would to the misses, and keep being completely irrelevant and completely ignorant of the facts.

Do you want to know the reality, or do you want to be "proven" right on a meaningless forum?

 

[LogikAndReazon]

The science is settled ! Give progressive extremists your money before its too late !!! Lol

 

[BullKurtz]

Do you want to know the reality, or do you want to be "proven" right on a meaningless forum?

This forum is meaningless?....DAMN!

 

[BlindBoo]

So where's all those HURRICANES algore said were gonna sink Floriduh into the Atlantic?

The animation consists of infrared satellite images that visualize water vapor in the atmosphere. It shows the birth of a tropical storm in the Pacific Ocean on Oct. 31, 2014, it’s evolution into Super Typhoon Nuri as it sweeps up toward Japan (but luckily misses it), and its transition into one of the most powerful extratropical storms on record in the Bering Sea

Evolution of a Superstorm Culprit in Polar Vortex Redux - ImaGeo DiscoverMagazine.com

What the hell does that have to do with hurricanes in the ATLANTIC that normally form off Africa during periods of ocean warming that's been in cycles since the Earth was formed? I've been in a typhoon....excellent method of dispensing with mosquitoes and communist cadre.

It is the dispersion of heat from the tropics to the poles, and it brings us these arctic temperatures.

 

[Freewill]

a

Technically not true. The more heat that the refrigeration unit has to remove the hotter the back. So if you leave the door open the back will get hot but the refrigerator inside not so much.

So, I am sorry, comparing the environment to a refrigeration unit does not work.

So is the earth's door open then?

Also, it doesn't really matter. The point was actually that you have no freaking idea what you're talking about, you're making statements based on nothing more than what you think you see, and then claiming that stuff is a load of rubbish. It's called talking complete bull.
I gave you an example of when things can get HOTTER or COLDER even when the temperature overall is changing.

Also, another point is that the temperature on Earth, as a natural temperature would not stay the same. In fact if you look at historical records we SHOULD BE getting quite a bit colder.

We have reached a peak after a large increase in temperatures once every 100,000 years or so. Our one reached a peak and should have seen a massive drop in temperatures.

Now, if you add say a +2 rise in temperatures based on CO2 emissions and you also add a -1.5 drop in the natural temperatures you see a rise of +0.5 degrees.

This doesn't tell you the impact that humans are having on the planet, it doesn't tell you what will happen in the future. Only by looking at everything rather than local changes in temperature, will you see what's going on.

It's like looking at a football match in the fog. Just because you can't see what's going on in the other half, doesn't mean the other team isn't scoring.

So where's all those HURRICANES algore said were gonna sink Floriduh into the Atlantic?

The animation consists of infrared satellite images that visualize water vapor in the atmosphere. It shows the birth of a tropical storm in the Pacific Ocean on Oct. 31, 2014, it’s evolution into Super Typhoon Nuri as it sweeps up toward Japan (but luckily misses it), and its transition into one of the most powerful extratropical storms on record in the Bering Sea

Evolution of a Superstorm Culprit in Polar Vortex Redux - ImaGeo DiscoverMagazine.com

What the hell does that have to do with hurricanes in the ATLANTIC that normally form off Africa during periods of ocean warming that's been in cycles since the Earth was formed? I've been in a typhoon....excellent method of dispensing with mosquitoes and communist cadre.

It is the dispersion of heat from the tropics to the poles, and it brings us these arctic temperatures.

It is the displacement of the warmer air by the colder more dense arctic air. A small shift in the air current cause the arctic vortex. If there was no external source of heat then everything would go to equilibrium, or the same temperature.

But saying that because one place warms another gets colder, you didn't say that, is just shear poppycock. The only way that would be true if somehow heat was removed from the cold air to warm the hot air, you know like a heat pump.

 

[BlindBoo]

both of which are not satisfactory regarding oil formation, plant decay, etc. all the elements needed to make oil.

The Ivans are up there because they know oil IS NOT a fossil fuel but an abiotic resource that is produced in the core of the Earth....they were the first to realize that little if any drilled oil has any organic compounds in it anymore. If you consider a ball fired from a musket at Gettysburg is found a couple inches below the ground, tell me how long plant life would take to get to the 6-7,000 feet most oil is found at today? It never worked that way and the oilmen know it.

Dr. Jon Clarke: .

The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1. The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
2. The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).
3. The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).
4. The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).
5. Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).
6. The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory. The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

more......homework and exercises - Abiotic oil vs the traditional theory of oil deposit formation - Physics Stack Exchange

HORSESHIT! Another "peak oil" bowl of lies.....Hey, BIG OIL is fine with you thinking there is a finite amount of oil in the world and you must pay a premium for them to get it for you. But the cold hard facts are that if oil WAS organic, it would have been gone almost as fast as we had a use for it.

Well there you go, facts v HORSESHIT.

 

[Freewill]

a

Technically not true. The more heat that the refrigeration unit has to remove the hotter the back. So if you leave the door open the back will get hot but the refrigerator inside not so much.

So, I am sorry, comparing the environment to a refrigeration unit does not work.

So is the earth's door open then?

Also, it doesn't really matter. The point was actually that you have no freaking idea what you're talking about, you're making statements based on nothing more than what you think you see, and then claiming that stuff is a load of rubbish. It's called talking complete bull.
I gave you an example of when things can get HOTTER or COLDER even when the temperature overall is changing.

Also, another point is that the temperature on Earth, as a natural temperature would not stay the same. In fact if you look at historical records we SHOULD BE getting quite a bit colder.

We have reached a peak after a large increase in temperatures once every 100,000 years or so. Our one reached a peak and should have seen a massive drop in temperatures.

Now, if you add say a +2 rise in temperatures based on CO2 emissions and you also add a -1.5 drop in the natural temperatures you see a rise of +0.5 degrees.

This doesn't tell you the impact that humans are having on the planet, it doesn't tell you what will happen in the future. Only by looking at everything rather than local changes in temperature, will you see what's going on.

It's like looking at a football match in the fog. Just because you can't see what's going on in the other half, doesn't mean the other team isn't scoring.

So sad. The way refrigeration works is that it removes heat from one place and puts it in another. A heat pump works in the opposite. Taking heat from a cold area and putting it in a warm area. But both processes happen because we use external energy to drive the process. That does not happen in nature as you describe. Evaporation would be an example of removing heat from one area and transporting it to another. The water cools and the air temperature would rise. But that is not what you were talking about.

 

[BullKurtz]

both of which are not satisfactory regarding oil formation, plant decay, etc. all the elements needed to make oil.

The Ivans are up there because they know oil IS NOT a fossil fuel but an abiotic resource that is produced in the core of the Earth....they were the first to realize that little if any drilled oil has any organic compounds in it anymore. If you consider a ball fired from a musket at Gettysburg is found a couple inches below the ground, tell me how long plant life would take to get to the 6-7,000 feet most oil is found at today? It never worked that way and the oilmen know it.

Dr. Jon Clarke: .

The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1. The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
2. The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).
3. The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).
4. The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).
5. Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).
6. The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory. The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

more......homework and exercises - Abiotic oil vs the traditional theory of oil deposit formation - Physics Stack Exchange

HORSESHIT! Another "peak oil" bowl of lies.....Hey, BIG OIL is fine with you thinking there is a finite amount of oil in the world and you must pay a premium for them to get it for you. But the cold hard facts are that if oil WAS organic, it would have been gone almost as fast as we had a use for it.

Well there you go, facts v HORSESHIT.

This is the last reply you get for not deleting the replies before your last one making my reply perplexing to readers wondering who I'm responding to, ya lazy hack.

So maybe your "expert" can explain why wells regularly thought tapped out, start refilling. Did some roots from a mulberry tree suddenly turn into thousands more barrels of oil? Last years maple leaves? A dead squirrel? Hello?

 

[konradv]

The Ivans are up there because they know oil IS NOT a fossil fuel but an abiotic resource that is produced in the core of the Earth....they were the first to realize that little if any drilled oil has any organic compounds in it anymore. If you consider a ball fired from a musket at Gettysburg is found a couple inches below the ground, tell me how long plant life would take to get to the 6-7,000 feet most oil is found at today? It never worked that way and the oilmen know it.

Tectonic plate action. You have to realize that the sediments that formed oil were already ancient when North America started separating from Europe. Oil isn't the remains of dinosaurs, but of plant material 300-360 million years old. It isn't abiotic. That's REAL junk science.

 

[BlindBoo]

both of which are not satisfactory regarding oil formation, plant decay, etc. all the elements needed to make oil.

The Ivans are up there because they know oil IS NOT a fossil fuel but an abiotic resource that is produced in the core of the Earth....they were the first to realize that little if any drilled oil has any organic compounds in it anymore. If you consider a ball fired from a musket at Gettysburg is found a couple inches below the ground, tell me how long plant life would take to get to the 6-7,000 feet most oil is found at today? It never worked that way and the oilmen know it.

Dr. Jon Clarke: .

The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1. The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
2. The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).
3. The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).
4. The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).
5. Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).
6. The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory. The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

more......homework and exercises - Abiotic oil vs the traditional theory of oil deposit formation - Physics Stack Exchange

HORSESHIT! Another "peak oil" bowl of lies.....Hey, BIG OIL is fine with you thinking there is a finite amount of oil in the world and you must pay a premium for them to get it for you. But the cold hard facts are that if oil WAS organic, it would have been gone almost as fast as we had a use for it.

Well there you go, facts v HORSESHIT.

This is the last reply you get for not deleting the replies before your last one making my reply perplexing to readers wondering who I'm responding to, ya lazy hack.

So maybe your "expert" can explain why wells regularly thought tapped out, start refilling. Did some roots from a mulberry tree suddenly turn into thousands more barrels of oil? Last years maple leaves? A dead squirrel? Hello?

Then don't reply. I don't really care.

Dr. Whelan's somewhat controversial hypothesis is a possible explanation.

Although the reservoir from which Pennzoil is pumping oil was formed at the time of the Pleistocene epoch less than two million years ago, oil now being recovered from the reservoir has a chemical signature characteristic of the Jurassic period, which ended more than 150 million years ago, Dr. Whelan said. The implication, she believes, is that highly pressurized oil from lower levels of "stacked" reservoirs is frequently breaking through geological barriers and "burping" upward, eventually reaching the reservoir from which oil is being pumped. The source of the pressurized gas Dr. Whelan believes to be powering the process is a bed of Jurassic period "source rocks," more than 30,000 feet deep, which are rich in very hot hydrocarbons.

Geochemist Says Oil FieldsMay Be Refilled Naturally - New York Times

 

[Kosh]

both of which are not satisfactory regarding oil formation, plant decay, etc. all the elements needed to make oil.

The Ivans are up there because they know oil IS NOT a fossil fuel but an abiotic resource that is produced in the core of the Earth....they were the first to realize that little if any drilled oil has any organic compounds in it anymore. If you consider a ball fired from a musket at Gettysburg is found a couple inches below the ground, tell me how long plant life would take to get to the 6-7,000 feet most oil is found at today? It never worked that way and the oilmen know it.

Dr. Jon Clarke: .

The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1. The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
2. The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).
3. The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).
4. The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).
5. Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).
6. The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory. The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

more......homework and exercises - Abiotic oil vs the traditional theory of oil deposit formation - Physics Stack Exchange

HORSESHIT! Another "peak oil" bowl of lies.....Hey, BIG OIL is fine with you thinking there is a finite amount of oil in the world and you must pay a premium for them to get it for you. But the cold hard facts are that if oil WAS organic, it would have been gone almost as fast as we had a use for it.

Well there you go, facts v HORSESHIT.

Ironic Comments from an AGW worshiper!

 

[BlindBoo]

both of which are not satisfactory regarding oil formation, plant decay, etc. all the elements needed to make oil.

The Ivans are up there because they know oil IS NOT a fossil fuel but an abiotic resource that is produced in the core of the Earth....they were the first to realize that little if any drilled oil has any organic compounds in it anymore. If you consider a ball fired from a musket at Gettysburg is found a couple inches below the ground, tell me how long plant life would take to get to the 6-7,000 feet most oil is found at today? It never worked that way and the oilmen know it.

Dr. Jon Clarke: .

The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1. The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
2. The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).
3. The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).
4. The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).
5. Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).
6. The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory. The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

more......homework and exercises - Abiotic oil vs the traditional theory of oil deposit formation - Physics Stack Exchange

HORSESHIT! Another "peak oil" bowl of lies.....Hey, BIG OIL is fine with you thinking there is a finite amount of oil in the world and you must pay a premium for them to get it for you. But the cold hard facts are that if oil WAS organic, it would have been gone almost as fast as we had a use for it.

Well there you go, facts v HORSESHIT.

Ironic Comments from an AGW worshiper!

Well you got that right. I love the warming earth. It has been a boon for mankind. I mean we've already staved off the new Ice Age and pretty soon we'll be taking tropical cruises to the Arctic Circle in the summertime. Then there will be the exploration and exploitation of Antarctica that we can look forward to as well.

Good Time humanity, good times.

 

[Kosh]

The Ivans are up there because they know oil IS NOT a fossil fuel but an abiotic resource that is produced in the core of the Earth....they were the first to realize that little if any drilled oil has any organic compounds in it anymore. If you consider a ball fired from a musket at Gettysburg is found a couple inches below the ground, tell me how long plant life would take to get to the 6-7,000 feet most oil is found at today? It never worked that way and the oilmen know it.

Dr. Jon Clarke: .

The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1. The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
2. The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).
3. The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).
4. The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).
5. Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).
6. The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory. The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

more......homework and exercises - Abiotic oil vs the traditional theory of oil deposit formation - Physics Stack Exchange

HORSESHIT! Another "peak oil" bowl of lies.....Hey, BIG OIL is fine with you thinking there is a finite amount of oil in the world and you must pay a premium for them to get it for you. But the cold hard facts are that if oil WAS organic, it would have been gone almost as fast as we had a use for it.

Well there you go, facts v HORSESHIT.

Ironic Comments from an AGW worshiper!

Well you got that right. I love the warming earth. It has been a boon for mankind. I mean we've already staved off the new Ice Age and pretty soon we'll be taking tropical cruises to the Arctic Circle in the summertime. Then there will be the exploration and exploitation of Antarctica that we can look forward to as well.

Good Time humanity, good times.

"Well there you go, facts v HORSESHIT" from the far left AGW/far left cult!

 

[BlindBoo]

Dr. Jon Clarke: .

The fact remains that the abiotic theory of petroleum genesis has zero credibility for economically interesting accumulations. 99.9999% of the world's liquid hydrocarbons are produced by maturation of organic matter derived from organisms. To deny this means you have to come up with good explanations for the following observations.

1. The almost universal association of petroleum with sedimentary rocks.
2. The close link between petroleum reservoirs and source rocks as shown by biomarkers (the source rocks contain the same organic markers as the petroleum, essentially chemically fingerprinting the two).
3. The consistent variation of biomarkers in petroleum in accordance with the history of life on earth (biomarkers indicative of land plants are found only in Devonian and younger rocks, that formed by marine plankton only in Neoproterozoic and younger rocks, the oldest oils containing only biomarkers of bacteria).
4. The close link between the biomarkers in source rock and depositional environment (source rocks containing biomarkers of land plants are found only in terrestrial and shallow marine sediments, those indicating marine conditions only in marine sediments, those from hypersaline lakes containing only bacterial biomarkers).
5. Progressive destruction of oil when heated to over 100 degrees (precluding formation and/or migration at high temperatures as implied by the abiogenic postulate).
6. The generation of petroleum from kerogen on heating in the laboratory (complete with biomarkers), as suggested by the biogenic theory. The strong enrichment in C12 of petroleum indicative of biological fractionation (no inorganic process can cause anything like the fractionation of light carbon that is seen in petroleum).

more......homework and exercises - Abiotic oil vs the traditional theory of oil deposit formation - Physics Stack Exchange

HORSESHIT! Another "peak oil" bowl of lies.....Hey, BIG OIL is fine with you thinking there is a finite amount of oil in the world and you must pay a premium for them to get it for you. But the cold hard facts are that if oil WAS organic, it would have been gone almost as fast as we had a use for it.

Well there you go, facts v HORSESHIT.

Ironic Comments from an AGW worshiper!

Well you got that right. I love the warming earth. It has been a boon for mankind. I mean we've already staved off the new Ice Age and pretty soon we'll be taking tropical cruises to the Arctic Circle in the summertime. Then there will be the exploration and exploitation of Antarctica that we can look forward to as well.

Good Time humanity, good times.

"Well there you go, facts v HORSESHIT" from the far left AGW/far left cult!

Exactly. I posted the facts while BullKurtzUSMC, who was busted for posting pictures from the big Ice Storm in 1998 as if it were from the recent cold snap, posted the usually horseshit.

 

[Kosh]

HORSESHIT! Another "peak oil" bowl of lies.....Hey, BIG OIL is fine with you thinking there is a finite amount of oil in the world and you must pay a premium for them to get it for you. But the cold hard facts are that if oil WAS organic, it would have been gone almost as fast as we had a use for it.

Well there you go, facts v HORSESHIT.

Ironic Comments from an AGW worshiper!

Well you got that right. I love the warming earth. It has been a boon for mankind. I mean we've already staved off the new Ice Age and pretty soon we'll be taking tropical cruises to the Arctic Circle in the summertime. Then there will be the exploration and exploitation of Antarctica that we can look forward to as well.

Good Time humanity, good times.

"Well there you go, facts v HORSESHIT" from the far left AGW/far left cult!

Exactly. I posted the facts while BullKurtzUSMC, who was busted for posting pictures from the big Ice Storm in 1998 as if it were from the recent cold snap, posted the usually horseshit.

No you didn't, you posted far left/AGW religious dogma..

I know to the die hard religious zealots that may be a fact, but real science says otherwise..

 

[healthmyths]

So please tell me why you would believe that 3/10ths of degree increase over last 35 years would be a problem?

It is all about tipping points... I guess you haven't read anything on the subject beyond industry propaganda.

"Tipping points"?? tipping point may be passed without any immediately obvious consequences, nor any acceleration of the warming process.
So the entire global is balanced -- further global warming of 1°C defines a critical threshold
Tipping point climatology - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Again all maybe true... BUT you still haven't shown a period longer then 35 years!
Plus the history of temperature recordings before "digital" depended on the eyeballs and the handwriting for years before digital readings.
A) how can even a trained thermometer reader distinguish on the OLD mercury bulb 3/10ths of a degree... please explain that.
B) transposition of numbers is very very common in pre-computer days and even today it is the little details that people seemingly forgot as they try to solve the
BIG PICTURE... in other words all the temperature recordings depended on eyeballs and un-transposed numbers hand written and passed on for several years.

All of that and your tipping point depends on the accuracy is 1°C ?

 

[healthmyths]

So please tell me why you would believe that 3/10ths of degree increase over last 35 years would be a problem?

It is all about tipping points... I guess you haven't read anything on the subject beyond industry propaganda.

"Tipping points"?? tipping point may be passed without any immediately obvious consequences, nor any acceleration of the warming process.
So the entire global is balanced -- further global warming of 1°C defines a critical threshold
Tipping point climatology - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Again all maybe true... BUT you still haven't shown a period longer then 35 years!
Plus the history of temperature recordings before "digital" depended on the eyeballs and the handwriting for years before digital readings.
A) how can even a trained thermometer reader distinguish on the OLD mercury bulb 3/10ths of a degree... please explain that.
B) transposition of numbers is very very common in pre-computer days and even today it is the little details that people seemingly forgot as they try to solve the
BIG PICTURE... in other words all the temperature recordings depended on eyeballs and un-transposed numbers hand written and passed on for several years.

All of that and your tipping point depends on the accuracy is 1°C ?

PLUS how can this pin point accuracy be believable when:
When "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping Siberia Climate Audit

furthermore explain...
So if temperature readings are biased as NOAA assessed when closing 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data.
The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record/

 

[BlindBoo]

Well there you go, facts v HORSESHIT.

Ironic Comments from an AGW worshiper!

Well you got that right. I love the warming earth. It has been a boon for mankind. I mean we've already staved off the new Ice Age and pretty soon we'll be taking tropical cruises to the Arctic Circle in the summertime. Then there will be the exploration and exploitation of Antarctica that we can look forward to as well.

Good Time humanity, good times.

"Well there you go, facts v HORSESHIT" from the far left AGW/far left cult!

Exactly. I posted the facts while BullKurtzUSMC, who was busted for posting pictures from the big Ice Storm in 1998 as if it were from the recent cold snap, posted the usually horseshit.

No you didn't, you posted far left/AGW religious dogma..

I know to the die hard religious zealots that may be a fact, but real science says otherwise..

I see why old Bullpucky wants previous parts of the conversation deleted. Hahahahaha, typical pseudo-conned bullshit.