Group Representing Half A Billion Christians Says It Will No Longer Support Fossil Fu

[elektra]

Solar, geothermal and Fusion along with a few others would cut out the need to have a long and costly supply chain. Like we do now with coal, oil and natural gas.

We're better off switching over.

Mr.h can you agree that it is possible?

Geothermal? How? Where?

 

[daveman]

Solar, geothermal and Fusion along with a few others would cut out the need to have a long and costly supply chain. Like we do now with coal, oil and natural gas.

We're better off switching over.

Mr.h can you agree that it is possible?

Geothermal? How? Where?

 

[Mr. H.]

I was chatting with a fellow airline passenger in '09. He managed funds for some major universities and asked when I thought oil prices would rebound. Crude had recently fallen from $140 to $40 in a matter of a few months. I thought a moment and replied "two years". He got a smug-ass look on his face and that was the end of the conversation. That sort of pissed me off. Anyway- it was two years when prices rebounded (altho not to $140). Damned elitist scholars.

 

[skookerasbil]

Group Representing Half A Billion Christians Says It Will No Longer Support Fossil Fuels

Group Representing Half A Billion Christians Says It Will No Longer Support Fossil Fuels | ThinkProgress

A large umbrella group of churches representing more than half a billion Christians worldwide announced Thursday that it would pull all of its investments in fossil fuels, saying it had determined the investments were no longer ethical.

The World Council of Churches, a global coalition of 345 churches, made the decision to no longer fund oil, gas, or coal at its central committee meeting in Geneva, and recommended that its members do the same. “The committee discussed the ethical investment criteria, and considered that the list of sectors in which the WCC does not invest should be extended to include fossil fuels,” read the finance policy committee report.

The WCC’s member churches — which include the 25 million-member Church or England and the 48 million-member Ethiopian Orthadox Tewahedo Church, among others — will not be forced to divest themselves, but advocates say the announcement represents broad support among Christians for action to fight climate change.

“The World Council of Churches reminds us that morality demands thinking as much about the future as about ourselves — and that there’s no threat to the future greater than the unchecked burning of fossil fuels,” Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, said in a statement. “This is a remarkable moment for the 590 million Christians in its member denominations: a huge percentage of humanity says today ‘this far and no further.’”

Though the WCC’s announcement doesn’t require its member churches to divest, its recommendation may give some the push they need. The Church of England, for example, already announced that it was considering redirecting its investments in an effort to battle climate change. The Church of England holds an endowment of more than $9 billion.

The WCC is far from the first religious group to pledge divestment from fossil fuels. In June, New York’s Union Theological Seminary became the first seminary in the world to cut oil, gas and coal investments from its $108.4 million endowment. In 2013, The United Church of Christ became the first national denomination to do the same. And on June 29, The Unitarian Universalist Association’*s national General Assembly voted to divest from any holdings in 200 fossil fuel companies included on climate activists’* Carbon Tracker list.

Preserving the climate and the environment is a growing concern among religious groups, many of which see the issue as not only ethical, but spiritual — a way to respect God’s creation. Though the Catholic Church is not a member of the WCC, Pope Francis has spoken widely about his concern for the environment, most recently telling a group of fellow Catholics that rainforest destruction is a “sin.”

“This is one of the greatest challenges of our time: to convert ourselves to a type of development that knows how to respect creation,” the pope said. “When I look at America, also my own homeland (South America), so many forests, all cut, that have become land … that can longer give life (sic). This is our sin, exploiting the Earth and not allowing her to her (sic) give us what she has within her.”

Put your investments into fusion, solar and geothermal energy.

 

[Crick]

And you have evidence that such situations are commonplace?

ps: as has been explained to you on numerous occasions, an appeal to authority is NOT a fallacy if the authorities actually are experts in the field and a consensus actually exists.

Since the experts can n I t prove their claims an appeal to them is a fallacy

There are no proofs in the natural sciences.

The validity of an appeal to authority does not rely on anyone's ability to prove anything.

When are you either going to falsify AGW or admit that you cannot?

 

[daveman]

There are no proofs in the natural sciences.

The validity of an appeal to authority does not rely on anyone's ability to prove anything.

So, we're supposed to believe them...because they say we should.

Thank you for illustrating yet again that climate "science" is not science at all, but a religion.

 

[westwall]

And you have evidence that such situations are commonplace?

ps: as has been explained to you on numerous occasions, an appeal to authority is NOT a fallacy if the authorities actually are experts in the field and a consensus actually exists.

Since the experts can n I t prove their claims an appeal to them is a fallacy

There are no proofs in the natural sciences.

The validity of an appeal to authority does not rely on anyone's ability to prove anything.

When are you either going to falsify AGW or admit that you cannot?

When are YOU going to prove it exists? That's how science works you know...you make the theory and then you have to support it. That's how the null hypothesis works. Of course I wouldn't expect an anti science denier like you to understand the fundamentals...

 

[Crick]

And you have evidence that such situations are commonplace?

ps: as has been explained to you on numerous occasions, an appeal to authority is NOT a fallacy if the authorities actually are experts in the field and a consensus actually exists.

Since the experts can n I t prove their claims an appeal to them is a fallacy

There are no proofs in the natural sciences.

The validity of an appeal to authority does not rely on anyone's ability to prove anything.

When are you either going to falsify AGW or admit that you cannot?

When are YOU going to prove it exists? That's how science works you know...you make the theory and then you have to support it. That's how the null hypothesis works. Of course I wouldn't expect an anti science denier like you to understand the fundamentals...

WRONG​

From Wikipedia's article on "The Scientific Method"

Formulation of a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?", but can also be open-ended, as in "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?" This stage also involves looking up and evaluating evidence from previous experiments, personal scientific observations or assertions, and/or the work of other scientists. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the previous evidence can be posed. When applying the scientific method to scientific research, determining a good question can be very difficult and affects the final outcome of the investigation.[19]

Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe. The hypothesis might be very specific, e.g., Einstein's equivalence principle or Francis Crick's "DNA makes RNA makes protein",[20] or it might be broad, e.g., unknown species of life dwell in the unexplored depths of the oceans. A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about some population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of those people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the conjecture that the statistical hypothesis is false, e.g., that the new drug does nothing and that any cures are due to chance effects. Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, e.g., that the drug does better than chance. A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The more unlikely that a prediction would be correct simply by coincidence, then the more convincing it would be if the prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' Theorem.)

Testing: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.[21] Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the responses of the test subjects. Furthermore, failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is false. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, e.g., that the test equipment is working properly, and a failure may be a failure of one of the auxiliary hypotheses. (See the Duhem-Quine thesis.) Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars (using one of the working rovers), and so on. Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.

Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared test may be required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question.

This model underlies the scientific revolution.[22] One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of forming questions and subsequently testing them,[23] an approach which was advocated by Galileo in 1638 with the publication of Two New Sciences.[24] The current method is based on a hypothetico-deductive model[25] formulated in the 20th century, although it has undergone significant revision since first proposed (for a more formal discussion, see below).
*******************************************
Show us where this text says a hypothesis must be PROVEN.

 

[skookerasbil]

There are no proofs in the natural sciences.

The validity of an appeal to authority does not rely on anyone's ability to prove anything.

When are you either going to falsify AGW or admit that you cannot?

When are YOU going to prove it exists? That's how science works you know...you make the theory and then you have to support it. That's how the null hypothesis works. Of course I wouldn't expect an anti science denier like you to understand the fundamentals...

WRONG​

From Wikipedia's article on "The Scientific Method"

Formulation of a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?", but can also be open-ended, as in "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?" This stage also involves looking up and evaluating evidence from previous experiments, personal scientific observations or assertions, and/or the work of other scientists. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the previous evidence can be posed. When applying the scientific method to scientific research, determining a good question can be very difficult and affects the final outcome of the investigation.[19]

Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe. The hypothesis might be very specific, e.g., Einstein's equivalence principle or Francis Crick's "DNA makes RNA makes protein",[20] or it might be broad, e.g., unknown species of life dwell in the unexplored depths of the oceans. A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about some population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of those people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the conjecture that the statistical hypothesis is false, e.g., that the new drug does nothing and that any cures are due to chance effects. Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, e.g., that the drug does better than chance. A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The more unlikely that a prediction would be correct simply by coincidence, then the more convincing it would be if the prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' Theorem.)

Testing: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.[21] Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the responses of the test subjects. Furthermore, failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is false. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, e.g., that the test equipment is working properly, and a failure may be a failure of one of the auxiliary hypotheses. (See the Duhem-Quine thesis.) Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars (using one of the working rovers), and so on. Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.

Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared test may be required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question.

This model underlies the scientific revolution.[22] One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of forming questions and subsequently testing them,[23] an approach which was advocated by Galileo in 1638 with the publication of Two New Sciences.[24] The current method is based on a hypothetico-deductive model[25] formulated in the 20th century, although it has undergone significant revision since first proposed (for a more formal discussion, see below).
*******************************************
Show us where this text says a hypothesis must be PROVEN.

 

[Papageorgio]

Solar, geothermal and Fusion along with a few others would cut out the need to have a long and costly supply chain. Like we do now with coal, oil and natural gas.

We're better off switching over.

Mr.h can you agree that it is possible?

So you are now completely off fossil fuel? How is that working?


Sent from my iPad using an Android.

 

[Crick]

There are no proofs in the natural sciences.

The validity of an appeal to authority does not rely on anyone's ability to prove anything.

When are you either going to falsify AGW or admit that you cannot?

When are YOU going to prove it exists? That's how science works you know...you make the theory and then you have to support it. That's how the null hypothesis works. Of course I wouldn't expect an anti science denier like you to understand the fundamentals...

WRONG​

From Wikipedia's article on "The Scientific Method"

Formulation of a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?", but can also be open-ended, as in "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?" This stage also involves looking up and evaluating evidence from previous experiments, personal scientific observations or assertions, and/or the work of other scientists. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the previous evidence can be posed. When applying the scientific method to scientific research, determining a good question can be very difficult and affects the final outcome of the investigation.[19]

Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe. The hypothesis might be very specific, e.g., Einstein's equivalence principle or Francis Crick's "DNA makes RNA makes protein",[20] or it might be broad, e.g., unknown species of life dwell in the unexplored depths of the oceans. A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about some population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of those people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the conjecture that the statistical hypothesis is false, e.g., that the new drug does nothing and that any cures are due to chance effects. Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, e.g., that the drug does better than chance. A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The more unlikely that a prediction would be correct simply by coincidence, then the more convincing it would be if the prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' Theorem.)

Testing: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.[21] Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the responses of the test subjects. Furthermore, failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is false. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, e.g., that the test equipment is working properly, and a failure may be a failure of one of the auxiliary hypotheses. (See the Duhem-Quine thesis.) Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars (using one of the working rovers), and so on. Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.

Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared test may be required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question.

This model underlies the scientific revolution.[22] One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of forming questions and subsequently testing them,[23] an approach which was advocated by Galileo in 1638 with the publication of Two New Sciences.[24] The current method is based on a hypothetico-deductive model[25] formulated in the 20th century, although it has undergone significant revision since first proposed (for a more formal discussion, see below).
*******************************************

No where does this text use any form of the words PROOF or PROVE.


If you want to show us that AGW is incorrect, falsify it. I've given you numerous ways to do so and I'm certain smarter people could think of a dozen more. If we find it cannot be falsified, the theory - at least for the time being - must be held correct.

 

[daveman]

Show us where this text says a hypothesis must be PROVEN.

It does if you want rational people to accept it as true.

 

[Crick]

No it doesn't. You (and most of the deniers here) DO NOT understand the scientific method and DO NOT understand what the word PROVE means.

 

[idb]

And you have evidence that such situations are commonplace?

ps: as has been explained to you on numerous occasions, an appeal to authority is NOT a fallacy if the authorities actually are experts in the field and a consensus actually exists.

Since the experts can n I t prove their claims an appeal to them is a fallacy

There are no proofs in the natural sciences.

The validity of an appeal to authority does not rely on anyone's ability to prove anything.

When are you either going to falsify AGW or admit that you cannot?

When are YOU going to prove it exists? That's how science works you know...you make the theory and then you have to support it. That's how the null hypothesis works. Of course I wouldn't expect an anti science denier like you to understand the fundamentals...

You are wrong.
The scientific method is to propose a hypothesis and then test it.
You don't have to support it...you have to test it.

 

[skookerasbil]

No it doesn't. You (and most of the deniers here) DO NOT understand the scientific method and DO NOT understand what the word PROVE means.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I'm wondering just how many of the 1/2 billion have given up their autos?

or this partial list

Solvents

Diesel fuel

Motor Oil

Bearing Grease

Ink

Floor Wax

Ballpoint Pens

Football Cleats

Upholstery

Sweaters

Boats

Insecticides

Bicycle Tires

Sports Car Bodies

Nail Polish

Fishing lures

Dresses

Tires

Golf Bags

Perfumes

Cassettes

Dishwasher parts

Tool Boxes

Shoe Polish

Motorcycle Helmet

Caulking

Petroleum Jelly

Transparent Tape

CD Player

Faucet Washers

Antiseptics

Clothesline

Curtains

Food Preservatives

Basketballs

Soap

Vitamin Capsules

Antihistamines

Purses

Shoes

Dashboards

Cortisone

Deodorant

Footballs

Putty

Dyes

Panty Hose

Refrigerant

Percolators

Life Jackets

Rubbing Alcohol

Linings

Skis

TV Cabinets

Shag Rugs

Electrician's Tape

Tool Racks

Car Battery Cases

Epoxy

Paint

Mops

Slacks

Insect Repellent

Oil Filters

Umbrellas

Yarn

Fertilizers

Hair Coloring

Roofing

Toilet Seats

Fishing Rods

Lipstick

Denture Adhesive

Linoleum

Ice Cube Trays

Synthetic Rubber

Speakers

Plastic Wood

Electric Blankets

Glycerin

Tennis Rackets

Rubber Cement

Fishing Boots

Dice

Nylon Rope

Candles

Trash Bags

House Paint

Water Pipes

Hand Lotion

Roller Skates

Surf Boards

Shampoo

Wheels

Paint Rollers

Shower Curtains

Guitar Strings

Luggage

Aspirin

Safety Glasses

Antifreeze

Football Helmets

Awnings

Eyeglasses

Clothes

Toothbrushes

Ice Chests

Footballs

Combs

CD's & DVD's

Paint Brushes

Detergents

Vaporizers

Balloons

Sun Glasses

Tents

Heart Valves

Crayons

Parachutes

Telephones

Enamel

Pillows

Dishes

Cameras

Anesthetics

Artificial Turf

Artificial limbs

Bandages

Dentures

Model Cars

Folding Doors

Hair Curlers

Cold cream

Movie film

Soft Contact lenses

Drinking Cups

Fan Belts

Car Enamel

Shaving Cream

Ammonia

Refrigerators

Golf Balls

Toothpaste

Gasoline

 

[Crick]

A professor in one of my classes back in 1981 or so made the comment that petroleum was far too valuable a material resource (ie a source material with which to make the stuff on your list) to burn it simply for the heat it gives off.

 

[Crick]

There are no proofs in the natural sciences.

The validity of an appeal to authority does not rely on anyone's ability to prove anything.

When are you either going to falsify AGW or admit that you cannot?

When are YOU going to prove it exists? That's how science works you know...you make the theory and then you have to support it. That's how the null hypothesis works. Of course I wouldn't expect an anti science denier like you to understand the fundamentals...

You are wrong.
The scientific method is to propose a hypothesis and then test it.
You don't have to support it...you have to test it.

Bingo!

 

[jon_berzerk]

A professor in one of my classes back in 1981 or so made the comment that petroleum was far too valuable a material resource (ie a source material with which to make the stuff on your list) to burn it simply for the heat it gives off.

petroleum is one of the products of crude oil

 

[Crick]

Wrong

Petroleum (L. petroleum, from Greek: πέτρα (rock) + Latin: oleum (oil)[1][2][3]) is a naturally occurring, yellow-to-black liquid found in geologic formations beneath the Earth's surface, which is commonly refined into various types of fuels

Wikipedia: petroleum