Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sera Ryskin
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 13:55:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Mr Reeth For some reason westerners are completely unaware that there are actually TWO theories regarding the creation of "fossil" fuels.
When this alternative "theory" gets significant recognition, maybe it'll have some value, but until then, it's about as valid an alternative "theory" as intelligent design.
PS: all that bull**** about "conspiracy to hide the truth"? Obvious sign of a fraud who doesn't understand how science really works.
Quote: "For almost a century, various predictions have been made that the human race was imminently going to run out of available petroleum. The passing of time has proven all those predictions to have been utterly wrong. It is pointed out here how all such predictions have depended fundamentally upon an archaic hypothesis from the 18th century that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and was accordingly limited in abundance."
Pure bull****. Nobody believes that oil will run out completely in the near future. The REAL danger is three things happening:
1) Oil extraction/production RATES will decrease. This is why it's called "PEAK oil", there will still be oil around, but supply will begin to drop below demand.
2) Oil costs will increase significantly due to demand exceeding supply. Does it really matter if oil technically still exists, if you can't afford to buy it?
3) The energy costs of getting that oil will increase beyond the energy it supplies. While it will still be useful for some specialized purposes, it will cease to be a net energy gain.
Current trends support these claims very well, and the fact that your "expert" is so confused on this subject casts significant doubt on the rest of his claims. ==========
Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
|
Victriferusianus
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 14:00:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Victriferusianus on 21/07/2009 14:03:50
I found one review of scientific articles. It's probably the one that I remembered. However I didn't remember the numbers correctly. From the article
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
The article is from year 2004, but unless some one comes up with a newer review that proves me wrong, I'll stick to my argument, that there is a strong consensus among scientists that we are to blame for global warming.
|
baltec1
Antares Shipyards Hoodlums Associates
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 14:33:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Mr Reeth Edited by: Mr Reeth on 21/07/2009 10:24:46 For some reason westerners are completely unaware that there are actually TWO theories regarding the creation of "fossil" fuels.
One theory is, as everybody knows, that living things died, got buried, and turned into fuel.
The other is that these fuels are produced in the Earth's crust.
Would this be from the same place as the guy who said tectonic plate theory is a lie and that the world is infact growing?
|
Draeca
Tharri and Co.
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 14:48:00 -
[34]
This thread makes me want to quit all the ecological stuff like recycling and so on to speed up the process of getting rif of our stupid race.
|
Iasius
Mercurialis Inc. Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 15:21:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Iasius on 21/07/2009 15:22:26
Originally by: Draeca This thread makes me want to quit all the ecological stuff like recycling and so on to speed up the process of getting rif of our stupid race.
Earth is a jewel. Don't destroy yourselves or seriously damage the planet. Otherwise others will move in:-
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes. ~Saint |
Drunk Driver
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 15:24:00 -
[36]
Global warming makes me giggle.
|
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 15:34:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Sera Ryskin idiotic, hateful, reactionary BS+ bonus cheap shot at religion for some reason
Just stay banned.
As far as oil coming from the Earth rather than fossilsą itĘs just an idea people. ThereĘs no need to **** yourselves over it. Exploring alternative to conventional knowledge is how we make progress. Most new ideas were at some point unpopular or even considered insane.
As far as climate change is concernedą screw it. I guess there really is no way to argue against a lifetime of being taught something. And I suppose thereĘs no harm in believing it either.
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 15:41:00 -
[38]
Climate Change conversations always give me a headach. I think the biggest thing that annoys the crap out of me is that the proponents seem to have a hard time answering the theory that the whole thing may be a cycle that the planet goes through regardless of human intervention or not.
If someone can supply a convincing article in regards to this id be greatful. On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod! |
Mr Reeth
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 15:49:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Draeca This thread makes me want to quit all the ecological stuff like recycling and so on to speed up the process of getting rif of our stupid race.
Don't stop recycling! That's pretty damn important, especially paper. (not sarcasm, I recycle and compost)
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 16:05:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Jacob Mei Climate Change conversations always give me a headach. I think the biggest thing that annoys the crap out of me is that the proponents seem to have a hard time answering the theory that the whole thing may be a cycle that the planet goes through regardless of human intervention or not.
If someone can supply a convincing article in regards to this id be greatful.
This is a possibility but the best argument opponents of the global warming theory have is that a lot of the warming is caused by the sun and yet the sun has been cooling down for decades. Now imagine what's going to happen when the sun starts back up again, half the world could turn into a desert within years.
Scientists should not smoke crack.
Habibullo Abdussamatov is saying in this article that the radiation received from the sun has been dropping for the past forty years yet the earth has been heating up and, all of a sudden, the earth will start cooling down. I want to know who's his dealer, because he's on some good **** and I want to know who's paying for his habit, because this guy must be smoking a lot.
|
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 16:08:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Victriferusianus Edited by: Victriferusianus on 21/07/2009 14:03:50
I found one review of scientific articles. It's probably the one that I remembered. However I didn't remember the numbers correctly. From the article
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
The article is from year 2004, but unless some one comes up with a newer review that proves me wrong, I'll stick to my argument, that there is a strong consensus among scientists that we are to blame for global warming.
There is no scientist that dinies the existent of global warming, they are just paid to disagree that it's man made.
|
BlackDragonShadow
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 17:26:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Jacob Mei Climate Change conversations always give me a headach. I think the biggest thing that annoys the crap out of me is that the proponents seem to have a hard time answering the theory that the whole thing may be a cycle that the planet goes through regardless of human intervention or not.
If someone can supply a convincing article in regards to this id be greatful.
Here's a decent article
|
Tef42
Gallente Monsters
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 19:07:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Tef42 on 21/07/2009 19:08:25
Originally by: Super Whopper
Originally by: Victriferusianus Edited by: Victriferusianus on 21/07/2009 14:03:50
I found one review of scientific articles. It's probably the one that I remembered. However I didn't remember the numbers correctly. From the article
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
The article is from year 2004, but unless some one comes up with a newer review that proves me wrong, I'll stick to my argument, that there is a strong consensus among scientists that we are to blame for global warming.
There is no scientist that dinies the existent of global warming, they are just paid to disagree that it's man made.
And you don't think the billions of dollars every year going to scientists to study global climate change isn't an incentive to keep this up? What do you think would happen to all that money if they said, "hey guys actually I don't think this is man made"? Not only would they lose those grants but they would also become a heretic in the eyes of the scientific (edit: and environmental) community. Money and influence runs deep on both sides.
|
Feilamya
Pelennor Swarm THE KLINGONS
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 20:03:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Victriferusianus Edited by: Victriferusianus on 21/07/2009 11:52:36 More information about abiogenic petroleum with citations also: Abiogenic petroleum Seems like abiogenic petroleum theory is not favoured by many scientists today.
A practical view on the theory of abiogenic petroleum, which actually comes in two flavours (a "weak" and a "strong" version) http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml
Disclaimer: I haven't heard of this theory ever before I saw this thread, and I have no opinion on it. I posted this biased article because it is an interesting position, not because I oppose this theory. One reason to take it with a grain of salt is that the (otherwise critical) author accepts the "fact" that CO2 causes global warming without questioning it.
Here's another position: If the "strong" abiotic oil theory is true, and its consequence is that we'll all drown in oil eventually, we'd better burn as much of it as possible.
|
Barakkus
Caelestis Iudicium
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 22:20:00 -
[45]
Regardless of whether or not global warming is real, what's so wrong in reducing emissions and having a cleaner environment anyways? Shouldn't we at least attempt to not be so reckless in our treatment of the planet?
|
Tef42
Gallente Monsters
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 23:07:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Barakkus Regardless of whether or not global warming is real, what's so wrong in reducing emissions and having a cleaner environment anyways? Shouldn't we at least attempt to not be so reckless in our treatment of the planet?
Yes that would be ideal. As long as it doesn't cause more harm economically. As long as its not hypocritical. Just so long as its done in a thoughtful, calm, and organized fashion. Running around like a chicken with your head off and eliminating everything raising taxes and bankrupting countries with a treaty that most if not all involved won't meet the standards of and if for some reason all standards by all countries involved were met, it would have zero effect on the climate.
This is just another platform designed to induce fear upon us to achieve power for environmentalists just like republicans use terrorism as their platform to scare the **** out of the public to accomplish their agendas. The beautiful part is, is that they can connect the dots easily because yes its a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas the effect of what we contribute is whats being debated. However for ordinary people being spoon fed something that is easy for environmentalists to twist into something that makes sense to regular folks and since the climate always does crazy **** anyway its easy to say....."see that's because you drive your car!"
One last thing (and this has nothing to do with Barakkus' remarks its just a side note). If anybody tells you that there is "no debate" over and over again on a science that is still in its infancy is trying to sell you snake oil. And it automatically casts doubt on their argument.
|
FOl2TY8
Revolutionary United Front Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2009.07.21 23:20:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Barakkus Regardless of whether or not global warming is real, what's so wrong in reducing emissions and having a cleaner environment anyways? Shouldn't we at least attempt to not be so reckless in our treatment of the planet?
Naa, people would rather argue about global warming and all it's variants. Heaven forbid we stop being a consumer society (USA). Also Jesus is a fictional character and never existed. ---------- This post brought to you by the worst PVP'er in Eve |
Evthron Macyntire
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 01:55:00 -
[48]
People believed that their computers couldn't figure out what comes after 99 expressed in 2 digits. The believed everything would just shut down and planes would fall out of the sky. Because their computer doesn't know what comes after 99 expressed in 2 digits. It was the most brilliant scam ever, but people ate it up because the media sensationalized it. It made the media money to talk about it.
Global warming is a natural cycle. We are speeding it up. It's that simple. I don't know how much we are speeding it up, but I doubt it is anything extreme.
Global warming is sexy.
Sexy makes money.
End of story, case closed.
ps: If the polar bears all die out, that just means more baby seals to club.
------------------------------ Sigs like this. |
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 02:04:00 -
[49]
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Mr Reeth Edited by: Mr Reeth on 21/07/2009 10:24:46 For some reason westerners are completely unaware that there are actually TWO theories regarding the creation of "fossil" fuels.
One theory is, as everybody knows, that living things died, got buried, and turned into fuel.
The other is that these fuels are produced in the Earth's crust.
Would this be from the same place as the guy who said tectonic plate theory is a lie and that the world is infact growing?
This is a perfectly acceptable theory.
Also a perfectly acceptable theory.
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
|
Xen Gin
Solar Excavations Ultd. Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 02:07:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Khemul Zula
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Mr Reeth Edited by: Mr Reeth on 21/07/2009 10:24:46 For some reason westerners are completely unaware that there are actually TWO theories regarding the creation of "fossil" fuels.
One theory is, as everybody knows, that living things died, got buried, and turned into fuel.
The other is that these fuels are produced in the Earth's crust.
Would this be from the same place as the guy who said tectonic plate theory is a lie and that the world is infact growing?
This is a perfectly acceptable theory.
Also a perfectly acceptable theory.
Those aren't theories, they are hypotheses.
|
|
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 02:31:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Xen Gin
Originally by: Khemul Zula
Originally by: baltec1
Originally by: Mr Reeth Edited by: Mr Reeth on 21/07/2009 10:24:46 For some reason westerners are completely unaware that there are actually TWO theories regarding the creation of "fossil" fuels.
One theory is, as everybody knows, that living things died, got buried, and turned into fuel.
The other is that these fuels are produced in the Earth's crust.
Would this be from the same place as the guy who said tectonic plate theory is a lie and that the world is infact growing?
This is a perfectly acceptable theory.
Also a perfectly acceptable theory.
Those aren't theories, they are hypotheses.
Yeah, according to a dictionary. But who listens to those things anymore?
Plus technically I think they'd be filed under 'conjecture' if we are going to judge them on a scientific basis.
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 03:19:00 -
[52]
Who'd have thought that burning fossil fuels causes diseases?
The myth that is 'the threat of fossil fuel'.
A few extracts from the second link:
Quote: The center of the earth is made up of fantastically hot molten fuels, mainly Hydrogen.
Quote: Carbon Dioxide is essential to all plant growth ? Nonsense. Carbon Dioxide is one part Carbon and two parts Oxygen. But it is the Oxygen content that makes plants grow. The more Oxygen the better.
Quote: Everyone knows that the human heart is a pump - right ? Have you ever seen a pump that has no pumping mechanism in it ? The Heart has a number of passages, but it has no pumping mechanism.
Now that we have established what kind of people believe these kind of lies we, as a race, can now proceed to kill ourselves en masse. We're totally doomed, not from the threat of global warming, war or famine but from the threat of this level of ******ation
|
Xen Gin
Solar Excavations Ultd. Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 03:40:00 -
[53]
Edited by: Xen Gin on 22/07/2009 03:42:09
Originally by: Super Whopper The myth that is 'the threat of fossil fuel'.
A few extracts from the second link:
I seriously stopped reading after
Quote: Think about the nonsense that has been perpetrated for a century or more- that Oil is the decayed remains of Dinosaurs and other early inhabitants of the Planet etc Those old Dinosaurs must have burrowed deep into the ground (thousands of feet ) to become our present day Oils.
I'd like him to do some archaeology under any half decent supervisor.
Supervisor: "So how did the Iron Age pot shard get into the this layer of the stratigraphy?"
Idiot: "It burrowed down into the soil on it's own!"
Supervisor: *Facepalm*
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 03:52:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Super Whopper on 22/07/2009 03:54:04
Originally by: Xen Gin Edited by: Xen Gin on 22/07/2009 03:42:09
Originally by: Super Whopper The myth that is 'the threat of fossil fuel'.
A few extracts from the second link:
I seriously stopped reading after
Quote: Think about the nonsense that has been perpetrated for a century or more- that Oil is the decayed remains of Dinosaurs and other early inhabitants of the Planet etc Those old Dinosaurs must have burrowed deep into the ground (thousands of feet ) to become our present day Oils.
I'd like him to do some archaeology under any half decent supervisor.
Supervisor: "So how did the Iron Age pot shard get into the this layer of the stratigraphy?"
Idiot: "It burrowed down into the soil on it's own!"
Supervisor: *Facepalm*
You mean like this?
Or like this?
|
mercyonman
Caldari Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 03:55:00 -
[55]
i think global warming is a sham and even if it was real there is new tech that could help with all the CO2 emmissions its call the carbon dioxide catalyst basically splits the carbon and turns it into fuel very interesting but hey i also think that they just want another way to control the public i mean seriously thats what i think it is if someone said that something in the near future will kill you i sure as hell be working to do anything i can to prevent it. but i still don't believe in that global warming bull****
When you crash your car, then jump out running down the street to save your pod.
Then you're playing way too much eve - MacGrowler III |
mercyonman
Caldari Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 03:59:00 -
[56]
has anyone ever heard of solar flares? well they impact earths climate A LOT and do you know WHAT protects us from being wiped off this blue planet. our magnetic field, which is currently weakening to change poles meaning south will be north and north will be south. so if we get a solar flare during the pole changed we are done for
When you crash your car, then jump out running down the street to save your pod.
Then you're playing way too much eve - MacGrowler III |
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 04:17:00 -
[57]
Originally by: mercyonman has anyone ever heard of solar flares? well they impact earths climate A LOT and do you know WHAT protects us from being wiped off this blue planet. our magnetic field, which is currently weakening to change poles meaning south will be north and north will be south. so if we get a solar flare during the pole changed we are done for
So, let's nuke ourselves for the lulz now because we're all going to die anyway.
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 04:19:00 -
[58]
Originally by: mercyonman i think global warming is a sham and even if it was real there is new tech that could help with all the CO2 emmissions its call the carbon dioxide catalyst basically splits the carbon and turns it into fuel very interesting but hey i also think that they just want another way to control the public i mean seriously thats what i think it is if someone said that something in the near future will kill you i sure as hell be working to do anything i can to prevent it. but i still don't believe in that global warming bull****
Global warming is a sham and a scam, so are all the illnesses and diseases you can get from burning fossil fuels, right?
|
Khemul Zula
Amarr Keisen Trade League
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 04:22:00 -
[59]
Originally by: mercyonman ...meaning south will be north and north will be south...
Oh this is really going to screw up the naming of certain areas of the world.
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
|
Evthron Macyntire
|
Posted - 2009.07.22 05:10:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Feilamya
Originally by: Victriferusianus Edited by: Victriferusianus on 21/07/2009 11:52:36 More information about abiogenic petroleum with citations also: Abiogenic petroleum Seems like abiogenic petroleum theory is not favoured by many scientists today.
A practical view on the theory of abiogenic petroleum, which actually comes in two flavours (a "weak" and a "strong" version) http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100404_abiotic_oil.shtml
Disclaimer: I haven't heard of this theory ever before I saw this thread, and I have no opinion on it. I posted this biased article because it is an interesting position, not because I oppose this theory. One reason to take it with a grain of salt is that the (otherwise critical) author accepts the "fact" that CO2 causes global warming without questioning it.
Here's another position: If the "strong" abiotic oil theory is true, and its consequence is that we'll all drown in oil eventually, we'd better burn as much of it as possible.
I had a book that explained the process of making oil from organic compounds (mainly sawdust) but I can't find it. ------------------------------ Sigs like this. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |