Remember that bullshit about "peak oil"

[SpeareChucker]

The article might not explicitly address these deep, deep, deep mini-quakes that cannot be felt on the surface, but it does delve into the great depths at which this is happening. The Scientific Luddites think it is happening right under their feet; maybe because they use the left-leaning wiki as their base source of information and political science.

 

[Luk]

The article might not explicitly address these deep, deep, deep mini-quakes that cannot be felt on the surface, but it does delve into the great depths at which this is happening. The Scientific Luddites think it is happening right under their feet; maybe because they use the left-leaning wiki as their base source of information and political science.

That's a lot of words just to confirm that you have no idea of what you're talking about.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Okay Peak Oil is simply this. All oil came from the biomass of millions of years ago, and because of this, we will run out, because it is not being replenished by new huge swamps that last for thousands upon thousands of years.

But as pointed out, it is being replenished and not because of fossils or similar biomass.

Oh, you are a nutter. But we already knew that.

Enjoy being on the pseudoscientific fringe along with tryfail.

 

[DMBFFF]

The article might not explicitly address these deep, deep, deep mini-quakes that cannot be felt on the surface, but it does delve into the great depths at which this is happening. The Scientific Luddites think it is happening right under their feet; maybe because they use the left-leaning wiki as their base source of information and political science.

As I'm getting close to my 1900th post, I can't go with you there now, but keep posting here and I'll prolly eventually reply to it.


https://www.conservapedia.com/Wikipedia

Critics of Wikipedia state that Wikipedia's articles contain systemic bias,[5] and that the information included within its articles are a mixture of truths, half-truths, and falsehoods.[6] The nature of Wikipedia also makes it subject to spin and bias, examples of which include paid public relations advocacy and inserting libelous content into the biographies of politicians for a political purpose.[6] Wikipedia was also criticized for having a liberal bias in its articles about politics, despite Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" policy.[5]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Leftist_roots_of_Wikipedia
https://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
https://www.conservapedia.com/Fracking

Liberal science

The same people that say man is causing Global Warming are now claiming that hydraulic fracturing is causing earthquakes and pollutes water supplies. Liberals are anti-oil and will do anything to stop America from creating more oil chiefly because of the atmospheric pollution it is associated with. Those organizations with an agenda and money will continue to spread lies in order to achieve a ban, despite the lack of evidence.[8] In 2015, the EPA ruled that fracking was not a hazard to water supplies.[9] This didn't stop the Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York from banning fracking in his state.

The study frequently cited by advocates of fracking bans was authored by Cornell University scientists Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea which set high estimates on the amount of methane released during the drilling and development of gas wells that are fracked. However, this study has been widely criticized by subsequent research.[10]


Stanford university Geophysicist Mark Zoback stated that the amount of energy released in a microseismic event, for which fracking equals, "is equivalent to the energy of a gallon of milk hitting the floor after falling off a kitchen counter." [11]

There is some evidence that the pumping of waste water into shale formations, the process after oil and gas extraction, can cause tremors. The evidence is so far inconclusive but seismic readings suggest this might be the case. Waste water has been pumped deep underground for more than 50 years, long before fracking was invented.

You're not alone, SpeareChucker: you have allies.

 

[Que]

That's a lot of words so I didn't read them all so I have no idea of what you're talking about.

Yes we understand. You have a short-attention-span...

We don't really need you to let us know every time you don't read something.

 

[Luk]

Yes we understand. You have a short-attention-span...

We don't really need you to let us know every time you don't read something.

Funny, the only time you can "best" me is to lie like a child.

#BEBEST

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The article might not explicitly address these deep, deep, deep mini-quakes that cannot be felt on the surface, but it does delve into the great depths at which this is happening. The Scientific Luddites think it is happening right under their feet; maybe because they use the left-leaning wiki as their base source of information and political science.

https://media1.tenor.com/images/968ba722383acdbd094271b8b63bbb4d/tenor.gif?itemid=3578536

 

[bellisarius]

You post that ^^^ as a joke but there is a grain of truth there. Within my lifetime science has held such consensus's as;

Human civilization is only 4000 years old.

The Universe is static.

The Grand Canyon took millions of years to create.

Catastrophism is 'junk science.'

Plate tectonics is a myth.

What I've learned is that as soon as you're told that the science is 'settled' or there is a consensus, start looking for the outliers that have explanations for the exceptions that the consensus crowds waves away dismissively.

 

[phrodeau]

You post that ^^^ as a joke but there is a grain of truth there. Within my lifetime science has held such consensus's as;

Human civilization is only 4000 years old.

The Universe is static.

The Grand Canyon took millions of years to create.

Catastrophism is 'junk science.'

Plate tectonics is a myth.

What I've learned is that as soon as you're told that the science is 'settled' or there is a consensus, start looking for the outliers that have explanations for the exceptions that the consensus crowds waves away dismissively.

Damn, you're ancient.

 

[trysail]

You can't help but notice how frequently the gullible, credulous adherents of the dangerous anthropogenic global warming conjecture resort to ad hominem insults rather than facts.

There's very little empirical evidence in their assertions; they're all couched in some gauzy glimpse of the future conjoined with crystal ball predictions and computer models entirely lacking validation or disclosure.


It's very telling— and greatly amusing to those who discern the pattern.

"A genuine expert can always foretell a thing that's 500 years away easier than a thing that's only 500 seconds off."

-Mark Twain
​

​

 

[bellisarius]

You can't help but notice how frequently the gullible, credulous adherents of the dangerous anthropogenic global warming conjecture resort to ad hominem insults rather than facts.

There's very little empirical evidence in their assertions; they're all couched in some gauzy glimpse of the future conjoined with crystal ball predictions and computer models entirely lacking validation or disclosure.


It's very telling— and greatly amusing to those who discern the pattern.

"A genuine expert can always foretell a thing that's 500 years away easier than a thing that's only 500 seconds off."

-Mark Twain
​

​

Follow the money and the excuses for more power.

 

[DMBFFF]

Follow the money and the excuses for more power.

[size=+1]One of your dumber quotes.[/size]

bellisarius, your post would be forgivable if you were some dumb fuck posting on the internet and/or a hack for the petroleum industry, but while you insult me—the new alt-right custom, I suppose, I'm assuming you—and SpeareChucker—have at least some intelligence.

Are you implying that the motives of scientists are more craven and interested than the fossil-fuel industry, and their millionaire execs?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel#Industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_industry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels_lobby
(my bold)

Influence of the energy lobby in the United States

This section needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (February 2018)

In the 2000 elections, over $34 million was contributed, with 78% of that money going to Republicans. In 2004, oil and gas companies contributed over $25 million to political campaigns, donating 80% of that money to Republicans. In the 2006 election cycle, oil and gas companies contributed over $19 million to political campaigns. 82% of that money went to Republican candidates, while the remaining 18% went to Democrats.[/b] Electric utilities also heavily favor Republicans; their contributions have recently ranged between $15–20 million.[4][5] From 2003–06, the energy lobby also contributed $58.3 million to state-level campaigns. By comparison, alternative energy interests contributed around half a million dollars in the same time period.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_steam_road_vehicles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxton_Phoenix
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_car

Maybe have cars run on coal—given that so-called "global warming" is a Chinese hoax—the most truthful president in American history says so—America could become more energy independent and pay less for fuel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Motor_Carriage_Company


THE COAL POWERED CAR: The Future Is Here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD5wj05F5wA
1:38
267 views

1925 Doble E-20 Steam Car - Jay Leno's Garage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUg_ukBwsyo
27:19
1,345,085 views


of course if you don't like Wikipedia, here's this:
https://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming

https://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Global_Warming
has 71 articles.

You guys should read Conservapedia—it's somewhat like your posts here: totally not a waste of time.

 

[bellisarius]

^^^ And you wonder why I've nicknamed you "dumb fuck?"

I'm not "implying" a damn thing. I've stated straight up that they are driven by "publish or perish" motives and they too have families to feed. The motives of the politicians are completely different, they want more money and power. Herein we have a conjunction made in hell for the citizen.

 

[phrodeau]

^^^ And you wonder why I've nicknamed you "dumb fuck?"

I'm not "implying" a damn thing. I've stated straight up that they are driven by "publish or perish" motives and they too have families to feed. The motives of the politicians are completely different, they want more money and power. Herein we have a conjunction made in hell for the citizen.

And under the current administration, there would be more incentive to publish studies that counter climate change to keep the petrodollars rolling in.

 

[Luk]

And under the current administration, there would be more incentive to publish studies that counter climate change to keep the petrodollars rolling in.

Ish says "follow the money" quite often yet doesn't in this case.

 

[DMBFFF]

^^^ And you wonder why I've nicknamed you "dumb fuck?"

I'm not "implying" a damn thing. I've stated straight up that they are driven by "publish or perish" motives and they too have families to feed. The motives of the politicians are completely different, they want more money and power. Herein we have a conjunction made in hell for the citizen.

Do you have a blind spot where you can't read about oil execs? I've mentioned it before on other posts—perhaps others have too.


Here, let me do it this way:

Are you implying that the motives of scientists are more craven and interested [size=+3]than the fossil-fuel industry, and their millionaire execs?[/size]


Try bellisarius, try. Maybe you can increase the page size or use a reader, or use your peripheral vision. If others can see it, I'm sure you can too.


phrodeau and Luk have just made posts—just one sentence each—related to this. See if you can read theirs too. Maybe you have them on ignore, and are reacting to their posts which you can't read with hostility.


Your previous comments to my other posts are disproportionately hostile—bellicose even.


Btw, is your username a misspelling of Belisarius?



Very well, since I've wasted much of my time reading and responding to your posts, while I won't put you on ignore—because unlike you, I'll at times tell my political opponents that they have on occasion, posted something good, even if they don't reciprocate (though time constraints might impose limits); but I'll likely rush through them more quickly, and likely not reply.

I tried to see if we could have a decent conversation, bellisarius, just like I did with ShitHawk, but you two seem more interested in winning at all costs—like Trump—irrespective of decent dialogue or even the truth—and, at times, lose because of such.


I guess it's as the song says: "you live, you learn."


Yes, bellisarius, the insults and polarization are good for the body politic.


At least Busybody's pretenses are obvious, but again, I learn.




Okay, I'm close to my 1900th post, this might be my second last on GB for this year.

(My 2nd post on this thread will be my 1900th and will in the year 2019.
http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1476535 )

Next I'll create a thread in F&S—a band I just read of with great cover songs less than 22 hours ago—"Lez Zeppelin"—pity you might not lurk, bellisarius, in your anger at my posts.




Have a Merry Christmas, bellisarius (IRL); and enjoy the echo chamber here in GB with SpeareChucker, ShitHawk, TalkRadio1, and Whiteguard—though I suppose you do already.

 

[bellisarius]

Blind? I don't give a shit about any oil execs anymore than I give a shit about Jay Gould or Diamond Jim, John Rockefeller, or Andrew Carnegie. But giving the devil it's due at least they paid for their own monuments and not the taxpayer.

You are consumed with avarice my friend and that's a serious vice that will eat your soul away in the end.

 

[bellisarius]

Peterson on "Global Warming."

What are you going to burn now SFB?

 

[CandiCame]

No they are called fossil fuels because of the erroneous science of the 50s. Carbon is subducted in places like the Marianas Trench where it slowly and continually is pushed up and into the land masses from great depths. Look at the fault zones of the Middle East and the great pools of oil in the ground. Look at the evidence of wells that were closed because they were dry, but now have renewed pools of oil. All of that is supposed to be "fossils?"

I don't see that. I see the Science of this century.

No, they're called fossil fuels because of how fossil layers work. The biomass that made fossils is what's compressed and that decay causes the imprint- you know, a FOSSIL. The heat and pressure takes away the biomass and leaves a fossil sometimes. Because that's how reality works. I wasn't here in the 50s. I don't know what you're talking about.

Were you guys told that oil comes from the actual rocks? Is that the conspiracy? I'm trying to figure out what the disconnect is. Oil isn't "renewable" in the middle east or anywhere else. That shit isn't new, like it didn't show up last week. It takes millions of years to compress biomass into oil. You can go bury grandpappy this week and dig him up next week and the coffin will just be full of oil. The timescale that is on is pretty much incomprehensible to humanity. We're using it way faster than it can be generated. We ARE going to run out.

Like... to use a teachable moment I had recently. Pretend you have a child who, for reasons beyond your comprehension that were never adequately explained to you, decided she wanted to know if toilet paper was water soluble and put just a bunch of it in the bathtub WAY too far down the drain for you to get it out. Now imagine you didn't know this until you were in the shower. The water will drain, but not at nearly the rate that new water is coming into the shower. Do you sit there and say, "My ability to drain water is replenishable, I'm fine running it at my current rate" or do you say, "Holy fuck the tub is gonna overflow if I don't turn this off. HEY! HEY DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO THE SHOWER!?"

Because what yhall are doing, what you seem to be arguing, is that because it's draining a little bit, we should just keep running the shower.

That's gonna cause the bathroom to flood, but it's not just your bathroom, it's everyone's bathroom, and the rest of us are gonna drag you out of that shower kicking and screaming so we can turn it the fuck off.

Okay Peak Oil is simply this. All oil came from the biomass of millions of years ago, and because of this, we will run out, because it is not being replenished by new huge swamps that last for thousands upon thousands of years.

But as pointed out, it is being replenished and not because of fossils or similar biomass.

It's not being replenished FAST enough. It takes more time than your brain can comprehend to make new oil. I think you just got confused and didn't understand how oil worked at some point. Because that's what this reads like. Like you thought it came from the rock part of fossils and then when you found out it didn't you didn't understand the time frame because you think decay happens really fast so the compression and heat process should happen really fast. And you figured out that it's an ongoing process, not one that stopped, so you think it's being constantly renewed without crunching the numbers to see how much is generated and how much is being used.

Like I'm following your logic, you just got the problem wrong. Which is all I was wondering so I think I understand now.

 

[CandiCame]

You post that ^^^ as a joke but there is a grain of truth there. Within my lifetime science has held such consensus's as;

Human civilization is only 4000 years old.

The Universe is static.

The Grand Canyon took millions of years to create.

Catastrophism is 'junk science.'

Plate tectonics is a myth.

What I've learned is that as soon as you're told that the science is 'settled' or there is a consensus, start looking for the outliers that have explanations for the exceptions that the consensus crowds waves away dismissively.

Is... is anyone concerned that she put a bunch of bullshit but also the correct concept of erosion being a thing? Like is no one going to tell her that it did take about 6 million years to get a grand canyon?

I really, really think that part of the problem is that if these folks can't conceptualize something, like this huge span of time, that they just kind of don't believe in it.

It DOES take millions of years for erosion to carve a canyon. It DOES take millions of years for heat and pressure to turn biomass into oil.

Some shit takes a super long time.

 

[DMBFFF]

Blind? I don't give a shit about any oil execs anymore than I give a shit about Jay Gould or Diamond Jim, John Rockefeller, or Andrew Carnegie. But giving the devil it's due at least they paid for their own monuments and not the taxpayer.

You are consumed with avarice my friend and that's a serious vice that will eat your soul away in the end.

bellisarius,

Surely bellisarius, you are better capable of connecting the dots.

I don't recognize two of those names or what the four-in-all did, but since you cited them, I'm going to presume those statues were likely paid for by men who made great fortunes selling fossil fuels which greatly increased the amount of CO2 which is predicted to greatly affect our climate.

Now, if you're going to deny the latter two—i.e. that we're increasing the CO2 and/or it's having an affect—then I suppose it ends here—go join the deniers. Those much younger than you who will curse you and your ilk, will likely curse those who've moved on. You will have lived a life of relative stability and prosperity, verdant land, and blues skies—you will have gotten yours. You will not be, say, among perhaps the 100 000s of climate refugees who will be machine-gunned, shelled, or bombed in your desperation.

But let's just say, for the sake of argument, the theory of human-cause increases of CO2 is true, and that the CO2 increases are adversely affecting our environment. Such might be in the vested interest of most people—perhaps even +99% of them—to limit such increases in carbon-dioxide, but not the richies in the fossil fuel industries. Environmental laws would not be in their interests. It'd be against their interest. If every American who drove a car instead drove 90% of the total annual distances they drove now—and instead walked, cycled, or used public transit for the other 10%—could cause $ billions of lost revenue. It might even cause leaders in OPEC nations to lose positions, perhaps lives.

Goodness knows what injury would be inflicted on the American coal industry if, say, +95% of American homes were each covered by a mere 40 square meters of foreign-made PVCs.

So you can see—maybe you can see—why I'm quite suspicious of the intentions of rich execs and shareholders in the fossil fuel industry, particularly when their lobbyists and political clients—such as the—if you will, avaricious president—try to hamstring efforts at climate control.

Yes, scientists need an income, but I think most undergraduates figure that science isn't where the big bucks are. When Dr. Jane Goodall first walked into the jungle, I don't think she was thinking of the book sales and speaking fees. Canada's own David Suzuki was into studying genetics and later hosting a science program and show. I don't think Neil deGrasse Tyson (wp) thinks his greatest accomplishment is to become a millionaire (assuming he is one—at least by annual income).

However, most in the petroleum industry are likely in it for the money. I don't think the "rough-necks" love their work—at least not as much as the money. Those who leave their (traditionally, at least) poor but beloved Newfoundland for the oil patch in Alberta will return to Newfoundland from time to time. Why do they do this? Why aren't they happy in the oil patch and return to their windswept rock with quaint houses and ocean views? I'm not sure if the offices of the major oil companies are located near the refineries. Ditto the homes of the top execs or major shareholders.

I suspect their motives are money.

and again, climate control threatens it.



To recap a little: the taxpayer didn't pay for their wealth, but the victim of climate change did.


As for your accusations of avarice, I say: Huh?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/avarice

Noun

avarice (usually uncountable, plural avarices)

Excessive or inordinate desire of gain; greed for wealth

Synonyms: covetousness, cupidity

Inordinate desire for some supposed good.

Synonyms

avariciousness
See also Thesaurus:greed

Let's check the difference.

While I suppose we all have a bit of greed in us—the Randians would even say it's a good thing—I don't think I'm particularly greedy.

True, I've divulged little about myself personally, save for posting images pertaining to my sexual fantasies and preferences, and certainly my taste(s) in music, and political views, but if I was more open, most would agree that I'm not particularly avaricious.

But true, avarice can eat into you and destroy your soul—Trump might be an example of this.

Peterson on "Global Warming."

What are you going to burn now SFB?

Unless it's a music video, if you post it, it's likely garbage.

I'll watch Dolly Parton instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shine_(Collective_Soul_song)

Collective Soul - Shine (Official Video)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m0bI82Rz_k
4:39
29,884,017 views

Dolly Parton - Shine [Official Music Video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e-Ip9RagkU
4:37
228,710 views

If by "SFB" you mean "stupid Facebook," then you err again in your presumptions about me.

I've been resisting Facebook for over 8 years.

No, they're called fossil fuels because of how fossil layers work.

...

Like I'm following your logic, you just got the problem wrong. Which is all I was wondering so I think I understand now.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/petroleum

Etymology
From Medieval Latin petroleum, from petra (“rock”) + oleum (“oil”).

I guess a geography textbook from the 1950s would give an explanation not too unlike the ones today.

I'm sure there is some creation of petroleum and the like—and as you describe it—and its sequestration of carbon, but it's likely at a tiny fraction the amount, per unit time, of that is being consumed.

What I've learned is that as soon as you're told that the science is 'settled' or there is a consensus, start looking for the outliers that have explanations for the exceptions that the consensus crowds waves away dismissively.

and believe every theory that comes along, no matter how stupid, because, hey, current theories might be proven wrong and the outlier theory be proven correct.

 

[Hal9000_]

because I enjoy concise posts:

?

I will keep saying the same thing:

Humanity has pumped and mined the amounts of carbon out of the crust in about a century that it took natural processes millions of years to sequester.

And , of course, burned it.

 

[Que]

Funny, the only time you can "best" me is to lie like a child.

#BEBEST

That was your best?

#Sad!

 

[jaF0]

because I enjoy concise posts:

?

I will keep saying the same thing:

Humanity is the single most destructive parasite Earth has ever suffered.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Humanity is the single most destructive parasite Earth has ever suffered.

We should, then, exterminate humanity?