Oil is NOT a fossil fuel...

[Chacmool]

There is slightly different content in a Space News article posted by Tormond.

:xx: Er... actually it's "Tormod"...

[nkt]

:xx: Er... actually it's "Tormod"...

No, Tormod's not the idiot. I'll leave it as an excercise to the reader, and all that...

[Skippy]

Senior Research Chemist at Occidental Research, division of Occidental Petroleum, 1977-1979. What do you have, boy?

 

Russian Academy of Sciences

Sciences of Ukraine

Russian State University

Tatarstan

 

Giggle. Did you know Russians invented the lightbulb, the phonograph, movies... and Edison stole them all? GIGGLE.

You really looked like you were intelligent until that last line... was it you that blasted an earlier post based not on the article, but on the publication it was in? Didn't your bias there have more to do with the political and religious persuasion of the editor rather than the content? I have made the same mistake in the past, but I've grown up since then.

[Skippy]

In my knowledge:

Oil is a non-renewable source.

Non-Renewable sources are fossil fuels.

Therefore oil is a fossil fuel.

This is basic information, no point in discussing lies anymore, so pls stop it!!!

God is love;

Love is blind;

Stevie Wonder is blind;

Stevie Wonder is God? Wrong. Just as that is an erroneous syllogism, so is yours.

 

Is plutonium a renewable energy source? To my knowledge it is a material with a finite supply. After it is used it becomes something else...useful in the creation of armor piercing ammo, but no longer usable as a fuel source. Is it a fossil fuel? Not.

 

As I see it here, there is considerable debate about the origin of oil. Stomping your feet in a tantrum ;) will not end the scientific debate going on here. Personally I agree with Hubbert, that we will reach a Peak in worldwide Oil production soon and we need to be looking for alternative energy sources NOW! It matters not where the oil originated from, it will run out someday.

[Boerseun]

...Oil production soon and we need to be looking for alternative energy sources NOW! It matters not where the oil originated from, it will run out someday.

Sooner rather than later, would be my guess. And China's increasing demand for fuel as the country booms to challenge the US for the top spot on the totem pole, isn't helping either.

 

The issue is that as with any finite resource, there won't be a gradual downswing in supply, seeing as prices will rise, better techniques will be invented to squeeze the oil reservoirs at a heck of a rate till the last drop - and then there will be a supply crash. And it's not only the gas-guzzling autos on the US freeways that'll feel the pinch - oil is central and core to civilization. We have enslaved ourselves to that stinky black sticky substance, and unless we do something fairly quick to cut our dependancy on oil, civilization will come to an abrupt stop.

 

Agriculture is dependent on millions of barrels of oil on a daily basis, and agriculture also made it possible for our population to shoot through the 6-billion mark. When the oil dries up, who's gonna feed the masses? How're they gonna feed them? How will stuff be distributed? I reckon a die-off would be inevitable to bring the population back to pre-1800 times, to bring it back to roughly one billion, the number that can be sustained without the help of oil-fuelled automation.

 

Thus - the oil companies have the funds to do so now. They must invest heavily into alternative fuel sources, figure out a way to produce hydrogen from seawater using sunlight, for instance. 'Cause once we cross the threshold into the hydrogen economy, the frontiersmen of the array of new technologies involved will control the world.

[Biochemist]

...the oil companies have the funds to do so now. They must invest heavily into alternative fuel sources, figure out a way to produce hydrogen from seawater using sunlight, for instance.

There is no obvious reason why the next generation of energy companies would be the same ones that currently supply us with fossil fuels. It could be anyone with the funds to invest. I suspect we willl see a resurgence of interest in nuclear power, for instance, and there are a lot of companies that are better positioned to profit from that development than oil companies.

 

However, if oil floats above $60 a barrel for long (as it probably will) the oil companies will likely remain consumed with alternative fossil sources (e.g., more oil from existing wells, tar sands, oil shales, etc.)

[Qfwfq]

Just as that is an erroneous syllogism, so is yours.

It's either a sophism or a paralogism, according to whether or not the fallacy was done deliberately to deceive.

 

Is plutonium a renewable energy source? To my knowledge it is a material with a finite supply. After it is used it becomes something else...useful in the creation of armor piercing ammo, but no longer usable as a fuel source. Is it a fossil fuel? Not.

Yes and no. :esheriff: Plutonium doesn't occur naturally but it can be obtained from uranium 238. The latter is what's used for armour piercing, not the fission products.

 

Stomping your feet in a tantrum :) will not end the scientific debate going on here. Personally I agree with Hubbert, that we will reach a Peak in worldwide Oil production soon and we need to be looking for alternative energy sources NOW!

Quite right about both things!

[Skippy]

It's either a sophism or a paralogism, according to whether or not the fallacy was done deliberately to deceive.

 

Yes and no. :) Plutonium doesn't occur naturally but it can be obtained from uranium 238. The latter is what's used for armour piercing, not the fission products.

Erroneous syllogism = sophism or paralogism

 

OK, so we do not have an infinite or rewable source of U-238 do we? My bad on the material used in armor piercing bullets, you are correct.

[biochemrex]

Dr Gold died recently. I recall him featured in a science mag as one of the 3 greatest scientists who were also very controversial. Peter Duesberg was one of them and I cannot recall the other, but I have the article somewhere in my files.

Whatever the oil men believe they are still teaching the public that oil is a fossil fuel, but then almost everything that is taught to the public is a pack of lies so that is to be expected.

Some environmentalists have admitted lying to the public on the grounds that they would not be concerned if they said their predictions suggested that in 1,000s of years it might go wrong, so they greatly exagerate the extent of the possibility of doom. and they are opposed to the public finding out that Science is really pretty much a con job and always has been.

The business of science has always been to deceive the public, convince them the world is flat etc, then along comes a maverick like Gold and spoils their litte racket, but with the internet I doubt that Piltdown man would have enjoyed such a long life span. Keith

[Qfwfq]

The business of science has always been to deceive the public, convince them the world is flat etc,

When did science ever convince the public that the world is flat? :rolleyes:

[Tormod]

The business of science has always been to deceive the public, convince them the world is flat etc, then along comes a maverick like Gold and spoils their litte racket, but with the internet I doubt that Piltdown man would have enjoyed such a long life span. Keith

 

I wonder how you would communicate your utterly humoristic world views without the scientists who invented the world wide web. I picture you in rags on a soapbox in Hyde Park. :hihi:

 

But you know, everything you read on the web, especially on science forums, is lies, damned lies, and statistics. So why do you even bother? :rolleyes:

[biochemrex]

I was being metaphorical. The latest conceit of Science is to teach racial flat earthism - that there is no difference between the races and in any case races do not exist - just an illusion, a figment of the imagination and beleif in race is a sign of ignorance.

Science dismisses all the things that work like the Net, steam engines, aeroplanes, as mere tencnology. When the electron was discovered a toast was drunk ' may it never be found to be of any use". That is what pure science is all about - another name for Philosophy. Or in layman's terms - pure wanking. Keith

[nkt]

I don't think it is science teaching that - try reading up on sports science a bit. There are dozens of researchers trying to work out why Ethopians are the best long distance runners, Russians are the strongest, blacks are the best sprinters, etc. due to genetics and enviromental factors which only a few other athletes can match, and then only with millions in training "aids" that do what those other groups get naturally.

 

Only a scientist would work out that the reason Russia does so well in weightlifting is due to the high calorie diet, lack of indoor heating and plumbing, and a vast population in Siberia. The lower average temperatures mean that people grow slower and bigger to conserve heat. This genetic potential is realised by the higher calorie diets available due to supermarkets, but they aren't well enough off financially to sit watching TV all day. Add in the huge area and large population (low density over a huge area, though!) and you are bound to get some winners without trouble.

 

Only a scientist would ever dare to point out that the reason black men are so much more common in prison is the same reasons why they are generally the stronger and faster race. More testosterone means more building of muscle mass, but also increased aggressive tendancies. You get the same effect in white men who take 'roids. But you won't see a politician stand up and say that, regardless of the facts.

[biochemrex]

The testosterone theory is another one of those crack-pot politically correct Science theories designed to hide the truth. The fact is that the testosterone level of males in general is far higher than that for females, but in practice women tend to be far more cranky than males. In fact a recent study on lesbians showed that violence in lesbian couples ( of which there is a lot) was caused by the partner who had the lowest testosterone level.

However while genuine scientists make a vast number of valuable discoveries, the Science Establishment carefully edits out any that do not fit their political agenda and ensure they do not get much publicity or any more grant funding.

It is not that I think that Science could not be a force for good in the world. I am raising the fact that currently it is not. Keith

[Turtle]

However while genuine scientists make a vast number of valuable discoveries, the Science Establishment carefully edits out any that do not fit their political agenda and ensure they do not get much publicity or any more grant funding.

It is not that I think that Science could not be a force for good in the world. I am raising the fact that currently it is not. Keith

 

____Good points. Replace the phrase "genuine scientist" with "genuine spiuritualist", replace the phrase "Science Establishment" with "Religious Establishment", & replace the phrase "political agenda" with "dogma". Is it any small wonder we have so much difficulty with the idea of a Genuine Spiritual Scientist? :doh: :)

 

PS It seems by the the chemical arguments in this thread that we have established a general agreement that oil is a fossil fuel? :D

[Eclogite]

The business of science has always been to deceive the public,

As Marlon Brando would have said "What's the motiviation?"

[biochemrex]

As Marlon Brando would have said "What's the motiviation?"

Wow! Are you serious? How about all the money in the world, total power? Is that enough of a motivation? It all started with "The Enlightenment". This was a conspiracy to overthrow the existing social order, the Church and the landowning Aristocracy replacing it with the rising Capitalist Class. In the new world order, total power would be in the hands of a scientific priesthood - self appointing - which has largely come to pass. In this new world order there woudl be a lot of changes. For one Homosexuality would be raised up to the prefered form of sexual expression. We are familiar with political correctness invented by the Marxists, but the enlightenment version was Scientific Correctness. In other words the Science Mafia would decide to suit themeslves what was true - regardless of tradition, common sense, or evidence. It has largely come to pass - by stealth. Keith