The biotic (fossil) versus abiotic oil rages. On the one side the peak oil crowd argue that since we find microscopic bits of animals and plant in the oil then oil is biotic and thus a limited resource. They argue that if it seems capped wells are refilling it is just residual seepage from the surrounding rock. They further argue that if there is abiotic oil (thus giving support to the abiotic theory!) it’s way too deep for us to get at! They even admit that Russia is pulling oil out of the ground that has no sign of biological organisms at all. You can see the true agenda of some of these groups when you discover that they are alarmed at the abiotic theory because if the oil doesn’t run out soon, the earth will die faster! Here’s the quote:

If it's true that there's plenty more oil, it just changes the character of the coming crash -- it will be through toxicity or ecological catastrophe instead of lack of energy, it will take longer, and the earth is a lot more likely to die. Here's an excerpt from William Kötke's summary of the 1972 "Limits to Growth" study:

You notice the reference to the “Limits to Growth study” that has been wrong in almost all its predictions of disaster so far.
More of these arguments can be found here: http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm

The abiotic theorists point out that never has a fossil been found below 18,000 feet but we regularly find oil below 30,000 and that we’ve already used more oil than could have come from plant remnants deposited in some ancient ocean.

This abiotic theory just received an enormous amount of support with the find of hydrocarbons on Titan: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/02/titans-organic.html and http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47675

A good overview of the abiotic theory can be found here: http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html and a good list of links and articles can be found here: http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/

An interesting commentary that I’m taking with a large grain of salt can be found here: http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Peak_Oil___Russia/peak_oil___russia.html The grain of salt is because of his claim that oil companies and Dick Cheney conspire to hide the abiotic oil origins. Yeah, sure they do…

Richard's main page

Labels: commentary, global warming, science

  ¶ 1:46 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

  Mutiny at the American Physical Society (APS)! Although the society (in this case physical refers to physics) has accepted the notion that man-made gases are affecting our climate, some of their member aren't buying it. The following article excerpted from the APS Physics site uses extensive analysis to show that the models used to prove global warming are flawed and in fact exaggerate the affect of CO2 as much as 500 to 1000%, there has been no warming since 1998 and in fact a cooling trend is indicated for the last six years

Here's an excerpt:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Abstract

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

1. Radiative forcing ΔF;
2. The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
3. The feedback multiplier ƒ.

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

See the entire article here: http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Warning! There's a lot of math, this is not light reading!

Richard's main page

Labels: climate change, global warming, science

  ¶ 5:06 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

  Sign the "Drill here, drill now, pay less" petition to ask congress to allow drilling our own oil reserves. Click here: http://www.americansolutions.com/actioncenter/petitions/?Guid=54ec6e43-75a8-445b-aa7b-346a1e096659

Richard's main page

Labels: global warming

  ¶ 8:19 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

  Here's yet another article supporting global cooling!

CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. ...

Read the rest at the Australian News: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html.

I recently read the Popular Science editorial where the editor said "The threat of human-influenced global warming is no longer in serious debate," (April 2008) and I wrote him an email refuting that statement. Of course he did not reply. Hey Mark Jannot! You edit a magazine called Popular Science. You know, science. Not politically correct non-science.

I once subscribed to Science Digest. One article told about a volcano in the Antarctic that has been erupting for hundreds of years. A letter to the editor pointed out, (this was when the ozone hole was big news) that chemicals from the volcano must be contributing to the formation of the hole more than man-made freon. The editor replied that of course there was no mechanism to move the chemicals from the lower to the upper atmosphere. I was outraged! If there was no mechanism to move chemicals from a volcano spewing them high into the air, what was the mechanism to move freon from ground level to the upper atmosphere? It was such a stupid, politically correct response from the Science Digest editor that I canceled my subscription. I told them I thought I had subscribed to a science magazine! Oh, my mistake!

Unfortunately scientists and science writers can be just as self-righteous and opinionated as anyone. This has always been the case, sad but true.

Richard's main page

Labels: global warming

  ¶ 8:26 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

  It is now official: there is not only no global warming, but we're actually entering a cooling phase. All the major climate centers (the legitimate ones that are not corrupted by political correctness) agree that there has been no warming for the last few years and that the cool temperatures have more than erased the warming we've had before that. The arctic ice has more than recovered this winter and the nation has suffered under a particularly cruel winter.

Thomas Sowell sums it up well with his article that I read in the Las Vegas Review Journal, but I'm linking to Jewish World Review's version, since the LVRJ's is on a subscription site.

Jewish World Review Feb. 28, 2008 / 22 Adar I 5768 Cold Water on ‘Global Warming’ By Thomas Sowell http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | It has almost become something of a joke when some "global warming" conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather. But stampedes and hysteria are no joke — and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming "crisis." They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all "scientists" and then claim that "all" the experts agree on a global warming crisis. Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.

Richard's main page

Labels: global warming

  ¶ 8:12 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

  The abiotic theory of oil formation says that oil is not a fossil fuel, but is continually being produced in the earth. this of course upsets the enviro-loonies who insist we're running out of oil.
The following article has more evidence that the theory is correct:

BLACK-GOLD BLUES
Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'
New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply

---

Posted: February 1, 2008
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a "fossil fuel" derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.

The lead scientist on the study – Giora Proskurowski of the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle – says the hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field were produced by the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in the mantle of the earth.

The abiotic theory of the origin of oil directly challenges the conventional scientific theory that hydrocarbons are organic in nature, created by the deterioration of biological material deposited millions of years ago in sedimentary rock and converted to hydrocarbons under intense heat and pressure.

While organic theorists have posited that the material required to produce hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock came from dinosaurs and ancient forests, more recent argument have suggested living organisms as small as plankton may have been the origin.

Continued at World Net Daily: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991

Richard's main page

Labels: global warming, science

  ¶ 9:09 PM 0 Comments Links to this post

 
There is a great new Ross Mackenzie piece I read in the Las Vegas Review Journal. I couldn't find it on their website so I have to link to the Sacramento Bee which did have it.

Here is just a piece of his article:

Global warming and global terror

We know the truth about global terror and malign jihad -- emphatically, flat-out, now. About global warming we "know" a multiplicity of things not necessarily so. In the success of the war against global terror lies the salvation of liberty and mankind. In the war to make the world safe from climate change we invite outcomes unknowable and known -- among the latter the destruction of free economies and free societies in order to save them.

Relentlessly prosecuting the war on terror to a more beneficial result seems clearly the prudent choice -- even if it turns out to take the better part of this century.

Click here for the rest. I highly recommend it.

Actually, I just found out if you click one of the above links it takes you to a sign in page. If you cut and paste this address: http://www.sacbee.com/debate/story/210492.html in your web browser it takes you directly to the article.

Richard's main page

Labels: global warming, Ross Mackenzie, war on terror

  ¶ 3:58 PM 0 Comments Links to this post