Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then why are we not getting billion barrel resovoirs in the basement rock? The Gold Hypothesis is, at very best, a very minor source of hydrocarbons. Care to flaunt your ignorance further?
LOL. Maybe for you, but geologists posit a very differant source for that oil.
Wind and Solar.
Words that go together nearly as well as:
Fools and their Money!
Petroleum is an abiotic resource found far below where any plant of animal remains could exist and continuously refills what were thought to be exhausted wells. As to coal, it can hardly to called a "fossil fuel" because it is a basic foundation in the structure of the planet. Looks like you two queers are caught with your panties down again.
In which case why is there no oil or coal found on mountain tops?
Why is there no oil or coal that dates back 4.5 billion years?
If you had one less IQ point we would have to water you every week.
"on mountain tops"?Once again you gurgling turd:
Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)
March 10th, 2015 by Zachary Shahan
Based on data from FERC and educated “other solar” (essentially rooftop solar) estimates from CleanTechnica, we’ve found that 90% of new electricity generation capacity added in the United States in January 2015 came from renewable energy sources. To be more precise, 90% came from solar and wind energy.
The largest source of new capacity came from wind energy (54.7%), rooftop solar was second (26.7%), natural gas was third (10.5%), and utility-scale solar PV brought the rest (8.1%).
Renewables did very well in January 2014 as well. Solar and wind accounted for 94%, while all renewables accounted for 99.9%.
For all of 2014, solar and wind energy accounted for 55% of new US electricity generation capacity, while all renewables together accounted for 57% of new US electricity generation capacity. Natural gas accounted for 42%, coal accounted for 0.6%, nuclear for 0.4%, and oil for 0.3%.
Of course, it’s great to see renewables accounting for the majority of electricity generation capacity growth. Comparing new capacity to cumulative installed capacity (essentially, every power plant in the US that can produce electricity), a couple of key points come out:
- Renewables are still a small portion of our electricity mix. (Wind = 5.6% and solar = 1.4%, together coming to 7%. All renewables combined = 17.2%.)
- The trend is very clearly toward renewables.
Coals dead!!! Wind and solar makes up the majority of new energy.
Not sure what else you'd expect when dems have pretty much banned the building of any other kind of power plant.
In which case why is there no oil or coal found on mountain tops?
Why is there no oil or coal that dates back 4.5 billion years?
If you had one less IQ point we would have to water you every week.
"on mountain tops"?Once again you gurgling turd:
If your fallacious claim of abiosis was true then oil should be found on mountain tops just as easily as it can be found in deep holes. And no, the depth of the hole is no indicator of the age of when it was formed.
The theory of abiosis has been thorougly debunked.
Abiotic oil - RationalWiki
No oil company has ever successfully found a well using the theory and it is generally considered pseudoscience on the order of global warming denialism.[3] It originated in the Soviet Union, its major scientific supporters worked in Russia, and it has never gained a following anywhere outside the Soviet Union. Having largely passed with the USSR, it occasionally makes a comeback among less intellectual conservative elements,[4] where it is used as an excuse to continue ignoring the energy crisis of the future.[5] Russian creationists also favour it.
However I am not in the least surprised to discover that someone who would steal the valor of the US Marine Corps would be dumb enough to believe a old communist lie too.
From the evidence I have seen, there is a good chance that a small amount of oil is abiotic. However, the evidence also points to 99%+ being of biotic origin. Abiotic or biotic, the result of burning it in the atmosphere is the same, a warming atmosphere from the creation of
GHG's.
I am quite sure your world view is formed by silly TV shows. However, for those of us with some intellect, textbooks provide better explanations.
In which case why is there no oil or coal found on mountain tops?
Why is there no oil or coal that dates back 4.5 billion years?
If you had one less IQ point we would have to water you every week.
"on mountain tops"?Once again you gurgling turd:
If your fallacious claim of abiosis was true then oil should be found on mountain tops just as easily as it can be found in deep holes. And no, the depth of the hole is no indicator of the age of when it was formed.
The theory of abiosis has been thorougly debunked.
Abiotic oil - RationalWiki
No oil company has ever successfully found a well using the theory and it is generally considered pseudoscience on the order of global warming denialism.[3] It originated in the Soviet Union, its major scientific supporters worked in Russia, and it has never gained a following anywhere outside the Soviet Union. Having largely passed with the USSR, it occasionally makes a comeback among less intellectual conservative elements,[4] where it is used as an excuse to continue ignoring the energy crisis of the future.[5] Russian creationists also favour it.
However I am not in the least surprised to discover that someone who would steal the valor of the US Marine Corps would be dumb enough to believe a old communist lie too.
It's always amazing to me to watch people who claim to believe in science, engage in anti-scientific arguments.
Abiotic oil has not be "debunked". It was never proven. There's a difference. Science is the act of questioning and testing.
The fact that RationalWiki is your sole source for claiming it was debunked, while your source itself attacks people who dare to question, is the most un-scientific action a person can take.
A rational person considers all the theories, not just those that fit their orthodox dogma.
Galileo was killed because he dared to question the leaders of the conventional wisdom of the day. Here you are attacking people because they dare to question the conventional wisdom of today. Which side of science are you and your rationalwiki friends really on?
Here's the facts. Abiotic oil has not been proven, and tests thus far have come up false. However, biogenic origins has also not been proved. The evidence collected thus far to date, does indicate a biogenic origin.
It is entirely possible that at some point, it will be proven that oil has biogenic orgins, and that abiotic oil does not exist.
Of course, that involves actual science, not some dogmatic religious nuts, accusing anyone who dares question the origins of oil, a heretic in the name of "rationality".
I am quite sure your world view is formed by silly TV shows. However, for those of us with some intellect, textbooks provide better explanations.
Right, and that was the exact argument used back in the Galileo days. All the orthodox text books said the world was flat. Today all the text books say that all oil is from biogenic sources.
Again, claiming that only *YOU* and your friend have intellect, simply because you believe the conventional wisdom, and attack everyone who questions it as hertics to the orthodoxy, just makes you part of the group that killed Galileo.
A person really interested in science would more rationally conclude there is as yet no evidence for the proclaimed hypothesis. That's a fair statement, and one that can be scientifically supported.
"I'm smart because I believe what the books say, and everyone else who questions it is dumb", that's religious arrogance and snobbery, NOT science. Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on.
I am quite sure your world view is formed by silly TV shows. However, for those of us with some intellect, textbooks provide better explanations.
Right, and that was the exact argument used back in the Galileo days. All the orthodox text books said the world was flat. Today all the text books say that all oil is from biogenic sources.
Again, claiming that only *YOU* and your friend have intellect, simply because you believe the conventional wisdom, and attack everyone who questions it as hertics to the orthodoxy, just makes you part of the group that killed Galileo.
A person really interested in science would more rationally conclude there is as yet no evidence for the proclaimed hypothesis. That's a fair statement, and one that can be scientifically supported.
"I'm smart because I believe what the books say, and everyone else who questions it is dumb", that's religious arrogance and snobbery, NOT science. Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on.
No one "killed Galileo".
Strike 1!
"A person really interested in science" would actually do their homework and would know that the theory has been around for almost 140 years without ever finding a single oil well or producing any actual oil even after a century of time and who knows how many billions spent on commercial oil exploration.
Strike 2!
"Just understand which side of science you have placed yourself on" is ironic given that you have just placed yourself on the crackpot side.
Strike 3!
In which case why is there no oil or coal found on mountain tops?
Why is there no oil or coal that dates back 4.5 billion years?
If you had one less IQ point we would have to water you every week.
"on mountain tops"?Once again you gurgling turd:
If your fallacious claim of abiosis was true then oil should be found on mountain tops just as easily as it can be found in deep holes. And no, the depth of the hole is no indicator of the age of when it was formed.
The theory of abiosis has been thorougly debunked.
Abiotic oil - RationalWiki
No oil company has ever successfully found a well using the theory and it is generally considered pseudoscience on the order of global warming denialism.[3] It originated in the Soviet Union, its major scientific supporters worked in Russia, and it has never gained a following anywhere outside the Soviet Union. Having largely passed with the USSR, it occasionally makes a comeback among less intellectual conservative elements,[4] where it is used as an excuse to continue ignoring the energy crisis of the future.[5] Russian creationists also favour it.
However I am not in the least surprised to discover that someone who would steal the valor of the US Marine Corps would be dumb enough to believe a old communist lie too.
It's always amazing to me to watch people who claim to believe in science, engage in anti-scientific arguments.
Abiotic oil has not be "debunked". It was never proven. There's a difference. Science is the act of questioning and testing.
The fact that RationalWiki is your sole source for claiming it was debunked, while your source itself attacks people who dare to question, is the most un-scientific action a person can take.
A rational person considers all the theories, not just those that fit their orthodox dogma.
Galileo was killed because he dared to question the leaders of the conventional wisdom of the day. Here you are attacking people because they dare to question the conventional wisdom of today. Which side of science are you and your rationalwiki friends really on?
Here's the facts. Abiotic oil has not been proven, and tests thus far have come up false. However, biogenic origins has also not been proved. The evidence collected thus far to date, does indicate a biogenic origin.
It is entirely possible that at some point, it will be proven that oil has biogenic orgins, and that abiotic oil does not exist.
Of course, that involves actual science, not some dogmatic religious nuts, accusing anyone who dares question the origins of oil, a heretic in the name of "rationality".
The onus is on those who make the claim about abiosis to prove that it is valid when called upon.
Furthermore I find it ironic that you admitted that abiosis was nothing more than baseless theory and then proceeded to attack me while decrying attacking people.
