Renewable Energy = 90% Of New US Electricity Generation Capacity In January (Exclusive)

[Andylusion]

Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.

When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry. Magically they all had oil.

Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow. There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil. Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it. They're just happy they are making money again. I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is. (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).

Who knows. But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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!

True. He was only held under house arrest until he died. But no one directly murdered the man.

Doesn't really change what I said.

True, the theory has existed for a long time, and money has been spent exploring the theory.

In your world, does the fact that it was tested, and was not proven true, mean that it was proven false?

For centuries people said flying couldn't be done. The equivalent of millions of dollars were spent to try and fly. Then some idiots from North Carolina, apparently missed the dogma in the text books, and built a plane. Heretics.

False. I have no idea if abiotic oil is real or not. We certainly haven't found any, at least not in anything verifiable yet.

See, I'm open to the idea there are things I don't know. *YOU* on the other hand, have closed off your mind, and adopting a religious dogma. You are the anti-science person here, not me. Science is the questioning and testing of the world around us. You have adopted the religious fanatic position of simply attacking anyone that questions anything.

True. He was only held under house arrest until he died. But no one directly murdered the man.

Doesn't really change what I said.

You falsely accused someone of being no different to a killer. That you lack the honesty and integrity to admit when you are wrong says volumes.

True, the theory has existed for a long time, and money has been spent exploring the theory.

In your world, does the fact that it was tested, and was not proven true, mean that it was proven false?

Anyone who knows anything at all about science knows that the process is to come up with a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis against the verifiable facts. The vast majority of hypothesis turn out to be wrong when tested against the facts. The abiosis theory of oil has failed every single test and never yielded a single verifiable positive result.

Every genuine scientist knows that the hypothesis is a failure.

Only a fool ignores the verifiable facts.

 

[Derideo_Te]

For centuries people said flying couldn't be done. The equivalent of millions of dollars were spent to try and fly. Then some idiots from North Carolina, apparently missed the dogma in the text books, and built a plane. Heretics.

Another falsehood!

Mankind was trying to emulate bird flight without understanding the science of power to weight. in 1680 they did the math and figured out that human muscle cannot develop the necessary power. The Montgolier brothers took the first step in the right direction with their hot air balloon back in 1783 after they observed laundry drying over a fire. In 1852 Henri Giffard flew the first steam powered dirigible. In the 1890's gliders were being successfully flown. Sam Langley managed to get steam powered models to successfully fly but he only lacked the horsepower to carry a pilot.

The Wright brothers were the beneficiaries of all that came before them and only someone dishonest would claim that they were ignorant of everything that came before. It was their own father who showed them a toy helicopter that worked with a rubber band when they were just 11 and 7.

Your ignorance is palpable.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.

When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry. Magically they all had oil.

Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow. There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil. Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it. They're just happy they are making money again. I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is. (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).

Who knows. But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.

None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.

It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.

 

[Andylusion]

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!

True. He was only held under house arrest until he died. But no one directly murdered the man.

Doesn't really change what I said.

True, the theory has existed for a long time, and money has been spent exploring the theory.

In your world, does the fact that it was tested, and was not proven true, mean that it was proven false?

For centuries people said flying couldn't be done. The equivalent of millions of dollars were spent to try and fly. Then some idiots from North Carolina, apparently missed the dogma in the text books, and built a plane. Heretics.

False. I have no idea if abiotic oil is real or not. We certainly haven't found any, at least not in anything verifiable yet.

See, I'm open to the idea there are things I don't know. *YOU* on the other hand, have closed off your mind, and adopting a religious dogma. You are the anti-science person here, not me. Science is the questioning and testing of the world around us. You have adopted the religious fanatic position of simply attacking anyone that questions anything.

True. He was only held under house arrest until he died. But no one directly murdered the man.

Doesn't really change what I said.

You falsely accused someone of being no different to a killer. That you lack the honesty and integrity to admit when you are wrong says volumes.

True, the theory has existed for a long time, and money has been spent exploring the theory.

In your world, does the fact that it was tested, and was not proven true, mean that it was proven false?

Anyone who knows anything at all about science knows that the process is to come up with a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis against the verifiable facts. The vast majority of hypothesis turn out to be wrong when tested against the facts. The abiosis theory of oil has failed every single test and never yielded a single verifiable positive result.

Every genuine scientist knows that the hypothesis is a failure.

Only a fool ignores the verifiable facts.

You must have me confused with someone who cares what you think of me. Nothing you said at any point contradicted my statements. All you did was make accusations about me... and I couldn't care less what you think. Never have, never will.

Every "Genuine Scientist"? Every single one? You checked and verified that every single "Genuine Scientist" on the face of this planet all agree? Engaging in hyperbole substitution as fact lately?

I assume you are done here. Thanks for stopping by.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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!

True. He was only held under house arrest until he died. But no one directly murdered the man.

Doesn't really change what I said.

True, the theory has existed for a long time, and money has been spent exploring the theory.

In your world, does the fact that it was tested, and was not proven true, mean that it was proven false?

For centuries people said flying couldn't be done. The equivalent of millions of dollars were spent to try and fly. Then some idiots from North Carolina, apparently missed the dogma in the text books, and built a plane. Heretics.

False. I have no idea if abiotic oil is real or not. We certainly haven't found any, at least not in anything verifiable yet.

See, I'm open to the idea there are things I don't know. *YOU* on the other hand, have closed off your mind, and adopting a religious dogma. You are the anti-science person here, not me. Science is the questioning and testing of the world around us. You have adopted the religious fanatic position of simply attacking anyone that questions anything.

True. He was only held under house arrest until he died. But no one directly murdered the man.

Doesn't really change what I said.

You falsely accused someone of being no different to a killer. That you lack the honesty and integrity to admit when you are wrong says volumes.

True, the theory has existed for a long time, and money has been spent exploring the theory.

In your world, does the fact that it was tested, and was not proven true, mean that it was proven false?

Anyone who knows anything at all about science knows that the process is to come up with a hypothesis and then test that hypothesis against the verifiable facts. The vast majority of hypothesis turn out to be wrong when tested against the facts. The abiosis theory of oil has failed every single test and never yielded a single verifiable positive result.

Every genuine scientist knows that the hypothesis is a failure.

Only a fool ignores the verifiable facts.

You must have me confused with someone who cares what you think of me. Nothing you said at any point contradicted my statements. All you did was make accusations about me... and I couldn't care less what you think. Never have, never will.

Every "Genuine Scientist"? Every single one? You checked and verified that every single "Genuine Scientist" on the face of this planet all agree? Engaging in hyperbole substitution as fact lately?

I assume you are done here. Thanks for stopping by.

Ironic!

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.

When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry. Magically they all had oil.

Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow. There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil. Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it. They're just happy they are making money again. I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is. (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).

Who knows. But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.

None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.

It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.

Ok.... I'm open to your claims. Show me the evidence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.

When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry. Magically they all had oil.

Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow. There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil. Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it. They're just happy they are making money again. I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is. (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).

Who knows. But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.

None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.

It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.

Ok.... I'm open to your claims. Show me the evidence.

Let's start with the very basics instead.

Do you deny those processes actually happened?

Yes or no?

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.

When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry. Magically they all had oil.

Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow. There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil. Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it. They're just happy they are making money again. I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is. (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).

Who knows. But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.

None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.

It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.

Ok.... I'm open to your claims. Show me the evidence.

Let's start with the very basics instead.

Do you deny those processes actually happened?

Yes or no?

I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.

I made a statement: Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.

You made a claim: "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal.

You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin. I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.

Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not? This is how science works. Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof". Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.

Do you have that or not? Yes or no. If 'yes', then provide that evidence.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.

When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry. Magically they all had oil.

Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow. There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil. Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it. They're just happy they are making money again. I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is. (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).

Who knows. But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.

None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.

It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.

Ok.... I'm open to your claims. Show me the evidence.

Let's start with the very basics instead.

Do you deny those processes actually happened?

Yes or no?

I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.

I made a statement: Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.

You made a claim: "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal.

You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin. I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.

Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not? This is how science works. Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof". Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.

Do you have that or not? Yes or no. If 'yes', then provide that evidence.

Onus is on you to prove that abiotic oil exists. No oil company has ever claimed to have found and/or pumped abiotic oil.

The oil in those dry wells was natural oil that seeped back into the well from the fractures in the surrounding rocks. FYI that is how frakking works too.

So the onus is on you to prove that those wells were pumping abiotic oil.

You have claimed that abiotic oil exists so the onus remains on you to prove that it does. No is expected to prove a negative. That isn't how this works. My statement stands on the fact that no one has ever found and pumped abiotic oil. You need to prove that they have.

 

[eagle1462010]

The EPA backdoor regulations are taking out Coal Burners and under this environment of course you will not see new production of Coal plants because the EPA is trying to put them out of business...............

I recall that we've lost 15% of production of coal over the last 6 years or so..............down to nearly 40% of the overall production of the United States....................

I also read that from the Dept of Energy that utility prices will double in about a decade................aka if you have a $200 dollar electric bill today you will be paying $400 for it 10 years down the road................

Riddle me this.................how much power does a 5000 watt solar system produce in kwh per year.........aka the one's you put on the roof tops.......................and how much does it cost to buy and install....please discount the Federal Credits.............use your math skills for your current cost per Kwh..............then tell me how much you save.............................and then...............................

Tell me how many years for the cost to equal out...................Have fun with it.

 

[eagle1462010]

While you are looking that up............look at your hook up licenses and fees for going to the grid................depending on your state you may be giving the power you pay to produce back to the utility companies....................

Again, enjoy................

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah, I have noticed that here in Ohio, dozens of abandoned oil wells, which ran dry in the 90s, magically started pumping oil again in the late 2000s, when the price was higher.

When the price was high enough, people started going around Ohio, and checking all the wells that were dry. Magically they all had oil.

Either, every single one of them was not really dry, or the wells refilled somehow. There are a number of explanations, only one of which is abiotic oil. Of course, as things stand, few are interested in looking into it. They're just happy they are making money again. I wish someone would research that, and determine what the cause is. (perhaps they have, and I just haven't found the research yet).

Who knows. But of course, to the religious dogmatic left, I'm a crack pot for engaging in scientific theories, instead of mindlessly repeating the text book, which are apparently divine holy tombs.

None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.

It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.

Ok.... I'm open to your claims. Show me the evidence.

Let's start with the very basics instead.

Do you deny those processes actually happened?

Yes or no?

I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.

I made a statement: Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.

You made a claim: "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal.

You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin. I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.

Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not? This is how science works. Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof". Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.

Do you have that or not? Yes or no. If 'yes', then provide that evidence.

Onus is on you to prove that abiotic oil exists. No oil company has ever claimed to have found and/or pumped abiotic oil.

The oil in those dry wells was natural oil that seeped back into the well from the fractures in the surrounding rocks. FYI that is how frakking works too.

So the onus is on you to prove that those wells were pumping abiotic oil.

You have claimed that abiotic oil exists so the onus remains on you to prove that it does. No is expected to prove a negative. That isn't how this works. My statement stands on the fact that no one has ever found and pumped abiotic oil. You need to prove that they have.

Fail again.

Statement "Ohio oil wells that ran dry in the 90s, were turned back on in the 2000s, and there was oil in them."

Claim: "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

Response "Ok, you made a claim, now provide the evidence for the claim YOU made"

"Uh..... its on you to prove aboitic oil exists".....

No.... *YOU*... as in >YOU< made a claim.
Now when asked for the proof of YOUR claim, you want to say it's my job... to prove your claim.... wrong.

I never said the oil in the Ohio wells was from anywhere. In fact I specifically said I didn't know where it came from, and wished someone would look into that.

YOU said the oil was NOT from abiotic sources.

Sorry, you don't get to make claims, and then demand everyone else prove your claims wrong. Again, that's not the scientific method.

Can I claim that you are actually a Russian spy, provide no evidence, and claim YOU have to prove my claim wrong?

Again, all of this just confirms to me, what I already suspected. The left is not for science at all. This is just more inquisition tactics than science. You accuse others of being witches, and demand they prove your claim wrong. Science isn't about creating a theory, calling it divine, and then attacking everyone who questions the theory, and claiming it's everyone else's duty to prove your theory wrong.

No, it's your job to support your own claim. You made a claim, now you can't support it, and so you fall back to dogmatic religion attack method of debate.

 

[Derideo_Te]

None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin. If it was then that would constitute evidence of abiosis. Instead it is merely evidence of known geological forces at work. The pressure in the surrounding rocks squeezes any nearby natural oil into the area where there is the least pressure which just happens to be old oil wells.

It takes an actual knowledge of science to figure that out instead of just believing in the abiosis fairy like you and the thief of the US Marine Corp valor do.

Ok.... I'm open to your claims. Show me the evidence.

Let's start with the very basics instead.

Do you deny those processes actually happened?

Yes or no?

I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.

I made a statement: Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.

You made a claim: "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal.

You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin. I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.

Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not? This is how science works. Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof". Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.

Do you have that or not? Yes or no. If 'yes', then provide that evidence.

Onus is on you to prove that abiotic oil exists. No oil company has ever claimed to have found and/or pumped abiotic oil.

The oil in those dry wells was natural oil that seeped back into the well from the fractures in the surrounding rocks. FYI that is how frakking works too.

So the onus is on you to prove that those wells were pumping abiotic oil.

You have claimed that abiotic oil exists so the onus remains on you to prove that it does. No is expected to prove a negative. That isn't how this works. My statement stands on the fact that no one has ever found and pumped abiotic oil. You need to prove that they have.

Fail again.

Statement "Ohio oil wells that ran dry in the 90s, were turned back on in the 2000s, and there was oil in them."

Claim: "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

Response "Ok, you made a claim, now provide the evidence for the claim YOU made"

"Uh..... its on you to prove aboitic oil exists".....

No.... *YOU*... as in >YOU< made a claim.
Now when asked for the proof of YOUR claim, you want to say it's my job... to prove your claim.... wrong.

I never said the oil in the Ohio wells was from anywhere. In fact I specifically said I didn't know where it came from, and wished someone would look into that.

YOU said the oil was NOT from abiotic sources.

Sorry, you don't get to make claims, and then demand everyone else prove your claims wrong. Again, that's not the scientific method.

Can I claim that you are actually a Russian spy, provide no evidence, and claim YOU have to prove my claim wrong?

Again, all of this just confirms to me, what I already suspected. The left is not for science at all. This is just more inquisition tactics than science. You accuse others of being witches, and demand they prove your claim wrong. Science isn't about creating a theory, calling it divine, and then attacking everyone who questions the theory, and claiming it's everyone else's duty to prove your theory wrong.

No, it's your job to support your own claim. You made a claim, now you can't support it, and so you fall back to dogmatic religion attack method of debate.

Your semantic squirming is risible.

And having tacitly admitted that you cannot prove your position you have become nothing but a time suck.

Have a nice day.

 

[Andylusion]

Ok.... I'm open to your claims. Show me the evidence.

Let's start with the very basics instead.

Do you deny those processes actually happened?

Yes or no?

I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.

I made a statement: Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.

You made a claim: "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal.

You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin. I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.

Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not? This is how science works. Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof". Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.

Do you have that or not? Yes or no. If 'yes', then provide that evidence.

Onus is on you to prove that abiotic oil exists. No oil company has ever claimed to have found and/or pumped abiotic oil.

The oil in those dry wells was natural oil that seeped back into the well from the fractures in the surrounding rocks. FYI that is how frakking works too.

So the onus is on you to prove that those wells were pumping abiotic oil.

You have claimed that abiotic oil exists so the onus remains on you to prove that it does. No is expected to prove a negative. That isn't how this works. My statement stands on the fact that no one has ever found and pumped abiotic oil. You need to prove that they have.

Fail again.

Statement "Ohio oil wells that ran dry in the 90s, were turned back on in the 2000s, and there was oil in them."

Claim: "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

Response "Ok, you made a claim, now provide the evidence for the claim YOU made"

"Uh..... its on you to prove aboitic oil exists".....

No.... *YOU*... as in >YOU< made a claim.
Now when asked for the proof of YOUR claim, you want to say it's my job... to prove your claim.... wrong.

I never said the oil in the Ohio wells was from anywhere. In fact I specifically said I didn't know where it came from, and wished someone would look into that.

YOU said the oil was NOT from abiotic sources.

Sorry, you don't get to make claims, and then demand everyone else prove your claims wrong. Again, that's not the scientific method.

Can I claim that you are actually a Russian spy, provide no evidence, and claim YOU have to prove my claim wrong?

Again, all of this just confirms to me, what I already suspected. The left is not for science at all. This is just more inquisition tactics than science. You accuse others of being witches, and demand they prove your claim wrong. Science isn't about creating a theory, calling it divine, and then attacking everyone who questions the theory, and claiming it's everyone else's duty to prove your theory wrong.

No, it's your job to support your own claim. You made a claim, now you can't support it, and so you fall back to dogmatic religion attack method of debate.

Your semantic squirming is risible.

And having tacitly admitted that you cannot prove your position you have become nothing but a time suck.

Have a nice day.

Semantic? You made a claim... you can't back your claim... when asked to provide evidence to support your claim, you told me that I have to prove my claim.

I didn't make a claim. You made a claim. If you don't know English, that's not my fault.

I don't have a position that needs proved. You do. You made the claim. Listen... I've been very generous with you. I've played your little games up to this point.

From here on.... you either put up or shut up. And I will shut you up. It's called the ignore feature. It makes you cease to exist. When I put you on ignore, I'll never even know you are still on this forum.

If that's what you want, then keep being an idiot. Now if you want to debate.... then debate. YOU made a claim. Back your claim. This is absolutely your last chance to provide the slightest hint of intelligence. You fail this... I mute you, and you never exist again. Deal? Ok.

Provide evidence that proves the oil from the ohio wells was absolutely not from abiotic origins.

I'm waiting.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Let's start with the very basics instead.

Do you deny those processes actually happened?

Yes or no?

I'm sorry, you failed to follow how debate works.

I made a statement: Oil wells in Ohio that had run dry, were turned back on in the mid 2000s, and were discovered to have oil.

You made a claim: "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

I'm not asking you for what the text books say is the source for oil or coal.

You made a claim that the oil pumped from the Ohio wells, was not of abiotic origin. I want DIRECT PROOF that the oil pumped out of OHIO WELLS, is absolutely not of abiotic origin.

Do you have that evidence to support your claim or not? This is how science works. Science is not pulling out a book and saying "this is proof". Science is showing the actual evidence to support the claims made.

Do you have that or not? Yes or no. If 'yes', then provide that evidence.

Onus is on you to prove that abiotic oil exists. No oil company has ever claimed to have found and/or pumped abiotic oil.

The oil in those dry wells was natural oil that seeped back into the well from the fractures in the surrounding rocks. FYI that is how frakking works too.

So the onus is on you to prove that those wells were pumping abiotic oil.

You have claimed that abiotic oil exists so the onus remains on you to prove that it does. No is expected to prove a negative. That isn't how this works. My statement stands on the fact that no one has ever found and pumped abiotic oil. You need to prove that they have.

Fail again.

Statement "Ohio oil wells that ran dry in the 90s, were turned back on in the 2000s, and there was oil in them."

Claim: "None of the oil subsequently removed from those well is of abiotic origin"

Response "Ok, you made a claim, now provide the evidence for the claim YOU made"

"Uh..... its on you to prove aboitic oil exists".....

No.... *YOU*... as in >YOU< made a claim.
Now when asked for the proof of YOUR claim, you want to say it's my job... to prove your claim.... wrong.

I never said the oil in the Ohio wells was from anywhere. In fact I specifically said I didn't know where it came from, and wished someone would look into that.

YOU said the oil was NOT from abiotic sources.

Sorry, you don't get to make claims, and then demand everyone else prove your claims wrong. Again, that's not the scientific method.

Can I claim that you are actually a Russian spy, provide no evidence, and claim YOU have to prove my claim wrong?

Again, all of this just confirms to me, what I already suspected. The left is not for science at all. This is just more inquisition tactics than science. You accuse others of being witches, and demand they prove your claim wrong. Science isn't about creating a theory, calling it divine, and then attacking everyone who questions the theory, and claiming it's everyone else's duty to prove your theory wrong.

No, it's your job to support your own claim. You made a claim, now you can't support it, and so you fall back to dogmatic religion attack method of debate.

Your semantic squirming is risible.

And having tacitly admitted that you cannot prove your position you have become nothing but a time suck.

Have a nice day.

Semantic? You made a claim... you can't back your claim... when asked to provide evidence to support your claim, you told me that I have to prove my claim.

I didn't make a claim. You made a claim. If you don't know English, that's not my fault.

I don't have a position that needs proved. You do. You made the claim. Listen... I've been very generous with you. I've played your little games up to this point.

From here on.... you either put up or shut up. And I will shut you up. It's called the ignore feature. It makes you cease to exist. When I put you on ignore, I'll never even know you are still on this forum.

If that's what you want, then keep being an idiot. Now if you want to debate.... then debate. YOU made a claim. Back your claim. This is absolutely your last chance to provide the slightest hint of intelligence. You fail this... I mute you, and you never exist again. Deal? Ok.

Provide evidence that proves the oil from the ohio wells was absolutely not from abiotic origins.

I'm waiting.

Resorting to mindless insults is always a tacit admission of failure on your part!

Feel free to put me on ignore. It won't stop me mocking your ignorance and failures in the future.

Have a nice day.

 

[Andylusion]

Feel free to put me on ignore.

Done. You have decided to prove to everyone you are incapable of rational intelligent discussion of the topics, and are therefore no longer worthy to have any contact or communication with me.

Congrats! You will never see me respond to you again, and I won't miss you. If you can't grasp that you have to back your own claims, before making demands of others, than you have no value to anyone for anything. Have a nice life. I know I will without wasting my time with you again. Good bye troll.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If it is so dumb...Why is it being the installion of choice for such a high percentage of energy needs. Reality says you're wrong.

 

[eagle1462010]

If it is so dumb...Why is it being the installion of choice for such a high percentage of energy needs. Reality says you're wrong.

The Reality is that the EPA is killing Coal, just as Obama said he would................Not through Congress but through the back door.

Our Congress shot down Kyoto..............shot down Cap and Trade.........even with a super Majority of Dems...............and yet they still push to kill all fossil fuels......................It's not supply and demand pushing it............It's the Gov't pushing it.............while killing Coal which used to provide 55% of America's power........now down to 40% and dropping.

You care to take a stab at my previous questions........tell me the KWH output for the question...........and how long it will take to save enough to get the investment back...............If your smart you'll remain silent on that one.

 

[Andylusion]

If it is so dumb...Why is it being the installion of choice for such a high percentage of energy needs. Reality says you're wrong.

Because it's funded by government. The method by which you can tell that any given economic activity is profitable and desirable in the market, is when you have a completely level, unbiased market, and people still choose to purchase the given item.

The moment you fundamentally change the market, you can no longer assume anything from the outcomes.

Take a theoretical example. Say the government decided to subsidize the BMW X3 SUV. The cost is $44K, and they subsidize $40K. The suv now costs $4,000. I would assume we both can agree that Everyone, everywhere, would be buying BMW X3s. Old people, young people, lower class, upper class, everyone would be buying a BMW X3.

Well obviously it's the best car that has ever existed. Everyone is buying it. Clearly the market has spoken.

No, actually, that's not true. The market is distorted by government policy.

The reason why solar panels, or wind mills, are being built at all, is specifically, and exclusively because the government is paying them to do it. That's all there is to it.

The government is taxing *YOU* and taking your money, and giving it to BP, to make solar panels.

Solar panel company pocketing govt subsidy cash intended for homeowners Hot Air

Take a look at this....

This is Lyndon Rive, in his high end luxury sports car. He'd like to thank you.

Lyndon R. Rive Executive Profile Biography - Businessweek

Lyndon Rive collects ONLY... $276K dollars a year in cash. And his net worth, is ONLY $107 Million dollars in stock.

Stock in his company SolarCity.

But there is an interesting factoid about SolarCity. SolarCity, to this day, has a negative profit margin.

SCTY Key Statistics SolarCity Corporation Stock - Yahoo Finance

How can this be? How can this CEO, have a $107 Million networth, in stock in a $5 Billion dollar company....... and yet not make a profit?

Well Matthew..... Rive would like to let you know, it's all because of you... yes, you and those like you, and all the tax payers who are forced to pay taxes to fund the green-energy policies you support.

That's right Mr Matthew..... we are subsidizing Mr Rive.

Solar panel company pocketing govt subsidy cash intended for homeowners Hot Air

See, even though they are losing money on the leases of solar panels, the government through green-energy subsidies, is paying SolarCity for every single solar panel out there. While Mr Rive is driving his luxury sports car, while the company is losing quite literally millions of dollars every single month, the tax payer.... YOU Matthew, are keeping his company subsidized with money.

Of course I love the idea of greeny-leftists paying super wealthy millionaires to drive around in their sports cars. The only problem is, the damage you people do, effects all of us. So unfortunately... all of us are paying Rive to drive his luxury sports car, thanks to your idiotic governmental policies.

I really do want a public referendum. The referendum, would be that only those who support subsidies to the rich, would pay the taxes to fund those subsidies, and the rest of us would be exempt. But typical leftist view.... they can't just screw themselves over, they have to screw everyone with them.