An old and controversial theory on the origins of oil and gas may be gaining a foothold, suggesting limitless supplies.
Yes, they changed the site. However, use the link above and then do a search for deep earth , and you’ll find the article *Does Deep Earth Host Untapped Fuel? *The link directed me to a page that does not exist.
If that’s true, then “virtually no experts” should be able to explain why hydrocarbons are present on other planets.Here’s the line from the article that caught my eye, in addressing the theory that hydrocarbons are continually replenished:
It should be said at this point that virtually no experts believe that to be the case.
His comment was no different, in substance, than mine. You’re singling him out.Burger, your frequent use of ad hominems does nothing to further the discussion.
Though I believe his posts have been more inflammatory and blatantly insulting than yours, I’d rather not debate semantics, so I’ll be fair and extend my admonition to you as well.His comment was no different, in substance, than mine.
You’re singling him out.
Let’s figure this out by following the discussion back a bit…the source of this post was that we were talking about the development of oil based energy technology…I’ll just repost it for your convenience…When did I say that I didn’t support private entrepreneurs and am unwilling to “take the risk”? Private enterprise’s ingenuity is essential to achieving this goal, and I actually plan to enter a field that will contribute to the transition.
You replied…Originally Posted by Oscarthecat
Domestic oil is all that is necessary to become independent from foreign oil.
And then I said…But why should we feed our addiction to an unsustainable resource? Diverting time and money away from the development of renewable energies is completely myopic.
to which you responded…I’m not telling anyone they can’t go and pursue other technologies.
I just don’t want political forces to pressure people to use inferior developing technology when better technologies are already available.
It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy:
So here’s where you ran into problems in your logic.We reject currently inferior technology, so there’s less impetus to develop it because nobody is willing to use it, and therefore it never actually becomes superior–which we once again use as an excuse to reject it.
Right, that’s why people rejected computers, cars, airplanes…those were all inferior to existing technology at the time of their inception. If it wasn’t for the risk taken by PRIVATE ENTREPRENEURS, those technologies would have gone back in the box. Similarly, the boat-car, the personal flying car, and other failed technologies have been funded by private entrepreneurs, and have failed- and we manage to get along just fine without them.
Which leads us to the quote at the top of this post…But you don’t want private entrepreneurs, and you certainly don’t want to take the risk on yourself…so instead you force me to take the risk of funding new technologies by diverting tax money to your pet cause.
In all seriousness, every possible reference to people who think that way seems derogatory to me- so I try to use the sillier ones to take the edge off a little bit.I know you enjoy labeling me a “greeny,” but you seriously need to stop making so many assumptions in your posts.
Wow, so you’re saying that because I believe that politicians and multinational corporations are manipulating science for their own personal gain, that I’m gluttonous and addicted to money and material items.I have returned, and I have chosen a side.
I really do believe that those who are against global warming are:
A) Guilty of Gluttony
B) Addicted to money and material items.
Environmental awareness and responsibility, reducing our carbon footprint, is a lot like walking the narrow path. It restricts us from purchasing material items and forces us to find better alternatives.
For example, instead of driving to the store which is 15 minutes away, walk. And on your way, take your time, smell the roses and look around. Admire the Lord’s creation, reflect upon his sacrifice andbe thankful that you’ve been given another oppertunity to sacrifice, for him.
God wouldn’t have created the world as he has if he didn’t think we’d be responsible and care for his creation. We are called to do so too. “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” Genesis 2: 15 (NIV)
Further more, you’re an interesting character to not trust scientists, your fellow man and brethren. If you really didn’t trust them, then you really ought to be Amish because nearly everything you use was created and perfected by scientists. You go to the doctor and the dentist, both are scientists. Why do you go against scientists who provide you with the oppertunity of sacrifice? Scientists aren’t evil persons who pervert the truth, science and faith go hand in hand and it’s foolishness to seperate them.
I’ve already given you Biblical evidence (faith) and it shouldn’t be too hard to discover the science.
Finally, just because it’s a trend in society doesn’t mean it’s wrong. If all of society believed in Christ, would you then stop believing because everyone else was believing?
Thank you, I can only ask that people are fair. :getholy:Though I believe his posts have been more inflammatory and blatantly insulting than yours, I’d rather not debate semantics, so I’ll be fair and extend my admonition to you as well.
I had a funny feeling you’d find my opinion baseless and illogical. (it is simply an opinion, after all) And so I request your permission to simply discuss scientific fact and religious fact without interpretation of the poster. Just the fact, and allowing those facts to speak for themselves, just as the truth does. So if you’re willing, I’d like to atleast try to do it. Who knows, you might be right after all.Wow, so you’re saying that because I believe that politicians and multinational corporations are manipulating science for their own personal gain, that I’m gluttonous and addicted to money and material items.
I have really considered where to even begin in picking apart your post, but your post is so baseless and illogical that I don’t even know where to begin.
Suffice it to say, your comments are not only completely misguided and inaccurate, they are outright offensive…but even worse, you make me doubt whether there really is any hope for human beings to overcome the ingenious marketing scheme that is the global warming conspiracy.
I hope you really reconsider your position. If your interest is with the moral considerations of the global warming debate, I think you should begin by looking at whether the global warming camp views the Catholic Church’s positions on euthanasia and birth control, or maybe you should investigate the role multinational corporations have had in shaping the environmental movement over the years. You might also want to look into how the scientists you think we should trust so much get their funding- and while you’re at it, just read a few of the dissenting scientific positions, many of which which explain how and why mainstream science has backed the global warming movement with all its twists and turns over the years.
If you still disagree with me after all that, then at least have the courtesy to get down off your high horse and retract your offensive blanket judgments of those who disagree with you.
Ok, fine, let’s look at your post a little bit after all…I had a funny feeling you’d find my opinion baseless and illogical. (it is simply an opinion, after all) And so I request your permission to simply discuss scientific fact and religious fact without interpretation of the poster. Just the fact, and allowing those facts to speak for themselves, just as the truth does. So if you’re willing, I’d like to atleast try to do it. Who knows, you might be right after all.
I have no problem with considering ourselves stewards of the earth.Environmental awareness and responsibility, reducing our carbon footprint, is a lot like walking the narrow path. It restricts us from purchasing material items and forces us to find better alternatives.
Yes, this is fine too- but it has nothing to do with the environmental movement- people of all faiths have been encouraging a more contemplative lifestyle for thousands of years…this is not new idea, certainly not one that is exclusive to environmentalists, naturalists, or anyone else in the “green” movement.For example, instead of driving to the store which is 15 minutes away, walk. And on your way, take your time, smell the roses and look around. Admire the Lord’s creation, reflect upon his sacrifice andbe thankful that you’ve been given another oppertunity to sacrifice, for him.
Yes, we are called to be stewards of creation.God wouldn’t have created the world as he has if he didn’t think we’d be responsible and care for his creation. We are called to do so too. “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” Genesis 2: 15 (NIV)
I admire your optimism, but you might want to consider Ephesians 5:6.Further more, you’re an interesting character to not trust scientists, your fellow man and brethren. If you really didn’t trust them, then you really ought to be Amish because nearly everything you use was created and perfected by scientists. You go to the doctor and the dentist, both are scientists. Why do you go against scientists who provide you with the oppertunity of sacrifice? Scientists aren’t evil persons who pervert the truth, science and faith go hand in hand and it’s foolishness to seperate them.
A couple of cherry picked quotes from the bible does not constitute biblical evidence.I’ve already given you Biblical evidence (faith)
No one has been able to do this yet.and it shouldn’t be too hard to discover the science.
We ought to examine everything based on its own merit- people are more likely to be swept up in trends without sufficient examination because they want to be popular, or accepted, or don’t have the presence of self to challenge the majority.Finally, just because it’s a trend in society doesn’t mean it’s wrong. If all of society believed in Christ, would you then stop believing because everyone else was believing?
What would you suggest would be proper stewardship of creation?Yes, we are called to be stewards of creation.
No, we are not called to care for creation in the way that environmentalists tell us to, because their primary interest might not actually be the proper care of creation.
Consider, as an example, my previous posts on the fact that shoddy environmental policies in Australia and California, which were spearheaded by environmental lobbyists, actually set the stage for the massive fires that destroyed so much of God’s creation in California and Australia.
In those cases, proper stewardship of creation would have been to reject the dominant scientific recommendations of how to properly manage forests and undergrowth in those areas, and instead allow periodic controlled burns of select forested areas, as people have been doing for years
You make a good point here, so I agree and withdraw previous statements regarding this.I admire your optimism, but you might want to consider Ephesians 5:6.
Why on earth would Paul warn against being deceived by our fellow man and brethren?? Was he telling us to be Amish? I don’t think so. I think that the apostle was aware that human beings may occasionally try to deceive one another.
Actually, I believe it to be more insidious than that. Not so much that individual politicians are hoping to get relected and draw voter support through pushing global warming initiatives. I don’t know how much of an affect on voter turnout is for reelecting a politician because they promised incentives on ‘green goods’. Rather, it is more of a means for the rulers to ultimately push their agenda of population control. This means limits on family size, extermination, forced abortion, etc…What I do have a problem with is the development of a socio-economic-political movement spearheaded by politicians and multinational corporations telling us how to do this when their primary motivation has more to do with getting votes and money than stewardship. Politicians pass legislation that gives particular “green” technologies artificially inflated value, and in turn the owners of those technologies help those politicians get re-elected. It is a simple, but vicious, cycle that has been going on for years.
Look. A link was posted to a news story about a theory of unlimited hydrocarbons that the article itself acknowledged was not believed by any of the experts.If that’s true, then “virtually no experts” should be able to explain why hydrocarbons are present on other planets.
The issue isn’t that biological hydrocarbons exist- the issue is that they exist alongside abiological hydrocarbons. To date, we simply haven’t taken the time to figure out which oil deposits are which.
Incidentally, you’re going to need to inform the scientists working on the following project that they are virtually not experts in their field…you can find them at the NASA Astrobiology Unit.
america.gov/st/washfile-english/2004/September/20040914120334lcnirellep0.7720453.html
Just for fun, I thought I would repost this minus the insults:for Michaelo–I’ve presented plenty of facts. Maybe you have an elementary math problem. When the temperature is less than the year before that means the earth is cooling. As a Catholic I’ve presented plenty of sacred Scripture. How aobut the fact that Jesus said there will be earthquake activity representing birthpangs into Tribulation. How about the famines Jesus talked about? Famines are caused by global cooling not global warming. The Pope has told us we should strart reading the Bible. Maybe if you read what Jesus said instead of Al Gore you might make more sense. How about your comment that the increase in ice is caused by global warming. I will challenge you to present your argument based on Scripture. Do you know the difference between an apostolic Catholic and a social Catholic?
A famine can be caused by unusually hot weather. As regarding the temperature in 2008, it has nothing to do with the bigger trend. Just as we cannot assume that the warming we have been experiencing recently is not par for the course. We simply do not have the available data to make a definitive call one way or another.for Michaelo–I’ve presented plenty of facts. Maybe you have an elementary math problem. When the temperature is less than the year before that means the earth is cooling. As a Catholic I’ve presented plenty of sacred Scripture. How aobut the fact that Jesus said there will be earthquake activity representing birthpangs into Tribulation. How about the famines Jesus talked about? Famines are caused by global cooling not global warming. The Pope has told us we should strart reading the Bible. Maybe if you read what Jesus said instead of Al Gore you might make more sense. How about your comment that the increase in ice is caused by global warming. I will challenge you to present your argument based on Scripture. Do you know the difference between an apostolic Catholic and a social Catholic?
Could you post the direct quote from the article that supports your claim?Look. A link was posted to a news story about a theory of unlimited hydrocarbons that the article itself acknowledged was not believed by any of the experts.
Dr. Henry Scott, of Indiana University South Bend, related the significance of the experiments to conventional hydrocarbon resources: “Although it is well-established that commercial petroleum originates from the decay of once-living organisms, these results support the possibility that the deep Earth may produce abiogenic hydrocarbons of its own.”
“This paper is important,” remarked Dr. Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton who reviewed the study. “Not because it settles the question whether the origin of natural gas and petroleum is organic or inorganic, but because it gives us tools to attack the question experimentally. If the answer turns out to be inorganic, this has huge implications for the ecology and economy of our planet as well as for the chemistry of other planets.”
“This paper is important,” remarked Dr. Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton who reviewed the study. “Not because it settles the question whether the origin of natural gas and petroleum is organic or inorganic, but because it gives us tools to attack the question experimentally. If the answer turns out to be inorganic, this has huge implications for the ecology and economy of our planet as well as for the chemistry of other planets.”
I bet you vehemently opposed Bush’s 2005 Energy Bill:My point was that people should be free to pursue whatever technology they want to, without government interference of any kind-- which means that the government shouldn’t directly stifle a technology by banning or restricting it, nor should it stifle one technology by giving financial support to another, nor should it artificially bolster an inferior tech by pumping taxpayer dollars into it.
OIL & GAS SUBSIDIES: $6 BILLION
Section 1329
Allows “geological and geophysical” costs associated with oil exploration to be written off faster than present law, costing taxpayers over $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. The provision claims to raise $292 million from 2005-06, and cost taxpayers $1.266 billion from 2007-2015. It originated in the House (there was no such provision in the original Senate bill).
Section 1323
Allows owners of oil refineries to expense 50% of the costs of equipment used to increase the refinery’s capacity by at least 5%, costing taxpayers $842 million from 2006-11 (the estimate claims the provision will actually raise $436 million from 2012-15). This provision was added by the Senate.
sourceTitle IX, Subtitle J
This section would provide $1.5 billion in direct payments to oil and natural gas corporations to drill in deepwater wells. This section is a pet project of Texas Republican and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. It would designate a private entity, Sugar Land-based Texas Energy Center, as the “program consortium” to dole out taxpayer money to corporations.
You present a false dichotomy. Why can’t both the government and private enterprise fund technological development? A true free market is a theoretical economic system, and it’s completely unrealistic to expect a sector as vital as energy to be completely devoid of government intervention.This is where you have to make a choice, because there are only two choices when it comes to how to fund the development of new technologies- either you fund them through private sources (individuals and corporations) or you fund them through public sources (the government).
Private enterprise is primarily concerned with which technologies are currently economically expedient, so the government ought to help develop tech that has foreseeable long-term benefits.Private sources are only interested in getting a return on their investment, because these investments are their primary source of income, so they will only support technologies that appear viable and superior, because those products are profitable.