So much for a Nissan Leaf!

[Loren49]

You have missed the point, you think all the oil that was produced is finite and what there is it, and that the process has stopped. That is wrong, the process continues. HS

Would you please quit making up things that I have done or think?

My quote from post #322 in response to another of your claims:
"Your definition of renewable does not match its accepted definition.

"The rate at which financially viable fossil fuels have been extracted in the past 100 years far exceeds what has been created in the past 100 years."

"Fossil fuels could be depleted while renewable's can not. The amount of electricity produced by solar/wind today in no way effects how much can be produced in the future."

I hope you understand that my statement should be interpreted that I believe the process continued over the past 100 years. Did you bother to read my post? It is very unlikely that a process that took place over many millions of years would not be continuing. You just made up the claim.

Kinda like me asking you if you plan to quit beating your wife??? :confused2:

I do believe that the amount of "affordable" fossil fuel is realistically finite. As it becomes more costly (both direct and indirect) renewables or other alternatives with continue to gain favor.

Loren

 

[houstonscott]

Would you please quit making up things that I have done or think? My quote from post #322 in response to another of your claims: "Your definition of renewable does not match its accepted definition. "The rate at which financially viable fossil fuels have been extracted in the past 100 years far exceeds what has been created in the past 100 years." "Fossil fuels could be depleted while renewable's can not. The amount of electricity produced by solar/wind today in no way effects how much can be produced in the future." I hope you understand that my statement should be interpreted that I believe the process continued over the past 100 years. Did you bother to read my post? It is very unlikely that a process that took place over many millions of years would not be continuing. You just made up the claim. Kinda like me asking you if you plan to quit beating your wife??? :confused2: I do believe that the amount of "affordable" fossil fuel is realistically finite. As it becomes more costly (both direct and indirect) renewables or other alternatives with continue to gain favor. Loren

My point again is the accepted definition is a PC talking point for those with an agenda, you except it as truth, not me! The idea that the sun is a renewable resource and oil is not is ludicrous. HS

 

[Citydude]

Can one could assume that the geological pressures are still making oil? I guess I can see that. I wonder how many dead dinosaurs does it take to make a barrel of oil? Now, I have a hard time seeing that....

 

[Tollster]

Would you please quit making up things that I have done or think?

My quote from post #322 in response to another of your claims:
"Your definition of renewable does not match its accepted definition.

"The rate at which financially viable fossil fuels have been extracted in the past 100 years far exceeds what has been created in the past 100 years."

"Fossil fuels could be depleted while renewable's can not. The amount of electricity produced by solar/wind today in no way effects how much can be produced in the future."

I hope you understand that my statement should be interpreted that I believe the process continued over the past 100 years. Did you bother to read my post? It is very unlikely that a process that took place over many millions of years would not be continuing. You just made up the claim.

Kinda like me asking you if you plan to quit beating your wife??? :confused2:

I do believe that the amount of "affordable" fossil fuel is realistically finite. As it becomes more costly (both direct and indirect) renewables or other alternatives with continue to gain favor.

Loren

You show a very high tolerance level Loren, there are always those who you cannot reach, no matter how it may be explained. The important part is reaching the masses, (not hard to do after looking at everyday out of pocket costs, and reading available information from responsible sources on the web) and everyday, improvements are being make to break the financial hold the oil and gas industry have had on so many.
Those you cannot reach are either shareholders, representatives, uneducated, or something that interrupts their thought process, either inherent, or chemically induced (knowingly or unknowingly).

 

[DarkBlack]

Think about what the Earth must have looked like 300 million years or so ago. The land masses we live on today were just forming. There were swamps and bogs everywhere. The climate was warmer. Ancient trees and plants grew everywhere. Strange looking animals walked on the land, and just as weird looking fish swam in the rivers and seas. Tiny one-celled organisms called protoplankton floated in the ocean.
During the millions of years that passed, the dead plants and animals slowly decomposed into organic materials and formed fossil fuels. Different types of fossil fuels were formed depending on what combination of animal and plant debris was present, how long the material was buried, and what conditions of temperature and pressure existed when they were decomposing.
Loren

I try to stay somewhat neutral in these debates, but I have to call someone on something so technically egregious as your posted point. You call-out others for using unproven theory to support their view, yet you post some of the most unproven theory if it fits your agenda.

 

[Tollster]

I try to stay somewhat neutral in these debates, but I have to call someone on something so technically egregious as your posted point. You call-out others for using unproven theory to support their view, yet you post some of the most unproven theory if it fits your agenda.

Actually, I believe that is how it was taught to many pupils in school throughout the USA when I grew up, I think it encompassed like two chapters in my 8th grade science class.

Perhaps you have another viewpoint of scientific explanation, we would love to hear it, so by all means please share it?

 

[DarkBlack]

Burden of proof is on you wise-ace:

Prove that animals were "strange looking"
Prove that land masses were "just forming"
Prove that there were "swamps and bogs everywhere"
Prove that "weird looking fish swam in the rivers and seas"

Start with that proving just that, and I'll consider removing my post that it's just theory... like everyone else's theory...

 

[Tollster]

Burden of proof is on you wise-ace:

Prove that animals were "strange looking"
Prove that land masses were "just forming"
Prove that there were "swamps and bogs everywhere"
Prove that "weird looking fish swam in the rivers and seas"
Start with that proving just that, and I'll consider removing my post that it's just theory... like everyone else's theory...

Its educated theory, so it kind of circulates with the masses, and actually, its the only one I know of. I'm not a scholar, don't spend my life trying to be one either. I feel fairly sure Hindu religion has theirs as did heavens gate followers.
I prefer to stick with the educated theories of many world wide scholars based on scientific and archeological findings.

 

[DarkBlack]

Yeh, so the same "educated theory" that reverses it's claims on "proven" science in very immediate times, can be trusted, or proven to be factual to 300 million years ago ?? The answer is no. That's why it's called theory.

 

[Loren49]

I try to stay somewhat neutral in these debates, but I have to call someone on something so technically egregious as your posted point. You call-out others for using unproven theory to support their view, yet you post some of the most unproven theory if it fits your agenda.

In general I referenced the current accepted science. Again in general science has done much better than conspiracy theory and other beliefs. I also use definitions like those you'd find in a dictionary. In addition when some claims are made I post references that may often question that claim with science and other evidence.

You would help your criticism if you gave specific quotes or references by me. Accepted theory and facts are the best we have. If you can find good scientific peer reviewed research to support the speculative theories it could give your point more validity. The call for indisputable "proof" is just a smokescreen. Example: prove that the half life of Uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years.
» Uranium: Its Uses and Hazards

Only way that would satisfy some would be to weigh it and wait 4.5 billion years.:confused2: Great plan.

Same argument used when the tobacco industry said there was no proof that smoking increased the chance of getting cancer. Same strategy and some of the same people on current hot button issues.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog438w/node/432

I have no intention to discuss climate...just making point on strategy of doubt.

Loren