• Adults Only Website 18+

    If you are under 18 you are not permitted to submit personal information to us or use this website. If discovered you will be banned.

    We will ban and report anyone posting illegal content.

    We will ban any forum user who breaks our terms.

    Freedom of speech should be wide open as long as it doesn't incite violence.

    We have a 15 year old thriving community here with 400,000+ members and hundreds of people online at any given moment, we encourage you to join!, there are 1000's of topics to discuss. Please be aware before registering and read our terms of service and privacy policy.

    By dismissing this notice and proceeding, you agree to the above.

FYI, fossil fuel is a LIE!

Ever since M. King Hubbert in the 1950s convinced a lot of people with his "peak oil" theory that production would collapse and we'd eventually exhaust our crude supplies, the clock has been running. And running. And it will continue to run for some time, as technology and new discoveries show that there's still an ocean of oil under our feet.


Engineering and Technology Magazine reported this week that BP — the company that once wanted to be known as "Beyond Petroleum" rather than "British Petroleum" — is saying "the world is no longer at risk of running out of resources."


"Thanks to investment into supercomputers, robotics and the use of chemicals to extract the maximum from available reservoirs, the accessible oil and gas reserves will almost double by 2050," Engineering and Technology said.


A BP official told the magazine that "energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared."


Things are so good, in fact, that Engineering and Technology says "with the use of the innovative technologies, available fossil fuel resources could increase from the current 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent to 4.8 trillion by 2050, which is almost twice as much as the projected global demand." That number could even reach 7.5 trillion barrels if technology and exploration techniques advance even faster.


This information backs up the idea that Earth is actually an oil-producing machine. We call energy sources such as crude oil and natural gas fossil fuels based on the assumption that they are the products of decaying organisms, maybe even dinosaurs themselves. But the label is a misnomer. Research from the last decade found that hydrocarbons are synthesized abiotically.


In other words, as Science magazine has reported, the "data imply that hydrocarbons are produced chemically" from carbon found in Earth's mantle. Nature magazine calls the product of this process an "unexpected bounty " of "natural gas and the building blocks of oil products."


So don't feel guilty about exploiting this "bounty." There seems to be plenty to go around — and there will probably still be a lot left when technology, not hurried by government mandates and subsidies but guided by market forces, produces practical and affordable renewable energy.


But for now, enjoy our cheap, abundant and efficient "fossil" fuels.
 

Ever since M. King Hubbert in the 1950s convinced a lot of people with his "peak oil" theory that production would collapse and we'd eventually exhaust our crude supplies, the clock has been running. And running. And it will continue to run for some time, as technology and new discoveries show that there's still an ocean of oil under our feet.


Engineering and Technology Magazine reported this week that BP — the company that once wanted to be known as "Beyond Petroleum" rather than "British Petroleum" — is saying "the world is no longer at risk of running out of resources."


"Thanks to investment into supercomputers, robotics and the use of chemicals to extract the maximum from available reservoirs, the accessible oil and gas reserves will almost double by 2050," Engineering and Technology said.


A BP official told the magazine that "energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared."


Things are so good, in fact, that Engineering and Technology says "with the use of the innovative technologies, available fossil fuel resources could increase from the current 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent to 4.8 trillion by 2050, which is almost twice as much as the projected global demand." That number could even reach 7.5 trillion barrels if technology and exploration techniques advance even faster.


This information backs up the idea that Earth is actually an oil-producing machine. We call energy sources such as crude oil and natural gas fossil fuels based on the assumption that they are the products of decaying organisms, maybe even dinosaurs themselves. But the label is a misnomer. Research from the last decade found that hydrocarbons are synthesized abiotically.


In other words, as Science magazine has reported, the "data imply that hydrocarbons are produced chemically" from carbon found in Earth's mantle. Nature magazine calls the product of this process an "unexpected bounty " of "natural gas and the building blocks of oil products."


So don't feel guilty about exploiting this "bounty." There seems to be plenty to go around — and there will probably still be a lot left when technology, not hurried by government mandates and subsidies but guided by market forces, produces practical and affordable renewable energy.


But for now, enjoy our cheap, abundant and efficient "fossil" fuels.

Read this (fyi, the scientific consensus is the biogenic theory, so you know where to start):
But wait... you're doing the same mistake again. A big mistake.

When you come up to us, and say the long-standing established science is wrong, the burden of the first move is on you, cuz it's you making the claim. You'll have to prove that the established science is totally wrong and when you've done that, you may propose your alternative theory. Why? Because it's a logical fallacy to skip this step. Why would anyone consider your theory when we have superior, tried-and-tested science that works?

For example, when a religious preacher (a good one, if there's such a thing) approaches an atheist or agnostic, the burden of proof is on him to prove that God exists, and then go on to show that my God is the real, true one among the so many others.

Hope this clarifies it.
 
My original link in the other thread is gone so......https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6DjJ-FGHRY Wells that they thought dried up, later replenished themselves.
 



Read this (fyi, the scientific consensus is the biogenic theory, so you know where to start):
I don't have to do anything, those are your rules. I can go ghost and there is nothing you can do about it :) Oil was being produced long before the dinosaur era. FYI, the biotic (fossil fuel) explanation is only a theory as well. It's just the one that has been drilled into us, over, and over.
 



Read this (fyi, the scientific consensus is the biogenic theory, so you know where to start):
FYI, I don't believe in man made global warming either. I'm absolutely not putting any effort into explaining to you why, because I find it absurd I would need to, it's that ridiculous.
 
I don't have to do anything, those are your rules. I can go ghost and there is nothing you can do about it :) Oil was being produced long before the dinosaur era. FYI, the biotic (fossil fuel) explanation is only a theory as well. It's just the one that has been drilled into us, over, and over.
A theory in science is different from the way we use the term in everyday speech.

And I didn't create those rules. Those are logical steps of a good debate. If you skip it, your argument will be invalid.
 
FYI, I don't believe in man made global warming either. I'm absolutely not putting any effort into explaining to you why, because I find it absurd I would need to, it's that ridiculous.
You don't believe in anything, actually. You just reject what the science says.
 
Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore
Appeal to fake authority. That halfwit isn't the spokesperson of science. He doesn't substantiate his claims, just like you.
He's just one fat retard who's reading shit from a page.
 
I know you will never admit you've been duped.

Stop sending links. You're philosophically naive. Your argument is invalid if you skip steps—refute the established science first and then throw in alternative shit (which, in your case, seems to be just fat halfwits spewing codswallop)
 
Stop sending links. You're philosophically naive. Your argument is invalid if you skip steps—refute the established science first and then throw in alternative shit (which, in your case, seems to be just fat halfwits spewing codswallop)
You caught me off guard, I'm used to conservatives here, but you're a liberal. LOL, NO, you may get away with your bullshit on facebook, x, and all those other mainstream social bullshit sites, but not here. Ignore all my links, and responses, find another victim.
 
You caught me off guard, I'm used to conservatives here, but you're a liberal. LOL, NO, you may get away with your bullshit on facebook, x, and all those other mainstream social bullshit sites, but not here. Ignore all my links, and responses, find another victim.
Another childish response. And what about that was liberal? You're doing nothing but embarrassing yourself here. Instead of actually arguing, you turn to politics?

You don't know the first thing about science or philosophy and you're foolish enough to debate, trying to prove your point by sending links? Educate yourself, it's not too late.

And starting from the thread on vaccines, I've destroyed every single argument of yours. You've got nothing. You've already lost.

And get off the Internet.
 
proof.webp
 
Back
Top