Misnomers, Lies And Obfuscations




 
--
Misnomers, Lies And Obfuscations
 
July 14th, 2008  
5.56X45mm
 
 

Topic: Misnomers, Lies And Obfuscations


Misnomers, Lies And Obfuscations
So now that NASA has discovered hydrocarbon deposits (a.k.a. crude oooiiiiiiiilllll) on Saturn’s Hyperion moon—a planet which has never been able to support any plant- or animal life—can we stop referring to our own hydrocarbon deposits of crude oil as “fossil fuels”?


And once we’ve eliminated that canard, can we also acknowledge that hydrocarbons may actually be created (here and on Hyperion) as part of the planetary evolution process? (This would account for the occasional refilling of “depleted” oil wells… but let us not allow fact to interfere with theory.)


And while we’re on the topic, did anyone else read that wonderful fact that biomass fuel production is going to cause either mass starvation and / or economic upheaval? Here’s my favorite excerpt:
Quote:
One of our most bizarre findings is from a Cornell University study shows that biofuel production from farm crops such as corn takes 29 percent more energy than is yielded by the fuel itself - and that does not include the distribution energy to transport the ethanol.
...
The equation looks even more insane when it is realised that an average US automobile travels about 20,000 miles per year and uses about 1,000 gallons of petrol per year.
Quote:

To replace only a third of this petrol with ethanol, 0.6 ha of corn must be grown. Currently, 0.5 ha of cropland is required to feed each American. Therefore, even using highly optimistic data, to feed one automobile with ethanol, substituting only one third of the gasoline used per year, Americans would require more cropland than they need to feed themselves.

But wait! For us climate skeptics, it gets better, as the Law Of Unintended Consequences rides like a runaway express train into the Greens’ most cherished and sacred of cows:
Quote:
In March 2007 the leaders of the European Union, in a package of measures designed to lead the world in the “fight against climate change”, committed us by 2020 to deriving 10 per cent of all transport fuel from “renewables”, above all biofuels, which theoretically gave off no more carbon dioxide than was absorbed in their growing.
Quote:

Since then, however, the biofuels dream has been disintegrating with the speed of a collapsing card house. Environmentalists, formerly keen on this “green energy”, expressed horror at the havoc it was inflicting on the world’s eco-systems, not least the clearing of rainforests to grow fuel crops.

Read the rest for even more tasty Globull Warmening comeuppance.


It’s been a bad couple of weeks for the ecowarriors like Gore—anyone heard from that fat fraud since this news came out?—and it’s going to get worse. Even the language of climate skeptology [sic] is heating up:
As the world suddenly faced its worst food shortage for decades, sending prices spiralling, experts pointed out that a major cause had been diverting millions of acres of farmland from food production to fuel. The damage this was inflicting on the world’s poor led a United Nations official to describe the rush for biofuels as “a crime against humanity”.
So, to sum up: people starving, rainforests disappearing, countries turn from net exporters to net importers of foodstuffs—and all because a bunch of nutcases got hysterical and thought the end of the world was coming.


Sorry; my schadenfreude is overwhelming, and I must go and get another cup of coffee to calm down.
July 14th, 2008  
Del Boy
 
It will all end in tears. Global Empire building at its finest. If the planet is truly on a warming sequence, we will simply be doing this and this .
July 14th, 2008  
WNxRogue
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm
So now that NASA has discovered hydrocarbon deposits (a.k.a. crude oooiiiiiiiilllll) on Saturn’s Hyperion moon—a planet which has never been able to support any plant- or animal life—can we stop referring to our own hydrocarbon deposits of crude oil as “fossil fuels”?
Hydrocarbons don't automatically mean crude oil. There are hydrocarbon "mixtures" that have nothing at all to do with oil. As for the existence of hydrocarbons on hyperion, go back and read the article.

"Of special interest is the presence on Hyperion of hydrocarbons--combinations of carbon and hydrogen atoms that are found in comets, meteorites, and the dust in our galaxy," said Dale Cruikshank, a planetary scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif., and the paper's lead author. "These molecules, when embedded in ice and exposed to ultraviolet light, form new molecules of biological significance. This doesn't mean that we have found life, but it is a further indication that the basic chemistry needed for life is widespread in the universe."


Quote:
And once we’ve eliminated that canard, can we also acknowledge that hydrocarbons may actually be created (here and on Hyperion) as part of the planetary evolution process? (This would account for the occasional refilling of “depleted” oil wells… but let us not allow fact to interfere with theory.)
As I said above, reread the article you linked. It stated the origin of these hydrocarbons. It's not part of Thomas Gold's theory, a theory which the vast majority of credible scientists disagree with.

As for the rest of the thread, you quoted one source and then stated it as fact. Go and take a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_vs_fuel. This outlines both sides of the debate. Both have valid points, and its not at all the black and white issue you claim that it is.

As for your conclusions on "Globull Warmening", until you have a degree from some credible institution in something at all scientific, you can expect me to take your opinion with a MASSIVE grain of salt. I'm talking the largest grain of salt you can ever imagine.
--
Misnomers, Lies And Obfuscations
July 14th, 2008  
The Other Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm
So now that NASA has discovered hydrocarbon deposits (a.k.a. crude oooiiiiiiiilllll) on Saturn’s Hyperion moon—a planet which has never been able to support any plant- or animal life—can we stop referring to our own hydrocarbon deposits of crude oil as “fossil fuels”?
Okay, let's just say it is oil. Then do you have a better idea of where the oil here came from? The Bible doesn't mention God creating vast Oil reserves you know... (I kid, I kid.)


Quote:
And once we’ve eliminated that canard, can we also acknowledge that hydrocarbons may actually be created (here and on Hyperion) as part of the planetary evolution process? (This would account for the occasional refilling of “depleted” oil wells… but let us not allow fact to interfere with theory.)
But evolution isn't real! (I'm determined to be as big of nusiance as possible here. )

So these oil wells will refill. Well, that eliminates the need for offshore drilling, doesn't it? That is, if we weren't using it faster than it can come back, which puts us back at square one.

I will agree with you that biofuels are useless. I was never completely sold on them in the first place, but they've proven to be no good.
Quote:

So, to sum up: people starving, rainforests disappearing, countries turn from net exporters to net importers of foodstuffs—and all because a bunch of nutcases got hysterical and thought the end of the world was coming.
Did anyone mention the end of the world? I really don't recall... and we ARE still running low on oil.
July 15th, 2008  
Del Boy
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Guy
Okay, let's just say it is oil. Then do you have a better idea of where the oil here came from? The Bible doesn't mention God creating vast Oil reserves you know...

If he had - they would all be in Israel.