Remember me
▼ Content

3 phases to CC



Page 2 of 3<123>
03-09-2020 20:50
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:You are distorting the information Tmiddles.IBDM and ITN are trying to claim that you believe CO2 ...
No Duncan if you'll review the above post it's actually off topic. We were discussing what GFM had posted from IBDs site. That particular issue doesn't get into CO2 at all.


No Twiddles, Duncan started the thread, so he Knows what topic we are discussing. If you want to go off topic, start your own thread. I do understand, that nobody every post in the threads yous start, but you never know, maybe James will.



Harvey55, quoting Duncan61;
.3 The warming must be detrimental to the planet


An unambiguous requirement invalidates his null hypothesis. This is if we are to pursue this debate using logic. From the Seattle Post Intelligencer;

The United States lost an average of 384,350 hectares (949,750 acres) of forest each year between 1990 and 2010.
https://education.seattlepi.com/rates-deforestation-reforestation-us-3804.html


Since increased CO2 levels are associated with deforestation, is deforestation detrimental to the planet? Hopefully you accept the science that trees convert CO2 into O2. If not, then there is nothing to be discussed.

p.s., Duncan61 stated that the warming and not the destruction of the environment/natural resources must be detrimental to the planet. A typical politician.
Edited on 03-09-2020 20:56
03-09-2020 22:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
HarveyH55 wrote:...If you want to go off topic, start your own thread. ...
I was just responding to GFM Harvey. Try to pay attention:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:...3 phases...AGW/CC
.1 ...more CO2
.2 ...warmer
.3 ...detrimental...

.4 is that the cause of more CO2 is human's burning fossil fuels.

The "more CO2" portion is RQAA

The second portion is debunked... Debunked: Hydrocarbons are Fossil Fuels...

GFM decided that he wanted to introduce this old and tired objection to the nature of oil and gas.

So it's certainly related to the original topic.
04-09-2020 18:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote: GFM decided that he wanted to introduce this old and tired objection to the nature of oil and gas.

Apparently you cannot read. gfm7175 merely explained how and where hydrocarbons form and was not objecting to any of it.
Attached image:

04-09-2020 22:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:...gfm7175 merely explained how and where hydrocarbons form....
No he did not. He linked to your website which states they are formed underground. There is no explanation there either.

You both pretended you'd be prepared to debate this but now you have nothing to say.

"Oil and Natural Gas are formed in another dimension and pass into the Earth's mantel via a wormhole at the Earth's core."

Just a useful a quote as your site IBD.
05-09-2020 02:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...gfm7175 merely explained how and where hydrocarbons form....
No he did not. He linked to your website which states they are formed underground. There is no explanation there either.

The explanation has already been given to you. You are still denying the Fischer-Tropsche process, the the information already give to you about where oil and natural gas are found.
RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
You both pretended you'd be prepared to debate this but now you have nothing to say.
There are no debates here. Only conversations. It is YOU that has nothing to day. You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
"Oil and Natural Gas are formed in another dimension and pass into the Earth's mantel via a wormhole at the Earth's core."
Nice bit of scifi. Perhaps you should write a piece of fiction based on that.
tmiddles wrote:
Just a useful a quote as your site IBD.

Bulverism fallacy. The references on that site are valid.

No argument presented. Bulverism fallacy. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 05-09-2020 02:07
05-09-2020 06:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote: He linked to your website which states they are formed underground.

I appreciate your feedback. I have taken you up on your suggestion to add more explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and to clarify why fossils near the surface simply do not meet any of the requirements for forming hydrocarbons.

I invite you and everyone else to review the revised DEBUNK of hydrocarbons somehow having something to do with fossils.

Once again, thank you for your input and I remind everyone that all suggestions are appreciated.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 05-09-2020 06:31
05-09-2020 07:22
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:...clarify why fossils near the surface simply do not meet any of the requirements...
There is no need to even address fossils as a solution if you've solved the mystery as to where oil and gas come from.

It would be a bit like if someone discovered who actually shot Kennedy you really don't even need to get into why it wasn't Lee Harvey. You can just solve the case!

As you have opted not to present your rebuttal here but to instead link to a page on your site I guess I'll have to be selective on your behalf. From you page:

"Hydrocarbons require intense heat (well in excess of 200°C/400°F) and pressure (in excess of 5 atm) to form. We know this because we have replicated the process in labs, called the Fischer-Tropsche "


This is true if you are working with Hydrogen and Oxygen gases as your starting point. So your statement should read:

"Hydrocarbons can be formed from carbon and hydrogen under intense heat ...."

So you are claiming this is happening right now?

Where? How long does it take?

Do you have any data on current formation of oil and gas naturally?

Your page only addresses your objection to fossil fuels and describes a process for man made hydrocarbons (Fischer-Tropsche).
05-09-2020 08:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...clarify why fossils near the surface simply do not meet any of the requirements...
There is no need to even address fossils as a solution if you've solved the mystery as to where oil and gas come from.
Not a mystery.
tmiddles wrote:
It would be a bit like if someone discovered who actually shot Kennedy you really don't even need to get into why it wasn't Lee Harvey. You can just solve the case!
Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy, using a bolt action rifle. An excellent shot, by the way, though criminal.
tmiddles wrote:
As you have opted not to present your rebuttal here but to instead link to a page on your site I guess I'll have to be selective on your behalf. From you page:

"Hydrocarbons require intense heat (well in excess of 200°C/400°F) and pressure (in excess of 5 atm) to form. We know this because we have replicated the process in labs, called the Fischer-Tropsche "


This is true if you are working with Hydrogen and Oxygen gases as your starting point. So your statement should read:

No. That's how you make water. That also happens to be an explosive reaction. Denial of chemistry.
tmiddles wrote:
"Hydrocarbons can be formed from carbon and hydrogen under intense heat ...."

So you are claiming this is happening right now?
Yes. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Where? How long does it take?
A few hours. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you have any data on current formation of oil and gas naturally?
Yes. Already given. RQAA. Oil wells pumped dry can be capped, wait a while, then they are full again. All the conditions for the Fischer-Tropsche process exist naturally underground.
tmiddles wrote:
Your page only addresses your objection to fossil fuels and describes a process for man made hydrocarbons (Fischer-Tropsche).

I we can make hydrocarbons in an hour or two in the lab using conditions found naturally underground, there is no reason the same reaction wouldn't be taking place underground.

Denial of chemistry. Mantras 20r2...20r3...20r4...
No argument presented. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-09-2020 10:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
Into the Night wrote:
I we can make hydrocarbons in an hour or two in the lab using conditions found naturally underground, there is no reason the same reaction wouldn't be taking place underground.


Hmmm "there is no reason" doesn't sound like you have anything other than a theory? It's happening right now correct?

How about an example?

And Typo corrected, thanks ITN.
"This is true if you are working with Hydrogen and Carbon elements as your starting point. So your statement should read:"
Edited on 05-09-2020 10:16
05-09-2020 10:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote: So you are claiming this is happening right now?

I am in my house at the moment and am not "watching" anywhere deep within the earth's crust so I'm not sure but I will say that it is very likely.

tmiddles wrote: Where? How long does it take?

In an effort to remain focused I will share the good news with you that nothing about what you have asked points to fossils as being the source of hydrocarbons.

tmiddles wrote: Do you have any data on current formation of oil and gas naturally?

How about the observation of petroleum being extracted from a well?

tmiddles wrote:Your page only addresses your objection to fossil fuels and describes a process for man made hydrocarbons (Fischer-Tropsche).

Exactly. I remained focused on what I was debunking.

Thanks again for your feedback.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-09-2020 11:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote: [I]am not "watching" anywhere deep within the earth's crust so I'm not sure ...I remained focused on what I was debunking....

Your language was consistent up until now. You made a very clear claim on your website:
"Hydrocarbons, ....are produced...miles deep in the crust where the petroleum and natural gas result from a natural Fischer-Tropsche reaction."

It is a unequivocal statement answering the question : "Where does oil come from" and an explanation for ALL oil and gas in the ground.

This is what's interesting because I of course accuse your team of the "Nothing can be known" stance.

Yet here you seem to know something.

Anything you'd call a "valid data set" involved? Anything at all of any kind?

I certainly think abiotic oil is a possibility though most geologists lean toward the fossil fuel explanation and you know me, I like to follow the crowd of experts.

What's odd is you and ITN making factual statements where usually you do not.

Now being really sure of something (we never get to be 100%) is something I fully embrace. For example: I'm really sure that Venus is incredibly hot at ground level. But you are not. So again, this "knowledge" is odd coming from you.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 05-09-2020 11:33
05-09-2020 11:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
tmiddles wrote: This is what's interesting because I of course accuse your team of the "Nothing can be known" stance.

Mantra 30a.

30) Abuse of opinion
a) Assigning bogus opinion to someone and attacking him for it. (pulling a "TMiddles")


tmiddles wrote: Anything you'd call a "valid data set" involved? Anything at all of any kind?

Data is not required once you have science. Did you watch the videos? Are you disputing the successful synthesis of hydrocarbons? Are you disputing the science of the Fischer-Tropsche reaction?

tmiddles wrote: I certainly think abiotic oil is a possibility though most geologists lean toward the fossil fuel explanation and you know me, I like to follow the crowd of experts.

You really expect me to believe that "most geologists" retained you, a scientifically illiterate and mostly dishonest warmizombie, to speak for them?

Let me think about this one for a moment. Hmmmmmm.



Um, ... no.

tmiddles wrote: I'm really sure that Venus is incredibly hot at ground level. But you are not.

Wow! A second Mantra 30a in the same post.

30) Abuse of opinion
a) Assigning bogus opinion to someone and attacking him for it. (pulling a "TMiddles")


You are absolutely ON FIRE! To what do I owe this honor?

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-09-2020 11:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3374)
IBdaMann wrote:
Data is not required once you have science.

Wow! So not only do you claim that the abiotic oil theory is correct you're claiming it's a scientific certainty that rises above the need for research. We all just KNOW it's true!!

Funny your language does sound quite a bit like the dogmatic claims made by AGW proponents you accuse of being religious.

Data is not required once you have science. ~ IBD

I guess you're not being "omniscient" since your claim is just indisputably true because it's "science"?

What was the definition of science you like to use? "Science is a set of falsifiable theories."

So your statment reads:

Data is not required once you have falsifiable theories. ~ IBD

Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
05-09-2020 18:11
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: He linked to your website which states they are formed underground.

I appreciate your feedback. I have taken you up on your suggestion to add more explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and to clarify why fossils near the surface simply do not meet any of the requirements for forming hydrocarbons.

I invite you and everyone else to review the revised DEBUNK of hydrocarbons somehow having something to do with fossils.

Once again, thank you for your input and I remind everyone that all suggestions are appreciated.

.


Fossil remains are often found when digging up coal. They find some pretty good ones, mostly intact in Canada, every few years. We use to find them in America too, but think it cost too much to report them, since mining gets shut down, until the col;age kids milk the clock for months, doing their science thing. Fossil fragments show up occasionally in the oil fields as well. Crude oil is a complex mixture of nasty crap, which needs sorted out, before we can pump it into our gas tanks at the 7-11 store.

I don't believe there is only one way to do anything. Synthetic processes are generally short cuts. We want to make stuff simple.quick, cheap, and in huge volume, to improve profits. The Fischer-Tropsche process can produce fuel, but it's not crude oil, similar to what we pump out of the ground either. Crude oil contains hundreds of organic compounds, not all are useful as fuel or lubricants. Just too many similarities in the assortment of organic compounds found in living organisms, and crude oil, to completely dismiss the possible relationship. Regardless, 'fossil fuels', was used to describe oil and coal, a long time ago, politically correct or not, precisely accurate or not, doesn't really matter.
06-09-2020 06:16
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: He linked to your website which states they are formed underground.

I appreciate your feedback. I have taken you up on your suggestion to add more explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and to clarify why fossils near the surface simply do not meet any of the requirements for forming hydrocarbons.

I invite you and everyone else to review the revised DEBUNK of hydrocarbons somehow having something to do with fossils.

Once again, thank you for your input and I remind everyone that all suggestions are appreciated.

.


Fossil remains are often found when digging up coal. They find some pretty good ones, mostly intact in Canada, every few years. We use to find them in America too, but think it cost too much to report them, since mining gets shut down, until the col;age kids milk the clock for months, doing their science thing. Fossil fragments show up occasionally in the oil fields as well. Crude oil is a complex mixture of nasty crap, which needs sorted out, before we can pump it into our gas tanks at the 7-11 store.

I don't believe there is only one way to do anything. Synthetic processes are generally short cuts. We want to make stuff simple.quick, cheap, and in huge volume, to improve profits. The Fischer-Tropsche process can produce fuel, but it's not crude oil, similar to what we pump out of the ground either. Crude oil contains hundreds of organic compounds, not all are useful as fuel or lubricants. Just too many similarities in the assortment of organic compounds found in living organisms, and crude oil, to completely dismiss the possible relationship. Regardless, 'fossil fuels', was used to describe oil and coal, a long time ago, politically correct or not, precisely accurate or not, doesn't really matter.



Harvey, please quit lying.
Fossil remains are often found when digging up coal.


Coal seams are very old peat bogs. Common knowledge. When you lie like this, have to dismiss everything else you say.
I could get into the best places to find fossils in the US with you, but you lie.
06-09-2020 18:42
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: He linked to your website which states they are formed underground.

I appreciate your feedback. I have taken you up on your suggestion to add more explanation of the Fischer-Tropsche process and to clarify why fossils near the surface simply do not meet any of the requirements for forming hydrocarbons.

I invite you and everyone else to review the revised DEBUNK of hydrocarbons somehow having something to do with fossils.

Once again, thank you for your input and I remind everyone that all suggestions are appreciated.

.


Fossil remains are often found when digging up coal. They find some pretty good ones, mostly intact in Canada, every few years. We use to find them in America too, but think it cost too much to report them, since mining gets shut down, until the col;age kids milk the clock for months, doing their science thing. Fossil fragments show up occasionally in the oil fields as well. Crude oil is a complex mixture of nasty crap, which needs sorted out, before we can pump it into our gas tanks at the 7-11 store.

I don't believe there is only one way to do anything. Synthetic processes are generally short cuts. We want to make stuff simple.quick, cheap, and in huge volume, to improve profits. The Fischer-Tropsche process can produce fuel, but it's not crude oil, similar to what we pump out of the ground either. Crude oil contains hundreds of organic compounds, not all are useful as fuel or lubricants. Just too many similarities in the assortment of organic compounds found in living organisms, and crude oil, to completely dismiss the possible relationship. Regardless, 'fossil fuels', was used to describe oil and coal, a long time ago, politically correct or not, precisely accurate or not, doesn't really matter.



Harvey, please quit lying.
Fossil remains are often found when digging up coal.


Coal seams are very old peat bogs. Common knowledge. When you lie like this, have to dismiss everything else you say.
I could get into the best places to find fossils in the US with you, but you lie.


What lie? I didn't say coal mines are the best place to find fossils. And NO, you couldn't get into the best places to find fossils, do to your service related disabilities. Well, technically, you probably could, but if you could afford the equipment, and assistance, you could afford you crap-sack surgery. Should jumped on that, when they just open up hospitals to elective surgeries. They ran adds on TV, almost begging people to come in, for anything. They probably would have been extra help in finding a way to get medicaid to pick up the tab for you.
06-09-2020 21:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I we can make hydrocarbons in an hour or two in the lab using conditions found naturally underground, there is no reason the same reaction wouldn't be taking place underground.


Hmmm "there is no reason" doesn't sound like you have anything other than a theory? It's happening right now correct?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
How about an example?

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
And Typo corrected, thanks ITN.
"This is true if you are working with Hydrogen and Carbon elements as your starting point. So your statement should read:"

Both hydrogen and carbon are available underground. So is iron to act as a catalyst.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 06-09-2020 21:15
06-09-2020 21:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: [I]am not "watching" anywhere deep within the earth's crust so I'm not sure ...I remained focused on what I was debunking....

Your language was consistent up until now. You made a very clear claim on your website:
"Hydrocarbons, ....are produced...miles deep in the crust where the petroleum and natural gas result from a natural Fischer-Tropsche reaction."

It is a unequivocal statement answering the question : "Where does oil come from" and an explanation for ALL oil and gas in the ground.
Yes it is.
tmiddles wrote:
This is what's interesting because I of course accuse your team of the "Nothing can be known" stance.
Your usual lie.
tmiddles wrote:
Yet here you seem to know something.
Chemistry, which you deny.
tmiddles wrote:
Anything you'd call a "valid data set" involved? Anything at all of any kind?
RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
I certainly think abiotic oil is a possibility though most geologists lean toward the fossil fuel explanation and you know me, I like to follow the crowd of experts.
You don't get to speak for most geologists. You only get to speak for you.
tmiddles wrote:
What's odd is you and ITN making factual statements where usually you do not.
We are describing a chemical reaction. That reaction is a given fact, except for those that deny chemistry, such as you.
tmiddles wrote:
Now being really sure of something (we never get to be 100%) is something I fully embrace.
Since you deny chemistry. You do not embrace anything. You just reject the chemistry.
tmiddles wrote:
For example: I'm really sure that Venus is incredibly hot at ground level. But you are not. So again, this "knowledge" is odd coming from you.

The temperature of Venus is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy. Spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
06-09-2020 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Data is not required once you have science.

Wow! So not only do you claim that the abiotic oil theory is correct you're claiming it's a scientific certainty that rises above the need for research. We all just KNOW it's true!!
The chemical reaction being discussed exists. It is what it is. You are just denying it.
tmiddles wrote:
Funny your language does sound quite a bit like the dogmatic claims made by AGW proponents you accuse of being religious.
The Church of Global Warming denies science (including chemistry), just like you do.
tmiddles wrote:
Data is not required once you have science. ~ IBD

I guess you're not being "omniscient" since your claim is just indisputably true because it's "science"?
Chemistry is a branch of science, idiot.
tmiddles wrote:
What was the definition of science you like to use? "Science is a set of falsifiable theories."

So your statment reads:

Data is not required once you have falsifiable theories. ~ IBD
That is correct. Data is not required once you have a falsifiable theory. No theory is made of data.
tmiddles wrote:
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it.

Yes it does. Semantics fallacy.

No argument presented. Denial of science. Semantics fallacies. RQAA.

Answer the questions put to you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 06-09-2020 21:24
06-09-2020 23:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
HarveyH55 wrote: Fossil remains are often found when digging up coal.

Correct. They are "impurities" and do not burn. What I think you are suggesting is that I write up a DEBUNK for coal being fossils. Great suggestion! Done!

Debunked: Coal is a Fossil

HarveyH55 wrote: I don't believe there is only one way to do anything. Synthetic processes are generally short cuts.

Sure, that's why we specify the Fischer-Tropshe "process" for synthesizing hydrocarbons in a lab as opposed to the naturally occurring Fischer-Tropsche "reaction" that explains the chemistry of how the elements react to form the hydrocarbons.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-09-2020 00:34
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
So basically, you are saying that Fischer-Tropshe is the only possible way to form hydrocarbon compounds. There is absolutely, positively, no other way? Sorry to be skeptical... But, I think you are wrong on that one, and seems a little unlikely for underground production, in volume. But then again, i'm skeptical about global warming and ozone holes as well... Probably why the cult guy hasn't sent a personal invitation...
07-09-2020 11:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
HarveyH55 wrote: So basically, you are saying that Fischer-Tropshe is the only possible way to form hydrocarbon compounds.

... of which we are aware, yes.

The chemistry term for the process is called the Fischer-Tropsche reaction.

The process to create hydrocarbons in a lab is called the Fischer-Tropsche process and uses the Fischer-Tropsche reaction.

HarveyH55 wrote: There is absolutely, positively, no other way?

I'm sure that there would be some sort of award in it for you if you can come up with a better way to produce hydrocarbons ... but I don't believe there is another known method at the present time.

I don't know what else to tell you.

HarveyH55 wrote: Sorry to be skeptical... But, I think you are wrong on that one, and seems a little unlikely for underground production, in volume.

Being skeptical is a good thing. Maybe your skepticism will motivate you to think of a simple "Harvey Method" that will make everyone wonder why they didn't think of that.

I would ask you to do a quick re-read of This Writeup and to watch the two short videos (less than five minutes for both combined) and let me know if you disagree with anything in there.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-09-2020 19:43
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: So basically, you are saying that Fischer-Tropshe is the only possible way to form hydrocarbon compounds.

... of which we are aware, yes.

The chemistry term for the process is called the Fischer-Tropsche reaction.

The process to create hydrocarbons in a lab is called the Fischer-Tropsche process and uses the Fischer-Tropsche reaction.

HarveyH55 wrote: There is absolutely, positively, no other way?

I'm sure that there would be some sort of award in it for you if you can come up with a better way to produce hydrocarbons ... but I don't believe there is another known method at the present time.

I don't know what else to tell you.

HarveyH55 wrote: Sorry to be skeptical... But, I think you are wrong on that one, and seems a little unlikely for underground production, in volume.

Being skeptical is a good thing. Maybe your skepticism will motivate you to think of a simple "Harvey Method" that will make everyone wonder why they didn't think of that.

I would ask you to do a quick re-read of This Writeup and to watch the two short videos (less than five minutes for both combined) and let me know if you disagree with anything in there.

.


You do realize that lab processes and results, are usually considerably different from the way nature does stuff? We have sort of a limited life span, and sort want to see the fruit of our labor, before we expire...

I could watch the videos, but unfortunately, I have no sound. Replaced my power supply a couple months ago, and something went wrong. Driver seems fine, and detects when I plug in headphones or speakers. Kind of a hassle to unplug everything to pull it out to open it up. At first I though a connector got pulled loose, but getting some response, must be getting power. I do occasionally need sound, but don't use it everyday. Just felt lucky to scrounge up a power supply that fit. Did have to swap out the pigtail though.
07-09-2020 21:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
HarveyH55 wrote:You do realize that lab processes and results, are usually considerably different from the way nature does stuff?

That is briefly touched-on in the second video but yes, we humans arrange very specific lab conditions which yield very specific and repeatable results. The earth has varying random conditions in different places which keep changing from geological activity and which produce varying length hydrocarbon chain distributions.

So, yes, the specific conditions in the earth will differ from any particular lab setup. No dispute there.

HarveyH55 wrote: We have sort of a limited life span, and sort want to see the fruit of our labor, before we expire...

I detect a belief on your part that the creation of hydrocarbons takes a "very long time." Why do you believe that it takes any longer than the chemical reaction in the lab process? Watch the (second, I believe) video which is just over one minute ... without sound. What it depicts is the chemical bonding and the formation of hydrocarbon chains on the catalyst. Why would you believe that that process takes a long time? I'm not saying that I know how long it takes in the earth or what the typical rate of hydrocarbon production is. In fact, I don't believe anyone knows. I'm just wondering why I should believe that it differs from the speed of the Fischer-Tropsche reaction which allows us to produce batches within a couple of hours.

Oh, and if you do think of a different way to produce hydrocarbons, I will gladly co-author the paper with you. You can bank on that.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-09-2020 22:38
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
The miller-urey experiment didn't prove any more about the beginnings of life on earth than the fischer-tropshe reaction proves about oil.
Edited on 07-09-2020 22:39
08-09-2020 02:04
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:You do realize that lab processes and results, are usually considerably different from the way nature does stuff?

That is briefly touched-on in the second video but yes, we humans arrange very specific lab conditions which yield very specific and repeatable results. The earth has varying random conditions in different places which keep changing from geological activity and which produce varying length hydrocarbon chain distributions.

So, yes, the specific conditions in the earth will differ from any particular lab setup. No dispute there.

HarveyH55 wrote: We have sort of a limited life span, and sort want to see the fruit of our labor, before we expire...

I detect a belief on your part that the creation of hydrocarbons takes a "very long time." Why do you believe that it takes any longer than the chemical reaction in the lab process? Watch the (second, I believe) video which is just over one minute ... without sound. What it depicts is the chemical bonding and the formation of hydrocarbon chains on the catalyst. Why would you believe that that process takes a long time? I'm not saying that I know how long it takes in the earth or what the typical rate of hydrocarbon production is. In fact, I don't believe anyone knows. I'm just wondering why I should believe that it differs from the speed of the Fischer-Tropsche reaction which allows us to produce batches within a couple of hours.

Oh, and if you do think of a different way to produce hydrocarbons, I will gladly co-author the paper with you. You can bank on that.

.


Your locked into the 'can be only one' crap, that's no different than climatology and CO2 global warming. Fischer-Tropsche converts the raw elements into hydrocarbons, and is fairly specific. All living things, are a huge assortment of ready made hydrocarbons, which are readily broken down, and changed. Crude oils isn't just a few hydrocarbon compounds, there are literally thousands. We also know that bacteria can break down dead crap, into burnable crap, like alcohol and methane. As well as quite a few other things, also found in crude oil.

It never has to be either/or, there can be several different ways to get to the same results. It's a huge planet, with a lot of different things going on. We occupy a very small portion of the surface, and apparently, it's only been for a brief period of time so far. I know the IPCC has bored down pretty deep, and pulled up some impressive ice core samples. Don't think anybody has done the same through dirt and rock, beyond looking for oil.
08-09-2020 03:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
HarveyH55 wrote:Your locked into the 'can be only one' crap, that's no different than climatology and CO2 global warming.

Now we can be concrete. You are egregiously in error.

First, I did not say there was only one way for hydrocarbons to form. I said that there was only one way about which we know. I know that you completely agree with me because you personally know of no other way.

Secondly, you are under the mistaken impression that the earth somehow is incapable of producing things in vast quantities. That is absurd. The earth operates almost exclusively on massive scales. So where are you getting this need for some other hydrocarbon source in order to somehow have enough?

HarveyH55 wrote: All living things, are a huge assortment of ready made hydrocarbons, which are readily broken down, and changed. Crude oils isn't just a few hydrocarbon compounds, there are literally thousands. We also know that bacteria can break down dead crap, into burnable crap, like alcohol and methane. As well as quite a few other things, also found in crude oil.

Now we get to the heart of the matter. Why would any rational adult believe that "dead animals" have anything to do with hydrocarbons that we discover in wells? What cemetary coffins do you believe contain petroleum? Which archaeological sites of the fossil record do you believe force researchers to wade through petroleum?

Decomposition of dead things does not produce hydrocarbons. The Fischer-Tropsche reaction is the only one of which we are aware and it requires intense heat and pressure which simply are not present for dead things.

HarveyH55 wrote: It never has to be either/or, there can be several different ways to get to the same results.

Sure, but if you are going to insist that there is another way then you really need to offer a little guidance as to what that other way might be. No human has ever published another method for creating hydrocarbons and your assumed process of organic decay is just a big mistake. Dead things don't convert into petroleum.

I'm all ears if you can think of another way but it's not somehow my fault if you cannot.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-09-2020 20:22
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
Dead stuff doesn't create hydrocarbons, because they are made of hydrocarbons. Every living thing on the planet, is made up of hydrocarbons. Don't need to whip ip a fresh batch to burn. Every hear about 'recycling'? Nature is pretty good that way...
08-09-2020 23:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
HarveyH55 wrote:
So basically, you are saying that Fischer-Tropshe is the only possible way to form hydrocarbon compounds. There is absolutely, positively, no other way? Sorry to be skeptical... But, I think you are wrong on that one, and seems a little unlikely for underground production, in volume. But then again, i'm skeptical about global warming and ozone holes as well... Probably why the cult guy hasn't sent a personal invitation...


What's to prevent oil formation within the Earth due to Fischer-Tropsche reactions?

The hydrogen is there.
The carbon is there, in the form of carbon dioxide.
The tremendous pressures area there.
The iron to act as a catalyst is there.

Are you trying so rationalize it away because of the volume involved?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-09-2020 23:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: So basically, you are saying that Fischer-Tropshe is the only possible way to form hydrocarbon compounds.

... of which we are aware, yes.

The chemistry term for the process is called the Fischer-Tropsche reaction.

The process to create hydrocarbons in a lab is called the Fischer-Tropsche process and uses the Fischer-Tropsche reaction.

HarveyH55 wrote: There is absolutely, positively, no other way?

I'm sure that there would be some sort of award in it for you if you can come up with a better way to produce hydrocarbons ... but I don't believe there is another known method at the present time.

I don't know what else to tell you.

HarveyH55 wrote: Sorry to be skeptical... But, I think you are wrong on that one, and seems a little unlikely for underground production, in volume.

Being skeptical is a good thing. Maybe your skepticism will motivate you to think of a simple "Harvey Method" that will make everyone wonder why they didn't think of that.

I would ask you to do a quick re-read of This Writeup and to watch the two short videos (less than five minutes for both combined) and let me know if you disagree with anything in there.

.


You do realize that lab processes and results, are usually considerably different from the way nature does stuff?


The chemistry doesn't change, whether it's in a lab or in nature.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
08-09-2020 23:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
The miller-urey experiment didn't prove any more about the beginnings of life on earth than the fischer-tropshe reaction proves about oil.


We don't know the conditions that existed when life arrived on Earth. We don't even know if it originated here or if it arrived from somewhere else.

The Fischer-Tropsche reaction is a known reaction.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-09-2020 01:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:You do realize that lab processes and results, are usually considerably different from the way nature does stuff?

That is briefly touched-on in the second video but yes, we humans arrange very specific lab conditions which yield very specific and repeatable results. The earth has varying random conditions in different places which keep changing from geological activity and which produce varying length hydrocarbon chain distributions.

So, yes, the specific conditions in the earth will differ from any particular lab setup. No dispute there.

HarveyH55 wrote: We have sort of a limited life span, and sort want to see the fruit of our labor, before we expire...

I detect a belief on your part that the creation of hydrocarbons takes a "very long time." Why do you believe that it takes any longer than the chemical reaction in the lab process? Watch the (second, I believe) video which is just over one minute ... without sound. What it depicts is the chemical bonding and the formation of hydrocarbon chains on the catalyst. Why would you believe that that process takes a long time? I'm not saying that I know how long it takes in the earth or what the typical rate of hydrocarbon production is. In fact, I don't believe anyone knows. I'm just wondering why I should believe that it differs from the speed of the Fischer-Tropsche reaction which allows us to produce batches within a couple of hours.

Oh, and if you do think of a different way to produce hydrocarbons, I will gladly co-author the paper with you. You can bank on that.

.


Your locked into the 'can be only one' crap, that's no different than climatology and CO2 global warming. Fischer-Tropsche converts the raw elements into hydrocarbons, and is fairly specific.

Nope. It produces hydrocarbons in all the known lengths.
HarveyH55 wrote:
All living things, are a huge assortment of ready made hydrocarbons,

Nope. Living things are made of water, carbohydrates, proteins, and a few trace compounds and elements.
HarveyH55 wrote:
which are readily broken down, and changed.

Breaking down a hydrocarbon means it's no longer a hydrocarbon.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Crude oils isn't just a few hydrocarbon compounds, there are literally thousands.

About a dozen of them, actually. Most are pentanes to dectanes, primarily septanes and octanes. There are a few with as many as 40 carbon atoms in the hydrocarbon, but these are rather rare. Some crude oil also contains sulfur compounds. This is known as 'sour' oil, as opposed to 'sweet' oil (without sulfur compounds).
HarveyH55 wrote:
We also know that bacteria can break down dead crap, into burnable crap, like alcohol and methane.
Bacteria can produce higher energy chemical bonds, but only by taking energy from somewhere else (like the photosynthetic nature of some bacteria found in some lakes).

Alcohol is not a hydrocarbon. It contains oxygen. Methane is a hydrocarbon. Some bacteria produce it when breaking down longer hydrocarbons or carbohydrates, both of which can be burned.

[quote]HarveyH55 wrote:
As well as quite a few other things, also found in crude oil.

Crude oil is crude because it is a mix of all different lengths of hydrocarbons. Refining crude oil is basically a process of sorting the mix into those of basically the same length.

That's what the distillation tower at these plants is for. That's what it does.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It never has to be either/or, there can be several different ways to get to the same results.

None known. Care to elaborate on any?
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's a huge planet, with a lot of different things going on.

The chemistry doesn't change.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We occupy a very small portion of the surface, and apparently, it's only been for a brief period of time so far.

How do you know?
HarveyH55 wrote:
I know the IPCC has bored down pretty deep, and pulled up some impressive ice core samples.

Ice cores don't show anything but ice and some of the impurities in it. It's not a time machine. Science does not use wild guesses about why something means anything.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Don't think anybody has done the same through dirt and rock, beyond looking for oil.

The Russians have drilled the deepest holds. One when right through the Antarctic ice sheet. Another was drilled far away from any plate edge boundary in Siberia, yet they found oil all the same. It was quite deep, far below any fossil layer.

It seems that oil is easiest to obtain at locations near plate edges occur, particularly where spreading action is taking place, or even some types of sheering action.

Examples are the Alaskan fields, wells off the Pacific coast and in the Gulf, or in such States and regions, the Mideast area, and the North Sea area. All on plate edges, and all where spreading or sheering action is taking place.

There are some exceptions, such as the oil sands found in the midwest United States and Canada, or the very deep wells in Siberia, but these are rare.

Oil can be found anywhere, if you are willing to go deep enough, or if some formation traps it near the surface (such as oil sands).


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-09-2020 01:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Dead stuff doesn't create hydrocarbons, because they are made of hydrocarbons. Every living thing on the planet, is made up of hydrocarbons. Don't need to whip ip a fresh batch to burn. Every hear about 'recycling'? Nature is pretty good that way...

Nope. They are made of water, carbohydrates, proteins, and a few trace compounds and elements.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-09-2020 02:24
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
So basically, you are saying that Fischer-Tropshe is the only possible way to form hydrocarbon compounds. There is absolutely, positively, no other way? Sorry to be skeptical... But, I think you are wrong on that one, and seems a little unlikely for underground production, in volume. But then again, i'm skeptical about global warming and ozone holes as well... Probably why the cult guy hasn't sent a personal invitation...


What's to prevent oil formation within the Earth due to Fischer-Tropsche reactions?

The hydrogen is there.
The carbon is there, in the form of carbon dioxide.
The tremendous pressures area there.
The iron to act as a catalyst is there.

Are you trying so rationalize it away because of the volume involved?


Where did I ever claim there could be one, and only one process?

Obviously a metaphysics question, for which the only response would be speculation and argument. I.m not a philosopher, debater, or a Twiddles.
09-09-2020 02:53
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Dead stuff doesn't create hydrocarbons, because they are made of hydrocarbons. Every living thing on the planet, is made up of hydrocarbons. Don't need to whip ip a fresh batch to burn. Every hear about 'recycling'? Nature is pretty good that way...

Nope. They are made of water, carbohydrates, proteins, and a few trace compounds and elements.



I knew a guy like him. By stating infinite possibilities he wanted to say that we can't know enough.
It's like my son (IBDM) saying "fossil fuels" don't exist. Many fossils have been found in tar pits next to oil fields. The oil fields are the result of the decomposition of biomass. Think ancient peat bogs and moraines. In time, vegetation became crude oil. And when they leak bitumen to the surface, they can create tar pits.
09-09-2020 08:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
So basically, you are saying that Fischer-Tropshe is the only possible way to form hydrocarbon compounds. There is absolutely, positively, no other way? Sorry to be skeptical... But, I think you are wrong on that one, and seems a little unlikely for underground production, in volume. But then again, i'm skeptical about global warming and ozone holes as well... Probably why the cult guy hasn't sent a personal invitation...


What's to prevent oil formation within the Earth due to Fischer-Tropsche reactions?

The hydrogen is there.
The carbon is there, in the form of carbon dioxide.
The tremendous pressures area there.
The iron to act as a catalyst is there.

Are you trying so rationalize it away because of the volume involved?


Where did I ever claim there could be one, and only one process?

You didn't. Neither did I claim you did.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Obviously a metaphysics question, for which the only response would be speculation and argument. I.m not a philosopher, debater, or a Twiddles.

Nope. A chemistry question. The reaction is known. The conditions for it exist underground.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-09-2020 08:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Dead stuff doesn't create hydrocarbons, because they are made of hydrocarbons. Every living thing on the planet, is made up of hydrocarbons. Don't need to whip ip a fresh batch to burn. Every hear about 'recycling'? Nature is pretty good that way...

Nope. They are made of water, carbohydrates, proteins, and a few trace compounds and elements.



I knew a guy like him. By stating infinite possibilities he wanted to say that we can't know enough.

Word salad.
James___ wrote:
It's like my son (IBDM) saying "fossil fuels" don't exist. Many fossils have been found in tar pits next to oil fields.

Fossils don't burn. They are not fuel.
James___ wrote:
The oil fields are the result of the decomposition of biomass.

Nope. Oil is found well below any fossil layer.
James___ wrote:
Think ancient peat bogs and moraines.

Peat isn't ancient. It's simply peat.
James___ wrote:
In time, vegetation became crude oil.

Care to describe the chemistry behind that?
James___ wrote:
And when they leak bitumen to the surface, they can create tar pits.


Bitumen is coal. That is carbon, not a hydrocarbon.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
09-09-2020 10:23
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
Coal oil?
10-09-2020 23:34
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
Into the Night wrote:

Bitumen is coal. That is carbon, not a hydrocarbon.


At the La Brea tar pits where many fossils have been found, the bitumen came from the oil field next to it. Bitumen is also used for asphalt.
11-09-2020 01:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Bitumen is coal. That is carbon, not a hydrocarbon.


At the La Brea tar pits where many fossils have been found, the bitumen came from the oil field next to it. Bitumen is also used for asphalt.


So you are saying coal comes from oil?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate 3 phases to CC:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CC and S1215-01-2020 04:13
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact