49
50

Oil is not a fossil fuel, nor is it scarce. Everything is a rich man's trick. (youtu.be)

Putin_loves_cats が 投稿

全 30 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]yakadoodle 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

Hydrocarbons, even considering methane, are most likely not from "distilled dinosaurs" considering there were few-to-no dinosaurs on Saturn or Jupiter and both planets, to include quite a few moons, abound in hydrocarbons.

[–]Shivadxb 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

The whole from dinosaurs thing is a pile of shit and I've no idea why people think that's the case. Old dead compressed and baked organic material. Whilst it in theory will contain some dinosaur remains it's a piffling amount

[–]MaximumStirner 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

I don't think the people who say that mean it literally.

[–]DetectiveHardigan 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Why are you getting downvoted? I have always understood it as a cheesy way to say that hydrocarbons come from old organic material and other hydrocarbons, which includes dinosaurs. It's the same as saying drinking water was once dinosaur piss. Just because the media runs with a dumb one-liner and uneducated people start believing that as the whole story doesn't mean it was intended to be interpreted that way.

[–]I_have_a_user_name 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

On the issue of 'fossil fuel' or 'mineral?', his argument seems to be able to be summed up by two points: 1) Fossils don't exist below 15k feet, thus why would there be fossil fuels down there? Thus they must be mineral deposits. 2) I sat at a table with scientists and asked how you go from living material to oil deposits, and none of them could give me a good answer. Thus it must be a mineral deposit.

To refute point one, heat plus pressure probably destroy fossil remains below 15k feet. The carbon turns more efficiently into other forms as you increase the pressure and temperature. To refute point two, by his omission, only one of the scientists at the table was a geologist. The question of going from organic matter to oil has a very complex answer and they probably didn't have a real answer back then. His argument rests on 'scientists are fluent on all aspects of all fields of science'. As a scientist I can assure you this is way farther from the truth than you can imagine. I give talks that begin with 'remember from high school when you were taught...'.

For the scarcity of oil, all you have to do is look at the production rates of countries that are competing and the cost that is required to extract it. As long as all producing countries aren't secretly colluding (basically zero chance that the USSR was colluding with US companies, especially considering market surges were used to topple the USSR) then the cheapest production methods are going to be favored. The fact that so many countries that are enemies have gotten away with extracting expensive oil (see Iran as example) for profit says that other countries can't ramp up production on cheap oil that quickly. There is not a conspiracy for its scarcity. We know where to find plenty of oil, the effective scarcity is from us knowing that most new sources of oil will be more expensive to extract than the current drill sites. Take the arctic as an example, plenty of difficult to extract oil.

This is a rant of someone who has no scientific understanding using anecdotal nonsense as arguments.

[–]GlobalSouth 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Iirc, all of the hydrocarbons extracted from major oil and shale sources are comprised of left handed carbon isomers. The only way this could conceivably be produced is through enymatic activity of living organisms.

[–]brinefly [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The wikipedia article you linked to says the issue of biological chirality is controversial:

The origin of this homochirality in biology is the subject of much debate.[7][page needed] Most scientists believe that Earth life's "choice" of chirality was purely random, and that if carbon-based life forms exist elsewhere in the universe, their chemistry could theoretically have opposite chirality. However, there is some suggestion that early amino acids could have formed in comet dust. In this case, circularly polarised radiation (which makes up 17% of stellar radiation) could have caused the selective destruction of one chirality of amino acids, leading to a selection bias which ultimately resulted in all life on Earth being homochiral.[8][full citation needed]

Is there a way for astronomers to determine the chirality of hydrocarbons from a distance?

[–]toomuchpork 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This was the same effect as thalidomide. One way a safe anti nausea medication the other a fetus deforming chemical.

[–]newharddrive 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Prouty is wrong about everything here. Oil was used to make kerosine before it was used as fuel, for starters. The long carbon chains in oil come from the lipid bilayers of the cell wall of mono-cellular organisms. You can find other micro-fossils of cell structures in oil.

[–]pietrothedwarf 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The problem with oil isn't scarcity -- the problem is that it pollutes when you burn it.

[–]brinefly 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The carboniferous period is very real and you can see it in geological strata but whether this is entirely the source of oil I don't know, it seems a dubious idea considering hydrocarbons are plentiful throughout the universe.

Interesting video of Fletcher Prouty and worth watching, especially near the beginning where he discusses provisioning Korea and Viet Nam with weaponry for future wars during the 1940s. The LaRouche organization who made this video attribute a lot of these secret machinations to the workings of British Intelligence and its global imperial economy which seems quite plausible to me.

[–]beerface -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Hmm, have you guys heard of plate tectonics? The continental plates drift over one another. Some of these fossil deposits were accumulated on ocean floors to begin with. Gotta use that noodle once in a while.

[–]wanab3 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

The gases are renewable, methane comes from farts. But oil probably is not, at least not in human timescales.

[–]pbrettb 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

wow is this guy ever deranged.

[–]werkshop1313 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not deranged, just simple. He observed information and drew conclusions. It's how ancient humans explained things, this guy just did the same and called it science.

[–]BoogerBagels 0ポイント1ポイント  (9子コメント)

Science is the biggest tool for control, it trumps religion by a mile.

[–]Heisenberg2308 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

Except anything in science can be tested and the same results can be obtained. If not, then we know it's bullshit

[–]BoogerBagels 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

At the end of the day, you're just accepting what a scientist says is the truth. how do you know they're telling you the truth, or if they're telling you everything.

[–]Heisenberg2308 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Except anything in science can be tested and the same results can be obtained. If not, then we know it's bullshit

Did you even read this? Because your comment leads me to believe you didn't. It's how the peer review process works.

[–]VancouverSucks 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What about when our rulers ignore science to sell us the 911 narrative.

[–]brinefly [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's good to be skeptical and I believe scientific information can be manipulated by a global consolidated media and social hegemony but even so there's a huge difference between the scientific method and belief.

[–]Ambiguously_Ironic -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep. Everything is propaganda.

Russian scientists have known this (that oil isn't scarce and that "peak oil" is a scam) for decades, you just don't hear about it in the west.