Remember to open-mindedly comment on subs with differing narratives!

submitted by happysmash27 from self.SaidIt

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

I care more about the fact that we're pigging out on a non renewable energy resource, burning up the product of fossils just to get from here to there.

If Climate change is a hoax, then what else is a possible hoax?

What if petroleum is renewable? What if the fossil fuel story is scarcity hoax designed to control the market for maximum profit???

It's a resource cartel exactly like diamond market...

[–]HopeThatHalps 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

The fact that it's non renewable is self evident. Alternatives such as ethonol are not adequate replacements for crude oil. Even if there is more crude underground than we know, it's still a non renewable resource, it will be depleted sooner or later. The crude that remains might be innaccessible, or we might cause a lot of damage in the process of getting to it.

If welathier people choose to spend more on those alternatives now, we get more volume, which leads to cheaper costs per unit, and ultimately the alternatives become affordable for everybody. It's just a question of how much non renewable crude oil we will have pissed away before that time comes. Pure capitalism dictates that we should soak up every drop of crude and burn it first, and then let someone else deal with whatever negative side effects come from that, and so I don't consider pure capitalism to be pragmatic.

[–]JasonCarswell 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I don't know why they ignore the ocean currents as a perpetual source of energy.

Oh, right. Practically free energy isn't profitable.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (8 children)

The fact that it's non renewable is self evident.

Please explain how this is self-evident.

The deepest fossil that has ever been discovered was at the 16,000 ft level.

The deepest oil well is 40,000 feet deep. How did the "fossil fuel" get 25,000 feet below the fossils?

Again, please explain how this is self-evident?

[–]HopeThatHalps 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This is an argument from ignorance. "Since I don't know something, I will just assume something else is true", in this case "I don't know how fossil fuel ended up in a certain place, therefore I will assume we can produce more fossile fuel." You're just trading one seemingly implausible premise with another of your choosing.

But maybe I'm the one who is ignorant, what can you tell me about the feasability or reproducing crude oil from scratch? I understand there is a product called "synthetic crude", but that involves taking other depletable resources and converting them into something similar to crude oil, and so that's non-renewable also.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Is this your self-evident argument?

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

How is it not self evident? To say the notion that crude oil can be wholly sythesized in a renewable fashon is highly novel, the burden falls on you to explain how this is feasible.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'm beginning to doubt that you understand what self-evident actually means...

You made the claim.

By the way petroleum has been lab synthesised.

There's a tremendous energy source beneath the crust that could supply the required energy, and catalytic materials, as well.

It's not outside or the realm of possibility.
The point is that the cartels control the land and the extraction.

Experiments have been performed on empty wells too see if they refilled.

Spoiler: They refilled...

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

By the way petroleum has been lab synthesised.

Synthesized using other non renewable resources.

There's a tremendous energy source beneath the crust that could supply the required energy, and catalytic materials, as well.

That sounds speculative and not based in fact. You're willing to completely expend a not-shown-to-be renewable natural resource based on some far out, whimsical notion that we can somehow make more of it. And what stands in support of your beliefs, that fossil fuels are deeper in the Earth than you believe they should be? I dont even know how that follows. To say that's flimsy logic is a gross understatement.

It's not outside or the realm of possibility.

What is or isn't possible is pointless to consider, because anything that can possibly be true, can possibly be false, which puts us back where we started.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Here's a better plan that no one is discussing.

Let's break up the oil cartels and perfumes a global inventory.

At the same time, we could test the oil well refilling theory.

When we have better info, we could come up with a better plan.

How does that sound?

Any guesses why this obvious solution(s) isn't being proposed? Any suggestions as to why it's so difficult to get accurate figures with today's technology?

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Because the perfumes smell so good?

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why not focus on geothermal everywhere? If they can drill 40,000 ft wells for oil, then install similar devices everywhere to harness geothermal.

The point is that the following fuel argument is bogus. So why was that myth used misinform the public? The energy cartels benefited.

So what else are they misinforming is about? Global warming was changed to climate change when the warming trend ended.
CO2 rates continued to increase during the cooling trend, so that can't be the driving factor.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actually James Corbett has covered how the idea the oil is "fossils" was a Rockefeller myth to make people think it was more "natural".

Also, strange things happen to molecules in high velocity impacts. IMHO all those carbon fluids may be in part the result of eons of asteroids, like the water collected in our oceans.

Lastly, this is old news from about a decade ago, there are folks in Nevada or California that have developed some small scale tests to make gasoline from the air and focused solar power. I'd show you, but that hard drive died. AND it was a mainstream docu science show like BBC or Horizons or NOVA or Discovery or something. It was also about removing carbon from the air.