About Me

Name: Weebork
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Oil is not organic? and Global Warming

Posted by Weebork on Sunday, October 14, 2007 3:29:31 PM
I am currently taking an upper division physics class that deals with energy and the environment. For the class we are to read a book by Paul Roberts entitled "The End of Oil: On the Edge of a Perilous New World". Essentially, the book talks about the how the world oil supply will reach a maximum output and then be on a permanent decline. The global effects of passing this "peak" will result in many bad things happening like recessions, potential war as industrial countries scramble over the remaining oil, name your fear here.

There is a hypothesis out there that oil and other hydrocarbons are not organic in origin but a natural process that the planet (or any planet for that matter) produces. After all, it is only assumed that the oil, natural gas, and coal are all results of dinosaurs, plants, ferrets (ancient ones), insects, giant flying pandas, and a host of other extinct creatures being crushed, burned, and cooked for millions of years. There have certainly been experiments that have reproduced oil out of organic materials, but then again, we can also make diamonds too, so perhaps there is an alternative explanation.

For example, scientists have used the Cassini spacecraft to map the surface of Titan, one of Jupiter's moons, and have found large lakes of hydrocarbons as big or bigger than the Great Lakes! Hydrocarbons, like methane and ethane, are present. Methane and ethane are found here on earth, they can be converted to oil. What other kind of hydrocarbons are they going to find on Titan? I'm not suggesting we mine Titan (yet), what I am saying is that there may be something to this idea that hydrocarbons are not organic in nature.

If hydrocarbons are produced by natural means and are non-organic, it may be possible to not only find a lot more oil below the earth, but we may look to other celestial bodies to find oil. Such as the moon?

To get back to the book, there is a chapter devoted somewhat to the religion of global warming. That is to say, the belief that man is the element which causes global temperatures to rise so much that we will suffer global catastrophes. Roberts doesn't even bother to convince the reader that man-made global warming is still being debated. Instead, he just starts off that man is absolutely responsible, mentions Kyoto as a means to fix our mess, then blames the US for not joining it. He does mention skeptics to man-made global warming, but he qualifies them as either right-wing nuts and/or a "tiny minority of scientists". Poppycock. Consensus does not equal science.

Roberts lists the effects of global warming by all the doomsayers: world famine, harsher winters(!)/summers, droughts, war, alien invasions, the return of flying pandas. He also lists how our human activities actually cause global warming. What is most humorous about this chapter is that all the evidence he points to for man-made global warming literally have been refuted, most recently by the BBC documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle".

I eagerly await the time in class where we are subjected to watch AlGore's "An Inconvenient Truth" where I can bring an article of a British judge who has ruled both that AlGore's movie is a one-sided political presentation and that there are 11 factual errors in it. I will also request that we watch the BBC documentary as a refutation to Gore's politically-laden movie.

I am probably the only conservative in the class, or at least I'm the only one that speaks conservative ideas. There could be other conservatives in the class, but they are too intimidated to speak up. In any event, I will have fun in the class because there is no reason for me to get all worked up over liberal bias. It remains to be seen if my grade will get affected by my overt conservative positions on things, but that won't bother me either.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Have to give the Saudi's some credit

Posted by Weebork on Friday, October 05, 2007 2:00:08 PM
After reading this BBC report, I have to give some credit to Saudi Arabia in it's campaign to modernize. I think this change, if real, is a big significant change for them. Even though there is much work to do, even baby steps such as this, even though this is one big baby, we have to give applause to the Saudi government.

I think they realize that their system of justice is obsolete and inhumane. Though based on Islam, they are intergrating moderation into their system, albeit slowly. I don't believe that the moderation is "Western" in nature, as some may claim, it goes well beyond that. It is simply a matter of decency and reason. They have had, like much of the middle east, a warped sense of justice. The underlying principle of "eye for an eye" as their sense of justice is being slowly removed or reserved for certain crimes, like murder. Being executed over adultery is not sensible in any respect, regardless of religious dogmas.

In reflecting over the linked article, I wonder if S.A. continues on this reformation path, if it will become a democratic system on its own like Turkey. Perhaps given enough time, all countries will move towards this model if given the time and freedom to choose.

I have to give extra credit to King Abdullah for decreeing this reform. If am right about the eventual move towards a democratic government in Saudi Arabia, the King may be, knowingly, removing autocracy out of power that his family has benefited from for a long time.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »