Sunday, October 19, 2025
Thursday, October 16, 2025
Wednesday, October 15, 2025
Sunday, October 12, 2025
Abiogenic Petroleum Theory
Origin of the term "fossil fuels"..
No, the claim that John D. Rockefeller paid scientists to call oil "fossil fuel" to create a perception of scarcity is false
. The term was in use long before Rockefeller's time. The term "fossil fuel" was first recorded in the English translation of the work of German chemist Caspar Neumann in 1759. John D. Rockefeller was not born until 1839, many decades later.
The claim that Rockefeller was responsible for the term's creation at the 1892 Geneva Convention (likely a reference to the Geneva Nomenclature Congress, which addressed chemical naming conventions) is a debunked conspiracy theory. There is no historical evidence that Rockefeller attended this event or influenced the scientific community's terminology.
The word "fossil" in the term was originally used in its older sense, meaning "obtained by digging" or "found buried in the earth," long before the word primarily came to refer to the preserved remains of long-dead organisms. The term became more widely used in the early 1900s, after the scientific understanding of their organic origin from ancient biomass (mostly marine microorganisms and plants over millions of years) was established.
Where does oil come from?
Abiogenic Petroleum Theory
AI Overview
The abiogenic theory of crude oil production is considered false by mainstream science primarily because a vast body of empirical and geochemical evidence overwhelmingly supports the biogenic theory, which states that oil forms from the decomposition of organic matter in sedimentary basins.
Key reasons and evidence against the abiogenic theory include:
- Presence of Biomarkers: Crude oil contains complex molecules called molecular fossils (biomarkers), such as porphyrins (derived from chlorophyll) and specific hydrocarbons like pristane and phytane, that can only be formed by living organisms. Abiotically produced hydrocarbons lack these specific biological "fingerprints".
- Location of Deposits: More than 99% of commercially viable oil deposits are found in sedimentary rocks (e.g., shales, sandstones, limestones) that were once ancient sea or lake beds rich in the remains of marine organisms like algae and plankton. The abiogenic theory predicts oil should be found in deep fault zones within crystalline basement rock (igneous or metamorphic rock), which is not where major fields are typically found. When oil is found in non-sedimentary rock, it has migrated there from nearby sedimentary source rock.
- Carbon Isotope Ratios: The ratio of carbon isotopes in crude oil is consistent with that found in organic matter, which preferentially selects the lighter isotope of carbon (¹²C). This isotopic signature strongly indicates a biological origin.
- Optical Activity: Crude oil exhibits optical activity (the ability to rotate polarized light), a characteristic typical of compounds synthesized by living organisms (like cholesterol), but not found in inorganically synthesized oil.
- Lack of Commercial Success: Attempts to discover commercial quantities of oil based purely on the abiogenic theory have been largely unsuccessful. A prominent example is the drilling of the Siljan Ring impact crater in Sweden, which was predicted to have significant abiogenic oil deposits but only produced uneconomical trace amounts, many of which were later shown to be from drilling additives.
- Inability to Form from Inorganic Matter at Relevant Temperatures/Pressures: While simple hydrocarbons (like methane) can form abiotically, and some lab experiments have produced trace amounts of more complex hydrocarbons under extremely high pressures and temperatures mimicking the mantle, these conditions do not explain the formation of the large, diverse, and specific molecules found in natural crude oil, nor how they would remain stable as they migrated to shallower crustal depths.
In conclusion, the abiogenic theory is not supported by the vast majority of direct geological and geochemical observations and has been scientifically discredited as a primary explanation for the Earth's significant crude oil reserves.
Wednesday, October 8, 2025
Tuesday, October 7, 2025
Friday, October 3, 2025
Wednesday, October 1, 2025
Will Asteroid Apophis Hit Earth?
AI Overview
If Asteroid Apophis were to strike Earth, it would release an immense amount of energy, equivalent to over 1,000 megatons of TNT, or hundreds of nuclear weapons, causing widespread destruction across a radius of hundreds of kilometers.
...
Important Note: While a hypothetical strike by Apophis would be catastrophic on a regional and potentially global scale, the scientific community has determined that it is no longer on a collision course with Earth for the foreseeable future.
The Cost of Climate Alarmism
Lomborg points out that global warming and climate change are real but exaggerated. These exaggerations result in catastrophic consequences, both environmentally and economically. Using data and models for hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding to exemplify these exaggerations, Lomborg points out that climate disaster is on the decline thanks to human adaptation.
Climate alarmists conclude future disasters will cost the world trillions of dollars, but those data points assume people will do nothing. Through adaptation, the reality is fewer people will be impacted by climate disasters, and the cost of damages will decrease due to better preparation, technology, and innovation.
KEY POINTS
Global warming is a real problem, but it's often over-exaggerated.
Global warming is a real problem, but it's often over-exaggerated.
Fire burn areas have decreased from 4% per year of global land in 1900 to only 2.5% in recent years.
Deaths from climate-related disasters have declined from 500,000 in 1920 to just under 7,000 per year in recent years.
The cost to mitigate climate change outcomes is more affordable than the cost of implementing Net Zero policy.
"The cost of Net Zero is the equivalent of passing a "Build Back Better Bill" every year for the next 29 years."
Climate change and the scientific method
Climate alarmists seek to silence those whose research raises doubts. Instead of claiming that "the science is settled,"
Since the late 1970s, climate scientists have told the American people that global temperatures would increase more than one degree Celsius by 2020. However, actual satellite temperature observations do not support these predictions. Observed temperatures were less than half as high as the climate models' predictions...
...
Since the late 1970s, climate scientists have told the American people that global temperatures would increase more than one degree Celsius by 2020. However, actual satellite temperature observations do not support these predictions. Observed temperatures were less than half as high as the climate models' predictions...
Commenting on the recent hurricanes, many climate scientists have tried to link these storms and climate change. But the historical record disproves them. Hurricane landfalls in the United States since 1900 are on a steady decline. The cost of damages from these storms, as a percentage of gross domestic product, is also shrinking. Even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has affirmed that they have "low confidence" in climate change contributing to extreme weather.
...
For example, some claim that the Paris Climate Accord will reduce global warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius. They have barraged the American people with this falsehood to garner support for the deal. But MIT data shows that the agreement would decrease warming only 0.16 degree Celsius by 2100 – over 80 years from now – and only if all 195 countries completely abided by the agreement.
...
For example, some claim that the Paris Climate Accord will reduce global warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius. They have barraged the American people with this falsehood to garner support for the deal. But MIT data shows that the agreement would decrease warming only 0.16 degree Celsius by 2100 – over 80 years from now – and only if all 195 countries completely abided by the agreement.
Global Warming Fears -Climate Dollars
The Conflict
As the Spencer-Christy method to measure atmospheric temperatures was being developed—a method that would permit scientists to test the greenhouse gas warming hypothesis in the Charney Report—international organizations did not wait to act. They were being mobilized to control greenhouse gases that the untested hypothesis of the Charney Report guessed would cause global warming. The international solution proposed was to control emissions of carbon dioxide.
Yet a conflict arose among scientists over the question of whether the Charney Report's hypothesis had been adequately tested, and the dispute became very public because governmental organizations with large public funding were involved. The conflict, in other words, was and remains largely political, not scientific, and it is financed by governments.
Independent researchers have tested the Charney Report's hypothesis against atmospheric temperature data, which now extends over 37 years, and found the hypothesis wanting. The Report's assumptions are simply not supported by empirical observation of nature. The hypothesis needs to be modified or discarded. As Richard Feynman, a Nobel laureate in physics, liked to say, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
From Warming Fears to Cooling Claims
The lack of significant warming in recent years has become such an embarrassment that many desperate persons are now abandoning the term "global warming" in favor of the term "climate change"
As the Spencer-Christy method to measure atmospheric temperatures was being developed—a method that would permit scientists to test the greenhouse gas warming hypothesis in the Charney Report—international organizations did not wait to act. They were being mobilized to control greenhouse gases that the untested hypothesis of the Charney Report guessed would cause global warming. The international solution proposed was to control emissions of carbon dioxide.
Yet a conflict arose among scientists over the question of whether the Charney Report's hypothesis had been adequately tested, and the dispute became very public because governmental organizations with large public funding were involved. The conflict, in other words, was and remains largely political, not scientific, and it is financed by governments.
Independent researchers have tested the Charney Report's hypothesis against atmospheric temperature data, which now extends over 37 years, and found the hypothesis wanting. The Report's assumptions are simply not supported by empirical observation of nature. The hypothesis needs to be modified or discarded. As Richard Feynman, a Nobel laureate in physics, liked to say, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
From Warming Fears to Cooling Claims
The lack of significant warming in recent years has become such an embarrassment that many desperate persons are now abandoning the term "global warming" in favor of the term "climate change"
...
In addition, some political advocates of climate alarmism have invented the claim that increased carbon dioxide will worsen extreme weather events like hurricanes, but this, too, has no basis in broadly accepted theory or in empirical observation. As the Swedish climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson has written, "there are no indications of extreme weather in the model simulations, and even less so in current observations."
Similarly, professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado, Boulder, has published extensively on extreme weather, including at the center-left website FiveThirtyEight.com run by Nate Silver. He writes, "There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally." But in the same article he observes that even though the U.N. IPPC backtracked on earlier claims related to extreme weather, he and his findings were attacked by the Obama White House
...
The failure to find physical evidence that supports the Charney Report's assumptions does not stem from any lack of funding—from both governmental and private sources—in strong support for projects trying to find such evidence.
https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/a-short-history-of-global-warming-fears/
Similarly, professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado, Boulder, has published extensively on extreme weather, including at the center-left website FiveThirtyEight.com run by Nate Silver. He writes, "There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally." But in the same article he observes that even though the U.N. IPPC backtracked on earlier claims related to extreme weather, he and his findings were attacked by the Obama White House
...
The failure to find physical evidence that supports the Charney Report's assumptions does not stem from any lack of funding—from both governmental and private sources—in strong support for projects trying to find such evidence.
https://www.climatedollars.org/full-study/a-short-history-of-global-warming-fears/
Climate Alarmists Eschew Alarmism
I'm wondering what the difference is between "climate doom", and realism based on scientific data? Legitimate scientific papers from the 80s and 90s concluded, "we have ten years left to address climate change, before it's too late". These weren't fringe articles, but rather, genuine peer-reviewed papers in recognised scientific journals. So…are these papers suddenly no longer valid? Why is someone who reads these, and concludes that it's too late, called a "doomer"?
...To which I answered:
You busted a troubled narrative. Climate exaggeration has been mainstream for decades, and it is now alarming the alarmists.
...To which I answered:
You busted a troubled narrative. Climate exaggeration has been mainstream for decades, and it is now alarming the alarmists.
Monday, September 29, 2025
Saturday, September 27, 2025
This family found a lost bear cub on the road, and then this happened.
@Solopraneur
13 days agoI'm sorry, if you ever find a baby bear you run. Most of the time the mother is right behind it and they always attack.
Friday, September 26, 2025
William Shatner is 94 years old
William Shatner attributes his longevity to a mix of luck, genetics, staying physically and mentally active, and embracing life's opportunities with curiosity and a zest for joy. He stresses the importance of physical activity, a balanced diet, sufficient sleep, and a positive, engaged attitude, emphasizing that "your health and your energy is partially your doing, but partially accidental—genetic and accidental"
Thursday, September 25, 2025
Wednesday, September 24, 2025
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
Trump Blames Tylenol for Autism
'During the press conference, officials pointed to a study done by Harvard University and other researchers that found that women who reported taking acetaminophen while they were pregnant seemed to be slightly more likely to have a child who was later diagnosed with autism.
One of the researchers on that study was Ann Bauer, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts. Bauer said she thinks pregnant women should be told about a possible risk from acetaminophen. But the researcher also was worried that it might be too soon to have the federal government offering guidance on its use.
"I'm a little concerned about how this message is going to come because I think they may be jumping the gun," Bauer said before the announcement was made. "I think those of us in the research community would like to see stronger evidence."
Many physicians and autism advocacy groups said they opposed the administration's stance.
"It is highly unsettling that our federal health agencies are willing to make an announcement that will affect the health and well-being of millions of people without the backing of reliable data," Steven J. Fleischman, M.D., president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in a written statement.
Even the notice about acetaminophen issued to physicians by the Food and Drug Administration pointed out that a possible link to autism was an area of ongoing scientific debate, and said that "while an association between acetaminophen and autism has been described in many studies, a causal relationship has not been established and there are contrary studies in the scientific literature."
Specifically, the Food and Drug Administration, as well as the agency that sets policy for Medicare and Medicaid, pledged to change the indication on a medication called leucovorin as a treatment for autism, despite scant evidence that this form of vitamin B has any effect.
In response to that change, the American Psychiatric Association issued a statement opposing the administration's suggestion that vaccines cause autism, adding that leucovorin (folinic acid) is not recommended to treat autism, adding "it will require many more years of research before we know if leucovorin is an appropriate treatment for individuals with autism."'
One of the researchers on that study was Ann Bauer, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts. Bauer said she thinks pregnant women should be told about a possible risk from acetaminophen. But the researcher also was worried that it might be too soon to have the federal government offering guidance on its use.
"I'm a little concerned about how this message is going to come because I think they may be jumping the gun," Bauer said before the announcement was made. "I think those of us in the research community would like to see stronger evidence."
Many physicians and autism advocacy groups said they opposed the administration's stance.
"It is highly unsettling that our federal health agencies are willing to make an announcement that will affect the health and well-being of millions of people without the backing of reliable data," Steven J. Fleischman, M.D., president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said in a written statement.
Even the notice about acetaminophen issued to physicians by the Food and Drug Administration pointed out that a possible link to autism was an area of ongoing scientific debate, and said that "while an association between acetaminophen and autism has been described in many studies, a causal relationship has not been established and there are contrary studies in the scientific literature."
Specifically, the Food and Drug Administration, as well as the agency that sets policy for Medicare and Medicaid, pledged to change the indication on a medication called leucovorin as a treatment for autism, despite scant evidence that this form of vitamin B has any effect.
In response to that change, the American Psychiatric Association issued a statement opposing the administration's suggestion that vaccines cause autism, adding that leucovorin (folinic acid) is not recommended to treat autism, adding "it will require many more years of research before we know if leucovorin is an appropriate treatment for individuals with autism."'
Saturday, September 20, 2025
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)