Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moominoid who wrote (24761)	10/30/2002 8:34:26 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 74559

Hi David. I doubt that there is a conspiracy among climate scientists. But they are trying to prove Greenhouse Warming. When the facts don't fit, they adjust to make them fit the theory. The goal being to prove that we are going critical. Common interests is the usual method for what looks like conspiracy. There's no need to conspire when interests are parallel - people just act in their interests and the outcome is the same as a conspiracy. I recall that the amount of oil in the middle east in some fields far exceeds what could possibly come from deposits in situ and would require immigration of oil from distant sources. Now I'm going to have to check the Arabian Shield and see if I can get out of that problem for my theory and find some other fact to enable my subduction oil production theory to stay alive - all in the best traditions of the Greenhouse Effect scientific processes of course. Not to mention a lot of other scientific theories. I doubt that precambrian shields [if that's what you mean] are impermeable after eons of being crunched around the place, bumped and subducted beneath and lifted up and bent and twisted. There have gotta be some cracks. Giant crevasses coming up from below through which buoyant stuff can ooze. Mqurice

To: Moominoid who wrote (24761)	10/30/2002 9:22:54 PM
From: Hugh A	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74559

OT: A geological primer... RANT WARNING!! As a geologist/geochemist it is my duty to step in and clarify a few things... David - the largest oil deposits are, in fact, the oil sand deposits of northern Alberta. While everyone is looking towards the Middle East and wondering whether or not the supply will be cut off, Canada's oil sands producers plan to ramp up production to 2.4 million barrels a day of sweet crude over the next 10 years. Interestingly, this is approaching what the US imports per day now from the ME. Check out the oil sands at Syncrude Canada's website: syncrude.com Maurice - re: the origin of oil. Thomas Gold aside, there are precious few out there who can credibly argue with an organic source for oils. One of the nails in the coffin of the abiotic origin proponents are "biomarkers" - molecular fossils of once-iving organisms. I used to work with Fowler, one of the people of the reference list at the link below: oiltracers.com Lastly, let's get real about global warming. In all of earth's history there have been perhaps half a dozen glacial epochs, each of them lasting perhaps 5-10 million years. If we pick a mean value of 7 million years that means that the earth has been as cool as it is now (we are in an interglacial period) for less than 50 million of the past 4,500 million years of earth history. This means that we are living in the coldest 1-2% of all climates of all times. Statistically, things should tend toward the mean, therefore it is normal that the earth should be warming. The real question is why is the earth as cold as it is now. I have no problem with cutting down greenhouse gas emissions, but don't tell me it will stop global warming. Chicken Little meets King Canute! Rant Over. Hugh