Obama’s Trusty Steed
Apparently, is a pink unicorn that farts moonbeams.
Update: Actually, it farts rainbows.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:41 am
Glad to see there are dupes repeating the abiogenesis theory over there. Not sure what the point of pointing out how stupid Al Gore is when you in the process point out that you’re even stupider.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
Sebastian-PGP,
While it’s trendy to shove abiogenesis in with Velikovsky, Lysenko, and “
Creationism” er, “Creation Science” er, “Intelligent Design”, to do so misses the point and makes one look like a scientific illiterate. (I’ll wait while you go look up Velikovsky and Lysenko.)The balance of evidence points at hydrocarbons being dinosaur juice, but there is some data that doesn’t fit that model. Of course, just because something doesn’t fit Theory A, however, does not automatically prove Theory B, which is why it is nonsensical to categorically state abiogenesis is anything like a proven, or even valid, theory.
Besides, even if plate tectonics were found to be gradually refilling old oil wells, what good does that do under the present circumstances? We’re pumping it out faster than seepage (whatever its source) is refilling them.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Not to mention that there is nothing that says hydocarbons can be formed by only *one* process.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Y-A G,
See? That’s what I’m getting at.
(But it doesn’t allow for much taking of rock hard positions and demonizing the other side as dolts, so therefore loses badly in the “Fun” sweepstakes…)
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Hey, whatchu got against fun, huh? You puritanical moralist buzzkiller. Get your grubby little hands off my fun!
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Whoops, did I say that out loud? Sorry, got a little away from me, that. 🙂
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Tam,
How does knowing that there is very little support for abiogenesis in the scientific community when 99% of the American populace has probably never heard of it make me sound illiterate?
Please. Get the fuck over yourself.
Save the ad hominem bullshit for people that haven’t actually read up on the subject.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I doubt you could make it through a current 10th grade science class class without knowing the subject. Like Gallileo’s War On Geocentrism, it’s something that the relevant books like to mention a good fifty times.
I could buy 99% of the populace not remembering it, if we’re being pessimistic, but most of them have heard about it.
I’m rather doubtful about the theories of petroleum being anything other than rather compressed dead plant or animal matter dating back several million years, but that’s more from the “you don’t see chemical bonds like this spring up overnight” viewpoint rather than the “long-debunked and completely illogical and scientifically unfounded” viewpoint.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Dude, most people can’t even tell you who the Vice President is. Do an informal poll sometime and ask 100 random people if they know what abiogenesis is. If you get more than 5, I’ll eat your hat.
The point remains, abiogenesis is pretty much in the same category as Intelligent Design–a cute idea that people exploit for political reasons, but I really don’t see the problem with pointing out that adherents to it who suggest it gives us a way around Peak Oil are at best misguided dupes.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:11 am
Ouch! The pot has called me a kitchen utensil of color!
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 am
…And Peak Oil is nothing other than a clever math game that pretends it is perfectly reasonable to assume A) the peak of a curve is predictable from the slope of the rise and B) the decline must be symmetrical with the rise. Oh, C) the rise side of the curve is perfectly smooth. (Which it ain’t. Those cutesy USA-Today type graphs that have convinced you Peak Oil is Real Science? Heavily best-fitted to make ’em work).
Complex phenomena cannot be adequately modeled by simple math. The map is not the territory. (See “Warming, Global”).
I will point out that over a hundred years ago, the “experts” were saying coal usage was outstripping supply and “peak coal” was mere decades away. Oooo, noes!!!!
BTW, our solar system, not including the dear old ball of mud we’re on, is lousy with kerogen, a complex hydrocarbon that amounts to a cude-oil slushy. How’d it get there? Space dinosaurs? Cosmic plants? I’ll just wait right here while you explain.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:12 am
I wouldn’t say lousy with kerogens; it’s only something like 5% of meteorites and some interstellar cloud material. But it is enough to turn into petroleum products in a lab.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 am
99% haven’t heard of abiogenisis? So what. It’s a relatively new theory, and new theories always take ages to gain scientific acceptance. If the theory is being taught in 10th grade, I’m happy for it, but it wasn’t as of 15 years ago.
In any case, just think of all the things that “everyone knew” or were “scientific consensus” that have turned out to be wrong. Scientific thought suffers from the same problems of inertia as everything else. It took 34 years (1931-1965) before the Big Bang Theory gained widespread acceptance. And it was probably a long time after that that 99% of the population would have heard of it. Hell, the name “Big Bang” wasn’t the original name of the theory. It was the pejorative name used to describe it by those in the majority who dismissed it.
So that abiogenisis hasn’t gained widespread exposure or acceptance in such a relatively short time does not imply that it is incorrect.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Oh come the fuck on, you were the one who dropped a pointlessly condescending turd in the punch bowl. Yeah I’m a bit snippy, but don’t pretend responding to your erroneous barb makes me the bad guy.
Given the number of major fields that are in decline and the inability of global supply to respond to record prices and ever increasing demand, what we do know for sure is that the easy to access light sweet crude supply isn’t getting any bigger, and if it isn’t peaked, you’ve got some ‘splainin to do.
Oh, and Hubberts curve isn’t perfectly smooth or symmetrical. It tapers on the far side.
YAG: not sure how you define “new”, but Gold’s theory has been around for almost two decades.
As for the “look at the things we used to know that were wrong” argument, my god is that silly. You could use that to argue that almost anything generally accepted by scientists isn’t actionable or trustworthy. Pointing to things that we lacked the tools to prove until recently like the Big Bang doesn’t mean you can lend credence to a theory that lacks anything near sufficient evidence to consider credible. The biotic origin of petrol has more than enough evidence to satisfy Occam’s Razor, and as Tam points out, there’s zero evidence that the earth is creating oil spontaneously and abiotically to negate the fact that demand is outstripping supply.
And that’s what really matters.
July 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
As for the “look at the things we used to know that were wrong” argument, my god is that silly.
No sillier than saying, this is the only way it can be because that is what we know right now. Of course, it’s also silly to turn generalities into absolutes, but since it didn’t stop you, I figured two could play at that game.
I never said that we shouldn’t take action based on things that we do currently believe. Only that just because a theory is not widely popular after a few decades does not prove that it is wrong. The Big Bang took over 30 years to gain acceptance. Personally, I’m glad we didn’t give up after 20 years of “crackpottery”. We’d know a lot less about the universe than we do today.
Is abiogenisis correct? Hell, if I know. But I’m glad there are people out there testing it.