Faked "Fossil Fuel" Fear Factor

I will keep this short and simple.

Huffington Post - Cassini Probe Views Lakes on Titan

Titan more closely resembles Earth than any other planet or moon in our solar system, with a dense atmosphere and stable liquids on its surface. But Titan's clouds, lakes and rain are made up of hydrocarbons, such as ethane and methane, rather than water.

NatGeo - Lakes and Salt Flats on Titan

Other than Earth, Titan is the only other world in the solar system that appears to have stable bodies of liquid on its surface, except on this distant moon because surface temperatures are a nippy – 290 degrees Fahrenheit, the liquids here are not water but hydrocarbon.

JPL - Cassini Finds Hydrocarbon Rain May Fill Titan Lakes

Recent images of Titan from NASA’s Cassini spacecraft affirm the presence of lakes of liquid hydrocarbons by capturing changes in the lakes brought on by rainfall.

Universe Today - Titan Overflowing with Liquid Hydrocarbons

According to new Cassini data, Saturns largest moon, Titan, has “hundreds” times more liquid hydrocarbons than all the liquid fossil fuel depositson Earth. This is impressive as Titan’s 5150 km diameter is only about 50% larger than Earth’s Moon and only a little larger than the planet Mercury. Titan’s hydrocarbons cycle into the atmosphere, fall as rain and collect in lakes creating massive lakes and dunes.

NBC - Cassini Finds Propylene on Titan

Propylene, the key ingredient in household plastic containers, has been discovered in the atmosphere of Saturn's smoggy moon Titan — marking more firsts for planetary science.

It's the first time this particular hydrocarbon has been detected on a world beyond Earth, and it's the first new molecule to be identified by the Cassini orbiter's Composite Infrared Spectrometer. Similar hydrocarbons were found by NASA's Voyager 1 spacecraft in 1980, leading scientists to wonder why they weren't seeing the propylene.

Oh! Way back in 1980, huh?

Voyager had detected two chemicals in Titan's atmosphere that are closely related to propylene — propane and propyne — but its instruments weren't sensitive enough to find the propylene.

Well, wow. Voyager 1 found propane gas on Titan 33 years ago. Ain't that something?

I said short and simple though, so here it is:

There are complex hydrocarbons on Titan

There are more liquid hydrocarbons on the surface of Titan than in all the known reserves of Earth

Titan is pre-biotic(has organics, but no organisms...that we know of)

This means Titan's hydrocarbons are pre-biotic

This means pre-biotic or abiotic hydrocarbons, long derided by mainstream science, are not only possible but are a fact

This means some or all of Earth's hydrocarbons may be abiotic

Which means hydrocarbon fuels are not necessarily comprised of ancient jungles full of lizards

Which means hydrocarbons are not "fossil" fuels

Which means they are not necessarily non-renewable

This has been known, or at least indicated, since the 1980s

...and yet everyone in the media and in academia have persisted in referring to Terran hydrocarbons as "fossil fuels"

Now here's where it starts to get fun.

So hydrocarbons on earth may not, in fact, be comprised of ancient jungles full of lizards

Which means Earth's reserves may not be "vast sinks" of "trapped" CO² gas that used to be in the atmosphere, back when the hydrocarbons in the reserves were still ancient jungles full of lizards

Which means the CO² that was in the atmosphere during the time of the ancient jungle lizards is still in it today for the most part

Which means the hothouse climates that existed during the time of the jungle lizards came and went without appreciable rises or drops in atmospheric CO²

Which means Carbon may not be as major a greenhouse gas at it is purported to be

Which is probably why they have persisted in calling them "fossil" fuels despite contradictory evidence for the past 33 years.

The End.

I'm going to bed. Have fun with that.

Great Thread! Thank you.

You know, it's interesting, that one of the first threads I read when I found this sight, was about an oil deposit, that somehow was managing to refill itself.

You sure don't hear about that on the MSM! I don't know why, but our oil coming from dead dino's never made sense to me, even though I'm no chemist or scientist.

reply to post by Tsurugi

So hydrocarbons on earth may not, in fact, be comprised of ancient jungles full of lizards

How about ancient and current oceans full of plankton?

Petroleum geologists agree that oil originates from vast quantities of dead marine plankton or plant material that sank into the mud of shallow seas. Under the resulting anaerobic conditions, organic compounds remained in a reduced state where anaerobic bacteria converted the lipids (fats, oils and waxes) into a waxy substance called kerogen.

As the source rock was buried deeper, overburden pressure raised temperatures into the oil window, between 80 and 180 °C. Most of the organic compounds degraded into the straight-chain hydrocarbons that comprise most of petroleum. This process is called the generation kitchen.

Once crude oil formed, it became very fluid and migrated upward through the rock strata. This process is called oil expulsion. Eventually it was either trapped in an oil reservoir or oil escaped to the surface and was biodegraded by soil bacteria.

Oil buried deeper entered the "gas window" of more than 160 °C and was converted into natural gas by thermal cracking. This gives the prediction that only unassociated gas and not oil will be found below a certain depth. At greater depths, even natural gas would be pyrolyzed.

Which means Earth's reserves may not be "vast sinks" of "trapped" CO² gas that used to be in the atmosphere,

The forests, swamps and ocean plant life are those "vast deposits" aren't they? All that greenery is trapped carbon. They are still being made today as far as I know. Thats how coal forms for Peats sake.

Not saying life exclusively made these oil deposits, but obviously it helped.

I seem to remember reading about the Russians drilling super wells and that the oil they were getting had absolutely nothing to do with the fairy tale of lizards lol ..The thing that gets at my goat is that these PHD's that will not come out and just tell us straight up . And don't go say well they will lose their funding and ruin their career . WHY the big reason to deceive people . I just dont get it ....Good post OP S&F for you ....peace

reply to post by Tsurugi


The Russians think CAGW is a crock....

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory has predicted another Little Ice Age. From the early 90s, Dr Abdussamatov has observed bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth, which, he says, will result in the temperature starting to drop in approximately 2014. He expects the onset of a deep bicentennial minimum of TSI in 2042±11, and the beginning of a Little Ice Age – the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.

His paper was posted in Applied Physics Research under the title “Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age” on 1 Feb 2012. LINK

They also think there is abiotic oil based on Russian geologist Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev abiotic hypothesis of petroleum in 1951.

Abiotic Oil and Gas: A Theory That Refuses To Vanish

Western geologists and scientists find the theory either annoying or amusing and refuse to consider it seriously although there are exceptions. The theory continues to be held in much higher regard by Russian scientists and geologists...

Many Russian geologists and petroleum researchers credit the rise of Russia over the past 50 years as the largest producer of oil and second largest producer of natural gas in the world to the successful application of the abiogenic theory of oil and gas formation. The Russians claim to have successfully drilled over 300 ultra deep (around 40,000feet) oil and gas wells through granite and basalt based on this theory....

A research team at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, led by Vladimir Kutherov, demonstrated that animal and plant fossils are not necessary for producing oil and natural gas. The team simulated the thermal and pressure processes that occur in the inner layers of the earth to generate hydrocarbons, the chief component of oil and natural gas. The team also noted that oil and gas has been found 7 miles below ground in Texas and fossil oil and gas could not, via, gravity have seeped down to such depths.....

An abiogenic theory of petroleum is not new, dating from the 16th century .In the 19th century two very accomplished scientists, Alexander von Humboldt and Dimitri Mendeleev( of the Periodic Table fame) advanced the concept. In the 20th century the Russian- Ukrainian School of geology emerged in the Soviet Union to vigorously formulate the modern theory of abiogenic oil and gas....

The matrix of scientific, political and business interests in the West, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil (an emerging oil exporter of consequence) and Venezuela that refuses to countenance abiogenic theories is big and potent. These interests want oil and gas to be scarce and expensive for a variety of reasons. It is natural and understandable that no credible test of the theory will be attempted within the ambit of these interests.....

reply to post by crimvelvet


Thank you for that post . There are so many sheep following the false sciences and being duped in the process .I guess the present scam fits better into the millions and billions of years then it might fit a much younger earth .It seems that they will go to no lengths to keep that part intact . I read a article recently how two museums get their story straight by one dating the fossils by the age of the rock while the other dates the rock on the fossils . One lying and the other swearing to it .lol

Abiogenic sources of oil have been found, but never in commercially profitable amounts. The controversy isn't over whether naturally forming oil reserves exist, said Larry Nation of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. It's over how much they contribute to Earth's overall reserves and how much time and effort geologists should devote to seeking them out.

If abiogenic petroleum sources are indeed found to be abundant, it would mean Earth contains vast reserves of untapped petroleum and, since other rocky objects formed from the same raw material as Earth, that crude oil might exist on other planets or moons in the solar system, scientists say.

There must be more than one way to get oil/petroleum products without sea life, lizards, and plant material.. Titan being only one of the observed examples. So there must be more than one way to bake up some hydrocarbon, No? The abiogenic petroleum process is being spoken of more than ever before because some of the latest findings seem to bolster the theory.. People like KISS answers but usually the details and path are much more.... err detailed.

The Mysterious Origin and Supply of Oil @ www.livescience.com...

pinterest.com...//www.livescience.com/9404-mysterious-origin-supply-oil.html&media=http://i.livescience.com/images/ i/000/007/523/original/080213-blank-02.jpg?1296089134&description=Tornado%20Science%2C%20Facts%20and%20History

reply to post by Tsurugi

I said short and simple though, so here it is:

There are complex hydrocarbons on Titan
There are more liquid hydrocarbons on the surface of Titan than in all the known reserves of Earth
Titan is pre-biotic(has organics, but no organisms...that we know of)
This means Titan's hydrocarbons are pre-biotic
This means pre-biotic or abiotic hydrocarbons, long derided by mainstream science, are not only possible but are a fact
This means some or all of Earth's hydrocarbons may be abiotic
Which means hydrocarbon fuels are not necessarily comprised of ancient jungles full of lizards
Which means hydrocarbons are not "fossil" fuels
Which means they are not necessarily non-renewable
This has been known, or at least indicated, since the 1980s
...and yet everyone in the media and in academia have persisted in referring to Terran hydrocarbons as "fossil fuels"

Now here's where it starts to get fun.

So hydrocarbons on earth may not, in fact, be comprised of ancient jungles full of lizards
Which means Earth's reserves may not be "vast sinks" of "trapped" CO² gas that used to be in the atmosphere, back when the hydrocarbons in the reserves were still ancient jungles full of lizards
Which means the CO² that was in the atmosphere during the time of the ancient jungle lizards is still in it today for the most part
Which means the hothouse climates that existed during the time of the jungle lizards came and went without appreciable rises or drops in atmospheric CO²
Which means Carbon may not be as major a greenhouse gas at it is purported to be
Which is probably why they have persisted in calling them "fossil" fuels despite contradictory evidence for the past 33 years.

Allow me to deconstruct your disinformation:

1. Nobody actually questions that there are abiotic sources of hydrocarbons. For instance, methane (CH4) has been discovered on all of the planets and many moons. It does not follow that because some hydrocarbons are created by abiotic processes under some conditions that all sources of fuel composed of hydrocarbons must have also been created by abiotic processes. A series of statements, each on it's own line does not immediately constitute logic.

2. You're using the term "hydrocarbons" quite loosely: on Titan for instance, we're talking about lakes of methane and clouds of methane and ethane (C2H6). This is a far cry from crude oil which contains various mixtures of hydrocarbons along with a lot of other things (quotes from wikipedia) :

The hydrocarbons in crude oil are mostly alkanes, cycloalkanes and various aromatic hydrocarbons while the other organic compounds contain nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, and trace amounts of metals such as iron, nickel, copper and vanadium.

The alkanes from pentane (C5H12) to octane (C8H18) are refined into petrol, the ones from nonane (C9H20) to hexadecane (C16H34) into diesel fuel, kerosene and jet fuel. Alkanes with more than 16 carbon atoms can be refined into fuel oil and lubricating oil. At the heavier end of the range, paraffin wax is an alkane with approximately 25 carbon atoms, while asphalt has 35 and up, although these are usually cracked by modern refineries into more valuable products

As with crude oil, the composition of the various types of naturally occurring coal can similarly include any number of hydrocarbons.

So yeah, it's like comparing apples and apple pie.

3. Dinosaurs weren't lizards. Also, the largest sources of coal are beds formed in the Carboniferous period (roughly 300-360 millions ago) or about 70 million years before the first dinosaurs. Coal and natural gas are formed mostly from ancient terrestrial plants--entire fossil forests have been found in coal seams. The bulk of petroleum actually started out as zooplankton, phytoplankton, and algae that was deposited on the bottom of ancient oceans and lakes.

That's just a start. The geology and chemistry behind the formation of fossil fuels is well understood, pretending something else is willful ignorance and from your repeated derisive use of the word "lizard" when referring to dinosaurs, should I imply religious belief looms largely in your hypothesis?

reply to post by Tsurugi


So George Carlin was right, the Universe wants plastic so that's why we are here

theantediluvian

Allow me to deconstruct your disinformation:

Have at it.

1. Nobody actually questions that there are abiotic sources of hydrocarbons. For instance, methane (CH4) has been discovered on all of the planets and many moons. It does not follow that because some hydrocarbons are created by abiotic processes under some conditions that all sources of fuel composed of hydrocarbons must have also been created by abiotic processes. A series of statements, each on it's own line does not immediately constitute logic.

Quite right! But the particular hydrocarbons we use here on earth must have been created by a biotic process and not an abiotic process, even though we know there is evidence for abiotic processes in many places just as you said...but there's only one place(that we know of) where a biotic process might have taken place, and that's earth. And we're just going to go ahead and assume that, here on earth, it's chiefly a biotic process. In fact, we will ridicule the entire concept of abiotic processes. Because a series of statements each on it's own line does immediately constitute logic as long as that logic is Government Approved Logic. Yes?

2. You're using the term "hydrocarbons" quite loosely: on Titan for instance, we're talking about lakes of methane and clouds of methane and ethane (C2H6). This is a far cry from crude oil which contains various mixtures of hydrocarbons along with a lot of other things (quotes from wikipedia) :

Haha, loosely? Nossir, I'm using the term for what it is. It's hydrocarbons.
And yes, those lovely clouds and lakes on Titan are of methane and ethane. But you forgot the propane. And the polymers that they found. But lakes of natural gas--abiotic natural gas--isn't conclusive in your mind, I suppose. There cannot be the kind of oil we use here on earth because dang it, there aren't any giant lizards in it. Q.E.D.!

Your quote from Der Wiki:

The hydrocarbons in crude oil are mostly alkanes, cycloalkanes and various aromatic hydrocarbons while the other organic compounds contain nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur, and trace amounts of metals such as iron, nickel, copper and vanadium.

The alkanes from pentane (C5H12) to octane (C8H18) are refined into petrol, the ones from nonane (C9H20) to hexadecane (C16H34) into diesel fuel, kerosene and jet fuel. Alkanes with more than 16 carbon atoms can be refined into fuel oil and lubricating oil. At the heavier end of the range, paraffin wax is an alkane with approximately 25 carbon atoms, while asphalt has 35 and up, although these are usually cracked by modern refineries into more valuable products

Lovely. I'm not sure I see the problem here....are you suggesting that Titan does not have one or more of the elements listed above? Or are you saying that only jungles with lizards can convert those elements into octane molecules?
Also, you're talking about the composition of the hydrocarbon reserves we find deep within the planet. There are two neat things that happen deep in a planet that can affect some astounding chemical events to occur. Those things are heat and pressure.
But I suppose you think that all of Titan's hydrocarbons must be on the surface? And even if there is some underground, it doesn't have any metals in it, and certainly not any sulfur or nitrogen or oxygen, and especially not hydrogen. And even if there was all of those elements, there won't be alkalines. Because there weren't any lizards. With jungles.

As with crude oil, the composition of the various types of naturally occurring coal can similarly include any number of hydrocarbons.

So yeah, it's like comparing apples and apple pie.

Um. Wikipedia is saying crude oils come in various different mixtures, but basically they are comprised of hydrocarbons and organic elements, plus trace amounts of metals and other minerals. This is a problem....how?

3. Dinosaurs weren't lizards.

Really? How about "reptiles". Can I call them reptiles?

Also, the largest sources of coal are beds formed in the Carboniferous period (roughly 300-360 millions ago) or about 70 million years before the first dinosaurs. Coal and natural gas are formed mostly from ancient terrestrial plants--entire fossil forests have been found in coal seams. The bulk of petroleum actually started out as zooplankton, phytoplankton, and algae that was deposited on the bottom of ancient oceans and lakes.

Lovely. First of all, no one was talking about coal. Second, there is natural gas on Titan, so the supposition that the natural gas here must be a product of ancient jungles--even ancient microbiological jungles of zooplankton--is not conclusive. Third, just because microbiological organisms, or traces of them, are found within petroleum deposits is not conclusive that such deposits are therefore a byproduct of said microorganisms. Your entire paragraph above is a long string of suppositions and assumptions, and the assumption that hydrocarbon fuels are solely a product of biology is an assumption that the presence of hydrocarbons and complex pre-biotic organic chemistry on other worlds has shattered and dropped into the BS bin of history, which is the point of my entire post.

That's just a start. The geology and chemistry behind the formation of fossil fuels is well understood, pretending something else is willful ignorance and from your repeated derisive use of the word "lizard" when referring to dinosaurs, should I imply religious belief looms largely in your hypothesis?

Sigh. The geology and chemistry behind the formation of hydrocarbon fuels is considered to be fully understood by some scientists but certainly not all, as a previous post shows regarding the way the Russians in particular look at hydrocarbon fuels. And those who consider it to be fully understood and set in stone are trying to maintain that belief despite conflicting evidence both on earth and off it. Because the fact is, the presence of organic chemistry and hydrocarbon formation in an extraterrestrial environment is a deathblow to the presumption of biological origins of hydrocarbon fuels.

I am extremely sorry and apologetic that I used the word "lizard" in such a mean, spiteful, hurtful way and I will never do it again. I hope one day you recover from the wounds I caused you with that viciously sharp, hurtful word.

Religion has zip to do with this on my end. But don't worry, I'm sure you can come up with some other reason to brand me a heretic in order to tell yourself that nothing I say is worth considering.

Have a nice day!

chiefsmom
You know, it's interesting, that one of the first threads I read when I found this sight, was about an oil deposit, that somehow was managing to refill itself.

I've seen hints of stuff like that a time or two as well. You think you could find it? I'd love to follow up on it.

intrptr
Petroleum geologists agree that oil originates from vast quantities of dead marine plankton or plant material that sank into the mud of shallow seas.

Not true. Some petroleum geologists think that, but it is by no means ubiquitous.

As the source rock was buried deeper, overburden pressure raised temperatures into the oil window, between 80 and 180 °C. Most of the organic compounds degraded into the straight-chain hydrocarbons that comprise most of petroleum. This process is called the generation kitchen.

Look at what they are describing: Lots of living organisms die and pile up. Later, heat and pressure degrade the organic compounds of the organisms into hydrocarbons.
Ok, fine. Except on Titan, hydrocarbons are not degrading from organic compounds of biological organisms. It is combining together from elemental ingredients! This is abiotic hydrocarbon formation. But in the west, the assumption is made that all petroleum products are a result of biology. Why?

The forests, swamps and ocean plant life are those "vast deposits" aren't they?

Yes! But they are still on the surface, which means their carbon is not "trapped", it is still in cycle.

Thats how coal forms for Peats sake.

Haha! Nice one. I get it...."for Peats sake"....like "peat bog", right? Coal, peat bog....for peats sake...hah!

Not saying life exclusively made these oil deposits, but obviously it helped.

Ok. And I was not saying that all hydrocarbon formation on earth must be abiotic. But there are plenty of scientists and others in western culture who do say that life exclusively made those oil deposits, and that was what my post was aimed at.
If you only meant to argue that the biological formation of hydrocarbons is possible on earth and probably does take place, then we have no argument, sir.

crimvelvet
The Russians think CAGW is a crock....

Yeah, I've seen that, heh. But I get the feeling that there are those in their government that are totally fine with the western nations completely believing in it. From a purely practical standpoint, I guess it makes sense....if my competition wants to tie himself in knots and slow himself down, I will simply stand back and let him have at it!

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory has predicted another Little Ice Age. From the early 90s, Dr Abdussamatov has observed bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth, which, he says, will result in the temperature starting to drop in approximately 2014. He expects the onset of a deep bicentennial minimum of TSI in 2042±11, and the beginning of a Little Ice Age – the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.

Ahh, the TSI. That's interesting....I'll have to go and read the paper. I've been getting the impression from western science outlets that the TSI was increasing! I recall reading that all the bodies orbiting the sun were showing an increase in surface or atmospheric temperature....I'll have to dig into that now.
Meanwhile....time to wax the ole' snowboard! Woot!

They also think there is abiotic oil based on Russian geologist Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev abiotic hypothesis of petroleum in 1951.

Nice! Another name to research. Thanks!

Western geologists and scientists find the theory either annoying or amusing and refuse to consider it seriously although there are exceptions.

Isn't that crazy? Considering Titan is out there with the stuff raining down into freaking lakes on its surface?

A research team at the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, led by Vladimir Kutherov, demonstrated that animal and plant fossils are not necessary for producing oil and natural gas. The team simulated the thermal and pressure processes that occur in the inner layers of the earth to generate hydrocarbons, the chief component of oil and natural gas.

Yep! Although if they thought that was going to convince western geologists and scientists, they should have recalled that Titan is making tons of abiotic hydrocarbons all the time, and we have an excellent probe circling around the area sending us tons of data on it, detailing the processes taking place and westerners refuse to be swayed. They even can write papers and articles about what is taking place on Titan, and without blinking an eye go right back to referring to "fossil fuels".
Ain't religion a wonderful thing?

The team also noted that oil and gas has been found 7 miles below ground in Texas and fossil oil and gas could not, via gravity have seeped down to such depths.....

Right! Hah. How did it get through the water table?

The matrix of scientific, political and business interests in the West, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Brazil and Venezuela that refuses to countenance abiogenic theories is big and potent. These interests want oil and gas to be scarce and expensive for a variety of reasons. It is natural and understandable that no credible test of the theory will be attempted within the ambit of these interests.

Absolutely right. Which is why I am attempting to point out that Titan is, in fact, a substitute "credible test" of the theory that has sorta snuck in beneath the radar.

They always say "Russian Propaganda"...

Then it can be easily dismissed!!

After seeing deep water horizon scenario play out...

No way fossil fuel made it 35,000 feet, nearly 7 miles deep.

The pressure that was on it too.

One big scam we are living in!!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crust_(geology)
en.wikipedia.org...(geology)

The oceanic crust of the sheet is different from its continental crust. The oceanic crust is 5 km (3 mi) to 10 km (6 mi) thick

and the men in white coats say it takes 300 tons of organic material to produce 1 gallon of oil .
38 gallons in a barrel 750.000.000 million barrels pumped out of the earth every week x 52 .

that is a lot of oil 36 billion barrels a year has there ever been that amount of organic material produced on a yearly basis for all that oil .

ps the men in white coats say that i am 96% monkey but use pigs for human transplants .

and those same men in white coats are rumored to make cider without apples watch them

reply to post by Tsurugi

If you only meant to argue that the biological formation of hydrocarbons is possible on earth and probably does take place, then we have no argument, sir.

And if you only meant to argue that oil and gas can form without biological influence, I agree with that, too. It obviously did on Titan. And elsewhere too. I imagine that huge asteroid impacts could generate such a "kitchen" and form all kinds of deposits.

I am not sure how the Alberta Tar Sands fit into the picture but I was thinking when the plates were formed and oil was released it would have pooled on top of the water and settled in northern Alberta and soaked into the sand .It could not have been created with pressure as its on the top .Just me thinking out loud .To the south of the Tar Sands you find those big lizard bones on the surface as well .I think its near Lethbridge .

reply to post by theantediluvian

You're using the term "hydrocarbons" quite loosely: on Titan for instance, we're talking about lakes of methane and clouds of methane and ethane (C2H6). This is a far cry from crude oil which contains various mixtures of hydrocarbons along with a lot of other things

Well it is obvious you are not a scientist much less a chemist because you obviously do not understand what a hydrocarbon is.

From Purdue University who has a very good chemistry department: Compounds that contain only carbon and hydrogen are known as hydrocarbons.

Methane is CH4 and hydrocarbons go from Methane to plastics like Polyethylene

Signed, A CHEMIST

reply to post by Tsurugi


I haven't found the one I meant yet, still looking. But here is another one:
Oil

Not so much the OP, but read the responses on the first page.

AbleEndangered
They always say "Russian Propaganda"...

Then it can be easily dismissed!!...

When it comes to "Global Cooling' I figure the Russians have a vested interest (as do the Canadians and Chinese) It is obvious why all three countries rejected CAGW and the Chinese intentionally booby trapped Obama at Copenhagen.

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal? I was in the room

Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful "deal" so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

China's strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world's poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was "the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility", said Christian Aid. "Rich countries have bullied developing nations," fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth....