In article , wrote:

"Dan L." writes:

I am not sure that the term "fossil fuel" is correct anymore. It was
once thought that oil came from fossils and limited. The earth itself,
deep underground makes the oil from a chemical process. Oil may be
unlimited, one just has to go deep, very deep.

The theory you are proposing is called "Abiogenic petroleum origin":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Interesting read and it has a name for the theory.
I did say "I am not sure". I always leave myself an out

The way you characterize this theory:

"It was once thought that oil came from fossils and limited."

is outright wrong.

Are you sure? That statement is absolute one? No room for doubts?
Has this theory been "proven" wrong?
Did not seem so by reading the article.

Just about everyone believes that oil has a biogenic origin.

I've looked into this more than once and I'd say this "abiogenic"
stuff is nothing more than wishful thinking.

That is why they now call
it "Carbon Fuels" not "Fossil Fuels". However, oil in every stage of
production is toxic. It is best to get away from carbon fuels.

That's wrong too. "They" still call oil a fossil fuel.

Well then, I hope you are correct! I hope the oil runs out soon!

Before it does, I might buy a futuristic animal called a "Megodont" and
a few "windups", just in case Go figure that one out

--
Enjoy Life... Dan

Garden in Zone 5 South East Michigan.

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Dan L. wrote:
In article
,
Billy wrote:

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Billy wrote:
In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:

Besides some drip irrigation well timed for the garden.
Refreshed the bird bath and turned off most electric this soon.
about 103 and dew point 62 F.

Don't feel neglected, this is a global heat wave. Half of
"Democracy Now" today, is on climate warming and what will happen
(people die),

Nah. It's 11C and drizzling rain here all week. No global heat
wave. Therefore AGW is just a myth. Just those pinko socialists
trying for world domination. Pah!

David

Of the two economic systems Capitalism and Socialism, Socialism will
be the survivor. What if in the future, ten percent of the worlds
population can provide for 100 percent of all goods and services
through free trade and automation, What kind of economic system will
one have where 90 percent of the population has no job? The good
times are over with.

The world is becoming more productive each and every year. Capitalism
is a dying economic system. I am not saying the future will be a good
future. Rationing on all levels will occur. Distribution of wealth is
the only answer. Like it or not.

I am not sure what the replacement system will be but laissez faire
capitalism isn't going to be the winner. The simple reason is that nobody
knows how to make it run without constant growth. The resources of the
world are limited and so growth WILL come to an end. The question is, will
we be vaguely in control and managing the situation or will it be a crash
landing?

David

The near future economic system could be: ANARCHISM

Compared to what we got, that could be better, hmmm?
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2...al_crime_scene

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

I am not sure that the term "fossil fuel" is correct anymore. It was
once thought that oil came from fossils and limited. The earth itself,
deep underground makes the oil from a chemical process. Oil may be
unlimited, one just has to go deep, very deep. That is why they now call
it "Carbon Fuels" not "Fossil Fuels". However, oil in every stage of
production is toxic. It is best to get away from carbon fuels.

Not if it is last years CO2, but it is irresponsible if it is last
millennium's, or later, fuel. There is a CO2 cycle. If we burn last
years carbon, we are good. If we burn last millennium's carbon, or
carbon from a million years ago , it is bad. There is a difference
between last years bio-mass, and carbon from 100 million years ago.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2...al_crime_scene

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

In article , wrote:

"Dan L." writes:

I am not sure that the term "fossil fuel" is correct anymore. It was
once thought that oil came from fossils and limited. The earth itself,
deep underground makes the oil from a chemical process. Oil may be
unlimited, one just has to go deep, very deep.

The theory you are proposing is called "Abiogenic petroleum origin":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Interesting read and it has a name for the theory.
I did say "I am not sure". I always leave myself an out

The way you characterize this theory:

"It was once thought that oil came from fossils and limited."

is outright wrong.

Are you sure? That statement is absolute one? No room for doubts?
Has this theory been "proven" wrong?
Did not seem so by reading the article.

Then you weren't reading the article very carefully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
"Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by some geologists in
the former Soviet Union, most geologists now consider the abiogenic
formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported.[1] Although evidence
exists for abiogenic formation of methane and hydrocarbon gases within
the Earth,[2][3] studies indicate they are not produced in commercially
significant quantities (i.e. a median abiogenic hydrocarbon content in
extracted hydrocarbon gases of 0.02%).[4] The abiogenic origin of
petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who
raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct
evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain
hydrocarbon compounds).[1]"

Are you for real, or are you just here to play games? Games are good,
but not to be taken seriously.
"
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2...al_crime_scene

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

Dan L. wrote:
There is an article in "Organic Gardening" aug/sept 2010 issue page
16. The article is called "Were not in zone 6 Anymore". Its about the
USDA is updating a more precise version of the plant hardiness zone
map. The article never uses the phrase "Global Warming", it uses the
phase "Climate Change". I find it interesting, they talk about
increased CO2's and it's environmental impact.

Is it politics for the word phrase change or is "Climate Change" more
accurate than global warming?

It is less misleading because saying the globe will get warmer is much too
simplistic. Change in temperature (mostly up) is only one kind of predicted
change. Other kinds of effects are increase or decrease in rainfall and
change in weather patterns, for example fewer but more intense storms.


I prefer "Global Warming"! It has a tone of warning and danger.
"Climate Change" seems nonchalant, not worry.


According to some it should be named Pinko Plot.

David

Yes, by those who suffer cranial-rectal inversion.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2...al_crime_scene

In article ,
(EVP MAN) wrote:

Been hitting 101+ here in PA the past few days. Running the soaker
hoses for three hours at a time every three days. Sure don't want to
lose the tomatoes and all the other goodies. Let's pray for about three
days of a nice steady soaking rain

Rich From PA

Like "they" say, "Ain't no atheists in foxholes."
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2...al_crime_scene

In article ,
"Dan L." wrote:

In article , wrote:

"Dan L." writes:

I am not sure that the term "fossil fuel" is correct anymore. It was
once thought that oil came from fossils and limited. The earth itself,
deep underground makes the oil from a chemical process. Oil may be
unlimited, one just has to go deep, very deep.

The theory you are proposing is called "Abiogenic petroleum origin":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Interesting read and it has a name for the theory.
I did say "I am not sure". I always leave myself an out

The way you characterize this theory:

"It was once thought that oil came from fossils and limited."

is outright wrong.

Are you sure? That statement is absolute one? No room for doubts?
Has this theory been "proven" wrong?
Did not seem so by reading the article.

Just about everyone believes that oil has a biogenic origin.

I've looked into this more than once and I'd say this "abiogenic"
stuff is nothing more than wishful thinking.

That is why they now call
it "Carbon Fuels" not "Fossil Fuels". However, oil in every stage of
production is toxic. It is best to get away from carbon fuels.

That's wrong too. "They" still call oil a fossil fuel.

Well then, I hope you are correct! I hope the oil runs out soon!

Before it does, I might buy a futuristic animal called a "Megodont" and
a few "windups", just in case Go figure that one out

The "coal people" and the "tar sand people" say that there is at least
another 200 years of torturing the environment to go.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/2...al_crime_scene

In article ,
Bill who putters wrote:

Besides some drip irrigation well timed for the garden. Refreshed the
bird bath and turned off most electric this soon. about 103 and dew
point 62 F.


http://www.pbs.org/lawrenceofarabia/.../clothing.html

Heat looks like it maybe coming.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/july/extreme-heat-study-070810.html

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
What use one more wake up call?

"Dan L." writes:

In article , wrote:

"Dan L." writes:

I am not sure that the term "fossil fuel" is correct anymore. It was
once thought that oil came from fossils and limited. The earth itself,
deep underground makes the oil from a chemical process. Oil may be
unlimited, one just has to go deep, very deep.

The theory you are proposing is called "Abiogenic petroleum origin":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

Interesting read and it has a name for the theory.
I did say "I am not sure". I always leave myself an out

The way you characterize this theory:

"It was once thought that oil came from fossils and limited."

is outright wrong.

Are you sure? That statement is absolute one? No room for doubts?
Has this theory been "proven" wrong?
Did not seem so by reading the article.

Yes I am sure.

Read your statement again. You were trying to imply that the
consensus has changed. (At least that's the way I read it.)

Of course there is room for doubt.
It's just that the current consensus is for a biogenic origin.
There's a very small doubt.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php


interesting found in Joe *******i blog below.

http://premiuma.accuweather.com/premium/jbEurope.asp

Joe specializes in long range forecasts like Hurricanes etc.

--
Bill S. Jersey USA zone 5 shade garden
What use one more wake up call?

Let's pray for about three
days of a nice steady soaking rain