The Myth of Finite Fossil Oil

Over the years, we have heard many comments concerning our limited reserves of fossil fuel oil. The prophits of limited oil reserves have been proven wrong each time. Where did the definition of oil as a fossil fuel come from? A good history source can be found here. LINK  A Russian   Mikhail Lomonosov developed the biogenic theory in 1757 that stated that oil was created by the decompositon of organic material.

The first rejection of this hypothesis occurred about a half century later. The German geologist A. von Humboldt and the French chemist L. J. Gay-Lussac (both quite famous scientists at the time) proposed that oil came from great depths within the earth and was unrelated to biological material. Another French chemist M. Berthelot scorned the biological origin notion and demonstrated that organic molecules could be created from inorganic materials. Other scientists of the time confirmed this result. During the latter part of the nineteenth century, the Russian scientist D. Mendeleev, discoverer of the Periodic Table of the Elements, proclaimed that oil is a primordial material that erupted from great depths beneath the earth. He hypothesized that the oil travelled along the pathway of deep faults. He was criticized by the geologists of the time because deep faults were unknown then. Today we know they exist as plate tectonics and are well understood. This was the basis for the development of the Abiotic Theory.  Abiotic Theory holds that oil is continously being produced by chemical synthesis deep within the earth's mantle.  A good summary of the scientific evidence supporting Abiotic Theory can be found here LINK here LINK and here LINK .

What does this mean to us?  It means that we will never run out of oil and there is no need for expensive alternate energy sources.  Stop the Cap and Trade nonsense and drill baby drill.  Our economic crisis can be stopped in its tracks by the simple procedure of drilling on our own shores and stop sending our wealth overseas to the Arabs.

Democrats Never Change: Party First, Country Second

President Obama, much like F.D.Roosevelt did in his Presidency, is advocating a program for rebuilding the infrastructure of the country and thus put people to work during the current economic downturn. In FDR’s program, he had a similar program called the Works Progress Administration (WPA). The states were given the power to administer these programs. Where did all this spending go? FDR spent the money not in the poor states (the South) but in western and eastern states. Why? The south was solidly Democratic and their votes were in the bag, but the other two areas were relatively close in results.

 What better way is there to convert a region to the Democratic philosophy other than giving them money. Indiana’s Democratic county chairman V.G. Coplan told FDR’s campaign manager:

"Use these Democratic projects to make votes for the Democratic Party.”

The Democratic Party was not thinking in terms of what was good for the country, but what was good for them and their socialistic ambitions. Russian President Vladimir Putin, a communist, compares himself to FDR and considers his economic programs to revitalize Russia as analogous to FDR’s New Deal. LINK

I wonder where President Obama will spend the infrastructure money that he is proposing. I suspect that most will be spent in cities with less than 500,000 people as all cities with larger populations voted for the Democrats when Senator Kerry was running for president.

The current demographics for President Obama’s victory have not yet been defined although Nate Silver LINK suggests that

Barack Obama's strength in cities won him the election, meaning he "might be America's first urban" president, statistics whiz Nate Silver writes in Esquire. Obama's "pragmatic, superior, hip, stubborn, multicultural" ways make him unmistakably urban, Silver writes, and America's changing demographics mean that urban voters matter now more than ever.

This makes me of the opinion that Obama will spend the infrastructure money in the smaller cities and in those states that might swing to the Republicans.  The infrastructure bill might be the October surprise.

I imagine that Dan Savage LINK said it all when he recommended to the Democratic Party that

“The future success of liberalism is tied to winning the cities.”

Cap and Trade Revisited

The Democrats are hoping to push through Cap and Trade during the present lame duck session of Congress.  The bill already passed the house but now needs Senate confirmation. LINK   A recent article by Clive Hamilton LINK published in ABC's The Drum Unleashed espoused the typical liberal view that the science of global warming is settled and something should be done to halt it.  Without specifically mentioning it, I think Mr. Hamilton is pushing for Cap and Trade.  In support of his comments regarding the settled science of global warming and
the inevitable catastrophe that awaits us, he states the following:

"I have tried to find some new studies that go the other way (meaning that there is no global warming, italics mine) in the hope I can counterbalance this bleak story, but have not succeeded."

As Mr. Hamilton had trouble finding arguments to the contrary regarding global warming, I thought I'd give him a helping hand.

Dr. Kauffman of the University of Sciences published an article in The Journal of Scientific Exploration LINK that thoroughly debunks the concept of global warming.  He does not say that climate change does not occur but that the concept that man is causing this is totally false.  His list of references should help Mr. Hamilton find opposing viewpoints. Dr. Kauffman is of the opinion that:

"Forced limits on C02 emissions will not be productive and will cause serious drops in living standards in industrialized countries, if adopted."

Dr. Jaworowski, an eminent expert of CO2 analysis in ice cores and glacial drilling investigated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) data and wrote a paper titled "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time". LINK  He concluded

"During the past 3,000 years, one can observe a clear cooling trend in the Earth’s climate (Keigwin et al. 1994, and Khilyuk and Chilingar 2006). During this period, the global temperature deviations were 3°C, with a trend of decreasing global temperature of about 2°C. As Khilyuk and Chilingar stated: “This cooling tendency will probably last in the future.  We live in the cooling geologic period and the global warming observed during the last approximately 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic history.” ....Not man, but nature rules the climate. The Kyoto Protocol and the IPCC reports, tuned by Malthusian ideas, may surely make a lot of noise and cause enormous harm for the global economy and for the well-being of billions of people. But they can do nothing for the climate. This we shall learn in the near future."

Dr. Jaworowski's references should give Mr. Hamilton quite a few more of opposing viewpoints.

Dr. Essenhigh of Ohio State University also refutes the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming and provides a rather in depth analysis of the subject. LINK He along with others not only believe but have demonstrated that water vapor is the main cause of heat absorbtion by the atmosphere. Dr. Essenhigh invites any and all discourse on the subject with the following statement

"The outcome is that the conclusions of advocates of the CO2-driver theory are evidently back to front: It’s the temperature that is driving the CO2. If there are flaws in these propositions, I’m listening; but if there are objections, let’s have them with the numbers."

Mr. Hamilton, just as most liberals, is not concerned with the facts but rather acts on emotion.  In support of his arguments and media bias against global warming, he quotes Tim Holmes (?)

"The implications are deeply disturbing, not only for our prospects of tackling climate change, but for basic standards of honesty and integrity in journalism."

An interesting quote, but who is Tim Holmes?  It turns out that he is just another liberal and obviously supports Hamilton's point of view.  Before you talk about honesty and integrity in journalism, look in the mirror.  By the way if you need anymore opposing viewpoints to global warming, look a little harder.