The Writing is on the Wall

[[email protected]]

On Mar 6, 8:40 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 4:48 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > On Mar 5, 12:27 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> > >> Actually you only need to read the actual postings to see that people
> > >> like
> > >> you attack first.
>
> > > Tom Kunich never does anything wrong, just ask him.
>
> > > The other guys are the bullies. When poor great big strong pugilistic-
> > > with-an-assault-conviction Tom Kunich threatens someone who has, at
> > > most, disagreed with him verbally, he's only protecting himself. And
> > > so forth.
> > Actually, when some sniveling dog barks in my direction and runs away I just
> > like to bring it to everyone's attention. And of course you're sobrave.
>
> That dork/dorklift thing cut pretty deep, didn't it, TK? Truth has a
> way of doing that.
>
> Run away? I'm still here. What-- six or seven years now.
>
> Brave? How brave to you have to be to act like a jerk on a newsgroup?
>
> > > Get some help, Kunich.
>
> > I don't need any help. You're the one crying.
>
> "Tom Kunich never does anything wrong", above.
>
> > Ahh, yes, the stupid person's belief that they're going to use a real bomb
> > and not a dirty radiation device.
>
> A roundhouse miss by the big guy. And some more playground name-
> calling. Nyah, nyah!
>
>
>
> > > TMI came real close to being another nuke plant disaster. But, hey,
> > > anyone who objects to nuk-i-ler power plants on that basis is a
> > > screaming pinko fairy LIBERAL, right, TK? --D-y
>
> > I do find it interesting that you don't know what happened at Three Mile
> > Island. I suppose that's just another demonstration of the sort of stupidity
> > that you think of as "normal".
>
> Ah, another walk past the monkey cage on a brisk, sunny morning. Watch
> out for the big ugly mean one! He's reaching for his ass!
>
> TMI: "How many engineers* does it take to design a cooling system that
> doesn't have a level reading?" I don't know what the punch line to
> _that_ joke is, but there was a partial meltdown, with many expressing
> surprise that the system cooled. There were two releases of
> radioactive gas, one rated "serious". The local population was
> evacuated. The "officials in charge" couldn't find their butts with
> both hands swatting.
>
> http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle....
>
> "Blind luck" that TMI wasn't a Chernobyl. The reactor is shut down,
> awaiting disassembly. That's "what happened" at TMI.
>
> Sellafield.
>
> http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.shtml --D-y

Woof woof, yipe yipe, scrabble scrabble, TK?

--D-y

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Andy B." <[email protected]> wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Mar 5, 2:17 pm, "Andy B." <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> > Their claim is that it is not a stable self-regulating
> > system that necessarily returns to a comfortable
> > equilbrium. I don't see how you could have gotten
> > self-regulating out of this article.
> >
>
> The thing I'm trying to point out is that we've got somewhat conflicting
> theories here. I'm not an expert in either one so am looking for some way to
> reconcile them. The snowball earth theory states that things got too cold,
> froze the earth over and greenhouse gasses saved us. CO2 levels and global
> temp then decreased through natural processes and have been basically ever
> since (even without the snowball earth thing everyone seems to agree that
> CO2 levels were about 22 to 25x higher a long time ago)
>
> On the other hand we've got a bunch of other scientists telling us that
> there's no way to reverse the warming process we've begun and that it is
> definitely a bad thing to get warmer.
>
> Celebrity scientist death match I say...

Follow the money. He needs a long spoon who sups with the devil.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

> Gradually, critters then
> turn this bicarbonate into sugar/protein/fat and calcite/whatever-the-hell-
> they-make-into-shells and then it either goes back to make more white
> cliffs somewhere or it can sink as organic matter and get cooked back into
> hydrocarbons.

The evidence that petroleum is synthesized from organisms
falls well short of proof. _Nobody_ in a laboratory has
made petroleum from biological material. Given that all
the carbon on earth originates from interplanetary
material, the simplest explanation for petroleum is that
it is cooked up from the carbonaceous meteorites that
participated in the formation of planet Earth.

--
Michael Press

 

[William Asher]

Michael Press wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Gradually, critters then
>> turn this bicarbonate into sugar/protein/fat and
>> calcite/whatever-the-hell- they-make-into-shells and then it either
>> goes back to make more white cliffs somewhere or it can sink as
>> organic matter and get cooked back into hydrocarbons.
>
> The evidence that petroleum is synthesized from organisms
> falls well short of proof. _Nobody_ in a laboratory has
> made petroleum from biological material. Given that all
> the carbon on earth originates from interplanetary
> material, the simplest explanation for petroleum is that
> it is cooked up from the carbonaceous meteorites that
> participated in the formation of planet Earth.
>

Yeah, well, everyone has an opinion.

I like this website a lot on the subject:

http://tinyurl.com/2raupq

And following that advice, if you dive into the literature on the subject
from that era (30's and 40's) you turn up nuggets like this:

The role of clays in the formation of petroleum in the earth's crust.
Frost, A. V. Uspekhi Khimii (1945), 14 501-9. CODEN: USKHAB ISSN:
0042-1308. Journal language unavailable. CAN 40:22976 AN 1946:22976
CAPLUS
Abstract: Previous theories of the origin of oil appear to be
unsatisfactory in that they do not account for possible catalytic action.
It is shown that clays in contact with various org. compds. are capable of
catalyzing at relatively low temps. the following reactions: chem.
dehydration of alcs. and ketones, polymerization, and disproportionation of
H by hydrogenation of lower olefins with the H lost by other constituents
of the material to form heavier compds. low in H, which are adsorbed by the
clay. Therefore it is quite probable that products of biochem. or alk.
decompn. of vegetable products can be converted to petroleum-like products
in the presence of sufficiently active clays, within the temp. range of
100-200°. A theory of the formation of petroleum deposits is formulated,
in which bacterial action is regarded to be the initial factor causing
decompn. of org. matter on the bottom of a sepd. portion of the sea in
conditions where contamination with H2S will eliminate fish and mollusks as
scavengers. In the second stage, after fats and cellulose have been
destroyed and the whole has been overlaid by a water-tight layer of clay
deposits, the action of bacteria continues in the presence of clay.
Velocity of catalytic decompn. is increased as the stratum sinks to greater
depth and its temp. rises to 100-150°, owing, in part, to the bacterial
action. Finally the clay, in contact with the fermented and hydrolyzed
vegetable and animal debris consisting of tars, acids, alcs., and ketones,
leads to formation of hydrocarbons which, provided the original source was
sufficiently large, constitute an oil deposit. 34 references.

You can also find references discussing the prevalence of porphyrins in
oil. It's hard to reconcile the presence of those structures without
invoking some original biological component to petroleum. I dunno, could
all be meteoric in origin. Meteoric origins don't explain tar sands, oil
shales, or coal though. Really, it's not like geologists have sat around
for over a hundred years with their thumbs up their asses, rocking back and
forth and drooling as they congratulate each other it's all worked out.

Everybody wants there to be geniuses out there, sticking it to the man.
It's all so romantic. My money for the next place this will happen in
science is subatomic particle theory rather than geophysics. Particle
physics all seems so contrived, complicated, and ad hoc, like the shells
within shells of the Ptolemaic solar system. Someone will come along, have
an "Aha!" moment, rationalize it, and nobody will like it very much at
first.

--
Bill Asher

 

[Nev Shea]

William Asher <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Someone
> will come along, have an "Aha!" moment, rationalize it, and nobody
> will like it very much at first.

Oh Lord! I imagine Kunich is reading that and nodding in agreement thinking
that is exactly what happens to him here every day.

NS

 

[Carl Sundquist]

"Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The evidence that petroleum is synthesized from organisms
> falls well short of proof. _Nobody_ in a laboratory has
> made petroleum from biological material.


Have you checked with the LNDD Chatenay-Malabry?

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Gradually, critters then
> >> turn this bicarbonate into sugar/protein/fat and
> >> calcite/whatever-the-hell- they-make-into-shells and then it either
> >> goes back to make more white cliffs somewhere or it can sink as
> >> organic matter and get cooked back into hydrocarbons.
> >
> > The evidence that petroleum is synthesized from organisms
> > falls well short of proof. _Nobody_ in a laboratory has
> > made petroleum from biological material. Given that all
> > the carbon on earth originates from interplanetary
> > material, the simplest explanation for petroleum is that
> > it is cooked up from the carbonaceous meteorites that
> > participated in the formation of planet Earth.
> >
>
> Yeah, well, everyone has an opinion.
>
> I like this website a lot on the subject:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2raupq
>
> And following that advice, if you dive into the literature on the subject
> from that era (30's and 40's) you turn up nuggets like this:
>
> The role of clays in the formation of petroleum in the earth's crust.
> Frost, A. V. Uspekhi Khimii (1945), 14 501-9. CODEN: USKHAB ISSN:
> 0042-1308. Journal language unavailable. CAN 40:22976 AN 1946:22976
> CAPLUS
> Abstract: Previous theories of the origin of oil appear to be
> unsatisfactory in that they do not account for possible catalytic action.
> It is shown that clays in contact with various org. compds. are capable of
> catalyzing at relatively low temps. the following reactions: chem.
> dehydration of alcs. and ketones, polymerization, and disproportionation of
> H by hydrogenation of lower olefins with the H lost by other constituents
> of the material to form heavier compds. low in H, which are adsorbed by the
> clay. Therefore it is quite probable that products of biochem. or alk.
> decompn. of vegetable products can be converted to petroleum-like products
> in the presence of sufficiently active clays, within the temp. range of
> 100-200°. A theory of the formation of petroleum deposits is formulated,
> in which bacterial action is regarded to be the initial factor causing
> decompn. of org. matter on the bottom of a sepd. portion of the sea in
> conditions where contamination with H2S will eliminate fish and mollusks as
> scavengers. In the second stage, after fats and cellulose have been
> destroyed and the whole has been overlaid by a water-tight layer of clay
> deposits, the action of bacteria continues in the presence of clay.
> Velocity of catalytic decompn. is increased as the stratum sinks to greater
> depth and its temp. rises to 100-150°, owing, in part, to the bacterial
> action. Finally the clay, in contact with the fermented and hydrolyzed
> vegetable and animal debris consisting of tars, acids, alcs., and ketones,
> leads to formation of hydrocarbons which, provided the original source was
> sufficiently large, constitute an oil deposit. 34 references.
>
> You can also find references discussing the prevalence of porphyrins in
> oil. It's hard to reconcile the presence of those structures without
> invoking some original biological component to petroleum. I dunno, could
> all be meteoric in origin. Meteoric origins don't explain tar sands, oil
> shales, or coal though. Really, it's not like geologists have sat around
> for over a hundred years with their thumbs up their asses, rocking back and
> forth and drooling as they congratulate each other it's all worked out.
>
> Everybody wants there to be geniuses out there, sticking it to the man.
> It's all so romantic. My money for the next place this will happen in
> science is subatomic particle theory rather than geophysics. Particle
> physics all seems so contrived, complicated, and ad hoc, like the shells
> within shells of the Ptolemaic solar system. Someone will come along, have
> an "Aha!" moment, rationalize it, and nobody will like it very much at
> first.

This is a more complicated theory. I am not dismissive.
Nevertheless I want to see them do it in a laboratory
with exogenous material, not some synthetic,
labyrinthine, activated catalyst.

The porphyrins can come from methane eating bacteria;
the methane being coincident with the formation of
planet Earth. Coal has different varieties: lignite,
bitumen, and anthracite. Lignite is probably pure
biologic, but is found only at the surface. Anthracite
is likely the end product of methane reduction by
bacteria. Can the vinyl be explained with the biogenic
theory?

--
Michael Press

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 8, 11:35 am, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:

> ...I dunno, could
> all be meteoric in origin. Meteoric origins don't explain tar sands, oil
> shales, or coal though. Really, it's not like geologists have sat around
> for over a hundred years with their thumbs up their asses, rocking back and
> forth and drooling as they congratulate each other it's all worked out.

Who gives a **** where it came from? My concern is that it is just
sitting there and all the while polluting the ground. Let's get it up
in the air where it belongs!

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 5, 1:53 pm, "Andy B." <[email protected]> wrote:

> Celebrity scientist death match I say...


Greenhouse gases and Celebrity Death Match remind me of when Howard
Stern took out Kathy Lee Gifford with a giant fart.

There is nothing quite like clay figurines fighting to the finish.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <1J%[email protected]>,
"Carl Sundquist" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Michael Press" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > The evidence that petroleum is synthesized from organisms
> > falls well short of proof. _Nobody_ in a laboratory has
> > made petroleum from biological material.
>
> Have you checked with the LNDD Chatenay-Malabry?

Feces! Foiled again.

--
Michael Press

 

[Tom Kunich]

"SLAVE of THE STATE" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mar 8, 11:35 am, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> ...I dunno, could
>> all be meteoric in origin. Meteoric origins don't explain tar sands, oil
>> shales, or coal though. Really, it's not like geologists have sat around
>> for over a hundred years with their thumbs up their asses, rocking back
>> and
>> forth and drooling as they congratulate each other it's all worked out.
>
> Who gives a **** where it came from? My concern is that it is just
> sitting there and all the while polluting the ground. Let's get it up
> in the air where it belongs!

Plankton grows on the surface of the ocean which covers 3/4ths of the
surface area of the earth. Much of it dies and manages to float down to the
bottom of the ocean. The surface is almost moving into subduction zones
where it is processed into - guess what?

 

[Bret]

On Mar 8, 7:46 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

> Plankton grows on the surface of the ocean which covers 3/4ths of the
> surface area of the earth. Much of it dies...

Some plankton are immortal?

>... and manages to float down to the
> bottom of the ocean.

Floating normally involves staying at or near the surface.

> The surface is almost moving into subduction zones
> where it is processed into - guess what?

The surface almost moves away from the surface but because it doesn't
it is processed into a surface?

My brother happened to earn his PHD in Marine Biology studying
plankton populations. Maybe he can make some sense of this.

Bret

 

[Kyle Legate]

Michael Press wrote:
>
>
> This is a more complicated theory. I am not dismissive.
> Nevertheless I want to see them do it in a laboratory
> with exogenous material, not some synthetic,
> labyrinthine, activated catalyst.
>
>
When would you like the result? It's a LONG experiment.

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On 8 Mar 2007 21:17:35 -0800, Bret wrote:
> Floating normally involves staying at or near the surface.

http://www.iit.edu/~smile/ch9505.html

--
E. Dronkert

 

[Donald Munro]

Michael Press wrote:
>> This is a more complicated theory. I am not dismissive.
>> Nevertheless I want to see them do it in a laboratory
>> with exogenous material, not some synthetic,
>> labyrinthine, activated catalyst.

Kyle Legate wrote:
> When would you like the result? It's a LONG experiment.

Simple, just prepare the experiment, jump on your Mk IV spaceship,
accelerate to 0.99c and then come back in a couple of months.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On Mar 9, 12:00 am, Ewoud Dronkert <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 8 Mar 2007 21:17:35 -0800, Bret wrote:
>
> > Floating normally involves staying at or near the surface.
>
> http://www.iit.edu/~smile/ch9505.html


http://www.ddy.com/dl21.html

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> >
> >
> > This is a more complicated theory. I am not dismissive.
> > Nevertheless I want to see them do it in a laboratory
> > with exogenous material, not some synthetic,
> > labyrinthine, activated catalyst.
> >
> >
> When would you like the result? It's a LONG experiment.

Then it ain't much of a theory.