Oil is formed when large quantities of dead organisms, mostly zooplankton and algae, are buried underneath sedimentary rock and subjected to both intense heat and pressure
Split hairs to your heart’s content, but it doesn’t change the facts
When all the land ice has melted, can Gordon come live with you in your mountain nursing home Ben?
“underneath sedimentary rock”
I’m dying over here…
“Show me the data”
Irony intensifies…
@Dr.Gonzo Is welcome in my home, anytime. However, he is fully capable of taking care of himself.
1 Like
I’d like to inform you that I’m well aware of the potential hazards due to sea level rise, among other things, due to climate change.
So I am not a climate-change “denier”, as you seem to think I am.
But, you go, girl, and keep blathering on as usual.
I don’t think you are a denier, you are being a pedant though
If it was not for continually maintained man made artificial irrigation engineering, much of Florida that is built out would be underwater as is.
1 Like
As a formally trained, and former professional scientist, I like to be factually accurate. Being factually accurate is the basis for a meaningful discussion, or research, of any topic.
Suggesting that crude oil comes from ancient forests is equivalent to saying crude oil is formed from the remains of dinosaurs.
https://personal.ems.psu.edu/~pisupati/ACSOutreach/Petroleum_2.html
The words you are looking for are: he is being properly scientific.
Same for New Orleans. And the Nederland, etc.
Man and his hubris.
1 Like
@doofaloofa is engaging in a typical tactic.
It’s also funny that any criticism of how AGW is being handled/interpreted/studied is taken as being “science denying”, etc.
1 Like
For sure. It is ridiculous.
Whilst I applaud your quest for perfection, in the context of the conversation, my inaccuracy has no effect on the point I’m trying to make. That is the type of primeaval life forms that went into the creation of fossil fuels is the least relevant fact, the fact that million years of co2 has been released in a few hundred is the operative information
To wit, you are being pedantic
I will however attempt to be more precise in future
Accuracy has everything to do with discussing a manner in a scientific way, which you do not seem capable of doing.
If by “discuss scientifically” you mean long walls of text that equivocate and bluster to avoid giving straight answers to direct questions, then yes, I defer to your expertise
Science is not religion,
A key requirement of science, is discussing limitations of science.
What you call “equivocation” in your frustration of not getting the answers that you want.
That depends on how it is applied
You definitely come off as a silver tounged preacher, confounding the rubes with your flowery rhetoric , at times
You confound yourself.
@BKR and I give scientific answers in a scientific way to scientific questions.
Sometimes
Other times you hide your ignorance or erroneous debating position behind scientific sounding rhetoric
False.
Although I sometimes will instead be vulgar, and make personal comments about you.
It’s hard not to.
You are both stupid, and ignorant, and you push a lot of pseudo-science Bullshit, which can have a tendency to infect less educated readers and make them a little more stupid.
So, you are kind of like a virus in that regard, and it’s hard not treat you like one.