Geology Is Now Conspiracy Theory

The party of science now believes the Carboniferous Period is oil company propaganda.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Geology Is Now Conspiracy Theory

  1. rah says:

    LOL! Long established science that predates the climate wars by many decades was funded by big oil to deceive us?

    • Disillusioned says:

      Bingo and BOOM!

      These believers in the tyranny of fictional man-made climate catastrophe can do what I did if they are really that scared for their grand kids. Rather than be so lazy and accuse others of things they are abjectly ignorant about – instead go to work and deeply look at both sides and come out with a better understanding of how things work. And then admit they are wrong.

      That’s what I had to do. It wasn’t easy. The deprogramming takes awhile. But it is well worth it. It changed my life. For the better. Disillusionment is a good thing.

  2. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    If there were more hours in a day I’d go on Twitter and have fun with these people. The level of ignorance is glorious.

    • Edward Itor says:

      I tried that for a day or two. It was fun indeed, but ultimately we’re dealing with the same type of person that went to Jonestown for spiritual enlightenment. ;-)

    • Russell Cook says:

      Having my fun with this character: https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/1121088334606950401 . If there is one consistent pattern with these types who hurl the ‘oil money-corrupted scientists’ accusation, it’s that they can never actually point anyone, even their own pals, to any evidence anywhere which proves any skeptic scientist receives money under explicit orders to lie about the science.

  3. Disillusioned says:

    Another fool projecting his gullible foolishness onto others.

  4. Charles Higley says:

    Abiotic oil and gas is clearly not fossil-derived material. There is simply no way that all of this material would be thousands of feet down and once been a swamp on the surface. It’s just not credible. As the Russian scientists have been trying to tell us for years, oil and natural gas come form Earth’s core, thus percolating up in all directions, which is why we find it everywhere that we drill deep enough. The fossils easily seen in coal are a no-brainer = fossil fuel.

    • Robert Austin says:

      “From the earth’s core”
      I hope you mean that as hyperbole.
      Anyway, this is a good article by a real petroleum geologist.
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/23/abiotic-oil-realishthings-that-dont-matter-part-deux/

    • Stewart Pid says:

      Back to school moron!!
      Hopefully u are being sarcastic but I fear you are entirely serious and actually as ignorant as your post suggests.

    • -B- says:

      The explanation of oil I think is more complex than this or that. It’s probably more of all of the above. There are hydrocarbons that can come from biological material. There are hydrocarbons that are throughout the solar system without life being present. And then there are hydrocarbons produced by living things.

      So where does the oil come from? All of the above IMO. The theory that oil is produced by bacteria deep in the earth is interesting. I know that turkey guts and and other materials can be used to manufacture oil because its been done. And of course there is geological oil based on finding hydrocarbons everywhere in the solar system and oil so very deep in the earth. I don’t see why all three couldn’t be in play.

    • Johansen says:

      Charles, it’s not actually swamp-to-oil; it’s more like organics settle to the ocean floor, and the ocean floor is supposedly like a conveyor belt moving 6 inches a year from the mid-ocean ridges outward and eventually disappearing under the continents.

      But… there’s also supposedly more living-mass in the top 5 miles of crust, than there is on the earth’s surface. This is what’s amazing to me. And we’re finding micro-organisms that can oxidize all kinds of things for fuel, and produce methane, etc. It’s an incredibly fascinating area, and challenges lots of standard assumptions about things

    • Caleb Shaw says:

      Check out the recent well reserched WUWT post about abiotic oil and gas. My take is that if it replenished as quickly as some wishfully suggest we’d be flooded.

  5. Robertv says:

    Big Brother behind the curtain Government is the problem for the near future.

  6. Billyjack says:

    One would have an easier time arguing the veracity of the virgin birth with an Evangelical than provide facts to a member of the flock of the Church of Warming.

    • Spiritus Mundi says:

      I believe that is called parthenogensis.

      • Jason Calley says:

        Yes, but in mammals parthenogenesis is very rare but only produces female offspring. On the other hand, honey bees show parthenogenesis quite often but because their genetic sexual differentiation is so different from mammals, they (almost) always produce males — except for one unusual species, the Cape honey bee, which can sometimes produce a female parthenogenetic offspring through a process called “thelytoky”.

        Gee whiz! The world is complicated sometimes, and just when you think you have something figured out, you find an exception!

  7. Gator says:

    Big Oil placed Carboniferous Period fossils in the rocks to confuse the faithful. Repent and recycle!

  8. Jl says:

    When they can’t refute what Tony said, out comes the “funded by fossil fuels” BS. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if one can refute another’s findings, the funding source is irrelevant. Or maybe it does…

    • Disillusioned says:

      +1

      Ah, “funded by fossil fuels.”

      A decade ago, I wouldn’t have dared even think of working for evil “Big Oil,” because of the guilt and shame (and because of fear of rejection by people I used to respect).

      But, with a decade behind me since my disillusionment, now I do not give a shit what they think. In fact, I find it amusing how abjectly ignorant some of my old progressive friends are – people I once held in high esteem. I would almost take a job in the petroleum industry just to spite those pompous assholes.

  9. Jl says:

    Of course if he could refute what Tony said the source of funding is irrelevant.

  10. Petit_Barde says:

    I wonder if those warmistas also believe that the Earth is flat or even concave … indeed, in a concave (and closed) Earth’surface, the “greenhouse” gas theory could even stand up.

    OK, we lose the Sun and this brings another little problem … does the Sun exists ?
    Warmistas seem to believe it does not, since according to them, it has no effect on the climate, so the concavo-warmistas theory is self-consistent.

  11. Bob Hoye says:

    Please be considerate on how your treat “Flat-Earthers”.
    Our motto is:
    “We are on the level.”

  12. AndyDC says:

    It would be nice if these people would look at the actual data that Tony has charted from NOAA’s very own site before they popped off and made fools of themselves. You don’t need to be a genius to read a temperature chart and determine that there has not been any significant warming since 1940 at most US stations.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey AndyDC! “You don’t need to be a genius to read a temperature chart”

      You are right, no one has to be a genius to read a chart — but I am always surprised how many alarmists seem genuinely unable to do so. It’s very basic math/science, somewhere around junior high level, but they don’t understand. Oddly, these same people who can’t understand a temperature chart will tell me that CAGW is “simple physics” and that I should educate myself. Sigh!

  13. Anto says:

    The problem when you abandon science and logic for a humanities-based education system, is that it produces know-it-alls like this, who don’t even have the capacity to understand or argue their case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.