21 Kids Take on the Feds and Big Oil in Historic Climate Lawsuit

  • metta

    Posts: 39167

    Mar 11, 2016 2:33 AM GMT
    21 Kids Take on the Feds and Big Oil in Historic Climate Lawsuit


    http://ecowatch.com/2016/03/10/climate-lawsuit-21-kids/2/
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 1037

    Mar 11, 2016 3:47 PM GMT
    Well, they're learning to play politics at a young age - this lawsuit is nothing more than useless grandstanding.

    They're suing to halt the exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels? What exactly do they propose to do instead? Like it or not, we don't have a viable alternative.

    And even if they can establish as absolute fact that climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, they might have a hard time proving true harm is being done. After all, the earth has been much colder and much warmer than it is now at various times in its history, and it seems to have come through it just fine. Is their premise that if not for fossil fuels, we'd be living in some magic "perfect" climate where everything works exactly the way it's "supposed" to?

    Chalk this up to a lost cause.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2016 5:13 PM GMT
    Probably should clear up their ignorance regarding " fossil" fuel first.
    It's a "scientific" myth that oil is a fossil fuel. Oil and other hydrocarbons are naturally occurring minerals formed when the earth was formed. Hydrocarbons can be found on other planets / moons in this solar system where life never existed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2016 5:27 PM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    Alpha13 saidProbably should clear up their ignorance regarding " fossil" fuel first.
    It's a "scientific" myth that oil is a fossil fuel. Oil and other hydrocarbons are naturally occurring minerals formed when the earth was formed. Hydrocarbons can be found on other planets / moons in this solar system where life never existed.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
    Abiogenic petroleum origin is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete.[1] Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin. Abiogenesis of small quantities of oil and gas remains a minor area of ongoing research.

    Some abiogenic hypotheses have proposed that oil and gas did not originate from fossil deposits, but have instead originated from deep carbon deposits, present since the formation of the Earth.[2] Additionally, it has been suggested that hydrocarbons may have arrived on Earth from solid bodies such as comets and asteroids from the late formation of the Solar System, carrying hydrocarbons with them.[3][4]

    Some abiogenic hypotheses gained limited popularity among geologists over the past several centuries. Scientists in the former Soviet Union widely held that significant petroleum deposits could be attributed to abiogenic origin, though this view fell out of favor toward the end of the 20th century because they did not make useful predictions for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] Previous to 2016, it was generally accepted that abiogenic formation of petroleum has insufficient scientific support and that oil and gas fuels on Earth are formed almost exclusively from organic material.[5]

    The abiogenic hypothesis regained support in 2009 when researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm reported they believed they had proven that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated.[6][7]


    State of current research[edit]

    Main article: Petroleum § Formation

    The weight of evidence currently shows that petroleum is derived from ancient biomass.[16] However, it still has to be established conclusively, which means that abiogenic alternative theories of petroleum formation cannot be dismissed.[

    Empirical evidence[edit]

    Occurrences of abiotic petroleum in commercial amounts in the oil wells in offshore Vietnam are sometimes cited, as well as in the Eugene Island block 330 oil field, and the Dnieper-Donets Basin. However, the origins of all these wells can also be explained with the biotic theory.[1][50] Modern geologists think that commercially profitable deposits of abiotic petroleum could be found, but no current deposit has convincing evidence that it originated from abiotic sources.[50


    Given all that it seems fossil fuels is still a correct term.
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 1037

    Mar 11, 2016 5:31 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidProbably should clear up their ignorance regarding " fossil" fuel first.
    It's a "scientific" myth that oil is a fossil fuel. Oil and other hydrocarbons are naturally occurring minerals formed when the earth was formed. Hydrocarbons can be found on other planets / moons in this solar system where life never existed.


    Hmm, speaking as a former geophysicist who used to work in oil exploration, I'm afraid I can't agree you on with that. Yes, hydrocarbons - primarily methane and other light gases - have been found on planets where there is no life. But oil is another thing entirely.

    A fuckload of oil has been discovered based on the hypothesis that it is generated from long-dead biological matter. And to my knowledge, zero oil has been discovered using any other scientific hypothesis.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2016 9:44 PM GMT
    theantijock saidtheantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    Alpha13 saidProbably should clear up their ignorance regarding " fossil" fuel first.
    It's a "scientific" myth that oil is a fossil fuel. Oil and other hydrocarbons are naturally occurring minerals formed when the earth was formed. Hydrocarbons can be found on other planets / moons in this solar system where life never existed.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
    Abiogenic petroleum origin is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete.[1] Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin. Abiogenesis of small quantities of oil and gas remains a minor area of ongoing research.

    Some abiogenic hypotheses have proposed that oil and gas did not originate from fossil deposits, but have instead originated from deep carbon deposits, present since the formation of the Earth.[2] Additionally, it has been suggested that hydrocarbons may have arrived on Earth from solid bodies such as comets and asteroids from the late formation of the Solar System, carrying hydrocarbons with them.[3][4]

    Some abiogenic hypotheses gained limited popularity among geologists over the past several centuries. Scientists in the former Soviet Union widely held that significant petroleum deposits could be attributed to abiogenic origin, though this view fell out of favor toward the end of the 20th century because they did not make useful predictions for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] Previous to 2016, it was generally accepted that abiogenic formation of petroleum has insufficient scientific support and that oil and gas fuels on Earth are formed almost exclusively from organic material.[5]

    The abiogenic hypothesis regained support in 2009 when researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm reported they believed they had proven that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated.[6][7]


    State of current research[edit]

    Main article: Petroleum § Formation

    The weight of evidence currently shows that petroleum is derived from ancient biomass.[16] However, it still has to be established conclusively, which means that abiogenic alternative theories of petroleum formation cannot be dismissed.[

    Empirical evidence[edit]

    Occurrences of abiotic petroleum in commercial amounts in the oil wells in offshore Vietnam are sometimes cited, as well as in the Eugene Island block 330 oil field, and the Dnieper-Donets Basin. However, the origins of all these wells can also be explained with the biotic theory.[1][50] Modern geologists think that commercially profitable deposits of abiotic petroleum could be found, but no current deposit has convincing evidence that it originated from abiotic sources.[50


    Given all that it seems fossil fuels is still a correct term.



    Ha, ha. All the "empirical " evidence is funded by big oil that has conspired to "prove" the scarcity of oil in the earth crust. Rockafellar started the scarcity promotion in 1892 when he lobbied to have oil declared a "fossil" hydrocarbon at a world organic chemistry convention in Geneva. Notice that each generation since then has predicted that we would run out of oil in 20 years
    ( to keep oil prices up). No real fossils have ever been found greater than 16,000 ft below the crust. It's the same as saying diamonds are fossils.
    The reality is cartels must create back stories to keep prices up. If there was really scarcity we would not see oil fluctuate from $50-$100 per barrel. The moon Titan ( according to NASA) has more then 100x the petro chemicals then the entire earth. For anyone that disagrees show me the DNA evidence of the oil produced by living things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 11, 2016 11:42 PM GMT
    bro4bro saidWell, they're learning to play politics at a young age - this lawsuit is nothing more than useless grandstanding.

    They're suing to halt the exploitation, production, and combustion of fossil fuels? What exactly do they propose to do instead? Like it or not, we don't have a viable alternative.

    And even if they can establish as absolute fact that climate change is caused by the burning of fossil fuels, they might have a hard time proving true harm is being done. After all, the earth has been much colder and much warmer than it is now at various times in its history, and it seems to have come through it just fine. Is their premise that if not for fossil fuels, we'd be living in some magic "perfect" climate where everything works exactly the way it's "supposed" to?

    Chalk this up to a lost cause.

    Good point, but I'd chalk this one up as a silly exercise in communal catharsis. The choice of venue is interesting: a college town, and one notorious for environmental "activism" at that. And how touching that "it's all for the kids! icon_razz.gif
    If the judge has any cojones, he'll sanction plaintiffs' counsel for filing a frivolous suit and award costs to the defendants after he dismisses the case.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2016 12:30 AM GMT
    This is good news, we can bury the toxic waste from solar panel manufacturing in the backyards of these 21 kids.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2016 10:54 AM GMT
    Alpha13 said
    theantijock saidtheantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    Alpha13 saidProbably should clear up their ignorance regarding " fossil" fuel first.
    It's a "scientific" myth that oil is a fossil fuel. Oil and other hydrocarbons are naturally occurring minerals formed when the earth was formed. Hydrocarbons can be found on other planets / moons in this solar system where life never existed.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
    Abiogenic petroleum origin is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete.[1] Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin. Abiogenesis of small quantities of oil and gas remains a minor area of ongoing research.

    Some abiogenic hypotheses have proposed that oil and gas did not originate from fossil deposits, but have instead originated from deep carbon deposits, present since the formation of the Earth.[2] Additionally, it has been suggested that hydrocarbons may have arrived on Earth from solid bodies such as comets and asteroids from the late formation of the Solar System, carrying hydrocarbons with them.[3][4]

    Some abiogenic hypotheses gained limited popularity among geologists over the past several centuries. Scientists in the former Soviet Union widely held that significant petroleum deposits could be attributed to abiogenic origin, though this view fell out of favor toward the end of the 20th century because they did not make useful predictions for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] Previous to 2016, it was generally accepted that abiogenic formation of petroleum has insufficient scientific support and that oil and gas fuels on Earth are formed almost exclusively from organic material.[5]

    The abiogenic hypothesis regained support in 2009 when researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm reported they believed they had proven that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated.[6][7]


    State of current research[edit]

    Main article: Petroleum § Formation

    The weight of evidence currently shows that petroleum is derived from ancient biomass.[16] However, it still has to be established conclusively, which means that abiogenic alternative theories of petroleum formation cannot be dismissed.[

    Empirical evidence[edit]

    Occurrences of abiotic petroleum in commercial amounts in the oil wells in offshore Vietnam are sometimes cited, as well as in the Eugene Island block 330 oil field, and the Dnieper-Donets Basin. However, the origins of all these wells can also be explained with the biotic theory.[1][50] Modern geologists think that commercially profitable deposits of abiotic petroleum could be found, but no current deposit has convincing evidence that it originated from abiotic sources.[50


    Given all that it seems fossil fuels is still a correct term.



    Ha, ha. All the "empirical " evidence is funded by big oil that has conspired to "prove" the scarcity of oil in the earth crust. Rockafellar started the scarcity promotion in 1892 when he lobbied to have oil declared a "fossil" hydrocarbon at a world organic chemistry convention in Geneva. Notice that each generation since then has predicted that we would run out of oil in 20 years
    ( to keep oil prices up). No real fossils have ever been found greater than 16,000 ft below the crust. It's the same as saying diamonds are fossils.
    The reality is cartels must create back stories to keep prices up. If there was really scarcity we would not see oil fluctuate from $50-$100 per barrel. The moon Titan ( according to NASA) has more then 100x the petro chemicals then the entire earth. For anyone that disagrees show me the DNA evidence of the oil produced by living things.


    Sort of seems like it's in the $30 range lately and we are awash in the stuff. Oil price has been crashing for the last year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 13, 2016 1:37 PM GMT
    desertmuscl said
    Alpha13 said
    theantijock saidtheantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    Alpha13 saidProbably should clear up their ignorance regarding " fossil" fuel first.
    It's a "scientific" myth that oil is a fossil fuel. Oil and other hydrocarbons are naturally occurring minerals formed when the earth was formed. Hydrocarbons can be found on other planets / moons in this solar system where life never existed.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
    Abiogenic petroleum origin is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete.[1] Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin. Abiogenesis of small quantities of oil and gas remains a minor area of ongoing research.

    Some abiogenic hypotheses have proposed that oil and gas did not originate from fossil deposits, but have instead originated from deep carbon deposits, present since the formation of the Earth.[2] Additionally, it has been suggested that hydrocarbons may have arrived on Earth from solid bodies such as comets and asteroids from the late formation of the Solar System, carrying hydrocarbons with them.[3][4]

    Some abiogenic hypotheses gained limited popularity among geologists over the past several centuries. Scientists in the former Soviet Union widely held that significant petroleum deposits could be attributed to abiogenic origin, though this view fell out of favor toward the end of the 20th century because they did not make useful predictions for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] Previous to 2016, it was generally accepted that abiogenic formation of petroleum has insufficient scientific support and that oil and gas fuels on Earth are formed almost exclusively from organic material.[5]

    The abiogenic hypothesis regained support in 2009 when researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm reported they believed they had proven that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated.[6][7]


    State of current research[edit]

    Main article: Petroleum § Formation

    The weight of evidence currently shows that petroleum is derived from ancient biomass.[16] However, it still has to be established conclusively, which means that abiogenic alternative theories of petroleum formation cannot be dismissed.[

    Empirical evidence[edit]

    Occurrences of abiotic petroleum in commercial amounts in the oil wells in offshore Vietnam are sometimes cited, as well as in the Eugene Island block 330 oil field, and the Dnieper-Donets Basin. However, the origins of all these wells can also be explained with the biotic theory.[1][50] Modern geologists think that commercially profitable deposits of abiotic petroleum could be found, but no current deposit has convincing evidence that it originated from abiotic sources.[50


    Given all that it seems fossil fuels is still a correct term.



    Ha, ha. All the "empirical " evidence is funded by big oil that has conspired to "prove" the scarcity of oil in the earth crust. Rockafellar started the scarcity promotion in 1892 when he lobbied to have oil declared a "fossil" hydrocarbon at a world organic chemistry convention in Geneva. Notice that each generation since then has predicted that we would run out of oil in 20 years
    ( to keep oil prices up). No real fossils have ever been found greater than 16,000 ft below the crust. It's the same as saying diamonds are fossils.
    The reality is cartels must create back stories to keep prices up. If there was really scarcity we would not see oil fluctuate from $50-$100 per barrel. The moon Titan ( according to NASA) has more then 100x the petro chemicals then the entire earth. For anyone that disagrees show me the DNA evidence of the oil produced by living things.


    Sort of seems like it's in the $30 range lately and we are awash in the stuff. Oil price has been crashing for the last year.


    Be fluctuations by manipulation or market, neither price nor supply determines whether or not a thing is organic or inorganic which was the argument.
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 1037

    Mar 13, 2016 8:13 PM GMT
    Honestly, I'd like to know where the conspiracy theorists are getting their information - I think it would be quite illuminating. They aren't getting it from any respected geologist, I'm sure.

    Oil and natural gas are always found in porous rocks - most commonly sandstone, which was deposited in nearshore marine and fluvial/deltaic sedimentary systems (yes, sand is found at the beach, go figure) and limestone, which is itself a fossil, being composed of the skeletal fragments of marine organisms (coral and such). They may be buried deep beneath the surface now, but at the time of deposition they were at the surface, in environments that were literally teeming with life.

    If you accept that oil is biogenic in nature, it's fairly easy to draw the line from A to B. But if you don't, and you believe oil somehow already existed deep in the earth at the same time these limestones and sandstones were being formed at the surface, then you somehow have to come up with an explanation as to how the two ever came into contact. It just doesn't make any sense.

    Modern oil exploration involves painstaking reconstruction of paleoenvironments to determine the potential for generating hydrocarbons via the decay of organic material, plus detailed analysis of geologic history to determine whether the actions of temperature, pressure, and geochemistry have matured a sedimentary unit sufficiently to yield complex hydrocarbons such as oil. The technology works, much better than anything else, or oil companies wouldn't spend all that money on geologists' salaries so that they could spend their time doing exactly that.

    I worked as a geophysicist at Exxon's research labs for five years in the early 1980s, developing state-of-the-art oil exploration methods. I can assure you any geologist who proposed that oil was not biogenic in nature would have been dismissed as an incompetent wacko. If the corporate executives - who were not geologists - had any secret information in that regard, they certainly didn't impart it to the people whose job it was to tell them where to drill.

    As for the price of a barrel of oil, that has been determined for at least the last half century by OPEC's production rate. The United States has never depended on the Middle East for oil. We depend on the Middle East for cheap oil. When OPEC increases its production, the supply of cheap oil increases, and the average price of a barrel falls. It's been a very effective tactic for curbing oil production in places where it's more expensive to drill and produce, thereby destroying competition.

    Middle East oil is cheap because it's relatively close to the surface, it's easy to drill in a desert, it exists in massive reservoirs rather than many tiny scattered ones, it's high grade petroleum so doesn't require that much to refine it, and the governments own all the mineral rights so there's no private landowners to deal with. That's why the kings and sheiks and sultans and whatever are billionaires, while the average guy herds goats for a living. That also makes it very easy to fool the less educated people into thinking the Americans are stealing their oil and keeping them poor, when actually it's their own leaders.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 14, 2016 4:59 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    desertmuscl said
    Alpha13 said
    theantijock saidtheantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    Alpha13 saidProbably should clear up their ignorance regarding " fossil" fuel first.
    It's a "scientific" myth that oil is a fossil fuel. Oil and other hydrocarbons are naturally occurring minerals formed when the earth was formed. Hydrocarbons can be found on other planets / moons in this solar system where life never existed.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
    Abiogenic petroleum origin is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete.[1] Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin. Abiogenesis of small quantities of oil and gas remains a minor area of ongoing research.

    Some abiogenic hypotheses have proposed that oil and gas did not originate from fossil deposits, but have instead originated from deep carbon deposits, present since the formation of the Earth.[2] Additionally, it has been suggested that hydrocarbons may have arrived on Earth from solid bodies such as comets and asteroids from the late formation of the Solar System, carrying hydrocarbons with them.[3][4]

    Some abiogenic hypotheses gained limited popularity among geologists over the past several centuries. Scientists in the former Soviet Union widely held that significant petroleum deposits could be attributed to abiogenic origin, though this view fell out of favor toward the end of the 20th century because they did not make useful predictions for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] Previous to 2016, it was generally accepted that abiogenic formation of petroleum has insufficient scientific support and that oil and gas fuels on Earth are formed almost exclusively from organic material.[5]

    The abiogenic hypothesis regained support in 2009 when researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm reported they believed they had proven that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated.[6][7]


    State of current research[edit]

    Main article: Petroleum § Formation

    The weight of evidence currently shows that petroleum is derived from ancient biomass.[16] However, it still has to be established conclusively, which means that abiogenic alternative theories of petroleum formation cannot be dismissed.[

    Empirical evidence[edit]

    Occurrences of abiotic petroleum in commercial amounts in the oil wells in offshore Vietnam are sometimes cited, as well as in the Eugene Island block 330 oil field, and the Dnieper-Donets Basin. However, the origins of all these wells can also be explained with the biotic theory.[1][50] Modern geologists think that commercially profitable deposits of abiotic petroleum could be found, but no current deposit has convincing evidence that it originated from abiotic sources.[50


    Given all that it seems fossil fuels is still a correct term.



    Ha, ha. All the "empirical " evidence is funded by big oil that has conspired to "prove" the scarcity of oil in the earth crust. Rockafellar started the scarcity promotion in 1892 when he lobbied to have oil declared a "fossil" hydrocarbon at a world organic chemistry convention in Geneva. Notice that each generation since then has predicted that we would run out of oil in 20 years
    ( to keep oil prices up). No real fossils have ever been found greater than 16,000 ft below the crust. It's the same as saying diamonds are fossils.
    The reality is cartels must create back stories to keep prices up. If there was really scarcity we would not see oil fluctuate from $50-$100 per barrel. The moon Titan ( according to NASA) has more then 100x the petro chemicals then the entire earth. For anyone that disagrees show me the DNA evidence of the oil produced by living things.


    Sort of seems like it's in the $30 range lately and we are awash in the stuff. Oil price has been crashing for the last year.


    Be fluctuations by manipulation or market, neither price nor supply determines whether or not a thing is organic or inorganic which was the argument.
    haha you made price a part of the topic until somebody made a valid point about it and now its not part of the argument. Lmao
  • JackNNJ

    Posts: 1051

    Mar 14, 2016 9:21 PM GMT
    Alpha13 saidProbably should clear up their ignorance regarding " fossil" fuel first.
    It's a "scientific" myth that oil is a fossil fuel. Oil and other hydrocarbons are naturally occurring minerals formed when the earth was formed. Hydrocarbons can be found on other planets / moons in this solar system where life never existed.


    Not sure if that's the case. It's true that hydrocarbons are abundant in the solar system, but I am still of the mind that prehistoric biological material is a component of fossil fuel. The evidence seems to be sound.

    But that's neither here nor there.

    MINE THE SATELLITES, YOUNG MAN!
  • JackNNJ

    Posts: 1051

    Mar 14, 2016 9:25 PM GMT
    But this is stupid. It's more white Liberal nonsense. Using children. It's becoming blatant pedophilia with these Lefties.