patrick.net

Automan Empire says

My critique of the American auto industry is that they really DID spend money on lawyers and lobbyists and PR, INSTEAD of engineers. The Japanese in particular quietly went about meeting and exceeding the requirements, and ate the American carmakers' lunch starting in the 80s as a result.

I remember those times. In 1980's, a "rice burner" didn't even come close to meeting American safety standards but American car makers had to meet those standards. Japan was able to make much more affordable cars than the American counterparts, and Americans were willing to take the risk to save money or to be able to afford to buy a car.

They weren't on a level playing field. Our government pulls this kind of crap all the time.

All you fuckers are either really smart or the best bull shitter's I've ever run across.

stfu says

All you fuckers are either really smart or the best bull shitter's I've ever run across.

No reason to think they are mutually exclusive. Also, I've been full of shit before, while being absolutely certain I was correct.

WRT to the abiotic origin for hydrocarbons, what we've found on Titan to me strongly suggests that hydrocarbons may very well have been part of the formation of the planets. Also, since oil is less dense than general "earth" eventually, all of it will come to the surface because it basically floats on top of dirt and rock. Whether oil is actually produced in the Earth, I have no idea but I doubt it is. I think there's probably a LOT of hydrocarbons stuck underground, but most of it takes more energy to recover than you get out of what you recover.

Reality says

Bd6r says

Do you know what compounds are present in nat gas and how many of them can be optically active?

Likely no optical activity whatsoever, like I said "with little optical activity to speak of." IIRC, so-called "optical activity" happens/happened only to petroleum components/distillants greater than 220 molecular mass, that's equivalent to having more than 15 carbons in a chain or ring; peaking around 400 molecular mass, i.e. equivalent to nearly 30-carbon in a chain or ring. That's some heavy lubrication oil / ship bunk fuel territory before hitting wax territory around 40-50 carbon. Natural gas is mostly 1-carbon Methane, with some smaller fractions of 2-4 carbon chains, far shorter than the 15-carbon jet-fuel range, where "optical activity" started to show.

If I may speculate a little here: IMHO, that focus on "optical activity" was a little fraud like today's PCR (magnificat...

There can be no optical activity in methane, ethane, propane, and two butane isomers (n-butane and 2-methylpropane) for fundamental symmetry reasons. Hence, lack of optical activity in nat gas is not due to abiotic or biotic origin.

richwicks says

you didn't witness. You're just repeating a story

That story was written by the eyewitness. It is his diary.

PeopleUnited says

richwicks says

you didn't witness. You're just repeating a story

That story was written by the eyewitness. It is his diary.

Again, you take this on faith.

You believe the Bible was written by god through a man, or many men. I think it was written just by men and when the writings became influential were co-opted by various governments, edited for current propaganda, which became the new authoritative sources. As governments changed, editions changed, and it changed in different regions in different ways. Remember it used to be an incredible undertaking to write a book because it had to be hand written by scribes.

When the Roman Catholic Church regained absolute dominance, they consolidated the different versions at the Council of Nicaea and I'm certain there were attempts to consolidate power before that.

I do not want to take you down this particular rabbit hole and I don't see any benefit to you doing so. Although I've gone though many sudden shifts of my own viewpoints, and I actually think I benefited from this, I don't think most people would. I have the benefit of knowing many viewpoints as a result, but it's pretty damaging in my viewpoint in that I have no firm beliefs in anything other than scientific method. My personality is unrecognizable from 20 years ago as well. I've changed drastically more than twice.

Origins of petroleum: Biotic or abiotic? Biden's farts.

zzyzzx says

Origins of petroleum: Biotic or abiotic? Biden's farts.

Something almost all of us can agree with

richwicks says

Anyhow, you didn't witness. You're just repeating a story.

richwicks says

I wouldn't start a thread just to criticize somebody's reasoning. I'm just telling

richwicks says

I'm pointing out that non religious people won't bother considering religious lore as valid reasoning

richwicks says

Again, you take this on faith.

richwicks says

You believe the Bible was written by god through a man,

Neurotic divorcee Crazy Cat Lady women who are angry and snarkey at the whole male gender.

Won't climb onto their own soapbox because they already know they won't have an audience, so instead Snark-On picking apart what they see is wrong with others.

Carry On, Nothing (worth note) To See Here.

B.A.C.A.H. says

Carry On, Nothing (worth note) To See Here.

I don't know what you're saying. Are you claiming I'm being hypocritical and doing exactly the opposite of what I'm saying?

People who believe the Bible is absolutely true are taking that on faith. Do you deny that? They think faith is a virtue, don't they? Atheists view faith as a weakness. If I had faith in my government, that just means I don't know what civic responsibility is, in my opinion. Do you disagree?

Are any of my statements incorrect? If they are, point out which ones are incorrect, and how you disagree with the statement. Maybe I am incorrect, but without understanding how I'm incorrect, I cannot consider I may be wrong. Just telling me that I'm wrong, doesn't help me realize I am.

richwicks says

I remember those times. In 1980's, a "rice burner" didn't even come close to meeting American safety standards but American car makers had to meet those standards.

There were a lot of relatively dangerous 70s Japanese cars still on the road in the 80s, but their cars went through some rapid evolution in the late 70s/early 80s wrt crashworthiness. Also, they absolutely DID have to meet minimum motor vehicle safety standards to be able to sell in the North America market. I would agree that the farther back you go from the mid 80s, the better American cars actually performed in crashes relative to same year Japanese cars. Also don't forget that going back to the early 70s, American carmakers were selling some American badged Japanese vehicles. The Dodge Colt (Mitusbishi), Chevy LUV (Izusu), and Ford Courier (Mazda) come directly to mind. The 1980 Chevy Chevelle was an ABSOLUTE JOKE of a vehicle, and absolutely miserable to own and drive compared to pretty much ANY of the comparable 4 cylinder Japanese models at the time.

richwicks says

Are any of my statements incorrect?

Of course not.

Just like the Snarkey neurotics I refer to, who know they'd be ignored if they got onto their own soapboxes, so they go about being Snarkey in other folks' business.

It's one thing to discuss the topic Automan asked, biotic or abiotic? That's a fun topic for discussion. Quite another to use his question to point out the Intellectual Inferiority in others.

Automan Empire says

Also, they absolutely DID have to meet minimum motor vehicle safety standards to be able to sell in the North America market.

Well, I could be wrong about it. I do remember that they were a lot worse to get in a wreck with than any American car - except the Pinto. I'll never forget that scene in Top Secret when a tank goes out of control and after swerving and driving off the road, it LIGHTLY taps the back of a Ford Pinto, and it ends with a massive explosion destroying everything. I haven't seen that move in probably 35 years, and I still remember that scene.

richwicks says

except the Pinto.

The Pinto was actually a VERY good car in many ways. The 2.3 liter 4 cylinder engine was one of the first American cars with a timing belt, and that engine was so ahead of its time it was used for a good 20 years forward. The gas tank rupturing in collisions WAS a small but real risk of these cars. Ford's RESPONSE to the issue was what gave the Pinto its current demonic reputation. They denied it was a problem for as long as they could, then did a recall that consisted of inserting a plastic shield between the tank and its mounting straps by the differential it would puncture upon. The recall was probably pretty effective, but by then the perception was it was too little too late, and the Pinto's reputation never recovered even to this day. The 2.3 was used in American shitboxes like the oversized underpowered 1979 Capri (3rd underdrive, 4th overdrive, wouldn't get out of its own way, that was American carmakers' answer to the CAFE requirements in stark contrast to same year Japanese models) but was also popular for modification and in dune buggies and boats. A cottage industry sprang up supplying performance parts for these engines.

That and the rusting from the crap paint.

Automan Empire says

They denied it was a problem for as long as they could

History is rhyming.

CDC/FDA/NIH/Pfizer/mafia all denying that the vaxx is killing people right now, for as long as they can.

Patrick says

History is rhyming.

Yes, in these cases owing to the underlying fact that laissez-faire capitalism routinely and ruthlessly places personal, shareholder, and company profit above public and individual client health, safety, and value.

Automan Empire says

richwicks says

except the Pinto.

The Pinto was actually a VERY good car in many ways.

I'm only joking really.

Automan Empire says

then did a recall that consisted of inserting a plastic shield between the tank and its mounting straps by the differential it would puncture upon.

Sounds like a cheap fix. They should have done it voluntarily but then again, they may not have had a solution until they were forced to find one.

Automan Empire says

Yes, in these cases owing to the underlying fact that laissez-faire capitalism routinely and ruthlessly places personal, shareholder, and company profit above public and individual client health, safety, and value.

Whereas socialism excels in unpersoning and killing huge numbers of non-cooperative classes. Including Progressives and their push for Eugenics, which sterilized at least a million people, mostly for the 'crime' of being poor and not following the Salvation Army/Methodist/Unitarian "Hygiene" handbooks doled out by upper middle class professional bored housewives.

B.A.C.A.H. says

It's one thing to discuss the topic Automan asked, biotic or abiotic? That's a fun topic for discussion. Quite another to use his question to point out the Intellectual Inferiority in others.

Haha. One thing I learned from my very hard atheist days, is that religious people are absolutely not intellectually inferior to me just because they are religious. I used to be that narrow minded and arrogant, but I got better. A difference of opinion or reasoning is just that.

If I came across as "snarky" or being a puffed up twat, it wasn't my intention. I was just trying to explain my viewpoint.

I don't think there's any way to measure intelligence. Want to score well on an IQ test? Practice them. It's a complete myth that you can't improve your score. All a high score means is you liked math enough to learn a bunch of patterns. It's meaningless. I think it tests obedience in paying attention to a math class more than anything else.

At my current age, I think that the reason some kids just fucked around in school is that they were keenly aware of something I was clueless about - most of what was being taught was worthless to learn. Almost all my actual useful work skills I learned either on my own, or at work.

I used to have some pride in my electrical engineering degree, but I have since realized that if you want to know what is going on in the world - better ask a grease monkey than a PhD. I have an engineering friend who talks to the construction workers working around his building about the "pandemic". His observation is that THEY think it's bullshit, but all his colleagues absolutely believe it. I have a great deal of respect for their ability to smell BS in blue collar workers. More than I do for my colleagues, especially at this point.

Anyhow, people have complained I tend to derail conversations on a particular topic, so last I'll talk about religion on this thread.

Automan Empire says

Yes, in these cases owing to the underlying fact that laissez-faire capitalism routinely and ruthlessly places personal, shareholder, and company profit above public and individual client health, safety, and value.

People's selfishness is not the result of laissez-faire government policy or capitalism.

What makes most government bureaucrats show up for work? Answer: higher pay than what they can get in the private market place and the promise of guaranteed pension after putting in their 20 years. Why do you think they should work for you for free instead of for their own selfish interest (within the bounds of law; i.e. whatever loopholes they can find in the laws)? Answer: your own selfishness. That's why you are conned into believing government bureaucrats have any conscience and are there to serve you, so you meekly pay your taxes and then get little to no service when you need it. That's also why the governments routinely have wars since time immemorial: to loot each others' peasants more than what normal tax rates can collect from them without inciting rebellion, and to thin out the population of government officials/bureaucrats when pension promises are more than can be paid.

As you can see, people's selfishness predates any -ism. Laissez-faire and relatively free market capitalism are just ways of running a society that treat you somewhat equally as a "free" citizen (free in the sense of a free-ranging chicken/hen). If you want to be taken care of more closely from birth to death, then it's the caged-chicken method of farming you.

CaptainHorsePaste says

Whereas socialism excels in unpersoning and killing huge numbers

Reality says

People's selfishness is not the result of laissez-faire government policy or capitalism.

Guys, that wasn't an anti-Capitalism position, and certainly not a recommendation to switch to socialism instead. I love Capitalism the way Churchill loved Democracy. It's a flawed system that sucks in these particular ways, but it's still way better than all of the alternatives. Capitalism with an overlay of some "socialist" regulations and standards brought us cars producing low pollution and high fuel economy while still offering great performance. A win win for big industries, consumers, and conservationists. A famous comparison before the Berlin Wall fell, Soviet industries like steelmaking tended to use 5X the energy as Western industries did to convert raw materials to the same amount of finished product.

Automan Empire says

Capitalism with an overlay of some "socialist" regulations and standards brought us cars producing low pollution and high fuel economy while still offering great performance.

I don't mind some regulations. It's evolutionary, it just changes the environment.

My complaint is the environment is artificially changed not to improve society, but to enrich people. I think some regulations are excellent, but they are a rarity.

I used to be a naive Libertarian, but there is that tragedy of the commons problem... No pure ideologies work. Any ideology can be taken to an extreme where it's demonstrated it's insane. ANY ideology. Ideologies are models, but in science, every single model is flawed - they are very good guides, but they are only guides.

I'd like to find a model in which we can all work together, but I think in that model, you'd find murder, propaganda, and forced conformance. I don't think people would want to see a model of society that works very well, and is totally correct - it would have some ugliness and I don't think people would accept ANY ugliness.

Automan Empire says

Guys, that wasn't an anti-Capitalism position, and certainly not a recommendation to switch to socialism instead. I love Capitalism the way Churchill loved Democracy. It's a flawed system that sucks in these particular ways, but it's still way better than all of the alternatives. Capitalism with an overlay of some "socialist" regulations and standards brought us cars producing low pollution and high fuel economy while still offering great performance. A win win for big industries, consumers, and conservationists. A famous comparison before the Berlin Wall fell, Soviet industries like steelmaking tended to use 5X the energy as Western industries did to convert raw materials to the same amount of finished product.

Is it "Socialism" though, or Nationalism or ?

Roads and Bridges and Sewers have always been built with taxpayer funds, without Marx or Saint Just. The Annona or the great Ceramic Works in Roman "Catalonia" didn't require Proudhon or Kropotkin.

The danger is when the profits are private but the losses are socialized.

This includes Teacher's Retirements in California, where, after multiple massive amounts of fraud and offenses against Fiduciary duty, CALPERS gets bailed out. Or Wall Street Banks, for that matter. Or most Aerospace Companies.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/07/business/dealbook/bailout-pensions-stimulus.html

Capitalist-Socialism, or Corporate Socialism, or whatever you wish to call it, is one of the worst systems.

B.A.C.A.H. says

use his question to point out the Intellectual Inferiority in others.

I find that the moment anyone claims or stands on intellectual superiority, they have revealed their weakness. It is a form of blindness to pretend that there is even such a thing.

I agree with Richwicks, intelligence, or at least the ability to measure it, is a human construct. If intelligence is a quantifiable characteristic, the best way to define it would be that intelligence is the ability to learn. That is an important ability. But what is more important than the ability to learn would be the ability to apply what you have learned, that is wisdom. Intelligence without wisdom just makes one an educated fool.

But back to the OP.

Here is another article supporting the geologic and biological origins of petroleum, based on the extensive study of the Williston Basin.

https://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/abstracts/2005research_calgary/abstracts/extended/dow/dow.htm

You know, the unusual thing about earth is not the large amounts of petroleum, but the large amounts of oxygen we have to burn it with.

Oxygen is extremely reactive, and I don't think it's common for planets to have large amounts of oxygen in their atmospheres.

richwicks says

WRT to the abiotic origin for hydrocarbons, what we've found on Titan to me strongly suggests that hydrocarbons may very well have been part of the formation of the planets.

I consider it a given that hydrogen and probably methane were part of the true "primordial soup" that became whole planets, and that much hydrogen thus was common from their beginnings during the formation of our Sol system, and likely in planets elsewhere when hydrogen was plentiful at the relevant times in their formation.

After several billion years it seems unlikely most primordial gaseous hydrogen would have long since outgassed or bonded with non-mobile elements including what may become abiotic petroleum. From what I was just reading (having just boned up more than ever on the topic of abiogenic oil for sake of this discussion), there EXIST deposits that are considered abiotic in origin by both geologists and oil companies, but only a few of them are commercially exploitable and small/limited at that. All the large pools of oil, whose availability and cost of extraction and delivery is a huge mover in the world economy, are considered mostly biotic in origin, with a minor abiotic contribution possible in some formations.

Relevant to the usual context of abiotic versus biotic origins of oil, if primordial hydrogen is a big constituent of abiotic oil production, it's a finite, limited, closed system resource. People usually cite abiotic oil as part of anti-conservation sentiments, as in "Oil's made by the earth and endlessly renews itself! Therefore, conserving it is pointless and stupid"

Automan Empire says

After several billion years it seems unlikely most primordial gaseous hydrogen would have long since outgassed or bonded with non-mobile elements including what may become abiotic petroleum.

"Likely" or "Unlikely"? You and I have trillions of hydrogen atoms in our bodies, both in the form of water and in the form of organic molecules. In fact, hydrogen is by far the most numerous atoms in our bodies. There are probably far more hydrogen and carbon inside this planet than there are oxygen atoms to oxidize them all. The very unusual phenomenon of significant free oxygen on earth's surface (atmosphere) is almost entirely the result of biological action (photosynthesis) breaking up water molecules, so it' entirely a surface phenomenon (a byproduct of that surface process/phenomenon is turning simple hydrocarbon into biomass) . Assuming the earth's interior is very hot below the top few miles (out of nearly 4000 mile radius to the core center) due to the heat from uranium and thorium decay and tidal force from moon causing friction inside the earth, i.e. the interior of the earth is not inhabited by a different species of intelligent beings, then most hydrogen and carbon on earth are bound up in simple hydrocarbon, mostly liquid Methane under high pressure, just like on other planets and their satellites, untinged by biological process like on earth's surface. We get a proof of that from massive methane outgassing from volcanic eruptions.

Automan Empire says

From what I was just reading (having just boned up more than ever on the topic of abiogenic oil for sake of this discussion), there EXIST deposits that are considered abiotic in origin by both geologists and oil companies, but only a few of them are commercially exploitable and small/limited at that. All the large pools of oil, whose availability and cost of extraction and delivery is a huge mover in the world economy, are considered mostly biotic in origin, with a minor abiotic contribution possible in some formations.

You are reading the product/result of heavily gate-kept publishing industry, and with a significant time delay depending on when the book was published. By your description, your book was likely written around two decades ago. The author was engaging in what is called "rear-guard action," gradually retreating from an untenable position, grudgingly admitting the existence abiogenic hydrocarbon but falsely insisting that's minority. What they call signs for biogenic are actually signs for bio-contamination of what came up from below. Even their most "reliable" evidence, the optic action, only took place for distillants 15-carbon equivalent or bigger/longer, whereas left-handed chirality should have been possible significantly before reaching 15-carbon. All biological organic molecules should be left-handed where chirality is possible. The "optic action" is simply saying there is some degree of imbalance between left-handedness vs. right-handedness but not nearly sufficient evidence for all being left-handed (where chirality is possible); i.e. pretending a sign for bio-contamination to mean biogenic origin.

Automan Empire says

Relevant to the usual context of abiotic versus biotic origins of oil, if primordial hydrogen is a big constituent of abiotic oil production, it's a finite, limited, closed system resource. People usually cite abiotic oil as part of anti-conservation sentiments, as in "Oil's made by the earth and endlessly renews itself! Therefore, conserving it is pointless and stupid"

There are good reasons for conservation as private action in daily life: just like conserving water, conserving electricity and conserving food; all three are regenerated every day but it costs resources and effort to regenerate and deliver them. Likewise, it costs resources and labor to bring hydrocarbon to your nearest gas station, so it is a good idea to conserve them. Beyond that, assessing special taxes on top of the delivery of fresh water, electricity, food or hydrocarbon, that would just be your overlords looking for excuses to exploit you. Just look at their own lives: what conservation action did they take when they burn more than tens of thousands of average homes' annual carbon footprint when private-jetting themselves into those "climate action" conventions plotting how to force you conserve? Their purpose for promoting the idea that you should conserve to a far more strict degree than what is comfortable to you is to tax you and even kill you and your family so that they can keep your bank deposits, take your assets and avoid paying you the pension they promised to you. Spending one's own time and effort echoing their agenda is a little like the hapless Stockholm-Syndrome peons living under communism and/or national socialism volunteering their own time echoing their governments' totalitarian propaganda. You know what's more: it's precisely those Stockholm-Syndrome peons eagerness to be cruel to each other that entice the banksters to promote Communism and National Socialism and other forms of totalitarianism in those countries: so government officials in those countries would be able to loot the local population and transfer the money to banks in "freer" countries, and then political upheavals kill them all and the banksters get to keep the money. That's how banksters divert money from the middle class in freer countries to their own pockets by promoting totalitarianism in countries that are full of Stockholm-Syndrome peons.

Reality says

What they call signs for biogenic are actually signs for bio-contamination of what came up from below.

That's a frequent PR Science issue with Meteorites: "Amino Acids, the building block of RNA, found in this 100 MYA Meteorite from Mars found in Antarctica Frozen Lake"

Of course, 100 MYA Antarctica was temperate, and that lake was teeming with organic chemistry when the meteorite fell into it, and meteorites are pockmarked so it's a no brainer that a submerged rock would take organically filled water inside. Also, saying Amino Acids are the Building Block of RNA is like saying pumice are building blocks of massive ampitheaters, it misses 99% of the story of building ampitheaters or aqueducts.

https://covidsteria.substack.com/p/science-memes-belief-in-the-ignorance-of-experts