There is no such thing as "fossil fuels"...

Unless dinosaurs once roamed on saturn...where they just found lakes of methane

Petroleum and natural gas are formed by the anaerobic decomposition of remains of organisms including phytoplankton and zooplankton that settled to the sea (or lake) bottom in large quantities under anoxic conditions, millions of years ago. Over geological time, this organic matter, mixed with mud, got buried under heavy layers of sediment. The resulting high levels of heat and pressure caused the organic matter to chemically alter, first into a waxy material known as kerogen which is found in oil shales, and then with more heat into liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in a process known as catagenesis.
There is a wide range of organic, or hydrocarbon, compounds in any given fuel mixture. The specific mixture of hydrocarbons gives a fuel its characteristic properties, such as boiling point, melting point, density, viscosity, etc. Some fuels like natural gas, for instance, contain only very low boiling, gaseous components. Others such as gasoline or diesel contain much higher boiling components.

Terrestrial plants, on the other hand, tend to form coal and methane. Many of the coal fields date to the Carboniferous period of Earth's history. Terrestrial plants also form type III kerogen, a source of natural gas.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel

As much as i enjoy getting wikipedia science lessons from the undegreed masses, i must ask you.....

whats your point? Are you attempting to inform me about fossil fuels?

You said there was no such thing as fossil fuels ... I was pointing out you were wrong.

Your own theory has already been disproven:

The presence of methane on Saturn's moon Titan and in the atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune is cited[1] as evidence of the formation of hydrocarbons without biology.[2]
The biogenic theory for petroleum was first proposed by Georg Agricola in the 16th century and various abiogenic hypotheses were proposed in the 19th century, most notably by Alexander von Humboldt, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev and the French chemist Marcellin Berthelot. Abiogenic hypotheses were revived in the last half of the 20th century by Soviet scientists who had little influence outside the Soviet Union because most of their research was published in Russian. The theory was re-defined and made popular in the West by Thomas Gold who published all his research in English.[1]
Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, it allegedly fell out of favor because it never made any useful prediction for the discovery of oil deposits.[1] Most geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported.[1] The abiogenic origin of petroleum has also recently been reviewed in detail by Glasby, who raises a number of objections, including that there is no direct evidence to date of abiogenic petroleum (liquid crude oil and long-chain hydrocarbon compounds).[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin


Wikipedia is about as good a source of accurate information as Britannica, the venerable standard-bearer of facts about the world around us, according to a study published this week in the journal Nature.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

You havent proven anything with that link..Actually the opposite if u read the ENTIRE page...

Just a bunch of opinions and theories...

Methane is abiogenic...

And RENEWABLE...

The methane lakes on titan prove it..

It has also been proven by the carnegie institute who made natural gas in the lab...got that from your link.

Your link goes on to say that "little research is being directed on
establishing abiogenic petroleum."....No surprise there...

The fact is we hav nearly unlimited resources..

The warmers dont like this news tho..

It undermines the liberal agenda...Which is to tax and control the masses.

Unless u have information showing evidence of life on titan, neptune and saturns atmosphere then we hav nothing else to discuss..

We should just grow hemp for biofuels, an acre of hemp can create 10 tonnes of biofuels in 4 months and we would only need to dedicate 10% of North Americas landmass to growing hemp for biofuels to become 100% energy independent. Hemp can create methane, ethanol, gasoline or even a charcoalized product with nearly the same BTU as coal and could replace coal and be used to create electricity. Any pollutants/greenhouse gases produced from the use of hemp fuels would be offset by the growing of the hemp crops. Hemp fuels are also biodegradable and do not cause massive catastrophes in the event of a spill. This would also allow farmers to grow small hemp crops to meet their own fuel needs, reducing the cost of production of other crops, such as food crops, meaning the small farmer can compete with the larger farms lower prices and make more money at the same time, helping revive small family farms and seeing higher quality (most likely organic) produce for a lower price for the final consumer. There are a plethora of other reasons as to why we should use hemp fuels, and the other 50, 000+ eco friendly high quality products it can produce, ridding our need of petroleum products. Henry Ford had a car made of Hemp plastics that ran on hemp fuels that was stronger and lasted longer then their steel counterparts, its also a natural plastic that can biodegrade with weathering, unlike petroleum plastics which just break up into smaller and smaller pieces. The only way to truely get rid of petroleum plastic is to burn it, and that just creates other problems.

Lol...until the droughts hit and all the crops die.

The funny thing is... The same warmers who are calling for "fuel crops" are the same ones claiming we are heading for drought and heat...

I love these "solutions" we get from the undegreed masses...

Almost as funny as davids "fossil fuel lesson"... Lmao