"Quote me... Show me where i made these claims"
If you're in favor of hemp ethanol, why on earth would you post stuff about how human-caused climate change is questionable? If every single scientific organization on earth with any credibility no longer disputes human-caused climate change, then you must admit it's possible it exists. If it's *possible* it exists, then you must stop debating weather or not it exists and you must move on to promoting alternatives. One should do so anyway, since the only downside to doing so is that the oil companies lose billions (if that can even be considered a downside).
The only people who promote the idea that it is impossible that humans cause climate change - the only people with a motive to - are the same people who want to resist hemp ethanol - the people who stand to lose billions - Exxon and those who shill for them.
"Then why does titan have methane?"
Methane isn't petroleum. Methane can be either biotic or abiotic:
"It has been recently discovered that thermophilic bacteria, in the sea bottom and in cooling magma, produce methane and hydrocarbon gases,..."
^ Lollar, Sherwood et al. 2002. Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs. Nature, 416, pp522-524. Abstract
^ a b c d B. Sherwood Lollar; G. Lacrampe-Couloume, et al. (February 2006). "Unravelling abiogenic and biogenic sources of methane in the Earth's deep subsurface". Chemical Geology 226 (3–4): 328–339. doi:10.1016/j.chemgeo.2005.09.027.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Where is the outer-space petroleum located? Oh ... no-where? Hmm.
Although the abiogenic hypothesis was accepted by many geologists in the former Soviet Union, it fell out of favor at the end of the 20th century because it never made any useful prediction for the discovery of oil deposits. Most geologists now consider the abiogenic formation of petroleum scientifically unsupported. 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).
^ a b c d e f g h i j k Glasby, Geoffrey P. (2006). "Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons: an historical overview" (PDF). Resource Geology 56 (1): 83–96. doi:10.1111/j.1751-3928.2006.tb00271.x. Retrieved 2008-02-17.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
"Lol..the undegreed masses love wikipedia.."
And those who are wrong but can't admit it dismiss Wikipedia while ignoring the sources cited within and while refusing to provide counter-evidence.
"Why the fuck would plankton be UNDER sedimentary rock...did it not decompose first? You have no idea how geology works...its very apparent you dont have a clue, and frankly its embarrasing to listen to you talk about something you know nothing about."
"... there is no generalization from the whole world of science, social or natural, which cannot be conveyed to a man of average intelligence, if you yourself understand it concretely."http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/memoirs/memoirs2_4.html
I can use Wikipedia, and the sources cited within are far more convincing than your patronizing, dismissive, illogical arguments.
First, prove that plankton is not located under sedimentary rock. Next, prove that this is conclusive evidence that abiotic oil exists. Finally, come up with counter-evidence that explains away the evidence that Wikipedia has provided which I have cited above.
There is a difference between using Wikipedia as a source, and using works cited in Wikipedia as a source. Only someone who didn't possess the truth would try and confuse the two.