Puterbac News Network and Political Discussion Thread

[It's me Karen]

AA, sorry to hear about your health issue. Glad to see you back.

[Big Orange Junky]

Sorry you had to go under the knife. Glad you are doing well now even if you are a bammer.

Hope we have another fun year.

[Professor Tiger]

Government mismanagement, overspending, overborrowing, and overtaxing is at least as bad in Illinois as it is in California. Except we don't have warm weather and beautiful women on beaches.

[Professor Tiger]

while we are at it Tiger, point me to one poll (any poll anywhere) that stipulates that Gen-Xers would be willing to vote for a more austerity driven Romney over a tax-and-borrow-and-spend Obama.

IB, Here is yet another further additional poll showing that young people are willing to vote for an austerity driven candidate rather than Obama.

Millennials Turning Away from Obama

Obama beat McCain among 18-24 year-olds by a whopping 34 percent, winning 66 percent of the vote.

That excitement is gone. A new Public Religion Research poll shows that while Obama still leads in the 18 to 24 age group, his lead has fallen dramatically to 7 percent. And those who still support him are less enthusiastic; Politico recently discussed the “tepid” support for Obama on college campuses

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... rom-obama/

Also, polls showing those young voters who want an austerity candidate are not convinced that Romney is one:

However, only 34 percent of voters who would prefer a Republican candidate say Mitt Romney is their first choice to be the GOP nominee.

Romney’s largest challenge is that he inspires considerably less excitement than Obama or other Republican candidates.”

http://publicreligion.org/newsroom/2012 ... rvey-2012/

[crashcourse]

AA was gone?

[sardis]

The next industrial evolution

http://www.economist.com/node/21553017

[sardis]

Now that they found out AA is back, the Charlotte Observer decided to send their investigative series on hospitals to print...

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/0 ... ve-on.html

[Professor Tiger]

AA wouldn't be caught dead in a not-for-profit hospital. The very term "not-for-profit" makes a Scot's skin crawl.

[10ac]

AA's a Scot??

[Jungle Rat]

No no. He was Irish all the way. His temper was a dead giveaway.

[AlabamAlum]

Prickery noted and smiled at.

Prof: thanks.

BoJ: thanks.

Gbj's: you can't get those orange-clad heathens to see the light. God knows I've tried. It's folly to try.

[It's me Karen]

Bah.

[Professor Tiger]

AA, I especially hope this surgery wasn't a necessary follow up to the last one. I hope it was for something minor, like a Jerry Jones-style face lift or man boob reduction.

[Jungle Rat]

I told you he was traveling. Probably got Montezuma.

[Toemeesleather]

Turns out, as has been known for generations, crude oil is abiotic, so we will NOT be running out of fossil fuels which are NOT fossil fuels. But don't tell Al.


Throughout the history of the petroleum industry, there have been written numerous articles or reports predicting an imminent demise of that industry all predicated upon assumptions that the supply of producible crude oil in the world was (supposedly) being rapidly depleted and would soon (therefore) be exhausted.(Campbell 1991; Fuller 1993; Campbell 1994; Campbell 1995) In short, the world was (if such were believed), "running out of oil." Happily, all such predictions have, without a single exception, been proven wrong.

Contrarily, the statistics of the international petroleum industry establish that, far from diminishing, the net known recoverable reserves of petroleum have been growing steadily for the past fifty years. Those statistics show that, for every year since about 1946, the international petroleum industry has discovered at least five new tons of recoverable oil for every three which have been consumed. As Professor P. Odell has put the circumstance succinctly, instead of "running out of oil," the human race by every measure seems to be "running into oil".(Odell 1984; Odell 1991; Odell 1994)

The remarkable facts of such unrelieved errors for the predictions of available petroleum contrasted against those of its true availability demand explanation. One purpose of this paper is to provide such explanation. The explanat ion involves two parts, both of which obtain from an extensive body of scientific knowledge which peculiarly remains little known outside its country of origin. The first part of the explanation is simply forthcoming by pointing out the single, simple, but utterly wrong assumption upon which have been based all the "disaster" predictions connected with fantasized shortages of petroleum. The second part consists even more simply of pointing out how the measured statistics of known petroleum reserves are consistent with what should be expected in light of modern petroleum science.

The errors concerning the abundances of petroleum on Earth all obtain from a common, but fundamental, misunderstanding about petroleum itself. All the predictions about expected shortages of petroleum hang by a single, weak thread on a remnant, eighteenth-century notion which has been thoroughly discredited in this century: the hypothesis that petroleum might somehow originate from biological detritus in sediments near the surface of the Earth. That "biological hypothesis was first published by the famous Russian scientist Mikhailo Vasilyevich Lomonosov in the year 1757 and is quoted above. That notion of an origin of petroleum from biological material has occasioned numerous misnomers concerning petroleum as, for example, "fossil" fuel, and associated, misleading phrases like "vanishing resource." Because the volume of biological matter on Earth is itself limited, the misunderstanding that petroleum might originate from such has given rise consequentially to a notion that petroleum should be similarly limited, and somehow in connection with the quantity of biogenic material observed in sediments.

The hypothesis that petroleum might somehow originate from biological detritus in sediments near the surface of the Earth is utterly wrong. It deserves note that Lomonosov himself never meant for that hypothesis to be taken as more than a reasonable suggestion, to be tested against further observation and laboratory experiment. The "biological hypothesis" of petroleum origins has been rejected in this century by scientific petroleum geologists because it is formidably in consistent with the existing geological records "on the ground." That hypothesis has been rejected also by physicists, chemists, and engineers because it violates fundamental physical law.

[10ac]

Does this mean old people and kids aren't going to die?

[Toemeesleather]

I think, not sure but, everybody dies.

[10ac]

shit

[bluetick]

Turns out, as has been known for generations, crude oil is abiotic, so we will NOT be running out of fossil fuels which are NOT fossil fuels. But don't tell Al.


Contrarily, the statistics of the international petroleum industry establish that, far from diminishing, the net known recoverable reserves of petroleum have been growing steadily for the past fifty years. Those statistics show that, for every year since about 1946, the international petroleum industry has discovered at least five new tons of recoverable oil for every three which have been consumed. As Professor P. Odell has put the circumstance succinctly, instead of "running out of oil," the human race by every measure seems to be "running into oil".(Odell 1984; Odell 1991; Odell 1994)

Thanks for posting this hilarious crock of shit. "P. Odell" - professor emeritus of international energy studies at Erasmus University...surely an invention of the Onion. "Five new tons of recoverable oil for every three which have been consumed" is in truth almost exactly backwards...lately we've burned 30 billion barrels a year while finding 12 bbls.

Great stuff. Destined to be a pnn classic.

[Jungle Rat]

I just want CBS to bring back Gilligans Island.