Dead dinosaurs are dead

[Glom]

Who needs 'em? (http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES-2/FossilFuels.html)

The logic is there provided the facts are correct.

Cheap natural gas on Uranus. Get ready for the gas rush!

[Gullible Jones]

Ahem... Supporting evidence? There's a good reason this "theory" is not widely accepted, and it doesn't involve Greenpeace!

[Glom]

As I said, the facts need to be correct. But perhaps the fact that this is kind of new has something to do with it. Unless there is a strong political body trying to shove it down our throats, it takes time for any hypothesis or theory to be validated and then to receive widespread acceptance. But what says anyone to the issues he raises about how the fossil theory isn't consistent with observation? Has he missed some vital points from fossil theory or has he just got his facts wrong?

[Glom]

Well it looks like JonClarke (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=289973#289973) has it sussed. However, the issues of the Siljan Ring and wells refillings themselves need to be addressed. There also seems to be a conflict about geographical patterns and isotopic compositions. Maybe, it's not just one or the other.

I've seen this idea mentioned a lot in various places totally unrelated to GLP. Does it really merit the hostile "You're a woo woo to entertain the idea" attitude of Jon?

[A Thousand Pardons]

I've seen this idea mentioned a lot in various places totally unrelated to GLP.
The BA's obit of Gold (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=283965#283965), for one :)

[Celestial Mechanic]

They don't come when you call,
They don't do much at all,
Dead dinos aren't much fun.
Dead dinos,
Dead dinos,
Dead dinos aren't much fun!

[jfribrg]

It is an interesting article.

I did a web search on the subject and encountered this (http://www.gasresources.net/HuntLetter-InfiniteEnergy%2Ced.htm) letter accusing Gold of plagarism. It seems that there have been some papers published in respected journals concerning this topic. It would be interesting if it were true, even partially.

I try to avoid ad-hominum and "appeal to authority" fallacious reasoning. Saying that GLPer's would believe this, or saying that real scientists know better is not a valid objection. In this article, I don't see some of the tell-tale woo-woo signs: the author claiming that the big establishment of jealous scientists are supressing the Truth or the author saying "I don't have a fancy degree but....

Here is one item that caught my eye:

In the last decade, it has been proven that plants do not inhale carbon dioxide containing the heavy isotope C-13
Is this true? If so, how? Don't all isotopes of an atom have the same chemical properties? Is C-13 present in the biosphere? The article makes no mention of C-14 which I presume is even heavier than C-13 and which is definitely "inhaled" by plants. Does anyone know where this "proof" from the last decade is?

The bit about the He doesn't seem too convincing to me. The He simply percolates and tends to collect in the same place as other bouyant materials (such as oil and natural gas).

[cyswxman]

Who needs 'em? (http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES-2/FossilFuels.html)

The logic is there provided the facts are correct.

Cheap natural gas on Uranus. Get ready for the gas rush!

Must...resist...bad joke... [-X [-X

[swansont]

Who needs 'em? (http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES-2/FossilFuels.html)

The logic is there provided the facts are correct.

Cheap natural gas on Uranus. Get ready for the gas rush!

Must...resist...bad joke... [-X [-X

I don't know. I think "holding it in" is bad for you.