Who needs 'em?
The logic is there provided the facts are correct.
Cheap natural gas on Uranus. Get ready for the gas rush!
Insert awesome title here
Who needs 'em?
The logic is there provided the facts are correct.
Cheap natural gas on Uranus. Get ready for the gas rush!
Established Member
Ahem... Supporting evidence? There's a good reason this "theory" is not widely accepted, and it doesn't involve Greenpeace!
Insert awesome title here
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?
Insert awesome title here
Well it looks like JonClarke 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?
Established Member
The BA's obit of Gold, for oneOriginally Posted by Glom
Order of Kilopi
Established Member
It is an interesting article.
I did a web search on the subject and encountered this 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:
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?In the last decade, it has been proven that plants do not inhale carbon dioxide containing the heavy isotope C-13
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).
Established Member
Must...resist...bad joke... [-X [-X
Established Member
I don't know. I think "holding it in" is bad for you.Must...resist...bad joke... [-X [-X
Posting Permissions
