"You are wrong again - I wrote above that Carnegie created only methane from their experiment."
OK so what's your point?
"Incidentally I neve inferred or implied that tar sands or oil shales will save us, or are you in soliquy mode again?"
In one of your references is the idea that if oil is abiotic it could be referred to as a renewable resource. This is utter crap and could lead us to delay alternatives longer and longer. This is also exactly what the idea of the tar sands and shale oil does.
The statement was a pathetic attempt to get this thread almost back on subject.
Ender,
If you don't understand the point, then you are truly stupid. Perhaps someone else could explain it to you.
"You are wrong again - I wrote above that Carnegie created only methane from their experiment."
OK so what's your point?
"Incidentally I neve inferred or implied that tar sands or oil shales will save us, or are you in soliquy mode again?"
In one of your references is the idea that if oil is abiotic it could be referred to as a renewable resource. This is utter crap and could lead us to delay alternatives longer and longer. This is also exactly what the idea of the tar sands and shale oil does.
The statement was a pathetic attempt to get this thread almost back on subject.
Ender
You are wrong again - I wrote above that Carnegie created only methane from their experiment.
Heavens you seem so het-up you can't even understand plain written English.
Incidentally I neve inferred or implied that tar sands or oil shales will save us, or are you in soliquy mode again?
"Which is exactly why the idea that the Tar Sands, or Shale Oil will save us"
That should read
"Which is exactly why the idea that the Tar Sands, or Shale Oil will save us is completely wrong"