Where does oil come from?

[AgeofKnowledge]

Here's your first problem. The peer review process is an important check for verifiability of the content before publication. If you didn't have this integrity check, a whole lot of false information would be published that isn't currently because the content is checked for accuracy and the results substantiated before publication.

It has NOTHING to do with suppression of new science and EVERYTHING to do with checking the results to ensure they are accurate before publication. All new discoveries are reviewed for accuracy before publication in scholarly publications.

This is both necessary and desirable. Your comment is inane.

I don't believe "scholarly peer-reviewed scientific publications" are any more valid or scientific than non peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed simply means the articles have gone through the doctoring process of having others indoctrinated at the same institutions agree with it. So in the rare event someone breaks free of the brainwashing they received at one of the institutions, their brainwashed companions will soon quash their dangerous, independent thought.

Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.4°F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5°F over the next hundred years. Small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather.

Basics | Climate Change | US EPA

For example, warming temperatures are already melting a growing percentage of Arctic sea ice, exposing dark ocean water during the perpetual sunlight of summer. Snow cover on land is also dwindling in many areas. In the absence of snow and ice, these areas go from having bright, sunlight-reflecting surfaces that cool the planet to having dark, sunlight-absorbing surfaces that bring more energy into the Earth system and cause more warming.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

So not only is your information false, but you fail to understand the importance of what's occurring.

I disagree. The average temperature (measured at a few locations, not uniformly over Earth as a whole) measures less than a 1 degree increase over 100 years, and you think this can somehow proves that the Earth is "globally" warming, and man is causing it? I call this more than uncertainty in the data - I call it simply the normal cyclical temperature changes that you admit you believe have been happening for millions of years (even though, to clarify, I know the Earth is only about 6000 years old - i.e. I don't necessarily deny temperature cycles, but the 3 million year time frame is absurd). Probably a few more decades either way, you might find the average temperature has dropped by the same 1 degree. Its called statistics.

I'm not sure what you're smoking but if it's from British Columbian that would explain it. The earth certainly does orbit around the sun. Seasons are caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation - the 23.4° offset of the axis from a direction perpendicular to the Earth's orbital plane. The direction of the rotational axis stays nearly fixed in space, even as the Earth revolves around the Sun once each year. As a result, when the Earth is at a certain place in its orbit, the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun and experiences summer. Six months later, when the Earth is on the opposite side of the Sun, the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the Sun and experiences winter. The seasons are, of course, reversed for the southern hemisphere.

Furthermore, changes in obliquity and slight variations of the earth's elliptical orbit can cause dramatic cooling or warming to occur and historically has. This is how we've gotten our past ice ages.

The Seasons and the Earth's Orbit
Earth's orbit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IAs I've explained before, the Earth doesn't orbit. So there's no need to control any alleged orbital cycles. If you admit that you believe the Ice Ages during the last three million years (the Earth is only ~6000 years old), is due to these (imaginary) orbital cycles, why are you now believing that (alleged) global warming is not due to the same cause?

Obviously, you're completely wrong and have no idea what you're talking about except for your assertion that politicians are overstating the man made effects of global warming for their own purposes. I agree with you on that. The rest of your reply is nonsense.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

It has NOTHING to do with suppression of new science and EVERYTHING to do with checking the results to ensure they are accurate before publication. All new discoveries are reviewed for accuracy before publication in scholarly publications.

See, I'd say the peer review process has EVERYTHING to do with suppression of new science, and NOTHING to do with checking the results to ensure they are accurate before publication. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one?

Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.4°F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5°F over the next hundred years. [...blah, blah, blah, fear, panic, etc.]

So you think God in His wisdom didn't foresee the burning of the natural fuels He created, and failed to design the Earth to accommodate disposal of the additional CO2 generated? Will you offer me your apology in 100 years time, and admit your foolishness in trusting arrogant scientists and the peer review process, if the average temperature does not increase by 2 to 11.5°F in this time frame?

The earth certainly does orbit around the sun. Seasons are caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation - the 23.4° offset of the axis from a direction perpendicular to the Earth's orbital plane. The direction of the rotational axis stays nearly fixed in space, even as the Earth revolves around the Sun once each year. As a result, when the Earth is at a certain place in its orbit, the northern hemisphere is tilted toward the Sun and experiences summer. Six months later, when the Earth is on the opposite side of the Sun, the northern hemisphere is tilted away from the Sun and experiences winter. The seasons are, of course, reversed for the southern hemisphere.

Airy's experiment. 1871. Rotating/revolving Earth predicted one result. Non-rotating/stationary Earth predicted a different result. Guess which scenario the experimental result supported? Science is being able to make a hypothesis, and test that hypothesis with experiment, and decide on the truth of the hypothesis, based on the experimental result. Its not about making endless hypotheses to support what you wish to be true, and explaining away why each of your previous hypotheses failed to predict your imaginary views on life.

Airy's experiment

As you can't understand how the peer-review process is used to censor and control truth, I find it doubtful you will understand much about conspiracy at all at this point in your career. That's okay, but the result will be that we will have to agree to disagree on a great number of topics, until you have some grasp of the process by which information is controlled.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Repeating your false assertion doesn't make it any truer. Without peer review, quality control would diminish dramatically returning to the undesirable state before its existence. Public money and grants would, once again, be awarded based on falsified data and quackery would rapidly increase, etc... all which occurred before the quality control of peer review was established amongst scholarly organizations and publications.

In any event, there are plenty of popular publications (e.g. non-scholarly) that don't use peer review so feel free to submit your false assertions to one of them. You'll be able to apply for private grants afterwards. What you can't do is present a false discovery that is unverified and expect the government to tax me to fund your fake discovery to increase your personal wealth and that's a good thing, one of peer review's many benefits.

As for your second paragraph, you're not comprehending my previous posts. I never stated that global warming is solely or primarily a result of CO2 or human activities. Mostly I've been talking about the natural causes of global warming and cooling patterns over time. I even stated that I agreed with you that politicians were overstating human activity for global warming but you simply ignored that and carried on with whatever's in your head.

That aside, your logic fails because God made a wide variety of elements available that are toxic to humans and can end the life of a person. A few have the potential to end all human life on earth. So let's reframe your question.

So you think God in His wisdom didn't foresee that people might ingest natural poisons and failed to design the human body to dispose of excess strychnine ingested?

Obviously He did and people die from ingesting natural poisons all over the world.

So you think God in His wisdom didn't foresee that humanity might use uranium to create enough nuclear bombs to destroy human life on the planet many times?

Obviously He did. Read Revelations 16 (e.g. the seven bowls of God’s wrath). God is responsible for the fact of freedom (which made evil possible), free creatures themselves (e.g., Lucifer and Adam) are responsible for their acts of freedom (which make evil actual).

Now your question is stupid because neither of us will live to be that old; however, if we did I would be expecting your apology if the average temperature does increase by 2 to 11.5°F over the next 100 years.

And if you're going to continue in your delusional false assertion that the earth does not rotate on its axis, then you may have a mental health issue needing treatment.

From the historical astronomical observations showing that the earth and other planets rotated to antique discoveries such as the Coriolis effect, aberration, Sagnac effect, Foucault's pendulum, etc... to modern video cameras on the moon, Mars, and located in space; it is empirically verifiable that the earth rotates.

These days, we're able to measure the Earth's rotation very precisely, and we find that the rotation varies slightly from day to day. In particular, changes in the atmospheric winds and oceanic currents cause periodic fluctuations in the axial tilt and the period of rotation: an annual fluctuation with an amplitude of 0.34 milliseconds, a semiannual period with an amplitude of 0.29 milliseconds, 10-day fluctuations of the order of 0.1 milliseconds, fluctuations due to El Niño events. Large earthquakes can also change the rotation period by a few microseconds.

I don't have time today to hold your hand and walk you through it. Put the hooka down and take an astronomy 101 class.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

Repeating your false assertion doesn't make it any truer.

If you'd read what I said, I was essentially stating that our beliefs are polar opposites. You can't trust my sources, because you don't think they're educated enough, or don't trust their data because it hasn't been checked by your guys. I don't trust yours, because they've been indoctrinated into the Rockefeller & Co. funded universities etc., with the additional precautionary censoring that peer-review entails. We are at an impasse - hence my saying "agree to disagree".

What you can't do is present a false discovery that is unverified and expect the government to tax me [...]

I don't believe in taxes for such reasons. If a discovery is worthy of merit, it will generate profits by itself for its discoverer.

That aside, your logic fails because God made a wide variety of elements available that are toxic to humans and can end the life of a person. A few have the potential to end all human life on earth.

God won't let it happen.

So you think God in His wisdom didn't foresee that people might ingest natural poisons and failed to design the human body to dispose of excess strychnine ingested?

We're talking a big difference, here. Carbon dioxide is part of respiration. The argument by global warming conspiracists is that this natural carbon dioxide we breathe out (and produced by burning natural fuels, etc.) is making the "globe" a hotter place. I say God would've incorporated it into His design.

So you think God in His wisdom didn't foresee that humanity might use uranium to create enough nuclear bombs to destroy human life on the planet many times?

But they haven't, and they couldn't, without God permitting them to.

Now your question is stupid because neither of us will live to be that old; however, if we did I would be expecting your apology if the average temperature does increase by 2 to 11.5°F over the next 100 years.

Only on condition that I receive your apology, if the average global temperature does not increase, from this 30th day of September 2013, between 2 - 11.5°F, by October of the year 2113.

And if you're going to continue in your delusional false assertion that the earth does not rotate on its axis, then you may have a mental health issue needing treatment.

This has actually been a quite successful method used for the suppression of truth. I'm pleased you're learning.

From the historical astronomical observations showing that the earth and other planets rotated to antique discoveries [numerous arguments about why you believe the Earth rotates]

It only takes 1 fact to disprove an entire theory, no matter how elaborate and intricate the theory. I believe Airy's experiment provides that fact. It saves me having to convince you that NASA is a fraudulent organisation, and also saves time on the back and forthing that would ensue with you saying its the Earth that moves, and me saying its the sun, moon and stars etc.