re: #343 Obdicut

I have. Abiotic oil is a discredited theory, most popularized by the non-scientist Bjorn Lomberg, and Soviet scientists of Lysenko-ish quality.

Wrong. Since abiotic hydrocarbon formation is known to exist (read up on the Venus probes and tell us which life forms on Venus created all of that atmosphereic methane) it is no stretch to propose methane conversion to other hydrocarbons, or processes generating other hydrocarbons. And since there are liteally thousands of scientific papers on this topic, you propose all are written by ” scientists of Lysenko-ish quality”?

Here’s just one:

Scott, H.P., Hemley, R.J., Mao, H.-K., Herschbach, D.R., Fried, L.E., Howard, W.M. & Bastea, S. (2004). Generation of methane in the Earth’s mantle: In situ high pressure-temperature measurements of carbonate reduction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(39):14023-14026.

I could not find this one online; please order it at your local university library and get educated on this.

I did find commentary on this paper:
space.com

“It reaffirms that the presence of methane on other planets — such as the recent findings on methane in the Martian atmosphere — is not necessarily indicative of life,” said University of Toronto geologist and chemist Barbara Sherwood Lollar, who was not involved in either study.

And the following from Freeman Dyson:

“…the study is important” said Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton.

“Not because it settles the question whether the origin of natural gas and petroleum is organic or inorganic,” Dyson said, “but because it gives us tools to attack the question experimentally. If the answer turns out to be inorganic, this has huge implications for the ecology and economy of our planet as well as for the chemistry of other planets.”

Well well well! read again: “… this has huge implications for the ecology and economy of our planet…”

Touche my brothas