abiotic theory of oil?

Thought I'd join after seeing the mega amount of info on anti global warming. Looking forward to reading some of it.
But while I browsed all of it ( took 1 hour ) I notice Andrew has slipped a discredited theory in.

The abiotic theory of oil.

How did that get in there?

The theory is not discredited, it is simply an alternate theory. I don't for a minute buy the Peak Oil theory BTW.

Well I'm not a oil scientist so I can't point you to anything specific evidence against abiotic oil. I can only says it's a minority view, and has always been one.

'PO is false' does not imply abiotic oil.

If you don't subscribe to PO geological depletion model, what do you make of the current oil geopolitics?

The most sensible anti PO theory to explain the recent oil grab is the IBC is simply getting a firm grip on the oil wells so they can row the economy nicely without significant oil producers defying the row.

Do you think the North Sea has peaked?
Indonesia?
Texas?

Where is the new oil coming from?

The fact is we have not been able to prove how oil is formed, we are unable to see a cross section of the earth to know for sure what the actual amount of oil exists, therefore it is impossible to make any Peak Oil predictions which are all done by the same doomsday nut jobs. When someone gets me this information I will begin to listen, until then Peak Oil has been proven false by the constantly wrong predictions year after year.

The terms 'proof', 'prove' are inapplicable to science. Nothing can be prooved about nature. Ideally, data fits a prediction perfectly every time it is tested- this is evidence, but it is not proof.
AFAIK oil labs have sucessfully recreated the steps from algae to kerogen to oil,gas. If so thats an evidence back theory of oil. But no links at hand.

Fill a Pressurized vessel with an unknown amount of water. Puncture the vessel. Measuring the rate of the water released, the size of the vessel and the pressure will allow a good estimate of how much water is in the bucket.
The physics is 300 years old. Kids are taught how to do it at college. All relavent measurements in the oil well analogy can be taken, along with many others that take into account the complexitys of the reserviors.
Based on this PO prediction is possible.

Constantly wrong predictions?
Where are these constantly wrong predictions?
I think your refering to IBC propaganda, which is made to tell the masses there is no problems\issues with oil.

Hubbert said 1999 back in approx 1954 but he didn't take into account the 1970s economic row which stalled the PO event. Some believe we won't do better than the 2005-2006 peak. If so then this validates Hubbert.

Please don't lecture me on what definition of a word I use.

Prove as in "to establish the truth of something"

It is not been proven how oil is formed, we do not know how much oil exists in the earth. Peak Oil cannot be proven based on simple logic.

Hubbert's prediction has been proven wrong, excuses are not allowed for failed predictions.

Please tell me exactly how much oil is in the earth and then prove it. If you are unable to do this you have absolutely no case.

It is vital to distinguish between 'evidence' and 'proof', it immediatly leads to confusion otherwise.

It is impossible to establish any truth in nature. The best that can be done is to have a theory of best fit, i.e. one that is correct more than any other theory.
There are always people who say "you can't proove anything" to scientists, and they are right, but this is poor grounds to disregard science, i.e. theorys and evidence.

The prediction was wrong, but the model was validated. Assumptions are key thing here.
If a ball rolls down a hill and someone predicts it's position assumming it'll continue uninterupted, then someone stops the ball with their foot, the guys prediction for that instance would fail, but his model has not been discredited, because his model didn't apply since the assumptions weren't met.

There is no proof of biogenic oil, but there is a stack of evidence.
You can make oil by sticking leaves in a pond. Anywhere where there is water, a lack of oxygen, organic matter, and certain common conditions and no disturbances, transformation from organic matter to hydro-carbon is possible and common.
That's evidence. Simple oil production on a small scale.
If it works in a small pond, will it work in a large pond? If a large pond, a lake? If a lake, a sea?
If it works in simple situations, can it work in more complex situations? Like leaves in a pond, then buried under sediment, then heated and pressured?

God's little known 11th comandment?
Scientific practice is to list things that could have adversly affected a measurement, or experiment. I am happy to read such lists. If your saying you disregard such lists and only accept a theory if it fits data precisely, then your cutting yourself off from alot of scientific work. Most perfectly good science measurements contain error.

I'm going to leave it there. There is plenty of oil infomation on the web, and it's clear you are capable of doing your own research. Hubbert's papers used evidence to estimate ( not proove ) the amount of convential oil ( liquid extractable by pressure wells) on Earth, and the estimates were around 2 trillion barrels.
If you have your heart set on PO being false, then I doubt I'll have any effect.

Please tell me exactly how much oil is in the earth. I am not interested in estimates. If you are unable to do that then it is impossible to determine the "Peak".

Hubert's predictions were wrong, you do not get a do over when you are wrong.

Told you, Drew.

Fyi meemoe_uk, we've had this discussion before. For the purpose of talking to Drew about science, apply "proof" = "evidence". You'll also have to keep from getting confused about his claims that something "isn't proven", when it is in fact pretty decent evidence. Just a heads up.

I am sick of this crap.

Bullshit.

Put down the French philosophy book and learn the scientific method, people.

Here:
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html

From a college physics class, written by a college professor. Read it and keep re-reading it till you understand it. Andrew's interpretation is essentially correct. And his use of language is true to the spirit of science.

For example:

...is a scientific statement, as science is all about empirical testing, and yes, you do PROVE scientific theories right or wrong with empirical testing. That is how science works.

When you have a theory that is true for all tests within a specific realm, then any untruth about it is IRRELEVANT, for the theory is effective and true for that realm. (And if that realm is a meaningful and useful one, then theory that is a meaningful and useful theory.)

A fine example is Newton's theory of gravitation, which is beautifully true and effective for virtually all situations involving humans on Earth, but breaks down as you approach the speed of light. Does that mean that Newton's theory is untrue? No, it means that it works only within a limited realm. But the realm that it works in... is the realm that we live our everyday lives in.

Here:

And here:

Get it through your head: Einstein's theory and modern testing did not make Newton's theory of gravitation "untrue" for practical and scientific purposes, it just showed that it was incomplete--that it did not apply to all situations.

Statements like ""It is impossible to establish any truth in nature" are bullshit, pure and simple. Even worse, they are NON-SCIENTIFIC. Just because we don't know 100% about everything in the universe does not mean we throw up our hands and say "I can't establish any truth!"

If you are gonna say bullshit like that, then you are simply NOT a scientist, but a philosopher, and a whiny one at that. Go fantasize about the "metaphysical unknowable nature of ultimate reality" and leave the science to the scientists. And while you're at it, read some classical philosophers who didn't whine but instead advanced truth--like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. For the true great philosphers were also great advocates of science--indeed, they were some of the greatest scientists of their times.