Re: "fossil" fuels

[rolf.martens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rolf Martens)]

Lisa,

As they're saying in those big firms and governmental
agencies when you're trying to phone them: "Your call has
been duly received and might one day be rewarded by an answer,
when we bigshots think we've nothing better to do than
answering you lowlies' ignorant questions".

But seriously speaking, I'll try to get around to that
not unimportant question - a Russian theory, btw, not Swedissh,
as you'll see if you read my post through once more - as soon as
I can.

Rolf M.

>At 1:00 AM 7/29/96, Rolf Martens wrote:
>>Furthermore, the chemical fuels are always called "fossil fuels" by
>>all the media etc, by the entire present-day inquisition. This
>implies>that the theory of their being of biological origin is
>correct, which>would also mean that these resources were
>comparatively scarce ->another "reason" for limiting their use. In
>reality, the carbon hydrates>from which these energy sources stem are
>of cosmic origin.
>----
>
>Look Rolf, I don't really need all the pages about the plausibility
>of gov / industry lies, etc.  Consider that people talking with you
>here are not stupid, not wanting to be reactionary, not liking to be
>labelled, asking for info and scientific argument, and maybe not even
>necessarily committed against nuclear energy.
>
>Whenever you want to answer my question, I think you could do it in a
>lot less space than your *answers* to me so far, but that is up to
>you. [I asked about the *cosmic source* of *fossil fuels*, what that
>scenario is, how it might have happened.]
>
>Meanwhile, you are attaching far too much political baggage and
>suspicion to the hypothesis of biological origin.  I see no reason
>that bio-origin is any more of an argument for scarcity than
>astro-geological origin.  Either way, the planet's not getting any
>more onboard for the foreseeable future, right?  With respect to
>'scarcity' it makes no difference if it's bio- or not.
>
>Second, if coal is not the remains of plant material, I'm curious how
>all those little twig-like things and leaf prints got into my
>Grandma's coal pile.
>
>Third, there is a big difference between hydrocarbons and
>carbohydrates.  When these are confused, an argument doesn't look
>very chemically informed or believable.
>
>Fourth, it's little wonder that I never heard of the astro-geological
>[cosmic] hypothesis, especially if it's only in Swedish.  That's why
>I asked for a brief explanation of what that hypothesis is, so I
>might find out something new, and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only
>one.  I don't think it's _surprising_ that I haven't heard of it, so
>forget that and just fill me in some time, if you don't mind.
>
>
>Please consider that dealing with these points will _help_ your
>argument.  This is the value of honing arguments on people that are
>friendly to your overall aim, these kinds of arguments can actually
>sharpen your case and your presentation, if you like.
>
>Lisa
>
>
>
>     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>
>



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---