T or E

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">You may be unaware of the countless thousands of oil wells that are idled or turned on, depending on price.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This simply isn't true. It hasn't been true for quite a long time. The world is pumping at full capacity these days. This is acknowledged by everyone (except perhaps Saudi Arabia who keeps promising to pump 12.5 million b/d which they haven't been able to). Even Alan Greenspan acknowledged this recently, and said it is doubtful supply will ever meet demand again.

Now I am right there along side you with regards to cold fusion (I know nothing about cold fission), but unless that infrastructure is developed quickly, declining oil production could very soon precipitate the last two scenarios jrich talks about. (Oh! You removed your post jrich. How come?).

Emanuel

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by emanuel</i>
Now I am right there along side you with regards to cold fusion (I know nothing about cold fission), but unless that infrastructure is developed quickly, declining oil production could very soon precipitate the last two scenarios jrich talks about. (Oh! You removed your post jrich. How come?).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I removed my post because it was unrelated to the original topic. I've been critical of posts not staying on topic in the past and I didn't want to be hypocritical. If I had know someone had already read it I would have left it up (yet another deficiency of the forum software). I do find the abiotic origin theory of hydrocarbons fascinating though. I first heard about it many years ago. Some Scandanavian geologist I believe was promoting it at the time. I think it was in Sci Am. Must have been quite some time ago, I stopped reading the rag almost 20 years ago. Too much PC opinionating masquerading as science. I'm sure its much worse now.

JR

I've been critical of posts not staying on topic in the past and I didn't want to be hypocritical. JR
[/quote]

You are right, this has gone off topic. I would characterize emanuel's apprehension as Malthusian, in which nothing adjusts and we are all doomed. Going back to the artwork on Mars, the artists most certainly had practical nuclear power and did not use hydrocarbonsfor primary energy. So the next step in practical energy has already been done before. So it can be done again and the future is bright. I make a lousy doomsayer.

Gregg Wilson

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I make a lousy doomsayer.

Gregg

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This may sound like doomsaying to some, but I don't see it that way:

I don't see humans surviving in large numbers indefinately, getting cheap fuel, living the Life of Riley, etc. Stuff happens; there are wars, catastrophies of all sorts are possible, planets even explode.

But hopefully, Man himself (and Woman) will survive. I think the artifacts we see on Mars were the signs that all this happened before, perhaps many times. What we see are probably signs of a dying but advanced civilization. These faces weren't "tourist attractions" for the builders' entertainment. They were meant for you and I to see millions of years later, when we would be ready. As if to say, "We were here; remember us."

I'm betting that when we finally get up there to examine the facts up close, we will find they have a story to tell us. Perhaps it will be be a cautionary tale, perhaps something we can't even imagine.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

But hopefully, Man himself (and Woman) will survive. I think the artifacts we see on Mars were the signs that all this happened before, perhaps many times. What we see are probably signs of a dying but advanced civilization.

I'm betting that when we finally get up there to examine the facts up close, we will find they have a story to tell us. Perhaps it will be be a cautionary tale, perhaps something we can't even imagine.

Neil
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We have baring scratched the surface of discovering and applying useful nuclear energy. Right now we are wasting petroleum making simple energy instead of valuable products. I know, I'm into it up to my ears.

I think the Mars people survived, perhaps in small numbers. I side with Robert Heinlein on homespun philosophy; "Mankind will always survive by the skin of his teeth."

Gregg Wilson

On another not unrelated topic, I note in a mainstream paper on early crustal evolution on Mars:

es.ucsc.edu/~fnimmo/website/annual_reviews.pdf

-that the bulk of the Martian crust was extracted from the mantle at around 4.5 billion years ago (Ga). Obviously this flies in the face of the EHP model which places the outer crust of the southern dichotomy hemisphere at around 65 Ma, the proposed date of the Planet V explosion. The mega basins were presumably made around that time also,(&lt;65 Ma), otherwise they should be filled with craters, which they are not.

The methods used to calculate the 4.5 Ga date are apparrently related to radioactive dating, information gathered from in situ analysis by the Viking Missions, remote sensing observations by Mars Pathfinder, and analysis of Mars meteorites. Another verification of Martian crustal age comes from counting large craters, (especially in the southern hemisphere), then calculating the probability of collisions from asteroids in Mars crossing orbits. Comments?

Neil