chat

8202 readers

505 users here now

Chat is a text only community for casual conversation, please keep shitposting to the absolute minimum. This is intended to be a separate space from c/chapotraphouse or the daily megathread. Chat does this by being a long-form community where topics will remain from day to day unlike the megathread, and it is distinct from c/chapotraphouse in that we ask you to engage in this community in a genuine way. Please keep shitposting, bits, and irony to a minimum.

As with all communities posts need to abide by the code of conduct, additionally moderators will remove any posts or comments deemed to be inappropriate.

Thank you and happy chatting!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

EmmaGoldman@hexbear.net

ZoomeristLeninist@hexbear.net

SexUnderSocialism@hexbear.net

InsidiousTrackers@hexbear.net

Sulvor@hexbear.net

PaX@hexbear.net

Apparently some people think most or all crude petroleum isn't biological in origin? (hexbear.net)

submitted 11 hours ago by axont@hexbear.net to c/chat@hexbear.net

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So apparently a large-ish contingent of American reactionaries don't think crude oil is a finite resource. They believe the Earth regenerates it at a faster pace than it can be drilled, and this isn't a niche conspiracy theory either. I mentioned it off-hand at work after seeing a random tweet about it, then like 5 of my coworkers all nodded and agreed. One even used the term "abiotic oil."

Is this just cope or what? One of my coworkers literally said, "Well oil is like water, it goes through a cycle and gets replenished." Something about how crude oil is actually made through some kind of geological process, rather than decomposed algae/animal matter from millions of years ago. I think maybe there's evidence of abiotic hydrocarbon gasses existing from various chemical reactions with minerals, but I believe there's never been a convincing source of abiotic petroleum that couldn't also be explained as biological in origin.

They don't actually believe this, do they? It's just a thin kind of security blanket so they don't have to consider the reality of what fossil fuels truly are?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Findom_DeLuise@hexbear.net 20 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

AmeriKKKan evangelicals are a cancer. Few things aggravate me more than the fact that when Norwegian black metal musicians decided to start burning down churches, they stayed in Norway and torched old pre-Christian "heathen" churches built by Norse pagans. If they could have just come over to the US, they could have had a grand old time with some of the evangelical megachurches out here, many of which aren't built or wired up to code because in spite of somehow being able to afford $2M in real estate, the clergy are still penny-pinching chodes.

[–] Lemister@hexbear.net 1 points 25 minutes ago

Its worse because he burned the traditional stave churches build by norwegian CHRISTIANS - but since evangelicals think that catholicism is paganism because it preserved some pagan remnants- it was a pagan church in their eyes.

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 3 points 3 hours ago

I have had that same thought so many times. The history of church burnings in the US is fraught with race crime history because the KKK and others firebombed black churches because they used them to organize for civil rights.

It would be nice if it was just bored Satanist teens who thought it would be funny if they burned down evangelical mega churches over and over