Energy Secretary Chu obviously did not know what he was talking about and rather admit it, BSed his answer. barton new that and that is why he asked the question: to expose the "Energy" Secretary as being clueless!
@drmikeevans55 either you're trolling or you're even dumber than rep. barton is. Chu has a nobel prize in physics for crying out loud. See smart people have to tone down their answers when talking to stupid people such as yourself, to avoid hurting their feelings. So maybe that toning down made you think Chu was uncertain of his answer.
@CalvinJary So what if he has a Nobel in physics - his specialty is subatomic physics, not palentology, geology, etc. DrMikeEvans55 is absolutely correct, as was Barton. Chu was clueless, and his answer was wrong. Chu's Nobel sure didn't help him when he was appointed Sect. of Energy - he didn't even know that he was responsible for dealing with OPEC and oil issues!!! "not in my domain" were his words. Sheesh. He's got no business being Sect. of Energy.
I think he was wasting time, Chu would rather talk about Thorium ... why would that be the place to ask your scientist about stuff you should have learned in school? Barton's an idiot.
"This is a wookie. His name is Chewbacca. He comes from the planet Kasshyk. Then what is he doing living on Endor with two-foot tall Ewoks? It doesn't make sense! None of what I am saying makes any sense!"
The Senate and Congress should be ashamed for their ignorance, denial, lies and general incompetence regarding climate change. Get educated here: ClimateProgress . org -- ClimateCodeRed . net -- It's deeply irresponsible to not take substantial action to prevent further catastrophic climate change. BeyondNuclear . org -- EverythingNuclear . org -- ucsusa . org/nuclear_power/ -- nirs . org -- thebulletin . org -- NukeFree . org -- uspirg . org -- Greed for energy is poisoning future generations.
I didn't spout any opinion. I was wondering if Barton missed 7th grade science class. That's where I leaned about continental drift. The idea that the North Pole must have been warmer because there is oil in Alaska is ridiculous.
@dlhitch2007 Again, how about you try looking up the facts before spouting off? Or even check some of my other posts here. Alaskan oil was formed when that area was approx. as far north as it is now. In other words, YES, the fact that there is abundant oil there, formed when it was, shows that the northern latitudes were significantly warmer than today. (Oh, and fine, if you don't want to admit your opinions, I'll rephrase to 'spouting off with your incorrect innuendo.')
@dlhitch2007 I've already posted links to sources for that info - but you can find out easily enough yourself with a little searching. Clearly this DOES invalidate your point, and trying to say that continental drift makes it ridiculous is rather silly. The entire point is that according to the best knowledge of tectonics, that oil was formed approx. as far north as it's present day location.
Your contention is that finding oil somewhere indicates that it was significantly warmer at that location. Continental drift makes this generalization ridiculous. I don't have time to look at the million or so posts you've made to find your source. The sources I've read say that that organic material the oil came from was deposited on the floor of the Pacific and eventually ended up under Alaska via plate tectonics.
@dlhitch2007 Then you'd best study better sources or work on your understanding of oil formation theory. The 'floor of the Pacific' is a mighty large area, and has, of course, changed over the eons too. The oil didn't magically squish up under Alaska - nor did significant deposits occur where the temperatures were as cold as they currently are in that area. Of course the deposits aren't exactly where they were initially formed, but as stated, it was approximately as far north.
Who's talking about magic? How did the oil deposits get from the floor of the pacific to to under Alaska? I'm guessing it had to do with PLATE TECTONICS. Was that not what Dr. Chu said?
"nor did significant deposits occur where the temperatures were as cold as they currently are in that area."
Source please. As I said before, the arctic ocean is loaded with phytoplankton..
@dlhitch2007 You are really pathetic. Too lazy to even search for the earlier sources I already provided, let alone do your own research, and you clearly have no understanding of source rock (for oil) or plate tectonics - you just insist you're right without providing a lick to support it. I'm getting an error posting, so let me try separate posts for the info.
I didn't say it wasn't deposited when the temperature was warmer. I just wanted to understand why you (or mega-bsbsbs) thought it was. Nothing Chu said was wrong. The fact that it was warmer in the Cretaceous doesn't say anything about the current global warming debate.
I also want to point out another idea of your's that is ridiculous:
" all that biomatter wouldn't have been there to turn into oil, if the climate hadn't been significantly warmer at the time."
The Arctic ocean contains an enormous amount of phytoplankton. What happens to it when it dies? Does it vanish into the ether? It appears to me that you are making a very tenuous assumption.
@dlhitch2007 Of course there's a lot of phytoplankton. But to wind up with oil deposits, you have to have extremely large amounts deposited over a relatively short time period. That's why some areas have large oil deposits, and other areas have little or none.
The First Amendment is irrelevant to the US people as the Constitution they are in love with does NOT apply to them. They didn't sign it and are therefore not a 'party' to it. Just one more fact of life being withheld from the American people!
@YNot1989 Sigh. Trying looking the facts up, will you? Barton was right, Chu was wrong. Tectonic shift is NOT the answer - Alaska and Alaskan oil fields were about as far north when that oil was formed as it is now - the Earth was a lot warmer then. It's that simple.
@dougdagger You clearly missed the lesson. Barton was schooling Chu, not the other way around. Blows my mind how many people just jump to their preferred assumption, 'Chu must be right' without bothering to look up the facts. Very sad.
@MegaBsBsBs Chu was right. When oil was formed in what is now Alaska, it wasn't Alaska and it wasn't in it's present position.
Barton was also correct. When the oil started to form, the land which is now Alaska was tropical. We've long understood previous geological era's climates. My guess is that Barton doesn't know about climate science(other than it's wrong) and his question ends up being nonsensical. You'd really need to question him to try to even find out what he's asking.
@dougdagger Barton, according to his bio, is highly educated and well versed in oil related issues, petroleum engineering, etc. Chu was not correct - Alaskan oil is dated to a time period when that area was approx. as far north as it is now. Of course it wasn't called Alaska millions of years ago - but that doesn't change the fact that the oil was formed from abundant biota at approx. the same latitude it's at now.
This man, who also apologized to BP, btw, will now be heading the Energy Committee. Nice, eh? Gee - I wonder if we'll deregulate the energy industry some more? I wonder how many Exxon folks he'll have in his office - couldn't beat Dick Cheney's record, I'm sure.
This is like handing energy policy directly to BP!
ps - The oil has nothing to do with the climate being warmer in the past. biomatter 'turns' into oil when its buried and experiences higher pressures and temperatures that result from having miles of rock on top of it.
@davethecritter p.s., all that biomatter wouldn't have been there to turn into oil, if the climate hadn't been significantly warmer at the time. You think there are massive amounts of biomatter being formed up in Alaska now with all the ice and snow?
Barton is obviously not versed in geology. Or, probably, any science. I graduated in geology, and the brief story is: the oil in Alaska is the product of biomatter that decayed under high pressure and temperature over millions of years. That biomatter is likely from an equatorial area. It settled on the ground, was buried, and over hundreds of millions of years the plate that it was on moved northward to its present location of Alaska.
@davethecritter Nice try. Check the facts - that oil has been dated to periods where the tectonic plates were such that it was nearly as far north as it currently is. The biomatter that formed the oil didn't come from further south - it was deposited at almost the same latitude as it currently found. Best revise your 'brief' story with some actual facts rather than your incorrect guess.
So global warming is now a good thing because even with rising sea levels and the extinction of thousands of species, oil wells are gong to start popping up on the surface of Alaska?
Yes. There were periods of time when the entire world's temperature was hotter, but human beings, with cities, subdivisions, highways, ports, agricultural belts, etc. didn't exist then. The idea that humanity will do just fine in these conditions is ignorance at its best. Warm blooded mammals didn't exist during these periods and it's likely we won't adapt to them.
@daninbigd ROFLMAO!! Warm blooded mammals have existed during many many periods that were as warm or warmer than present day temperatures - including several times here in the Holocene during the last 10K years, and in the previous interglacial, which was also warmer than present day temps. Best work on your own ignorance a little, and stop believing all the scare stories.
@MegaBsBsBs But human civilization hasn't, neither has a human population of 7 billion which is dependent on farming techniques. No one said life is going to parish, but AGW presents a clear danger to civilization.
@daninbigd Human civilization hasn't been around during the Roman Warm Period, Holocene Optimum, Medieval Warm Period? You'd better publish, because that's sure new news to the world!! Of course there weren't as many people - but they also didn't have modern technology which allows us massive yield per acre compared to any previous time period. Meanwhile, warmer = more productive land as areas previous too cold become good agricultural land.
It's quite correct to say that a couple of hundred million years ago earth was much warmer than it is now. It's hard to know exactly why Barton wanted to ask Chu about this. Perhaps Barton thinks that this means we'd all be quite okay if the planet were as warm today as it was then. The answer is that we wouldn't, of course.
Explain global geology in six seconds please. In other words, I don't have a real question for you. I just I have a really cool idea I dreamed up in in between jack off sessions in my office that you guys who have spent your lives thinking over couldn't think of.
@jgwilkinson I think he isn't taking into account the fact that Alaska has moved since then. It used to be warmer because it was closer to the equator, not because the earth was warmer. He's trying to say the earth was warmer back then, before humans, and therefore the current climate change isn't caused by us.
@squreshi10 Nope, sorry - that oil was formed at approximately the same latitude as it's currently at - and historically the earth has been warmer several times in the last 10K years, during the previous interglacial, and many other times. It's been warm enough that palm trees and dinosaurs existed both above the Arctic circle and in Antarctica, at about the same latitudes as present day.
@MikeHeath1 no, it's pretty clear. He was targeting Global Warming, but he is flawed. He thought that Alaska had been warmer, without realizing that it was also located farther South when Plant and Animal Life were most abundant.
@yardstickwhack Except if you bothered to check the actual position during the heaviest period of oil formation for Alaskan oil, you would fairly easily find that the area was NOT significantly further south. In fact, it was approximately as far north as it currently is when most of that oil was formed.
@yardstickwhack I don't know when plant and animal life was most abundant, but the oil in question was formed at very close to the same latitude it's current at - it wasn't formed significantly further south. Check the age of the oil (yes, they can date the oil), and then the Earth's tectonic plate positions during that time. Barton was right, Chu was wrong, and historically it's been significantly warmer that far north than present day temperatures.
@MikeHeath1 no, it's pretty clear. He was targeting Global Warming, but he is flawed. He thought that Alaska had been warmer, without realizing that it was also located farther South when Plant and Animal Life were most abundant.
@MikeHeath1 The point was that there was no point. You can't expect a serious question from a science-denier.
And the only reason Chu was thrown for a second is that it sounded like a question asked by a 2-year old. "Mommy. Where do babies come from?" Mommy: "Uh, well, honey...it's sort of a long story, but..."
So, right-wingers - there's your Energy Committee Chair. The guy who apologized to BP after the oil spill and who is against subpoena power for our oil spill commission. ?!?
Does this ignorant jackass expect to learn all about geology in a few seconds? Fucking Christ. I can't believe these assholes win elections. Sad people. SAD.
@realbleamer Ya, except Chu wasn't elected, he was appointed. Barton's point, on the other hand, was correct scientifically and according to the best information we have on plate tectonics and continental drift, along with dating of Alaskan oil. It would seem that you really need to learn to check your 'facts' before posting.
@realbleamer The truly sad thing is that you and so many others utterly missed the point and don't bother to check the facts. Barton KNOWS his geology - Chu very clearly does NOT. The sad thing is that someone as clueless as Chu gets appointed to be the Secretary of Energy. Cripes, a few weeks AFTER he was appointed and in the position, he thought that OPEC and oil issues weren't 'in my domain.' How clueless can one be?
Those of you posting that Barton is in error really need to do your homework. You are the ones looking distinctly foolish and ignorant. Barton was correct, Chu was not. At the time that Alaskan oil formed, it was in the high latitudes just as it is now. The entire point is that the science shows that temperatures were far higher at the time and location where those oil formations developed compared to present day temperatures - even at the North Pole.
@MegaBsBsBs (who are you? — first foray onto YouTube?)
Half-truth anyone? Alaskan oil was formed during the Triassic period, during which the entire planet was a hothouse, with 3 to 10 times the current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Is that what he'd like to see?
@jgwilkinson It was also one of the most lush, biodiverse times ever. Where do you think all that organic matter to become oil came from? Plus, historically CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases by 600 to 800 years, not the opposite. If you research it, you also find that CO2 has been many times higher than present day during the midsts of ice ages, and as low, with much higher temps. CO2 doesn't correlate well with temperature at all.
@jgwilkinson Better get your smeller checked then, my running across this vid was sheer chance & I have no vested interest other than in good science. By the way, brilliant Chu, 2 weeks after confirmation, was asked how he intended to handle an upcoming OPEC meeting. His reply 'its not in my domain, you'll have to ask the person responsible for that.' He had no idea that fossil fuels & dealing with OPEC is one of the largest responsibilities of the Sect. of Energy. How clueless can one be?
I think it's interesting that MegaBsBsBs's first and only presence on YouTube comes as Rep. Barton is slated to retake his position as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Barton's record as climate change denier and supplicant to the oil industry won't be easily cleansed by war room efforts, which I suspect this is.
@jgwilkinson I have zero interest in Barton, but a lot of interest in the global warming issue. I ran across a link to the Barton/Chu question on youtube from another site, & followed it here - where I was shocked to see the many posts with clearly incorrect information. I couldn't get youtube to let me sign in thru my regular account (I rare post on youtube tho), so I created a new account, which linked me to the wrong screen name entirely. I emailed youtube to fix it, without reply so far.
@MegaBsBsBs This is an amazingly bullshit answer. You know full well you had a working youtube account for commenting, especially with your story of how you got to this video.
And as for who was right or wrong, it obviously isn't Mr. Barton. Dr. Chu laughed at the question and called it a complicated story because that is what it is. And it is obvious that Mr. Barton was not interested in that complicated story, only in the ridiculous bullshit "point" he imagined he was making.
@TheInternetizen, if you bothered to learn anything, you would find that the land areas referred to were temperate while about as far north as present day. Chu is the one with the bs reply, trying to infer that this had anything to do with plate tectonics. Chu is so brilliant that more than 2 weeks after being appointed Sect. of Energy, he said OPEC & oil weren't his 'domain'!!! How utterly clueless can one be? He needs to stick w/ his speciality & research, & get out of politics entirely.
@TheInternetizen Too funny! Why don't you try basing your comments on science, rather than your own personal biases and preferences? You assume Chu was right based on nothing more than your own preconceived notions - you like his position so he's good & Barton is automatically bad. Even tho what we know of science and geology says exactly the opposite.
@Yukkione, I didn't have a clue, but on doing a very simple quick check, yes, it appears that Barton most certainly has a good comprehension of science. Far better than the average person. You don't get these sorts of degree's without comprehension of science (from his bio): He attended Texas A&M University on a four-year scholarship, and was the Class of '72's Outstanding Industrial Engineering Student. He has a Master's of Science degree from Purdue University
@MegaBsBsBs So where was I incorrect? I think Barton is trying to imply that because it was much warmer in Alaska in the past, therefore we don't need to worry about global warming now. Even though at the time, several hundred million years ago during the Carboniferous era, the earth was drastically different and was totally unsuited to 7 billion humans.
@squamish4244 the only thing you said that could be correct or incorrect was that Barton's question was stupid. Only in fact he's correct, so it wasn't a stupid question or point, and you are incorrect. As to the rest of your reply - look up the null hypothesis tenet of science. IIRC, Alaska's oil formed mainly during the Jurassic & Cretaceous. Regardless, it's moot how suited it was or wasn't for humans. Recent history, 10k yrs, clearly shows us that a warmer earth has been better for humans.
@MegaBsBsBs Whoops, only 65-100 million years ago. As if that makes any difference. And now I see that the heart of the issue for you is global warming. Well, we have a dispute, and no amount of evidence collected is going to convince you otherwise.
@squamish4244 You say the heart of the issue for ME is global warming?? Squamish, YOU are the one who first brought it up, and into this discussion, making an issue of it, not me.
@squamish4244 No, that doesn't make it an issue between us. That makes it an issue between you, and your lack of understanding of the actual science involved.
@MegaBsBsBs Are you aware that a researcher hired by global warming skeptics came out this week with a report that the earth is in fact warming rapidly, because the evidence is just too strong? Recently the denialists have shifted tactics from "It's not happening" to "Okay, it's happening, but it's not our fault", which is incorrect. Joe Barton is #1 among members of the House in donations from the oil and gas industry, so he has a vested interest in in denialism. Deny the last sentence.
@squamish4244 You must be referring to the BEST study? If so, you desperately need to check your facts. Press release was before the study went thru peer review. Within a day or two 1of the co-authors took exception to claims made by the lead author & major flaws were found in the methodology. Besides, the earth has warmed just as rapidly, and as much, multiple times in the recent past along with even more severe shifts further back. Look up the younger dryas & PETM.
@MegaBsBsBs That would also logically progress to you thinking that Energy Secretary Chu, Nobel Laureate, is wrong. The number of scientists who actively oppose the hard evidence is a very small proportion of the whole bunch. But they're all stupid liberals, right?
Sorry for the badly delated response, I just saw your question (no idea if you'll ever see this, but so it goes). Reply to your question: Because it wasn't a stupid question. Those who think it was need to do a bit of homework to learn what we know of the time during which the Alaskan oil was primarily formed. Barton was correct, Chu wasn't. People only miss the point because they're misinformed or jumping to incorrect conclusions.
@MegaBsBsBs Well, he certainly knows how to make himself appear absolutely retarded in the House. And he apologized for the 'government shakedown' of BP, one of the richest companies in the world, after 11 people died in an explosion caused by numerous safety violations and gross mismanagement, and the third worst oil spill in history happened, destroying the livelihoods of thousands of people. Are you defending his actions? (He later apologized for saying that, too.)
@MegaBsBsBs In order for life to be exist in a warm climate at the north pole, the rest of the planet would have to be a desert wasteland. The hottest points are at the equator, when you raise the polar temperatures, the equator temperatures and everything in between will rise as well. Unless you believe in magic and use fairy tale logic, then you must accept that fact.
Unless you mean to imply that everywhere can be warm and habitable, and not too hot, but that would make you an imbecile.
@TheInternetizen you've branded yourself the imbecile w/ your reply. Historically when poles were warm, equator was still habitable. Even IPCC/AGW base tenets hold that poles warm by far fastest and equatorial areas the least. The equatorial climate is typically rainforests & not hottest. Hottest are often subtropical & arid, e.g. Death Valley, Ca, USA; Al’Aziziyah, Libya; Kuwait City, Kuwait; Ahvaz, Iran; Wadi Halfa, Sudan; Tirat Tsvi, Israel; Kebili, Tunisia. Simple facts, even today.
@MegaBsBsBs If you think that a planet with melted ice caps and warm, temperate poles means summer fun time in Cancun, I really have nothing further to say to you because you represent some of the worst kind of insane denialism in existence today. You are literally a cancer to Earth and the human race. The only science you believe in is the unsubstantiated dogma induced bullshit that you call science and pass off as a valid argument, when in reality it's nothing more than fallacious garbage.
@TheInternetizen Ah, yes, the typical reply of someone who has lost the arguement and is unable to come up with any credible facts - lash out, start name calling, ad hominem attacks, and claims that are utterly unsubstantiated strawmen. Project one's own weakness on the opponent. Either you looked up the hottest sites on earth I provided and discovered they're mainly N. of 30* latitude proving you wrong, or you never bothered and just launched into extremist name calling. Pathetic.
@MegaBsBsBs The delicious irony of melted ice caps means most of Bushmerica would be underwater. Watching you suffer as the rich you fought for laugh at you will be nothing but blissful, bittersweet justice in the shitty, bleak future you pray for.
@TheInternetizen Ya, I'm sure that's why Al Gore very recently bought a water front mansion, because we're all going to be underwater oh so soon. /sarc Why don't you try making claims based on science, & drop the name calling & absurd claims of my supposed evil actions & desires, which are clearly impossible for you know. If you really believe these things about me, and about the science involved, you are living in la-la land. I suspect it's just desperate flailing tho rather than real belief.
@TheInternetizen Try learning something about the Earth's climate, would you? The poles warm significantly more than areas further south. Palm trees and dinosaurs once thrived both above the Arctic circle and on Antarctica - while the rest of the world was warmer but nothing near desert wasteland. Contrary to your assertion, during those times life thrived EVERYWHERE on the planet. Cripes, even AGW theory tells you that the poles warm far more than tropical areas.
@MegaBsBsBs You should read 'The Psychology of Global Warming Denialism', an article by Wired magazine, about why otherwise intelligent people absolutely refuse to believe the massive preponderance of evidence supporting man-made climate change. People go into denial when they just can't face the truth, and you appear to be in deep, deep denial. You will now deny that what I am saying is true.
Maybe Barton's one of those Young Earth wackos who thinks the earth's only about 7 thousand years old and therefore a process that takes hundreds of millions of years just isn't possible. It's obvious Barton didn't pay attention in science class. At least not during the part that talked about tectonic plates shifting.
@xprotestorx, clearly you never bothered to check where the relevant continental plate was during the time Alaskan oil was formed. It appears that Barton had checked, and knew that when much of that oil was formed, it was about as far north as it currently is. From his response it appears that Chu wasn't aware of that fact.
@MegaBsBsBs- Chu's response does nothing of the sort. He did not want to attempt to explain tectonic plate behaviors to a an old senator in 6 minutes. I really doubt a Nobel Prize winning energy secretary would know less about these matters than some barely educated senator from Texas. Seriously, throw out your massive bias and look with fresh eyes.
@superlou1s Talk about massive bias - look in the mirror superlou1s. Very odd idea you have of 'barely educated. As I noted before, Barton attended Texas A&M University on a four-year scholarship, and was the Class of '72's Outstanding Industrial Engineering Student. He has a Master's of Science degree from Purdue University. So an M.S. from Perdue, and a B.S. from a very large top engineering school with honors as the best engineering student, is now barely educated?
@superlou1s Zero need to explain plate tectonics-the oil in question was formed when the region was about as far north as its current position. Something clearly Chu didn't realize, & Barton did. Furthermore, your appeals to authority are meaningless. Nobel Prize winning Energy Sect. who, several weeks after starting, had NO idea oil issues & OPEC were the primary duty of Energy Sect? "Not in my domain" he said. Yes, clearly a broad knowledge base outside his own narrow theoretical area. /sarc
@superlou1s Chu is brilliant in theoretical physics - single atoms & actions at the single molecule level. Being brilliant in one area far removed from disciplines such as geophysics, paleontology, doesn't make one knowlegable in those areas. Often just the opposite. The ONLY reason he's Energy Sect. is he holds the same extreme views on green/alt. energy as Obama. He didn't even have a clue that USA Energy Sect. meant handling oil issues-nor did he bother to find out before accepting position
@superlou1s Barton, on the other hand, is from huge oil state, w/ top honors in an industrial engineering degree from univ. w/ nation's top petroleum eng. program. Fellow to Energy Sect., then worked for oil & gas company consulting on nat. gas, then elected congressman. Since 2004 Chairman of House Committee on Energy & Commerce. Joint author of 2 most comprehensive energy policy packages to pass House since 1930's. Who's more likely to understand tectonics & oil, Chu or Barton? Clearly Barton
@MegaBsBsBs Joe Barton is from a huge oil state and has a serious interest in keeping his donations coming. These comprehensive energy packages, passed under Bush, are a load of crap. You are only proving my point with your evidence.
@squamish4244 So I take it you personally don't use any electricity, any plastic items, any gasoline or other fossil fuel or anything made using them? No AC or heat, no refrigerator? Cheap abundant energy is responsible for massive increase in lifespan, decreases in infant and child deaths, huge improvement in standards of living. You really want to go back to the dark ages? Just look at life in parts of the world that don't have cheap abundant energy available, then talk to me.
@MegaBsBsBs I never recall saying that. And that is irrelevant to the discussion. I believe nuclear power plants can provide abundant safe, clean energy as a replacement for fossil fuels. No one has ever been harmed in the United States due to nuclear power use, yet 30,000 people die prematurely every year from particulate matter released by coal-fired power plants. For individual homes, ground-source heat pumps are a tried-and-true technology for heating and cooling.
@squamish4244 Nuclear is great - for nations advanced enough to both afford it, and safely maintain & operate (still has better safety record than any other way of generating electricity & one of cheapest too). Unfortunately, it can only replace fossil fuels used for electricity production - not transportation and industrial uses such as making plastics. Heat pumps are also great - but they use electricity and cannot in any way replace fossil fuel use.
@MegaBsBsBs Nuclear energy can supply the electricity needed to operate heat pumps. Jobs can be created by retrofitting houses and businesses to make them more efficient. If everyone bought an energy efficient car, and got rid of their gas-guzzling and expensive to drive SUVs and pick-ups that they don't really need, fuel consumption would drop off dramatically. As for plastics, their consumption of petroleum is minor compared to heating and transportation.
@MegaBsBsBs There's also the larger issue of supply and demand for fossil fuels. Oil is $100 a barrel during a recession. Where do you think the cost is going to go when the economy picks up again? Some economists project $300 a barrel. Three-quarters of the world's oil is in just five countries. We are resorting to burning oil out of tar sands in Canada using natural gas, which is very expensive and inefficient, and polluting.
@squamish4244 Oil prices always fluctuate - and you can always find some 'expert' who predicts wild prices. That's nothing new. Price has more to do with government intervention (including of course the near monopoly by OPEC) than supply and demand. Tar sands and shale oil is competitive, not 'very expensive.' As to where oil is, google "Strategic Significance of America's Oil Shale Resource" read that 2004 report, then talk to me.
@squamish4244 obviously you didn't bother to look up the logical fallacy of a loaded question, or you would have realized that was your comment about deniers in a nutshell... that my question re wife-beating was making a point, not accusing you of anything - other than posting logical fallacies!!
So funny! Barton hasn't a clue and is trying to get a scientist to say that the oil *formed* under Alaska in the far north when it was "much warmer" up there - this coming from a climate change denier LOL
I don't think he understood the scientist's answer at all! What a moron.
Is this Barton bloke serious? A pipeline from Alaska??? ROFL. Strewth I'm glad this idiot is in the US parliament. I'm going to sleep sooo much better tonight. Hahahaha - isn't it obvious it used to be much warmer in Alaska?? Did he write Miss North Carolina's answer about why Americans can't find the USA on a map? God Bless America!!!
This idiot doubled down by apologizing to BP for the gov't holding them accountable for the oil spill in the gulf.
If Republicans win the house in November, this guy will be the Chairman of the Energy committee. Too many people don't realize the consequences of their voting or lack thereof.
Barton isn't totally an idiot - he disabled comments on this video on his channel. Can't have people pointing out what a fool he is on his own account, after all!
Is it relevant whether Alaska was in a warm climate for oil to be created? I was under the impression pressure and geothermal heat are sufficient to create the conditions.
Is it relevant whether Alaska was in a warm climate for oil to be created? I was under the impression pressure and geothermal heat are sufficient to create the conditions.
@tsuba14 Its relevant because there needs to be lots and lots of plants and animals that die, then create a thick layer of carbon which is compacted and subjected to millions of years of heat and pressure to create oil, coal, and gas. Generally, there needs to be a very warm, usually tropical climate, for there to be enough life to create this thick layer.
Congress needs to change from being dominated by lawyers. There needs to a cross section of occupation such as having engineers, Military, Policemen, Fireman, medical researchers and doctors, athletes, musicians, along with lawyers. A competency test needs to be given to weed out Idiots like Joe Barton, Michelle Bauchman, and Sarah Palin. For goodness sakes don't let dummies run the country.
typical republican dumbass....seriously he is a fuckin fool...just look at that smug arrogant look on his face...he thinks he knows shit but he is a FUCKIN MORON....like most right wingers...i'm embarrassed that he's from my home state of texas....sadly clowns like him run our education system
Oh please excuse Joe for his stupidity.............He was day dreaming about the 1.5 million dollarshe just got shove up his posterior from the oil industry in political contributions!
Barton's worst day politically. In one day he has completely sabotaged his re-election opportunities. It's almost like he did it on purpose. Laughing stock of the GOP and has given Dems untold opportunities.
There's something condescending about the questions; where the guy says something about "surely the oil was not shipped there and put into the ground" or words to that effect. Joe Barton needs to realize he's talking to a top scientist, for pete's sake; that he's talking to someone who's had an education, and not to a dogma queen. No doubt it's an unusual experience for Joe Barton. Maybe the idea of educated and knowledgeable people in government is a novel idea for some republicans.
Barton has this video on his youtube page. He disabled comments so people can't tell him he's the one that looks stupid for not understanding plate tectonics. He thinks he's making Chu look bad.
Joe Barton is clearly an idiot. Chu gave the correct answer and clearly understands the nature of oil and gas, Barton is trying to ask a question about something he doesnt understand.
The funniest thing about this video is that it is posted on Joe Barton's YouTube page. Barton and his people actually think that they stumped Chu. They think they "got him". Meanwhile Chu was trying to explain the answer to him as if he was explaning it to a kindergartener because Barton is so f'ing stupid.
@jgwilkinson Barton was correct, Chu was not. Yes, plate tectonics have moved continents around, but the oil formed in the Alaska region was formed at high latitudes, and science shows that the temperatures at that region and time were significantly higher - as they were even at the north pole. The oil wasn't pushed north by tectonics, it was formed there. Tectonics of course pushed the necessary components DEEPER, so there was sufficient pressure to form the oil, but that's another story.
@billysgeo Actually all of the continents were in completely different places than they are now, so gloabl warming and/or cooling is completely irrelevant in this situation.
@suburbancowboy It's not irrelevant! We got to understand that there are powers that we just can't influence enough to make dramatic changes to the climate!
We are talking about a whole planetary ecosystem here! No matter how many Priuses we put on the roads, we can't change the climate! But a lot of people can get rich from this eco-industry! Of course I don't imply to not recycle, I don't imply that fossil fuel is running low, NO, I am just talking about the earths climate and the human race.
@billysgeo Your obvious feelings of inadequacy aside it is possible for Humans to change the climate. Go look at the numbers instead of mindlessly accepting Glen Beck's word for it.
First of all I live in Europe, I don't even know how Beck IS!
I don't have to anyway!
Also I have, in my line of work, looked at more climate "data" (as you say) than you'll ever come across in your whole life. Do you know what the absolute FINAL opinion of the scientists that actually collecting and studding the data (correction: they are just in the beginning) is??? THERE IS NONE!!! NO FINAL VERDICT!
Energy Secretary Chu obviously did not know what he was talking about and rather admit it, BSed his answer. barton new that and that is why he asked the question: to expose the "Energy" Secretary as being clueless!
drmikeevans55 1 month ago
@drmikeevans55 either you're trolling or you're even dumber than rep. barton is. Chu has a nobel prize in physics for crying out loud. See smart people have to tone down their answers when talking to stupid people such as yourself, to avoid hurting their feelings. So maybe that toning down made you think Chu was uncertain of his answer.
CalvinJary 1 month ago
@CalvinJary So what if he has a Nobel in physics - his specialty is subatomic physics, not palentology, geology, etc. DrMikeEvans55 is absolutely correct, as was Barton. Chu was clueless, and his answer was wrong. Chu's Nobel sure didn't help him when he was appointed Sect. of Energy - he didn't even know that he was responsible for dealing with OPEC and oil issues!!! "not in my domain" were his words. Sheesh. He's got no business being Sect. of Energy.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
please explain a 4,6 billion year process in 6 seconds...WTF
joachimk93 2 months ago
lol, what a stupid assface
Julez60 2 months ago
How was this a "stupid" question?
cptexas1 4 months ago
I think he was wasting time, Chu would rather talk about Thorium ... why would that be the place to ask your scientist about stuff you should have learned in school? Barton's an idiot.
MrMonkeyspanner 5 months ago
@MrMonkeyspanner Barton was correct, and it's Chu that's the idiot. Sounds as if you are the one who needs to hit the books a little bit.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"This is a wookie. His name is Chewbacca. He comes from the planet Kasshyk. Then what is he doing living on Endor with two-foot tall Ewoks? It doesn't make sense! None of what I am saying makes any sense!"
squamish4244 5 months ago
probably home schooled, lol
SFCloudy 6 months ago
@SFCloudy, such a brilliant, meaningful, ad hominem comment. Whatever schooling you got, you should be proud. [/sarc]
MegaBsBsBs 5 months ago
The Senate and Congress should be ashamed for their ignorance, denial, lies and general incompetence regarding climate change. Get educated here: ClimateProgress . org -- ClimateCodeRed . net -- It's deeply irresponsible to not take substantial action to prevent further catastrophic climate change. BeyondNuclear . org -- EverythingNuclear . org -- ucsusa . org/nuclear_power/ -- nirs . org -- thebulletin . org -- NukeFree . org -- uspirg . org -- Greed for energy is poisoning future generations.
gregjalbert 6 months ago
It's a good question designed to provoke thought. But forget oil. No matter what the energy question is, LFTR is the answer.
drright71 7 months ago
Did this guy miss 7th grade science class?
dlhitch2007 7 months ago
@dlhitch2007 Sounds like YOU did. By 7th grade you should have learned to look up facts before spouting incorrect opinions.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
@MegaBsBsBs
I didn't spout any opinion. I was wondering if Barton missed 7th grade science class. That's where I leaned about continental drift. The idea that the North Pole must have been warmer because there is oil in Alaska is ridiculous.
dlhitch2007 1 month ago
@dlhitch2007 Again, how about you try looking up the facts before spouting off? Or even check some of my other posts here. Alaskan oil was formed when that area was approx. as far north as it is now. In other words, YES, the fact that there is abundant oil there, formed when it was, shows that the northern latitudes were significantly warmer than today. (Oh, and fine, if you don't want to admit your opinions, I'll rephrase to 'spouting off with your incorrect innuendo.')
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
@MegaBsBsBs
" Alaskan oil was formed when that area was approx. as far north as it is now."
I'd like to know you're source for that, Even if it is true it doesn't invalidate my point. Your idea that:
"fact that there is abundant oil there, formed when it was, shows that the northern latitudes were significantly warmer than today."
Is ridiculous precisely because of continental drift.
dlhitch2007 4 weeks ago
@dlhitch2007 I've already posted links to sources for that info - but you can find out easily enough yourself with a little searching. Clearly this DOES invalidate your point, and trying to say that continental drift makes it ridiculous is rather silly. The entire point is that according to the best knowledge of tectonics, that oil was formed approx. as far north as it's present day location.
MegaBsBsBs 3 weeks ago
@MegaBsBsBs
Your contention is that finding oil somewhere indicates that it was significantly warmer at that location. Continental drift makes this generalization ridiculous. I don't have time to look at the million or so posts you've made to find your source. The sources I've read say that that organic material the oil came from was deposited on the floor of the Pacific and eventually ended up under Alaska via plate tectonics.
dlhitch2007 3 weeks ago
@dlhitch2007 Then you'd best study better sources or work on your understanding of oil formation theory. The 'floor of the Pacific' is a mighty large area, and has, of course, changed over the eons too. The oil didn't magically squish up under Alaska - nor did significant deposits occur where the temperatures were as cold as they currently are in that area. Of course the deposits aren't exactly where they were initially formed, but as stated, it was approximately as far north.
MegaBsBsBs 3 weeks ago
@MegaBsBsBs
"The oil didn't magically squish up under Alaska"
Who's talking about magic? How did the oil deposits get from the floor of the pacific to to under Alaska? I'm guessing it had to do with PLATE TECTONICS. Was that not what Dr. Chu said?
"nor did significant deposits occur where the temperatures were as cold as they currently are in that area."
Source please. As I said before, the arctic ocean is loaded with phytoplankton..
dlhitch2007 3 weeks ago
@dlhitch2007 You are really pathetic. Too lazy to even search for the earlier sources I already provided, let alone do your own research, and you clearly have no understanding of source rock (for oil) or plate tectonics - you just insist you're right without providing a lick to support it. I'm getting an error posting, so let me try separate posts for the info.
eclectk1 3 weeks ago
@eclectk1
I AM NOT YOUR FUCKING RESEARCH MONKEY.
You made the claim, you back it up. Who the fuck are you? I was talking to another user.
dlhitch2007 3 weeks ago
@eclectk1
" you just insist you're right without providing a lick to support it. "
I've made no claims. I asked you to support your claims.
dlhitch2007 3 weeks ago
@dlhitch2007 Try googling these links to get you started: De-Convoluting Mixed Crude Oils in Prudhoe Bay Field Using Chemometrics
and go to the following link, replacing the 'dot' with periods of course and no spaces: scotese dot com slash moreinfo12 dot htm
Be sure to note temps during Cretaceous.
eclectk1 3 weeks ago
I didn't say it wasn't deposited when the temperature was warmer. I just wanted to understand why you (or mega-bsbsbs) thought it was. Nothing Chu said was wrong. The fact that it was warmer in the Cretaceous doesn't say anything about the current global warming debate.
dlhitch2007 3 weeks ago
@MegaBsBsBs
I also want to point out another idea of your's that is ridiculous:
" all that biomatter wouldn't have been there to turn into oil, if the climate hadn't been significantly warmer at the time."
The Arctic ocean contains an enormous amount of phytoplankton. What happens to it when it dies? Does it vanish into the ether? It appears to me that you are making a very tenuous assumption.
dlhitch2007 3 weeks ago
@dlhitch2007 Of course there's a lot of phytoplankton. But to wind up with oil deposits, you have to have extremely large amounts deposited over a relatively short time period. That's why some areas have large oil deposits, and other areas have little or none.
MegaBsBsBs 3 weeks ago
@dlhitch2007 p.s. tectonic plate movement = continental drift.
MegaBsBsBs 3 weeks ago
LFTR is the energy solution!
fireofenergy 8 months ago
The First Amendment is irrelevant to the US people as the Constitution they are in love with does NOT apply to them. They didn't sign it and are therefore not a 'party' to it. Just one more fact of life being withheld from the American people!
Itsmeeman1 8 months ago
Politicians love the first amendment, so long as its convenient.
YNot1989 8 months ago
Oh my god; one can only hope that he was speaking in jest.
armstrongariz 10 months ago
Problem, Joe Barton is a Young Earth Creationist, or "Retard," so he either didn't understand the answer or remained willfully ignorant.
YNot1989 10 months ago
@YNot1989 Sigh. Trying looking the facts up, will you? Barton was right, Chu was wrong. Tectonic shift is NOT the answer - Alaska and Alaskan oil fields were about as far north when that oil was formed as it is now - the Earth was a lot warmer then. It's that simple.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
It's funny because he legitimately looks like he has downs.
Alien5p 1 year ago
Watching a scientist teach a congressman something he should have learned in 6th grade is too funny.
dougdagger 1 year ago
@dougdagger You clearly missed the lesson. Barton was schooling Chu, not the other way around. Blows my mind how many people just jump to their preferred assumption, 'Chu must be right' without bothering to look up the facts. Very sad.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
@MegaBsBsBs Chu was right. When oil was formed in what is now Alaska, it wasn't Alaska and it wasn't in it's present position.
Barton was also correct. When the oil started to form, the land which is now Alaska was tropical. We've long understood previous geological era's climates. My guess is that Barton doesn't know about climate science(other than it's wrong) and his question ends up being nonsensical. You'd really need to question him to try to even find out what he's asking.
dougdagger 1 month ago
@dougdagger Barton, according to his bio, is highly educated and well versed in oil related issues, petroleum engineering, etc. Chu was not correct - Alaskan oil is dated to a time period when that area was approx. as far north as it is now. Of course it wasn't called Alaska millions of years ago - but that doesn't change the fact that the oil was formed from abundant biota at approx. the same latitude it's at now.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
This man, who also apologized to BP, btw, will now be heading the Energy Committee. Nice, eh? Gee - I wonder if we'll deregulate the energy industry some more? I wonder how many Exxon folks he'll have in his office - couldn't beat Dick Cheney's record, I'm sure.
This is like handing energy policy directly to BP!
demmmmm1 1 year ago
give it 2 years and ull hear
"dont blame me i voted democrat".
their all pretty stupid though, republicans just arent as good hiding it.
blckjade05 1 year ago
ps - The oil has nothing to do with the climate being warmer in the past. biomatter 'turns' into oil when its buried and experiences higher pressures and temperatures that result from having miles of rock on top of it.
davethecritter 1 year ago
@davethecritter p.s., all that biomatter wouldn't have been there to turn into oil, if the climate hadn't been significantly warmer at the time. You think there are massive amounts of biomatter being formed up in Alaska now with all the ice and snow?
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
Barton is obviously not versed in geology. Or, probably, any science. I graduated in geology, and the brief story is: the oil in Alaska is the product of biomatter that decayed under high pressure and temperature over millions of years. That biomatter is likely from an equatorial area. It settled on the ground, was buried, and over hundreds of millions of years the plate that it was on moved northward to its present location of Alaska.
davethecritter 1 year ago
@davethecritter Nice try. Check the facts - that oil has been dated to periods where the tectonic plates were such that it was nearly as far north as it currently is. The biomatter that formed the oil didn't come from further south - it was deposited at almost the same latitude as it currently found. Best revise your 'brief' story with some actual facts rather than your incorrect guess.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
Is everyone in that district of Texas a moron, too?
frsbdg 1 year ago
@frsbdg Is everyone near you a moron too?
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
People will do just fine in warm temps. Water shortages might screw everyone though.
MrBudPuphin 1 year ago
So global warming is now a good thing because even with rising sea levels and the extinction of thousands of species, oil wells are gong to start popping up on the surface of Alaska?
auntflow 1 year ago
OMG, tectonic plates, you soo crayzee movin' around and shit!
notshylo 1 year ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
OMG, tectonic plates, you soo crayzee movin' around and shit!
notshylo 1 year ago
Comment removed
notshylo 1 year ago
Yes. There were periods of time when the entire world's temperature was hotter, but human beings, with cities, subdivisions, highways, ports, agricultural belts, etc. didn't exist then. The idea that humanity will do just fine in these conditions is ignorance at its best. Warm blooded mammals didn't exist during these periods and it's likely we won't adapt to them.
daninbigd 1 year ago
@daninbigd ROFLMAO!! Warm blooded mammals have existed during many many periods that were as warm or warmer than present day temperatures - including several times here in the Holocene during the last 10K years, and in the previous interglacial, which was also warmer than present day temps. Best work on your own ignorance a little, and stop believing all the scare stories.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
@MegaBsBsBs But human civilization hasn't, neither has a human population of 7 billion which is dependent on farming techniques. No one said life is going to parish, but AGW presents a clear danger to civilization.
daninbigd 4 weeks ago
@daninbigd Human civilization hasn't been around during the Roman Warm Period, Holocene Optimum, Medieval Warm Period? You'd better publish, because that's sure new news to the world!! Of course there weren't as many people - but they also didn't have modern technology which allows us massive yield per acre compared to any previous time period. Meanwhile, warmer = more productive land as areas previous too cold become good agricultural land.
MegaBsBsBs 3 weeks ago
It's quite correct to say that a couple of hundred million years ago earth was much warmer than it is now. It's hard to know exactly why Barton wanted to ask Chu about this. Perhaps Barton thinks that this means we'd all be quite okay if the planet were as warm today as it was then. The answer is that we wouldn't, of course.
sidawaytony 1 year ago
Explain global geology in six seconds please. In other words, I don't have a real question for you. I just I have a really cool idea I dreamed up in in between jack off sessions in my office that you guys who have spent your lives thinking over couldn't think of.
jlxn 1 year ago 3
What point was Rep. Barton trying to make with his question?
MikeHeath1 1 year ago 3
@MikeHeath1 It's not really clear. Yes, Alaska was (much) warmer in the past, as was the entire earth. And . . . therefore?
jgwilkinson 1 year ago 5
@jgwilkinson I think he isn't taking into account the fact that Alaska has moved since then. It used to be warmer because it was closer to the equator, not because the earth was warmer. He's trying to say the earth was warmer back then, before humans, and therefore the current climate change isn't caused by us.
squreshi10 1 year ago
@squreshi10 Nope, sorry - that oil was formed at approximately the same latitude as it's currently at - and historically the earth has been warmer several times in the last 10K years, during the previous interglacial, and many other times. It's been warm enough that palm trees and dinosaurs existed both above the Arctic circle and in Antarctica, at about the same latitudes as present day.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
@MikeHeath1 no, it's pretty clear. He was targeting Global Warming, but he is flawed. He thought that Alaska had been warmer, without realizing that it was also located farther South when Plant and Animal Life were most abundant.
yardstickwhack 1 year ago
@yardstickwhack Except if you bothered to check the actual position during the heaviest period of oil formation for Alaskan oil, you would fairly easily find that the area was NOT significantly further south. In fact, it was approximately as far north as it currently is when most of that oil was formed.
MegaBsBsBs 5 months ago
@yardstickwhack I don't know when plant and animal life was most abundant, but the oil in question was formed at very close to the same latitude it's current at - it wasn't formed significantly further south. Check the age of the oil (yes, they can date the oil), and then the Earth's tectonic plate positions during that time. Barton was right, Chu was wrong, and historically it's been significantly warmer that far north than present day temperatures.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MikeHeath1 no, it's pretty clear. He was targeting Global Warming, but he is flawed. He thought that Alaska had been warmer, without realizing that it was also located farther South when Plant and Animal Life were most abundant.
yardstickwhack 1 year ago
@MikeHeath1 The point was that there was no point. You can't expect a serious question from a science-denier.
And the only reason Chu was thrown for a second is that it sounded like a question asked by a 2-year old. "Mommy. Where do babies come from?" Mommy: "Uh, well, honey...it's sort of a long story, but..."
So, right-wingers - there's your Energy Committee Chair. The guy who apologized to BP after the oil spill and who is against subpoena power for our oil spill commission. ?!?
demmmmm1 1 year ago
Does this ignorant jackass expect to learn all about geology in a few seconds? Fucking Christ. I can't believe these assholes win elections. Sad people. SAD.
realbleamer 1 year ago
@realbleamer Ya, except Chu wasn't elected, he was appointed. Barton's point, on the other hand, was correct scientifically and according to the best information we have on plate tectonics and continental drift, along with dating of Alaskan oil. It would seem that you really need to learn to check your 'facts' before posting.
MegaBsBsBs 5 months ago
@realbleamer The truly sad thing is that you and so many others utterly missed the point and don't bother to check the facts. Barton KNOWS his geology - Chu very clearly does NOT. The sad thing is that someone as clueless as Chu gets appointed to be the Secretary of Energy. Cripes, a few weeks AFTER he was appointed and in the position, he thought that OPEC and oil issues weren't 'in my domain.' How clueless can one be?
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
Trolling is a art.
spvensko 1 year ago
Those of you posting that Barton is in error really need to do your homework. You are the ones looking distinctly foolish and ignorant. Barton was correct, Chu was not. At the time that Alaskan oil formed, it was in the high latitudes just as it is now. The entire point is that the science shows that temperatures were far higher at the time and location where those oil formations developed compared to present day temperatures - even at the North Pole.
MegaBsBsBs 1 year ago
@MegaBsBsBs (who are you? — first foray onto YouTube?)
Half-truth anyone? Alaskan oil was formed during the Triassic period, during which the entire planet was a hothouse, with 3 to 10 times the current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Is that what he'd like to see?
jgwilkinson 1 year ago
@jgwilkinson It was also one of the most lush, biodiverse times ever. Where do you think all that organic matter to become oil came from? Plus, historically CO2 increases FOLLOW temperature increases by 600 to 800 years, not the opposite. If you research it, you also find that CO2 has been many times higher than present day during the midsts of ice ages, and as low, with much higher temps. CO2 doesn't correlate well with temperature at all.
MegaBsBsBs 1 year ago
@MegaBsBsBs
I smell sock puppet.
jgwilkinson 1 year ago
@jgwilkinson Better get your smeller checked then, my running across this vid was sheer chance & I have no vested interest other than in good science. By the way, brilliant Chu, 2 weeks after confirmation, was asked how he intended to handle an upcoming OPEC meeting. His reply 'its not in my domain, you'll have to ask the person responsible for that.' He had no idea that fossil fuels & dealing with OPEC is one of the largest responsibilities of the Sect. of Energy. How clueless can one be?
MegaBsBsBs 1 year ago
@MegaBsBsBs
I think it's interesting that MegaBsBsBs's first and only presence on YouTube comes as Rep. Barton is slated to retake his position as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Barton's record as climate change denier and supplicant to the oil industry won't be easily cleansed by war room efforts, which I suspect this is.
jgwilkinson 1 year ago
@jgwilkinson I have zero interest in Barton, but a lot of interest in the global warming issue. I ran across a link to the Barton/Chu question on youtube from another site, & followed it here - where I was shocked to see the many posts with clearly incorrect information. I couldn't get youtube to let me sign in thru my regular account (I rare post on youtube tho), so I created a new account, which linked me to the wrong screen name entirely. I emailed youtube to fix it, without reply so far.
MegaBsBsBs 1 year ago
@MegaBsBsBs
Reasonable explanation.
jgwilkinson 1 year ago
@MegaBsBsBs This is an amazingly bullshit answer. You know full well you had a working youtube account for commenting, especially with your story of how you got to this video.
And as for who was right or wrong, it obviously isn't Mr. Barton. Dr. Chu laughed at the question and called it a complicated story because that is what it is. And it is obvious that Mr. Barton was not interested in that complicated story, only in the ridiculous bullshit "point" he imagined he was making.
TheInternetizen 5 months ago
@TheInternetizen, if you bothered to learn anything, you would find that the land areas referred to were temperate while about as far north as present day. Chu is the one with the bs reply, trying to infer that this had anything to do with plate tectonics. Chu is so brilliant that more than 2 weeks after being appointed Sect. of Energy, he said OPEC & oil weren't his 'domain'!!! How utterly clueless can one be? He needs to stick w/ his speciality & research, & get out of politics entirely.
MegaBsBsBs 5 months ago
@TheInternetizen Too funny! Why don't you try basing your comments on science, rather than your own personal biases and preferences? You assume Chu was right based on nothing more than your own preconceived notions - you like his position so he's good & Barton is automatically bad. Even tho what we know of science and geology says exactly the opposite.
MegaBsBsBs 5 months ago
@MegaBsBsBs And on top of that, for the completely inept, your name is "megabullshit". Fail troll is utterly fail.
TheInternetizen 5 months ago
@MegaBsBsBs Are you seriously saying that Barton has ANY comprehension of science?
Yukkione 1 year ago
@Yukkione, I didn't have a clue, but on doing a very simple quick check, yes, it appears that Barton most certainly has a good comprehension of science. Far better than the average person. You don't get these sorts of degree's without comprehension of science (from his bio): He attended Texas A&M University on a four-year scholarship, and was the Class of '72's Outstanding Industrial Engineering Student. He has a Master's of Science degree from Purdue University
MegaBsBsBs 1 year ago
@MegaBsBsBs Then why ask such a stupid question?
squamish4244 1 year ago
Comment removed
MegaBsBsBs 5 months ago
@MegaBsBsBs So where was I incorrect? I think Barton is trying to imply that because it was much warmer in Alaska in the past, therefore we don't need to worry about global warming now. Even though at the time, several hundred million years ago during the Carboniferous era, the earth was drastically different and was totally unsuited to 7 billion humans.
squamish4244 5 months ago
@squamish4244 the only thing you said that could be correct or incorrect was that Barton's question was stupid. Only in fact he's correct, so it wasn't a stupid question or point, and you are incorrect. As to the rest of your reply - look up the null hypothesis tenet of science. IIRC, Alaska's oil formed mainly during the Jurassic & Cretaceous. Regardless, it's moot how suited it was or wasn't for humans. Recent history, 10k yrs, clearly shows us that a warmer earth has been better for humans.
MegaBsBsBs 5 months ago
@MegaBsBsBs Whoops, only 65-100 million years ago. As if that makes any difference. And now I see that the heart of the issue for you is global warming. Well, we have a dispute, and no amount of evidence collected is going to convince you otherwise.
squamish4244 5 months ago
@squamish4244 You say the heart of the issue for ME is global warming?? Squamish, YOU are the one who first brought it up, and into this discussion, making an issue of it, not me.
MegaBsBsBs 5 months ago
@MegaBsBsBs Well, you clearly believe it isn't a problem, or that we are not causing it, and that makes it an issue between us.
squamish4244 5 months ago
@squamish4244 No, that doesn't make it an issue between us. That makes it an issue between you, and your lack of understanding of the actual science involved.
MegaBsBsBs 2 months ago
@MegaBsBsBs Are you aware that a researcher hired by global warming skeptics came out this week with a report that the earth is in fact warming rapidly, because the evidence is just too strong? Recently the denialists have shifted tactics from "It's not happening" to "Okay, it's happening, but it's not our fault", which is incorrect. Joe Barton is #1 among members of the House in donations from the oil and gas industry, so he has a vested interest in in denialism. Deny the last sentence.
squamish4244 2 months ago
@squamish4244 You must be referring to the BEST study? If so, you desperately need to check your facts. Press release was before the study went thru peer review. Within a day or two 1of the co-authors took exception to claims made by the lead author & major flaws were found in the methodology. Besides, the earth has warmed just as rapidly, and as much, multiple times in the recent past along with even more severe shifts further back. Look up the younger dryas & PETM.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
@MegaBsBsBs That would also logically progress to you thinking that Energy Secretary Chu, Nobel Laureate, is wrong. The number of scientists who actively oppose the hard evidence is a very small proportion of the whole bunch. But they're all stupid liberals, right?
squamish4244 5 months ago
Sorry for the badly delated response, I just saw your question (no idea if you'll ever see this, but so it goes). Reply to your question: Because it wasn't a stupid question. Those who think it was need to do a bit of homework to learn what we know of the time during which the Alaskan oil was primarily formed. Barton was correct, Chu wasn't. People only miss the point because they're misinformed or jumping to incorrect conclusions.
MegaBsBsBs 5 months ago
@MegaBsBsBs Well, he certainly knows how to make himself appear absolutely retarded in the House. And he apologized for the 'government shakedown' of BP, one of the richest companies in the world, after 11 people died in an explosion caused by numerous safety violations and gross mismanagement, and the third worst oil spill in history happened, destroying the livelihoods of thousands of people. Are you defending his actions? (He later apologized for saying that, too.)
squamish4244 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheInternetizen 5 months ago
@MegaBsBsBs In order for life to be exist in a warm climate at the north pole, the rest of the planet would have to be a desert wasteland. The hottest points are at the equator, when you raise the polar temperatures, the equator temperatures and everything in between will rise as well. Unless you believe in magic and use fairy tale logic, then you must accept that fact.
Unless you mean to imply that everywhere can be warm and habitable, and not too hot, but that would make you an imbecile.
TheInternetizen 5 months ago
@TheInternetizen you've branded yourself the imbecile w/ your reply. Historically when poles were warm, equator was still habitable. Even IPCC/AGW base tenets hold that poles warm by far fastest and equatorial areas the least. The equatorial climate is typically rainforests & not hottest. Hottest are often subtropical & arid, e.g. Death Valley, Ca, USA; Al’Aziziyah, Libya; Kuwait City, Kuwait; Ahvaz, Iran; Wadi Halfa, Sudan; Tirat Tsvi, Israel; Kebili, Tunisia. Simple facts, even today.
MegaBsBsBs 5 months ago
@MegaBsBsBs If you think that a planet with melted ice caps and warm, temperate poles means summer fun time in Cancun, I really have nothing further to say to you because you represent some of the worst kind of insane denialism in existence today. You are literally a cancer to Earth and the human race. The only science you believe in is the unsubstantiated dogma induced bullshit that you call science and pass off as a valid argument, when in reality it's nothing more than fallacious garbage.
TheInternetizen 5 months ago
@TheInternetizen Ah, yes, the typical reply of someone who has lost the arguement and is unable to come up with any credible facts - lash out, start name calling, ad hominem attacks, and claims that are utterly unsubstantiated strawmen. Project one's own weakness on the opponent. Either you looked up the hottest sites on earth I provided and discovered they're mainly N. of 30* latitude proving you wrong, or you never bothered and just launched into extremist name calling. Pathetic.
MegaBsBsBs 5 months ago
@MegaBsBsBs The delicious irony of melted ice caps means most of Bushmerica would be underwater. Watching you suffer as the rich you fought for laugh at you will be nothing but blissful, bittersweet justice in the shitty, bleak future you pray for.
TheInternetizen 5 months ago
@TheInternetizen Ya, I'm sure that's why Al Gore very recently bought a water front mansion, because we're all going to be underwater oh so soon. /sarc Why don't you try making claims based on science, & drop the name calling & absurd claims of my supposed evil actions & desires, which are clearly impossible for you know. If you really believe these things about me, and about the science involved, you are living in la-la land. I suspect it's just desperate flailing tho rather than real belief.
MegaBsBsBs 5 months ago
@TheInternetizen Try learning something about the Earth's climate, would you? The poles warm significantly more than areas further south. Palm trees and dinosaurs once thrived both above the Arctic circle and on Antarctica - while the rest of the world was warmer but nothing near desert wasteland. Contrary to your assertion, during those times life thrived EVERYWHERE on the planet. Cripes, even AGW theory tells you that the poles warm far more than tropical areas.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
@MegaBsBsBs You should read 'The Psychology of Global Warming Denialism', an article by Wired magazine, about why otherwise intelligent people absolutely refuse to believe the massive preponderance of evidence supporting man-made climate change. People go into denial when they just can't face the truth, and you appear to be in deep, deep denial. You will now deny that what I am saying is true.
squamish4244 1 month ago
@squamish4244 ROFL!!! Ya, and squamish, when did you quit beating your significant other? (hint, look up "logical fallacy" with "loaded question")
MegaBsBsBs 3 weeks ago
Maybe Barton's one of those Young Earth wackos who thinks the earth's only about 7 thousand years old and therefore a process that takes hundreds of millions of years just isn't possible. It's obvious Barton didn't pay attention in science class. At least not during the part that talked about tectonic plates shifting.
xprotestorx 1 year ago
@xprotestorx, clearly you never bothered to check where the relevant continental plate was during the time Alaskan oil was formed. It appears that Barton had checked, and knew that when much of that oil was formed, it was about as far north as it currently is. From his response it appears that Chu wasn't aware of that fact.
MegaBsBsBs 5 months ago
@MegaBsBsBs- Chu's response does nothing of the sort. He did not want to attempt to explain tectonic plate behaviors to a an old senator in 6 minutes. I really doubt a Nobel Prize winning energy secretary would know less about these matters than some barely educated senator from Texas. Seriously, throw out your massive bias and look with fresh eyes.
superlou1s 2 months ago
@superlou1s Talk about massive bias - look in the mirror superlou1s. Very odd idea you have of 'barely educated. As I noted before, Barton attended Texas A&M University on a four-year scholarship, and was the Class of '72's Outstanding Industrial Engineering Student. He has a Master's of Science degree from Purdue University. So an M.S. from Perdue, and a B.S. from a very large top engineering school with honors as the best engineering student, is now barely educated?
MegaBsBsBs 2 months ago
@superlou1s Zero need to explain plate tectonics-the oil in question was formed when the region was about as far north as its current position. Something clearly Chu didn't realize, & Barton did. Furthermore, your appeals to authority are meaningless. Nobel Prize winning Energy Sect. who, several weeks after starting, had NO idea oil issues & OPEC were the primary duty of Energy Sect? "Not in my domain" he said. Yes, clearly a broad knowledge base outside his own narrow theoretical area. /sarc
MegaBsBsBs 2 months ago
@superlou1s Chu is brilliant in theoretical physics - single atoms & actions at the single molecule level. Being brilliant in one area far removed from disciplines such as geophysics, paleontology, doesn't make one knowlegable in those areas. Often just the opposite. The ONLY reason he's Energy Sect. is he holds the same extreme views on green/alt. energy as Obama. He didn't even have a clue that USA Energy Sect. meant handling oil issues-nor did he bother to find out before accepting position
MegaBsBsBs 2 months ago
@superlou1s Barton, on the other hand, is from huge oil state, w/ top honors in an industrial engineering degree from univ. w/ nation's top petroleum eng. program. Fellow to Energy Sect., then worked for oil & gas company consulting on nat. gas, then elected congressman. Since 2004 Chairman of House Committee on Energy & Commerce. Joint author of 2 most comprehensive energy policy packages to pass House since 1930's. Who's more likely to understand tectonics & oil, Chu or Barton? Clearly Barton
MegaBsBsBs 2 months ago
@MegaBsBsBs Joe Barton is from a huge oil state and has a serious interest in keeping his donations coming. These comprehensive energy packages, passed under Bush, are a load of crap. You are only proving my point with your evidence.
squamish4244 2 months ago
@squamish4244 So I take it you personally don't use any electricity, any plastic items, any gasoline or other fossil fuel or anything made using them? No AC or heat, no refrigerator? Cheap abundant energy is responsible for massive increase in lifespan, decreases in infant and child deaths, huge improvement in standards of living. You really want to go back to the dark ages? Just look at life in parts of the world that don't have cheap abundant energy available, then talk to me.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
@MegaBsBsBs I never recall saying that. And that is irrelevant to the discussion. I believe nuclear power plants can provide abundant safe, clean energy as a replacement for fossil fuels. No one has ever been harmed in the United States due to nuclear power use, yet 30,000 people die prematurely every year from particulate matter released by coal-fired power plants. For individual homes, ground-source heat pumps are a tried-and-true technology for heating and cooling.
squamish4244 1 month ago
@squamish4244 Nuclear is great - for nations advanced enough to both afford it, and safely maintain & operate (still has better safety record than any other way of generating electricity & one of cheapest too). Unfortunately, it can only replace fossil fuels used for electricity production - not transportation and industrial uses such as making plastics. Heat pumps are also great - but they use electricity and cannot in any way replace fossil fuel use.
MegaBsBsBs 1 month ago
Comment removed
squamish4244 1 month ago
@MegaBsBsBs Nuclear energy can supply the electricity needed to operate heat pumps. Jobs can be created by retrofitting houses and businesses to make them more efficient. If everyone bought an energy efficient car, and got rid of their gas-guzzling and expensive to drive SUVs and pick-ups that they don't really need, fuel consumption would drop off dramatically. As for plastics, their consumption of petroleum is minor compared to heating and transportation.
squamish4244 1 month ago
@MegaBsBsBs There's also the larger issue of supply and demand for fossil fuels. Oil is $100 a barrel during a recession. Where do you think the cost is going to go when the economy picks up again? Some economists project $300 a barrel. Three-quarters of the world's oil is in just five countries. We are resorting to burning oil out of tar sands in Canada using natural gas, which is very expensive and inefficient, and polluting.
squamish4244 1 month ago
@squamish4244 Oil prices always fluctuate - and you can always find some 'expert' who predicts wild prices. That's nothing new. Price has more to do with government intervention (including of course the near monopoly by OPEC) than supply and demand. Tar sands and shale oil is competitive, not 'very expensive.' As to where oil is, google "Strategic Significance of America's Oil Shale Resource" read that 2004 report, then talk to me.
MegaBsBsBs 3 weeks ago
@MegaBsBsBs I think you just lost any credibility when you compared me with a wife-beater.
squamish4244 3 weeks ago
@squamish4244 obviously you didn't bother to look up the logical fallacy of a loaded question, or you would have realized that was your comment about deniers in a nutshell... that my question re wife-beating was making a point, not accusing you of anything - other than posting logical fallacies!!
MegaBsBsBs 3 weeks ago
"Mr. Chu, we all know babies are delivered by storks. Isn't is obvious that unicorns are just hairy rhinos?"
kbarbonnie41 1 year ago 5
"obvious" "obvious" "obvious"
A certain sort of people love this word to justify their ignorance.
595o 1 year ago
So funny! Barton hasn't a clue and is trying to get a scientist to say that the oil *formed* under Alaska in the far north when it was "much warmer" up there - this coming from a climate change denier LOL
I don't think he understood the scientist's answer at all! What a moron.
jhwalker1963 1 year ago
What's next? Is he going to ask the scientist where babies come from?
EvelynnFaith 1 year ago
Is this Barton bloke serious? A pipeline from Alaska??? ROFL. Strewth I'm glad this idiot is in the US parliament. I'm going to sleep sooo much better tonight. Hahahaha - isn't it obvious it used to be much warmer in Alaska?? Did he write Miss North Carolina's answer about why Americans can't find the USA on a map? God Bless America!!!
bxb091 1 year ago
@bxb091
There's no such thing as the US parliament FYI
Cypherfall 1 year ago
@Cypherfall sorry, I was using it as a common noun, not a Proper noun. ie the supreme legislature, not the British Parliament
"• a similar legislature in other nations and states : the Russian parliament."
Cheers.
bxb091 1 year ago
@bxb091
No worries bro.
Cypherfall 1 year ago
Wow. Embarrassing.
normalpsychology 1 year ago
Puzzled? It was more that he answered it and that it didn't fit in the tiny brain of Barton.
cypress1337 1 year ago
This idiot doubled down by apologizing to BP for the gov't holding them accountable for the oil spill in the gulf.
If Republicans win the house in November, this guy will be the Chairman of the Energy committee. Too many people don't realize the consequences of their voting or lack thereof.
shalcall 1 year ago
Barton isn't totally an idiot - he disabled comments on this video on his channel. Can't have people pointing out what a fool he is on his own account, after all!
faithofthefoe 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is it relevant whether Alaska was in a warm climate for oil to be created? I was under the impression pressure and geothermal heat are sufficient to create the conditions.
tsuba14 1 year ago
Is it relevant whether Alaska was in a warm climate for oil to be created? I was under the impression pressure and geothermal heat are sufficient to create the conditions.
tsuba14 1 year ago
@tsuba14 Its relevant because there needs to be lots and lots of plants and animals that die, then create a thick layer of carbon which is compacted and subjected to millions of years of heat and pressure to create oil, coal, and gas. Generally, there needs to be a very warm, usually tropical climate, for there to be enough life to create this thick layer.
jonvoigt21 1 year ago
Congress needs to change from being dominated by lawyers. There needs to a cross section of occupation such as having engineers, Military, Policemen, Fireman, medical researchers and doctors, athletes, musicians, along with lawyers. A competency test needs to be given to weed out Idiots like Joe Barton, Michelle Bauchman, and Sarah Palin. For goodness sakes don't let dummies run the country.
jam0to9 1 year ago
@jam0to9 Joe Barton and Sarah Palin are not lawyers. Bachmann hardly a lawyer, she went to Oral Roberts. Thats crazy person law school.
jonvoigt21 1 year ago 2
i love how Barton thought he got one over on Chu but in reality the video makes Barton look like an idiot. I guess ignorance is bliss.
xyTJxy 1 year ago 2
Rep. Joe Barton should not be in Congress. Is he representing BP and stupid people?
shfbdfi1273 1 year ago
Good to revist this as a reminder that Smokey Joe's stupidity did not suddenly occur yesterday. He's always been a dumbass.
Chu was probably thinking here, "Why am I being asked a question more suited to a grade school science class?"
mst3KGf 1 year ago
Having just taken two semesters of geology, I firmly believe it should be a required area of study for everyone who receives schooling.
Perhaps there would be fewer idiots wandering around with absolutely no clue how ANYTHING in the world works.
myxini 1 year ago
Joe Barton is an astoundingly obnoxious and clueless individual.
chthonic19 1 year ago 2
typical republican dumbass....seriously he is a fuckin fool...just look at that smug arrogant look on his face...he thinks he knows shit but he is a FUCKIN MORON....like most right wingers...i'm embarrassed that he's from my home state of texas....sadly clowns like him run our education system
jshooper 1 year ago
Oh please excuse Joe for his stupidity.............He was day dreaming about the 1.5 million dollarshe just got shove up his posterior from the oil industry in political contributions!
barbtube01 1 year ago 2
Barton's worst day politically. In one day he has completely sabotaged his re-election opportunities. It's almost like he did it on purpose. Laughing stock of the GOP and has given Dems untold opportunities.
nodramabrother 1 year ago 3
What a retard...
sirkowski 1 year ago 2
Puzzled? He is dumbfounded by being asked such a stupid question.
speculawyer 1 year ago 2
There's something condescending about the questions; where the guy says something about "surely the oil was not shipped there and put into the ground" or words to that effect. Joe Barton needs to realize he's talking to a top scientist, for pete's sake; that he's talking to someone who's had an education, and not to a dogma queen. No doubt it's an unusual experience for Joe Barton. Maybe the idea of educated and knowledgeable people in government is a novel idea for some republicans.
RatRaceAce 1 year ago
Barton has this video on his youtube page. He disabled comments so people can't tell him he's the one that looks stupid for not understanding plate tectonics. He thinks he's making Chu look bad.
nexusutube 1 year ago 2
@nexusutube
But we can still "dislike" it ... for some reason that feature was kept active even as dislikes are beating likes by about 11:1 at the moment.
S201676 1 year ago
Joe Barton is clearly an idiot. Chu gave the correct answer and clearly understands the nature of oil and gas, Barton is trying to ask a question about something he doesnt understand.
trenken 1 year ago 2
Barton, dumb member of Congress or dumbest member of Congress?
anodyneryan 1 year ago 2
"Dr. Chu... where do babies come from?"
The point Barton was trying to make was stupid, and attempting to get one over on an educated man wasn't the best move. Barton looked like an idiot.
particle409 1 year ago
The funniest thing about this video is that it is posted on Joe Barton's YouTube page. Barton and his people actually think that they stumped Chu. They think they "got him". Meanwhile Chu was trying to explain the answer to him as if he was explaning it to a kindergartener because Barton is so f'ing stupid.
suburbancowboy 1 year ago 2
@suburbancowboy even funnier is that they had the foresight to disable comments on the video when they posted it to their channel
mechanism211 1 year ago
Didn't anyone get that he was making a point?
He said "at one time Alaska was cooler"...
Therefor the climate constantly changes in a non-linear way with or without mankind around!
billysgeo 1 year ago
@billysgeo No, Barton said "Isn't it obvious that at one time Alaska was warmer . . .", not cooler.
Chu's answer was that at one time Alaska wasn't where it is now. (Just as at one time Antarctica wasn't at the south pole.)
jgwilkinson 1 year ago 14
@jgwilkinson Barton was correct, Chu was not. Yes, plate tectonics have moved continents around, but the oil formed in the Alaska region was formed at high latitudes, and science shows that the temperatures at that region and time were significantly higher - as they were even at the north pole. The oil wasn't pushed north by tectonics, it was formed there. Tectonics of course pushed the necessary components DEEPER, so there was sufficient pressure to form the oil, but that's another story.
MegaBsBsBs 1 year ago
@billysgeo Actually all of the continents were in completely different places than they are now, so gloabl warming and/or cooling is completely irrelevant in this situation.
suburbancowboy 1 year ago
@suburbancowboy It's not irrelevant! We got to understand that there are powers that we just can't influence enough to make dramatic changes to the climate!
We are talking about a whole planetary ecosystem here! No matter how many Priuses we put on the roads, we can't change the climate! But a lot of people can get rich from this eco-industry! Of course I don't imply to not recycle, I don't imply that fossil fuel is running low, NO, I am just talking about the earths climate and the human race.
billysgeo 1 year ago
@billysgeo Your obvious feelings of inadequacy aside it is possible for Humans to change the climate. Go look at the numbers instead of mindlessly accepting Glen Beck's word for it.
nilbud 1 year ago
@nilbud You dumb puppet, sorry excuse of a man!
First of all I live in Europe, I don't even know how Beck IS!
I don't have to anyway!
Also I have, in my line of work, looked at more climate "data" (as you say) than you'll ever come across in your whole life. Do you know what the absolute FINAL opinion of the scientists that actually collecting and studding the data (correction: they are just in the beginning) is??? THERE IS NONE!!! NO FINAL VERDICT!
billysgeo 1 year ago
@billysgeo You retard.
nilbud 1 year ago