Energy Secretary puzzled by stupid question from Rep. Joe Barton

Rep. Joe Barton (R - Texas) posted this exchange with Energy Secretary Chu on his own channel. He characterizes Secretary Chu as being "puzzled" by the question. As the derisive comments started rolling in, the YouTube account holder quickly deleted them, then turned comments off entirely. Here for your amazement -- and open commenting -- is Joe Barton.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Barton
• oil
• environment
• Chu

[dlhitch2007]

@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]

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]

@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.

[eclectk1]

@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]

@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.

[dlhitch2007]

@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..

[MegaBsBsBs]

@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]

@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]

@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!!

[dlhitch2007]

@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.