What is it about the global warming topic that makes otherwise sensible people lose all semblance of reason? For example, according to Bishop Hill oil might not be a fossil fuel after all, and there is…
an article in Science which seems to support the theory. Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water, and moderate amounts of heat.
…so far, so good. But then he goes on to say that:
If this is right, then oil is not a fossil fuel at all, and another prop has been kicked out from under the global warmers’ feet.
Huh? While it is true that ‘global warmers’ (like most everyone else) tend to refer to oil as a fossil fuel, AGW theory doesn’t depend at all on whether oil is a fossil fuel or not. The issue is whether combustion of, among other things, oil, leads to increased GHGs which in turn leads to increased T. Why do denialists pretend that every silly quibble somehow spells doom for the AGW theory? Elsewhere the good bishop thinks that invoking the magical concept of ’the price’ will somehow make a market take into account costs that people can simply externalise. This is a case of believing in the free market fairy.