Perplexed By Science: Joe Barton Wonders If Oil Reached The North Pole From A Secret Texas Pipeline
Perplexed By Science: Joe Barton Wonders If Oil Reached The North Pole From A Secret Texas Pipeline
In an Earth Day hearing, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu was forced to explain to Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) how oil is found in the Arctic. Chu and other administration officials are testifying today before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Barton, the top Republican on the committee and a recipient of $1,330,160 in oil money, was flabbergasted by the concept of continental drift. After Chu explained that “oil and gas is the result of hundreds of millions of years of geology and in that time also the plates have moved around,” Barton questioned whether oil didn’t actually reach Alaska through a secret Texas pipeline:
Isn’t it obvious that at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole? It wasn’t a big pipeline that we’ve created from Texas and shipped it up there and put it under ground so we can now pump it up?
Watch it:
“No,” Secretary Chu responded, “there are continental plates that have been drifting around throughout the geological ages.” The “driving force” for Alaska’s oil formation during the Triassic era 200 million years ago, according to University of Alaska geologist Mark Rivera, “is plate tectonics, which is the unifying theory of geology.”
Ironically for someone who has called climate science “absolute nonsense,” Barton was actually onto something. During the Triassic, the entire planet was indeed a hothouse and entirely deglaciated. The carbon dioxide (CO2) content in the atmosphere was at its highest ever levels, spiking from 1000 parts per million to 3000 ppm. The end of the Triassic period was marked by one of the largest mass-extinction events in Earth’s history.
Habitable conditions for humanity, hundreds of millions of years later, are very different. Carbon dioxide levels, which had been below 300 ppm for the last 650,000 years and was stable at 280 ppm during the rise of human civilization, have skyrocketed since 1800 because of our burning of coal, oil, and natural gas to 388 ppm, a nearly 40 percent rise.
Transcript:
BARTON: Dr. Chu, I don’t want to leave you out. You’re our scientist. I have one simple question for you in the last six seconds. How did all the oil and gas get to Alaska and under the Arctic Ocean?CHU: (Laughs.) This is a complicated story but oil and gas is the result of hundreds of millions of years of geology and in that time also the plates have moved around. And so, it’s a combination of where the sources of the oil and gas …
BARTON: Isn’t it obvious that at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole? It wasn’t a big pipeline that we’ve created in Texas and shipped it up there and put it under ground so we can now pump it up and ship it back?
CHU: No, there are continental plates that have been drifting around throughout the geological ages.
BARTON: So it just drifted up there.
CHU: Uh…. That’s certainly what happened. It’s a result of things like that.
WAXMAN: The gentleman’s time has expired.
Participating n climate change hearing. I asked energy secretary where oil in alaska came from. answer puzzles-from continental plate shift
I seemed to have baffled the Energy Sec with basic question - Where does oil come from? Check out the video: http://bit.ly/O4m0p #tcot
23 Responses to “Perplexed By Science: Joe Barton Wonders If Oil Reached The North Pole From A Secret Texas Pipeline”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Stupidest f**king guy on the face of the planet.
Oh, wait, that one’s already taken…
April 22nd, 2009 at 3:27 pmWow. FAIL.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:20 pmThank you so much, conservatives, for putting people like this in office.
April 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 pmI was hoping for a more sophisticated analysis of the day’s (Earth Day) many hearings on the hill pertaining to climate change. Sure, Barton may not have all of his crayons in the box, but surely there were many much more important tidbits of discussion coming out of the hill today, no?
For example, what about the looming and increasing concern of the house committee on science and technology that the many cap&trade relevant agencies lack coordinated efforts (reporting to ensure proper and timely decision-making)? Without a coordinated effort from all types of monitoring sources, there is no way to completely measure, monitor, and verify the backbone of a cap and trade system.
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:08 pmHow did this stupid f*ck think all that oil got under Saudi Arabia and the rest of the desert Middle East? A big pipeline from Texas?
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:21 pmWhat does the part about a Texas pipeline to the Alaska or the north pole even mean? And why am I not surprised that he doesn’t understand plate tectonics?
April 22nd, 2009 at 5:25 pmI think Barton’s point was that Alaska used to be a desert because all oil comes from deserts. I think that’s what he had in mind.
April 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 pmDear Lord, what a freaking idiot. Do they not teach fourth-grade science in Texas?
I love how Barton posted the video thinking it made the Nobel Prize winning scientist look like the idiot, not him. What a clown.
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:04 pmPaging Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert….. here’s a hanging curve right over the plate…..
April 22nd, 2009 at 8:52 pmIf only Twitter had a longer character limit, we might get to hear the Honorable Joe Barton explain why Chu’s answer was so puzzling. Does Mr. Barton actually “not believe” in plate tectonics, or does he just not understand the concept? And is he trying to suggest the world would be okay 10 degrees warmer because a dinosaur wouldn’t mind? Good Lord, this man is the Republican Chairman on that committee.
April 22nd, 2009 at 11:36 pmWow. I learned plate tectonics in high school. In a Texas high school, I’ll add.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:55 amOf course they teach Science in Texas schools — Creationism.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:16 pmWow — the entire GOP is now echoing this moron. Just goes to show you how intellectually bankrupt they are.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:50 pmThe correct answer was “God put it there”.
April 24th, 2009 at 3:35 pmThe GOP [Grand ol' Pinheads] is self-destructing.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:00 pmThough this guy doesn’t seem like he understands teh scientists explanation, I don’t think he was saying that oil got to the arctic through a secret pipeline. Stop sinking to their level of antics.
April 24th, 2009 at 4:05 pmAndrew, not all oil comes from deserts, unless the North Sea, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Alaska are deserts.
April 24th, 2009 at 9:17 pmOK, this is where liberals show their own bias.
Look, based on what is said in this very post, isn’t it perfectly clear from Chu’s response that he, in fact, got the answer way wrong, and, that, in fact, Barton caught him in a howling error?
Basically, and clearly, Chu was saying that the reason Alaska had so much oil was that the area of the earth’s surface which is represents was once much further south, where the vegetation necessary for the creation of oil could flourish, and that that swath of surface had drifted up over geological time into the Artic. He did not acknowledge the truth, that once upon a time the earth was, in its entirety, much much warmer, the very most north included.
Personally, I’m genuinely surprised, and a bit appalled that Chu got this wrong. My strongest impression is that the vast amount of movement taking place in continental drift has been east-west, not north-south, so, unless there was some quite anomalous local behavior with respect to Alaska in particular, one simply wouldn’t expect much drift north-south.
In the end, Chu got it wrong, Barton got it right. And Barton’s an idiot?
April 25th, 2009 at 11:39 amI am no fan of Barton and the denier caucus in Congress, it’s quite clear that he was *not* seriously wondering about the origin of the oil, but being sarcastic. Read/view his statement again:
He was trying to argue the old “natural cycles” saw against anthropogenic climate change, on the basis that the reason why there’s oil in Alaska today (a very cold place today with little life and therefore little potential to lay down future fossil fuel reserves), is that back in the Cretaceous, it was a heck of a lot warmer there, with no permanent polar ice caps and dinosaurs roaming the land, precisely because of the *natural* greenhouse effect, with atmospheric CO2 at four times the current concentrations. Barton was snidely saying, “look, the oil and gas got there because the climate and CO2 undergoes natural cycles — we humans have nothing to do with it.” (Embarrassingly, Chu actually got it wrong here, apparently attributing the temperature change to plate tectonics and the ensuing movement of the continents, rather than climate change).
I am unimpressed by the post, and embarrassed by some of the unproductive comments in reply — it’s like Limbaugh in organic hemp dungarees. We need to fight these dinosaurs, but we don’t get anywhere if we just don’t listen to them: we need to keep advancing the scientific consensus, refuting sloppy science, and making productive policy proposals; we don’t get anything but smugness by muddying the debate, misrepresenting their views, and engaging in crude, tribalistic invective.
April 26th, 2009 at 10:48 amReally? frankly0, clearly it is you who is showing a bias as well as a lack of scientific knowledge and the ability to search the Internet a little. I give you the gift of knowledge (below) in the hope that this enlightenment will lead you to discover other great truths and shatter your bias.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-oil-usually-found
January 16, 2006
Why is oil usually found in deserts and arctic areas?
Roger N. Anderson, a professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, explains.
Plate tectonics determines the location of oil and gas reservoirs and is the best key we have to understanding why deserts and arctic areas seem to hold the largest hydrocarbon reserves on earth. But there are other important locations of large reserves: river deltas and continental margins offshore. Together, these four types of areas hold most of the oil and gas in the world today.
Oil and gas result mostly from the rapid burial of dead microorganisms in environments where oxygen is so scarce that they do not decompose. This lack of oxygen enables them to maintain their hydrogen-carbon bonds, a necessary ingredient for the production of oil and gas. Newly developing ocean basins, formed by plate tectonics and continental rifting, provide just the right conditions for rapid burial in anoxic waters. Rivers rapidly fill these basins with sediments carrying abundant organic remains. Because the basins have constricted water circulation, they also have lower oxygen levels than the open ocean. For instance, the Gulf of California, an ocean basin in development, is making new oil and gas in real time today. The Gulf of Mexico is also a great example of new oil and gas formation in a restricted circulation environment (see image at right above).
The same plate tectonics that provides the locations and conditions for anoxic burial is also responsible for the geologic paths that these sedimentary basins subsequently take. Continental drift, subduction and collision with other continents provide the movement from swamps, river deltas and mild climates–where most organics are deposited–to the poles and deserts, where they have ended up today by coincidence. In fact, the Libyan Sahara Desert contains unmistakable glacial scars and Antarctica has extensive coal deposits–and very likely abundant oil and gas–that establish that their plates were once at the other ends of the earth (see image at right).
Plate tectonics is also responsible for creating the “pressure cooker” that slowly matures the organics into oil and gas. This process usually takes millions of years, giving the oil and gas deposits plenty of time to migrate around the globe on the back of plate movements. Because these hydrocarbons are much more buoyant than water, they eventually force their way to the surface. Alternatively, rifting, collisions between land masses, and other tectonic forces can free the mature oil and gas from deep within sedimentary basins and then trap these organic fluids in reservoirs before they escape to the earth’s surface. We know these reservoirs as oil and gas fields.
April 26th, 2009 at 1:46 pmExcuse me CZ1,
How about the simple fact, which, again, this very post mentions, that essentially all of the earth was, presumably, covered with vegetation (the earth was a “hothouse”) in the very period, the Triassic, in which the sources of the oil in Alaska were flourishing? Wasn’t it that point, expressly, that Barton was alluding to — that the earth was at the time, much warmer?
Don’t you think that there is clearly NOTHING in Chu’s response that acknowledged this fact? In his answer to Barton, isn’t it obvious that Chu is implying, instead, that it was only because the swath of the earth’s surface corresponding to present day Alaska was in a more temperate zone at the time the vegetation thrived from which oil was created that Alaska now has oil off its northern coast? And in any case, what your general quote certainly does not establish is even the claim that the surface of the earth corresponding to Alaska in the Triassic period was, in fact, in a zone much closer to the equator; it speaks in general possibilities, not about the specific case of Alaska.
But thanks, of course, for the obfuscation.
April 27th, 2009 at 6:05 pmSo, frankly0, what’s your background? High school diploma? Bachelor’s degree in business? Do you really expect to get a full education on geology and especially plate tectonics through these blog comments?
I gave you an article by a professor, a top expert on this subject, which clearly states that plate tectonics is THE KEY REASON why oil and gas deposits are found in four areas including deserts and arctic areas. Then you try to use “garage logic” to find some scientific-sounding reason why this isn’t the case. Do you see the absurdity in that? Don’t you think Professor Roger N. Anderson, at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, who understands ALL THE SCIENCE behind plate tectonics, would have mentioned Barton’s/your hypothesis if it was relevant? Do you really think that a Congressman from Texas and yourself understand plate tectonics better than the scientific community represented by Professor Anderson? REALLY?
Step back from your ego and your bias and your big business political ideology and you will realize that you are just making hand waving arguments that mean nothing. Every time you want to question the science on behalf of your favorite Congressman, you had better go get yourself an education in that science first. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has such an education, and it shows when he answers an inane question like Barton’s that comes from an overly simplified understanding of science.
April 28th, 2009 at 11:45 amMichael Says:
I am no fan of Barton and the denier caucus in Congress, it’s quite clear that he was *not* seriously wondering about the origin of the oil, but being sarcastic.
What’s quite clear is that Barton is being disrespectful of Steven Chu by stating his question–which denies established science–in a sarcastic, wise ass manner (snidely, as you say latter).
Read/view his statement again:
Isn’t it obvious that at one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska and on the North Pole? It *wasn’t* a big pipeline that we’ve created in Texas and shipped it up there and put it under ground so we can now pump it up and ship it back?
Okay, I read his statement again. He seems to be trying to over simplify the science and create the impression that oil and gas deposits formed in Alaska because it was warmer there at one time. However, the science says that this is not the case.
He was trying to argue the old “natural cycles” saw against anthropogenic climate change, on the basis that the reason why there’s oil in Alaska today (a very cold place today with little life and therefore little potential to lay down future fossil fuel reserves), is that back in the Cretaceous, it was a heck of a lot warmer there, with no permanent polar ice caps and dinosaurs roaming the land, precisely because of the *natural* greenhouse effect, with atmospheric CO2 at four times the current concentrations.
There’s no argument there. Sure, natural global warming comes and goes, glaciers come and go. That doesn’t disprove anthropogenic global warming. And that doesn’t mean we humans can tolerate glaciers on top of our cities or oceans moving inland to flood our cities or deserts expanding to destroy our croplands or rivers drying up with no glacial sources.
Barton was snidely saying, “look, the oil and gas got there because the climate and CO2 undergoes natural cycles — we humans have nothing to do with it.”
No, the oil and gas got there primarily because of plate tectonics, and we humans had nothing to do with it. Climate change cycles are not the primary cause.
(Embarrassingly, Chu actually got it wrong here, apparently attributing the temperature change to plate tectonics and the ensuing movement of the continents, rather than climate change).
No, Steven Chu did not get it wrong. Temperature/climate change has very little to do with creation of oil and gas. Secretary Chu was not attributing temperature change to tectonics, although if you review the science you will find that tectonics does affect global temperatures because of its affect on ocean circulation and land surface distribution.
I am unimpressed by the post, and embarrassed by some of the unproductive comments in reply — it’s like Limbaugh in organic hemp dungarees.
I am unimpressed by your comment to the blog post. You say that you’re no fan of Barton and the denier caucus, but your arguments are right along the lines of what they claim. You don’t give credit to Steven Chu, and you don’t seem to appreciate and quote the real science in your arguments.
We need to fight these dinosaurs, but we don’t get anywhere if we just don’t listen to them: we need to keep advancing the scientific consensus, refuting sloppy science, and making productive policy proposals; we don’t get anything but smugness by muddying the debate, misrepresenting their views, and engaging in crude, tribalistic invective.
Now here I find much to agree with, yet you don’t seem to be practicing what you preach. If Barton won’t acknowledge the science of plate tectonics, how can Steven Chu educate him with a six-second answer to a clearly prejudiced question? I agree we need to refute people like Barton clearly and civilly. It’s difficult to convey a four-year degree in geology in a short answer to a poorly phrased question. Steven Chu’s answer was as good as any:
That is certainly what happened. The oil and gas deposits just drifted up there with the drifting plates. Only if one is a science denier, like Barton seems to be, is that answer not enough. Then the answer becomes about as long as a textbook on geology. But the science deniers won’t read that and won’t understand it and won’t believe it.
April 28th, 2009 at 12:45 pm