oh the wonderous warming web wiki weaves

The short version: wiki's spin on global warming is basically an extension of Darwin's theory on evolution, an extension that transcends many interests to include, in part, the intention to help prop up that mother of theories with....you got it; more theories.

The long version follows.

First, a series of wiki links found from the one to the next:

1 - Fossil Fuel

2 - Fossils

3 - geologic time scale

4 - the history of earth

5 - the evolving solar system

The entry into this series came from a simple web search "fossil fuel". Wiki showed up first on the list of suspects sponsoring a view on the subject at hand. Question: does Wiki qualifiy as a specimen something found on the Internet?

Clues that the mainstream stance on global warming is an extension of Darwin's theory of creation / evolution, are found within the intro couple of paragraphs at link one on fossil fuel. In the familiar wiki style, these few paragraphs contain numerous embedded links that revolve around key words and catch-phrases of the sort that easily leads one to suspect that wiki's view on the subject at hand came right out of a UN handbook. Some of the more choice trigger words have been duplicated in red to highlight them further. Quote:

Fossil fuels or mineral fuels are fossil source fuels, that is, hydrocarbons found within the top layer of the Earth’s crust.

They range from volatile materials with low carbon:hydrogen ratios like methane, to liquid petroleum to nonvolatile materials composed of almost pure carbon, like anthracite coal. Methane can be found in hydrocarbon fields, alone, associated with oil, or in the form of methane clathrates. It is generally accepted that they formed from the fossilized remains [fossilized remains] of dead plants and animals^[1] by exposure to heat and pressure in the Earth's crust over hundreds of millions of years.^[2] This is known as the biogenic theory and was first introduced by Georg Agricola in 1556 and later by Mikhail Lomonosov in 1757. There is an opposing more modern theory that the more volatile hydrocarbons, especially natural gas, are formed by abiogenic processes, that is no living material was involved in their formation.

It was estimated by the Energy Information Administration [energy information administration]
that in 2005, 86% of primary energy production in the world came from burning fossil fuels, with the remaining non-fossil sources being hydroelectric 6.3%, nuclear 6.0%, and other (geothermal, solar, wind, and wood and waste) 0.9 percent.^[3]

Fossil fuels are non-renewable resources [non-renewable sources] because they take millions of years to form, and reserves are being depleted much faster than new ones are being formed. Concern about fossil fuel supplies is one of the causes of regional and global conflicts. The production and use of fossil fuels raise environmental concerns. A global movement toward the generation of renewable energy is therefore under way to help meet increased energy needs.

The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tonnes (= 21.3 gigatons) of carbon dioxide per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount, so there is a net increase of 10.65 billion tonnes of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year (one tonne of atmospheric carbon is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide).^[4] Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases that enhances radiative forcing [radiative forcing] and contributes to global warming, causing the average surface temperature of the Earth to rise in response, which climate scientists agree will cause major adverse effects, including reduced biodiversity [reduced biodiversity] and, over time, cause sea level rise.

End quote.

Please take note of footnote #1 found at link #2. This footnote will be addressed shortly.

Now that everyone has been given opportunity to assume a more warmNfuzzy mood for consideration of this subject, let us begin consideration wiki's view by way of some of these key triggers they construct their content with.

fossilized remains:

The reason I was searching the web in the first place on the term "fossil fuel" was to get, in writing, a view that talks about what we recognize more routinely as "petroleum ....crude oil". Specifically I was looking for information that at least gets us in the ballpark of how old an average, appropriate fossil must be - namely plankton and algae, in order to qualify as specimen fossil fuel. Footnote #1 from link #2 gets us into this ballpark, after a fashion. Within the document at link #2, wiki asserts: Fossils are typically distinguished by minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years ago.^[1]

Okay, so, the ball park is a big one. How big? Arbitrarily speaking, 10,000 years, minimum. That seems to be a rather broad ballpark, but we are in it nonetheless. As an aside, it is interesting to me that a specimen supply of petroleum - crude oil, to be found below the earth's surface, is generally theorized by science to have been lying there under that surface for, at a minimum, approximately 2,000 to 4,000 years longer than what some versions of recorded history claim is the age of the earth itself since it was born. The only reason I visited footnote # 1 was in hopes of finding out whether or not wiki expanded / expounded upon the arbitrary period of 10,000 years. Here is what that turned up.

What is a fossil?

Fossils are the remains and/or traces of prehistoric life. The critical factor is age. Fossils have to be older than 10,000 years, the generally accepted temporal boundary marking the end of the last Pleistocene glacial event. Fossil remains include bones, teeth, shells, and wood. Fossil traces include footprints, burrows, impressions, molds, casts, and coprolites

http://www.sdnhm.org/research/paleontology/paleofaq.html

Got that? Why the arbitrary period of 10,000 years in order to qualify as a fossil fuel? Because fossils have to be older than 10,000 years. Why? Because they have to be.

energy information administration:

While technically not an overt, official implement of the UN, EIA was animated into existence during the Carter years as an outgrowth of the Department of Energy. For all intents an purposes, these are among the stepping stones leading towards regulation of things energy at the global level. Enough said.

non-renewable sources:

This is one of the more recently trendy & popularized trigger phrases. For the record, I do not disagree that it took millions of years for decaying sea life / organisms to reach the stage of Brent Crude. Neither do I agree. I don't know. This is what I look like when I don't know; in the middle, still waiting for more/better/new information to come along to help decide. I'm just not sure how sane it is to seriously consider the overall advice on this matter when it comes from somebody who's methods of analyzing and studying the age of substances allows for arbitrarily choosing 10,000 years as the minimum age required to qualify as a fossil just because fossils must be that age. To the contrary, a scientific entity that claims to have the expertise for knowing that the earth's supply of petroleum is being depleted to the extent necessary to coin the phrase "non renewable sources", should also be able to put in hard, clear numbers, practically down to the gallon, how much of this stuff is currently remaining inside the earth and when, exactly - what year, month, day and hour, is it going to run out, dry, for good, for ever? I see no such specifics from these global warming, energy / petroleum gurus. I see lots of general purpose fluff, lots of emotion-based triggers, but very little actual & genuine substance to hang their assertions on.

This evolutionary view of the world pegs the age of the world as we know it as 4.6 billion years. According to relatively recent history, man has been availing himself in earnest to the exploits of non-renewable sources of energy only since the middle of the 18th century.... or roughly for the last 250 years. If we are to take man's open source of encyclopedic information for his word on this, the earth had 4,600,000,000 years to build up it's stores of fossilized non-renewable energy, but it's only taken man 250 years - a literal blink of an eye by comparison, to deplete these stores to levels of 1) calling to attention the need for grave concern globe wide for these every dwindling supplies while 2) also giving rise to environmental concerns. The production and use of fossil fuels raise environmental concerns. My oh my, isn't that quite the convenient nonsequitur out of the once blue sky? To read the way wiki says this, it is like they suggest this rise in concern was something that just happened of it's own volition as a result fo producing and using fossil fuels. When does one suppose these concerns began to rise in ernest?; were they noticed as rising during the middle 1700s; how by the time of the late 1800s; the Nixon years?

radiative forcing:

this phrase is highlighted mainly for its novel value. I'm not aware that this is one of those triggers that is already generally out there in the public consciousness. Then again, I've been largely unplugged from the monopolized media apparatus for going on 4 years now. This phrase seems to be speaking towards reinforcing the theorized cumulative effect "greenhouse gases" that results from when large amounts of energy change form and are subsequently exhausted - released, skyward. For instance, combustion engines cause energy to change forms, namely from petroleum-based gasoline to those sort of visible, sort of invisible clouds of exhaust known collectively as CO2. This is another theory I'm still on the middle on. I'm not necessarily disagreeing that this form of combusted energy - CO2, has a cumulative, and clearly discernable detrimental effect on the globe's climate the way they say, but neither am I agreeing. Either way, they seem to be saying that it is the long term releasing of this converted energy into the sky that is contributing to the so-called problem - global warming. Meanwhile, fairly well removed from the public discussion of global climate theory, there has been an ongoing, separate phenom whereby masses amount of energy converted from one form to another is being released skyward; HAARP. Even by staying completely away from the potential to discuss HARRP from the view of conspiracy - either reality or theory, multiple departments of the collective USG are unabashedly on public record stating that, for rather ambiguous experimental purposes, HARRP is now capable of beaming over a gigawatt of energy, in the form of RF energy, skyward. At least with the conventional burning of fossil fuels by way of combustion engines, the average person has opportunity to use this energy for their own purposes and needs. By all accounts of the USG , HAARP appears to be solely intended for wasteful purposes, intended for nothing other than "research"... I guess USG was having a slow day one year and got the idea "hey, lets play around with beaming massive amounts of energy into the upper atmosphere". Government Lapdog: "why do that?". USG: "because we can, and we'll call it research". Lapdog: "sounds like a great idea!". How much practical use does the average person get out of this form of burning energy? Also consider that this form of energy - RF, must be derived from some other source, namely a power source, like conventional generators "electricity", or nukes, windmills or whatever, be they on grid or off. If the globe of humanity is truly obligated to take a serious approach considering humanity's impact upon the globe's climate cycles, should this approach not take into consideration any and all inputs to the overall theorized "climate formula" ?

reduced biodiversity:

last but certainly not least, we come to one of the more emotion-laden, recently catchy trigger phrases. We are living in times of great need to honor diversity. The globe finds itself in grave need of considering diversity this, diversity that, diversity the other. This catch phrase has come to trigger all kinds of thoughts and emotions by the inhabitants of the globe that come within earshot. Biodiversity itself purports to be speaking towards care and concern for preserving the globe's countless species of living things human, beast, sentient, non and other. Just ask Monsanto. They are so biodiversity inclined that they have voluntarily brought to the world genetically modified seed stocks that are designed to A) not produce their own seed at the end of the crop-growing cycle; B) infest, cross-bread, taint and, ultimately wipe out natural breeds of seed stocks. Is this the spitting image of biodiversity, or what? Getting back closer to the fossil fuel oil front, if it hadn't been for the discovery of crude oil, I'd wager all of my paycheck and most of yours that the controllers of this secular world would still be slaughtering whales... at least, if whales had not already become extinct from this practice, they would still, as we speak, be in the process of rendered extinct,  murdered and slaughtered with impunity, for their blubber "oil". When does one suppose the robber barons of the world really started to become so biodiversity-minded; before or after they conquered most of the world's known resources of crude oil... before or after they had pocketed trillions? Speaking more in general terms of diversity, would not a truly diverse diversity-minded energy industry be one that promoted an open and fair market for anyone so interested to compete in rather than operating a protection racket that excludes the many in favor of the few? As early as 1895, team Rockefeller had already acquired 90-plus percent controlling interest in the entire North American crude market. How much ode to genuine diversity does one think it required of them to achieve this particular hegemony? J.D. Senior himself was proudly quoted in the public as stating that competition was evil. History shows that his idea of diversity was 1) bribe competition, and if they cannot be bribed, 2) murder them. That kind of thinking is about as lamely diverse as is the old, trusted 2-party one team political system.

For somebody like myself who, on average, generally has no more than a couple $20 dollar bills in their pocket, it is not easy to fathom what and how much of what a person can buy when they control 90 percent of the North American oil industry. If so interested, they could probably buy the medical industry, or the media industry, perhaps decorate those acquisitions with a politics / government / military industry... the sky is the limit, no? Is it the limit? Why not buy the sky too, and then buy the industry required to sell the world on how badly deteriorated the sky is... .and here is how we are going to fix it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_oil