Well isn't that a theory too?
So this debate is about the formation of oil? Well we can't really disprove each other's theories, as both could have easily happened. The question still remains, how much of the stuff in the mantle to make oil still remains. I know that eventually you will run out. This is due the law of conservation of matter. It states that in all chemical reactions (If this is nuclear or quantum, I'm the wrong guy), no matter can be created or destroyed.
What you are describing is the creation of matter. Now unless you have a whole lot of energy under the surface, I doubt that you will see fundamental particles forming together to make oil. (I remain open minded, there are actually space clouds of drinkable alcohol!)
Now I think I see what you are trying to say:
1. Continue burning oil for fuel
2. It will do absolutely nothing to the climate
For some reason, I find that pumping billions of tons of gas into the atmosphere and expecting nothing to happen seems very hard to believe. Now along with the CO2, you're getting CFC's which break apart ozone particles. You can't deny that a huge hole opens over the south pole every once in a while (annually).
(Hope this isn't a strawman 
)
That is what really worries me.
-Penguin
the theory that the earth is producing oil is provable(is that really a word?) simply by the fact that there is "new" oil in wells that were sucked dry.
co2 is not a pollutant. you exhale co2 with every breath you take. plants, trees, plankton, and i'm sure more that i don't know about exhale o2 with each breath.(i know they don't actually "breathe" as we do, but you get the point, yes?)
co2 is an integral part of the atmosphere.
i know what you thought as soon as you read those last statements......you thought "but the EPA says it is a pollutant.", and "that's what Copenhagen was all about."
copenhagen first. they were not even remotely attempting to lower pollution. they were talking about trading carbon credits. about the "rich" countries paying into a pool to help the "poor" countries develop. for the most part nothing more than a worldwide redistribution of wealth.
in the process of that summit, there were dozens of people flew in on private jets. there were over a hundred limos. for the most part they more than likely created more pollution of every type in that place, in one single week, than there has been there in the last full year.
now the EPA. i can only speak of them concerning automotive, as i've never really studied their powers/rules/restrictions outside of automotive.
they were kind of a good idea. cars were horribly inefficient. one could pass out standing behind the tailpipe of a big block in the 50's or 60's.
the problem was/is that they were given too much power. their governing body is not voted on. they're appointed. they generally seem to be engineers, that live in the world of theory.
they implement rules, and regulations on us for our cars. the good thing, is that is why our cars now make 3x the power on 1/2 of the engine.
the bad thing about that, is that in reality(with a few exceptions) our engines are still horribly inefficient. this is bandaged with emissions control devices, and computer control systems.
some have finally started working on the engine itself, with things such as variable valve timing. ford pioneered an ignition system years ago that could control the complete ignition timing of each cylinder individually. it could control the spark voltage, timing, and duration. \
the catalytic converter was one of the epa's babys. it uses chemical reactions, and temp. to convert hc(hydrocarbons) co(carbon monoxide) and nox(oxides of nitrogen) into.......you guessed it......co2(carbon dioxide)
now, of those listed above.....hc....well....they're oil(or in this case, unburned fuel) which insinuates incomplete combustion.
co......insinuates that too much fuel is in the process, and it cannot all be burned. co is at least 10 times more deadly than co2.
nox.......these form when the combustion temp raises above 2500f. these are also about 10 times more deadly than co, making them at least 20 times more deadly than co2.
co2...inert. harmless, unless there's no o2.
as per the epa's standards, a well functioning catalytic converter puts out anywhere from 13% to 15% co2. this is a sign that it is heated up properly, and that the o2 sensors are working properly.
now, suddenly, 30 years later, that same agency, comes out and says co2 is a pollutant? it is not.
we can effect our local environments...i fully believe in that, and i do recycle, etc. but for anyone to think that mankind, as insignificant as we are can effect the climate.....that is a very dangerous, and pompous attitude.
one final thought........has anyone ever done a study on the outer atmosphere? i would think/imagine, that some "leaks" out. some temp....like a glass full of ice sweating.....it leaks it's temp into the surrounding area. i would imagine part of our atmosphere must do the same.
merry christmas.
