the majority of people don't know what hydrocarbon means. fossil fuel makes sense to show that they're fuel and they come from ancient material.

How plentiful are they is the question. Would be nice to have as a point for debate vs the Greenpeacers

The whole scarcity mindset comes from fiat inflation. Prices getting higher sell you the idea, that they become more scarce while the availlability has actually increased over time.

These materials and fuels are abundant.

#FossilFuture

We drill new oil wells in the north sea literally all the time. I tell people this and the say some shit like well that means we'll run out even faster than.. As enjoying stupidity is it's also a source of entertainment 🤣

they are not unlimited though

and they indeed cause pollution. but the way they push to make the transition to renewables is wrong. as for nuclear power it is indeed better and the fact that in the EU they decided to stop using it and close many nuclear power plants, was not the best to do

The phrase "fossil fuels" predates modern political sensibilities by centuries:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel#Origin

For decades their have been proposals for so-called "abiogenic" production of petroleum (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin) which, confusingly enough are entwined with theories that archaea (primitive prokaryotic microbes — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea) are key in either formation of petroleum or it's migration upwards from mantle to crust.

It's a huge can of worms.

Calling it a psyop is a provocative political framing and unlikely to be conducive to productive discourse. You'll get a bunch id malcontents and political agitators cheering you on, and mostly be dismissed by those with more academic inclinations and expertise.

What's your agenda? Rail against all attempts to shift from petrol/coal towards solar/wind/(tidal/wave)/geothermal and even biofuel power sources? Why?

Even if there's a practically unlimited supply of petroleum and coal accessible in the Earth's crust, there are also practical limits to how much CO2 we can burn into the atmosphere and to the rates at which we can sequester it back out.

There are limits to our biosphere's capacity to sustain human population growth with what we consider to be humane, decent, levels of civilization.

Any blanket dismissal of such concerns is untenable — or will become so within less than the next century.

Incidentally, here's an interesting article on submarine microbial petroleum production: https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/bacteria-in-the-worlds-oceans-produce-millions-of-tonnes-of-hydrocarbons-each-year

Millions of tonnes per annum. We're burning about 35 billion tons per annum in traditional hydrocarbon fuels. I couldn't find any estimates on the estimated rate of subterranean (possibly abiogenic or achaeal) production and/or migration of petroleum up into accessible regions of the crust. Also most of that submarine production is probably consumed by other microbes or natural processes — it certainly isn't accumulating in any human accessible way).

Those are just some nearly random addenda to give some idea of global production/consumption.