[Straight Vermonter]

Here is a relevant article on the subject for those (like me) who had no clue what you are bickering over.

[tpaine]

Thanks. That interview pretty well settles the 'crank' issue. Wired Mag asked the tough questions, and Gold handled himself well.
His remarks about the politics of oil & its production were spot on as to why some people have such a vested interest in denigrating his position.

[Cincinatus]

Thanks for the link. You might want to temper this rather credulous piece with another by Martin Gardner in an article in his book The New Age: Notes of a Fringe-Watcher called "The Unorthodox Conjectures of Tommy Gold", which is a reprint of a piece orginally in the Skeptical Inquirer. Gold relishes his reputation as a scientifc "maverick" but is less than honest in dealing with his previous mis-calls.

I note in particular this passage from the piece you linked:

Since the oil crisis of the 1970s, Gold has been saying that the Earth is hugely well endowed with these hydrocarbons - hundreds of times more so than most geologists, or oil companies, or OPEC leaders believe. The general belief in scarcity that drives up gas prices and causes fears of inflation, Gold argues, is a mirage that has served vested interests among oil producers for decades.

This passage explains the attraction Gold holds for many of the paranoid-conspiracy mongering types (that frequent this web site, as you may have noted) -- it's all a sinister plot of Big Business and he's being persecuted for speaking the truth by the scientific "establishment."

Riddle me this: If Gold is correct about abiotic petroleum, there's clearly a fortune to be made exploiting his ideas. Who's doing it? Who's investing huge amounts of capital into Gold's ideas and models? This is the perfect chance to break "Big Oil" and establish a new financial dynasty for some risk-takers -- where are they?