I don't disagree with your point. However, i disagree with your tone, particularly using "fringe crackpot theory".
He's not advocating that green men put oil underground. He's promoting a theory that most (majority? some?) of oil has non biotic origins.
Wikipedia itself says there are deposits worldwide that are abiotic, and also refers to this abiotic origin thesis as unlikely. He isn't arguing "wet streets cause rain". We are far from "fringe crackpot theory".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
When the dispute is around the question of quantity "how much" vs whether it is physically possible at all, and the question currently is settled in terms of probability (95%~) vs replicable experiment proof (99.99% reliable), we should refrain from using wording that ridicules the other side.
He's not advocating that green men put oil underground. He's promoting a theory that most (majority? some?) of oil has non biotic origins.
Wikipedia itself says there are deposits worldwide that are abiotic, and also refers to this abiotic origin thesis as unlikely. He isn't arguing "wet streets cause rain". We are far from "fringe crackpot theory". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
When the dispute is around the question of quantity "how much" vs whether it is physically possible at all, and the question currently is settled in terms of probability (95%~) vs replicable experiment proof (99.99% reliable), we should refrain from using wording that ridicules the other side.