|
 Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 10,621
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 hours, 14 minutes
|
 Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: afoaf]
#8402943 - 05/14/08 10:10 PM (4 months, 22 days ago) |
|
|
What part of it did you find objectionable?
The reality is that drilling in ANWR won't be some huge freaking ecological "decimation" of some idyllic "pristine wilderness" -- it'll be an extremely tightly-monitored operation confined to an area about as large as the municipal airport of an average Midwestern city, that will have a negligible impact on an area of the Earth that's basically a wasteland fit for neither man nor beast.
Those are the facts, Jack. I understand most ecowarriors prefer to lead a fact free existence, but based on your past post history, I have to admit I was surprised to see you side with those twits.
What's with the reference to Ted Turner, by the way?
Phred
--------------------
|
 afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 31,945
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: Phred]
#8403139 - 05/14/08 10:41 PM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
I saw that digression as equally off-putting as the wrote environmentalist
rally cry that you are so quick to disqualify.
I don't care how relatively minuscule the operating area is or how "tightly
monitored" it would all be or what liberal punching bag is bankrolling the
vast leftist conspiracy against free reign for mining and extraction in our
national parks and reserves.
Chasing down the petroleum pipe dream in the remaining corners of our
territories are not a movement I'm interested in getting behind, quite
the contrary actually; Closing this door may open other windows.
Also, slippery slopes.
--------------------
I eat steak medium at most, I use bare hands to eat it and its usually after an hour long fuck fest with several women, and with a full keg of the coldest beer.
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 6,361
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: Phred]
#8403355 - 05/14/08 11:22 PM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
What part of it did you find objectionable?
The reality is that drilling in ANWR won't be some huge freaking ecological "decimation" of some idyllic "pristine wilderness" -- it'll be an extremely tightly-monitored operation confined to an area about as large as the municipal airport of an average Midwestern city, that will have a negligible impact on an area of the Earth that's basically a wasteland fit for neither man nor beast.
Those are the facts, Jack. I understand most ecowarriors prefer to lead a fact free existence, but based on your past post history, I have to admit I was surprised to see you side with those twits.
What's with the reference to Ted Turner, by the way?
Phred
If the facts are such, would you then concede it would be proper for a law to issue which allowed drilling in such an area of such a size?
Like I said above re: "oil drilling will destroy everything" then make destruction illegal, not drilling.
If there is a way to meet the major demands of both sides, why not reach it?
Unless of course some contentions are false, and simply used to open the door, a'la "The patriot act is needed for terror" If a law is needed for something, why not limit it that?
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 10,621
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 hours, 14 minutes
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: afoaf]
#8403450 - 05/14/08 11:48 PM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I saw that digression as equally off-putting as the wrote environmentalist
rally cry that you are so quick to disqualify.
"Digression"? It's a factual examination of the reality of the situation. Hardly a digression.
Quote:
I don't care how relatively minuscule the operating area is or how "tightly
monitored" it would all be or what liberal punching bag is bankrolling the
vast leftist conspiracy against free reign for mining and extraction in our
national parks and reserves.
Translation -- "Don't bother me with facts. The way I feel about it is what matters."
Phred
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 40,057
Loc: [life]now[/life]
Last seen: 27 minutes, 3 seconds
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: Phred]
#8404106 - 05/15/08 05:04 AM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
My questions are:
What are the costs of drilling there? Are they justifiable?
Where is this oil going to go once it is taken out of the ground? Will it be government owned or will it go to the private oil companies so they can rake us over the coals even more?
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 31,945
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: Phred]
#8404579 - 05/15/08 09:24 AM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
the facts are drilling is pollutive.
the infrastructure necessary to drill is pollutive and disruptive.
you aren't american, don't live in america and from what I can tell probably
don't live a life that is highly dependent on oil except that which flies
tourists in to your town so I really have to wonder do you care about the
oil or are you just looking for another reason to go on a tirade?
--------------------
I eat steak medium at most, I use bare hands to eat it and its usually after an hour long fuck fest with several women, and with a full keg of the coldest beer.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 10,621
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 hours, 14 minutes
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: afoaf]
#8404701 - 05/15/08 10:03 AM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
the facts are drilling is pollutive.
Barely.
Quote:
the infrastructure necessary to drill is pollutive and disruptive.
Barely.
Quote:
you aren't american, don't live in america and from what I can tell probably
don't live a life that is highly dependent on oil except that which flies
tourists in to your town so I really have to wonder do you care about the
oil or are you just looking for another reason to go on a tirade?
A lot of my posts on this forum do nothing more than point out folly of one kind or another. The energy policy of McCain and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) is folly of the most egregious kind --"We can increase energy production by outlawing new energy production and taxing the hell out of what little energy we're currently producing."
There is no rational reason to leave that crude sitting under the ground in the ANWR, and at least a dozen excellent rational reasons for extracting it. The arguments against extracting that oil are not based on logic or reason, and blithely ignore reality. They are rather irrational, emotion-based proclamations.
Phred
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 10,621
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 hours, 14 minutes
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: Redstorm]
#8404717 - 05/15/08 10:07 AM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What are the costs of drilling there? Are they justifiable?
Higher than they are for drilling in Oklahoma, but entirely justifiable as long as oil doesn't start selling again at twenty bucks a barrel.
Quote:
Where is this oil going to go once it is taken out of the ground?
The same place all oil goes once it's taken out of the ground.
Quote:
Will it be government owned or will it go to the private oil companies so they can rake us over the coals even more?
Why should it be treated any differently from oil drilled at Prudhoe Bay or the Gulf Coast?
Phred
--------------------
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 2,128
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 4 days, 9 hours
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: Phred]
#8404902 - 05/15/08 11:09 AM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
There is no rational reason to leave that crude sitting under the ground in the ANWR,
Sure there is. It's straight cost benefit analysis, as in, the cost of drilling for oil is not worth the benefit reaped. The rationale is that there isn't that much oil, it won't last a long time and will barely delay the inevitable running out of oil. The cost is that it will pollute significantly (which will cost us in the long run) and will permanently damage a wilderness that was set aside for protection, which could be considered a resource from several different angles. It's a totally rational argument. If the facts behind the argument are innacurate, then debate the facts. But you are off the mark when you say "I argue from reason and you argue from emotion." It's just not true, and its pompus.
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
- Thomas Paine
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 10,621
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 hours, 14 minutes
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: gluke bastid]
#8405097 - 05/15/08 12:13 PM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It's straight cost benefit analysis, as in, the cost of drilling for oil is not worth the benefit reaped.
The thing is, even a casual investigation into the actual facts reveal it's a complete no-brainer: there is almost zero downside and significant benefit.
Quote:
The rationale is that there isn't that much oil, it won't last a long time and will barely delay the inevitable running out of oil.
But these aren't rational assertions, because they contradict reality. It takes very little effort at all to ascertain that the amount contained in the area is equal to two decades' worth of Saudi oil imports.
Quote:
The cost is that it will pollute significantly (which will cost us in the long run) and will permanently damage a wilderness that was set aside for protection, which could be considered a resource from several different angles.
Again, this is an irrational assertion. All available evidence shows the pollution will be insignificant, and that any pollution which may escape the confines of the area won't damage any "resource", unless you consider a mosquito breeding ground a "resource". I don't think any of you have any conception of just how bleak and forbidding and downright nasty this kind of "wilderness" really is. I've lived in places pretty much like this area, and I assure you it ain't fun. No trees, not even any bushes. Moss, lichen, some teeny tiny wildflowers, more biting insects than you could ever dream existed, nematodes and paramecia and not much more.
Quote:
It's a totally rational argument.
It is a totally irrational argument, because it relies on assertions that not only are nowhere close to factual, but are easily shown to be nowhere close to factual with even just a tiny bit of effort. If you were making this argument fifty years ago, it might have some legs. But today we have the internet.
Quote:
If the facts behind the argument are innacurate, then debate the facts.
Sophistry.
Quote:
But you are off the mark when you say "I argue from reason and you argue from emotion." It's just not true, and its pompus.
Look, if it were difficult to research this stuff (as in fifty years ago), I'd give you guys a break. But the reality is that it isn't hard to establish the facts. It's just that the enviro-whackos don't care about facts.
Phred
--------------------
|
gluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 2,128
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 4 days, 9 hours
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: Phred]
#8405334 - 05/15/08 01:21 PM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said:
Quote:
It's straight cost benefit analysis, as in, the cost of drilling for oil is not worth the benefit reaped.
The thing is, even a casual investigation into the actual facts reveal it's a complete no-brainer: there is almost zero downside and significant benefit.
Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to come up with some sources to back your assertion that ANWR is completely useless as a resource (besides your oh-so rational argument that it is ugly and full of bugs), that drilling won't at all upset the ecosystem in any way at all, and that there will be no pollution and negative impact created by drilling. You would then have to go on further to prove that burning oil has no negative impact whatsoever on humanity or the enivornment, and that preventing the the depletion of all the worlds oil for however much amount of time would have no impact on the world. Then, and only then, would you have proved that the all of the arguments against ANWR drilling are irrational.
Sound ridiculous? It is. That's what happens when you make ridiculous assertions. Remember Phred, I am not arguing that we shouldn't drill in Alaska. I am arguing with your idea that there is no rational or factual argument against drilling in ANWR.
Quote:
But these aren't rational assertions, because they contradict reality. It takes very little effort at all to ascertain that the amount contained in the area is equal to two decades' worth of Saudi oil imports.
But even here you are embracing my model of cost benefit analysis. You're simply saying "it's worth it because there is so much." That doesn't render the counter-argument irrational.
I said:Quote:
If the facts behind the argument are innacurate, then debate the facts.
You Said:
Quote:
Sophistry.
This baffles me. I don't even know how to respond. You keep talking about the facts and when I ask you to provide them, in the simplest possible terms, you label it sophistry?
Quote:
Look, if it were difficult to research this stuff (as in fifty years ago), I'd give you guys a break.
You guys? I'm neutral on this issue. I just thought I would let you know that while i read this thread and consider the arguments there is a big fat innacuracy stinking up the room and that is that you think your conclusions aren't based on emotion and the other side's
aren't based on rational considerations of resource management. But I guess there is no convincing you.
Quote:
But the reality is that it isn't hard to establish the facts. It's just that the enviro-whackos don't care about facts.
Maybe they are afraid they will be accussed of sophistry if they try and talk about facts instead of debating which side is more "whacko" 
--------------------
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
- Thomas Paine
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 10,621
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 5 hours, 14 minutes
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: gluke bastid]
#8405557 - 05/15/08 02:31 PM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Then it shouldn't be difficult for you to come up with some sources to back your assertion that ANWR is completely useless as a resource (besides your oh-so rational argument that it is ugly and full of bugs), that drilling won't at all upset the ecosystem in any way at all, and that there will be no pollution and negative impact created by drilling.
Already done. Have you not been reading this thread?
Quote:
You would then have to go on further to prove that burning oil has no negative impact whatsoever on humanity or the enivornment, and that preventing the the depletion of all the worlds oil for however much amount of time would have no impact on the world.
Stop making stupid assertions, please.
Oil is going to be used by humans for the foreseeable future. The issue under discussion is the wisdom of obtaining that oil from domestic sources versus foreign sources. If your contention is that the US can any time soon reduce its oil consumption to that produced solely by existing domestic wells, then I must point out your tenuous grasp on reality.
This isn't some high school debate resolved by who whips out the most clever rhetorical tricks and esthetically pleasing linguistic legerdemain, this is serious discussion of real life issues.
Quote:
I am arguing with your idea that there is no rational or factual argument against drilling in ANWR.
It's not just my idea, it's reality.
Quote:
You keep talking about the facts and when I ask you to provide them, in the simplest possible terms, you label it sophistry?
I presumed you were taking the discussion seriously, and had actually read the thread, including links. I have provided the facts.
Quote:
I just thought I would let you know that while i read this thread and consider the arguments there is a big fat innacuracy stinking up the room and that is that you think your conclusions aren't based on emotion ...
That's because they aren't based on emotion.
Quote:
...and the other side's aren't based on rational considerations of resource management.
That's because they aren't based on rational consideration of resource management.
Phred
--------------------
|
johnm214
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 6,361
Loc: Americas
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: johnm214]
#8405745 - 05/15/08 03:23 PM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
johnm214 said:
Quote:
Phred said:
What part of it did you find objectionable?
The reality is that drilling in ANWR won't be some huge freaking ecological "decimation" of some idyllic "pristine wilderness" -- it'll be an extremely tightly-monitored operation confined to an area about as large as the municipal airport of an average Midwestern city, that will have a negligible impact on an area of the Earth that's basically a wasteland fit for neither man nor beast.
Those are the facts, Jack. I understand most ecowarriors prefer to lead a fact free existence, but based on your past post history, I have to admit I was surprised to see you side with those twits.
What's with the reference to Ted Turner, by the way?
Phred
If the facts are such, would you then concede it would be proper for a law to issue which allowed drilling in such an area of such a size?
Like I said above re: "oil drilling will destroy everything" then make destruction illegal, not drilling.
If there is a way to meet the major demands of both sides, why not reach it?
Unless of course some contentions are false, and simply used to open the door, a'la "The patriot act is needed for terror" If a law is needed for something, why not limit it that?
What say you phred, and others for oil drilling in anwr?
|
Visionary Tools
Kiffah
Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 2,933
Last seen: 1 month, 25 days
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: Yossarian22]
#8405822 - 05/15/08 03:45 PM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yossarian22 said:
I'm not an expert on nuclear power, but as far as I understand it, nuclear power doesn't produce anywhere near the amount of exhaust as carbon-based methods like coal or methane do, and the refuse that is produced is easily contained.
You don't need to be. In order to get the uranium out of the ore, it's washed in acid and then smelted into rods. This contaminates everything it touches. The toxic waste has to be put into barrells and without some technological advance, will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Oil's not perfect, oil releases suphur dioxide as well as other impurities, but there's filters for that, and those pollutants are less dangerous than radioactive waste.
Fusion is fine, Fusion reactors will and are safer than coal (if there's an error with the magnetic containment, the plasma is not energetic enough to break out of the massive magnetic ring, triterium is radioactive, but it's half life is rapid in comparison to uranium or plutonium. But we'll see fission reactors for many years to come, because countries love their nuclear arms industry.
--------------------
In times of universal deceit, the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
|
Visionary Tools
Kiffah
Registered: 06/23/07
Posts: 2,933
Last seen: 1 month, 25 days
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: Visionary Tools]
#8405826 - 05/15/08 03:46 PM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
What say you phred, and others for oil drilling in anwr?
Not worth it when there's loads more oil in North Dakota.
--------------------
In times of universal deceit, the truth becomes a revolutionary act.
Edited by Visionary Tools (05/15/08 03:47 PM)
|
cleverwise
Ðèmº®ålî§è®
Registered: 05/14/08
Posts: 62
Loc: NC STATE
Last seen: 4 months, 12 days
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: Visionary Tools]
#8405890 - 05/15/08 04:06 PM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
--------------------
i know my limitations and you should know yours .!
|
zorbman
Bush Recession2008
Registered: 06/04/04
Posts: 3,345
|
Re: Senate rejects GOP oil drilling plan [Re: cleverwise]
#8407362 - 05/15/08 10:05 PM (4 months, 21 days ago) |
|
|
Drilling for oil in Anwar won't put a dent in the supply problem.
Yet more delusional thinking from the crowd that brought us the ill-fated Iraq war.
We are NOT going to drill our way out of this particular problem, folks.
--------------------
"You come to a point in your life when you really don't care what people think about you, you just care what you think about yourself". -Evel Knievel
|
|
login or 
register to post messages and view our members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, encrypted messages, file attachments, board customizations, and much more!
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit 
Reply 
Quote 
