Certain subjects are immune to logic?

[tim3058]

Originally Posted by thatguitarguy

For starters, it should be obvious that these "conclusions" are predictions of the future, and any predictions of the future are not factual.

I'd say many predictions of the future are factual:

-You pull over for flashing lights predicting he/she wants to get by you, or give you a ticket. Either way, based on past events (and general consensus, which is correct in this case), you predict you are supposed to pull over.
-You take off when the light turns green predicting that conflicting traffic has yielded for a red light on their side. You can't see their red, but from past events you predict your green light means its safe.
-I can predict a tank mpg of 42.7 mpg +/- in the Civic for next week based on past tanks trending towards that range. Its a prediction of the future, based on observations of the past.

As far as tradeoffs (ie ANWR drilling), there are many, most of which I am not aware of. The DOE report simply details the economic/transportation benefits, it does not (nor does it claim to) be all-encompassing. It simply presents a fact-based analysis that differed from an argument above.
The goal of a trial is not to convict the accused, but for both sides to compare facts and try to discern who has a greater body of facts to tip the scales their way (of course each side would only produce facts that support their point, if both parties do that then each acts as a "check" of the other parties' argument anyways).

As tasdrouille said

Remember folks, you can always find a source out there that will prove any point. What really matters is the general concensus amongst studies.

Agreed. If something is true, which source it came from shouldn't really matter, the consensus from multiple (honest) studies would have to converge anyways. If it doesn't someone's conclusions may be subject to emotional bias.

Great talking to you all, I'm reading some logical arguments here. I just like being a pain

[Old Tele man]

....mmmm-m-m-m-m sounds suspiciously like "...rule by majority ignorance/consensus..." and nothing else?

[tim3058]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

When even the HIGHEST estimate is compared to U.S. usage, if the oil were to be accessable at the rate we use it (I know, it ain't gonna happen, but this is just for illustrative purposes OK?) it would be gone in about 2 1/2 years. Yes. 2.5 years. MAX. All other values were lower. The obvious conclusion is that this whole ANWR thing being any sort of energy supply solution is a joke. I'm pretty sure I didn't inject anything predetermined into that.

Sorry, wrote my post while you were writing yours..

As a single source, nope, there probably isn't any one source that could deliver that kind of consumption. As an addition to current sources it does contribute some additional production. Whether thats valuable versus opposing facts, tradeoffs, financing foreign enemies, etc, I'm not arguing either way here. Just that the DOE study reported additional supply (some 700,000 barrels/day). Based on the situation you just described above (single source) it wouldn't last long. But would any supply (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, Texas, etc) last long as the sole source? I like the context of your calcs (what if it was the only source?) but not knowing the basis for (

By Frank Lee: Compared to U.S. consumption, all the oil in ANWR is a mere pittance that doesn't amount to squat

which contradicts the DOE report led me to post. A 2.5 year supply as the single-source is still a 2.5 year supply as the single-source of billions of barrels of oil to the majority of a continent. I politely disagree with "mere pittance" . Thanks for the clarification on the single-source context though.

[Frank Lee]

That quantity of oil doesn't meet criteria as being any sort of solution, does it?

[Bicycle Bob]

The best reason to stay out of the ANWR is for the caribou breeding grounds. However, if we burn all the other available oil, we may destroy their habitat anyway. A friend of mine has been watching temperatures on Baffin Is, and they are about the same as here, where it has barely felt like winter. The eskimos say that there is so much meltwater around that dead seals sink instead of floating.

There is a very interesting book about resistance to reason, etc, at Index of /jeanaltemeyer/drbob You can hack the URL down a bit to select shorter download sections.

[tasdrouille]

Originally Posted by NachtRitter

Not sure if you're intentionally trying to push emotional buttons here

No, I was just setting the preamble for my main idea, which simply is that predictions produced by theories today, might be proven incorrect, or untrue, tomorrow.

[SentraSE-R]

When the "Drill, baby, drill" chant was echoing in the Republican convention, the facts were that by the time offshore drilling production actually produced any usable product, it wouldn't amount to 1% of our consumption. That's an amount we could save today, simply by inflating the tires of our nation's car fleet to their door jamb values.

[Old Tele man]

...how does that old saying go? "...You can lead idiots to intellegence, but you can't make them accept or use it..." or something like that?

[thatguitarguy]

Originally Posted by Bicycle Bob

The eskimos say that there is so much meltwater around that dead seals sink instead of floating.

I haven't been looking for a reason to like climate change, but that can't be all bad...

[bestclimb]

Hmmm I see appeals to emotion on both side of the ANWR issue. It is I think nearly impossible to remain impartial and unjadded by preconceived notions. Best thing you can do is evaluate yourself and see what propaganda is coloring your judgment of an issue try to learn the facts and make your own choices based on what you value, and what the perceived risks are and how likely they are.

The other issue I see with emotional issues is that it is very easy to dismiss as evil, misled or stupid anyone who does not happen to hold your same ideological view. That may even be potently embarrassing when it may be that they may actually be the one holding the high ground of reality.

As far as if we should be drilling in ANWR a good starting point may be to look at similar environments where development has taken place, see what the direct and indirect results of that development and take what we learned from that and make a value judgment of the effects of that action and build from that.