Certain subjects are immune to logic?

[tim3058]

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

Not saying it solves anything. But its a lot of oil to rule out as insignificant.

[thatguitarguy]

Originally Posted by tim3058

Not knowing much about ANWR I searched it on Ixquick. Just to educate myself about the facts. The Dept. of Energy has a report out on ANWR, it was the first link on ixquick http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicer...af(2008)03.pdf

Page #9 has a graph worth looking at...

There is something else worth looking at if you want to educate yourself about the facts. You ought to look at the preface and see that this document was initiated and requested by Ted Stevens who was convicted of 7 felonies concerning accepting bribes from oil companies.

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by thatguitarguy

There is something else worth looking at if you want to educate yourself about the facts. You ought to look at the preface and see that this document was initiated and requested by Ted Stevens who was convicted of 7 felonies concerning accepting bribes from oil companies.

I suppose none of those convictions were overturned or that they weren't politically motivated and the trials timed to change the makeup of the senate?

Yep he was convicted, but yet he is not now a convict. Two facts that can be used to color how one looks at any data from that report. Regardless of who initiated the report Stevens did not create the data in it.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by tim3058

Not saying it solves anything. But its a lot of oil to rule out as insignificant.

Many people do behave as if it solves something. Like, if it's drilled, we can then take a victory lap around the U.S.A. in our SUVs and forget about conservation in our lifetimes. I think not.

The significance of it is for the players who stand to make money from it. As far as I can tell, besides some new jobs, that's about it.

[jamesqf]

I think you all are missing a major point here. The arguments aren't about logic at all, they're about values. If you happen to put a higher value on having cheap gas so you can drive your SUV around an urban landscape than on Arctic landscapes, you probably favor drilling in ANWR. Once that value judgement is made, you might apply logic to figure out how to do the drilling, what the costs will be, and whether the result is cost-effective, but that logic doesn't affect the initial value judgement.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by tim3058

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.

I'd say most, if not all of those things, are suppositions, and not predictions. There is a difference.

I'm not ready or willing to get involved in an ANWAR (sic) discussion. Probably never will be. I always suggest that by the time anything is done about ANWR's oil supply, it won't matter anyway. Fuel consumption will have increased to the point that by the time ANWR becomes feasible to extract, the oil/energy consumed during the extraction will outweigh the amount of usable oil/energy that can be extracted.

There are supposedly over 800 billion barrels of shale oil in the US, though. Mostly in the mid-west. Currently, a large portion of the NE is suffering drilling operations right in their back yards, and falling into the "spend it now" way of life.

Marcellus Shale can be naturally found in the NE portion of the US in large quantities. An additional byproduct of Natural Gas welling is the upheaval of shale oil from Marcellus Shale, which gives an even greater ROI for the initial energy expenditure.

From something I've read, the best proved stores in Saudi Arabia are just over 300 Billion barrels. While consumption in the world has gone up, so has US importation of foreign oil.

With all the oil we "have" in our own back yards, and the dwindling supply of other oils, maybe we're suffering through this "recession" of ours (which I still don't personally see at all...) just to come out on top of yet another market?

When we can provide oil to the world cheaper than OPEC can, who will be the rich ones? (Obviously, someone other than the "people" of this country, since the Status Quo will never actually change, mostly due to the lack of economic and fiscal sense trained into and passed on in our culture.)

Of course, that's all based on a few things I've read, which I can't prove one way or the other, and have only feigned interest in.

[99LeCouch]

It seems most folks think with their emotions or preconceived notions first. Then, after much pain caused by emotion or stereotype, do they think about the topic at hand. ANWR, tire pressure, oil change interval, all are governed by emotion and habit despite logical folks bringing reams of evidence and experience to the discussion. Unfortunately all the logic and evidence is buried under the effluent of emotion and habit.

Some people do dig up those nuggets of evidence and put them to good use, marvel at how much better/easier/nicer something is that way, and wonder why nobody else on whatever board they're on does it that way. Then the cycle begins again...

[Bicycle Bob]

Originally Posted by thatguitarguy

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

The arctic was not littered with floating seals when the water was saltier. The eskimo hunters are loosing their game if they can't get to it quickly.

[cfg83]

99LeCouch -

Originally Posted by 99LeCouch

It seems most folks think with their emotions or preconceived notions first. Then, after much pain caused by emotion or stereotype, do they think about the topic at hand. ANWR, tire pressure, oil change interval, all are governed by emotion and habit despite logical folks bringing reams of evidence and experience to the discussion. Unfortunately all the logic and evidence is buried under the effluent of emotion and habit.

Some people do dig up those nuggets of evidence and put them to good use, marvel at how much better/easier/nicer something is that way, and wonder why nobody else on whatever board they're on does it that way. Then the cycle begins again...

Oh, without a doubt. We spend all our lives filtering out information that doesn't agree with our world view. We get pretty good at it, too!

CarloSW2

[bgd73]

frank lee ..I like to approach things rationally more than emotionally. Evidently that's unusual.

you are not alone. forums like this help that along..

adding education and life long mission is alot more stress than say someone in my poor hillbilly stereotyped locale.

I won't say anymore, but primitive and reaction action is extreme sometimes...with no rationale to back it up all the way to court rooms.

staying alert and immune at the same time is a powerful thing.