iNow

But each can be evaluated for probability. It's not like they are all on equal footing. Some are definitely more plausible than others. This comment is more to supplement Ed's point than to challenge it.

You have yet to substantiate the assertion that such a promise has been made. Do you have any evidence of that?

You've just exemplified why I get so disgusted with religion. You are placing personal faith over evidence. Of course I concede that SOMETHING will happen as a result of drilling. However, as I've stated repeatedly, it does not even begin to approach the threshold of significance. The costs outweigh the benefits. I'm not saying there are no benefits, I'm saying they are not significant enough to justify the costs. Also, this whole "way of life" argument is nonsense. Green collar jobs are one of the key factors which will bring the US back to it's economic and technological dominance... or, at the very least, finally back on par with the rest of the planet. And seriously, I really wish you'd stop calling me left-wing in a derogatory manner every time you respond to one of my posts. Can you maybe give that a try for a bit? That'd be super.

This study is definitely bearing out in my present life. For the love of Thor, I'm tired. Long week spending 3 hours in the morning working, after that going to training from 8 to 5 to learn a new programming language, then working from 5 until midnight after class, only to wake up the next morning and do it all again... all while staying in a hotel room and eating fast food.

Relative to whom?

Thank you for clarifying. I agree that what you mention is part of it, yes. However, I do think Greenspan meant something else. I think he was implying more than "of course oil is a part of it since oil is a part of so many things in our society." I think he was implying that oil was the primary driver toward the decision to go in. Either way, neither of us can say for sure. I preficed with "I think," but it would seem rather strange for him to make the comment at all if it were simply an acknowledgement of some background issue not implicated in the ultimate decision.

My one liners tend to be directed at single subject trolls. I am passionate about this issue, and frankly I expect more from Pangloss than discriminatory dismissals of important points with ignorant comments. I am just tired of watching him do it, and I needed to vent. Also, I'd hope that you see my signature on SFN as more than mere "smart ass one liners."

How are you still not getting this? The ships velocity relative to whom/what?

Relative to whom/what?

Looks like the campaign understands how this is going to play in the blogosphere and has released a video to address it: https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/bignews?source=20080619_PF_ND_L1

I understand, and agree. Absolutely, and it will most probably continue. Yes, indeed. We're three for three. I think there must be a disturbance in the force somewhere. Next thing you know, dogs and cats will be living in harmony. Well, I just can't bring myself to agree with either your comments or their tone. You're quite right that we don't need to stop polluting tomorrow. The simple truth is that we need to stop polluting today. You also ended the comments in a very poor "defend the status quo" kinda way, but I don't think that's what you were doing intentionally so I'll leave it alone. The fact is that your idea of "it'll happen in the future, so don't worry now" really isn't good enough considering the enormity of the challenges we are facing. Either way, we are discussing opinion, so the above is just mine and it differs from yours. That's not a big deal, as we can discuss the reasons we hold the opinion we do without character attacking each other, or dismissing fully the posts of each other with "snipe" responses. Absolutely. If subsidies are going to be on the table AT ALL, then they should be going toward renewables. According to comments from the CEO in the youtube link I shared above, renewables have had a 200% return on subsidies in the past. That's exactly what we need, as well as people ostracizing their gas guzzling, energy wasting, "I'll do whatever I feel like" lifestyles. Okay. Why, then? It's already been shown repeatedly that the returns on this are not even close to significant, and the costs associated are greater. See, we were having a nice conversation, and then you had to go shit all over it again. Why was that comment necessary? How was that helpful to the dialog? What about seeing reality clearly is supposed to be conspiratorially apocalyptic? Even if apocalypse was on the table, your unsupported comments above don't negate it's possibility. That's where you consistently fail. You have to spit on people when you talk to them. You have to misrepresent what they say to make your own points seem stronger. Tell me again what precisely I had said in this thread to prompt the following smear of my points: Asshole. <see, ending in such a way doesn't help, now does it>

I'm not sure I follow what you are asking. Who meant something other than what, exactly?

I see no promises in that quoted text. Do you? Nor do I see any comments directly from Obama.

Ah... yeah. Just like those crazy lefties who put the drilling ban in place via the democratic process to begin with, eh? Gosh, how ever did that get passed? Oh, I know... It was THE RIGHT THING to do! Stop with the character/credibility attacks, and start addressing the issues.

Way to back peddle. I quoted exactly what I was asking you about, and you haven't answered, and instead you've now made another speculative, unsupported, credibility attacking assertion.

I propose it may have something to do with his being the chairman of the Fed for so long, and having an incredible understanding of economics and leveraging factors in this country, but I'm just guessing, since Greenspan didn't really elaborate. He did, however, discuss it on Charlie Rose. That episode is available here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8342614253746711839&q=greenspan+charlie+rose&ei=f7daSKm9MYnQwgPxnOCsCg

Welcome to everyone who has joined. The community can only be better as a result of your participation.

If I know that smoking is bad, I'm not going to concede that smoking light cigarettes is different. I'm tired of buring all of this shit into our atmosphere. That's the base of my stance, not Fox and Friends or The Daily Show. It's also a bit like a drug addiction. You just need to stop using. You can't rationalize "just a little more" or doing it "the same, but different." It will never happen if we keeping giving everyone one more hit. The benefits on this do not outweigh the costs. I actually care about my children's future, and the future of existing life. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I saw this the other day. It struck me as a rather intelligent set of observations and ideas: Summary: And doing "something" shouldn't include looking for piddlings of oil in an area legally protected from human ignorance and short-sighted, misguided, and dangerous actions.

Hopefully, it's also damaging to special interests running our government.

Check out the full play list. Errors were corrected: http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=DB23537556D7AADB

Well, I think we can pretty much reject that assertion squarely on it's face. And, he should do this... why exactly? Do you care to tell us all what statistics Greenspan has used, and where he has suggested that a correlation proved a causative relationship? Also, what data was it that was correlated when he proffered this? If you have some facts we don't, please share them. Until then, your character attacks and belittling comments do nothing to negate reality.

All of the above arguments being made against my comments rest squarely on the idea that this tiny piddling of oil up there will have enough impact to help. I say again. It's equivalent to treating a heart attack with an ice cream sandwich. The motivations being espoused here I quite agree with. Energy independence. Temporary supports while new technology is implemented. However, implicit in each of these comments is some unsubstantiated belief that drilling for this piddling of oil will provide any of that for us. I'm simply calling that unfounded and against all of the evidence and information we currently have available to us. It's wishful thinking, and it's stupid. The costs on this one FAR outweigh the potential benefits being described.

To paraphrase your argument, if I understand you correctly (after re-reading this thread): "I know it won't help." "I know it will take a decade for any returns." "I know those returns will do little if anything to improve matters." "Gas prices are high right now." "Other countries are drilling into their land." "We're stupid not to." "Let's go!" Sound about right? If you really want to talk about what other countries are doing, I suggest we open a new thread, as the US falls flat on it's face when it comes to finding real and sustainable solutions compared to other nations on this planet. Iceland is one example among many. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/programs/ht/tm/3507.html?site=22&pl=wmp&rate=hi&ch=2

I found the below useful, and a good (although, very high-level) overview for those not very familiar with the topic. It was framed in the context of defeating the religious angle, but it does go into the basics after a minute or so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4&feature=related

No, sir. It is far from a strawman. It is an observation which cuts the root of your argument off at the ankles. Despite your claim to the contrary, I cannot even begin to fathom why you would propose or support such an approach. Since my words seem to have failed, try this picture: http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arctic.asp