ANWR drilling

[Dennis_Harmon]

Just caught a good program on '60-Minutes' concerning opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for oil exporation and possible drilling. I personally find that to be a highly disturbing proposition given that this nation has done little, very little, toward the development of an efficient mass-transit system. My first job out of the army was as a medic for a DOT transportation test project outside Pueblo, Colorado where we were learning the art and science of high-proformance 'bullet train' technology. We only spent about a couple billon dollars on it...and I still havn't seen squat derived from that research. Why do we still not have a 200 MPH train down the middle of the I-5 corridor that can take you from Seattle to Portland in under an hour? I'll tell you why...it's because of the amount of money that the automotive industry out of Detroit can throw to D.C. lobbyists to stymie any real development. So now they want to drill in the ANWR so as to continue contributing to global-warming and put ourselves in position to enter Armegeddon...and to keep the entire city of Detroit employed in their union-scale jobs. My children say, "thanks." Dennis

 

[ 07-16-2002, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Dennis Harmon ]

[MountainMan]

Drill it.

[jules]

Do not drill it. Little gain for a price that can NEVER be repaid.

[Paul_detrick]

we are all doom anyway so who cares, my kidds want to go to L.A not alaska.

[KeithKSchultz]

Right on Dennis. We are living in a world economy that is based on oil and steel production. It is our legacy to leave more shit in the atmosphere than any generation before us. It is damn fun being one of the richest societies in all history. Too bad we are shitting on the following generations.

[MtnHigh]

ANWR is the perfect battleground between environmentalist and the pro-development groups.

 

It is unfortunate for the environmentalists that a conservative administration is in the White House and both US congressional bodies are Republican controlled.

 

Something to understand: The potential amount of crude that ANWR can produce will hardly put a dent in the US appetite for oil. With or without ANWR oil, the US will still import the majority of it's oil from abroad.

 

The US will suck AK dry of all it's oil with hardly a concern for the impact. You have to ask yourself what is the advantage of it all? Is it really worth the time, money and potential risks.

[AlpineK]

Where's Fairweather and his tobacco science?

[allthumbs]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MountainMan:

Drill it.

---

fuckin A

drill it

the world is my garbage can

[Matt]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnHigh:

 

It is unfortunate for the environmentalists that a conservative administration is in the White House and both US congressional bodies are Republican controlled.

 

---

Have you ever heard of a Senator from Vermont by the name of Jim Jeffords? The Republicans do not control the Senate.

[Poseur]

If I remember correctly it was the Teamsters Union (traditional Demo consitutuency) that put the full court press on the Demo Black Caucus to come up with the votes to make drilling ANWR happen. And if it's good good for these two bedrock Democratic constituencies then it must be good Democratic Party policy, right? Or, could this be another example of those silly little enviros trying to do a little spin so they can be good little liberal lap dogs to the Demos rather than true protectors of the environment? Doh!

[MtnGoat]

Drill it, and do so using modern methods to reduce impacts.

 

As for greenhouse fears, IMO they are wildly off target. There is no "normal" temperature for the Earth, it varies all by itself for reasons unknown. Deciding the early 20th cent is some baseline for "normal" ignores all the warming that had taken place prior to that, and is especially interesting given the fact that warming occurred without industrial CO2 output at that time. Climate records for the last few millenia shows swings far in excess of current temps both colder and hotter. That the earth is warming is probably true, we're in an interglacial. That it's human caused, I have severe doubts about in light of past natural fluctuations.

[Dennis_Harmon]

MtnGoat, I am not an educated climatologist, but even the most well educated in the science (and the UW has probably the best program with super-global climate modeling computers) can definitly conclude that global-warming is anthropogenically produced. It is cyclical...but are we exacerbating it? My guess is that we are. Imagine the millions of idling cars cued up in the morning and afternoon commutes world-wide and the amount of collective emmisions they are producing. Now imagine how small the atmosphere surrounding this planet really is. By the way, I believe that your own federal government has finally acknowledged that we are largely responsible. Dennis

[erik]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dennis Harmon:

and the UW has probably the best program with super-global climate modeling computers

---

hey, i know this really awesome person who works there and she rocks your dome!

[Bug]

What really pisses me off is that we have wasted all that money on all those studies by all those leading scientists when all we really had to do was ask George W or MtnGoat. Oh shit! What if Mtn Goat becomes President some day!!?

[MtnGoat]

"MtnGoat, I am not an educated climatologist, but even the most well educated in the science (and the UW has probably the best program with super-global climate modeling computers) can definitly conclude that global-warming is anthropogenically produced."

 

I do not believe this is true. From what I understand not even *one* climate model, used by any team, can even reproduce past weather from one fixed, known point to another fixed, known point in the *past*, say 1950-1970. If your models cannot even reproduce events with known ending and beginning states, I don't see how one could use them for any definite conclusions about the future when they fail for past events.

 

Further, the proposed climate forcing we are supposedly seeing entirely sidesteps the issue of where "normal" is supposed to be. Who chose the early part of the 20th as a baseline and why, given fluctuations over centuries and millenia? And when so much natural change occurs, how is it we can be certain our efforts would not be swamped by the rest of a natural cycle already in progress?

 

Kyoto itself proposes we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to *delay*, not end, warming by about 5 years after a century of actions. Even if everything they claim is true, the benefits do not match the cost IMO.

 

"By the way, I believe that your own federal government has finally acknowledged that we are largely responsible."

 

If they are using the same models that can't even "predict" weather in the past, you're probably right!

 

thanks for the comments, it's a pleasure to discuss this with someone without any accusations or name calling!

 

next************

 

"What really pisses me off is that we have wasted all that money on all those studies by all those leading scientists when all we really had to do was ask George W or MtnGoat."

 

wasting money is what research is all about. One can never tell what will turn up. I don't consider study money wasted in this case regardless if I agree or not, because unless the work is done there are no data points either way.

 

besides, if you're concerned about leading scientists, maybe you want to make sure you hear what *all* of them have to say. Neither the IPCC decision *nor* the recent EPA work represent all views, in fact the IPCC version specifically says it's "conclusions" do *not* represent a concensus of those participating. Something the press and greeniacs like to gloss over....

 

"Oh shit! What if Mtn Goat becomes President some day!!?"

 

In that case we'll have a non political, public forum where each side can present it's case free of spin. Science and politics are a lousy mix.

 

*And* we'll make sure to discuss just why scientists are assuming there is some perfect temperature to maintain, an assumption I have still not seen an answer for...

 

next**************

 

"The National Academy of Sciences doesn't agree with you MtnG. The Bush admin ask them to do a study before an international summit, and they found that the global temp will increase at leas 2 degrees if we keep on pumping shit into it."

 

That's fine, I don't expect everyone to agree on anything. I would expect their models to successfully model the past, before predicting the future, however.

 

"But what do you care you probably think Mt Rainier would look a lot better without glaciers."

 

I do not. But what I think is beside the point, isn't it? Why is it doubt of huge claims made by people using arbitrary baselines and models with flaws they cannot explain, means I hate the environment?

[texplorer]

I don't think you hate the environment. If your a climber you probably at least on some level enjoy nature and the beauty of natural diversity. The question I have to ask is - Do we have to have proof that the environment is fucked up before you start trying to take care of it. I mean most people would agree that the exhaust from our cars is at the least unhealthy for us to breath and MAY have an effect on the world as a whole. So. . why don't we try to find alternatives anyway?

[MtnGoat]

"The question I have to ask is - Do we have to have proof that the environment is fucked up before you start trying to take care of it."

 

generally, not at all, IMO. But we're not talking about recycling bottles here, or using better building materials or paying closer attention to how we grow and harvest trees, we're talking about committing absolutely enormous amounts of resources that could be used for other purposes. For really big claims, such as the ones we're discussing, yes I expect solid proof.

 

Not fudging charts to exclude thousands of years of natural variation of greater magnitude in order to make the last few decades look extreme, when they are not. Not forgetting to mention that climate models cannot even simulate the past. Not picking out one naturally occuring "pollutant" to control, (CO2), while ignoring another added by just as many industrial processess which has vastly more greenhouse capability, which is known and admitted yet not publicized because it looks silly....water vapor.

 

"I mean most people would agree that the exhaust from our cars is at the least unhealthy for us to breath and MAY have an effect on the world as a whole. So. . why don't we try to find alternatives anyway?"

 

We are. Work proceeds around the planet on all kinds of alternatives. When the alternatives are cost effective they will naturally fill market niches where they apply. I do not support subsidies of *any* energy industry, oil included, each should compete sans subsidy and it's price distorting effects.

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Poseur:

20 years ago these same concerns were being expressed over the coming ice age - which is it?

---

Doesnt this show that scientists are willing to change their minds when confronted with data showing the opposite of what they believe to be true, unlike conservative (Ok, all) politicians?

[allthumbs]

hey drul

[texplorer]

Oh wait you guys are right. How silly of me. DRILL ANWAR NOW!!!

[AlpineK]

I think maybe the National Academy of Science has a lot more real science to back up it's claims than some goat. They did their study at the request of the Bush Admin.

 

I know you won't change your mind, but your views are in the overwhelming minority.

 

Where did you get your info? Probably the Cato institute or some oil company institute of, "science."

 

[ 07-16-2002, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: AlpineK ]

[MtnGoat]

"Oh wait you guys are right. How silly of me. DRILL ANWAR NOW!!!"

 

didn't call you silly nor expect you to suddenly agree. Merely making some points I find interesting ones.

**********************88

"I think maybe the National Academy of Science has a lot more real science to back up it's claims than some goat."

 

Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. I've never seen any discussion of why they consider any particular period a baseline, which is troubling since actual science depends on clear definitions of parameters, baselines, and the role and nature of controls used to evaluate claims. This isn't crackpot stuff, this is basic science and *every* theorist must deal with it.

 

Likewise, I've seen no discussion of the failure of their models in running past conditions, only assurances their future ones are correct, even though they vary wildly depending on whose model is used.

 

"I know you won't change your mind, but your views are in the overwhelming minority."

 

Funny thing is, reality is not determined by a vote, no matter how many people agree. The earth was not flat even as everyone agreed it was, the continents were drifting a tiny bit every day, as all the experts of the day declared Wegener crazy. It makes no difference who is in what numbers, science depends on *proof*, not a count of hands.

 

"Where did you get your info? Probably the Cato institute or some oil company institute of, "science.""

 

What, now factual science isn't factual? Do I get to demean your sources by political alignments rather than hard data too? If you think who data comes from is more important than the empiricism of the data and wether it can stand on it's own regardless of source, we'll never be able to agree on anything and research is pointless. Oh, your data is from that green group, right? Must mean it's false.

[Poseur]

It suggests to me that people are using "snapshot in time" information to make definitve conclusions about historical trends that may not be supported by reality. Of course, I would be the first to admit that reality is overated but...comeon, do you really expect me to ride a bus? What would I do with the beemer? Do you know how long it took me to get the right climbing stickers in just the right place to get chicks to notice!?!?! Sheeesh.

[Dru]

quote:

---

Originally posted by trask:

hey drul

---

hey trask 8==D------*

[Off_White]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MtnGoat:

[QB Oh, your data is from that green group, right? Must mean it's false.[/QB]

---

Dear Mr. Goat:

 

That sort of dismissal goes on from both sides, and it is not necessarily without merit. Since science is a human endeavor, it is not entirely possible to divorce it from politics. Surely you are not so naive as to think that scientists don't want to please their funding sources? As Twain said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.

 

You (I think it was you, apologies if I'm wrong or if I've misinterpreted) said that the market would settle everything out anyway, when the cost of alternatives came close to the status quo. The longer one can avoid adding the full cost up for fossil fuels (if the climate change scenario is right) then the more the market is skewed by disinformation. There's nothing anymore pure about "The Market" than there is about "Science." Both are quite open to manipulation for the sake of making money.

 

That being said, I've enjoyed your questions, and they will prod me into a little research sometime later when I don't feel guilty about avoiding what I should really be doing right now...