Jump to content

Leon Troutsky

Pure Football
  • Content Count

    52,171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by Leon Troutsky

  1. And again, it's not the "exact same risk". If you have 1,000 drills now with a .5% risk of a spill, you'll have 5 spills each year. Suppose the risk of a massive spill is .01% per year, which means you'll have 1 massive spill every ten years. If you double the number of drills then you will double the number of massive spills every ten years. That is hardly the "exact same risk". In addition, the gains we get from current drilling are higher than the prospects for new drilling. Suppose the current drills produce 200k barrels a day. We're risking a massive spill once every ten years to
  2. Uh, yes you are casting as a false dichotomy: "Then if that's the argument, we should stop all offshore drilling. Now." "So lets stop doing it!" "I am saying if that's the case, lets stop drilling. I'm not saying that's the only two choices, I'm saying your premise (that drilling is too dangerous) necessarily requires the conclusion I proposed (stop drilling)." "So lets stop drilling." Every time I say that we should not INCREASE drilling, you respond with "so lets stop drilling!" It's EITHER we increase drilling OR we stop drilling altogether. A dichotomy (two choices) that is false (becaus
  3. For the third time, the false dichotomy fallacy doesn't hold water. Cost versus benefit is not an absolute yes or no choice. There are large reserves of oil in the Gulf and tapping into those reserves is worth the risk. I personally think we are drilling too much and we should be concentrating on the largest reserves, but that's not the point. The point is that as you shift from the current number of drills tapping into relatively large oil reserves to a larger number of drills tapping into smaller reserves, the cost/benefit choice changes as well. You want to cast this as "either drill a
  4. It doesn't take an expert to look at the scope of the environmental damage and realize that the risk isn't worth the gains. Also, get your facts right. There hasn't been a spill of this size IN AMERICA since Exxon. However, these big spills happen all the time across the world, including Australia where a spill threatened the Great Barrier Reef. This isn't just some isolated case, it's a very real threat that occurs more often than most people realize. And it's hardly "isolated" in the sense that this is the only time it's ever happened. Again, even small rigs and small spills, which ha
  5. False dichotomy fallacy. The choice is not between absolutely, positively, zero drilling whatsoever (on the one hand) or increasing drilling all across the shoreline (on the other). Drilling assumes risk, a lot of risk as it turns out. The environmental cost of that risk has to be weighed against the economic gains from the drilling. We are tapping into the largest oil reserves right now and the new drilling areas are not going to produce as much oil as our current production. And the risk to the environment is approximately the same (even smaller wells can dump hundreds of thousands of
  6. It's about risk versus reward. Having more offshore drilling means increasing the risk of events such as this. The reward that comes from the additional oil is minimal because in terms of US consumption there's not a lot of oil to be extracted from the sites being identified for future drilling. The consequences of this kind of environmental disaster are too great to take on greater risk, even if the chances of events like this are rare, they are not so rare as to not worry about having more of them if we increase the number of oil rigs offshore.
  7. IF we are going to drill, and I'm not convinced it's a good idea, but IF we're going to do it then at least set up some system like the Alaska fund where you redistribute the profits to all citizens equally. Socialism? Yes, but it's socialism that conservatives (in Alaska) can support.
  8. And pray we don't have more of these: Gulf Coast oil spill could eclipse Exxon Valdez By CAIN BURDEAU and HOLBROOK MOHR, Associated Press Writers Cain Burdeau And Holbrook Mohr, Associated Press Writers Thu Apr 29, 7:09 pm ET VENICE, La. – An oil spill that threatened to eclipse even the Exxon Valdez disaster spread out of control and drifted inexorably toward the Gulf Coast on Thursday as fishermen rushed to scoop up shrimp and crews spread floating barriers around marshes. The spill was both bigger and closer than imagined — five times larger than first estimated, with the leading edge just
  9. Most disturbing movie EVER has to be "Hanzo the Razor".
  10. HoMo's back! Does that also mean the return of Gay Thursday?
  11. Here's the National Review Online post that started the controversy. Personally, I'm glad to see some conservatives standing up to the anti-intellectual idiocy that has permeated the right in this country over the past fifteen years. Wednesday, April 21, 2010 Liberty and Tyranny and Epistemic Closure [Jim Manzi] Jonah notes Ross Douthat’s very interesting post, in which Ross had this to say: Conservative domestic policy would be in better shape if conservative magazines and conservative columnists were more willing to call out Republican politicians (and, to a lesser extent, conservative en
  12. Groupthink at National Review April 23rd, 2010 at 12:32 pm by David Frum | 63 Comments | Share How wonderful to return to a free country, I thought as I stepped off the plane from Beijing at Washington Dulles. No more censorship, no more official lies, no more kowtowing to high officials who gained power by their mindless repetition of party dogma… Then alas I opened my browser and read the dump-on-Manzi comments on NRO’s The Corner. Manzi had deviated from the One Correct Way of Mark Levin Thought, and all his former colleagues had been summoned together to Denounce and Struggle Against Him.
  13. I tried to PM you to give you a heads up, but the PM function is down. You might want to do something about this.
  14. While sitting on the toilet taking a deuce singing, "out with the old, in with the new".
  15. Not to scare you, but it could be an early indicator of a rare and very fast-growing brain cancer that originates near the pituitary system. It could also be other, less serious conditions, but you should check with your doctor immediately.
  16. That's just not true. A huge chunk of the "historic" deficit was due to the initial bailout under Bush. And the deficit numbers are inflated because of the TARP program.
  17. Lord sakes, this is going to start an internet meme. This is the next "All your base are belong to us". Arizona's flag:
  18. Morons, and the morons who watch them. http://tv.gawker.com/5517509/jon-stewart-calls-out-fox-news-for-anti+muslim-nuclear-logo-propaganda http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201004140003
×
×
  • Create New...