RE: Oil Lobby To Fund Campaign Against Obama's Climate Change Strategy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

rulemylife -> RE: Oil Lobby To Fund Campaign Against Obama's Climate Change Strategy (8/16/2009 12:55:52 PM)

You made a response to another poster who questioned the economic feasibility of this type of oil production.  I did the same.  So your response below was clearly in an economic context.

You said this:

".....and there are a number of ways to extract the oil."

What exactly is so difficult here?

You made a statement.  I asked you to provide proof of your statement.

So provide the proof.

Where is there a problem here?

Unless your statement, as I suspect, has no proof and now you are trying to dance your way out of it.







CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Oil Lobby To Fund Campaign Against Obama's Climate Change Strategy (8/16/2009 2:23:29 PM)

Heretic,

Not to be argumentative, but I -do- have a question (on top of my earlier questions which weren't answered by anyone)...

Just because we -can- do something, does that necessarily mean we -should- do it? I mean, just because we can rip up the planet and tear it open to get to more oil, does that mean that it is the absolute BEST way to meet our energy needs?

See, it seems to me that we've been handed better options, nearly on a silver platter. Between wind, water, and solar energy, with some (much needed) innovation in technology (which, btw, it sounds like shale oil extraction is going to need as well before it is functional), and with a little bit of responsible management of our energy -consumption-, I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that we could meet our energy needs without ripping up yet another bit of our planet's infrastructure -- so why, pray tell, is this considered WRONG, rather than WISE?

DC



TheHeretic -> RE: Oil Lobby To Fund Campaign Against Obama's Climate Change Strategy (8/16/2009 4:17:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

So your response below was clearly in an economic context.

You said this:

".....and there are a number of ways to extract the oil."




And it was "clearly economic" because you say so???  You were wrong in your interpretation of what I said (as you are so very often).  Good day.



TheHeretic -> RE: Oil Lobby To Fund Campaign Against Obama's Climate Change Strategy (8/16/2009 4:27:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
Just because we -can- do something, does that necessarily mean we -should- do it?



No, it doesn't, but I'm a cynical fuck, Calla, and pretty well convinced we will do it anyway.

We need the energy, and even if we find an acceptable alternative to producing that, we will need the chemicals.




rulemylife -> RE: Oil Lobby To Fund Campaign Against Obama's Climate Change Strategy (8/16/2009 11:56:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

And it was "clearly economic" because you say so???  You were wrong in your interpretation of what I said (as you are so very often).  Good day.


Then give me the correct interpretation.



TheHeretic -> RE: Oil Lobby To Fund Campaign Against Obama's Climate Change Strategy (8/17/2009 7:09:04 AM)

Environmental.  That was hard to puzzle out, huh?



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.015625