Three Myths about Oil by Alex Epstein

[Oleksandr]

Alex Epstein has become a real expert on the history of Oil. He wrote a fun article on Three Myths about Oil at Forbes.


http://www.forbes.com/2010/06/18/oil-sp ... stein.html

Quoting the myths:

Myth No. 1: Because oil is finite, it will inevitably run out and destroy our economy.

Myth No. 2: Curbing consumption of foreign oil would help stop terrorism.

Myth No. 3: Because the burning of oil produces CO2, oil is a deadly pollutant that must be severely capped and replaced by "green" energy sources.

[redhotrebel]

That was a great article... much better than the interview Robert Redford gave... painful!

[Clark Donner]

Thanks for pointing that article out. I have been someone who believes that green technologies are going to save us, the sooner the better. That article has helped me to see that going extreme towards green tech or fossile fuels is not the answer.

There is no way we can stop using fossil fuels "cold turkey". I don't believe anyone who is semi-intelligent truely believes that. I do believe that we should be doing the work to make green tech work now, before there is a crisis.

I would think the groups that should be doing the research should be companies like BP so they can keep thier market share.

After a bit of googling I refound this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

That is what scares me. In my oppinion we are better off trying to at least explore the options in limiting green house gas emisions. It could be that these few scientists who think it is a problem are wrong, but if they are not do we really want to put ourselves in that corner?

Thanks for reading my ramble

[redhotrebel]

I would think the groups that should be doing the research should be companies like BP so they can keep their market share.

Are you saying that it should be regulated by say a government or are you saying that individuals should persuade this through social pressures (i.e. I won't buy your oil unless you show me that you are looking for something better in the future). Only one of those is a feasible and correct answer imo.

After a bit of googling I found this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

That is what scares me. In my oppinion we are better off trying to at least explore the options in limiting green house gas emisions. It could be that these few scientists who think it is a problem are wrong, but if they are not do we really want to put ourselves in that corner?

Thanks for reading my ramble

Okay this video is "terrifying" to me, how this man can have so many incorrect assumptions, false dichotomies, appeal to beliefs, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief, Appeal to Common Practice, Appeal to Fear, Begging the Question, Confusing Cause and Effect, Gambler's Fallacy, Hasty Generalization, Post Hoc, Slippery Slope, and the most important which should probably be at the beginning of the list is a false premise. It is wrought with logical fallacies that to address them individually would take far too long. So I will address what I consider to be the most important and that is his premise and dichotomy.

"...When faced with uncertainty like we are with climate change..." (1:28). This is a false premise and presumes that GCC is unintelligible. This is simply not true. We can use inductive reasoning and correct research to discover the scientific ramifications of the individual on the climate. He later leads into an extreme false dichotomy ending the video with, "...the only choice is column A..." (7:55) (taking direct fiscal actions)

The free market has tried to (and continues to try to) create viable alternative fuels because let's face it, people want cheaper. Running a car on water, nuclear energy, whatever is an alternative that most would jump on. There is no need to regulate the innovation (especially by force) because this hinders the advancement of discovery and does not enhance it. Social pressures can create change within a way a company does business because they want to maintain a consumer base for profit.

Here is the crux of it, the individual (for themselves and not for the group) must decide where they stand on the issues and how they want to approach it. If the individual decides to ride a bike to work because the idea of trees being hurt is unfathomable then that is their individual choice. I draw the line when the opinions (not facts) of others impedes on me and mine.

I would like to also point out that that this video advocates taking my life by means of my financial resources for an alternative to stave off a potential “threat”. Where is the line drawn? Where do we get to a point that says my “security" is more important than my individual freedoms? There is no way, save living in an underground bunker, that can give me any amount of confidence that I will be safe from natural disasters, nuclear bombs and zombie attacks, but living in a prison (be it financial or location) is not a reasonable request to me. To summarize, do the benefits of "...increased taxation, burdensome regulations, bloated government..." (2:42) outweigh the potential "risks"? In this case, no they do not.

[Kushan]

so that video is basically a climate change version of pascal's wager. derp.

[Kaelan]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... dream.html

For the joys of green energy

[Oleksandr]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... dream.html

For the joys of green energy

Ah, what a wonderfully small carbon footprint they have!