Wednesday, March 16, 2005

The Conversation I Had With This Idiot

The following is a conversation I had on some conservative guys blog. There is his original post that you will read first, and then our comments back and forth. The reason I thought it was entertaining was because he kept telling me that I needed to do my research and that I was uneducated and didn't know what I was talking about. My responses are in red.

From: (oxymoron)
Eskimos Want ANWR Drilling
"Poll: Eskimos Back ANWR DrillingNewsMaxThe last time they were surveyed, Americans most directly affected by a Bush administration proposal to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge overwhelmingly backed the plan. Seventy-five percent of Alaskans told a February 2000 Dittman research survey that they wanted to open up the refuge for drilling, with only 23 percent opposed. A 1995 Dittman survey yielded similar results, with 75 percent of Alaskans saying they backed ANWR drilling, and just 19 percent opposed. In the Inupiat Eskimo villages near ANWR, support is even higher. A January 2000 survey in the village of Kaktovik found that 78 percent of residents back more energy exploration in their own backyard. Only 9 percent were opposed. In 1995, the Alaska Federation of Natives, which represents 80,000 Eskimos, adopted a resolution supporting ANWR drilling, calling it a "critically important economic opportunity for Alaska natives..."

If the environment was REALLY in danger of being ruined by drilling in ANWR, don't you think the eskimos, people that have lived in the area for hundreds of years, would be opposed to it? It's just the exact opposite. "

What did the wildlife say about it when polled? After all it’s their refuge; its not the Arctic National Eskimo Refuge. Posted by john March 15, 2005 2:01 PM

And explain to me exactly how it damages the environment. Purdue Bay is a great example, point out to me how our drilling in Purdue Bay has caused any significant problems. The Caribou in the area have quadrupled in population, so don't use that old talking point, either. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 15, 2005 2:03 PM

Exxon Valdez Posted by John March 15, 2005 2:12 PM

I'm still waiting for you to try and prove a point... How did we ruin the environment at Purdue Bay by drilling there? Give me specific examples. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 15, 2005 2:27 PM

That really isn’t the point, it could be, but in this specific instance it is already a National Refuge. Its legally protected by law from such a thing. I know Republicans love changing laws like redefining marriage and the 1st amendment but where does it stop. And if you can change those laws, maybe we should change the freedom of religion and the gun laws. Fair is fair right? Posted by John March 15, 2005 2:30 PM

Uh, the point isn't whether we're going to damage the environment or not if we drill? Then why the fuck do you care if we drill?Your refusal to point out in any way how we damaged the area proves that you have no argument. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 15, 2005 2:48 PM

Its federally protected land you idiot, just like the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone, are we going to drill for oil there too? And yes there can be all kinds of environmental impacts such as oil spill, or the melting of snow and ice due to a pipeline and the possible displacement of animals or disruption in their migratory patterns due to having a huge oil field in their habitat. Posted by John March 15, 2005 2:51 PM

John, I know it's tought, but think real hard on this one...The porcupine caribou population has quadrupled since we began drilling in Purdue Bay. Your whining about their habitat has been widely disproven, if you want to continue making old, washed up points, I'm fine with that.We should work to replace our dependance on foreign oil. I'm sure you complain about how we get so much oil from the Saudis, but then refuse to let us get oil on our own land. You can't have it both ways. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 16, 2005 6:54 AM

Ask the sea lions and foul about their populations in Valdez.The amount of oil that we could get out of the ANWR is minimal compared to our needs and what we currently import, especially compared to the cost of drilling up there.We need to reduce dependence on oil, not just foreign oil. Posted by john March 16, 2005 7:49 AM

Yeah, let me go to talk to the sea lions....The amount we can get from ANWR is estimated at 9-11 billion barrels of oil. That's enough to replace our imports of Saudi oil for 30 years, according to the US Geographical Survey. That's far from minimal, it would create a butt load of news jobs, and would put billions of dollars towards helping reduce our trade defecit. It's clear trying to argue with you that you don't do much research on anything. You just assume you know it all and then go try and debate someone, and in the end you only look foolish. Like I said before, go get an education and then come back and try and debate me. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 16, 2005 10:58 AM

What am I not educated about, at least I know that the land up there has been under federal protection since 1960. You can talk about environmental impacts and guesstimated numbers about how much oil is up there but none of it matters because it is federally protected land. With your rationale we should open up Yellowstone, Yosemite and Sequoia National Forest to logging. Why not open up mount Rushmore to a limestone company, while were at it we might as well build a Wal-Mart in the Grand Canyon, and Mammoth Cave might be a great place to put all of our garbage. Those are all great ideas. You are clearly one of the more enlightened thinkers of our time. By the way, we consume over 7 billion barrels of oil in this country per year. So great, we will have our own oil for a year and a half. That should solve all of our problems in the year 2017 when they finally start pumping out that oil. Posted by john March 16, 2005 11:05 AM

When did I say ANWR would solve all our problems? It won't. But it certainly helps out a lot, and that's why the Senate is going to give the O.K. for drilling later today.You lose. Posted by Ron Rutherford March 16, 2005 11:05 AM

By the way where is Purdue Bay, who’s the mayor of that town? Gene Keady? Isn't that in Lafayette,IN? Maybe you meant Prudhoe Bay? Don't talk to me about getting an education and doing my research, clearly you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about. Posted by John


Ron Rutherford said...

Thanks for posting this. Free advertising.

You still haven't answered me as to why the porcupine caribou population has QUADRUPLED since we began drilling in PRUDHOE Bay.

Go bash "capitolism" some more like you're a 14 year old punk rock spoiled brat. You should really consider acting your age. When I was talking to you, I had no idea you're as old as you are. Pretty sad.

Toad734 said...

I don't know that they have. But if they have, its not because they are drilling for oil. But I do know what happened to the seal, sea lion, fish, and fowl population in Prince William Sound after the Exxon Valdez dumped all the oil that had been pumped out of Prudhoe Bay.

What’s sad is the following:
A.You call yourself a rebel yet you agree with everything the American mainstream government says.
B. You are a Republican, who with a straight face, admits that you listen to the Dead Kennedey's, which means to me that you really have never listened to them.
C. You like KMFDM and have the picture to prove it.
D. The reason you don't remember the Exxon Valdez incident is because you weren't born yet.
E. You thought you had all the answers and that you knew everything but still thought that Purdue was in Alaska, even though they are in the Big 10; everyone knows that the Big 10 only includes midwest colleges.
F. You think allowing people to take their SS savings to the horse track is a good idea.
G. You think that just because someone is 30 that they should automatically turn into a prolife gun nut and vote republican.
H. You think that a years worth of Oil in Alaska is going to solve all of our economic problems and there will be no ill effects of this, even though most of the major oil companies have withdrawn their interest from drilling there.

Khalij-Khazar said...

There's no point arguing to this idiot John. I tried once, and he couldn't respond to my comments. He's clearly blind to the world around him.

Toad734 said...

I figured as much.

erinberry said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
erinberry said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
erinberry said...

What do you expect from someone who calls himself Conservative Rebel? The solution is to research sources of energy OTHER than oil, so that we reduce our dependency on foreign oil and don't completely f*** up the environment in the process.

And just because one species had a population growth doesn't mean drilling doesn't harm the environment. On the contrary, it could actually prove that it DOES. Perhaps something happened to the caribou's natural predators. It makes no sense to conclude that because the caribou population has grown at an abnormal speed, that no environmental impact has occurred.

By the way, here are some links that dispute this claim of "no environmental damage":

erinberry said...

P.S. Sorry about those blank posts - Explorer has really been messing up this afternoon! Feel free to delete them.

trick said...

Ron, you should try doing a little research yourself before running your mouth about things that you probably read about on an oil-indutry friendly website. Try learning a bit from both sides of the issue and make a decision for yourself instead of repeating what you heard on TV.

First, the caribou herd around the Prudhoe Bay oil fields is known as the Central Arctic Herd. The Porcupine Herd is the one in question in AWNR area 10-0-2. Get it straight.

Second, the Central Arctic (CA) Herd does not face the same problems as the Porcupine Herd. The CA Herd is a much smaller herd occupying a much larger area (per capita) that has a different geography and ecology. Compare the CA herd with one that is in a nearby similar area without development - the Teshekpuk Lake herd. Yes, the CA herd has actually quadrupled in size. But that is less than the quintupling of the Teshekpuk Lake herd, indicating that the CA herd has been negatively affected by development.

In every instance of drilling in Alaska, caribou, especially calving females have avoided developed areas. In Prudhoe Bay, the calving females have changed their habits, calving in nearby areas away from development where the vegetation that is crucial for their calves' health is lower in nutrition. This has led to lighter, less healthy caribou that are less likely to survive, making their population grow less than it would have otherwise. Also, these less productive areas are more sensitive to overgrazing. This has impacted a delicate ecosystem, affecting the vegetation and many other types of animals that depend on it.

In the AWNR, the Porcupine Herd is 4-5 times bigger than the CA herd. They are much more crowded in their preferred calving area and travel in bigger groups. Even in the Prudhoe area, it has been shown that groups of the CA herd of 100 or more caribou have had difficulty traversing the pipelines and developed areas. The Porcupine herd will have even more trouble.

The Porcupine herd also will have a harder time finding a suitable alternative area for calving. The area they are in is much narrower. This means that they will be driven into higher altitudes to find vegetation. These high altitude plants are even less nutritious than those which are the CA herd are now forced to choose. (Of course, these areas are also even more sensitive to overgrazing, affecting the entire ecosystem.) Secondly, the higher altitudes are where the caribou's natural predators (bears, wolves, eagles...) are - just what the caribou are trying to avoid.

All of this says nothing of potential disastrous accidents (that may or may not happen) in these areas and during the transport of the oil OR the impact that drilling has on other aspects of the environment besides the caribou. Small changes in ecologically sensitve areas like the AWNR always have dramatic and unforseen consequences. It is foolish to rush forward without sufficient knowledge about this very complex system.

Inane comparisons using unsubstantiated facts are not valid support for the argument to drill in the AWNR. If you really just don't care about the environment and the steps we've taken to protect some of the last, most delicate wilderness we have in our country, then just say so. But don't go along with the thinly disguised arguments of the oil industry and the politicians and media that they control.

Here are the real solutions to our energy problems. In the short term, make current fields more efficient and productive, exploit the potential of known smaller fields in less ecologically sensitive areas, and reduce our daily dependency on oil by using less in a more efficient way. In the long term, the answer is to put some serious effort and money behind developing clean, efficient, and renwable energy sources.

Toad734 said...


Don't you know anything?

Ron Rutherford said...

Hahah. You think I should only listen to music that echos my ideology? Sorry, that's not the way I live. I listen to lots of liberals bands, KMFDM and Dead Kennedy's included.

You obviously haven't read many of my posts if you think I agree with everything the government does, Bush included. I disagree with him on his immigration policies, his excessive spending, and a lot of other things.

You can bring up over and over how I spelled a city's name wrong, but you couldn't even spell CAPITALISM. So your spelling checks don't bother me much.

I don't expect everyone that is 30 to be a republican, but I do expect them to not act as juvenile as you do.

Taking their SS to the race track? It's OPTIONAL, I know that's hard to understand. If someone wants the government to run everything in their lives, that's their beef. I for one want to be able to have a chance to invest MY OWN money, I don't care what anyone else does.

And finally, when did I ever say drilling in ANWR would solve our energy problems? It puts a slight dent in our problem, nothing more. Putting words into my mouth to try and further your argument doesn't do much except make you look silly. We should be spending more money federally on researching energy alternatives, like many others have suggested. Just because I support drilling in ANWR doesn't mean I'm blind to the idea of alternative energy sources.

And trick - You can try and put as much spin on the caribou situation as you want. Their population quadrupled when we drilling in Purdhoe bay, that's a fact. The environmentalists predicted the same crap you're saying now about what it would do to the caribou, yet the population of the animal increased.

Toad734 said...

Oooh, you caught a typo, you should be an editor. At least I wasn't claiming to know everything about a subject, while telling other people they need to do their research, whilst getting the name of the place you claimed to be so knowledgeable about, wrong.

As far as the SS thing goes, no it isn’t your money. In a place such as the United States we have things such as taxes and when you grow up and get a job you will realize that everyone has to pay them, other wise there would be no streets, no fire department, or social security. That is what SS is, it’s a tax, just like FICA, federal, state or sales and property taxes.
If people blow all their money on the stock market or at the dog track, who do you think will end up taking care of them when they are old? It’s just going to end up coming out of other tax revenues.
Besides, I don’t want to take the chance, especially with an administration that doesn't take the security of the United States serious, that they aren't going to let another jet liner crash into Wall Street. Then where would our individual retirement accounts be?

Donna said...

Anyone reading this post, who is interested in the Arctic Caribou and their calving grounds in the ANWR should check out the recent documentary called Being Caribou. It's fantastic. A GWB doll is backpacked across Alaska and the Yukon (Canadians and "Canadian wildlife" will be severely impacted by the US's irrational decision as well...but US gov't doesn't give a whit about other country's rights, needs, etc, does it?) to show him how delicate the habitat is and how devastaing oil and gas development in the area would be. Find the film at the National Film BOard, Ron, if you want to get educated about the issue, this is one way to do so.