Another example of the vast right-wing consp... that is, the liberal left-wing med...

Great Debates
1

…or, more likely, just an illustration that there’s no shortage of idiocy no matter where you check the political spectrum.

A government cartographer with the Interior Department was supposedly fired for making public a map that showed caribou calving sites in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge - since these same sites are where Bush and his oil cronies wish to commence drilling operations. In other words, the Bush administration was so intent on getting drilling going that it sought to cover up the calving sites in order to mute the inevitable protests from the environmentalists. The news of this action has caused several environmental groups to leap into action. The group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has cited the cartographer’s case in demanding a nonretaliation policy at Interior, and groups such as the Endangered Species Coalition and the Sierra Club have taken up his cause as well.

Even the comic strip “Doonesbury” has been running a commentary on this for the past week or so. Doonesbury character Rick Redfern, a reporter for the Washington Post, interviewed a Bush administration member responsible for the firing. In the Doonesbury version, Redfern asks the government official, “Do you think scientific maps should be suppressed when they fail to support administration policy?”

The offical’s answer: “This was NOT a scientific map! This was a Ted Kennedy-style liberal map! You could’ve eaten BRIE off this map!” http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index20010517.htm

Today’s Washington Post now says that the basic facts of the story have been grossly exaggerated. According to the Post, the guy was a contract employee, not a federal government employee, he posted incorrect and out-of-date information, and the decision to terminate the cartographer was made by a career civil servant, not a Bush apointee. In fact, goes the article, apart from Gail Norton, there are no Bush apointees yet at Interior.

It amazes me that groups (both right and left) are so willing to leap on to any event that seems to confirm their manifesto, without much in the way of fact-checking. The right-wingers frothed at the mouth over Prankgate, the Clinton team’s supposed trashing of the White House in the final hours of the Clinton presidency. The left-leaning environmentalists lost no time sticking up for a fired scientist, who it seems was practicing bad, or at least careless, science.

So what’s my topic for debate?

Geesh, I dunno. I was fired up when I started typing, and now I’m resigned to the conclusion that this sort of thing is inevitable… so how about, “All extremists should be shot.”

:slight_smile:

Kidding, kidding. Really.

  • Rick
2

http://www.snopes2.com/inboxer/outrage/maps.htm

3

This particular example (the firing of cartographer Ian Thomas) is an especially lamentable case of overexcitable people going off half-cocked, because it could actually affect public opinion on a major policy issue. I seriously doubt that the security surrounding White House computer keyboards was modified in response to the “Prankgate” myth, or that it affected anybody very much if it was. But the proposal for drilling in the ANWR is being made in all seriousness, and environmentalists have been seriously concerned about it for a long time (particularly since the ANWR’s total oil resources are estimated at eleven billion barrels, maximum; considering that the US consumes some nineteen million barrels of oil a day, the most we could get out of it would be considerably less than two years’ supply—hardly impressive as part of a long-term solution to the problem of continuing demand for dwindling fossil fuels). It will be a pity if the overreaction to “Mapgate” :slight_smile: leads people to suppose that such concerns are just the greenies getting all hysterical over nothing again.

So yes, as I always tell my correspondents who send me urban legends via email, please think (and check snopes!) before you spam—you could be doing more harm than good.

4

I second Kimstu’s suggestion of checking out Snopes. But, is the amount of oil in ANWR another UL? I have seen claims like Kimstu’s in print. I have also seen it claimed that the amount of oil in ANWR could be comparable to Prudhoe Bay.

Does anyone know the range of estimated amount of oil in ANWR and how credible they are?

5

Well, here are the facts I have from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is admittedly is an advocacy group for environmental solutions, but is one that has an excellent reputation for being straight with the facts:

Estimates of ANWR’s oil potential vary widely but most rely for a basis on a study by the US Geological Survey. In 1998, the USGS estimated that 3.2 to 6.2 billion barrels would be “economically recoverable” over the 50-year lifespan of the oil field. This apparently works out to about a 6-8 month supply (and this conversion is in rough agreement with kimstu’s 19 million barrels a day usage figure for the U.S.).

Of course, what constitutes an “economically recoverable” amount involves economic as well as geological estimates. Proponents have argued that 10-16 billion barrels are recoverable. The 16 billion figure is almost surely high, however: USGS puts the odds at there even being that much oil there at 5% and not all of that would be economically recoverable.

Here are a few other fun facts:

(1) Even if the high estimates are correct, ANWR would still produce less than 1% of the oil the U.S. is projected to use over ANWR’s 50 year lifespan.

(2) If we start to increase SUV and light truck fuel economy standards by quite realistic levels that can be achieved with affordable technologies and without sacrificing power, we could save as much oil by 2015 as is estimated to be economically recoverable from ANWR. [Note that ANWR’s oil itself wouldn’t start flowing 'til ~2010 even if it was opened up today.] Furthermore, these increases in fuel economy would save owners of the vehicles an estimated $25 billion in gasoline costs.

(3) Alternately, we could save all that oil by 2015 by enhancing energy efficiency in buildings and industry
and acquiring more energy from renewable sources.

(4) The part of Alaska’s coastal plain that is in ANWR is 5%. In other words, 95% of Alaska’s coastal plain is already open to oil and gas drilling.

6

By the way, to look at the USGS 1998 fact sheet yourself, go to http://energy.usgs.gov/factsheets/ANWR/ANWR.html

7

Thanks, jshore! :slight_smile: And my apologies for not providing a cite in the first place.

8

Forgot to add: the 19-million-barrels-a-day figure comes from the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Review.

9

Here’s the most important point to arise out of this discussion (courtesy of Snopes):

That there is even more caribou breeding in the ANWR than a clearly discredited report would have us believe - shouldn’t this be yet another nail in the coffin of this outrageous drilling proposal?

Or are we to assume that Snopes has all of a sudden turned into an untrustworthy source of leftist propaganda?

10

Well, no and no. You are pre-supposing that drilling the ANWR would harm all those caribou.

11

Ah, quite so, manhattan. I’m sure they won’t mind a bit - after all, a little deafening racket, fumes, and massive machinery can actually lend to the romantic atmosphere - especially if you’re like a wild animal (I hear that giggling - don’t make me come back there!).

After all, Big Oil is nothing if not responsible and environmentally friendly - y’know, “People Do” and all that. (I always forget about that other stuff we’re not supposed to talk about.)

Plus, I can always see a caribou at the zoo … well, not my local zoo, but there are zoos that do have caribou. (For now, anyways.)

12

Oops. I was merely pointing out that the facts you asserted, taken alone, were sufficient to establish neither of your propositions –- that the ANWR ought not be drilled or that Snopes is a liberal propaganda outlet

See, I thought you were actually asking a question, rather than looking for an excuse to bleat whatever line of unproven crap they taught you in knee-jerk school. Sorry for the confusion. Carry on.

13

Your confusion ran deeper than you suspect - I did not literally propose that Snopes is actually now an outlet of lefty spin. (I would have thought that a poster with your experience would be sensitive to devil’s advocacy and sarcasm by now. Maybe it’s an off day, shrug)

The question is of course rhetorical, meant to bait a certain spectrum of debater - those whose first recourse is to assume that everyone who can present facts unfavorable to their favorite causes must be bleeding-heart lib-symp hippies.

Unfortunately, taken alone, massively underreported caribou breeding grounds are probably insufficient, as you say, to prevent drilling in the ANWR. Fortunately though, there are lots of other reasons which have been covered at great length elsewhere. Hence my use of the phrase “another nail in the coffin” (italics mine) rather than the “final” your interpretation seems to infer.

14

Didn’t they mention something in Moderators school about the distinction between GD and the Pit?

Beyond that, RTA has a point. Who has not seen the pictures of sea-going birds frolicking on the shore after an oil spill! Clearly, they are cheerfully dipping thier wings in light sweet crude, vastly improving thier aerodynamics by dramaticly reducing air friction, not to mention the mating advantages of display! And that petro-sulphur aroma! Sexy!

And don’t forget the advantages to seals! They are predated upon by killer whales (boo! hiss!). Once a killer whale has chomped down upon an Exxon protected seal, you can bet he won’t repeat that soon!

God made us the wardens of Nature! And what do wardens do? Imprison and/or execute! The Bible makes that very clear. If unbridled capitalism isn’t part of God’s plan, why are so many Episcopalians rich?

Q.E.D.

15

Yes, which is why I attacked the poster’s argument (such as it was) and not the poster. Trust me, darlin’, when I post a Pit thread, you’ll know.

I call bullshit. The question was of course not rhetorical, but rather an attempt at a cheap, content-free and factually inaccurate shot at Alaskan drilling and it’s proponents. And now you’re sore because I called you out on it.

Personally, I don’t know enough to know whether I support drilling the ANWR. But I’m going to keep right on calling out cheap-shot artists wherever I see them.

16

Yes, dear (pat pat) … of COURSE you can read my mind! What? No, no - calling me a “cheap-shot artist” is an attack on my argument, not me personally …

anyway better stop with that, 'nuff said

Personally, I object to drilling in the ANWR, and think that those who think it’s a good idea are frightfully short-sighted slaves to the instant gratification that our addiction to big, inefficient cars provides.

As to the implication that there has never been any element on the SDMB who habitually asserted the liberal credentials of contrary information - I strongly disagree.

17

RTA, you truculent troglodyte, you pussilanimous pussyfooter, you nattering nabob of negativism!

(Please keep in mind, this is an attack on your argument, depending on the age old and respected principle of ad hominem, that is, if you are a tree-hugging, granola-munching dupe of the Illuminati, your argument has no merit.)

We now return to the lofty heights of reasoned debate.

18

Elucidator: The problems you describe happened because of oil shipping, not oil drilling. If we don’t drill in ANWR, we’ll still import oil in oil tankers. Drilling or not drilling in ANWR will have precisely zero effect on the number of tanker accidents, since there will still be the same number of tankers operating.

Actually, I would imagine that tanker accidents are MORE likely overseas than in areas subject to US law. Shipping from ANWR would likely reduce the risk of a severe oil spill.

The bottom line, the oil is going to come from somewhere. The argument isn’t whether oil exploration is bad for the environment, the argument is whether oil exploration in ANWR would be worse for the environment than oil exploration elsewhere in the world.

Developing ANWR would likely have similar environmental consequences to what happend at Prudhoe Bay. Prudhoe Bay has not suffered major environmental degredation. What is your evidence that drilling in ANWR would be worse than drilling at Prudhoe Bay?

19

elucidator: We now return to the lofty heights of reasoned debate.

And not a moment too soon, either. :slight_smile:

Since the last piece of reasoned debate that I spotted that was even remotely related to the OP was manhattan’s query about evidence for or against harm to caribou in the ANWR from the proposed drilling, I put on my Internet boots, kissed my Cecil icon, and set out to seek some. It’s damn hard to find sources on this topic that aren’t mostly just unsubstantiated beefing from one side or the other, but here’s a 22 February article from Petroleum News Alaska:

Canada offers United States alternatives to ANWR

Petroleum News Alaska (which hardly sounds as though it would be unduly tilted toward the “fact-free envirohysteria” end of the spectrum, eh? or if it’s just a blind, it was pretty damn cunning of those envirohysteriacs! :)) hereby reports that Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien offered Bush a whack at some of Canada’s oil resources (including, according to Natural Resources Minister Ralph Goodale, “the Alberta oil sands, the East Coast offshore and the High Arctic”) in exchange for letting ANWR alone.

This would appear to indicate that the higher-ups in Canada, at least, are seriously concerned that the proposed ANWR drilling would be bad for the caribou. Of course, there could be other explanations: the article also mentions that Canada is seeking billions of dollars in investment in the oil sands over the next 20 years, so perhaps the Canadians are just trying to convince the Yanks to spend our drilling dollar in the North? We need more and better evidence, but so far I’m inclined to regard this as a reasonably reliable indication that there is indeed cause for concern.

20

Well, fair enough. I picked “cheap-shot artist” because it was milder than my other choice. But since you insist: You are a liar. Please join me in the Pit to discuss this.

Sorry, Bricker and others, for the hijack.