Drill, Baby, Drill!

Oh dear. Somebody certainly has some issues, but I'm not sure it's the RNC delegates.

BTW 'femiphobia' is an atrocious word, coined from mixed roots. Try 'gynophobia'.

Project much, Gerard? Or does truth hurt your weak ego too much?

BTW, the two terms are different: gynophobia is a fear of women, femiphobia is a fear of appearing/behaving feminine, i.e., sissified, thus much of machismo and aggression displayed by conservative males, all that Bomb Iran shit, and previously Bomb Iraq shit, and nationalism and sexism and racism - all that stems from male sexual anxiety which, in turn, is a result of strict parenting and "traditional" gender roles in families and communities (you know: Father is the boss in the house, Mother is supposed to be silent, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen). This leads to unfinished process of emotional development, stopping at the adolescent stage, where there is a lot of sexual anxiety.

What a dishonest post, you are assuming 200,000 barrels per day. Industry estimates vary from around 220,000bpd to as much as 1,000,000 bpd, see

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_truth_about_tire_pressure.h…

And considering how tight the oil-market is, that yellow in your graph above could make a big difference in price.

Bull. Does not jibe with your ideology?

Even if the yellow was twice as big, look at the X-axis - do you see WHEN this would happen? Do you have any idea how long this would last - a few years? It would have apporximately ZERO effect on the price even then, and certainly not today.

I see you did not respond to getting caught cherry picking your data, instead you have to lash out at me. And do you understand any economics, do you understand the word elasticity? If it was announced today that world oil production tomorrow was going to be 2% higher than it is now, the price would plunge. Just look at how widely the price fluctuates from news about a single pipeline in Nigeria or a hurricane in the gulf or a fire at a single refinery. When supply and demand are so close and relatively stable, the price swings can be large from small changes in either.

As for the "certainly not today", who gives a $)*(%. Dems argued vehemently 10 years ago that we shouldn't drill in ANWR because no oil would come online for some ten years. We should be thinking ahead here.

Thinking ahead means investing in alternatives so 10 years from now we say: Oil? What's that? We don't use that any more. Why the hell did we start drilling and polluting ten years ago? How stupid we were back then!

Yeah keep smoking that crack pipe. Don't use oil 10 years from now? I'd like to see the science that will make that happen. I see this isn't a blog that supports intelligent discussion, this will be my first and last visit here.

Yeah keep smoking that crack pipe. Don't use oil 10 years from now? I'd like to see the science that will make that happen. Was that what the Dems were thinking 10 years ago when the banned drilling in ANWR. Well here we are 10 years later, we still need oil, we don't have ANWR online and we're paying $100+ per barrel and $4 for gasoline. Great forward thinking by the Dems and the Clinton administration.

I see this isn't a blog that supports intelligent discussion, this will be my first and last visit here.

Watch that door on your way out.

Actually, as one commenter on Ezra's post notices:

"Actually, that plot is misleading--assuming the numbers on the right are correct, the height of the yellow region is too large (about 1/12 the size of U.S. oil consumption when it should be 1/28 the size)."

I don't know whether rightwingprofessor will or won't return here - I don't take bold assertions from most folks as actual statements on action - but I hate to think he/she is actually a professor of anything, given the obvious lack of understanding of numerical information.

I think there is a graph misinterpretation going on here. The factcheck.org reference with the EIA is exactly the same institution. It's misleading because the cross section in 2030 says .2 mb/d, where as if we had all been wearing our upper-crust monocles, we could see that the graph might be upwards of .22 md/d during the year of 2025, apart from the scale of the yellow region being dramatized.

The eagerness of the folks at the RNC chanting "drill baby drill" is a last ditch effort to bring down gas prices, which I can almost agree with. I thank the Bush administration for making it plainly obvious that alternate fuels are needed as it wasn't nearly as pressing of an issue as it is now. Please do not call someone such as me uneducated for disagreeing with a conservative. If intelligent discussion means insulting everyone in opposition to your ideology then you should look into campaigning.I have devoted a good part of my life to solving the problems we will have to face eventually. We can let the debate ensue by ecologists and marine biologists whether offshore drilling is actually a problem and remember to humble ourselves to the speculations made by those whose entire livelihood depends on it.

Far be it from me to defend a cretin such as Gerard, but he has a point. A phobia demands the person suffering from it suffer real symptoms. I knew a claustrophobic person that needed to be sedated to the point of total intoxication to board an airplane. I dislike this PoMo tradition of attaching "phobia" to behavior that is voluntary and lacks any real physical symptoms. Exactly what are "homophobes" frightened of "the same" or "men." What are the physical manifestations of this phobia? Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe people that hate others for no reason other than their sexual orientation as bigots? This action belittles people whose lives are seriously hampered by a real phobia.
As for his graph reading skills, it comes with the territory. Consider the famous gestalt tests. Gerard sees what he wants to see and ignores the rest.

OK, I looked up the dreadful word and see a PoMo psychologist is the one who minted it. Nevertheless, I suspect one can find gender anxiety in the DSM while this "phobia" will be absent.
Apologies for the reply to my post.

Stephen Ducat is as far from PoMo as a psychologist can be - he is a Freudian! But he hit on something important. And I have no problem with the word "phobia" used in such non-technical way - it is a well known term for "fear" and in this case it is fear of being perceived as feminine (and thus falling down in the male-male hierarchical order).

The first thing that comes to mind is the observation that your chart shows "consumption", while the yellow shows "offshore drilling". Even if we drill, that oil goes onto the world market. So we'd only receive a small percentage of that, as other countries demand more and more.