A Bill Maher Two-fer!

[Yonivore]

First, he actually criticizes the Won! Then, goes about justifying his criticism of both political parties (vis-a-vis energy policy) by making the outlandish claim Brazil has been "off oil" for 30 years.

Bill Maher Gets Owned By George Will (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N77MYF3Rqdk&feature=player_embedded)

N77MYF3Rqdk

And, before you start your usual "Jon Stewartesque" defense that Maher is just a comedian, tell it to ABC, they're the ones that put him in a serious round table discussion of political events, not me.

Just recently...

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html)


The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil's Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil's planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan.
Doesn't sound much like Brazil's "off oil" to me.

[InRareForm]

I hate when people overuse the term "owned"

George Will was a pussy for not saying you are wrong directly, rather than putting into a question form. no ownage there, just a correction made by him.

[Yonivore]

I hate when people overuse the term "owned"

George Will was a pussy for not saying you are wrong directly, rather than putting into a question form. no ownage there, just a correction made by him.
In fairness to Will, it wasn't him that used the term "owned." But, it wasn't a correction so much as it was Will pointing out Maher didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not a huge fan of Maher. Jon Stewart does journalism as well as comedy... he actually compares claims made by public officials with facts or previous claims. Maher seems to opine much more than do research.

[George Gervin's Afro]

In fairness to Will, it wasn't him that used the term "owned." But, it wasn't a correction so much as it was Will pointing out Maher didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.

we feel the same way about beck, hannity and limbaugh..

[jack sommerset]

That was a waste of a few minutes. I was hoping for a nice beat down. Mahr is cool but he does go way to far to the left the past 2 years. Atleast he admits he is a far left guy unlike our president.

[dreamcastrocks]

Maher is closer to the truth than George.

The combination of conservation and substitution, along with the expansion of domestic production, reduced the country's dependence on imported crude oil, from around 80 percent in the late 1970s to 45.6 percent in 1990. Domestic output of crude oil increased from an average 165,000 barrels a day in 1975 to some 800,100 barrels a day by 1996. By the end of 1995, Brazil's proven reserves had reached 4.8 billion barrels and potential reserves were at 8.8 billion barrels. About 64 percent of Brazil's domestic oil comes from the continental shelf in the Campos Basin, which accounts for 83 percent of proven reserves.

[DarrinS]

Maher is closer to the truth than George.

The combination of conservation and substitution, along with the expansion of domestic production, reduced the country's dependence on imported crude oil, from around 80 percent in the late 1970s to 45.6 percent in 1990. Domestic output of crude oil increased from an average 165,000 barrels a day in 1975 to some 800,100 barrels a day by 1996. By the end of 1995, Brazil's proven reserves had reached 4.8 billion barrels and potential reserves were at 8.8 billion barrels. About 64 percent of Brazil's domestic oil comes from the continental shelf in the Campos Basin, which accounts for 83 percent of proven reserves.


Didn't you just site a bunch of data that refutes what Maher said?

[Drachen]

First, he actually criticizes the Won! Then, goes about justifying his criticism of both political parties (vis-a-vis energy policy) by making the outlandish claim Brazil has been "off oil" for 30 years.

Bill Maher Gets Owned By George Will (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N77MYF3Rqdk&feature=player_embedded)

N77MYF3Rqdk

And, before you start your usual "Jon Stewartesque" defense that Maher is just a comedian, tell it to ABC, they're the ones that put him in a serious round table discussion of political events, not me.

Just recently...

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html)


Doesn't sound much like Brazil's "off oil" to me.


Look, I don't know if Brazil is "off oil" or not, though I doubt it. I do, however know that what you cited isn't necessarily indicative of Brazil being "on oil." A country can produce a product without having any use for said product. This is especially adventageous if the product is energy since this is a very in demand product and this country is able to profit off of 100% of the production rather than using a portion.

If we invented the technology and every home in america had a Mr. Fusion installed to power the cars as well as the home, and for whatever reason we didn't sell the tech outside of the country, we could take all oil, coal, and natural gas produced within our borders and make a ton of cash.

[DarrinS]

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Consumption_statistics, Brazil was the 7th largest consumer of fossil fuels in 2008.

[Stringer_Bell]

Definitely not an "own," perhaps a "son, stop and think wtf you are saying before you say it"...certainly had potential to be pwned if George Will had more substance to his reaction than "I think." Nice to see someone call out Maher tho, he didn't really know where to go once he got the mic pointed back at him.

PS: And just cuz the US is giving Brazil money for oil exploration doesn't mean Brazil plans to use it for themselves. Why couldn't they just find oil and turn a profit from it? That'd be pretty smart.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

:lmao @ Brazil being "off oil"

[DMX7]

Definitely not an "own," perhaps a "son, stop and think wtf you are saying before you say it"...certainly had potential to be pwned if George Will had more substance to his reaction than "I think."


The sharp edits in this clip reek of desperation.

Brazil has the world's only sustainable biofuel economy. They now consume about 40% of the world's ethanol fuel. In fact, nearly ever car in Brazil uses a mixture of ethanol fuel and gasoline, so they certainly aren't "off gasoline" but they're not slaves to as like we are, which is what I think Maher's real point was.


Nice to see someone call out Maher tho, he didn't really know where to go once he got the mic pointed back at him.


What the heck do you mean? His show is a roundtable discussion. His guests, which are often republicans, always get to respond to him.

[smeagol]

:lmao @ Brazil being "off oil"

What he said x 10000000000 :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Maher is an uninformed asshole . . .

[BRHornet45]

the world would be a better place if someone took this piece of shit out

[jack sommerset]

The guy is pure entertainment. Love the sig BR! Makes my balls do an irish jig in my pants!

[Yonivore]

The sharp edits in this clip reek of desperation.

Brazil has the world's only sustainable biofuel economy. They now consume about 40% of the world's ethanol fuel. In fact, nearly ever car in Brazil uses a mixture of ethanol fuel and gasoline, so they certainly aren't "off gasoline" but they're not slaves to as like we are, which is what I think Maher's real point was.
Aren't they clear-cutting another environmentalist sacred cow, rain forests, in order to achieve that 40%?

[dreamcastrocks]

Didn't you just site a bunch of data that refutes what Maher said?

Yes and no. Brazil's oil usage has gone down considerably the past 40 years. Furthermore, their use of imported petroleum has also gone down considerably.

So yes, they aren't off oil completely, but their dependence of foreign oil is greatly reduced and manageable. America however is not. We haven't made any real attempt to rid ourselves of foreign oil. Even when we had the shortage and the rationing in the 70's, we made no steps. That I believe was his point.

I thought I was clear when I said that my point was closer to truth for Maher, and not completely one-sided.

[dreamcastrocks]

Aren't they clear-cutting another environmentalist sacred cow, rain forests, in order to achieve that 40%?

Now that's a different story. At least they are using their own resources though....

[Yonivore]

Now that's a different story. At least they are using their own resources though....
But, they're not "off oil."

And, also, Brazil doesn't have any of these idiots to worry about.

roFB7bGCAgc

[RandomGuy]

First, he actually criticizes the Won! Then, goes about justifying his criticism of both political parties (vis-a-vis energy policy) by making the outlandish claim Brazil has been "off oil" for 30 years.

Bill Maher Gets Owned By George Will (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N77MYF3Rqdk&feature=player_embedded)

N77MYF3Rqdk

And, before you start your usual "Jon Stewartesque" defense that Maher is just a comedian, tell it to ABC, they're the ones that put him in a serious round table discussion of political events, not me.

Just recently...

Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html)


Doesn't sound much like Brazil's "off oil" to me.

Brazil does not import much oil, as it has a rather solid and extensive ethanol industry based on fairly efficient sugarcane. Read the wiki article for more.

Brazil import data, ranked 18th among other oil importers as of 2009 at roughly 5% of what the US imports yearly.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?c=br&v=93

Maher was incorrect. Maher is generally pretty well informed, and certainly articulate about his opinions.

Not sure if that counts as some "usual defense" though.

[Yonivore]

Well, RG, the United States wouldn't import much oil if the envirowhackos would allow us to recover our own resources and build nuclear power plants.

And, I found Maher to be as informed as I usually find him to be...by rhetoric.

[RandomGuy]

Well, RG, the United States wouldn't import much oil if the envirowhackos would allow us to recover our own resources and build nuclear power plants.

And, I found Maher to be as informed as I usually find him to be...by rhetoric.

Factually, provably wrong.

Let's start with your first bit of Kool Aid.

How much oil exactly are the "envirowhackos" keeping us from "recovering"?

Flesh this out for me, or withdraw the statement as erroneous.

[RandomGuy]

Secondly, Yoni, are you calling people who depend on fishing for a living "envirowhackos"?

Are the people who own coastal real estate "envirowhackos" too?

Are the people working for the tourist industries in coastal states "envirowhackos"?

Seems like your own statement seems to be informed as many who listen to Fox are... by rhetoric.

Or can we be grown ups and both agree that the statement "envirowhackos are keeping us from drilling oil offshore" was an erroneously simplified statement?

[smeagol]

Yes and no. Brazil's oil usage has gone down considerably the past 40 years. Furthermore, their use of imported petroleum has also gone down considerably.

That does not mean they are off oil.



So yes, they aren't off oil completely, but their dependence of foreign oil is greatly reduced and manageable.


So they still consume oil, albeit domestically extracted oil.



America however is not. We haven't made any real attempt to rid ourselves of foreign oil. Even when we had the shortage and the rationing in the 70's, we made no steps. That I believe was his point.

That might have been his point . . . but what he said was stupid. Brazil is not off oil. Yes, they have a thriving ethanol industry, but they still consume a lot of oil.


I thought I was clear when I said that my point was closer to truth for Maher, and not completely one-sided.

huh?

[Jacob1983]

Bill Maher was wrong. Case closed.

[Yonivore]

Secondly, Yoni, are you calling people who depend on fishing for a living "envirowhackos"?

Are the people who own coastal real estate "envirowhackos" too?

Are the people working for the tourist industries in coastal states "envirowhackos"?

Seems like your own statement seems to be informed as many who listen to Fox are... by rhetoric.

Or can we be grown ups and both agree that the statement "envirowhackos are keeping us from drilling oil offshore" was an erroneously simplified statement?
Simplified, maybe; erroneous, no.

There was a spill in the Bay of Campeche in 1979 that spilled so much oil it would take the current well blowout, flowing at it's current rate, two to three years to equal.

I lived on the Texas Coast in '79. I remember the oil clumps washing up on shore for about a year and half. After that, everything went back to normal. Whooping Cranes did just fine, thank you very much.

There is a lot of hyperventilating by the envirowhackos in an attempt to make this out to be some apocalyptic oil spill. If I remember correctly, I heard earlier today, it's not even in the top 20.

Anybody want to guess where the largest oil spill was and who caused it? No fair googling.

[RandomGuy]

Simplified, maybe; erroneous, no.

There was a spill in the Bay of Campeche in 1979 that spilled so much oil it would take the current well blowout, flowing at it's current rate, two to three years to equal.

I lived on the Texas Coast in '79. I remember the oil clumps washing up on shore for about a year and half. After that, everything went back to normal. Whooping Cranes did just fine, thank you very much.

There is a lot of hyperventilating by the envirowhackos in an attempt to make this out to be some apocalyptic oil spill. If I remember correctly, I heard earlier today, it's not even in the top 20.

Anybody want to guess where the largest oil spill was and who caused it? No fair googling.

That would be the release of oil into the Persian Gulf by Saddam's forces during his retreat from Kuwait. No need to google, already came across that during my research.

[RandomGuy]

Simplified, maybe; erroneous, no.

The ultimate size of the current spill is still fairly small, and no one really knows what the final effects will be.

Yes, it was a simplification, and quite a misleading one, because it failed to acknowledge that there are quite a few jobs that are harmed by large oil spills, and quite a bit of money thrown at opposing drilling for becasue of the overall risks posed to people's livlihood and property values.

Anyways, back to proving you wrong:

How much oil are the "envirowackos" keeping us from drilling?

You have stated that we wouldn't be importing much oil if we could just "drill here, drill now".

He who asserts must prove.

I call bullshit. Either substantiate that statement, or withdraw it as false.

[Yonivore]

Either substantiate that statement, or withdraw it as false.
You remind me of Yul Brenner's Pharoah in the Ten Commandments, "So let it be written, so let it be done!"

You forgot one of my options, "or ignore my pedantic ass altogether."

[ChumpDumper]

Nah, it's more fun watching you not back up your claims.

[RandomGuy]

You remind me of Yul Brenner's Pharoah in the Ten Commandments, "So let it be written, so let it be done!"

You forgot one of my options, "or ignore my pedantic ass altogether."

I woudn't call you pedantic. You are being a bit harsh on yourself.

[RandomGuy]

Nah, it's more fun watching you not back up your claims.

(shrugs)

I don't expect him to answer it, any more than than a 9-11 truther would answer direct questions when asked to back up their bullshit.

The "truth" movement has more in common with the modern "conservative" movement than either camp would care to admit.

[RandomGuy]

Well, RG, the United States wouldn't import much oil if the envirowhackos would allow us to [drill all the oil we could offshore and on] and build nuclear power plants.


I disagree.

Even if we drilled offshore and got all of the oil online tomorrow, drilled in anwar, and did all the other oil drilling in all the places you seem to think that "envirowhackos" are keeping us from drilling, it still would leave us in the position of importing a great deal of oil. I think it would be pretty likely MOST of our oil. Not only that, it would make hardly any difference at the pump in gas prices.

You are factually, provably wrong, and you know it.

This is little more than a regurgitated talking point that you swallowed, hook, line, and sinker without doing any critical thinking or fact-checking.

Quite frankly that is the level of intellectual rigor on the part of people that call themselves "the right" in this country that makes me HIGHLY suspicious when they come to me asking for my vote for their policies and candidates.

If you are so easily misled by this Yoni, what else are you misled on?

[DarrinS]

Quite frankly that is the level of intellectual rigor on the part of people that call themselves "the right" in this country that makes me HIGHLY suspicious when they come to me asking for my vote for their policies and candidates.



The policies of "the left" have worked wonders for California and Michigan.

:downspin:

[RandomGuy]

The policies of "the left" have worked wonders for California and Michigan.

:downspin:

Oh goodie, an opportunity to show more intellectual laziness on the part of the "right".

Care to support that statement/implication with data?

[RandomGuy]

... and days later, still no support for the direct assertions from Darrin, or honest acknowledgement from Yoni that he was wrong.

Color me unsurprised.

[Yonivore]

Meanwhile, Anthony Watts gives meaningful perspective on the blowout:

Lessons from the Gulf Blowout (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/09/lessons-from-the-gulf-blowout/)


it will take weeks to years of uncontrolled leakage, before this spill comes close to previous highs, such as the:

* Santa Barbara Channel oil platform blowout (1969): 90,000 barrels off the California coast;

* Mega Borg tanker (1990): 121,400 barrels in the Gulf of Mexico off Galveston, TX;

* Exxon Valdez tanker (1989): 250,000 barrels along 1,300 miles of untouched Alaska shoreline;

* Ixtoc 1 oil platform blowout (1979): 3,500,000 barrels in Mexico’s Campeche Bay;

* Saddam Hussein oil field sabotage (1991): 857,000,000 barrels in Kuwait;

* Natural seeps in US waters: 1,119,000 barrels every year from natural cracks in the seafloor.
There's a transcript at the end of the article where an eyewitness (rig worker) is interviewed by a WBAP (Dallas) radio station.

Interesting stuff.

[RandomGuy]

Meanwhile, Anthony Watts gives meaningful perspective on the blowout:

Lessons from the Gulf Blowout (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/09/lessons-from-the-gulf-blowout/)


There's a transcript at the end of the article where an eyewitness (rig worker) is interviewed by a WBAP (Dallas) radio station.

Interesting stuff.

Indeed, this blowout so far is not really on par with other disasters, although its location and where the oil it has spilled is going is a bit more worrysome.

[RandomGuy]

Lessons from the Gulf Blowout (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/09/lessons-from-the-gulf-blowout/)


We’ve made it nearly impossible to mine coal or uranium, or build new coal-fired power plants or nuclear reactors. We’ve largely forced companies to drill in deep Gulf waters, where risks and costs are far higher, and the ability to respond quickly and effectively to accidents is lower.

"nearly impossible to mine coal"

We mined more than twice the amount of coal in 2008 than we did in 1949.
( pick a spreadsheet of data at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/coal.html )

That doesn't sound like "nearly impossible" to me.

We haven't "largely forced companies" to drill in deep waters, that is where most of the new oil is.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_a_EPC0_R01_mmbbl_a.htm

We have slowly exhausted reserves inland, and as that happens whatever is left is more and more un-economical to extract. Not because of some "envirowhackos", but because what is left is in smaller and/or deeper wells.

Simple economics, physics and geologic reality have done this, not any earth-shatteringly oppressive government regulations.

Most environmental regulations have the simple effect of making the extractive industries pay the costs of risk-mitigation up front, instead of being able to pollute unrestrictedly and essentially steal from others for what economists call "negative externalities".

San Antonio's own sordid past with the massive cost overruns at the nukes that the utility has been trying to build gives yet another clue as to why we don't have more nuclear power. It simply costs too much.

I would pretty much fully agree with this guy's conclusions about a good response:


What should we do next? Recognize that life, technology and civilization involve risks. Humans make mistakes. Equipment fails. Nature presents us with extreme, unprecedented, unexpected power and fury.

Learn the right lessons from this tragic, catastrophic, probably preventable accident. Avoid grandstanding and kneejerk reactions. Replace people’s lost income. Insist on responsible, adult thinking – and a thorough, expert, non-politicized investigation. Find solutions instead of assigning blame.

Why did the BOP and backups fail? What went wrong with the cement, plugs and pressure detection devices, supervisor and crew monitoring and reactions, to set off the catastrophic chain of events? How can we improve the technology and training, to make sure such a disaster never happens again? Did the regulators fail, too? How can we improve oil spill cleanup technologies and rapid response?

[word]

It's just sad that so many people live in the dreamworld that Maher inhabits.

I saw this chart put together of how many nuke plants, coal plants, wind farms and solar panels it would take to replace oil in our country using BTU's as a measurement. It's staggering. Getting 'off of oil' would fundamentally change this country in ways most people would not like. The fact is, we're going to have to, eventually, have a shit load of nuke reactors in this country. But wait, they're against THAT.

[RandomGuy]

It's just sad that so many people live in the dreamworld that Maher inhabits.

I saw this chart put together of how many nuke plants, coal plants, wind farms and solar panels it would take to replace oil in our country using BTU's as a measurement. It's staggering. Getting 'off of oil' would fundamentally change this country in ways most people would not like. The fact is, we're going to have to, eventually, have a shit load of nuke reactors in this country. But wait, they're against THAT.

It is a rather scary reality of what will have to happen as oil gets more expensive. For the reasons you outlined, it is pretty impractical to fully "get off" oil using present technology. We will have to do a lot of things at once, and get some solid efficiency gains in renewable technologies.

We will have to wean ourselves from being so dependent on energy for our transportation needs on a per capita basis. Individual vehicles are pretty energy intensive compared to trains and light rail.

Mass transit will go a LONG way towards reducing the amount of energy we require for our needs.

I am not against nukes per se, but the massive cost overruns coupled with the increased security risks posted by waste/fuel shipments seem to pose some pretty substantial practical barriers. I for one find the risk that we could conceivedly lose a major metropolitan area to a dirty bomb to be higher than I am willing to pay for that.

Which major city do you want to sacrifice for nuclear power?