This article is a good example of how Glenn Beck peddles factual inaccuracies and reasoning errors. He says that the outer continental shelf contains 76 billion barrels of oil, enough to cover the amount the US imports for thirty-four years. But the US imports 4.4603 billion barrels of oil a year, so that's in fact only enough to cover the import rate for seventeen years. Beck also assumes that American gas prices will drop if the US ceases to import oil. There's no basis for this assumption, since extracting oil from the continental shelf could well cost more than importing oil. Then Beck turns his eye toward environmental concerns. He concludes that drilling for oil is much cleaner than importing it, since importing oil is thirteen times more likely to result in oil spills. I don't have the figures to check his facts, but he has still committed an obvious fallacy: spills are not the only environmental hazard related to drilling, so he has failed to show that drilling is safer than importing. And if we consider how drilling operations tend to damage the habitats of both flora and fauna, we see that there is a basis to object to drilling irrespective of whether it's safer than importing.

And ships transporting oil from the continental shelf will still spill oil on the North American coastline. Just because less oil ships are heading to NA from overseas, does not mean there are less ships along the coasts. The overseas oil will be shipped elsewhere, and the number of oil spills will increase because the NA ships will now also have spills.

And as others have pointed out, obtaining more oil is not the solution. We need to get off oil and the sooner we do, the less expensive the conversion.

Based on Beck's record of accuracy in the past, I'll bet he just made up the 13x more likely to result in oil spills anyway. I browsed through his book in the bookstore two months ago (it was filed in the fiction section...just joking, not really, it was stuck in the section with Limbaugh's and Howard Stern's books), and it is a shameless piece of flimsy lies (and, as TGC states, factual inaccuracies and reasoning errors).

It is almost as if he's saying, "The public is too ignorant to know the facts, too lazy to look up the facts, and can't reason their way out of a paperbag, so I can write anything I want", and he does.

Bottom line is that the man is either stupid himself, or he is a liar and has contempt for his audience. After reading sections of his book, I can't even charitably call him misinformed.

Hey, I am glad to see that I have some fellow Glenn Beck fans among the Message Board members here at ChessNinja!


Chess Fan

And I'm glad to see that you also realize he's dishonest too. I was a bit worried that you were a fan of the liar who hold peoples' intelligence in such contempt. Glad you're not embracing his lies then.

Just out of curiosity does anyone know if you can run any of the hybrid cars on electricity only? For example, can you refuse to use the gas engine or possibly strip it out completely?

I suspect that you can't, spock. Hybrids tend to rely on the tandem of electric motor and gas engine to reach maximal efficiency. The motor and engine each have roles to play: the motor runs at low speeds, where engines are inefficient, and the engine kicks in when the motor lacks the power needed to continue accelerating, usually somewhere in the 40-70 kph range. Short of keeping your speed low, there seems no way to avoid using the engine without a major overhaul of the drivetrain and onboard computer. Also, because the engine in some hybrids spins a wheel that powers an electric generator, by relying solely on the motor you'd get compromise the symbiosis that makes hybrids ultra-efficient. Wikipedia's article has some good coverage, but none of it will be news for hard-cores.

Nope Ken, sorry; but, I am still a fan of Glenn Beck; (although he is not perfect, of course.)

You know Ken, for your being an otherwise nice guy, I notice that you have a bad habit of saying the most *vicious and nasty and hateful things* about people whom that you disagree with, (ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THE ENVIRONMENT!)

Indeed, Ken, you do this over and over and over again here on this Message Board.

Your level of utter anger and apparent hatred toward people like Glenn Beck surprises me very much, because, it does seem to be out of character for you.


Chess Fan

Why would you be a fan of Beck, CF? He lies through omission, commission and distortion. He assumes his audience is stupid/lazy. That is easy enough to show. All you have to do is look up his "facts" and you'll see many of them are not true, or do not support his claims, or have other facts associated with them that contradict his conclusion. What kind of person will tell you something is true when two minutes of online research will demonstrate it is false? This is the kind of person you are a fan of???

People who swallow what he (and other opinion jockeys) says are a testament to P.T. Barnum's famous quip, and perhaps a symptom of a failing educational system.

If you want to be a fan, fine--but please remember he's proven himself as an untrustworthy source of information (check for yourself if you're skeptical).

Ken, doesn't the word 'failing' imply that the schools have not already failed completely?

Ed Yetman, III
YetmanBrothers.com

Yes, it does, Ed. But I've had a few gems come through my classes, and I've met a few through work, and they give me hope. Of course, it is possible that they're gems despite the school system and not because of it so a completely pessimistic outlook might still be warranted.