@000: Not having so stated (a warrant by stipulation), and then, retroactively, to insist upon it as the exclusive criteria, is, as shown, a demonstrably biased selection of (inferior) evidence; and, as I say, a flaw in thinking attributable to either confirmation bias, laziness, or both.
OPEC fails to agree production ceiling
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-opec-meeting-idUSKBN0TM30B20151204
“We have no ceiling now.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/opec-meeting-ends-with-no-production-cuts-1449248892
"failed to agree on an overall crude output ceiling"
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/vienna/opec-fails-to-agree-crude-output-ceiling-to-meet-21568484
"We cannot put a number now"
http://m.apa.az/en/news/235976
"sheds symbolic output ceiling" ... "abandoning an official output ceiling"
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/12/04/opec-to-keep-pumping-crude/#36898101=0
"Ceilingless" ... "The ceiling of 30 million barrels a day, in place since 2011 and now abandoned"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-04/opec-unity-shattered-as-saudi-led-policy-leads-to-no-limits-ihs9xu51
I beg to differ with some. If they have eliminated, or failed to agree upon, a so-called ceiling; that would indeed be a change.
@000: Not having so stated (a warrant by stipulation), and then, retroactively, to insist upon it as the exclusive criteria, is, as shown, a demonstrably biased selection of (inferior) evidence; and, as I say, a flaw in thinking attributable to either confirmation bias, laziness, or both.