Silent H responds to me:
quote:
That said, your own argument (at your link) isn't exactly a clincher.
How? Be specific.
One of the claims is that there were over a hundred flights Gore could have taken.
There aren't.
Are you saying there are? If so, what are they?
Hannity is implying that Gore says we shouldn't fly, but Gore has never said that.
Are you saying he has? If so, when?
Gore is smearing Gore by making a big deal out of the fact that he didn't fly commercial, but that is akin to the previous point: Gore has never said one should always fly commercial.
Are you saying he has? If so, when?
The entire premise of Hannity's claim is that Gore is trying to present himself as some sort of super-saint who is then a liar and a hypocrite for having a big house and flying in an airplane, and in a non-commercial jet at that.
Hannity implies that Gore didn't pay the carbon tax...even though he admits that he didn't actually get in contact with Gore or his staff to verify.
Are you saying he hasn't? If so, how do you know?
Exactly what did Hannity say that was true?
quote:
What is the likelihood he'd have to fly to all three on one day?
Did you see his schedule for the day? He had an engagement in LoCal and then an engagement in HiCal the same day. How do you propose he manage to get from Tennessee to LA to SF in a single day?
quote:
That is all he did regarding Climate Change, and that's what he got the Nobel for.
As I said: And if that's all you think Gore has done regarding climate change, no wonder you don't understand.
First question: How long do you think Gore has been doing that "little slide show?"
Second question: What books has Gore written? Hint: Gore became the first sitting Senator since JFK to have a book on the New York Times Bestseller list.
Third question: When were those books written in contrast to that "little slide show"? Hint: It was before he was Vice President.
Fourth question: What activities did he carry out during his time in the Senate? Hint: The right wing tried to paint this as an example of Gore lying during the 2000 campaign.
Have you done any research into the activities of Gore regarding the environment? Or have you simply trusted people who claim that Gore hasn't done anything except a "little slide show"?
quote:
You missed what both of us were saying. He said "you'd almost swear", which is not a statement that anyone has, it is an expression of what their attitude suggests to him.
You missed what I said: You need to show us anybody who even comes close to that.
If you can't, then it's nothing more than a smear; an attempt to paint those opposite you as extremists.
quote:
And all I said is it is similar to Pat Robertson who misplaces blame for events... like its our environmental sin that resulted in the problems we face.
And you need to show us somebody who even approaches that.
Otherwise, it's just a smear calculated to paint those opposite you as extremists. So out with it: Give us a name, date, and place of someone who comes close to implying what you are claiming.
quote:
That one I want to see.
Then check the budget.
In 2004, the US Corps of Engineers asked for $11M for the Lake Pontchartrain project. Bush would only give them $3M and Congress managed to get it up to $5.5. In 2005, they wanted $22.5M, Bush would only give them $3.9M, and Congress managed to get it up again to $5.5M.
From the Corps' own press release in May of 2006:
In Orleans Parish, two major pump stations are threatened by hurricane storm surges. Major contracts need to be awarded to provide fronting protection for them. Also, several levees have settled and need to be raised to provide the design protection. The current funding shortfalls in fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 will prevent the Corps from addressing these pressing needs.
Remember, Bush is the one who claimed that "nobody could have predicted the levees would break" (sound familiar?) This, despite the fact that a 2001 report from before 9/11 said the three most disastrous things that could befall the US were a terrorist attack in New York, a massive earthquake in San Francisco, and a hurricane striking New Orleans.
The projects were not completed because they weren't funded. The reason why they weren't funded is because the Bush administration defunded them. They had been worked on continuously for over 30 years until the Bush administration.
quote:
If they had been done under Clinton-Gore, Bush's lack of funding would not have been enough to have resulted in what we saw.
Ahem. The projects were scheduled to be completed in 2015. The idea that somehow Clinton failed to do enough is ludicrous. It needed funding not only through the current administration but the next two in order to get done.
Have you done any research into this at all?
quote:
quote:
And as for your and his snippy attitude about the stupidity of building a city below sea level, tell that to Amsterdam. They have never had a problem regarding this and have suffered huge flood threats as well. That's because they give a damn about environmental action and respond to it.
What???? You must be talking to someone else.
(*sigh*)
You do recall that here on the internet, your words are kept forever, yes? Here is what you and NJ said:
Couldn't possibly be that building a city under sea level, and not listening to the Army Corps of Engineers about shoddy levies had anything to do with it. Just blame mankind in general. Propagate the Malthusian theory that overpopulation is really to blame for the perils of the earth.
Exactly. This problem was known years before... in fact when Gore was Vice President... oops!
So tell us, Holmes, what were you talking about other than "building a city under sea level"? What on earth was your point in saying, "oops!"
quote:
And let's get real about this, the devastation of Katrina had NOTHING to do with climate change.
Incorrect. Was it a direct cause? No, not exactly. But global warming does result in more frequent, stronger hurricanes. The fact that New Orleans is where it is simply means it is only a matter of time before it gets hit by a huge hurricane, yes. But with global warming, the chance of that huge hurricane coming sooner rather than later increases dramatically. It isn't like global warming made a hurricane to specifically hit New Orleans. And it isn't like without global warming, there would never be a huge hurricane to hit New Orleans.
quote:
For Gore to use that devastation to highlight CC
Where and how did he? Exact quotes, please. Here's the exact
transcript of Al Gore's speech at the Sierra Summit, September 9, 2005. Please highlight the exact statements you have trouble with in full context. Yes, Gore is connecting Katrina to global warming, but that's because it is. He isn't saying that a Category 5 hurricane would never have hit New Orleans. He's saying that there was always a threat, a threat that was ignored, and a threat that was made much more likely to happen because of global warming.
quote:
Just funding... even fully (which is based on political assessment of routine program cost)... does not mean needs were being met.
True. But the planned projects were not scheduled to be completed until 2015. You're talking about large-scale projects. Projects that the Corps requested, the previous administrations had funded, and were then cut off by the Bush Administration. The New Orleans Corps budget was cut by 80% in 2006.
quote:
but if the situation had been addressed properly under Clinton-Gore, the few years it had gone unfunded would not have resulted in what we saw.
That is simply incorrect. While the levees were planned for a Cat 3, the big reason why they failed is because they weren't finished. And the reason why they weren't finished is because Bush cut the funding. If he hadn't, they would have been completed and the destruction of New Orleans would not have been as bad.
quote:
They would have been constructed to last longer than that.
The whole set of projects were scheduled out to 2015. This attitude that somehow Clinton could cause a 20-year project to happen in 8 is simply laughable.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
