Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: The Rutificador chile
Post Volume: Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Global Warming Research
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 106 of 133 (443130)
12-23-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Hyroglyphx
12-22-2007 1:41 PM


Re: Who to believe
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
quote:
And since there are a lot of dissenters of the mainstream
Of course, everybody knows this isn't true. There aren't really any dissenters of the mainstream.
A survey of the all the climatological papers published from the last decade couldn't find a single one that claimed global warming wasn't real and wasn't primarily driven by human activity.
Do not confuse statements made by industry-funded "studies" for the popular press with actual science.
quote:
Personally, I am offended that somebody like Al Gore, who traipses across the globe in the fossil fuel nightmare that is his lier jet to conferences where he derides everyone else, so that he gets awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
Of course, everybody knows this isn't true.
As I showed [I][B]DIRECTLY TO YOU WHEN YOU MADE THIS CLAIM BEFORE[/I][/B] (Message 32 of the Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam." thread), an examination of the claims of Sean Hannity showed that he lied about the Vice-President's activities.
So the question, NJ, is this:
Since the data you are basing your conclusions on is fatally flawed, what does that do to your conclusion?
Let's try it from the other side: If you could be convinced that there isn't any "dissent" among the scientific community regarding the reality and causes of global warming, would you change your conclusion?
If you could be convinced that you were lied to regarding the actions of Gore, would you change your conclusion?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2007 1:41 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2007 11:34 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 107 of 133 (443138)
12-23-2007 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Silent H
12-22-2007 9:28 PM


Re: Who to believe
Silent H writes:
quote:
I heard he flies commercial, so that might not be true (about the lier jet).
It is, and Nemesis Juggernaut knows it. The last time he brought it up, he was direclty shown how Sean Hannity lied to him (Message 32 of the Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam." thread).
And yet, here he is claiming that it's true.
And just as a peeve: It's "Learjet"...as in William Powell Lear, Jr.
quote:
And he doesn't produce science, either to discover the nature of our climate, or towards fixing any problems... he makes people "aware"...
And if that's all you think Gore has done, no wonder you don't understand.
quote:
quote:
You'd almost swear that they pray for disasters just so they could use it as ammunition to further their agenda. Its sick and deluded.
It seems so similar to Robertson blaming 9/11 on gays and atheists, which is part of the offense to me. If liberals can see what's wrong with that, how can they not see what is going wrong here?
OK, names, dates, places.
You need to provide a single example of anything even remotely approaching something like this to justify your conclusion. Otherwise, you fell for NJ pulling yet another nugget out of his ass. Show us a single person who has ever even hinted that there should be a disaster.
Other than Robertson warning Florida that they will be hit by a meteor or a hurricane because Disney doesn't ban gay people from going to Disneyworld.
Other than O'Reilly inviting terrorists to bomb San Francisco.
Show me a single person who is an advocate of reducing the human effects of global warming who has said that the devastation of Katrina was something we deserved.
quote:
quote:
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!
Ahem. Who was it that ignored them? That's right: The Bush Administration. The ones who up until recently denied that global warming even existed.
The New Orleans levies had been continually worked on for over three decades...fully funded under the Clinton administration to maintain and upgrade them. And then the Bush Administration stopped funding the work. If the SCOTUS hadn't overturned the election of 2000, the destruction of New Orleans wouldn't have happened.
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.
How do you expect to do that with people who keep saying there is "controversy" over the subject and that to do anything will "hurt the economy"?
Don't you think the economy of New Orleans was hurt by ignoring the problem?
quote:
I still wonder why no one has questioned him about why he never addressed those needs on his watch.
Could it be that the problem was addressed under his watch and therefore it would be nonsensical to raise such a question?
Nah, that can't possibly be it.
Continuously funded for over 30 years until the Bush Administration cut off the funding.
How does that translate to Gore (and/or Clinton) "never addressing" it?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2007 9:28 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2007 11:25 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6077 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 108 of 133 (443184)
12-23-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Rrhain
12-23-2007 8:19 PM


Re: Who to believe
First, thanks for the correction on learjet. It felt funny as I was writing it, but I wasn't sure and too lazy to look it up. My mistake.
Second, I don't like Hannity and Fox, and I don't trust them. That said, your own argument (at your link) isn't exactly a clincher. Other than I don't trust said people, your argument doesn't provide evidence either... it just raises logically possible replies Gore could make.
That said, I'm not so certain about the necessity of those possibilities. What is the likelihood he'd have to fly to all three on one day? I mean really? If environment was first he could change his schedule around doing what's right. The Amish do that kind of thing all the time. And if he's going to play the role model, perhaps that extra mile would be good.
Buying the carbon credits would be about his best excuse, but that still is not as good as reduction altogether.
And if that's all you think Gore has done, no wonder you don't understand.
That is all he did regarding Climate Change, and that's what he got the Nobel for. If he produced any data on this, regarding nature of change or how it can be stopped, please share.
Show us a single person who has ever even hinted that there should be a disaster.
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. 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.
You are taking our comments a bit past how they were meant.
The New Orleans levies had been continually worked on for over three decades...fully funded under the Clinton administration to maintain and upgrade them. And then the Bush Administration stopped funding the work. If the SCOTUS hadn't overturned the election of 2000, the destruction of New Orleans wouldn't have happened.
That one I want to see. I attended a lecture by a guy working on the levee problems in NO during the Clinton-Gore years and they were NOT
being listened to as you seem to make out. Maintain might be accurate, but they needed more than being kept at the level they were.
There were a series of problems beyond routine maintenance, it needed increase in funding and better solutions. 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.
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. My only problem is with people who build under sea level and then DON'T give a damn about putting in the correct sea defenses, and continue to renew those defenses. I happen to love Amsterdam (lived there for years) and am well aware of not just their defense programs, but their reclamation works as well. Ironically the above mentioned lecturer was explaining how Lousiana was facing the same crises as the Netherlands, but there was resistance to utilizing their methods due to the costs.
Only after Katrina are we hearing discussion (from a US administration) that we should look to the Netherlands for possible solutions to its problems.
And let's get real about this, the devastation of Katrina had NOTHING to do with climate change. It was a disaster waiting to happen. For Gore to use that devastation to highlight CC, is repulsive because it makes people ignore the much more important issues that they still need to deal with. In fact the dangers from poor infrastructure pose a much more immediate threat to human lives, than anything cutting GHGs would solve.
How does that translate to Gore (and/or Clinton) "never addressing" it?
Just funding... even fully (which is based on political assessment of routine program cost)... does not mean needs were being met. They did not address the problems. If Bush cut funding it certainly didn't help anything (and he added to the disaster with his usual sit on his ass style of management in the face of a crisis) 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. They would have been constructed to last longer than that.
Edited by Silent H, : l

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Rrhain, posted 12-23-2007 8:19 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Vacate, posted 12-23-2007 11:52 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 117 by Rrhain, posted 12-24-2007 10:18 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6077 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 109 of 133 (443187)
12-23-2007 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Hyroglyphx
12-23-2007 7:38 PM


Re: Who to believe
Okay, I think I need you and Rrhain to duke it out on the learjet thing. I agree with him that I wouldn't trust Hannity or Fox news for anything, and he has given some possible explanations for Gore. That said, possible does not mean real, and I still question the necessity. Which comes first, saving the environment or getting to three cities in one day? I kind of don't buy that.
But the evidence is lacking.
The truth of it is that personalities like Gore and Robertson aren't trying to be malicious about anything. I'm sure some people choose to believe that, but I highly doubt it. It still doesn't take away the fact that its maladjusted.
I totally agree with the rest of your post, but the above is a really nice statement.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2007 7:38 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2007 8:57 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 133 (443188)
12-23-2007 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Rrhain
12-23-2007 8:01 PM


Re: Who to believe
There aren't really any dissenters of the mainstream.
A survey of the all the climatological papers published from the last decade couldn't find a single one that claimed global warming wasn't real and wasn't primarily driven by human activity.
Then your survey is wrong, because I happen to converse with a major dissenter via email every so often. He isn't the only one. Heck, even the founder of the Weather Channel calls it the biggest hoax in modern science.
Do not confuse statements made by industry-funded "studies" for the popular press with actual science.
Okay, I won't. Does that go for you too?
As I showed DIRECTLY TO YOU WHEN YOU MADE THIS CLAIM BEFORE (Message 32 of the Weather Channel founder calls Global Warming "a scam." thread), an examination of the claims of Sean Hannity showed that he lied about the Vice-President's activities.
Well, since I didn't see that message, I'll just have to go back and see why you think he lied about the former vice-President.
Since the data you are basing your conclusions on is fatally flawed, what does that do to your conclusion?
You've never shown anything to be fatally flawed. And there are many climatologists who aren't buying in to anthropogenic global warming. I remain open on the debate, but certainly skeptical.
Let's try it from the other side: If you could be convinced that there isn't any "dissent" among the scientific community regarding the reality and causes of global warming, would you change your conclusion?
Since I am not a climatologist it would heavily determine it, yes. But since I know that isn't the case, its a moot point.
If you could be convinced that you were lied to regarding the actions of Gore, would you change your conclusion?
About what? Al Gore's personal life or global warming -- or both?

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Rrhain, posted 12-23-2007 8:01 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by fgarb, posted 12-24-2007 12:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 118 by Rrhain, posted 12-24-2007 10:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4858 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 111 of 133 (443192)
12-23-2007 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Silent H
12-23-2007 11:25 PM


Re: Who to believe
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.
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.
Clinton-Gore = Provided funding but not enough funding.
Bush = No funding
Conclusion = Blame Clinton-Gore for not doing enough, excuse Bush for not doing anything. Is this a correct summary of your position?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2007 11:25 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 12-24-2007 12:51 AM Vacate has replied

  
fgarb
Member (Idle past 5648 days)
Posts: 98
From: Naperville, IL
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 112 of 133 (443194)
12-24-2007 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hyroglyphx
12-23-2007 11:34 PM


Re: Who to believe
Nemesis writes:
Then your survey is wrong, because I happen to converse with a major dissenter via email every so often. He isn't the only one. Heck, even the founder of the Weather Channel calls it the biggest hoax in modern science.
Sorry for the pile on, but I also pointed this out to you, Nemesis, along with this link explaining the evidence for it. No need to respond to both of us, just to one of us. Between the years of 93 and 03 there are no peer reviewed journal articles contesting human caused global warming. As the article explains, others checked her on this and only came up with one publication contesting man made global warming, which was not peer reviewed and was published in a publication by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. If the people you know have evidence against manmade global warming they should publish. Otherwise they don't get to complain.
I still would be interested to know what else you think might be causing the observed warming if you have time to say. Since most scientists who study the matter say it's manmade and I think on this thread we've pretty thoroughly shown it's unlikely to be due to the sun - either directly by the sun or indirectly via its interaction with cosmic rays - I'd love to know how else you think it might be happening.
Edited by fgarb, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2007 11:34 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6077 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 113 of 133 (443207)
12-24-2007 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by Vacate
12-23-2007 11:52 PM


Re: Who to believe
Conclusion = Blame Clinton-Gore for not doing enough, excuse Bush for not doing anything. Is this a correct summary of your position?
Not even close. Conclusion= It is the height of hypocrisy for Gore to be using that disaster as a means to suggest he has a solution to such things. He ignored the actual cause while in office, and is now tying it to another problem that has nothing to do with it (but will benefit his image).
As for Bush... he's an idiot. I have no idea how much his cutting funding made the situation worse (I doubt it could have been much) but his lack of response was 9/11 all over again. He compounded the problem. Note however, that ALSO has nothing to do with climate change.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Vacate, posted 12-23-2007 11:52 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Vacate, posted 12-24-2007 1:01 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 12-24-2007 10:49 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4858 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 114 of 133 (443210)
12-24-2007 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Silent H
12-24-2007 12:51 AM


Re: Who to believe
quote:
Is this a correct summary of your position?
Not even close.
I just wanted to be sure of your position. I am not sure if I agree of disagree with you as I haven't looked into what was or was not done during Clintons administration. Just peeking into the thread however I hoped to get a bit more information on what you where trying to say. Thank you sir.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 12-24-2007 12:51 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Silent H, posted 12-24-2007 1:04 AM Vacate has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6077 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 115 of 133 (443212)
12-24-2007 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Vacate
12-24-2007 1:01 AM


Re: Who to believe
That's cool. Sorry if I came off as surly. It's getting late and I should go to bed already.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Vacate, posted 12-24-2007 1:01 AM Vacate has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 133 (443403)
12-24-2007 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Silent H
12-23-2007 11:34 PM


Woe to Gore
Okay, I think I need you and Rrhain to duke it out on the learjet thing. I agree with him that I wouldn't trust Hannity or Fox news for anything
You also can't assume that just because its Fox or Hannity that it isn't true. Think of the lawsuit that would incur if the statement about Gore's jetsetting wasn't true? Its very obvious that it is true.
And if FOX can't be trusted, can USAToday?
and he has given some possible explanations for Gore.
None that would justify the way he derides the average joe. He, of ALL people, needs to walk the walk. He isn't alone in this total hypocrisy. Barbara Streisand and John Travolta are also mega-hypocrites in this arena. If he is going to be the figurehead for this whole thing, he had better be squeaky clean. He is no position to chastize me. I am greener than he.
I use natural, biodegradable, carcinogen-free products from tea-tree oils, use specially-installed lights, recycle everything, and kayak to work 25% of the time, we live in a modest 3 bedroom, 2 1/2 bath duplex. I would ride my bike to work if there was access to one. In order to get to work, I have trek across the Vincent Thomas bridge.
As you can see from this video, there is no access for a bike, otherwise I would. So I either have to drive or kayak.
Then of course there is the matter of my job, the US Coast Guard, which does more to help the environment than 1 million Gore's combined.
About my biggest no-no would be that I own a Jeep Grand Cherokee, which I purchased well before this whole three ring circus began.
So I'm a little irked at Gore, who owns lear jets and a 20 room mansion, when he tells you and I to live in straw huts while he lives in the lap of luxury. Pssshhhh. Un-be-lievable....
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : picked motion picture instead of still photo

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2007 11:34 PM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Rrhain, posted 12-25-2007 2:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 117 of 133 (443419)
12-24-2007 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Silent H
12-23-2007 11:25 PM


Re: Who to believe
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Silent H, posted 12-23-2007 11:25 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Silent H, posted 12-25-2007 1:53 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 118 of 133 (443423)
12-24-2007 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Hyroglyphx
12-23-2007 11:34 PM


Re: Who to believe
Nemesis Juggernaut responds to me:
quote:
quote:
A survey of the all the climatological papers published from the last decade couldn't find a single one that claimed global warming wasn't real and wasn't primarily driven by human activity.
Then your survey is wrong, because I happen to converse with a major dissenter via email every so often.
So where has he been published? Names, dates, journal title. It is not enough that your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate mentioned something.
Actual, peer-reviewed journal articles.
quote:
Heck, even the founder of the Weather Channel calls it the biggest hoax in modern science.
And we've dealt with him before. He was kicked out of the Weather Channel for being incompetent. He's now the weather guy for the local news channel here in San Diego.
I know him personally.
quote:
But since I know that isn't the case, its a moot point.
Ahem. Not only I but many others showed you in that thread that your reliance upon John Coleman is misplaced.
But what it means is that you really don't care about the evidence.
What would it take, NJ? What would it take for you to conclude that you were wrong?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2007 11:34 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-25-2007 8:54 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 119 of 133 (443427)
12-24-2007 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Silent H
12-24-2007 12:51 AM


Re: Who to believe
Silent H writes:
quote:
It is the height of hypocrisy for Gore to be using that disaster as a means to suggest he has a solution to such things.
And where has he ever said that?
Be specific, Holmes. Chapter and verse. Exact quotes in full context, please.
Otherwise you're just falling for the nuggest NJ and his ilk pull out of their asses.
quote:
He ignored the actual cause while in office
How is providing the funding the Army Corps of Engineers asked for concerning a 20-year project "ignoring" it?
You seem to think that Gore should have been able to turn a 20-year project into an 8-year project. Does the fact that he is incapable of stopping time mean he's "ignoring" the problem?
quote:
I have no idea how much his cutting funding made the situation worse
You mean you didn't bother to do any research on the subject before spouting off? You didn't bother to look up the Corps' own report on the subject where they blamed the lack of funding for their inability to complete the projects that would have protected New Orleans?
quote:
Note however, that ALSO has nothing to do with climate change.
Except that it does. Global warming causes more frequent and stronger hurricanes. That doesn't mean global warming specifically made Katrina and aimed it at New Orelans. It means that the chances of New Orleans being hit by a Cat 5 hurricane increased.
You do understand the concept of indirect causation, yes?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Silent H, posted 12-24-2007 12:51 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6077 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 120 of 133 (443445)
12-25-2007 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Rrhain
12-24-2007 10:18 PM


Re: Who to believe
Since your second post repeats the same points within this one, and this is longer, I'll respond to both here...
On Hannity, I said you had valid responses, but those are not known to me (or you). While I might take Gore's responses (if he made them) over Hannity's, I have seen nothing from him. All I know is that he made a trip on a private jet. I'm stepping out of the way until I see more evidence from either side.
The ONLY criticism I would make on what he did, knowing what little I do, is that it is highly unlikely he had to use the transport he did.
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?
Well is saving the environment important or not? If he can't make those deadlines in a way that does not produce emissions he argues everyone should be reducing, perhaps he should have rescheduled. I mean EVERYONE can make that excuse so as not to change how they go about their daily lives.
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"?
Uhhhhhh... nowhere did you dispute what I claimed. I said he produced no new science on the issue of CC, and what he presented was not wholly accurate. All those fit fine with that entire list you gave.
If you are now trying to shove me back into the box of your euphemism for his work, and prove that wrong, then you are fighting a strawman.
On what NJ and I said about how we feel regarding statements by some within the environmentalist movement, your request is absurd. We are discussing what statements we hear feel like. There is no name, date, place and certainly no way of "proving" to you that they are like these other things. You can always withdraw to a position of it doesn't sound that way to you.
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.
What did I say to you? Full funding does NOT mean adequate funding for the job needed to be done. The above argument assumes that the US Corp of Engineers current plan was adequate. Now it is arguable that they had a plan that was in progress, but there were flaws known for years (something I said from the beginning) and went through the Clinton-Gore administration. Perhaps you should keep up with the news Here, and Here. While I could quote more specifics, I will cut to the chase...
On April 5, 2006, months after independent investigators had demonstrated that levee failures were not due to natural forces beyond intended design strength, Lt. Gen. Carl Strock testified before the U. S. Senate Subcommittee on Energy and Water that, "We have now concluded we had problems with the design of the structure." He also testified that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not know of this mechanism of failure prior to August 29, 2005. The claim of ignorance is refuted, however, by the National Science Foundation investigators hired by the Army Corps of Engineers, who point to a 1986 study by the Corps itself that such separations were possible in the I-wall design.[16]
Nearly two months later, June 1, 2006, the USACE finally and unequivocally admitted responsibility for the events in New Orleans with the release of the completed report. The Final Draft of the IPET report states the destructive forces of Katrina were "aided by incomplete protection, lower than authorized structures, and levee sections with erodible materials."
Gee Rrhain, I wonder what scientist working in conjunction with what science organization I might have heard a lecture from... during the Clinton administration... about what warnings were going unheeded about current designs? Can you guess? Does the above help?
Katrina had NOTHING TO DO WITH BUSH UNDERFUNDING! It had NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING! It had to do with engineering issues long overlooked by gov't administrations, including Gore's tenure!
Are we clear on this?
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!"
The "oops" was a reference to Gore. See the guy using Katrina to back his arguments for fearing CC, was actually part of the real problem which led to Katrina. Oops.
As far as trying to tie anything to "building a city under sea level", you will note that there was a whole section after that, connected by a conjunction "and". So NO, I do not have a problem with people building under sea level, as long as they manage it properly.
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.
Right, and with the proper engineering in place it wouldn't matter if CC led to more hurricanes or more intense hurricanes... we'd never have a repeat of Katrina. It was an engineering issue alone. People ignoring reviews by scientists on the reality of what they needed for proper protection. A much smaller hurricane, totally naturally occuring, could have wrought the same havoc when the levee broke.
And here Gore is using that disaster to promote a totally bogus solution to such disasters. Which might very well produce still more disasters when people dismiss real solutions yet again.
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.
How ironic, given that the real threat was not of a hurricane, but of inadequate plans. But Gore got those shitty plans fully funded! Whatta dink.
I'll save you the pain of repetition, which you don't seem to give me. All your remaining points are predicated on a false premise. The ACOE have already admitted that it wasn't lack of funding, it was inadequate planning, based on ignoring findings by NSF (and I will note repeated well past their initial findings in 1986... I was hearing them in 1995 or 6). All the kings horses and all the kings funding could not make those plans successful.

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Rrhain, posted 12-24-2007 10:18 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Vacate, posted 12-25-2007 3:39 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 123 by Rrhain, posted 12-25-2007 3:42 AM Silent H has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024