|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Sep 2nd, 2005 04:49 PM | ||
| mburbank |
What most people understand is of little concern to me. Environmentalists come in many different varieties and are as prone to distort data as anyone else. I'm speaking of concensus, peer reviewed, journal published science, not flakking for interetsts. And by the way, almost all the money out there is predisposed against the majority scientiffic view on Global Warming. The oil bidness has a fuck of a lot more scientist hiring money to spread round than the all the green lobbies put together. I'm serious. I work surrounded by science professionals, and we're hooked up with thousdands of science advisors all over the world. I haven't met a single serious scientist who doesn't think the earth is getting warmer very quickly, and that man made production of greenhouse gasses is the cause. But the current popular trend is to view "Intelligent design" as being on a scientiffic par with evolution. (Watch, Vinth will chime in that it is and lots of 'scientists' say so, and I know that so why am I lieing.) that's because while Vinth is on the edge of his own personal envelope, a LOT of people, maybe most people, have only a passing familiarity with what the scientiffic method is. They also don't know the difference bewteen a peer reviewed journal finding with widely replicated results and a puff piece funded by a lobby. I don't see Global warming as an even remotely partisan issue in the science community. I know engineers who are so republican they iron their underwear who believe the data. en years ago there was some debate. Currently there isn't any. Vinthy, if you want to put forward any actual names of crackpot holdouts, I'll be happy to look into them for you. I know if Rush or Newsmax or your favorite wingnut Booooortz says something you believe it, but those dudes know shit all nothing about science. |
|
| Sep 2nd, 2005 04:36 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Sep 2nd, 2005 04:12 PM | ||
| CaptainBubba |
Despite the fact that our postitions on Global Warming are the same, I'd say anyone who insists Global Warming is a viable issue are just as simmilar in their argument as the Bush administration. Just as Bush will claim decades from now that he was doing the right thing in Iraq, you will claim that global warming omg omg is coming to get us looong after its been pretty thouroughly shown to neither be a realistic danger, nor something caused by humans. I generally don't believe anything enviromental scientists say. Theyre the only "scientists" who seem to have the right to lie and make outrageous statements with almost no legitamite evidence then have everyone wave their hands and forget about it. I guess I sounds like an ass but god I fucking hate enviromentalists just as much as republicans. |
|
| Sep 2nd, 2005 04:10 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Did you forget? He has been "fucking my mother." | |
| Sep 2nd, 2005 04:07 PM | ||
| mburbank |
Oh, I'm certain the balme is bi-partisan. And please, Kevin! Al Franken or evcen Michael Moore me if you must, but Colmes?! That man is little more than a beard. That hurts. That just really cuts deep. Oh, and Vinthy? Newt Ginrich thinks the reposne to this at a federal level was really bad. So... Who's in the right here, Ginrich or Bush? Which altra right wing bag of crap is making a valid assesment and which other right wing bag of crap is a gold standard liar to boot? nd also, where have you been? We've all been very worried and we didn't even know which institution to send a get well card to. |
|
| Sep 2nd, 2005 03:04 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | Well, why don't you get the ball rolling? Who deserves the blame? Who deserves to have their office flooded with letters and their computers inundated with e-mails...? | |
| Sep 2nd, 2005 02:51 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx | I don't care who they are, or what party they belong to, our officials failed these communities. They have to be accountable for their mistakes. | |
| Sep 2nd, 2005 01:55 PM | ||
| ziggytrix | too true, kevin. | |
| Sep 2nd, 2005 12:31 PM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore | I agree, but I think it's fair to say that the blame is bi-partisan. Yelling at Bush and Louisiana Dems, or whoever, doesn't make sense, IMO. | |
| Sep 2nd, 2005 12:28 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx | There wasa natural disaster...and now there is also a MAN MADE disaster adding to it. People are responsible for this mess. | |
| Sep 2nd, 2005 11:29 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Yeah Max, your proclivity fucking bites. It isn't Bush's fault. It's clearly the fault of the DEMOCRATS in New Orleans!!!  Glad to see both sides can still turn a tragedy into an episode of Hannity & Colmes. EDIT: btw, just for the sake of clarity, your statement on blame isn't entirely the case: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01279059.htm Quote:
|
|
| Sep 2nd, 2005 10:52 AM | ||
| VinceZeb |
Quote:
I know your response is going to be posting the non-existant info from my old web site or some condescending, didactic post to tell everyone how dumb I iz or maybe you will start with that "Vinth" shit you are so happy about. Your proclivity for unoriginality astounds. But, Max, you have to face facts. Bush did all he could short of sending troops down there Saturday night to force people to leave. The state and local goverments fucked up. NO has been a Democratic stronghold for years, ripe with corruption and ineptitude. It ain't Bush's fault. It ain't "global warming's" fault. It's the fault of people who were too stupid to plan for distaster when their city basically had a "A CAT 4-5 storm will make you KYAGB" sign over it. Now, Biloxi and Gulfport is a totally different story. That situation makes me sick to my fucking stomach. |
|
| Sep 2nd, 2005 08:14 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Okay, that was sarcasm, right? There are pretty much no reputable scientist left that disagree about Global warming, and that it's attributable to man made greenhouse gasses. Every major scientiffic body on earth has weighed in on this at this point. Now I'm not saying that this means they couldn't be wrong. I am saying that if you choose not to believe in Global warning, that puts you in the camp the administration is in, which basically says that Science is no more useful than opinion. And that would be sad. |
|
| Sep 1st, 2005 09:05 PM | ||
| CaptainBubba |
Quote:
|
|
| Sep 1st, 2005 07:25 PM | ||
| Skulhedface |
It was SO nice for Bush to survey the damage to our state! It was even nicer that he ended his vacation two days early to take a tour of what used to be New Orleans! Is his compassion unending? Talk about a tireless effort by our great leader! Yessir, he'll lick these problems! |
|
| Sep 1st, 2005 07:19 PM | ||
| El Blanco |
So, what was the reason they give for his predecessors? Cuz they got a lot of reports that sounded the same and did little about it. And what did FEMA suggest be done to prevent the damge, other than building a new city over the old? Because, at 10 feat below sea level looking at 28 foot waves (for a difference of 38), it really doesn't mater how new your pumps are or how fresh the cement on your levies is. And the construction of the new city would have taken close to a decade (if they were lucky), so Katrina would have still fucked them up. And did you know there were hurricanes prior to GWB's administration? Some were even more powerful than this one. Other natural disasters too. |
|
| Sep 1st, 2005 04:31 PM | ||
| mburbank |
From the Philly Enquirer "At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars. " I'm pretty sure these articles will be seeing a lot of revisiting in the next few days. I haven't looked for 'em yet. |
|
| Sep 1st, 2005 04:28 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Quote:
|
|
| Sep 1st, 2005 03:24 PM | ||
| GAsux | I understand the FEMA issue. Im saying that when the bean counters sit down and review budget proposals, Im certain there are hundereds of thousands of requests from all over the country that require immediate attention and tons of funding. They certainly can't fund them all. In this case it certainly bit them in the ass but I dont see how its realistic to expect every "critical" issue to get fully funded. War or no war there just isn't the money to support them all. | |
| Sep 1st, 2005 03:15 PM | ||
| mburbank |
"From a macro standpoint, virtually every single city in America could claim that it needs this or that retro-fit or upgrade to protect itself from this or that disaster. " Sure, but not every city in America could say that FEMA had pegged them as one of the top three potential disasters we as a country faced. Oh, and I have no idea how you'd prove that the funds were diverted for war. If they were not and the administrtion just thought it sounded like a good thing to cut... I would say that was worse. |
|
| Sep 1st, 2005 02:49 PM | ||
| Cosmo Electrolux |
Quote:
I want him to go to New Orleans and survey the damage....say something profoundly stupid, and go back to his war. |
|
| Sep 1st, 2005 02:48 PM | ||
| GAsux |
Just to play Devil's Advocate for a bit here, who says the funding was cut specifically in favor of funding the war? Just curious. It's stated in the story, but is that fact or assumption? Its not out of the question that the Administration simply felt the project wasn't necessary. From a macro standpoint, virtually every single city in America could claim that it needs this or that retro-fit or upgrade to protect itself from this or that disaster. If you believed the war in Iraq was actually justified would the "diversion" of funds then be acceptable? I personally blame Jesus for the hurricane. I am no cheerleader for the administration but I believe they screw up enough on their own. Blaming the aftermath of the hurrican on Bush as well for my own opinion is a bit of a stretch. I'm not sure funding the Corps of Engineers request would have saved that many people regardless. |
|
| Sep 1st, 2005 02:15 PM | ||
| mburbank |
From salon.com In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war. A New Orleans resident waded through floodwaters coated with a fine layer of oil in the flooded downtown area on Tuesday, August 30, 2005. ... A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City. But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze. The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late. The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which before the hurricane published a series on the federal funding problem, and whose presses are now underwater, reported online: "No one can say they didn't see it coming ... Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation." |
|
| Sep 1st, 2005 01:18 PM | ||
| mburbank |
I don't blame him for the hurricane. Here's what I'm blaming him for. Ignoring the Global warming that models suggest invite humongous storms like this one. Presiding over the administration that drastically reduced the budget of the army corps of engineers for the region, despite detailed reports that they were not prepared for a level fiive hurricane. Sending huge portions of the national guard (which we use for things like this) into a war of agression. Having done nothing at all during the entirety of his presidency to reduce dependence on oil making this disruption in the market as damaging as it could possibly be. Not going to New Orleans. Flying over it was strictly for the news. The airport is open to emergency flights and would have landed air force one. And don't tell me "What could he have done" because he's going there later this week. I blame him for making the country and the world in which the hurricane took place weaker. He has a major, national crisis on his hands now. He's our leader. Let's see how he leads. And believe me, if I thought there was a legitimate way to blame him for the hrricane itself, I'd do it. In case you've missed it, I think he is a very, very, very, bad man. My consolation is, if the serious right wing Christians he pals around with are even a little bit right about the nature of gawd, he's going to hell. Me, I don't believe in hell. |
|
| Sep 1st, 2005 08:54 AM | ||
| KevinTheOmnivore |
Quote:
|
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
