Fights I've Fought This Week
I'm tired. I'm tired of making the same point time after time after time, only to have people come in and make the same faulty point that completely ignores the facts that I've so kindly made available. Yes, I've engaged in net debates and think there's a way to win. Perhaps my parents did raise a fool or two, afterall.
So, in the interest of posterity, these are the fights I've fought this week:
1)No, "global warming" has not increased the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Nobody is claiming that it has caused an increase in frequency, mostly because there is no increase in frequency of hurricanes. There are normal fluctuations, and we've seen the peak of the fluctuations, but that's not unusual. It's normal. So the next person that claims some expert said "global warming" caused an increase in hurricane frequency, they made it up and there is not a single bit of data to back that up.
There were two recent papers claiming "global warming" may be responsible for a measurable increase in the intensity of hurricanes in recent years. The most recent paper, especially, has been quoted quite a bit in recent weeks. Invariably, this is what people point to when they say they've "heard it suggested" or "read a report". They mean they saw a headline for a story that ended up demonstrating that the guy is a quack and shouldn't be listened to. Most scientists dispute the man's report, call it junk science, and even he admits his methodology had a large margin of error. He has also stated plainly in recent days that "global warming" had nothing to do with Katrina.
So don't tell me what the guy from the World Wildlife Fund said and think you've won points, because the guy from the World Wildlife Fund was taking his conclusions from that same discredited report. Only he doesn't care about his source, because he knows it's been repeated enough that it's now truth by reporting and people will soon safely be able to say Bush is willfully ignoring the proof about global warming and hurricanes because he's such an evil fool, even though the actual data shows no such thing.
2)No, Bush did not cause or contribute to the disaster in New Orleans by cutting anti-disaster funds. Even if he personally cut 100% of the funding, he would not have caused or contributed to the disaster.
The levees were engineered to withstand a category 3 hurricane.
Katrina was a category 5 hurricane.
If you listen to reports on the levees, or do research, you'll find that this disaster has been warned against for many decades. It was "an accident waiting to happen", as has been stated time and time again. This was the worst case scenario hitting in the worst possible way. Fully funding the requested budget would not have averted or ameliorated this disaster. You're falling victim to partisanship at a time when there should be none. Let's at least find all the bodies before you say it's all Bush's fault.
3)No, even if the levee situation in New Orleans had been one of Bush's top priorities when he first entered office, any changes enacted probably wouldn't have gotten far enough in four and a half years to change anything. We're talking about a huge problem that would have taken an enormous amount of time and money to fix.
4)Yes, if the Bush administration has overseen the biggest rollback of constitutional rights in history, I would expect you to be able to give twenty examples. Or ten. Or five. Or more than one. And if you can't, then you've probably lost that argument.
5)No, if someone suggests a scientific theory based on demonstrably and admittedly shaky data and that the foremost experts on the subject have resoundly debunked, we do not have to remain skeptical that the theory is true. That is not how the scientific process operates.
6)No, the CIA operative in question was stationed in Washington, D.C. at the time and was never in any physical danger whatsoever.
7)No, Karl Rove may indeed have done something nasty and petty, but he is inarguably not a traitor and almost definitely not guilty of a crime, if you're going to look at the actual facts of the case at hand. The more facts that have come out about the case, the more evident that has become.
8)Look, the guy that wrote the report admitted his methodology had a wide margin of error, said he ordinarily wouldn't have published such a flimsy report, and flatly stated this week that "global warming" had nothing to do with Katrina. What more do you need?
9)What exactly could Bush have done in response to the disaster that hasn't been done?
10)No, capping the price of gasoline would be a disastrous mistake and would lead to a gas shortage and gas lines. It would be one the worst things Bush could do.
11)Yes, stating that the destructive path of a hurricane was the karmic payback for a region's past actions is a really slimy, pathetic thing to do.
So, in the interest of posterity, these are the fights I've fought this week:
1)No, "global warming" has not increased the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Nobody is claiming that it has caused an increase in frequency, mostly because there is no increase in frequency of hurricanes. There are normal fluctuations, and we've seen the peak of the fluctuations, but that's not unusual. It's normal. So the next person that claims some expert said "global warming" caused an increase in hurricane frequency, they made it up and there is not a single bit of data to back that up.
There were two recent papers claiming "global warming" may be responsible for a measurable increase in the intensity of hurricanes in recent years. The most recent paper, especially, has been quoted quite a bit in recent weeks. Invariably, this is what people point to when they say they've "heard it suggested" or "read a report". They mean they saw a headline for a story that ended up demonstrating that the guy is a quack and shouldn't be listened to. Most scientists dispute the man's report, call it junk science, and even he admits his methodology had a large margin of error. He has also stated plainly in recent days that "global warming" had nothing to do with Katrina.
So don't tell me what the guy from the World Wildlife Fund said and think you've won points, because the guy from the World Wildlife Fund was taking his conclusions from that same discredited report. Only he doesn't care about his source, because he knows it's been repeated enough that it's now truth by reporting and people will soon safely be able to say Bush is willfully ignoring the proof about global warming and hurricanes because he's such an evil fool, even though the actual data shows no such thing.
2)No, Bush did not cause or contribute to the disaster in New Orleans by cutting anti-disaster funds. Even if he personally cut 100% of the funding, he would not have caused or contributed to the disaster.
The levees were engineered to withstand a category 3 hurricane.
Katrina was a category 5 hurricane.
If you listen to reports on the levees, or do research, you'll find that this disaster has been warned against for many decades. It was "an accident waiting to happen", as has been stated time and time again. This was the worst case scenario hitting in the worst possible way. Fully funding the requested budget would not have averted or ameliorated this disaster. You're falling victim to partisanship at a time when there should be none. Let's at least find all the bodies before you say it's all Bush's fault.
3)No, even if the levee situation in New Orleans had been one of Bush's top priorities when he first entered office, any changes enacted probably wouldn't have gotten far enough in four and a half years to change anything. We're talking about a huge problem that would have taken an enormous amount of time and money to fix.
4)Yes, if the Bush administration has overseen the biggest rollback of constitutional rights in history, I would expect you to be able to give twenty examples. Or ten. Or five. Or more than one. And if you can't, then you've probably lost that argument.
5)No, if someone suggests a scientific theory based on demonstrably and admittedly shaky data and that the foremost experts on the subject have resoundly debunked, we do not have to remain skeptical that the theory is true. That is not how the scientific process operates.
6)No, the CIA operative in question was stationed in Washington, D.C. at the time and was never in any physical danger whatsoever.
7)No, Karl Rove may indeed have done something nasty and petty, but he is inarguably not a traitor and almost definitely not guilty of a crime, if you're going to look at the actual facts of the case at hand. The more facts that have come out about the case, the more evident that has become.
8)Look, the guy that wrote the report admitted his methodology had a wide margin of error, said he ordinarily wouldn't have published such a flimsy report, and flatly stated this week that "global warming" had nothing to do with Katrina. What more do you need?
9)What exactly could Bush have done in response to the disaster that hasn't been done?
10)No, capping the price of gasoline would be a disastrous mistake and would lead to a gas shortage and gas lines. It would be one the worst things Bush could do.
11)Yes, stating that the destructive path of a hurricane was the karmic payback for a region's past actions is a really slimy, pathetic thing to do.
posted by David Worrell @ 8:01 PM
0 comments
