Americans this is why Katrina happened ?

Good work Brutus! Why do people always want to blame bush for completely unrelated incidences? It's just rediculous.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Meanwhile, even some Climate scientists disagree with Mr Kennedy:

"The correct answer--the one we have indeed provided in previous posts (Storms & Global Warming II, Some recent updates and Storms and Climate Change) --is that there is no way to prove that Katrina either was, or was not, affected by global warming. For a single event, regardless of how extreme, such attribution is fundamentally impossible."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181

They go on to say how it looks like Global warming is helping and will help increase severity etc of future hurricances, but, as usual the problem is politicians shooting their mouths off.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Brutus we have been over all this on another thread have we not. It is nice to see you are consistent in your intellectual dishonesty. If you feel that is harsh my optional explanation is that you just lack the intellect to distinguish between associative relationships and absolute causes, when one is proffered (by JFK) and the other is assumed (by you). I'm sure your a nice guy - but your arguments are based on non-existent foundation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was the canal flood walls and not the actual levees that failed.

The "Orleans Levee District" and the Army corps of engineers were the agencies in charge of the flood protection system.

The failure to find the money needed for New Orleans flood control upgrade and maintenance belongs to Federal, State and Local governments.

 

As I understand it, it was a NEW section of levee wall that failed .....so it ain't about the failure to get the money!! So now what?

I also question that the levee system is the responsibility of the federal government??? I don't think that's true?? Such projects might come under the heading of Corp of Engineers, but they're almost always state and/or local projects. The shipping channel issue might, just might, have been different, but I don't know that.

Baron Max

 

I felt that the same post was also pertinent to this discussion.

 

I'm no Bush supporter. That being said, I can find no way to blame the man for the effects of a hurricane. Maybe a little for slowness in getting aid delivered but that just goes to show how thinly stretched out military is at present.

According to media reports, aid to rebuild the levy has been cut but as the Baron stated [I can't believe I'm agreeing with him] it was a new section that gave way. Blame the builders if you must but unless the Neo's figured out a way to control the weather [?], this is an act of nature.

I'm not saying that those who stayed are to blame for there plight but I'm under the impression that a lot of people didn't think this would be as bad as it was. They saw Florida get hit by 3 hurricanes last year. I assume they thought it wouldn't be much worse. I think human optimism played a major role in this.

 

80% of NO built under sealevel?
that's an accident waiting to happen

NO located in the Gulf of Mexico, prime location for hurricanes
that's an accident waiting to happen

so, we get a 1, 2 punch;
1) torn cities,
2) torn lives

& a $100 Billion sucker-punch

 

And had all of the flood control projects been built to Cat 5 specifications, and had the engineering been done competently, which we had all the time in the world to do, this conversation would be vastly different. What we are looking at here is a failure of leadership and a failure of competence.

 

the older I get, the more I believe we should have a "stupid tax", you want to go rock-climbing in Yosemite or hiking on Mt. Hood, pay an insurance premium that will cover your death, rescue attempts, or hospitalizations

you like to drink & drive, more "stupid taxes"

you want to do 'extreme sports', like the Baja bike-run I saw on cable last weekend, more "stupid taxes"

you want to ski pure virgin snow off a helicopter in Alaska or the Grand Tetons, more "stupid taxes"

you want to live in some primo local, say Malibu or some hilltop prone to wildfires or mudslides, more "stupid taxes"

everyone that lived in, visited or partied in NO, should have paid a "stupid tax" for that city

we pay for everyones mistakes in state, fed taxes, they should pay up for themselves, they take the risks, they should pay the price, for their fun

 

More than half a million people kill themselves using tobacco, alcohol, and prescription drugs each year. Another godawful number kill themselves by lack of exercise Who is taking unnecessary and stupid risks?

 

I see that some respondents are smart enough to realize that the "world" doesn't owe everyone a living! Thanks ....it's about time some of us stood up and said so.

Baron Max

 

Baron Max your arguments are wholly valid if and only if we are genetically and instinctually lone predators. Since we are in fact social omnivores with a complex culture dependent upon integrated, mutually supportive behaviour your arguments become complete nonsense.

I favour supporting and defending the weaker members of society for two reasons:
1) I am more selfish than you.
2) I am smarter than you.

A corollorary of this is that your unenlightened self interest is a threat to my enlightened self interest. Also, smarter, more selfish people come out on top more often than nought. You may just be smart enough to figure out the consequences of these facts for your self.

 

Ophiolite, If you are in favour of supporting the weaker members of society who by your definition are people who are less smart and less selfish than others. (Max is part of this group according to you). Then If Max's "un enlightened self interests" conflict with your "enlightened ones", Wont that mean that the people you are in favour of supporting and defending are also conflicting with you? Why would you disagree with Max, only to support those who in your eyes are like him? Sounds like a paradox, which would lead one to think your not selfish at all, killing the rest of the argument.

 

And I think that's wonderful! But are you also in favor of FORCING other's to support and defend the weaker members of society, too? I.e., if you want the government to support those others, that is, in fact, forcing ALL taxpayers to do so ...even against their will. Is that what you want? You want to force your own beliefs onto others?

No, probably not.

Baron Max

 

You know hurricanes form from storm fronts coming out of Africa. Its Africa's fault. Lets invade Africa and disarm their HoMD program...

 

katrina happened because of building on ground under sea level, and then making piss poor dyke defences.

Earth by nature is a violent place, earthquakes, tidal waves, storms, the americans made there mistake in building some cities in natural disaster areas.

Alot of american houses are built with timber, in texas, new orleans etc , in Oklahoma tornado alley, building a timber house is a excellent way of making your house fly away.

I have always been a fan of brick houses, they tend to stay put, whatever the weather.

San francisco is another disaster waiting to happen, the last earthquake there in the ninties, motorway bridges collapsing, showed that they were not ready for these natural events, golden gate bridge could collapse in a earthquake over 6.9 on the ricter scale, it is being refitted to withstand a 8.3 quake with a 2009 completion date.

Japan the earthquake capital of the world, all tower rise buildings are built on earthquake Resistant Bracing Systems, that move with the quake, i get the feeling california will take one hell of a bash, in another big earthquake scenario.

 

I see why you would reach that conclusion. It is, however, incorrect. Let me step you through the logic.
1. I make my decisions on a selfish basis that consider both short and long term effects, on myself, my children and my descendants. (Got to protect my DNA.)
2. Rational assessment of a welter of historical and scientific data lead me to favour a harmonious, well regulated society.
3. Members of this society whom I judge are especially disruptive to achieving the goal set out in (2.) need to be eliminated or neutralised. (Don't panic Max, that's not the same as neutered.)
4. Consequently, Max no longer qualifies for consideration as a member of the society I have defined, so he can hardly be a weak member of it.
So you see, there is not actually a paradox or contradiction.

Well, duh Max. Of course that's what I want to do. Why?
a) My beliefs are superior to everyone else.
b) I have already explained that I am very selfish, so why would I be bothered that others had to be forced to adhere to my, superior, beliefs?

If you like I can recommend several good dictionaries that may help you understand the meaning of selfishness a little more clearly. You seem to be something of an amateur in the field.

 

Well, in that case don't force me to pay for the invasion of Iraq, or allow corporations the rights of people, or finance the DEA, or the military-industrial complex. Don't stop me from destroying logging trucks or mining equipment that threaten my local ecosystems. Most of all, disband the CIA and the FBI.