• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The "BigUneasy", a different view of New Orleans

Metullus said:
I only said that what you described runs counter to my experience.

I have not said that the documentary made false assertions. I said that your representations run counter to my own experience.

I am not complaining of anything. I have not said that the film is inaccurate. I have said that your representation of the film and opinions that you evidently draw from it do not make a great deal of sense. It is you that said that the court ruling included findings that the COE was corrupt, not I. It is you who said that the report wherein a COE "Project Manager" claimed that there was no risk that a storm greater than cat 3 would ever strike New Orleans could be found in the Court Ruling, not I. It is you who have repeatedly refused to support your own assertions, assertions that were totally independent of what you claimed to have seen in the documentary. It is you who have repeatedly criticized me for not having found the evidence that supports your claim.

If the documents are not to be found in the court's ruling, why did you say that they were? There is nothing wrong with saying that you are relying entirely upon the documentary as the basis of your opinions - there is no reason to lie and say that "if you just read these 120 pages you will find it in there somewhere." When I asked you to point out the evidence that you say is there that supports your assertions you complain that I am demanding that you "spoon-feed" me. A reasonable interpretation of your actions is that you have no evidence that you can produce and you are unwilling to admit it. A reasonable person might conclude that you were lying about it.

You have criticized others for commenting when they did not, in your view, understand the subject matter. Yet you have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the very processes you are criticizing. You are not willing to explain your understanding of the role that the PM plays in COE levee construction and dredging projects while at the same time alleging corruption on their part. You are not at all interested in discussing the subject. You are, I must conclude, wholly ignorant of the subject.

There is nothing wrong with ignorance, it can be corrected. Other failings, unfortunately, are not so easily fixed.
Click to expand...

Try this - :hb:

You'll probably have better luck getting an answer that way.
 
Well, I sure would like to see some evidence that the Army Corps of Engineers claimed that a storm greater than a category 3 could not hit New Orleans.

While looking, I did come across this NYT article from June 2006.

Army Builders Accept Blame Over Flooding

Nonetheless, he[The chief engineer of the corps, Lt. Gen. Carl A. Strock] made it clear that he believed outside influences had played a role in the problems of the flood protection system, though he said that did not absolve the corps. As one example, he cited plans by the corps in the 1970's to put large barriers at the narrow openings between Lake Pontchartrain and the Gulf of Mexico.

The corps backed off from that plan after a court challenge from environmental groups and then proposed floodgates at the city's drainage canals. But local officials of the levee boards and sewerage and water boards blocked that plan, as well. So the corps went with the next fallback plan of building floodwalls in the canals.

"Each time, we backed off," General Strock said. "Each time we did that, we assumed an increment of risk. I don't think anybody looked back and said, 'Risk, risk and risk adds up to unacceptable levels.' "

He said this was not an effort to lay blame at the feet of others, because ultimately the corps had responsibility for what it built.
Click to expand...
 
From the GAO Sept. 2005
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051050t.pdf

In recent years, questions have been raised about the ability of the project
to withstand larger hurricanes than it was designed for, such as a Category
4 or 5, or even a slow-moving Category 3 hurricane that lingered over the
area and produced higher levels of rainfall. Along this line, the Corps
completed in 2002 a reconnaissance or pre-feasibility study on whether to
strengthen hurricane protection along the Louisiana coast. A full feasibility
study was estimated to take at least five years to complete and cost about
$8 million. In March 2005, the Corps reported that it was allocating $79,000
to complete a management plan for the feasibility study and a cost-share
agreement with local sponsors. The President’s fiscal year 2006 budget
request did not include any funds for the feasibility project.
Click to expand...

The original project designs were developed to combat a hurricane that
might strike the coastal Louisiana region once in 200-300 years. The basis
for this was the standard project hurricane developed by the Corps with
the assistance of the United States Weather Bureau (now the National
Weather Service). The model was intended to represent the most severe
meteorological conditions considered reasonably characteristic for that
region. The model projected a storm roughly equivalent to a fast-moving Category 3 hurricane. A Category 3 hurricane has winds of 111-130 miles
per hour and can be expected to cause some structural damage from
winds and flooding near the coast from the storm surge and inland from
rains.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
GrouchoMarxist said:
From the GAO Sept. 2005
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051050t.pdf
Click to expand...
So this confirms what was in the documentary:
The original project designs were developed to combat a hurricane that might strike the coastal Louisiana region once in 200-300 years. The basis for this was the standard project hurricane developed by the Corps with the assistance of the United States Weather Bureau (now the National Weather Service). The model was intended to represent the most severe meteorological conditions considered reasonably characteristic for that region. The model projected a storm roughly equivalent to a fast-moving Category 3 hurricane. A Category 3 hurricane has winds of 111-130 miles per hour and can be expected to cause some structural damage from winds and flooding near the coast from the storm surge and inland from rains.
Click to expand...
And yet 2 storms greater than a category 3 had hit in or near the city in the decade prior to the report.

Here's an historical map of those supposed 200-300 year events.I'm trying to find the key to the colors which represent hurricane strength to see which of those are category 4 or 5.
 
Last edited:
Here is the NOAA science that the COE ignored but should have been available at the time.

Category 4 hurricane return period for the Gulf [posted this way to avoid hotlink]
url=http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/basics/images/cat4_gulf.gif

Should be expected ~every 55 to 70 years.

Category 5 hurricane return period for the Gulf
url=http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/HAW2/english/basics/images/cat5_gulf.gif

Should be expected ~every 100-200 years.

Explanation
 
Last edited:
What do you mean " should have been available at the time " ?

Was it ?

Besides, why would it have mattered if they had planned a project based on Cat 4+ ?

They couldn't get funding and cooperation for the project as designed ...
 
Last edited:
Well, I still don't see any evidence that the Army Corps of Engineers claimed that a storm greater than a category 3 could not hit New Orleans.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
What do you mean " should have been available at the time " ?

Was it ?

Besides, why would it have mattered if they had planned a project based on Cat 4+ ?

They couldn't get funding and cooperation for the project as designed ...
Click to expand...
Yes, I do believe the National Weather Service would have had the same historial record of hurricanes that struck the Gulf Coast as NOAA had. :rolleyes:
 
Metullus said:
Yup. Still waiting. But I am a patient guy.
Click to expand...
I thought as much. I asked you to specifically say what you were claiming so you wouldn't pull this BS when the specifics were documented.

The issue was the COE ignored the science and fabricated conclusions in their risk assessment report to match what they intended to build. You said this was not what "your experience" was. Does that mean your experience is, the science wasn't ignored completely, or it is only ignored by a couple 100%? :rolleyes:

Oh gee, the COE only said a category 4 or 5 was a 200-300+ year event. The facts are a category 4 was, by very basic hurricane history, a 65 year event. So the documentary was just full of it to describe the false claim of category 4 or greater as a 300-400 year event as essentially saying "no need to build to this level as this level risk was essentially nil".

So instead of discussing the fact the science was faked here in the COE report, you want to make the argument about the word, "nil" vs off by a couple 100%.

Whatever....
 
GrouchoMarxist said:
Well, I still don't see any evidence that the Army Corps of Engineers claimed that a storm greater than a category 3 could not hit New Orleans.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with the documentary describing the COE report as saying "essentially nil". You can nit pik this side track all you want.

Did the COE risk assessment agree with the basic science or not?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I thought as much. I asked you to specifically say what you were claiming so you wouldn't pull this BS when the specifics were documented.
Click to expand...
What BS? You said that the report said that there was no risk of a storm greater than cat 3. The report you now cite says no such thing. Moreover, that you cannot see the absurdity of your demand that I comment on something that you refused to identify for me speaks volumes.

Skeptic Ginger said:
The issue was the COE ignored the science and fabricated conclusions in their risk assessment report to match what they intended to build. You said this was not what "your experience" was. Does that mean your experience is, the science wasn't ignored completely, or it is only ignored by a couple 100%? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
What part, exactly, of this risk assessment "ignored the science and fabricated conclusions"? What evidence do you have that the report was created "to match what they intended to build"? You do have evidence, right?


Skeptic Ginger said:
Oh gee, the COE only said a category 4 or 5 was a 200-300+ year event. The facts are a category 4 was, by very basic hurricane history, a 65 year event. So the documentary was just full of it to describe the false claim of category 4 or greater as a 300-400 year event as essentially saying "no need to build to this level as this level risk was essentially nil".
Click to expand...
DO you know what it means for an event to be a 100 or 200 or 300 year event? Maybe you can tell us. Does the fact that two such events occurred just 65 years apart of necessity mean that the event is not a, say, 200 year event? If the risk assessment was inaccurate does that of necessity mean that it "ignored the science and fabricated conclusions"?

Or is it possible that, once again, you do not really understand what it is you are criticizing?

Skeptic Ginger said:
So instead of discussing the fact the science was faked here in the COE report, you want to make the argument about the word, "nil" vs off by a couple 100%.

Whatever....
Click to expand...
You have provided no evidence that any "science was faked". At best you have provided evidence that the risk assessment was, in retrospect, in error; and that is being very generous.

So to recap:

You still have not provided a report that says that a cat 3+ storm will never strike NO.

You still have provided no evidence that "science was ignored".

You still have provided no evidence of corruption at the COE as a cause of the debacle after Katrina.

You still have provided no evidence that COE Project Managers are at all at fault for Katrina.

Did I miss anything?
 
Metullus said:
So to recap:

You still have not provided a report that says that a cat 3+ storm will never strike NO.

You still have provided no evidence that "science was ignored".

You still have provided no evidence of corruption at the COE as a cause of the debacle after Katrina.

You still have provided no evidence that COE Project Managers are at all at fault for Katrina.

Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...

FTW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom