BoatBanter.com - OT La Migra redux

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:06:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:55:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:17:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Sure... the EDF and the NWF don't know what they're talking about.
Sure.

Expand those abbreviations and get back to me. Do you think there is
an agenda there?

Umm... environmental concern? Hard to tell from the names. LOL

They make their money (the F stands for "fund") getting people to do
things like restoring wetlands. They were saying the loss of wetlands
would endanger NOLA years before Katrina. The reality is the real
danger is the lake, not the bayou. That bay below Mississippi acts
like a funnel and pipes the water straight into the lake if the storm
goes that way.
We watch hurricanes around here like people watch football games and
we saw guys like Jim Cantore explaining exactly what ended up
happening a day before the storm hit. It becomes very easy to
understand as soon as you draw that cyclone over a map of the area.
I bet I can find one if you want to see it.
They have been talking abut this exact storm for decades before it
happened. They have a similar scenario for New York City with Long
Island Sound acting the same way.
The History Channel even did a show on it.

Sure. All environmental organizations are motivated by profit. All big
corporations are motivated by altruism. I get it.

They are both motivated by money, that is just a fact.
Most "non-profits" have directors who make plenty of money. They just
don't have to share anything with stockholders.

Come on. You're trying to compare Exxon-Mobile with the Environmental
Defense Fund? Continually making false equivalencies isn't much of an
argument.

I didn't start this. I was just pointing out that EDF is a
contribution driven organization with an agenda. You are the one who
started comparing them to for profit corporations.
They may know all there is to know about saving sea turtles and
spotted owls but I am not going to trust what they say about wetlands
destruction causing Katrina when it goes against the facts.
The wetlands were not in the path of the water that came into the
lower 9th ward. It came in from the north east
There is a great radar loop of the storm, here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hu...fall_radar.gif

See how that circulation is pushing the water along the coast of
Mississippi and into lake Pontchartrain.
For New Orleans it was the perfect storm. That circulation could not
have had a worse path.
The wet lands are on that peninsula you see popping up in the eye
right at the end of the loop (AKA the delta). If the eye was 70-80
miles to the west and the circulation was pushing water up into the
delta from the 3 o'clock position they might have had a case about the
wetlands but it would have been the river levees on the south side of
the city that would have failed because the wind would have been south
to north, not east to west as it was.

I have been in several of these things and the place you are in that
circulation determines which way the wind blows and makes all the
difference between whether you get lots of water or it blows the water
out. We had one here where the Estero River bed was virtually dry.

You said they had an agenda. I'd rather have the agenda be the public good
than stockholder value. I'm pretty sure that the non-profits in question
have a bit more credibility than an Exxon. Feel free to think otherwise.