# Get Out of Dodge Debate... Morons **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 31, 2005, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366 "2005-08-31T00:47:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/141 "2005-09-01T05:34:50Z")
> [@duffer](#): > > It’s relevant because you think you know what’s best for people going through what you never have. I’ve been through a devastating flood. My opinion carries more weight when talking about the actual people going through this. You aren’t even an asshat. We need to come up with a whole new epithet just for you. Of course, no response from **Rysdad**. Shut up assbag. You’re less than worthy of our time. Although, on the upside, there are many here that are in complete agreement, for once. I guess there really is good to be found in encountering evil. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/142 "2005-09-01T06:27:24Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > IYes, the city will be back, but it will never be the same. It seemed to me that part of the festive atmosphere was laughing in the face of fate, always with an undertone that it’ll all be gone someday, suddenly, so laissez les bons temps rouler while we can. I don’t see how that can ever come back. I expect a harder, bitter, survivors’ edge among those who come back, more of a Disney-imitation style than the genuine article. The Big Easy of “A Streetcar Named Desire” is history now, and maybe had been before. But the people who’ve been flooded out aren’t the only ones who’ve lost something; we all have, and something that was so much a part of us that we may never have known it. Excellent comment. We’ve spent so much time talking about what changes will take place to the infrastructure that this is the first time I’ve seen it noted that the entire character of the people might change because of this, and New Orleans along with it. ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/143 "2005-09-01T11:14:07Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Y’know **Rysdad** , you keep repeating your idea of relocating NOLA upstream, and on at least two occasions I have asked you “where?” upstream you think you are going to do this relocating. Pointedly, I have mentioned that “upstream” real estate is spoken for. The Mississippi is a main artery and there are towns and cities up and down it’s length. Do you intend to demolish Metairie, Slidell, Baton Rouge or somewhere else in order to replace it with your new NOLA? If you do, where do you inted to relocate those cities? So, you’re saying that all of the land along the Mississippi is spoken for? Wanna bet? I’ll lay whatever odd you want that there is somewhere along that river that is either government owned or sparsely populated–and would be suitable for building the structures I proposed. > [@](#): > > The idea of relocating, not rebuilding, or otherwise replacing NOLA is an amazingly childish idea that demonstrates a profound ignorance on multiple levels. At first, I figured that the multiple reasons are inherently obvious, but apparently inherently obvious just isn’t enough for you or Loopy. > > So, let us list the inherently obvious reasons why it is a stupid and ignorant idea. > > 1. Availability of real estate along the Mississippi River. It’s already taken. You can’t move NOLA somewhere else without displacing that area. You simply flat out wrong here for reasons I just mentioned. > [@](#): > > 1. Cost. To abandon a whole city and build a whole new one from scratch is an immensely larger undertaking than to repair a damaged one. The infrastructure of the city is largely intact. You have roads, sewage lines, water lines, electrical lines all placed. You have foundations all placed. You have structurally sound buildings in place. If you abandon these things you have to replace them, and that will be immensely more expensive that to repair or utilize them. You do understand that much of NO is now uninhabitable, and will remain so, for years, maybe decades, to come? What’s left of NO will remain–probably the French Quarter and the Hotel district. The bulk of it is gone, pal. Never to return. You can’t rebuild on toxic land. > [@](#): > > 1. Location. NOLA does not exist in a vaccum. It is strategically placed and it exists in a symbiotic relationship with neighboring towns and cities. Those towns and cities have industries and infrastructure that serves NOLA and Vice Versa. If you abandon NOLA you destroy those industries that serve NOLA and you deprive those communities of what they get from NOLA. The structures and infrastructure that remains will continue to serve the outlying areas to the degree it can. It is indicputable, though, that those demands will change since _there will not be half a million people_ placing a demand on those systems. Any inductry that served NO based on the demand of a large populace is history. Period. Those people won’t be there. > [@](#): > > 1. Location again. NOLA is a hub in many ways. It is a hub for roads and trains and shipping which all depend on NOLA as both a waystation and a destination. **Rysdad** seems to recognize this necessity. What he fails to recognize is that that transportation infrastructure cannot exist in a vaccum. NOLA is an oil and shipping based city. If you are going to have the infrastructure, you need to have the people to work it and the people to serve those that work it. In other words, you need to have a city there, or else you need to give up and replace that infrastructure. It doesn’t require 700,00+ thousand people to operate the refinery and shipping inductries. It probably doesn’t require 1% of that. If you want to say that it requires one person to supply ancillary services for each person employed by those inductries, then you only come up with 14,000. Even if it takes 5 people to support that worker that only comes out to 42,000. But feel free to use whatever numbers you wish. In no event will you come up with the justification for replacing the entire populace. > [@](#): > > 1. Location a third time. Contrary to what **Rysdad** says about it being “cheating” to alter a lake or the course of a river, that is exactly what has been done in NOLA and for very good reasons. The Mississippi is notoriously difficult to navigate. It is navigable by tankers and container ships specifically because we have altered and contained its course, dredged channels, shored up levies, and built canals to ensure its navigability. It is for all intents and purposes an artificial river that runs through the delta. In order to maintain that shipping we need the infrastructure in place, the levies and canals and we need the workers and machinery to service it. We need a community to service the needs of those workers and machinery. In short, if we wish to ship goods in large vessels up the Mississippi, we need a large city right where NOLA is. Now, here’s one huge red herring. The Corps of Engineers does this with their existing staff. The Mississippi will still flow, the channel will be maintained, and it doesn’t need to be changed. > [@](#): > > 1. Land inevitably goes to the highest use. Highest use? What the fuck is that? Anyway… > [@](#): > > If you move NOLA somewhere else and displace some other city (let’s assume for the sake of your mind-numbingly stupid argument that there happens to be a vacant NOLA sized spot available “upstream”) There is. > [@](#): > > that place is inevitably uninhabited because it does not viably serve the purpose. NO itself was built out of a swamp. Isn’t it possible to do something similar with today’s technology 300 years after it was originally done in NO? > [@](#): > > There is no need for a city there. There is now. > [@](#): > > If there were, there would tend to be one. There would or will be. > [@](#): > > If this hypothetically vacant stretch of land were useful it would be being used. So what you’e saying is that all usuable land is already being used. I can’t believe you said that. That’s so incredibly ignorant. I call on you to retract that immediately. For the pitiable task of trying to enlighten you, I’ll offer this: Let’s say there is a small, agricultural community along the river. Would that not be a place to start? People living there would receive a nice sum of imminent domain buy out money, and the process of city building would begin, starting with the much needed refinery/shipping facilities. Everything else naturally follows. > [@](#): > > 1. You would need to alter vast stretches of of transportation infrastructure for thousands of miles to make it connect to your new city. What!? _Thousands of miles!?_ Where in God’s name did you come up with that figure? > [@](#): > > Then, you would need to build another city where NOLA is now to maintain channels, levies, and dredge the Mississippi to keep it navigable. You were wrong on this before, and you’re wrong again. The Corps doesn’t need an entire city to maintain navigability. The actual numbers of the C of A are surprisingly small considering the vast amount of work they do. Unless you’re saying that the entire populace of NO were members of the Corps. > [@](#): > > 1. The existing infrastructure of NOLA is useful and it will be used, so there will be a city there anyway. Not like there was before. Much smaller. > [@](#): > > That city will contain citizens who have an equal right to protection as those that inhabit Florida or the Keys, or the gulf coast, or the Texas Panhandle. Whoever said they didn’t. Irrelevant. > [@](#): > > 1. If NOLA were totally destroyed and unsalvageable it would be far more cheaper and practical to raze the remains and build a new system of impregnable levies and drainage, and build a new city on that site than it would be to relocate. Ok, you’e saying “destroyed and unsalvageable.” **UNSALVAGEABLE.** But yet you’re saying, "Let’s put another city right exactly where the first city was that was made unsalvageable. Do you see the idiocy in that? > [@](#): > > 1. Contrary to your opinion NOLA is not particularly dangerous. It receives less damage than Galveston, the Keys, much of Florida, The Barrier Islands in the Carolina, or a host of any other places you could care to name. The last two times NOLA was destroyed were by fire in the 1700s. Since then, it’s only been occasionally fucked up by acts of God. Occasionally fucked up. Not particularly dangerous. Have you been listening to anything that’s been said about the actual location of the city itself? That it’s below sea level and sinking. That the protection its afforded by levees is inadequate? That it was a disaster just waiting to happen. Not particularly dangerous? It was _inherently_ dangerous, and it remain so. Even _more_ so, because now, it’s toxic. > [@](#): > > 1. The “below sea level” argument is basically a load of shit. “Sea level” isn’t the problem in NOLA any more than it is in Death Valley and for the same reasons. :::shaking head::: Lunacy. The man is mad. He denies the existence of the Rocky Mountains. > [@](#): > > There is a fair amount of land in between NOLA and the ocean. Sea level swamp land? > [@](#): > > This land, while below sea level, will in fact drain into a Marsh. Now he has water draining uphill. > [@](#): > > NOLA, or more accurately Old NOLA meaning the French and Latin Quarters is founded on a relatively dry hill on this Marsh. That’s why these areas aren’t flooded as bad as the rest. The reason NOLA is currently underwater isn’t because of the ocean, it’s because of the levies which are holding back Ponchartrain and Mississippi. The following are facts: The FQ and LQ are still in NO. _All_ of NO is below sea level as well as lower than the lake of the river. The ground below NO is now, and was before the storm, saturated. But he still says water will drain uphill. Scylla, that’s just plain dumb. Even for you. > [@](#): > > 1. If you give up NOLA you give up the levies and canals. The levees, yes. The “canals”, or channels, no, for reasons stated earlier. > [@](#): > > If you give up the levies and canals you give up shipping goods up the Mississippi. If you want to ship goods up the Mississippi you need a city there. That’s why it grew there in the first place. You tried this argument before. It failed then. It fails now. God Bless the Corps of Engineers. > [@](#): > > 1. Refining. NOLA and surrounding areas is a prime location for refining. It is the sole port for providing a flow of petroleum into the heartland, and is the most efficient spot to unload tankers. When those tankers are unloaded they unload oil. The oil needs to be refined before it is useful. We haven’t built a new refinery in this country in 20 years. They take years to build. We need to keep those refineries active unless you wish to live without oil for the next five years or so. In order to keep those refineries active we need people to work them and machinery. We need people to service those machines, and support for the people working them. We need support for the supporters. We need transportation and infrastructure. We need hospitals. We need housing and schools. In short, we need to have a city there if you wish to have oil. I’m not going to go over it again. If you’re read up to this point you’ll see that this entire paragraph has already been adequately disputed. > [@](#): > > 1. Practical purposes aside. People live there. They are fond of it. It has a culture. It’s a part of this country. We don’t give up so easily or so lightly. Sentimentality aside, at some point you’re going to have to admit that _it ain’t coming back like it was before._ I’ve always allowed that there will have to be some people there in order to maintain what’s necessary, but a large portion of it is gone. Forever. And it ain’t coming back. > [@](#): > > Hopefully, by now, if you have a thought in your head, or a brain to reason with, you can see why abandoning and replacing NOLA somewhere else is laughably ridiculous. Such an undertaking effects more than just NOLA and requires a sustained effort decades long to replace the natural evolution and usefullness of the city. There is no other location for a NOLA other than NOLA, no free real estate “upstream.” In the meantime, you give up the oil and refining industry, a large part of the transportation industry and decimate outlying communities that are interdependant on NOLA for **a thousand miles**. It costs you many orders of magniture more money than to simply rebuild better in a proven spot. Bolding mine. Enjoy hyperbole much? > [@](#): > > Your complaints against doing this are simply stupid. Trucks have trouble going uphill, so we can’t have a town with levies? Have you ever seen an overpass you moron? Maybe you live in the plains or something where they don’t have them. Maybe you’ve never seen a road in the Mountains of West Virginia. Maybe you assume Denver is unreachable by road. > > Trust me, they’ve figure out how to grade. How many 20 degree grades have you ever seen? I’ll bet NONE. And unless you plan on a roller coaster rather than a road, you’ll have to extend those run out and run ups just exactly as I’ve said. But you’re too stupid to understand that, so I won’t bother with this one any further. Speaking of grades, you fail. Again. My little bitch, you’re grasping at straws while building your strawmen. You’ve been thoroughly bitch slapped so often that you’re beginning to enjoy it too much. I’ll now allow you to crawl back into your hutch. Stay there until I call you. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/144 "2005-09-01T12:15:07Z")
I think the cold has gotten to his brain. ---
**Author:** ![plnnr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7ea924/32.png) [@plnnr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/plnnr)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/145 "2005-09-01T12:26:09Z")
New Orleans is going to be rebuilt. It won’t be the same as it was, but it is going to be rebuilt. There are simply too many political impediments to it being abandoned. Spin all the fantasies you want about moving it, abandoning it, blah blah blah. No politician is going to say “We’re not spending public money on rebuilding this city in the same location,” so you can give up the argument right now. Period. ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/146 "2005-09-01T12:31:21Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Yes, the city will be back, but it will never be the same. It seemed to me that part of the festive atmosphere was laughing in the face of fate, always with an undertone that it’ll all be gone someday, suddenly, so laissez les bons temps rouler while we can. I don’t see how that can ever come back. I expect a harder, bitter, survivors’ edge among those who come back, more of a Disney-imitation style than the genuine article. The Big Easy of “A Streetcar Named Desire” is history now, and maybe had been before. But the people who’ve been flooded out aren’t the only ones who’ve lost something; we all have, and something that was so much a part of us that we may never have known it. The Blues will experience a resurgence. Will we see a new form of the Blues emerge from this horror? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/147 "2005-09-01T13:12:46Z")
I had been on the verge of claiming that we’ve lost jazz. The environment that created it, ragtime in the bordellos of Storyville, the nightly parties of the slaves in Congo Square, the clubs and hole-in-the-wall restaurants in the Quarter, most of the talented black musicians in the South gathering there to create music and feed off each other, all that is gone. But maybe it already was - jazz has evolved and spread and taken root elsewhere, and can survive the loss of its home and its original source of creativity. It won’t be the same again, but nothing ever is. It had kept changing anyway even before, and that’s a good thing. Can the returned refugees living in slapped-together prefab housing on bulldozed and filled land where their old neighborhoods used to be recreate the environment? The blues, you ask? That’s evolved too, more into musical style than lyrical content. I’d expect more songs about loss and sorrow, sure, but not fundamentally different ones. **Sam** , thanks for the compliment. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/148 "2005-09-01T13:15:45Z")
Quick point or two: A \*levee \* is a berm that holds water back. A \*levy \* is a form of taxation, and yes, those can be more impregnable than levees. You can build a shallow ramp up any slope you like if you angle it to the side instead of going straight up - picture a mountain switchback with or without the turns. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/149 "2005-09-01T14:30:31Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > New Orleans is going to be rebuilt. It won’t be the same as it was, but it is going to be rebuilt. > > There are simply too many political impediments to it being abandoned. Spin all the fantasies you want about moving it, abandoning it, blah blah blah. No politician is going to say “We’re not spending public money on rebuilding this city in the same location,” so you can give up the argument right now. > > Period. I’m sure you’re right, be it foolish or no, but… It sure as heck would be nice if they do a bit of triage, at least. “This we’ll restore, this we’ll rebuild, this we’ll plow under and elevate, this we’ll leave to Lake Pontchartrain…” After that, fix the damn levee system so it A) Doesn’t cause the rest of the Delta to sink or wash away, and B) It can handle at least a catagory 4 hurricane. ---
**Author:** ![JohnM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/848f3c/32.png) [@JohnM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnM)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/150 "2005-09-01T15:49:09Z")
> [@Rysdad](#): > > How many 20 degree grades have you ever seen? The West Virginia Department of Transportation published [this](http://www.wvdot.com/engineering/files/600/DD601.pdf) document (warning: PDF) that gives specs for various roadways. The maximum allowable grade for local mountainous roads is 17%, but if you’ve ever been on some of those roads you know they can go on for miles at grades of \>10%. In NOLA we’re talking about a few hundred feet at an extreme grade. Also, in WV you do have the concern about the roadways remaining usable when there’s snow, not a driving concern in Louisiana. ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/151 "2005-09-01T21:14:24Z")
> [@JohnM](#): > > The maximum allowable grade for local mountainous roads is 17%, but if you’ve ever been on some of those roads you know they can go on for miles at grades of \>10%… That’s interesting. I wouldn’t’ve guessed that that degree of grade would be allowed. Anyway, how long would a roadway need to be if the height at one end was 60 feet and the grade was 17%? Or 10%? Remember, you can’t have a sharp angle where the slope meets the flat land. Also, how many switchbacks do you figure would be necessary to traverse a hill that is approximately 630 feet wide and 60 feet tall without exceeding a 17% grade? Remember, you have to allow turnaround space for a tractor-trailer rig. At first glance, it seems like the 17% grade on a straight road would be the liklier alternative, but I’m too tired to try and do the math. Anyone else care to try? ---
**Author:** ![Rysdad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7cd45c/32.png) [@Rysdad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysdad)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/152 "2005-09-01T21:22:04Z")
> [@plnnr](#): > > New Orleans is going to be rebuilt. It won’t be the same as it was, but it is going to be rebuilt. How much different? We might just agree here. > [@](#): > > There are simply too many political impediments to it being abandoned. Spin all the fantasies you want about moving it, abandoning it, blah blah blah. No politician is going to say “We’re not spending public money on rebuilding this city in the same location,” so you can give up the argument right now. > > Period. Political impediments, yeah, I’ll grant you that. They’re probably what will salvage the tourist areas of the city. But I disagree that the rest of the city will be completely rebuilt for many, many reasons. Period. Exclamation point. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/153 "2005-09-01T21:52:23Z")
[Hastert says rebuilding isn’t sensible:](http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=89228) > [@](#): > > Lawmakers have to ask themselves if it’s worth sinking possibly billions of federal dollars into rebuilding New Orleans, a low-lying city which would remain a vulnerable hurricane target even after clean up, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Wednesday. > > “It doesn’t make sense to me,” said Hastert during an interview with the Daily Herald editorial board. “And it’s a question that certainly we should ask.” ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/154 "2005-09-01T21:54:29Z")
What a fucking moron. The bastard will probably switch parties and become a Democrat any day now. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/155 "2005-09-01T22:38:06Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > What a fucking moron. The bastard will probably switch parties and become a Democrat any day now. Huh? He stated what you’ve spent this entire thread arguing. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/156 "2005-09-01T22:38:46Z")
Whooooooooosh. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/157 "2005-09-01T22:41:08Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Whooooooooosh. That’s all right, I needed to wash my hair anyways. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/158 "2005-09-01T22:47:15Z")
I’m wondering how big of a new asshole they’ll tear him for even _thinking_ something as loathesome as that. ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/159 "2005-09-01T23:18:49Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [Hastert says rebuilding isn’t sensible:](http://www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=89228) Wow. Hastert said something intelligent! I can’t believe I agree with him on something. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Odinoneeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/97f17d/32.png) [@Odinoneeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odinoneeye)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2005, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366/160 "2005-09-01T23:25:35Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > This kind of shit just pisses me off. The earth is getting warmer? Since fucking when? It seems to me that since the earth started off as a ball of condensing hot magma and gas, that the earth has been getting cooler. You know, entropy? First off, I havn’t read this whole thread, so my apologies if I’m repeating. Second, when we talk about global warming is is since 1880 when records started being kept, not from when the Earth was a molten ball. A little comman sense while reading is important. Third, is the Earth getting warmer? Statistically it is, the question is why and how long will it go on. Geological records have shown that the atmosphere has warmed and cooled several time through history. So is this a natural trend or man made? [From Earth Policy Institute](http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2004.htm) > [@Earth Energy Institut](#): > > The average global temperature for 2004 of 14.60 degrees Celsius (58.28 degrees Fahrenheit) makes it the fourth warmest year on record. October and November of 2004 were the hottest of those months on record since recordkeeping began in 1880. February of 2004 was the second warmest, and March, April and December were the third warmest of those three months. Of course, they’re basically just a bunch of hippy tree-huggers so why listen to them? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/get-out-of-dodge-debate-morons/319366.md?page=9)