LadyKate wrote:
DFK! wrote:
It isn't the duty of the listener to provide support for a contention. It's the duty of the individual making the claim.
Futhermore, I'd like to know 1) what the "best case" scenarios are, not just the "worst case" ones, and 2) what sources besides the government, which is politicizing the travesty for its own ends, are saying in terms of volume.
Hmmm. Ok. I thought it was a pretty easy number to look up, but I can see where you are coming from with more complicated things maybe.
Anyway, could you expound on how the govt is using volume to its advantage? I mean, it's a lot of oil, its bad for the environment, and I fail to see how or why anyone could be blowing it up any more than it already is?
If the government is dragging their feet and/or politicizing the crisis to try to "score points" (and various indicators "from the ground" are indicating that this is happening), part of "scoring points" is to make the crisis appear to be as bad as possible. That way, when they point fingers at BP and move to try to nationalize it (or some other punitive measure), they can say "Look, people, BP killed the entire Gulf of Mexico." That sounds a lot more dramatic than "Look, people, BP caused $X billion in cleanup costs, which they're paying for."
Now, to be clear, I'm not saying they're juking the numbers. What I am saying is that 1) organizations, particularly government, regularly juke statistics, 2) the government has a vested interest in juking the numbers here, and 3) evidence points to the government being willing to politicize this issue. Given all three of those items, I'd always be considering
both independent numbers as well as the governmental numbers, as well as looking at high, medium, and low estimates for damage, not just high estimates.