Naked Oiled Supertankers
 

[quote=Andi47;217826]That's why I wrote "according to BP". (and: When they say "we are capturing xy barrels/day (or gallons, litres or whatever), that should be the vast majority", and the next day they say "oh, we are capturing 50% more than yesterday", than this lights some blinking lamps on the skepticism-o-meter.)[/quote]But do you actually have any direct, accurate quote from BP that unambiguously declares the amount being captured to be the vast majority of the total flow?

I think not, so your skepticism is misdirected -- it should have been directed at the accuracy of the claimed quote.

The article I linked shows that only by combining two separate utterances, the second of which was in response to an interviewer's interruption of the uncompleted first part, can one produce the statement you and many others are attributing, unfairly, to BP.

Beware confusing cynicism with skepticism.

[quote=ewmayer;217805]And you still believe what BP tells you? How many blatant lies-in-your-face does it take to get your skepticism-o-meter to deviate from zero?

"Oh, did we say we were capturing 15.082 barrels per day? Our bad ... we meant *gallons*...oh wait, we're British, it must in fact be [strike]liters[/strike] litres..."[/quote]In your case, I think you've definitely allowed your cynicism to corrode your skepticism.

I challenge you to produce sound evidence that BP has lied or contradicted itself in regard to the capture rate versus total flow rate. You can't do that by misquoting, repeating paraphrases or constructing hypothetical statements.

I expect you to fail that challenge (this is added for incentive :-).

Naked Oiled Supertankers
 

[quote=ewmayer;217858]For today I put forth the "Rate of oil leak" article from the NYT in my post above.[/quote]So, you cannot produce sound evidence that BP has lied or contradicted itself in regard to the capture rate versus total flow rate. (The NYT article contains nothing meeting that criterion. The second paragraph compares BP's statement about capture with a government estimate of total flow, and [I]the article authors chose to write a conditional deduction based on that comparison[/I]. BP itself made no such claim!)

In other words, you cannot meet my challenge.

And, as is typical recently when I call you out on such mistakes, you don't admit your error.

Ernst, you're genuinely good at detecting and exposing "spin" and distortions, as you've shown us time and time again in this forum. But you have a tendency to post "spin" and distortions of your own when it suits you, and refuse to admit them when someone else spots and challenges such an occurrence.

I think you would enhance your reputation here if you were to admit your mistakes due to bias, when pointed out. When you don't, it reduces readers' faith in your other allegations.

Aw, Cheesie, there you go again, deluding yourself that you are the district attorney and that I am a defendant on trial.

Until we get independent and credible estimates regarding rate of oil capture and total rate of flow, I shall rely on what my eyes tell me, and you have no basis to claim that I am in error - all we can say is that even if BP's capture-rate numbers are correct [which they mey well be, since those are easily verifiable by any on on the capture vessel], the total flow rate is unknown, and estimates to date may be wildly off. As the NYT article notes, "a subgroup that analyzed the plume emerging at the wellhead could offer no upper bound for its flow estimate, and could come up with only a rough idea of the lower bound, which it pegged at 12,000 to 25,000 barrels a day. "

If it turns out that BP is in fact capturing even half the totalflow as I write this, I will happily issue a mea culpa.

Erniewernie,

There [B]you[/B] go again, dodging and strawmanning.

Can't defend yourself with a straight answer, can you?

You're committing a lie at least as wrong as the lie you falsely attribute to BP.

[quote=ewmayer;217871]Until we get independent and credible estimates regarding rate of oil capture and total rate of flow, I shall rely on what my eyes tell me, and you have no basis to claim that I am in error[/quote]Yes, I do have a basis to claim that you are in error!

[U]You are strawmanning like crazy to distract attention from the fact that I didn't claim you were in error about rate of oil capture or total rate of flow, but instead did claim that you committed a different type of error -- an error of attribution!
[/U]
Try giving an honest response to my actual accusation: that you incorrectly accused BP of having claimed that their capture represented the vast majority of the total flow.

My accusation was about your attributing to BP a misleading claim that they never actually made.

I know you have the ability to diagnose such distortion as you made; what I don't know is whether you will actually look at your own language honestly for the same reason.

[quote]all we can say is that even if BP's capture-rate numbers are correct [which they mey well be, since those are easily verifiable by any on on the capture vessel], the total flow rate is unknown, and estimates to date may be wildly off.[/quote]So what?

That has nothing to do with your accusation that BP claimed that their capture represented the vast majority of the total flow.

We can all see that you're weaving, dodging, and spinning about that.

Give us a straight, honest admission of mistake about that accusation.

[quote]As the NYT article notes, "a subgroup that analyzed the plume emerging at the wellhead could offer no upper bound for its flow estimate, and could come up with only a rough idea of the lower bound, which it pegged at 12,000 to 25,000 barrels a day. "

If it turns out that BP is in fact capturing even half the totalflow as I write this, I will happily issue a mea culpa.[/quote]Strawmanning to the end!

[U]The problem is not whether BP is in fact capturing even half the total flow.[/U]

The problem is that you falsely accused BP of claiming something they never claimed.

If you admit that BP is in fact capturing even half the total flow, that would NOT be a mea culpa for your actual error. For an actual mea culpa, you'd have to admit that you falsely accused BP of lying about their capture being the majority of the total flow.

One begins to wonder whether, if you can't be honest about such a relatively simple matter, you should be trusted in other statements you make about the BP oil spill. It was just a simple mistake you could have easily admitted, but now your dodging and weaving makes us wonder whether you have some inability to be truthful about your mistakes. If you can't, then how do we know whether your other statements are reliable? Perhaps they also contain sloppy, biased errors, but it's just that no one has noticed or called you on them yet.

And we notice that when a simple error is called to your attention, you repeatedly distort what someone else described as the error, pretending that it's something it's not.

You spend hundreds of words to avoid making one simple truthful statement about your error. That statement could've been just, "Oops, you're right -- though BP has lied about other things, they didn't lie about that one." Or as simple as "No, BP didn't lie about that."

Is this your way of discouraging people from pointing out some of your mistakes?

Honestly! Get a room you two lovebugs.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;217985]That's why we need government regulation to "hold business's feet to the fire" to protect public interests.

So many conservatives have this blind faith that the free market will persuade businesses to adopt adequate safety policies, but history shows (yes, lessons of history again) that isn't sufficient to take account of actual (rather than conservatives' idealized version of) human nature.[/QUOTE]

And liberals have this blind faith that government regulators will enforce these adequate safety policies, but history shows (yes, lessons of history again) that regulators get lax, cozy up to industry insiders, just don't care, look the other way for promises of a future industry job, get political pressure from above (thanks to political contributions) to ignore regulations, etc.

This leaves you with a damned if you do or damned if you don't situation.

Maybe Ernst is on the right track. Massive criminal penalties - zealously pursued - would align corporate executives interests with national interests.

[quote=Prime95;217989]And liberals have this blind faith that government regulators[/quote]I referred to "regulation", by which I meant the [I]process[/I] of enforcing laws and rules. I should have written "regulatory process".

[quote]but history shows (yes, lessons of history again) that regulators get lax, cozy up to industry insiders, just don't care, look the other way for promises of a future industry job, get political pressure from above (thanks to political contributions) to ignore regulations, etc.[/quote]... which is general human nature, applicable to all kinds of situations, not just liberal ones.

I don't see why a declaration of process has to explicitly specify "oh, and we also mean arresting and trying all the people who break one of these or any other laws". That was assumed.

[quote]This leaves you with a damned if you do or damned if you don't situation.[/quote]No, it doesn't. You're just straw-manning.

[quote]Maybe Ernst is on the right track. Massive criminal penalties - zealously pursued - would align corporate executives interests with national interests.[/quote]So, you agree with me after all.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;217993]No, it doesn't. You're just straw-manning.[/QUOTE]

Aaaccckkk, the dreaded [B]STRAW MAN[/B] defense. I must admit defeat.....

[quote=Prime95;218021]Aaaccckkk, the dreaded [B]STRAW MAN[/B] defense. I must admit defeat.....[/quote]If you hadn't used the tactic, I wouldn't have used the defense.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;217993]
No, it doesn't. You're just straw-manning.
So, you agree with me after all.[/QUOTE]

Lord no, I don't agree with you.

My plan: fire all those precious government regulators you liberals love - it will help balance the budget. They are worthless.

To get an oil drilling lease, pass legislation along the following lines:

1) A spill on the order of the current disaster incurs an immediate $10 billion dollar fine (and it only goes up from there if negligence is involved) plus all cleanup costs.

2) To get an oil drilling lease, all oil drillers must agree to establish an independent safety division that has complete responsibility for drilling operations. If any executive compensation of the safety division is tied to profitability, or meeting schedules, then all executives from the officer of the safety division up to and including the company CEO are guilty of a crime punishable by 50 years in prison.

3) Any spill of more than 1000 barrels immediately obligates the Justice Department to appoint an independent prosecutor. Oil company to pay for all expenses of the investigation. Oil company agrees to make all internal documents available to said prosecutor. Oil company agrees to pay any fines imposed by special prosecutor without appeal.

Now, drill baby drill. Watch oil companies fall all over themselves making sure they do it safely.

P.S. Additional punitive measures and vigorous enforcement amendments are welcome.

[quote=Prime95;218128]Lord no, I don't agree with you.

My plan: fire all those precious government regulators you liberals love[/quote]You are attributing views to me which I do not hold. If you wish to state my position as part of an argument you wish to make, please state my actual position, not some (* sigh *) straw-man distortion of what I've actually advocated.

I'm beginning to think that you don't even know the meaning of [I]regulation[/I]. You say you don't agree with me, [I]then you proceed to recommend regulatory measures.[/I] What are you getting at -- some kind of sarcasm or satire?

[quote]To get an oil drilling lease, pass legislation along the following lines:

1) A spill on the order of the current disaster incurs an immediate $10 billion dollar fine (and it only goes up from there if negligence is involved) plus all cleanup costs.[/quote]... which is regulatory.

[quote]2) To get an oil drilling lease, all oil drillers must agree to establish an independent safety division that has complete responsibility for drilling operations.[/quote]... which is regulatory.

[quote]If any executive compensation of the safety division is tied to profitability, or meeting schedules, then all executives from the officer of the safety division up to and including the company CEO are guilty of a crime punishable by 50 years in prison.[/quote]... which is regulatory.

[quote]3) Any spill of more than 1000 barrels immediately obligates the Justice Department to appoint an independent prosecutor. Oil company to pay for all expenses of the investigation. Oil company agrees to make all internal documents available to said prosecutor. Oil company agrees to pay any fines imposed by special prosecutor without appeal.[/quote]... all of which is regulatory.

[quote]Now, drill baby drill. Watch oil companies fall all over themselves making sure they do it safely.[/quote]... because of the regulation to which they would be subject.

[quote]P.S. Additional punitive measures and vigorous enforcement amendments are welcome.[/quote]... all of which would be regulatory.

So, you aren't really serious about any of that list.

(If you were, then what in the world do you think "regulation" means?)

How about giving us a straightforward, sincere, non-game-playing, non-rhetoric-bending list of what you think ought to be done?