Sure, this spill may well do some serious environmental damage. Sure, additional measures should be taken to help prevent another incident like this one. But, step back and examine the data.
It has been suggested that this spill could become roughly as large as the Exxon Valdez spill. But, among the largest spills, the Exxon Valdez ranks #15. And, the largest spill ever (in 1991) was at LEAST 39 times larger than the Exxon Valdez.
But, the REAL kicker is that scientific data demonstrate that “Natural Seepage”, (aka Mother Nature) contributes many, many MANY orders of magnitude MORE petroleum inputs into the worldwide marine environment than offshore oil and gas development ever has or ever will. And, this spill will to NOTHING to alter that equation!
This source (emphasis is mine) indicates:
“a reasonable seep rate for the entire Gulf [of Mexico] is… about 140,000 tonnes per year”The Exxon Valdez spilled less than 40,000 tonnes.
So, as the eco-nuts ramp up their hysteria mongering campaign against offshore drilling, remember that their hysteria would be FAR better directed at that evil old bitch known as Mother Nature. In fact, they should focus their protests on the beaches of Santa Barbara.
But, these eco-nuts are the same sorts of people who want to boycott AriZona Iced Tea (which originated in Brooklyn, New York and is currently based out of Cincinnati, Ohio). They’re not the sharpest knives in the drawer. They don’t care about facts, data or science -- only their emotional reactions.
HT: Dr. Mark Perry and commentator Juandos.
Click here for speculation as to the cause.
Click here to learn more.
14 comments:
That "natural seepage" isn't threatening to shut down coastal fishing communities, destroy tourism, and poison birds, fish and other coastal and marine animal populations in the Gulf...
Get a brain.
The global warming frauds used wikipedia...
Consider alternative sources, just a suggestion not a criticism...
Jaundos,
Thanks for commenting.
I am, of course, aware of Wikipedia’s weaknesses. I posted on Wikipedia’s Climate Doctor.
All sources, Wikipedia included, are best viewed with skepticism. I occasionally cite The New York Times. Some NYT entries are better than most. It’s the same with Wikipedia.
"That "natural seepage" isn't threatening to shut down coastal fishing communities, destroy tourism, and poison birds, fish and other coastal and marine animal populations in the Gulf"...
Hmmm, would you have been happier if it had been a volcano instead?
Would that have been more 'natural' and therefore more acceptable?
Just asking...
"Some NYT entries are better than most. It’s the same with Wikipedia"...
Ahhh, good point...
Speaking of the New York Times do you ever vist this Media Research Center subsidiary: Times Watch?
Like NewsBusters it can be quite useful at times (pardon the pun)...
Anonymous May 2, 2010 7:16:00 AM,
Are you equally concerned with the slaughter of birds and bats by wind mills?
Or, is your hysteria mongering politically selective?
Juandos,
Yep, TimesWatch is a good one. I long ago included it in my Bloglist. However, their RSS feed doesn't work so well. It's currently indicating their most recent entry was 6 months ago. I should check to see if they have an updated feed.
Juandos,
I just updated the TimesWatch RSS feed.
Maybe now it will remain current.
This spill has the potential to do substantial damage. But, so far, the best the media can do is point to ONE OIL SOAKED BIRD.
And, although the media are hyping the expanding size of the slick, that expansion is actually GOOD NEWS! That is an indication the spill is DISPERSING! Concentrated oil presents the greatest potential for damage. Dispersed oil is far less damaging.
Note the satpics from NASA...
May 3, 2010: NASA Satellite Imagery Keeping Eye on the Gulf Oil Spill
This "natural seepage" argument is completely faulty. It does not take into account DILUTION. If you dump a gallon of sludge all at once in your bathwater, it would make the water look really bad. Take 100 gallons of sludge, go 50 miles off the Atlantic coast, and spill 1/2 gallon at a time per day for an entire year, and do you think you'd notice?
Get it now?????
Anonymous May 7, 2010 11:08:00 AM,
You really are quite the moron, aren’t you?
But, you are actually onto something with this “dilution” meme -- it largely explains why the media comparisons to the Exxon Valdez do not hold up.
The Valdez rapidly dumped lots of crude close to shore, meaning lots of oil landed on shore -- where it can do more harm. The BP spill has dumped oil more slowly and much farther away from shore.
Contrary to the media hype, the weekend storm after the rig sank helped to disperse (aka dilute) the BP spill. The chemical dispersants -- which Rachel Maddow has ignorantly demonized as “toxic” (immediately before she acknowledged that she had no idea what chemicals were in the dispersants) -- also helped to dilute the spill. Those dispersants, by the way, are functionally equivalent to your laundry soap. And, rest assured, consumers (quite harmlessly) dump FAR more laundry “dispersants” into the environment than Big Oil ever has or ever will. Similarly, if you bother to educate yourself by reading this bit of science, you will find that individuals who fail to fix the oil leaks on their automobiles (still quite harmlessly) contribute far, far, FAR petroleum products into the marine environment than “Big Oil” ever has or ever will!
All of this explains why the media and the politicians -- ever hungry for some disaster to exploit for personal gain -- have STILL failed to produce anything any more distressing than a SINGLE OIL SOAKED BIRD!
CATCH A CLUE, you gullible moron!
Well, you have now been proven dead wrong, haven't you? LOL. I don't know whether to insult you or take pity on you for having such a tiny brain to work with.
mrmet69 (Sep 27, 2010 11:30:00 AM),
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you presented any evidence to support your cheap smear. Oh, that's right, you don't have any (and never do).
Click here to further substantiate my case (pay special attention to this post and note that even the uber-Leftist Time magazine agrees with my assessment).
You perfectly exemplify the sort of person I described in the last paragraph of this post:
“these eco-nuts are the same sorts of people who want to boycott AriZona Iced Tea (which originated in Brooklyn, New York and is currently based out of Cincinnati, Ohio). They’re not the sharpest knives in the drawer. They don’t care about facts, data or science -- only their emotional reactions.”
Sorry pal, you’re not even worthy of pity.
Post a Comment