cannot ignore the quantitative facts.
Quoting Time Magazine
(emphasis mine):
“Marine scientist Ivor van Heerden… says, ‘There's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster…. we're not seeing catastrophic impacts.’…
So far, the teams have collected nearly 3,000 dead birds, but fewer than half of them were visibly oiled… the Valdez may have killed as many as 435,000 birds. The teams have found 492 dead sea turtles… only 17 were visibly oiled; otherwise, they have found only one other dead reptile in the entire Gulf…
The shoreline teams have documented more than 600 miles of oiled beaches and marshes, but the beaches are fairly easy to clean, and the beleaguered marshes don't seem to be suffering much additional damage…
Anti-oil politicians, anti-Obama politicians and underfunded green groups [Underfunded green groups? Are you freaking kidding me?] all have obvious incentives to accentuate the negative in the Gulf. So do the media, because disasters drive ratings and sell magazines; those oil-soaked pelicans you saw on TV (and the cover of TIME) were a lot more compelling than the healthy ones I saw roosting on a protective boom in Bay Jimmy… But honest scientists don't do that, even when they work for Audubon.”
The greater damage -- by FAR -- is coming from the pinheads in Washington D.C.
What else is new?
Click here for more commentary
& more substantiating links.
5 comments:
You aren't quoting TIME MAGAZINE here. You are quoting ONE MAN that was INTERVIEWED by Time Magazine, and that's HIS opinion. I don't see a link to the full article here, but I did eventually find it:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007202,00.html
Clearly this is an EDITORIAL, which may or may not reflect the viewpoint of the magazine as a whole. So to say that "Time Magazine agrees with me" is disingenuous at best, and an outright lie at worst.
By the way, the guy you quoted works for Polaris, who was HIRED BY BP to clean up the spill, so he might just have a slight conflict of interest here! Just saying.
Anonymous (Oct 4, 2010 2:46:00 PM)
1) Which part of "Click the image & read the rest" did you not understand? That phrase is bolded and presented in an enlarged font. How much more spoon feeding does your pea brain require?
2) I quoted more words from the Time Magazine reporter than I did from the scientific expert.
3) Time Magazine does not include an "EDITORIAL" page. This is as close to objective reporting as Time Magazine gets.
4) Making unsubstantiated assertions of fact -- as your last sentence does -- are grounds on this blog for deleting your comment. For all I know, you have just committed and act of slander or libel. That sort of crap might fly at DailyKos, but not here. Either substantiate your assertion or face deletion!
1) Clicking the link on the photo doesn't work for some reason, maybe it's my browser. I should have looked at the webpage that appears at the bottom of the browser when my cursor is on top of the photo, so that was my fault, but I found the article anyway
2 and 3) notice the top of the article says VIEWPOINT, so this is clearly an EDITORIAL, and don't you think the person writing the editorial will look for people to interview that back up his personal pre-conceived notion of the truth? This reporter wasn't looking for the truth, he just wanted to tell his side only. Clearly you have no knowledge of "objective".
4) See this link for the scientists' employer:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june10/oil2_06-30.html
I can't find the article I read that noted Polaris is a contractor of BP used to clean up the oil spill and I am sorry I don't have more time to locate it. I saw a couple of left-wing sites that had that info, neither of which I had seen before, but I won't use those as evidence because those sites can play as much fast and loose with the facts as you do, and I don't consider them reputable either unless THEY cite their source.
mrmet69 (Oct 14, 2010 3:43:00 PM),
1) My logs indicate you're using IE8. IE8 is -- by far -- the worst browser in the known universe. My logs also indicate you have Javascript turned off. You might want to consider changing your security settings to the IE8 default.
Better yet, get a real browser. I like FireFox. But, I've also heard good things about Google's Chrome.
2) Viewpoint -- Okay, my bad. Don’t get snippy.
3) This link confirms Polaris is a BP contractor.
But, unless you think a distinguished scientist would sell his soul for one lousy contract, I don't think that proves much. I would be far more interested in concrete, quantifiable evidence from some other distinguished scientist. Got any? It seems to me there is a solid consensus that the media (typically and predictably) blew this way out of proportion.
4) Granted, an entire branch of science has been largely corrupted by money. But, in that case, we're talking about an estimated $100 billion in government "research" grants and tens of trillions up for grabs in government subsidies to "fix" the "problem" (that wasn’t).
P.S.) Michael Grunwald did the reporting on this for Time Magazine (a FAR Left publication).
Click here and tell me if this is the bio you might expect for a charter member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
As a side note (given that Grunwald also reports for WaPo)…
Just a few years ago, the “About” page for the Washington Post freely admitted that theirs was a newspaper created by Democrats for Democrats. Obviously, that is still the case. But, WaPo now prefers not to openly admit it.
Post a Comment