Gulf Oil Spill Hoax Argument VINDICATED

reply to post by Doc Velocity

So, as far back as 2003, the National Research Council was reporting that 375 million gallons of oil was entering the world's oceans EVERY YEAR — that's like 1.5 Deepwater Horizon events EVERY YEAR, dating far enough back that the National Research Council could call it an annual occurrence.

My goodness. Your logic, or lack thereof, is really shocking.

Let me try to put this in simple terms that maybe you can understand.

The NRC reported 375 million gallons of oil over the WORLD'S OCEANS. Translation- All of the oceans of the world, which cover over 70% of the earth absorbed 375 million gallons of oil a year.
The SMALL area of the Gulf of Mexico, which is mostly landlocked, is approximately 1.6 million sq km. in area. The ocean area of the world is approximately 335,258,000 sq km

Now I know this is probably higher math than you are used to, but if you divide 1,600,000 by 335,258,000 , you come up with the fact that the Gulf is ONLY .47724439 of 1 percent of the worlds oceans.

In other words, the world's oceans would have to have experienced over 200 times 375 million gallons of oil spill a year to draw any valid comparison.

Your right and were all wrong. Thats what you wanted to hear, right.

So because there leaking going on in the ocean naturally and unnaturally every year that means that this will have no effect on the ocean at all? What about the corexit we are dumping in the gulf? What about the huge amount of methane that came from the well? Still no effect?

No one can give an accurate estimate on the toll this will take to the animals and people who call the gulf home. How can we? The leak was 5000 ft down. Do you really think that all the oil and dead animals are going to wash up on the beach?

Its just like a few days after the leak started and the tools on fox news were saying "wheres the oil" pretending like there was none. Except now your saying "well the world didnt end and oil spills all the time so there will be no effects"

I'll just leave this here...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I really don't have a whole lot to add to the discussion. I think its ludicrous to think that the oil disaster (yes, it was a disaster no matter how you slice it) is just going to go away on its own.

I was flipping the channels and "Billy the exterminator" was on, which I have watched maybe once or twice before. This episode was some sort of special where they went to the gulf...the whole episode is available for free here, but I thought this one part of it would be of particular interest: Billy the exterminator

Looks pretty nasty to me and I can't possibly imagine how you coudl say that isn't going to have a huge effect on wildlife in the area. Sure, thats just one small spot they're looking at and its worse in some spots, better in others, but its pretty nasty overall.

reply to post by meteoritics


Could you please translate your post for me.
I am a grandma and I am used to gibberish,
but I can't translate this.I do know that you're
not asking me for a cookie!

Originally posted by Ashes of the wake
Your right and were all wrong. Thats what you wanted to hear, right.

I don't need to hear it from you. I KNOW I'm right, and I've known it for months. I don't need anyone to come groveling to me on their knees across broken glass.

I think, rather, that the knee-jerk flamers need to admit to themselves that they're wrong. That's part of the learning process.

— Doc Velocity

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
My goodness. Your logic, or lack thereof, is really shocking. Let me try to put this in simple terms that maybe you can understand.

Thank you for your condescending and oafish attempt at debate, which completely ignores the fact that there are 714 active oil and gas rigs in the Gulf of Mexico that ALL leak crude oil 24/7/365 and have done so for more than half a century. I would dare say that most of the oil spillage in the world's oceans occurs right there within the confines of the Gulf of Mexico — not only from offshore drilling, but from the nonstop terrestrial pollution that empties into the Gulf by the BILLIONS of gallons from the Mississippi River, the largest and most heavily polluted river in North america.

When you need your tenure renewed, Prof, come to me. I'm employed to write thought-leadership papers for illiterate professors all across the country. I'll send you a rate card.

— Doc Velocity

When you need your tenure renewed, Prof, come to me. I'm employed to write thought-leadership papers for illiterate professors all across the country. I'll send you a rate card.

— Doc Velocity

On the internet, everyone is rich and successful!!

Even if they dont show any evidence of it in their writing.

Dude, there are more holes in your 'theory' than,... um,... than... a poorly-constructed story that ignores numerous facts.

[edit on 29-7-2010 by justadood]

Thanks for answering my questions, you answered them and more. I wasn't aware of some of the points you made so I'll check them out.

First off, the the 'planet oozing oil' idea isn't a fair comparison. As pointed out in a later post by ProfEmeritus, you're missing some maths.

I don't agree with you that depth and lack of life down there somehow makes it less of an issue. There's A LOT of oil for a start, and massive plumes are apparently at various depth's in a large area around the well, well into habitable zones.

There are plenty of quotes from people who know about that sort of thing. From an article today...

from SOURCE

"Less oil on the surface does not mean that there isn't oil beneath the surface, however, or that our beaches and marshes are not still at risk," Jane Lubchenco, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, told reporters.

Scientists are worried that most of the oil remains trapped below the surface by the nearly 800,000 gallons of chemical dispersants that were pumped into the ocean depths.

John Kessler, an oceanographer at Texas A&M university said ... "The oil could remain for anywhere from a year up to decades."

He detected thick underwater plumes of oil from just below the surface to depths of 3,000ft within a 10-mile radius of BP's ruptured well. "It is most likely that this plume of natural gas and oil is not going to immediately dissipate, even if there is no other source in the water," he said.

The plumes do apparently exist from the surface down to 3000ft. Assuming you're all correct, then there's oil at all depths around the well head, from 5000ft (where you say it'll prefer to be), right the way though to the surveyed plumes at 3000ft +. That makes it look even worse.

The dispersant, plumes and volume of oil are very serious. They're not world ending, but it's definitely in the 'really not good' category surely?

Also, I don't think it's reasonable for you to expect me (or anyone else) to trawl through your posts in other threads, it's akin to me angrily pointing to my diary every time someone asks me a question about a conversation I've just started.

By creating the thread you invited debate on the topic. I asked you two specific questions directly related to your post which is perfectly reasonable. There's no reason to be so aggressive and arrogant. If you want people to just say you're correct then don't start a thread on something so contentious.

edited due to poor tag usage.


[edit on 29-7-2010 by eightfold]

Originally posted by JMech
reply to post by AwakeinNM

 

Now why did you have to go and mention Subaru's? I work on a lot of them and I hate them. Damn you

Edit to add, you want to talk about oil leaks, buy a Subaru!

[edit on 29-7-2010 by JMech]

No kidding. I had a Subaru when I was in college, when all the libbies were driving Volvos. I couldn't afford the $900 they wanted (aftermarket) for a new exhaust system. This was in 1992 or thereabout. Luckily a dumbass rearended me and totaled the car and I got out of that money sponge.

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Ashes of the wake
Your right and were all wrong. Thats what you wanted to hear, right.

I don't need to hear it from you. I KNOW I'm right, and I've known it for months. I don't need anyone to come groveling to me on their knees across broken glass.

I think, rather, that the knee-jerk flamers need to admit to themselves that they're wrong. That's part of the learning process.

— Doc Velocity

When you think you 'know' something is probably when you are the furthest from the truth.