RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study

RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Sanity -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/27/2010 6:56:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Uh sanity, Who the fuck said I was a liberal? I said youre a Liberal, meaning "Liberal" in the modern sense of course. quote: Im a person with a science background who has forgotten a lot more microbiology, chemistry and physical oceanography than you ever knew. (aqpparently that isnt saying a hell of a lot) Then why are you trying to tell us that the ocean environment at the Exxon Valdez / Prince William Sound accident site is identicle to the BP / Gulf of Mexico spill site, and that the microbes in each instance should be giving identical results at each spill location? These environments are worlds apart. You are arguing emotionally and from on an ideological bias, not rationally or scientifically. quote: 1. The guy apparently wrote a report (unless the journalist reporting on it made it unrecognizable) that wouldnt pass muster in a Jr level undergrad course. Take it up with Reuters and the AP, in my opinion youve sunk to arguing semantics here. quote: 2. Your Exxon Valdes every year from natural seeps is quite possibly (Im being nice here) bullshit. If I have to choose between taking your word, some guy on the Internet who claims to have "a scientific background" vs. a Reuters or AP news article quoting actual scientists, I'll gonna have to go with the Reuters article every time over you. quote: 3.Your 'tiny little ribbons of surface oil', based on the width of the main channel of the Miss river are apparently a couple of MILES wide and over a HUNDRED miles wrong. (I'll let ya in on a deep dark secret here, when you take pics with a handheld digital camerra from the ISS a coupla hundred miles up, to even see it, it has to be HUGE) Take it up with Samboct who wrote "If you sample 200 sites- well, that can sound like a lot, until you realize how big the gulf is relative to the size of the plume..." You people... your arguments change with the wind, depending entirely on what it is youre trying to spin. Those ribbons are barely discernible in the photograph and most of the water discoloration appears to be muddy water from the mouth of the Mississippi river. Again, the photo caption says that the silvery ribbons are oil sheens, not that the entire gulf was covered in oil which is a huge point to keep in mind. quote: 4. It has already been PROVEN that BP spread false information about the magnitude of the spill. (lied?) I dont know why youre bringing that spin into the argument, its off topic and Im not sure of its merits. quote: #1. Above is why I called him BP's 'pet scientist'. If someone has been paying your salary for 10 years, you tend to do things to put them in the best light neh? The only mistake he made is writing for folks with the intellectual capacity of.......... well you. Now youre launching personal attacks, based on emotion and ideology, one would have to presume. Additionally, are you trying to tell us that "twue" scientists lack funding, and only achieve results that you personally approve of? [:D] quote: Just because someone disagrees with a right winger on a matter of science (that said right winger apparently has NO knowledge of nor any desire to obtain said knowledge) doesnt make them a liberal. Right - its your partisan, emotional personal attacks that reveal your ideology. Your "disagreement" isnt based on the facts at all, obviously. quote: Why arent you calling Archer a liberal? He apparently also thinks you're full of crap on this one. Because Archer is not a Liberal. He did get a bit emotional in the thread about the ghost plume but in this thread he agreed with what I wrote here and here about the oil seeps in the Gulf possibly nurturing the microbes in question. Archer thinks and argues logically for the most part, his mind is open to new possibilities and he doesnt argue emotionally from an ideological bias like some others here (ahem) do. quote: As for your constant whining that "it's just a tiny bit of the gulf" and the 'stuff is so diluted that noone can see it', Tell that to the folks in Minimata bay. Actually, thats whats being reported in the major media. Liberals are in crisis mode because their oil is gone, how can they use this crisis if theres no crisis to use? If the oil is gone, and for the most part it is, then their precious crisis has already gone to waste. [:(]

Hillwilliam -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/27/2010 7:39:09 AM)
While we wait for the intermission to be over, I'll give you folks a primer on how things work in the so called "hard sciences" (Biology, Geology, Chemistry and Physics) in academia. All professors are not created equal. There are tenured positions, Full Professor (tenured and active)and sometimes Professor Emeritus (tenured semi retired). Those guys dont have much to worry about and they are in a vast minority. The other 2 are Associate and Assistant Professor. These are the folks that are recently (within the last decade or so) hired and working their way up. They are expected to teach and do original research. When they are interviewed, one of the first questions asked is "what kind of grant money do you have coming in and what is in the pipeline". I've sat in on those interviews. A new professor will have many things in his contract but one thing common to all of them is that "X% of your salary will be paid by grants that you bring in". There is an old saying in academia "publish or perish". If you dont bring in grant money to help pay your salary, your contract wont be renewed the next year and you are on the street and you definitely wont get tenure. A researcher that has a large portion of his salary paid for by a corporate entity (whether it be BP, Phillip Morris, The Sierra Club or Greenpeace) is going to let loyalty to that entity creep into their research. It's simply human nature. I am VERY suspicious of a BP funded researcher saying that a "new superbug" is eating the oil and it'll be gone in a couple of weeks. Especially as he is attributing capabilities to it that are impossible for bacteria (sensing food at a distance and migration). The fact that he is doing his work at a "hotbed of liberalism" like Berkeley is immaterial. I would also be VERY suspicious if a researcher from Liberty University were claiming that this is an unprecedented catastrophe and the breakdown products are going to make the gulf toxic and kill tourism for all the gulf states for years if I looked at the byline and saw that he was being funded by Greenpeace.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/27/2010 7:51:13 AM)
AHHHH, so sanity is the end-all/be all of who is a liberal and who isnt. why, then dont you apply for Steele's job. Im saying this, if Bacteria can live in 4 degree celsius water in one area with a given carbon source, they can live in 4 degree celsius water in another area with the same carbon source. If you want to claim I dont have a scientific background, I got 2 words for ya . PROVE it. All you have done so far is scream EEEEEEEEEEK a liberal. Show me where I dont have the claimed background. I never claimed the entire gulf was covered in oil, only a few hundred square miles. Your lack of reading comprehension is showing. The fact that BP lied isnt spin, it's a proven fact and is ON topic. I attack your lack of intellectual prowess because occasionally, I like an easy target. I also didnt say the seeps didnt nurture the microbes, just that your "exxon valdese claim every year" is quite probably a fallacy. On the contrary, I posted a citation that showed that natural seeps were adding about 600,000 metric tons of petroleum to the worlds oceans each year. Again, Reading comprehension. As for major media, Do you trust major media? I sure as hell dont.

Sanity -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/27/2010 8:39:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam AHHHH, so sanity is the end-all/be all of who is a liberal and who isnt. why, then dont you apply for Steele's job. You asked me who said you were Liberal, and I simply answered... if you dont like my answer the keep your silly questions to yourself. [;)] quote: Im saying this, if Bacteria can live in 4 degree celsius water in one area with a given carbon source, they can live in 4 degree celsius water in another area with the same carbon source. And I wrote the two sites and spills are worlds apart, which they are. Ones a surface spill in a very cold climate, the others deep water in a very warm climate. One has natural seeps all around it potentially harboring these microbes, the other doesnt. quote: If you want to claim I dont have a scientific background, I got 2 words for ya . PROVE it. All you have done so far is scream EEEEEEEEEEK a liberal. Show me where I dont have the claimed background. What I wrote was that youre arguing emotionally (which you are), and this post is the most emotional outburst from you yet. I also wrote that youre just some guy on the Internet trying to take Reuters and the AP and actual scientists to task, which thats only obvious. quote: I never claimed the entire gulf was covered in oil, only a few hundred square miles. Your lack of reading comprehension is showing. Where did I write anything other than that the source you cited only claimed that the ribbons alone were the oil? quote: The fact that BP lied isnt spin, it's a proven fact and is ON topic. No, sorry - its a partisan attack on your part, off topic, and helping only to prove my point. quote: I attack your lack of intellectual prowess because occasionally, I like an easy target. No, you risk violating TOS only because you know your arguments lame. You are desperately wielding any cheap shot you can come up with to try to bolster your "scientific" [:D] argument. quote: I also didnt say the seeps didnt nurture the microbes, just that your "exxon valdese claim every year" is quite probably a fallacy. On the contrary, I posted a citation that showed that natural seeps were adding about 600,000 metric tons of petroleum to the worlds oceans each year. Again, Reading comprehension. Reading comprehension? Right... [:D] This particular argument is a total non sequitur on your part! You might want to check the context of my referencing the seeps in that last post of mine, which you are referencing... quote: As for major media, Do you trust major media? I sure as hell dont. I trust them more than some anonymous Liberal who pretends to play scientist on the Internet.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/27/2010 10:01:53 AM)
Once again sanity, all you can do is fling mud and hope for the best and when someone makes comments about your ability to comprenend the information you go whining about TOS violations. AWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. I tossed the ball in you court to show I dont have a background in the topic and you refuse. Why, I guess that it's because you cant so you just jump up on your stool and screec, EEEEEEK, it's a liberal that is picking on me and therefore must be violating the TOS. I find it interesting, sanity, that every time someone remarks on you obvious lack of knowledge that you whine about TOS violations. You remind me of a kid in gym class that starts talking smack to the biggest, meanest kid around and when he gets so much as a dirty look, he runs behind the gym teacher and starts whimpering and shivering so he can tell his buddies he is a badass cause he got "bill" put in detention. You start this stuff. If you can't stand the heat, dont come into the kitchen. Dont say that you didnt start this post knowing full well that knowledgable people were going to attack your so called "facts". You've only done it a hundred times or so on this forum alone. (can you say passive agreessive?) For the THIRD time I will say. PROVE that any assertion I have made on this topic is wrong. Quit slinging mud, making little snarky comments like a Jr Hi kid, quit whining about TOS and show some verifiable FACTS.

Sanity -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/27/2010 10:30:54 AM)
Youre getting more shrill, emotional, and further off topic with every post Bill, and so I'm done with your kind of science for today.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/27/2010 10:54:00 AM)
You never were into My kind of science. A science based on verifiable facts and reproducible experimental results and not what Rush or Beck or the Washington times said. A science based on the laws of Chemistry and Physics and not what is politically expedient or profitable for the shareholders. At least we agree on something.

BoiJen -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/27/2010 10:56:00 AM)
Ok, fine. Show me where BP did not lie on the original estimate and wasn't forced by the government to admit that there was more oil spilling daily. Show me. Cuz every major news source out there says you're wrong. There's nothing partisan about that FACT. Congress as a whole was jumping on that wagon to get BP to change the "official" estimate. The part where this became a partisan issue is when BP was told they have to pay for the lives they destroyed by fucking up the Gulf. The price tag was the partisan issue, not that BP lied in the first place. Where the fuck were you in April and May? boi

Sanity -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/27/2010 11:59:59 AM)
Thats not the topic of this thread and as I wrote before Im not very familiar with it, not sure why youre demanding that I comment on it either. quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen Ok, fine. Show me where BP did not lie on the original estimate and wasn't forced by the government to admit that there was more oil spilling daily. Show me. Cuz every major news source out there says you're wrong. There's nothing partisan about that FACT. Congress as a whole was jumping on that wagon to get BP to change the "official" estimate. The part where this became a partisan issue is when BP was told they have to pay for the lives they destroyed by fucking up the Gulf. The price tag was the partisan issue, not that BP lied in the first place. Where the fuck were you in April and May? boi

BoiJen -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/27/2010 12:11:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Thats not the topic of this thread and as I wrote before Im not very familiar with it, not sure why youre demanding that I comment on it either. Let's see, you implied that we should trust a study funded by BP. I said "we shouldn't trust a study funded by BP because they've already shown that they're willing to lie to cover their asses." And you basically said "stop bringing your liberal view of politics into this! BP not telling the truth has nothing to do with this! Besides they didn't lie in the first place that's a liberal point of view!" I said "show me where BP having lied in the first place is a liberal only point of view" To which you said "that's off topic!" I understand that all of this is not quoted exactly but it's the general message and summary of the thread and this particular aspect of this conversation. So I'll ask again....why on earth should the American people take for granted the incomplete findings of a study funded by BP (when BP lied in the first place to cover their own asses, creating a track record of bad information), when the study, miraculously!, finds a bacteria that can reduce the clean up costs that BP would have to put more money out for? I know that last sentence is really long and might be a little hard to follow, if I need to restate the question I'll work on better phrasing. boi

yummee -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/27/2010 1:07:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BoiJen I said "we shouldn't trust a study funded by BP because they've already shown that they're willing to lie to cover their asses." If we get what we want (the nation in general), BP will be funding ALL of the studies for at least 5 years (and much longer, if possible). They won't be conducting the studies, though. I'm with you on not trusting researchers and scientists in BP's pocket; however, present and upcoming studies will be funded by BP and that doesn't mean they are for BP. Currently, 80% of our fishing grounds are open, thoroughly tested, and seafood is being eaten from those grounds without ill effects. Side rant: We need to demand more of BP. They are trying to factor distance into loss-of-income claims. If they get their way, Acme Oyster House (open over 100 years in Metairie) will not be eligible to file a claim since they are not coastal. It doesn't appear to matter that every employee of the original Acme Oyster House and all of its sister restaurants relies on Gulf seafood. Fisherman who live too far inland will not be compensated (as it currently stands) despite making their living on Gulf seafood. Apparently, if you don't have tar balls in your yard, you weren't affected (sarcasm).

Louve00 -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/27/2010 4:51:06 PM)
Yep, I read that the other day, somewhere, that there are a lot of 'conditions' to that money that BP put aside for damages. As you said, distance will play a huge role in who gets what. The farther away you are from the coast, the less you'll get, if anything, As well as the stipulation that if anyone does submit a claim, is approved and takes the money, they waive their rights to sue for any reason related to the Gulf spill. That would include unforseen health problems unrelated to the business losses they may have filed a claim for, even though it was deemed a health issue of the same spill, none the less.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Microbes ate BP oil deep-water plume: study (8/27/2010 5:02:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 Yep, I read that the other day, somewhere, that there are a lot of 'conditions' to that money that BP put aside for damages. As you said, distance will play a huge role in who gets what. The farther away you are from the coast, the less you'll get, if anything, As well as the stipulation that if anyone does submit a claim, is approved and takes the money, they waive their rights to sue for any reason related to the Gulf spill. That would include unforseen health problems unrelated to the business losses they may have filed a claim for, even though it was deemed a health issue of the same spill, none the less. The act of putting money aside that they already had responsibility to pay was just window dressing to make it seem like Obama was doing something. BP always was and continues to be responsible for all costs of the spill. The existence of the fund doesnt release them from any future liabilities, but, as in any legal settlement, the claimant can, or take it to court if they think the settlement is insufficient protection against the future issues. The $75 million cap does not include cleanup costs, which they are fully responsble for, and does not limit their liability in the event of negligence or safety violations, among other conditions.

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125