Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Here you go, it was a formatting error.

http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/581/44814183_MMS_Katrina_Rita_PL_Final%20Report%20Rev1.pdf

Funny, you seem to accept right-wing blogs as sources from time to time.

You are correct that a large amount was spilled on-shore from Katrina et other hurricanes, as well as offshore. So what? This still shows you how potentially pollutive the industry is.

I am not against progress; I am not against having the energy we need. I am against pollution and waste. Fossil fuels are pollution-forming in pretty much every aspect of their creation, usage, and disposal...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Here you go, it was a formatting error.

http://www.mms.gov/tarprojects/581/44814183_MMS_Katrina_Rita_PL_Final%20Report%20Rev1.pdf

Funny, you seem to accept right-wing blogs as sources from time to time.

You are correct that a large amount was spilled on-shore from Katrina et other hurricanes, as well as offshore. So what? This still shows you how potentially pollutive the industry is.

I am not against progress; I am not against having the energy we need. I am against pollution and waste. Fossil fuels are pollution-forming in pretty much every aspect of their creation, usage, and disposal...

Cycloptichorn

I think you'll be hard put to find anything I've ever quoted from a rightwing blog that did not include a disclaimer that it was a rightwing blog and could not be considered an objective source.

And from your repaired linked source, a source that pretty clearly discredits the information in your leftwing blog source, I found this:

Quote:

The impacts from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
were typical of this historical experience.

While cleanup was required. The volume of oil spilled and impacts to shore from the offshore infrastructure were categorized as minor.

Onshore impacts from localized tank failures resulting from flooding were more significant, but are not in the scope of the damage assessment carried out by DNV.

The summary analysis of oil spills was presented by the Region Response Team for the MMS and was the source of the data in Table 2. The data is categorized by storm and source locations, and captures all spills one barrel or larger from federal OCS facilities that resulted from damages
related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As a result of both storms, 124 spills were reported with a total volume of roughly 17,700 barrels of total petroleum products, of which about 13,200 barrels were crude oil and condensate from platforms, rigs and pipelines, and 4,500 barrels were
refined products from platforms and rigs.

Pipelines were accountable for 72 spills totaling about 7,300 barrels of crude oil and condensate spilled into the GOM. Response and recovery

And while of course all that had to be cleaned up, that was not an environmental tragedy or catastrophe in the midst of the most widespread severe hurricane damage ever incurred by the United States.

0 Replies

Fox, you accept totally uncritically the material that posters like ican and okie get from right wing blogs, which account for a large percentage of their postings. The SCIENCE blogs regularly shoot down the anti-global warming stuff from the right-wingers, but strangely ican and okie never report that. Nor do you ever look at the ample material that refutes the antis. Nor do you ever seem to notice the unending stream of new research that corroborates that anthropogenic global warming is accurate. Which is why I have to laugh any time the denialist religionists--like you--maintain they keep an open mind and look at both sides of the issue.

0 Replies

Warning! This is from a left-leaning blog, and therefore, you probably shouldn't read it!

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/17/144426/316/203/553055

An in-depth discussion from an energy analyst detailing the steps which would have to be taken to achieve 80-100% clean energy generation in America by 2020. Lots of charts and discussion of the amount of time it takes to build new installations.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

username wrote:

Fox, you accept totally uncritically the material that posters like ican and okie get from right wing blogs, which account for a large percentage of their postings. The SCIENCE blogs regularly shoot down the anti-global warming stuff from the right-wingers, but strangely ican and okie never report that. Nor do you ever look at the ample material that refutes the antis. Nor do you ever seem to notice the unending stream of new research that corroborates that anthropogenic global warming is accurate. Which is why I have to laugh any time the denialist religionists--like you--maintain they keep an open mind and look at both sides of the issue.

Wrong. I don't accept anything ANYBODY posts uncritically. I pretty well scroll over all unsourced graphs and charts and data as tedious and probably unreliable no matter who posts them--at the very least they are boring to me. I also have limited time here, so I don't spend much time reading tedious cut and pastes by highly biased argumentative members who rarely are capable of expressing a coherant thought all by themselves, so occasionally I will miss something they find that is actually pertinent to the subject.

I do pay attention to opinions of credentialed scientists and the charts and graphs THEY use to illustrate the opinion they are expressing.

The ones I read are rarely if ever from rightwing blogs or any blogs though they may be quoted by somebody who is likely personally right or left of center.

0 Replies

username wrote:

Fox, you accept totally uncritically the material that posters like ican and okie get from right wing blogs, which account for a large percentage of their postings. The SCIENCE blogs regularly shoot down the anti-global warming stuff from the right-wingers, but strangely ican and okie never report that. Nor do you ever look at the ample material that refutes the antis. Nor do you ever seem to notice the unending stream of new research that corroborates that anthropogenic global warming is accurate. Which is why I have to laugh any time the denialist religionists--like you--maintain they keep an open mind and look at both sides of the issue.

Speaking for myself, I post stuff that I judge as reasonable and that presents useful arguments with reasonable evidence. Some of the most screwed up references are from that of supposed credible news sources, example, AP, which has a virtual monopoly.

0 Replies

The AP is decidedly left of center, yes, as is most of the MSM, and it will sometimes so skew something that you can't dig the truth out of it, but it is head and shoulders above Reuters who has been caught making up stuff and printing it as fact. I will use both as sources though for purposes of discussion and debate.

The unreliability of any single source giving a complete perspective, however, is my argument for keeping an open mind on this stuff AND viewing all information critically including that which I WANT to believe. I think when we put it ALL together, we will be much closer to the truth than if we rely on any single source.

The religionists I think are more interested in being right than they are interested in the truth. I think most of us skeptics are open to all credible information whether or not it fits with what we already know.

0 Replies

The AP is decidedly left of center, yes, as is most of the MSM, and it will sometimes so skew something that you can't dig the truth out of it, but it is head and shoulders above Reuters who has been caught making up stuff and printing it as fact. I will use both as sources though for purposes of discussion and debate.

The unreliability of any single source giving a complete perspective, however, is my argument for keeping an open mind on this stuff AND viewing all information critically including that which I WANT to believe. I think when we put it ALL together, we will be much closer to the truth than if we rely on any single source.

The religionists I think are more often interested in being right (or in the hated skeptics being wrong) than they are interested in the truth. I think most of us skeptics are open to all credible information whether or not it fits with what we already know.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, Cyclo posts lots of malarkey and fear mongering propaganda that paraphrases the Democrats.

The Democrats are determined to do whatever they can to suppress our free enterprise economy while usurping more power over our lives. What's the evidence for this? The evidence consists of their repeated illogical arguments about the consequences of drilling in ANWR and the other domestic oil rich areas. Their arguments are just too stupid for even them to believe.

Nancy Pelosi says drilling in these areas will just be a distraction. But she must know that the oil companies wouldn't drill there if it would merely serve as a distraction.

Harry Reid says the oil companies already have plenty of leases of land where they can drill. But he must know those lands contain inadequate oil reserves.

They argue oil is a limited resource on this earth and someday we'll runout. But they must know they don't know what that limit actually is until finally located, drilled and lifted.

They argue oil drilling, pumping, piping, and refining is bad for wild life. But they must know the opposite has been proven true.

They argue the high price of crude oil is caused by the oil companies. But they must know the oil companies are buyers not sellers of middle eastern oil.

They argue that because drilling in ANWR and the other domestic oil rich areas cannot solve our energy problem this year, we should develop alternate energy sources. But they must know that alternate energy sources will not satisfy a significant share of our requirements for at least a couple of decades.

They argue that use of oil to produce energy is harmful to human health. But they must know human life expectancy has increased from less than 60 to more than 78 years over the period 1931-2008 even while the use of oil to produce our energy has increased steadily over the same period.

They argue that human life expectancies have increased because of medical advances despite the use of oil produced energy. But they must know that the amount of medical treatment for oil pollution is insignificant.

They argue that solving the energy problem now by drilling for oil will only postpone the energy problem. But they must know that is preferable to suffering the problem all the while we wait for the development of adequate new energy production capabilities.

0 Replies

The f#cking idiots are talking about drilling in Georges Bank, on the continental shelf off New England and the Canadian Maritimes. Georges Bank and the Grand Banks have historically been probably the richest fishing grounds in the world. They've fed millions of people since before Columbus. They drilled a bunch of test wells there a couple decades ago and they came up dry. Now the Banks are up for grabs under George Bush's shortsighted plan. Not enough even potential oil to have any effect on the world market, but hell, let's get the wildcatters out there and the inevitable oil spills and the "accidents" and contaminate the sensitive fisheries for generations. You people are losing your minds.

0 Replies

There are none of our drilling platforms in ANY waters that have harmed or diminished sea life of any kind. In fact, invariably around EVERY platform, the sealife has dramatically increased. The sea critters use them like reefs. There is simply no basis or foundation of any kind for your alarm, Username.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

There are none of our drilling platforms in ANY waters that have harmed or diminished sea life of any kind. In fact, invariably around EVERY platform, the sealife has dramatically increased. The sea critters use them like reefs. There is simply no basis or foundation of any kind for your alarm, Username.

Of course not; it's the occasionally spilled oil that does the damage, not the rigs themselves.

Nothing runs with a 100% perfect safety or cleanliness rating; you put up oil rigs, start running oil tankers and pipes in and out of the area, and it is inevitable that there will be leaks and spills.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

So, show me the evidence where the sealife, plant or animal, has been harmed around these rigs, Cyclops. I've seen with my own eyes the evidence that sealife thinks those oil platforms are just pretty okay. I'm not buying the environmental wacko alarmist.....what's Ican's word?....MALARKY.....any longer. We've already telephoned, written, faxed, and e-mailed our elected representatives in Washington to encourage them to remove the restrictions on exploration and development of domestic oil and natural gas.

I hope all Americans will do the same.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So, show me the evidence where the sealife, plant or animal, has been harmed around these rigs, Cyclops. I've seen with my own eyes the evidence that sealife thinks those oil platforms are just pretty okay. I'm not buying the environmental wacko alarmist.....what's Ican's word?....MALARKY.....any longer. I've already telephoned, written, faxed, and e-mailed my elected representatives in Washington to encourage them to remove the restrictions on exploration and development of domestic oil.

I hope all Americans will do the same.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/americas/03/20/brazil.rig.02/

Pretty sure that wasn't too good for the environment around it.

Fox, don't be dense. It's not just the rigs, it's the tankers and pipelines around them and they DO leak. Here, I've done the work for you so that maybe you can do a little research on the subject before posting.

Google search of 'oil tanker leak'

Google search of 'oil pipe leak'

There are too many articles for me to summarize in full here, but it shouldn't take more then a couple for you to see that everything doesn't always go according to plan, and therefore, if you have areas you wish to keep unsullied, you need to not put heavy industry in the middle of them; they WILL be affected in one way or another.

OR, we could start investing in renewable energy at a much larger level, as such diverse people as T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore have been discussing lately. Then we get the energy without the pollution of resources.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

The tankers, pipelines, and all the other infrastructure is already out there Cyclop plus mega tankers hauling the stuff in from other countries. Do you trust Jamaica, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Mexico, Central American countries, South America to go after the oil more responsibly than we would? The oil is there and we need it. We can continue to buy it from other folks at $700 billion per year, a chunk of which goes to the likes of Hugo Chavez, or we can go after it ourselves in a responsible way which we have demonstrated in spades that we are doing responsibly.

I trust us to be as much or more responsible than I trust anybody else.

(And if the occasional minor accidents that are going to occur no matter what or how we produce industry had been any serious threat or done any serious harm to ocean life, we would see 50-ft tall banners being hauled down the streets and flown across the skies protesting that. It hasn't happened. And the odds are strongly in our favor that it won't.)

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
There are none of our drilling platforms in ANY waters that have harmed or diminished sea life of any kind. In fact, invariably around EVERY platform, the sealife has dramatically increased. The sea critters use them like reefs. There is simply no basis or foundation of any kind for your alarm, Username.

Of course not; it's the occasionally spilled oil that does the damage, not the rigs themselves.

Nothing runs with a 100% perfect safety or cleanliness rating; you put up oil rigs, start running oil tankers and pipes in and out of the area, and it is inevitable that there will be leaks and spills.

Cycloptichorn

What about naturally occurring oil seeps? Are you going to sue God?

0 Replies

Proved: There is no climate crisis Click Here For Full PDF Version

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Proved: There is no climate crisis Click Here For Full PDF Version

All very nice. Except the SPI paper refers to a APS newsletter article which the APS says isn't "peer-reviewed" at all and that they, as an organization, disagree with the conclusions of the article.

"APS Climate Change Statement
APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."

http://www.aps.org/

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
There are none of our drilling platforms in ANY waters that have harmed or diminished sea life of any kind. In fact, invariably around EVERY platform, the sealife has dramatically increased. The sea critters use them like reefs. There is simply no basis or foundation of any kind for your alarm, Username.

Of course not; it's the occasionally spilled oil that does the damage, not the rigs themselves.

Nothing runs with a 100% perfect safety or cleanliness rating; you put up oil rigs, start running oil tankers and pipes in and out of the area, and it is inevitable that there will be leaks and spills.

Cycloptichorn

What about naturally occurring oil seeps? Are you going to sue God?

That apparently stumped cyclops.

More on that subject:
http://oils.gpa.unep.org/facts/natural-sources.htm

"NOAA describe a natural seepage area in California: "One of the best-known areas where this happens is Coal Oil Point along the California Coast near Santa Barbara. An estimated 2,000 to 3,000 gallons of crude oil is released naturally from the ocean bottom every day just a few miles offshore from this beach"."

The title of the article is "Natural Sources of Marine Pollution," which brings up a question,if it is natural, is it really "pollution?" Another example, is Yellowstone polluted with all its chemically charged (or polluted) hot springs? Are the gases spewing from volcanos pollution? If a company creates anything like what nature does in even miniscule amounts, watch the hoards of lawyers from all kinds of "citizens groups," also known as tree huggers, descend upon the whole situation to make their money, suing the bejeebers out of anyone that is doing any work.

I think the unknowing and generally uneducated public has been sold a bill of goods over the last many years by the tree huggers.

0 Replies

Perhaps if they sunk an oil well or two into that spot, they could pump out enough oil to lower the oil levels in the ground and the seep would stop?

Acknowledging Fishin's find regarding a misstatement in that Christopher Monckton article. The newsletter refrenced probably is 'peer reviewed' by its very nature and the demographics it shoots for, but. based on this disclaimer, is not in an official manner. So it is appropriate to point out that inconsistency in the content of the article.

Over the course of this thread Christopher Monckton has been much maligned and smeared by the AGW religionists as he has been a strong voice opposing AGW theories. The parent organization referenced is of course a pro-AGW voice, but apparently give Professor Monckton sufficiently respect to include his comments in their newsletter and kudos to them for being willing to look at scientific opinion opposing their own.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know