CNN Anchor 'Shocked' Congress Working to Open Up Offshore Drilling Without Passing New Safety Laws
They may not be officially celebrating "Green Week," but CNN was fully in the spirit of the week Wednesday morning. Anchor Carol Costello expressed her dismay that Congress has not acted in the last year to prevent another disaster like the BP oil spill, and seemed to want more safety regulations and laws for oil companies to follow in a disaster.
"Congress doesn't seem to be in charge," Costello lamented, on the one-year anniversary of the Deepwater Horizon disaster that began the massive oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico.
When CNN correspondent Brianna Keilar reported that House committees have been moving legislation to speed up drilling permits and open up new offshore drilling areas, Costello was troubled.
"I'm just so shocked by that," she gasped. "Is there any chance that Congress will pass legislation on safety anytime soon?" She mentioned "safety laws," "increased penalties for violations," and "law on how oil companies must respond to such a disaster" as examples of what Congress could be enacting into law.
Keilar, on Capitol Hill, pressed Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) for being too soft on the Obama administration after he warned them to show caution in dealing with the GOP on oil drilling regulation. In February, President Obama allowed deep water drilling again – after his administration was ruled by a federal judge in Louisiana as acting in contempt by continuing its moratorium on deep-water drilling after the same judge struck it down earlier.
"It's important for the Obama administration to go only so far and not be pushed into a situation where they once again are invoking the law of unintended consequences," Markey stated. Keilar responded, "To play devil's advocate, that's pretty soft language for someone who looked at BP executives and demanded they apologize for lying. I mean, isn't that being soft on the administration?"
A transcript of the segment, which aired on April 20 at 10:29 a.m. EDT, is as follows:
CAROL COSTELLO: One year to the day after the fatal explosion that set off the BP oil spill. Many people who depend on the Gulf for a living say they are still waiting for compensation. The president of Plaquemines Parish told CNN he's still waiting for some leadership.
(...)
COSTELLO: Congress doesn't seem to be in charge. What have lawmakers done over the past year to make sure there isn't a sequel to the BP oil disaster? Nothing. No new safety laws. No increased penalties for violations, and no laws on how oil companies must respond to such a disaster. The Department of Interior and the oil industry have taken on all the responsibility.
CNN's Brianna Keilar went to Capitol Hill and asked why.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(...)
BRIANNA KEILAR (voice-over): Now one year later, what about making sure this never happens again?
(on camera): What has Congress done?
MARKEY: Congress has not passed any legislation yet to respond to the lessons which we have learned from that spill.
KEILAR (voice-over): Markey blames Republican senators who opposed a bill the House passed last Congress.
(on camera): It's not just Republicans, it's also Democrats who are running counter to what you say needs to be done.
MARKEY: Well, again, we had a majority of the votes in the Senate, but you need more than 51 in the Senate. You need 60 votes.
KEILAR: But you didn't even have all Democratic votes.
MARKEY: No, we didn't have all Democrats. But it's a very small minority of Democrats plus just about every Republican just to get the mix correct.
KEILAR (voice-over): And Markey lost another battle in February when the Obama administration once again allowed deep water drilling with the support of Republicans and some Gulf state Democrats who argued that drilling means jobs.
(on camera): What do you say to the president?
MARKEY: It's important for the Obama administration to go only so far and not to be pushed into a situation where they once again are invoking the law of unintended consequences.
KEILAR: To play devil's advocate, that's pretty soft language for someone who looked at BP executives and demanded they apologize for lying. I mean, isn't that being soft on the administration?
MARKEY: No. I am saying that they have to be very careful.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KEILAR: Now in the now Republican-controlled House, just last week, committees moved bills to expedite drilling permits and open new offshore areas to drilling. Republicans say they are striking a balance between safety and the demand for oil. But Carol, Ed Markey says they're acting as if the spill never even happened.
COSTELLO: I'm just so shocked by that. Is there any chance that Congress will pass legislation on safety anytime soon?
KEILAR: Well, in the way that, say, Ed Markey wants to see it, he does have a bill right now that would incorporate some of the oil spill commission's recommendations. But it seems really unlikely that it will pass. And certainly even in the last Congress, he had a hard time getting things through the Senate. As you know right now, the big battles are over the economy, they're over jobs. We're going to see a fight over raising the debt ceiling, and this doesn't appear to be - certainly as much of a priority for those other things, Carol.
COSTELLO: If my memory is serving me, didn't Ed Markey actually cry over this in Congress?
KEILAR: You know, I don't -- I remember Charlie Melancon who is from Louisiana, he certainly did cry. I don't know if that was Ed Markey.
COSTELLO: You're right, you're right. I was just wondering. I mean, it was such an emotional issue for so many lawmakers. So, I guess, after listening to your story, it's like, you're kidding. Nothing has been passed?
KEILAR: And, you know, I remember going down to Louisiana in October. It's sort of striking this balance for people in that area. This is their economy. This is their livelihood. This is also their coastline. And so when you talk to average Americans who this really affects them, not just in their livelihood, but they're trying to strike a balance, as well. And they actually had some issues with how Democrats approached the drilling moratorium. But they also do want to see some safety, so they're kind of demanding both things, Carol.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Oil Money
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 6:12pm.
Seem to remember that Obama established a Czar to oversee the disbursement of the BP oil money. Presently has 3200 people employed in the process?
What's the DMV done to prevent Costello from a car accident?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 6:19pm.
No new safety laws? No bigger fines? Nothing?
Outrageous.
Costello is the Brewer of CNN.
Well I am “shocked” that…
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 6:51pm.
....Costello is shocked – and I’m sure she is shocked over the fact that I would be shocked – but no less shocked that I am shocked over the fact that she would be shocked over the fact that I am shocked!
I tell you this is shocking! Simply shocking!! And more than simply shocking (!!)… Enormously Simply Shocking!!!
Shockingly yours,
Grump :o)
Who needs laws
Submitted by Tjexcite on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 7:17pm.
Who needs laws, congress is irrelevant. They have regulations.and one page of current law can make 200 pages of new regulations.
Was this before or after they complained about the 5 dollar gas or the 111 dollar oil. Yet everything is fine. There is no relationship to high gas prices to the lack of drilling due to the tower of new regulation and/or with the stalemate and/or radical takeover in the middle east. Everything is fine.
Move along... no bias here
Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 7:40am.
Here is the skinny... BP or a drilling contractor are supposed to wait a couple of days for the cement to harden. They waited n-1 days. They did not pay to rent the drilling rig any more.
The hole blows out, the rig blows up. Someone on the rig, who is probably dead now, agreed with whoever did not want to pay. (since who is on the rig actually does the action that made this happen)
Find that person. Charge him with Capital murder. Go back to drilling with same rules. Charge BP with large fines because of this.
Why do we need offshore drilling anyway?
Submitted by bigdaddy on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 7:38pm.
When we have George Soros checking our oil and selling us all we need through his Argentinian company. What, did you think that BO went down there to party at Carnival?
Oh yeah? Well I'm friggin'
Submitted by Rowane on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 7:50pm.
Oh yeah? Well I'm friggin' "shocked" that these morons can't see what the outrageous prices are doing to the country.
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. (Aaron Tippin)
It's how they see it
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 7:59pm.
Remember, DuhOne said he wouldn't mind the $4 price, therefore the LSM would fall over themselves to agree with him. They do it all the time anyway.
-Jon
Hypocrisy in full display
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 8:01pm.
With the exception of being mentioned on Fox News on occasion, why is it these LSMs don't say anything about the fact that other countries are drilling right in our own backyard in the Gulf, like China, Russia and others? The same areas that WE the USA are being illegally held back from drilling?
It's pretty much a lie by omission.
-Jon
Jon, Jon, Jon...
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 8:13pm.
... Don’t you understand that the "Monroe Doctrine” is just so passé now?
Please excuse me while I go barf over timidity of our country of the “Ears” administration.
doctrines...
Submitted by OuttaMyWay on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 7:32am.
The obama doctrine: Undo the Monroe Doctrine.
Who gives a crap that some
Submitted by jdhawk on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 8:38pm.
Who gives a crap that some CNN info babe along with the communist Markey don't like oil drilling in America.
Meanwhile, we have over 100 years of oil in the ground, 300 years of natual gas in the ground, and an abundance of fissionable material and the best expertise on the planet to employ it. Yet, we shovel trillions of dollars overseas to those that hate us and want to destroy our way of life.
If we began with a "go to moon" like approach to the use of the above energy types, we would be a net exporter of energy in a decade. Instread, we have duhbama and communists like markey that twart, holds up, and stymy any and all efforts to get these intiatives off the ground.
I'm no environmentalist
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 8:40pm.
.........however I do not find it unreasonable to have more safeguards in place. The oil spill last year devastated the Gulf Coast and we will not may never know how severe the environmental impact was
Same with Nuclear Reacters. The Japanese had to dumps tons of radioactive water into our ocean and that is definately not a good thing
This is not just some sort of global warming scam. This is our ocean and we should do what we can to protect it.
shawn*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 9:03pm.
People who live on the Gulf Coast are very protective of our unique environment. Locally owned oil companies and related industries take great care and caution to protect their back yard and future business. Locally owned companies have the best safety records off shore drilling activities. Its them foreigners causing all the problems because they dont care about our rules and regs.
I have posted links numerous times before on this issue. MMS, out of New Orleans knew from inside reports that the "cut off mechanism" was faulty. Engineers confirmed this one year before the explosion. After BP paid off some bribes, Lisa Jackson with EPA, granted BP an exemption from the numerous safety violations 2 weeks before the explosion.
EPA has added dozens of pages of new regulations but the problem remains. Bribery, corruption, partisan politics, and anti american ideology.
Since EPA was court ordered to begin renewing permits since no, not one, rig was in violation, the EPA has issued ONE permit that was 20 yrs old. It is common knowledge here that they have around 50 inspectors and none of them know squat about the oil industry. They have hired 18 new inspectors who are currently in "school". The oil companies have a thousand page report to complete for MMS ( whatever its new name is) that keeps getting sent back because the inspectors have no idea of the chemistry and engineering aspects of the reports. They keep adding new regs and requirements to continue to delay the permitting process deliberately.
Safety is one thing but corruption originates in DC. How do you regulate corruption when the ones making the rules are the corruption?
Cajun
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 9:22pm.
I don't disagree with what you say. I know it is very hard to fight corruption at all levels. I'm just saying with what happened in Japan this year and Louisiana last year its kind if hard not to be weary of offshore drilling and nuclear plants and the more safeguards the better
Then convince your Reps
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 9:28pm.
To allow on shore drilling, and to quit demonizing coal.
To drill for oil*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 9:40pm.
This study was done in 2007. Thousands of pages of new rules and regulations have been added since then. This is a brief study of what an oil company must do from permit to drilling. It takes anywhere from 3-5 yrs to begin drilling and costs millions before pumping the first barrel.
This administration did everything they could to maximize the damage from the BP spill.
And this is why
And dont think for a minute longer that Obama and Soros are not in this together
To lighten things up*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 9:59pm.
Sure could use the Vet right about now but remember from the Batman movie when the Joker poisoned all products like shampoo, make up, deodorant, hairspray.... The next scene was the TV newscasters giving an alert about the dangers of these products. They were on air looking awful without make up. That "CNN info babe" brought this to mind.
I posted this link earlier today. Its only a partial list of over 6000 products made from petroleum.
Take a close look at it and think about the implications if we run out of oil or have to pay $300 or 400 per barrel from other countries. Think instead of the CNN info babe", consider the likes of Andrea Mitchell, Rachel Maddow, Joy Behar, Katie Couric all on air, live au naturale..
Well Cajun
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 10:14pm.
That is why we are lucky to get most of our oil from Canada ;-). All kidding aside you made great points. I am just saying with all the destruction to our Oceans and environment it's kind of hard not to be cautious.
Shawn*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 10:23pm.
Planet earth has the ability to completely repair itself. If not a single human walked the earth, within 20 yrs, there would be no evidence that man even existed.
Most folks think this is an important issue to me because we are part of the Gulf States economy. If you read the links I have posted, you can see the issue here is much greater than the price of gasoline or safety to the environment. The dangers of Obama's energy policies could cause damage to our quality of life and our economy that would take decades to recover.
This is not about damage to wildlife or a few miles of dead marshland. It is not about damaging the environment, its about destroying the basics of American economy.
You may now return to regular scheduled programming.
Again I agree with you Cajun
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 10:34pm.
Obamas cap and trade is insane and his thinking is socialist, however with what happened on the Gulf Coast last year, steps must be taken to prevent another disaster
The thought of California nuclear plants having the same fate as Japan's is terrifying
I realize that the effects might not be permanent, but the effects of the BP spill might last for years
Shawn
Submitted by Avitar on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:06am.
The Consider the age of the reactors in terms of technilogical maturity. Both the California ractors and the Japanese reactors were designed using methods and material from the nineteen sixties about twenty years after the start of nuclear technology. Today forty years after they were design little kids play with computers with more power than all the computers on eartn then. You should not assume that technology that threee times as old will resemble the earlier technology after all the 747 was only forty years later than Lindy's Spirit of St. Louis
Design simulation has progressed as has reactor building techniques, for the hundreds of navel ractors if not for civilian ones.
Shut up Shawn.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:22am.
The United States government does not set policy based upon the hide under the bed thinking of Shawn the Intimidated.
Shawn: ...the BP spill might last for years...
Here is an idea. Study before you open your mouth.
Dec. 17, 2010 (AP) The Coast Guard admiral overseeing cleanup of the BP oil spill says extensive sampling of the Gulf of Mexico seafloor has found oil in quantities too small to merit collection.
The Coast Guard's findings - to be released in a report Friday - are in contrast to reports from independent scientists who say oil has extensively damaged the seafloor.
"We are not finding any recoverable amounts of oil," Rear Adm. Paul Zukunft told The Associated Press. "We are finding traces of oil."
He says the concentrations fall far short of harmful levels under federal pollution laws.
That is less than a year. That makes you not just wrong but dead wrong and this AFTER cajun2 all but begs you to listen to what she is saying.
Shut up Shawn?
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:16am.
"I was actually quote polite with Cajun "Others are concerned about consequences far beyond the reach of rakes. Some scientific studies report a lot of oil still in the deep sea, possibly poisoning deepwater corals and other creatures. Damage to the deeps may have some effect on food chains elsewhere in the ocean that matter more to fishermen—most deepwater species visit the shallows in their larval form, and many of the larvae get eaten— but it is by its nature less noticeable, and emotive, than seabirds or turtles drenched in similar amounts of oil.
The ability of some ecosystems to clean themselves up can also cause knock-on problems. When bacteria eat up oil—which they have been doing at the Gulf’s oily seeps for millions of years—they use up oxygen, too. Give them a huge oil blowout, and they can use up enough oxygen to create anoxic “dead zones” that imperil fish and other sea creatures. The NOAA is monitoring these zones; it is easier to test for low oxygen levels than to find the oil plumes far below the surface."
Something is wrong with NBs linking system today so here is the link
http://www.economist.com/node/18587367
I am simply saying there" might" be damage for years. I think somebody really needs a hug these day
Why do you do this? Is this on purpose?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:09am.
Whatever. You keep searching for that oil. Keep that lonely vigil for all of us. Search the most biased sites you can find and keep munching on that yummy yummy propaganda baby food. In the meantime, you have Dead Zippers back nodding his black/female/Irish/Polish head agreeing with you.
Oh dear, there is some dead deep sea coral in the immediate area of the spill. Color me shocked. Let's come here and keep pushing the doom button and scare the boys and girls.
Oh look, someone is looking for a dead zone. A year later, not news of ONE SINGLE DEAD ZONE, but let's just keep the boys and girls on edge OK?
Search the most biased sites
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:21am.
Search the most biased sites you can find and keep munching on that yummy yummy propaganda baby food.
From the one who links to the British National Party when it comes to immigration, narth.com concerning homosexuality and let's not forget all these dubious climate sites you love so much.
But on the other hand: You usually don't do anything else, but to criticize people for what you do all day long. I'm telling you it's the bilge water.
iz funnee germanzee wordz.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:07pm.
Yöu u u uuremeendinz funniz germänzeez wörd --- körnedbifenkänz.
iz merkel läufen nö cäre yöu iz birtish, spänishenz, pörtugüesen, itliänöfen, sweedishärfz websizez.
Very Nice
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:42am.
I never said there was huge traces if the oil I said that the effects could be felt for many years. As far as ADK. Guilt by association eh? Nice tactic, and u rag on me about my debating tactics.
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:11pm.
Shawn: The oil spill last year devastated the Gulf Coast and we will not may never know how severe the environmental impact was
Whatever. Never mind the devastation that was PREDICTED never showed up. Never mind that we do know how severe the environmental impact was because the oil has all but DISAPPEARED.
Dev-a-friggin-stated.
But yeah, I am just picking on you for no reason at all.
Again
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:29pm.
I did not say there is alot of oil. I said we migh not know the long term impact. That is not unreasonable
I farted.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:35pm.
We might never know how long that will stay in the air.
One year later, we can't find any of the oil that did not fall to the ocean floor in the immediate vicinity of the broken pipe. You have been told that and still you want to repeat the same scare mongering horsepoo you started with.
How about this. I me The Vet. Did. DEE EYE DEE. Not. En oh Tee. Say seesawsay. You. Why Oh U. said. sad with an I. There. right there, there see it. Was. WasnotWas. A. First letter. Lot. Empty. Of. Oh Ef. Oil. greasy stuff.
Yes the vets Taco Bell egg farts
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:23pm.
Are the same as millions of gallons of oil going 24/7 for three months. Do they make Imodium for diarrhea of the mouth?
The link I did earlier clearly shows there is still fallout from the spill.
See.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:27pm.
What did I say?The oil is gone. So you act like I unfairly maligned you OK? Did not listen to a word I said. You focus on what you want to talk about and never listen to anyone else. It gets old.
No sir
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:52pm.
I read every word u said. Oil is gone on the surface, but I am saying there might be long term effects and you are comparing flatulence to tons of crude oil gushing out for three months straight.
Edit
Btw I did not know The economist was biased. I have to explain that to Unsane.
where did the oil go?*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:57pm.
Everyone is interested in where the oil went. Even scientist are not sure where it went. Here is a link, dont be bothered by the blog site, read the interview with Christopher Reddy. Several posters here today have experience working in the oil industry. It is common knowledge that oil seeps onto the gulf floor naturally and comes ashore in tar balls is very common. Drilling for oil in the gulf is actually beneficial to the gulf marine biology and balance because of the tremendous size of the oil reserves in the gulf of mexico.
There are a multitude of links to scientists studying the specific bacteria that thrive on the oil, others who are studying the effects of the spill on the wetlands. Many questions are unanswered. But one interesting thing is that Obamas two spill task forces, neither of them asked the right questions and in fact ignored some very significant information. They even denied some testimony because of pending lawsuits.
Lots of questions still unanswered.
Your right about that Cajun
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 12:08am.
Lots of unanswered questions. Some people say it can take years to see how much damage has been done to the environment to the Gulf Coast.
I guess time will tell.
Shut up Shawn.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:58pm.
The oil is gone a year later. And all you do is continue to whine that we should kill off our economy beause you and you only think, no proof, think there might be, MIGHT, be some long`term effects.
Then you get butt hurt because I made an overly simplistic analogy. and go into insult mode. PROVE THERE IS SOME KIND OF LONG TERM DAMAGE THAT COMES REMOTELY CLOSE TO YOUR INITIAL STATEMENT ABOUT DEVASTATION. The whine because I called you on your scare mongering and follow your new buddy with insults OK? And should I get too close you can always focus on statements from other users I never addressed nor intended to address and had nothing to do with your initial scare mongering.
Nice with the lie by the way saying I was comparing the lasting effects of my fart to an oil spill. Why don't you prove I was making a direct comparison since you want to keep repeating that as well.
Hmmm u said you farted then followed it up with
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 12:01am.
"We might never know how long that will stay in the air."
Yes I am sure you just brought up the air biscuits out of the blue Since your infatuated with your rectum can you me what you and your magnificant tushie doing accusing me of wanting to destroy our economy?
When did I say that? I said there is nothing wrong with more safeguards. Maybe it was kind of Hyperbole when I said the more safeguards the better. I guess this is sort of like you saying you will vote for Christine O Donnell, even though you don't even live in Deleware. I also said we should take caution. Wow sounds almost as scary as Karl Roves weather machine eh?
Following my new buddy with insults? Lol another guilt by association eh? I comment on he same thread as ADK and now he is my buddy? Very nice vet. Btw your the one that responded to me on this post with a lovely shut up Shawn. Lol.
Edit
"Everything may be fine in some places, but definitely not fine everywhere," said University of Georgia researcher Samantha Joye who found dead patches of oiled sea bottom in expeditions near the busted well where 11 men lost their lives. "The oil isn't gone; it's just not where we can see it."
Joye said before the oil spill she would have given the sea floor an "A" grade of 90. Now she gives it a 30. Overall, Joye, who has been one of the more hands-on researchers exploring Gulf damage, said its health has plunged from an 80 before the spill to a 50 now, but she was the most pessimistic of the researchers.
In five different expeditions, the last one in December, she and her colleagues took 250 cores of the sea floor and travelled 2,600 square miles. She says much of the invisible oil in the water and on the sea bottom has been chemically fingerprinted and traced to the BP spill. She also has pictures of oil-choked bottom-dwelling creatures like crabs and brittle stars -- starfish-like critters that are normally bright orange but now are pale and dead.
This is hidden from view. Eugene Turner, an LSU wetlands scientist, has looked at marshes in Louisiana's Barataria basin, and found oil buried in the mud and sand.
"You can't smell it. You can't see it. It's not this big black scum out there, but it's there," Turner said.
Wow. DId I ever overreact. Oh wait....
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 12:19am.
Yes I am sure you just brought up the air biscuits out of the blue
Shawn: we will not may never know how severe the environmental impact was --- pondering without evidence what the impact was ---
Shawn: ...I am simply saying there" might" be damage for years... --- just musing. Nothing to back it up. Just musing. But Gawd forbid someone bring up an analogy where they muse. Time to attack!
Shawn: ...I said that the effects could be felt for many years. --- Could. Might. Hope. Evidence? Phffffft .Say it over and over. But screw you Vet for making an analogy after hearing it the a 40th time. Reading someone repeat the same thing over and over is FUN!
Shawn: ...I said we migh not know the long term impact.... --- Evidence. Hell I can't even find the evidence for a short time impact. But you enjoy me repeating the same thing over and over and up yours should you stop taking me seriously and make an analogy to show my ridiculous musings.
Shawn: The link I did earlier clearly shows there is still fallout from the spill. --- No it doesn't. It panders and bellybutton gazes just like you keep doing.
Shawn: ...I am saying there might be long term effects... --- 5 times. But yeah, I brought that analogy up right out of the blue. Shame on me.
...accusing me of wanting to destroy our economy...
Shawn: ...do not find it unreasonable to have more safeguards in place...-- Restricting oil drilling because you think, THINK, there might, MIGHT be some impact you can't specify. You are not proposing anything of course. Just throwing something out there and letting people panic.
Shawn: ...kind if hard not to be weary of offshore drilling... --- Yeah, not proposing anything, just scare mongering, actually don't want anything to happen based upon your scare mongering.
Shawn: ...all the destruction to our Oceans and environment it's kind of hard not to be cautious.... --- Just saying is all. Not advocating restricting nothin or nothin
Shawn: .......steps must be taken to prevent another disaster... --- Let's see. Steps have been taken but yeah, you are not proposing nothin or nothin.
Wow sounds almost as scary as Karl Roves weather machine eh?
Let's see. You repeat over and over about how there might be long term effects. Do all but suggest no more drilling but only in an alarmist ecowarrior way. Whine as well about nuclear power, I did not even touch. Whine about plastic in the ocean. Whine about the Exxon Valdez. Copy out the chemical in plastic that again, might, be a hazard from plastic breaking down in water and whine about that. Disregarding the plastic bottles you drink out of every day. Hey, only fishies are susceptable to those chemicals and only for scare mongering. But yeah, looks like I completely misread your alarmist scare mongering. Just a word bully that picked on you. Shame on me.
Following my new buddy with insults? --- Wasn't talking about ADK.
No sir
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 12:33am.
You is playing wordzy games. Me wanting safeguards and being wearing does not equate to restricting drilling. That is your take and you are trying to twist it that I don't want drilling.
"Do all but suggest no more drilling but only in an alarmist ecowarrior way"
Being weary and wanting safeguards is ecowarrior? Wow I guess I better put up the Al Gore poster soon huh? I am all for drilling and more drilling, that has always been my position, but now you want to paint me with an ecowarrior brush. Sweet.
Yes I did you use the word might, because most of the oil is not noticable and nobody knows the long term damage, so I am not going to say for sure either way.
edit
"Time to attack!"
Sir your first post to me in this thread was "Shut up Shawn". Was i rude to anybody else on this thread except for CKC? I have been civil, including to Cajun.
Then what are you suggesting?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 12:43am.
There is already safeguards. We had one rig go bad and sink out of 20,000 wells. There have put more safegaurds based upon that.
Yes. I am being bombastic based upon your REPEATED nonspecific vague generic belly button gazing oh my oh my oh my let's do something my god please let's do something pondering. What did you expect? You tell us over and over about safeguards and restrictions and blah blah blah.
So. Tell us all exactly what you want done. Or let's get some more whining because I used some flowering language with you. Whatever.
...nobody knows the long term damage... --- Yeah, the world has never had an oil spill in water so we can't possibly know what happens, now can we? Oh except for that Mexican blowout in the Gulf in 1979. And that Australian one a few years back. And the one in California in the 60's I believe it was. And all the oil dumped in the Persian Gulf by Saddam Hussein. And blah blah blah blah. I need to go back to ignoring you. You truly are some kind of stupid that would rather sit here and say might might might might might might could could could rather than look something up and not appear an idiot in front of everyone.
Let's just say it for the 41st time. Oh dear, there might be some long term impact that I really don't even care to take 15 seconds out of my day to see exactly what might be. I would rather whine at people that I am being unfairly singled out.
Well i I used the word might
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 12:55am.
....as many times as you use the word butt and hurt that would be alot of might.
However to answer your question, when I mean safeguards, I mean I am hoping that they have better technology for sealing off the oil of there is a spill. It was pretty disheartening watching that oil gush for over 80 days and I would love it if they had better safeguards against that happening. Hopefully this explains my position and you won't false accuse me again or in your words, lie about it.
"I need to go back to ignoring you."
I did not even notice you were ignoring but thanks for letting me know. Its better than having you create a forum called the lies of shawn.
I don't have a problem with you dude, but you obviously have a beef with me the past few threads. Either we work things out by PM or we ignore each other. Your call.
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 1:15am.
I ask for specifics after the 20th might from you. I get hoping love hopefully. And more whines because I called you butt hurt. In the words of someone we all know, yeah, that is comparing to tons of crude oil gushing out for three months straight.
I gave you specifics twice.
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 1:28am.
First from the extremely biased and ecowarrior magazine The Economist.
I then followed it up with Fox News. BP oil spill one year later.
Both articles say there is still lingering damage and both articles say it might take years to find out the full extent of the damage. So since I don't know for sure that is why I use the word "might".
edit
"And more whines because I called you butt hurt. In the words of someone we all know, yeah, that is comparing to tons of crude oil gushing out for three months straight."
No sir.
If I said this
"I did not say there is alot of oil. I said we migh not know the long term impact. That is not unreasonable"
and it was followed up with
I farted.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:35pm.
We might never know how long that will stay in the air.
That I believe is directing comparing farts to oil. Unless of course you like the smell of your own farts and with your ego that would not be hard to believe
Funny how when you challenge somebody it is smart and cogent, but when somebody else challenges your statements, they are whining.
Shut up.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 1:32am.
Neither article address the future in any meaningful way. They both belly gaze just like you and Fox finds a lone scientist that goes against the crowd.
And the specifics is ABOUT WHAT YOU RECOMMEND. Not about what has or is happening. As usual, this the 3rd conversation now, all you do is talk past me.
Shut up again
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 1:39am.
Geez you are on a roll tonight. They don't address the future in a meaningful way because they do not know. I also address what I recommend is better technology to keep the oil from spilling like a better cement seal on wells and vigilant inspections.
This thread is way too thin and hard to read. I'm done. Good night.
!
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 10:33am.
T
o
o
d
o
g
g
o
n
e
d
s
k
i
n
n
y
!
I disagree with one thing that you said though Cajun
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:31pm.
Not sure if this was hyperbole or not.
"Planet earth has the ability to completely repair itself. If not a single human walked the earth, within 20 yrs, there would be no evidence that man even existed."
I believe it will take alot longer than that.
For example lets take a look at the Exxon Valdez. The damage is still there 20 years later and it might take centuries to dissipate.
10 recently extinct animals
Plastic and other litter that go into our oceans could take decades or centurys to dissipate.
You could be right about Planet Earth being able to heal itself, but I believe it will take a heck of alot longer than 20 years
What do extinct animals have
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:05am.
What do extinct animals have to do with the Gulf oil disaster, or the Exxon Valdez? Not one of the animals on that list went extinct because of either of those.
Here's a factoid for you: 99.9% of species that have ever lived on earth are now extinct. That's millions. One day humans will likely join the list.
It does not have anything to do with it
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:07am.
I never said it did. I was disputing that if man did not walk on the earth for the next 20 years, there would be no evidence that man existed.
Perhaps if you read, you might actually comprehend.
Really. Can't do nothing but push emotion now?
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:35am.
1. The Exxon Valdez was a ship that ran aground not a drill rig that leaked or caught fire.
2. The Exxon Valdez was a shoreline spill, vastly different from a deep water spill.
3. I spent 20 years in the Navy, NEVER saw one piece of plastic in the open ocean. NOT ONE. Why? Because it is all enviro-loon propaganda.
Plastic Breaks Down in Ocean, After All -- And Fast
Reports of Pacific Ocean's plastic patch are greatly exaggerated, Oregon State University professor says
Good News: Another Green Doom Disproved -- Plastic Doesn't Outweigh Plankton in the Oceans
Researcher: Pacific garbage patch´s scope overblown
It is called Propaganda. AKA baby food for Shawn.
On point 3
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 8:45am.
I can only say I've never seen a murder either, but I'm pretty sure it happens. As for your links, the first article states exactly what your headline reads, only it continues to say And, the researchers say, that's not a good thing. Is that propaganda? Your 3 remaining links all tell the same story based on the findings of one assistant professor, one Angel White, who is quoted as saying There is no doubt that the amount of plastic in the world's oceans is troubling.
I'd say there's plenty of propaganda and sweet gush to make everyone happy.
Shut up Another Angry Black One Dead Pickled Kitten Zippers.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 8:53am.
Another account or two and your name won't fit in the subject line. Pack sand. Pack it tight. Pack it hard.
What's the matter?
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 8:55am.
You don't like it when someone punches holes through your tissue paper strength arguments?
Otherwise, the rest of your post is nonsensical fodder.
Poor little trollie.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:07am.
Must suck when people don't play your game any more.
In the bilge?
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:48am.
I spent 20 years in the Navy, NEVER saw one piece of plastic in the open ocean. NOT ONE. Why?
Because you had to scrub the bilge?
Bilge water can be found aboard almost every vessel. Depending on the ship's design and function, bilge water may contain water, oil, urine, detergents, solvents, chemicals, pitch, particles, and so forth.
No wonder you got lasting brain damage. You are excused.
iz funnee germanzee joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:14am.
iz monkipipple make you look stupid? stalkerz teh monkipipplez! iz monkipipple smart than you? stalkerz teh monkipipplez! iz not right. iz trolliz follow rulez. try to catch monkipipple mistakez. iz monkipipple make look fool. stalkerz teh monkipipplez! iz laugh at merkel. monkipiple no care. stalkerz teh monkipipplez! iz lie about soros. monkippiple catch lie. stalkerz teh monkipipplez! iz remind germanzee word. monkipiple make fun germanzee word. stalkerz teh monkipipplez! iz last troll to love grobal warmting. monkipipple no care. stalkerz teh monkipipplez! iz try to catch mistake monkipipple. no catch. just make fun the monkipipple on make fun troll. stalkerz teh monkipipplez! iz believe study on homosezyulez. monkipipple catch stupid iz study. stalkerz teh monkipipplez!
why monkipipple no respect troggiz trolliz. no friend. no buddy. just make fun. no fair. stalkerz teh monkipipplez! iz makenzeefunniz germanziz word. iz cry. stalkerz teh monkipipplez!
Not pushing emotion
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 10:43am.
Cajun said if humans did not walk the earth for 20 years there would be no evidence we existed. I never said the Exxon Valdez was the same I said that the affects have lasted for over 20 years. I will do some research on the plastic thing today and get back to you later.
Edit
I am still researching but evenif I am wrong about plastic this is from your first link
"The team's new study is the first to show that degrading plastics are leaching potentially toxic chemicals such as bisphenol A into the seas, possibly threatening ocean animals, and us."
I would say that is not such a good thing and have long effects too
Sorry. Too busy with the other scares right now.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:27am.
Still have Global Warming, AIDS, Pandemic Influenza of the year, Peak Oil, Killer bees, Fire ants, Disappearing rain forests, Coming Ice age, Dying Grizzlies, Drowning polar bears, Antibiotic resistant bacteria, Coming stock market collapse, Crack baby syndrome, Return of the bed bugs, Mesothlioma lawsuits, teens high on bath salts, Mercury in the fish, Y2K brownouts, Super Tuberculosis, Salmonella on my vegatables, Mad Cows with Mad Cow Disease running amok, West Nile Virus, Radon gas in my basement, Asbestos in the attic, Lead in the paint, SARS, Cell phones giving me brain cancer,
Kindly give me a priority on where I should fit your new worry in there.
Not to forget
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:32am.
intoxication by bilge water.
iz funneez germanzee.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:39pm.
zatz eet murrycane. Azzer all said done, iz trolli tink it can raized titanic, no not titanic, bilez. iz trolliz tink harazz monkizpipple will raise bile.
merkel!
soros!
global warmting!
circus freak show!
meatloaf!
homosexzualz killin selfez
merkel!
poop on floor!
power!
iz unt troggilz trolliz make laufenooginz?
No worries here
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:49am.
If you would be as so kind. Can you tell me if you agree with what Cajuns said. If we humans did not walk on Earth for 20 years would there be proof of our existence?
That is the point I was making and I never said the Exxon Valdez is the same as the BP oil spill.
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:15pm.
Never mind that she was responding to your scare mongering and you disagreed and then disagreed and then disagreed and then disagreed and then disagreed until AHA, caught you in a mistake, I will now act as if that was the crux of the entire conversation.
Sucks, doesn't it?
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:19pm.
Whatever.
iz funnee germanzee joke.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:24pm.
iz pop you butt deez time murrycane. You watch butt pop strATE Up land on you dog, you chaze dog, he run, you no fast no more dog run run run you lose butt murrycane. Now you no roll floor, because sad no butt and no can sit on couch alwayz stand in room watch tv how you poop now murrycan no butt huh? you poop just roll out on floor lik yu use to do murrycane. iz sad no butt roll floor fall off. iz sad day for murrycane.
Meatloaf!
Yes never mind
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:32pm.
.....that I asked you agreed with the statement and you ignored the question. Never mind u call people trollies when they dont answer a question. Whatever.
awwww. now I feel sad.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:50pm.
you ignored everything i said. Repeat your initial claims after ignoring everything I said. Focus on something cajun2 said that I never addressed. Expect me to now carry the water for cajun2 even though I disagreed with other things you said. whine because I won't focus on what cajun2 said while you continue to ignore everything I posted. Whine that I claimed you said things when I clearly did not. whine that I call others trollie, not you. then turn around and point out your red swollen hurt butt.
Really. I do. I feel sad now. see? see my sad face? awwwww.
Poor trollie.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:53pm.
Don't weep. Everything will be fine.
Don't feelzz sadz.
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:15pm.
Just watch the episode of Friends when Ross wanted to discuss paleontology but big fat naked guy with the guns just wanted to talk about farts & corn poo
That episode is as made up as your pretending to try to be civil.
shawn*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:47am.
I am not as good a researcher as some here at NB. Nor is my memory that great. But there was a book written by a scientist about LIFE AFTER PEOPLE. I believe his name was scott wiseman and he was a Canadian..;-)
Discovery Channel, Planet Channel and the History Channel all did documentaries based on his predictions. Basically what he says is that if people no longer existed, the earth would repair itself, forests take over urban areas all within 20 yrs.
If you have time, try watching these videos
You are thinking of the book
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:22pm.
You are thinking of the book The World Without Us by Alan Weisman.
Thanks Beuke*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:30pm.
May need you again to resurrect my memory bank...;-)
Well, shucks, I am pretty
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:33pm.
Well, shucks, I am pretty good at researching information.
Thx Cajun :-)
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:26pm.
I will check it out during lunch
take your time shawn*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:32pm.
This is the most respectful exhange we have had in some time. Dont screw it up.
Hi Cajun
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:30pm.
I am accessing the site with a smart phone. Can I actually watch the videos online?
As far as me screwing things up, one of my favorite posters posters taught me to always try to be civil, but at the same time do not suck up to anybody. That poster also told me when debating try to go abou doing it as if you are trying to convince one of your teachers or something.
I promise I will never be rude without being provoked. Thx Cajun :-)
It is a shame.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:27pm.
It is a shame Shawn has to focus on this to cover his scare mongering.
Aftermath: Life After People: 5 Years to 30 Years
It is indeed a shame*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:42pm.
In response to fear mongering about the environment, I commented on a documentary series from the History Channel or NGC, cant remember, and mentioned that the scientists stated that the earth would repair itself in 20 years without humans.
I did not say a catastrophic event occurred and there would be bodies everywhere. Then some troll starts talking about fossils. The premise of the documentary was to accept that for unknown reason,. there would be no humans on earth. What is the natural progression of plants and animal life without humans?
Some posters have jokingly stated that if progressives get what they want, in a short time we will be back to a life style from the old west or before the civil war. These documentaries show that that is not necessarily too far fetched possibility. It has nothing to do with man made disasters, nothing to do with government regulations. The flora and fauna of the planet earth will respond in its own natural process if no humans are around to intervene.
I should have explained myself with links to clarify my point. I hate long posts. But, typical of trolls to take a simple comment and derail a thread that has important information not just about the oil spill, not just about saving the environment, but also important issue of our energy policy and economy affecting all of our country, not just the Gulf States.
Cajun?
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:53pm.
I have been nothing but polite today. I brought up your comment to you and I got backlash from others and I was just trying to back up my point. I am not sure why that deceives a troll label, but I am not interested In flaming match since we are getting along
I apologize about nitpicking your comment. U have a nice day.
shawn is not a troll*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:59pm.
And I never called you a troll. Look right beneath this post. There are three trolls that have posted and repeatedly tried to incite with their idiot comments on this thread. You even threw a dig at one of them.
You asking me to clarify my comment was acceptable. I have tried to so since you asked politely. The trolls can STHU
shawn*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 10:44am.
Arguing with the Vet is not a good idea. But I wanted to clarify several points if you read any of my links.
First, there is danger when you are trying to get to the space station even tho we have done it before. There is danger drilling at 5000 feet no matter what the regs are because it is dangerous work drilling for oil ANYWHERE. In the 30 yrs or so that they have been drilling in the gulf, there has been about 30,000 rigs in place over this period of time. This is basically the first major spill in that period of time. We have only been drilling in deep water for the last 3-5 yrs.
Secondly, The oil reserve in deep water in the gulf is predicted to be a huge resource for our energy program. Limiting where we drill is one thing, but did you know just beyond the US legal limits we have over 900 operational wells by China, Russia, Mexico, and Brazil. Soon Cuba is entering the business and as you know Cuba is just 90 miles from US territory. So why are these companies allowed to "threaten" the gulf coast environment" but American companies are not. Obama has given Brazil, Venezuala, Mexico, and Cuba financial assistance to drill in the Gulf of Mexico at 15,000 ft. We still have a mortorium basically because since EPA ordered to begin permits, only one has been approved. See anything strange about this administrations contradictory actions?
Third, There have been a number of reports by scientists from various universities studying the spill in the Gulf. These people generally have no agenda and are studying an incident unique and offering opportunity to study varied affects. They have learned several things already. The damage was not nearly as bad as predicted by the media. The wetlands suffered minor damage but it was because La authorities were prevented from taking immediate action. Damage to the wetlands is important to the biological and marine life cycle in the gulf. So far they have found no damage. The oysters, shrimp, and fish are showing no contamination.
Fourth, the oil has disappeared. Some is probably at the bottom of the gulf floor in " trenches" that are naturally formed by "seeping oil" from beneath the surface. Seeping oil is a natural process in the Gulf and drilling helps control it. most of the concern at this point is not the damage from the oil but the long term damage done by the dispersants which was unanimously rejected by everyone except EPA and BP. Get the picture?
Fifth, the bacteria in the gulf has always been of interest to scientist because they are unique to warm waters and they munch on anything hydrocarbon. These bacteria are doing a great job cleaning up and even consuming some of the dispersants. One of the things scientists have learned from studying these bacteria is a new type of asphalt for road construction here in the south. These bacteria "eat" our roads and cause much problems. They have invented this new product that seems to be unappetizing to the bacteria which could save us millions in road repair.
In summary, drilling in the gulf is good for our economy, scientific research and new inventions, balances the natural process already going on in the gulf. We need our regulations to simply be common sense and also balance with mother nature. We need to take the lies, the exaggerations, the corruption, and the anti american capitalism crap out of the gulf of mexico.
We already have in place sufficient safety and environmental rules and regulations. What is the problem is the doomsayers, and those who want to destroy our economy.
This subject is not just about protecting the environment. It is about protecting our way of life here in this country. It is about those who are undermining the basis of our economy, once that is down, the rest of our economy will tumble like dominoes and we will indeed then be "transformed" as he promised. It is Obama that I follow and study, and that is why I follow the money and the actions he takes "behind the curtain". That is where the real action is occuring.
Hope I have clarified a few of my posts with this one. But remember shawn, this story is NOT about protecting the environment. The environment will do just fine with or without us as I explained yesterday. This is all about destroying our energy resources.
Cajun is now done with this thread!
I've spoken with some people
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 10:48am.
I've spoken with some people who are very knowledgable in regards to off-shore drilling (including some who worked on various rigs) and there are distinctly major differences between shallow-water drilling and deep-water drilling. The consensus is that shallow-water drilling is much safer and much easier to fix problems.
Thank you Cajun
Submitted by shawn. on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 10:51am.
Thank you Cajun
Happy Easter :-)
Shawn ....
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:12pm.
Let's for a moment pretend your list of extinctions is relevant to the current debate.
Have you looked carefully at that list you presented?
Seven of these animals were hunted to extinction by humans, many of whom were primitives. This kind of negligence is easy to control in a modern society but very difficult to prevent in rustic or agrarian social systems where local poachers operate at will.
Two were extinguished by habitat destruction -- which is what the greens claim the BP oil spill is about.
One of them was extinguished by a natural calamity. Man has nothing to do with these.
Three of them were not even species. They were subspecies. This is the same as claiming that if all Scottish Terriers were dead, dogs had become extinct, meaning the species itself is not extinct.
It is highly uncertain that all of these critters, particularly the toad, are actually extinct. To prove extinction is to prove a negative. That is difficult.
This list is nothing but green propaganda. I should think you'd have learned to recognize this kind of bunk by now.
20 years?
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:00am.
Is that all it takes for a body to decompose? This claim shoots fossil science back to the days of a flat earth.
You're not a very good troll, Irish
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:54am.
How are fossils formed? For fossil formation to take place a series of fortunate events must occur. If any part of the series is missing, we will never see the fossil! In fact, fossilization is a rare occurrence. Nature tends toward recycling. That includes just about everything from plants and animals to rocks and minerals. Let’s narrow it down to just animals for a minute. Animals, dead or alive, are food for other animals. From insects to dinosaurs, an animal could be someone’s lunch! Any part of the animal’s body that isn’t consumed is usually scattered about; leftovers! Just like those leftovers in your fridge, these leftovers make great food for bacteria. In addition, these leftovers are exposed to the elements: sun, rain, and even the soil itself all help to breakdown and decompose the sturdiest of bones, shells and wood. So, if we are ever going to see a fossil, some very specialized events must intervene to ward off the natural process of decomposition. The following is the most common scenario for fossil formation: (click the link to read the rest)
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I'm better than you think
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:22pm.
Save the lesson for someone, anyone else.
Do you know what a fossil is? It's proof of a once living thing. For all traces of humanity to disappear from earth, you must consider this -- Dinosaur bones are still here 200 million years after extinction.
And you want to support the argument that it'll only take 20 years for humans to disappear? 7 million year old human fossils have been discovered. There will always be traces of humanity. Deal with it.
I think you want to reconsider that:
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:55pm.
7 million year old human fossils have been discovered.
Quite unlikely. Unless someone traveled through time.
Excuse me
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:01pm.
Human Evolution Fossils.
By that standard
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:05pm.
mentioning the dinosaur fossils would have sufficed.
Considering differences
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:12pm.
In bone structure of humans versus dinosaurs, I'm giving the dinos the benefit of the doubt that their bones hold up much stronger over time than human bones. This is probably complete BS. But the fact remains if you look up human fossils, the majority of sources have the human evolution fossils dating back 7 million years. There is only one point I'm making. It will take millions of years, not 20, before all traces of humanity cease to exist.
Show us the proof of 7
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:18pm.
Show us the proof of 7 million year old human fossils, please. Links will help.
Oh, they do that in Hollywood all the time.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:02pm.
.
"7 million year old human
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:58pm.
"7 million year old human fossils have been discovered."
Proof please?
This should do
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:30pm.
Discovered by Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye in 2001 in Chad, in the southern Sahara desert. Estimated age is between 6 and 7 million years. This is a mostly complete cranium with a small brain (between 320 and 380 cc). (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002) It has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids.
It wasn't homo sapien fossil.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:36pm.
It wasn't homo sapien fossil. You claimed 7 million year old HUMAN (e.g. -- homo sapien) fossils. The fossil remains you reference are of sahelanthropus tchadensis, a different species. If you will note, information from the website you reference states:
"Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago."
So the earliest HUMAN (e.g. -- homo sapien) fossils are not 7 million years old.
Thus your initial claim falls.
Falls?
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:40pm.
Or fails? You people use that term a lot.
Once again, minutiae. I initially stated human fossils. Trog-something questioned me. I corrected my statement to HUMAN EVOLUTION FOSSILS.
That is where we stand.
I suggest you actually read all of the comments before you come back with another of these meaningless posts.
I asked for proof of your
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:44pm.
I asked for proof of your initial claim. That is what you responded to. I suggest you pay closer attention to the posts of which you respond.
Oh, this is vintage Zippers at his finest. folks.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:50pm.
Someone calls BS on the statement he made about the existence of 7 million year old human fossils, and instead of manning up and just admitting he effed up and revising his statement to say, 2 million years old, he has turned a thread on offshore drilling into an anthropology debate/sh*tstorm.
Well done, Zippers, well done. Keep on googlin'.
And he won't even acknowledge
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:54pm.
And he won't even acknowledge that the source HE CITED states:
"Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago."
500,000 not 7 million.
So he tries to continue arguing.
Do you even know
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:06pm.
What HUMAN EVOLUTION FOSSIL means? It means we weren't always homo sapiens. We evolved over millions of years from a family tree full of examples of our ancestry. Of course I've clearly illustrated this, by linking millions year-old skulls that are quite similar to the modern day human.
But you want to stay on the same point. HUMAN HUMAN HUMAN!!!
Hey everyone!!! HE SAID HUMAN!!!!
What a dope!!! HE SAID HUMAN!!!!
Clearly I corrected the statement. Clearly you either can't read, or choose to play stupid. Either way, it's still pathetic.
Your statement: "Clearly you
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:14pm.
Your statement:
"Clearly you either can't read, or choose to play stupid. Either way, it's still pathetic."
clearly applies to you for you responded directly to the following post of mine which read:
" '7 million year old human fossils have been discovered.'
Proof please?"
Of which you then responded with a link to documentation of sahelanthropus tchadensis, a different species rather than my request AS WRITTEN.
IF you had actually READ my post carefully then you shouldn't have presented information that didn't fit the request.
Therefore by YOUR standards "Clearly [The Irishman] either can't read, or choose to play stupid. Either way, it's still pathetic."
Your words apply more to you.
Rather than just come back with admission of error, you kept arguing.
The Idiot Irishman.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:19pm.
Dinosaur bones are LONG GONE.
There are six ways that organisms can turn into fossils, including:
Tell me bright boy what form does the 7 million year old human "fossil" take?
You Didn't Build That.
Here
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:24pm.
Eat
You were asked for proof of 7
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:29pm.
You were asked for proof of 7 million year old human (e.g. -- homo sapien) fossils. The link you provided does not prove your initial claim.
Are you a creationist?
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:32pm.
I'd like to know if I'm wasting my time with you sooner than later.
Not when you I've shown your
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:39pm.
Not when you I've shown your initial claim of 7 million year old HUMAN (e.g. -- homo sapien) fossils to be wrong. To whit:
"It wasn't homo sapien fossil. You claimed 7 million year old HUMAN (e.g. -- homo sapien) fossils. The fossil remains you reference are of sahelanthropus tchadensis, a different species. If you will note, information from the website you reference states:
"Archaic forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 500,000 years ago."
So the earliest HUMAN (e.g. -- homo sapien) fossils are not 7 million years old.
Thus your initial claim falls."
It would behoove you to just admit you erred and move on rather than argue against the documented facts.
Once again
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:43pm.
Read the posts.
Yes, almost 45 minutes ago.
The point stands. I asked for
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:44pm.
The point stands. I asked for proof of your initial claim and you responded with garbage.
HA!
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:46pm.
Good luck with that one. You're the one with egg on his face.
Actually you're the one with
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:51pm.
Actually you're the one with egg on their face for I asked for proof of your claim of 7 million year old HUMAN fossils and you responded with garbage which I easily proved to be wrong. And now your ad hominem shows just how desperate you are.
Crybaby
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:59pm.
I get it. You don't believe in evolution. You're a creationist with a small world view dictated by religion, which in itself means you have no room for negotiation outside of your dogma.
I corrected my statement. I linked to it. It's on this page. Everyone can see it. HUMAN EVOLUTION FOSSILS DATE BACK 7 MILLION YEARS. That is my corrected statement TWICE NOW.
Now get back to picking your nose and wiping it on the underside of your computer desk.
Wow! Now you make a
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:16pm.
Wow! Now you make a conclusion on what I believe when you have zero evidence to make such a conclusion. And you were the one to accuse someone else of being "stupid"?
Now you're still pitching your hissy fit for me refuting your initial claim.
→ Your time?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:40pm.
I reckon your time is about as wisely spent as you're capable of.
Don't be so hard on yourself concerning the limitations of your reason.
I'm sitting
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:43pm.
In a jury assembly room for the day. Lots of time.
Then you have no excuse for
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:52pm.
Then you have no excuse for your faulty claim of 7 million year old HUMAN (e.g. -- homo sapien) fossils.
Unless
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:00pm.
Unless he got that info from the Stargate program over in Cheyenne mountain after being declassified by General Jack O'Neill. The Ancients, or the Lanteans as they were called had lived a long time ago.......
-Jon
Sounds more like something
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:17pm.
Sounds more like something from the Church of Scientology. LOL!
All hail Xenu? LOL!
Irishman, what would you say
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:56pm.
Irishman, what would you say to the age of a fossil that contained soft tissue? I think that 220 million years would rule out any soft tissue survival. It would require some thought by serious scientists on the dating methods that are used today. Would you not agree with that?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Beyond Carbon Dating?
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:07pm.
I have to assume you're referring to the discovery of soft tissue in the fossilized T-Rex. I don't believe the soft tissue affects the carbon dating process of the outer fossil. But I'm open to discussion.
Carbon dating is unreliable
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:38pm.
Carbon dating is unreliable at best. It is also inconsistent. But that was not the question. The question is, and is at the moment in the scientific community, being addressed, that soft tissue cannot survive 220 million years. And the T-Rex is not the only example of this.
The same as with the human and dinosaur tracks in Colorado, Arizona and Texas. That is besides the Paluxy site. At Paluxy, the human prints are undefined, for the most part. There are a few well defined prints, but they are ignored by those whose interests are best served by there being no human prints. But not in Colorado, or Arizona. There is even a human hand print in Arizona along side the dinosaur prints. There are other sites. There is also art work by primitive men depicting dinosaurs being hunted by men.
The point is that, you don't know. You, nor anyone else, can state with absolute certainty the age of any of these eras your so fond of throwing around. The scientists are only sure of one thing. That one thing is they don't really know. There're guessing. They suppose. They theorize. But they can prove nothing. The only real proof would be an eye witness there to see it. Written documentation. And cuneiform is the earliest form of writing found to date.
The Bible says God created man. It goes no farther. Created from the dust of the earth, as was every other creature that has ever tread on this planet. The Bible doesn't discuss the subject any farther.
The problem with evolutionists is, the discount any and every other view, and discount any evidence that conflicts with their view.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Irishman, another point on
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:57pm.
Irishman, another point on carbon dating is it dates by radioactive decay of specific elements. The problem with measuring this is, you can never be sure of the creation date of said material. It is still just a guess. Soft tissue or hard, rock or used sock. Makes no difference. Hence the method renders dates spanning thousands, hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of years different, dating the same object.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
58,000 - 62,000 year margin of error
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 9:10am.
And now that you've used God to negate the entire history of scientific discovery and information, we settle back into the dark ages.
Your information is somewhat
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 10:45am.
Your information is somewhat antiquated. You should try to keep up.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Slow.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 10:56am.
He's slow.
Poor Zippy
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:22pm.
You just hate it when I correct you, don't you? Too bad.
My point was that it takes a very rare confluence of events to create fossils. Said point, obviously, sailed directly over your little troll head, as you then asked an absolutely idiotic question..."Do you know what a fossil is?".
And while I disagree with the 20 year time frame, in a strict sense, I believe Cajun's point is valid. If humans were wiped out tomorrow, it would not be that long, geologically speaking, for almost everything man's created to disappear, including vast cities and infrastructure. As for the remains of humans themselves disappearing w/in 20 years if everyone was wiped out at once (say by a global virus), that's probably true. With the exception of people being croaked in some very odd circumstances, like in a cave or in the Arctic, or in a bog....surface decomposition of the human body occurs pretty rapidly.
Look up some forensic studies, the University of Florida does research, and IIRC, University of Tennessee actually had a body decomposition program, an unembalmed human body on the surface doesn't last that long.
Remember, the fossil record of pre-hominids occurred over several millions of years, and actual homo sapiens during the last 200,000 years. Yet the fossil record of pre-hominids and homids is scarce and rare. The "odds" for the proper confluence of events to create a fossil are higher over thousands/millions of years than if humankind were wiped out instantaneously.
But of course, this entire argument will be lost on you....you're only interested in trolling and making stupid arguments...next we'll see you ask if people believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. Stupid liberal troll tactics.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
No
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:35pm.
See, that was someone else's point. You provided a link along with text in the comment box, yet you failed to note that the text wasn't yours. So no, it wasn't your point - it belongs to someone else. We could discuss plagiarism but that entire argument would be lost on you as I'm almost certain it was an oversight on your part.
You might also note that cajun's point is based on a book with reviews such as...
"This is one of the grandest thought experiments of our time, a tremendous feat of imaginative reporting!"
“The imaginative power of The World Without Us is compulsive and nearly hypnotic"
"The book boasts an amazingly imaginative conceit that manages to tap into underlying fears and subtly inspire us to consider our interaction with the planet."
With all of this imaginative science taking place it's hard to decipher if there is any truth to the book.
As for 20 years of post civilization extinction, I would only like to point out the Roman Colosseum.
You really want to own this stupidity?
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:51pm.
I started my post with a link and concluded with (click the link to read the rest).
So you can shove your little snipe about plagiarism where the sun doesn't shine, troll.
You are truly a reading impaired.....who said anything about buildings being gone in 20 years?
Now why don't you backpedal some more?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
What is it with you?
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:58pm.
Can you not do this with civility? I excused your missing quotations as a simple oversight.
"Planet earth has the ability to completely repair itself. If not a single human walked the earth, within 20 yrs, there would be no evidence that man even existed."
Cajun2 made the post. And I read it quite clearly. And I don't backpedal. (See: 7 million year old human fossils versus human evolution fossils)
That was perfectly civil
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:08pm.
....considering you'd just erroneously accused me of plagiarism. So you're just being obtuse about not understanding "click the link to read more" meaning it was material from the link provided, eh?
I believe Cajun was talking about the human beings themselves, rather than infrastructure, a point which I clearly made earlier. You, of course, are dodging around like always trying to walk between your lies and misstatements. Just because you made an ass of yourself over fossils isn't my problem, Zippy.
Backpedal that one while you're at it. Just because you say you don't do it won't make it true. The evidence is all over this page, as well as almost every other thread you post on.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Zippy
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:12pm.
You got my name wrong.
Riiight.
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:19pm.
I owe Zippy an apology.
I meant Zippers.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Still can't be honest, can you?
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:24pm.
You know that's not my name.
Prove it.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:42pm.
Prove it.
Ah, but I do know your name(s)
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 5:04pm.
Almost all of them.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
"Can you not do this with
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:14pm.
"Can you not do this with civility?"
Pot...kettle...black...again...
yes its cajun's post*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:18pm.
I didnt just make it up or pull that comment out of thin air. But you took it out of context and did not read the follow up posts. Beukeboom, TheVet and myself have posted links showing science based documentaries and books have been done predicting the earth's response if all humans simply disappeared. Not bodies lying all around the earth becoming fossilzed.. Simply ceased to exist soley for the purpose and focus of the documentary to show natures progression on earth without human intervention.
That was the premise of the documentary and I summarized it in a single sentence. I should have been more explicit, true. But you took the comment in order to incite and derail this thread
Too complex for you to understand the following exchanges on the subject so best for you is to just STHU
Was that shorthand for "Shut the Hell Up?"
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:23pm.
You brought up the book. Beukboom provided the link. I read the link and discovered that it is an imaginary scenario.
And now the story changes into a kind of "what if people just disappeared" like a Stephen King book, which completely negates the point of the argument.
I guess you would call this the closer.
deddy has comprehension problems*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:32pm.
Yes deddy, what part of SHUT THE HELL UP did you not understand?
All of it apparently.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:35pm.
All of it apparently.
None of it
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:37pm.
I was looking for clarification of your gutless demand. Spell it out next time.
Pot...kettle...black...again.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:42pm.
Pot...kettle...black...again...
Typical.
You're in that old familiar death spiral again, Zippers.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 5:37pm.
New to the internets are you? Don't have a clue what STHU means?
First you insult Beukeboom's wife's looks, and then you call Cajun, a normally unflappable, always polite retired lady, GUTLESS. And don't play stupid like you don't know the whole cast of characters here.
It's lonely, attention-seeking, belligerent freaks like you that invariably cause even normally calm people to lose it.
But of course, we all know that is your true purpose here.
So look this one up: STFU.
SoL---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 5:59pm.
Certain people who post on these threads have a stench that precedes them; almost like a bio-hazard warning.
Apparently these posters just don't understand that a change of username does not alter that fact to any great degree.
MD
Crap
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 6:05pm.
The hot lady at the mall told me the deodorant would work :-(
shawn---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 6:14pm.
Good one ! :o)
MD
MD:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 6:16pm.
yeah, it's like trying to disguise the signature of a radioactive isotope: impossible.
Quit the crying already - all of you
Submitted by The Irishman on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 9:14am.
Because some people feel the overwhelming need to share their personal home pages with the rest of the online community we all know there is no Mrs Beukboom. That's not a real name. It's a screen name. Therefore there is no insulting of a made up person. Still don't get it?
Now while you may think cajun2 is a darling, our feelings are most definitely not mutual. And I think it's gutless not to spell out a rude demand such as STHU. My opinion.
You chose to insult my wife
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 10:37am.
You chose to insult my wife via my screen ident and it was clear your intent and who it was aimed at. Your abject dishonesty now is merely indictative of your revealed ongoing lack of class, integrity and morals.
BREAKING: Zippers warns NBers against gutless use of acronyms
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 11:41am.
From now on, please do NOT use "LOL".
Spell it out in full: Laughing Out Loud. Yes, I know this is extra work for everyone, but we must do what is right.
Oh yeah, also it is now A-OK to disparage members' relatives, as this is a purely virtual world here and anything goes.
Please SoL
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 11:45am.
"OK" should be "okay". Sheesh.
MC, BK
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 11:47am.
Oopsies, I meant Mea Culpa.
If you want more pollution then stop drilling
Submitted by richb313 on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 10:30pm.
If you want more pollution then stop drilling. That is right less drilling equals more pollution. There are hundreds of natural oil seeps in the Gulf of Mexico and they dump milions of gallons of crude every year.
If you read the logs of Capt. Cooks voyages in it you will also find descriptions of tar balls found floating. This was hundreds of years before the first oil well.
Drilling and prodution lessens the pressures on these formations and reduces the amount of oil that seeps into the environment.
I am not saying to stop drilling
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:32pm.
I am saying we should prepare better to prevent environmental disasters.
How about enforcing existing
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:26pm.
How about enforcing existing laws and regulations before creating new ones and thereby adding to the bureaucracy?
I don't disagree
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:41pm.
I never said we need to create new laws or implied we should stop drilling. I said donn blame some folks that want to be extra cautious and with all that has happened. I am also saying we must do wha. We can to prevent another disaster. That does not translate to wanting new rules and regulations.
Chances with drilling
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:49pm.
You know what the least chancy form of drilling for oil is? LAND DRILLING. Not offshore drilling. That kind of drilling as the least chance of accidents that get out of hand and cause all kinds of problems for thousands of miles of coastlands.
On-Shore production is the safest way to go.
-Jon
My point is simply that
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:17pm.
My point is simply that "prepare better to prevent environmental disasters" in the liberal politician's mind generally is to create more laws and more regulations when actually enforcing existing laws and regulations would be much more effective and would not add to the already bloated bureaucracy.
I understand Beuk
Submitted by shawn. on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 7:29pm.
......and when I say be better prepared or maybe more safeguards I don't mean have more rules and regulations.
By safeguards I mean try to find a way to cut off the flow of oil during the BP spill.
Hmmm...
Submitted by ckc1227 on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:49pm.
They should just make disasters illegal, and be done with it. That should solve the problem.
"however I do not find it unreasonable to have more safeguards in place"
Of course you don't. You're a liberal at heart. You believe there's no problem that can't be solved without a little more regulation, or a few more rules. Let's just drive up the price of oil and gas even more because there might be a major accident every 40 years.
"The oil spill last year devastated the Gulf Coast and we will not may never know how severe the environmental impact was"
How severe can it be if no one will ever know how severe it was?
another silly post from you
Submitted by shawn. on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:53pm.
No wonder many popular conservatives on this site can't stand you. Try to actually debate without putting words in my mouth.
They Really Have Not Tried To Clean Up The Gulf
Submitted by Avitar on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:37am.
There are thousands of tons of dry oil eating microbes around the country in various warehouses. Obama kept them from being used. If they were put to work eating the oil there would be none a year later. The concept that they would deoxygenate the Gulf is wrong since the area that you drop them you station a ship and drop a high pressure air hose to the bottom.
Air pumped to the bottom will work just like the bubbler in a home aquarium. The active region where the microbes are eating oil would probably become the best fishing grounds in the Gulf since there would be an upwelling of nutrient rich bottom water due to the bubbles.
I hope you realize that
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:09am.
the bubbler in an aquarium does not oxygenate the water. It causes the water current in your tank to rise to the surface. Other than algae, the only way we add oxygen to the water is direct contact to the air by the water that has made it to the surface.
Wrong Wrong Wrong
Submitted by richb313 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:20pm.
If the only way you could oxyginate water was by conact with the surfacw all of the worlds oceans would be dead. There are many mechanisms at work. Plankton is the major source of oxygen in sea water not contact with the surface. Releasing air at depth actually causes a super saturation of oxygen because of the pressures involved, Boyles Gas Laws.
There are already naturally occurring oil eating microbes in the Gulf of Mexico which help keep the millions of gallons of oil that seep into the Gulf every year through naturally occurring seeps. The BP Spill, while the largest man made, does not compete with mother nature, especially if you total things up.
Man made oil spills are still miniscule compared to what happens naturally the only difference is that man made spills occur in a small area and are stopped.
The BP disastor would never have happened if BP had followed current regulations and safe drilling practices.
The Best Thing to do
Submitted by richb313 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:35pm.
The very best thing to do is to make sure all drilling companies and oil companies follow best practices, When I first started working offshore they used to dump everything over the side. Now itn is a much cleaner operation and zero release is the law. Drilling companies and oil companies soon found that they could recover and reuse much of what was being dumped and it actually saved money.
The entire spill would have been avoided if best practices had been followed. It still could have been avoided if the BOP had functioned and and sheared the pipe, closed the rams and released the LMRP (Lower Marine Riser Package). This would have not only shut in the well but have disconnected and released the rig to move away from danger.
As more is learned it is becoming apparant that BP bought off and got away with some very unsafe practices for some time. BP should not be allowed to operate in US waters until they can really prove they have mended thier ways.
Come on. Let it ride!
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 04/20/2011 - 11:23pm.
We can hit 5.00 a gallon for the election. I'm counting on it.
Need more laws for what?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:30am.
In the last 40 years we have had 2 major spills. One in the 70's and the one last summer. Bet most never remembered the 70's spill. No long lasting effects.
Accidents happen, and are extremely costly to the company that caused the spill. No one wants that.
SickofLibs had it right: " Costello is the Brewer of CNN."
......OF COURSE I KNOW ALL ABOUT THE OIL BUSINESS....
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:55am.
Another mediamoron heard from....welcome to the mika/brewer/clift club for the "I don't have a clue" crowd. When asked if she knew how oil was formed, where it came from, etc., she answered, "Well, all the dinosaurs dissolved and BP found them in the ocean and the pelicans got covered with oil." Heck, if I was her teacher, I'd give her an "A" for imbecility. Just another, talk-with-my-hands empty skirt. Atl least she's good for a laugh!
Moron, Idiot or Imbecil That Is The Question.
Submitted by Avitar on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:21am.
There never was a need for NEW regulations. If BP had been obeying the ones that said use best practice the instructions that Halliburton provided about spacers would have kept them out of trouble. However, BP works in so much of the world by bribing Government officials and cutting corners nobody could explain to management that the money they gave to the Obama environmentalists would not buy them forgiveness. The other companies in the Gulf were operating fine.
With the underground guided sideways drilling that we can do today we should have little or no danger drilling the oil from shore that is off the California coast, particularly off LA. Since those reserves are completely known reserves we should be able to pick up 5% of the nation's needs right there before the election. That alone would drop oil imports by about 10%.
Now if we could only find a reason to drill for oil in Central Park west before the election...
I say let it ride.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:16am.
Once the cost per gallon reaches 5.00, BO won't be able to beat a pile of turds.
Remember, Barry stated he's
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:35pm.
Remember, Barry stated he'd like it to get to $10 per gallon.
Hi Squirrel
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 8:33am.
During all the squabbling and slight of hand arguments one point is clearly missing. The gulf coast is a long way from full recovery, while BP is back to business as usual.
Who's responsible for that?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 8:52am.
And whose fault was that? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't BP.
I know this will fall on deaf liberal ears, but oh well. If the federal government(The Chairman's administration) hadn't stepped in and interfered with the plans that were in place and were being enacted before being forcibly stopped at the point of a proverbial gun, the recovery would have been a LOT sooner.
This can not be in dispute, the federal government is complicit with the resulting damages to the gulf coast and deliberately so.
-Jon
And further, our wonderful
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:13am.
government turned away help from over a dozen countries that were ready to skim the oil off before it spread. But the unions weren't involved so our wonderful selfless administration would not allow the help.
Final note: 40 years with 50,000 wells and one bad leak caused by corruption, not problems in technology should not translate into anything other than firing the corrupt and putting people of honor (they do exist) at these positions.
Wrong
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 11:39am.
It was an amazing bumbling of minds that took months to fix. You think it could've been fixed sooner? I'd love to see proof of that.
Wrong again troll*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:22pm.
For someone who never posts links, here you are demanding proof.
If you know how to read, try this story
And this one
And this one
There has been extensive local media coverage of the spill. Many scientists are experts from various universtities in the Gulf States. Many of them are working together to study the DeepwaterHorizon accident. They have published early reports, given interviews. They are very knowledgeable about this industry and marine life in the Gulf. The msm has taken little or no interest in their reports because it does not serve the liberal agenda. These well qualified professionals have tried repeatedly to gain the medias interest to no avail.
This administrations deliberate attempts to destroy the energy industry in this country is distracted by the "greenies" screaming about environmental damage. Its all bs. The important thing to remember is that this administration is doing a hellava lot more than playing with a drilling moratorium.
This has a lot more importance to all states not just drilling.
And it looks like he isnt done yet.
Wow - you're gullible
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:32pm.
Do you read any non-conservative press? Love your links - they're all opinion pieces. Conservative opinion.
Jeez Ted
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:41pm.
Speaking of links, you wouldn't happen to have any backing up your claim above would you? I mean, besides the librul opinion of a retread troll?
Specifically which claim?
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:56pm.
You might have noticed I started out on this thread with a link.
Sorry, I forgot you make up tons of stuff.
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:08pm.
"It was an amazing bumbling of minds that took months to fix. You think it could've been fixed sooner? I'd love to see proof of that."
I hate to be Captain Obvious but uh...how about NON-bumbling minds? Could that have fixed it sooner?
As for your link, I believe the article related to regulations and the heated discussions above related to the environment and you throw out an article about economics? That means....what?
Clearly
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:15pm.
It shows that the gulf coast is not back to business as usual. The physical impact on the gulf coast waters is only one part of the problem. It may be 100% clean now, but economically the area still suffers.
Since no one has done a damn thing to stop this from happening again, I guess we'll all just sit back and wait for the next one.
Then we'll fight over who to blame.
Regulations, right Ted?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:24pm.
You appear to be taking the same position as Ms. Costello. Regulations didn't work, we must have more regulations. That's the ticket. I'm sure BP didn't follow regulations before because there were not enough. More will change everything.
If nothing has changed
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:33pm.
What makes you think it can't happen again?
AhhhhHaaaaa
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:34pm.
Government Inspectors and expanded EPA powers. Of course, how silly of me. Oh and more regulations.
fine
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:44pm.
don't answer
Must we call Capt Obvious again?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:58pm.
He's tired of swooping in to save you today. So allow me to ask a quick question. Did BP follow the regulations currently in place with the Deepwater Horizon Rig?
Ah, answering a question with a question
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:01pm.
How many days are in a week? (Since we're no longer responding to each other's specifics)
You could have answered both questions...
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:11pm.
but I forgot you come from 7 million year old humans with small brain capacity. Luckily Capt Obvious arrived and told me you would bring up the "question with a question" and ignore the point.
So how do we prevent it in the future? Companies following the regulations currently in place while the inspectors actually do the job they were hired to do. Now Capt. Obvious is very tired...and bored.
I see
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:13pm.
I've met Mrs Beukboom
Ted....
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:18pm.
Still going out with a whimper and a whine.
Let's see....Ted liked punk rock thus The Dead Kennedy and a few previous related to punk so...The Irishman is related to Dropkick Murphy's?? Flogging Molly?
How about
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:22pm.
I'm Irish.
Sure Ted
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:25pm.
That could be true. Although, with the many usernames you've gone through, races, sexes and religions you've claimed, it would be very difficult to believe you at this point.
Not my fault
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:41pm.
If people continue to mistake me for other users. I've watched you guys call people a number of names that you call me too, yet we're all different people. It's lunacy. For me to be all of these people I'd need 5 computers and never sleep. You've got me posting at 3 am, midnight, afternoon...
I'm only one person.
Riiiiight....you're only one person
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:44pm.
On that we'll agree....but one single solitary person with a plethora of sock puppets.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Define Plethora
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:49pm.
And give me some proof. I'm operating a single account.
LOL. The extensive fossil records prove otherwise.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 3:37pm.
.
One person....
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:45pm.
with NOOOOOOO life. Yep, that's you Ted.
And classless.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:35pm.
And classless.
Wow! Just how classless can
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:41pm.
Wow! Just how classless can you be? Attack me if you will but leave my family out of it. Such classless actions as you now have done should be grounds for removal from NewsBusters IMHO.
I
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:51pm.
Was not responding to you.
Your statement of "I've met
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:20pm.
Your statement of "I've met Mrs Beukboom" in your derisive post is out of bounds and reveal just how classless you are. Leave my family out of it, bubba.
Try reading your own link.
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:02pm.
It does not at all support your argument.
You claim the gulf coast is still suffering ecologically. Your link clearly says that there is no scientific evidence of continuing ecological damage to the coast and goes on to focus on the woes of the tourist and restaurant industries which have been decimated by the desertion of trade. The impact to the coast the article is able to demonstrate is all caused by human behavior whose basis is not in fact but in fear.
Fear mongering is responsible for the continuing damage these businesses. The physical effects of the oil spill have largely if not totally dissipated.
Seems to me you might be one of the fear mongers.
Read my comments
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 2:09pm.
Nowhere did I state the physical condition of the gulf waters. Your misinterpretation of what I am arguing neither weakens my point nor strengthens yours. Then again you could read some of the thread and realize I've been talking about the economic conditions all along.
And your own link blames the
Submitted by NL207 on Fri, 04/22/2011 - 5:02pm.
And your own link blames the economic consequences on baseless fears caused by misinformation. i.e., the oil spill itself is not responsible for the continuing Gulf Coast economic woes.
I will go one step further. This economic problem is being fueled by green doomsday propaganda about the long term effects of the oil spill. Lies. Misinformation. Propaganda. Alarmism. This mess has the left stamped all over it.
And what flavor is your Kool-Aid?
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:50pm.
I don't see any content to your argument. I don't see any substantiation of your claims. I don''t see any links from you.
Link or slink, dirtbreath.
As one who lives near the
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:54pm.
As one who lives near the Gulf Coast and has friends and family all along the Gulf Coast from Florida to Louisiana the main problem currently is one of perception. The MSM's doom-and-gloom coverage of the oil spill and in many cases the exageration of the damage has given the area a plethora of negative publicity of which has hurt the region even more than the physical damage done by the oil itself. In Florida's case, BP is paying millions of dollars for Florida to run ads nationally promoting the Gulf Coast region. I believe they are also paying for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama to do the same thing. Cleanup has been ongoing and for the most part successful with Louisiana being the hardest due to the geographic/topographic makeup of the areas affected. But it will get done.
It's going to take time for things to get back to normal or as close to normal as possible. And one cannot rush time. If one accepted the MSMs estimations, it will be hundreds if not thousands of years but based on historical precedent, it won't take nearly that long.
I'm not overly impressed with
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:45pm.
I'm not overly impressed with the WSJ article you cited. Recovery on the Gulf Coast is much further along than the doom-and-gloom naysayers predicted. it's got a long way to go on the business side of things but it is headed that way. Sadly it's going to take time.
One other minor thing I noticed is the picture and caption with the article. The picture looks familiar to me and could be in the Orange Beach, Alabama area of which I am quite familiar. The caption reads:
"A crane appears to be the only visitor on a beach in Alabama one year after the Deepwater Horizon explosion."
Problem is, the photo was taken just after dawn when the fog is still heavy and most people haven't come to the beach yet. I can't say for certain what day the photo was taken nor can I say for certain what time of the year. But in the early morning hours when the fog is still heavy, you'd be hard-pressed to find a lot of people out on the beach.
The Louisiana/Mississippi/Alabama/Florida Gulf Coast will rise again.
By sun-up
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 12:59pm.
It would be impossible not to find people walking the Florida beaches, even in a hurricane. People are always walking the beaches. But this is minutiae.
I didn't say nor imply it was
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:05pm.
I didn't say nor imply it was a major issue nor did I say it is impossible to find people walking Alabama (where the photo was taken) beaches. All I did was point out the misleading nature of the "only visitor" comment in the caption. Please read my posts more carefully in the future before commenting. My point being that it's not surprising at all for there to be few people on the beach just after dawn especially in such foggy conditions.
I care so little about this discussion
Submitted by The Irishman on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:07pm.
-
So little that you responded
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:09pm.
So little that you responded not once but twice. LOL!
Actions speak louder than words.
Again my advice to you is to read posts more carefully before commenting. Otherwise you'lll end up embarassing yourself again.
Again?? Naw!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 1:46pm.
There ain't no "Again" with this one, it's "constantly."
-Jon
Here's a unique and radical
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:51am.
Here's a unique and radical extremist thought...instead of passing new laws and adding more layers of bureaucracy, how about just enforcing the laws already on the books?
Ooooo...now THERE'S a concept the liberals just can't grasp.
Hey, more laws, that's the ticket!
Submitted by JLin on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 9:55am.
What happend to the thousands of other ones? No good? What does that say about the morons who wrote them? I am sick and tired of all the elitist pundits and academic "experts' furiously pontificating about what actual working Americans should be doing. They are feral children that have had the run of the public house for the last 40 years. They need to be locked up.
How do you "prevent" a "disaster."
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:09pm.
How do you "prevent" a "disaster?' Disasters, by their very nature, are unpreventable. That's why they're called "disasters." If they were preventable, yet still happened, they would be called "accidents."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Boy, no one can gunk up a thread like our boy Zippers.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 04/21/2011 - 4:46pm.
He's now up to 40 asinine posts (out of 175 total) with at least a dozen separate sub-arguments going...
and he's showing no signs of fading.
Well done, Zippers, well done.