Gulf Oil Spill Hoax Argument VINDICATED, page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times
Topic started on 29-7-2010 @ 01:30 PM by Doc Velocity
As you may recall, on May 3, 2010, only a couple of weeks after the Deepwater Horizon leak began, and after envirotards went on the warpath here on ATS and elsewhere in the MSM, your gentle Doc Velocity posted one of the more contentious posts and certainly one of the most damnable arguments:

Gulf Oil Spill Another Extinction-Level HOAX

I based my argument on the FACT that crude oil has been leaking into the Gulf at the hand of Mankind for my entire life (over 5 decades), and that crude oil NATURALLY leaks into the world's oceans and has done so nonstop for untold millions of years.

My argument, in a nutshell, is that Earth's oceans KNOW how to handle raw crude oil, and that it is NOT a threat to the marine environment.

To support my argument, I additionally posted threads concerning the very obvious SCARCITY of damage to beaches, and the SCARCITY of damage to marshlands, and the utter LACK of photos of massive wildlife kills.

Bogus Oil Slick Photo Circulating in MSM

FINALLY, The TRUTH About Chronic Oil Spillage DWARFS Deepwater Horizon

For my troubles, the envirotards came out of the woodwork to flame me and anyone else who DARED to call the "environmental catastrophe" what it actually WAS — a gigantic HOAX designed to drive environmental policy reforms, higher prices for food and fuel, and preposterous Carbon Taxes, Cap & Trade and everything else the Green Agenda failed to sell you during the Manmade Global Warming Hoax.

Now, barely a couple of weeks after the Deepwater Horizon leak was capped, we're starting to see these very peculiar news stories start to circulate in the MSM. Apparently, the massive oil slick, reported to be the size of the state of Kansas just three weeks ago, has already shrunk to the size of the state of New Hampsire — a DRASTIC and apparently NATURAL reduction, due entirely to the OCEAN resorbing and degrading the oil ALL BY ITSELF.

Additionally, I take from TODAY's Time/CNN reportage:

The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?


The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated?
Yes, the spill killed birds — but so far, less than 1% of the birds killed by the Exxon Valdez. Yes, we've heard horror stories about oiled dolphins — but, so far, wildlife response teams have collected only three visibly oiled carcasses of any mammals. Yes, the spill prompted harsh restrictions on fishing and shrimping, but so far, the region's fish and shrimp have tested clean, and the restrictions are gradually being lifted. And, yes, scientists have warned that the oil could accelerate the destruction of Louisiana's disintegrating coastal marshes — a real slow-motion ecological calamity — but, so far, shorelines assessment teams have only found about 350 acres of oiled marshes, when Louisiana was already losing about 15,000 acres of wetlands every year.

Read more: www.time.com...


WHAT?? HOW CAN THIS BE?

Because Doc Velocity IS the Kwisatz Haderach!

— Doc Velocity

P.S. Thanks to all the faithful supporters and ATS administrators that went to bat for me regarding other unrelated but nonetheless distasteful events that went down last week. Have Faith, folks, and never be afraid to stand up for what's RIGHT.


reply posted on 29-7-2010 @ 02:25 PM by eightfold
Corexit wasn't used in the Valdez spill. From what I understand its role was to disperse the oil underwater, and many discussions on the board suggest this was done on purpose to make it very difficult to estimate the size of the spill.

There are numerous reports of huge plumes of oil being found underwater...

www.washingtonpost.com... /27/AR2010052703667.html

You're completely ignoring huge aspects of this story to support one of your previous threads. The OP reads like the writings of someone that's cast aside their physical body and ascended into PURE EGO, with giant capital letters to boot.


reply posted on 29-7-2010 @ 02:32 PM by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Doc Velocity


What we are seeing is only what we are being permitted to see in a heavily censured process.

Fact a ‘no fly’ zone exists over much of the tainted area.

Fact only 1/3 of the affected area has been reopened to fishing, but…with strict testing requirements for fish caught there, and none of those test results have been published yet.

Fact top researchers at several Gulf States Universities are conducting tests and studies that may involve months of testing and retesting and retesting before the results are published.

Science is not an on demand process like Internet Shopping, it is a slow methodical and laborious process with several redundant and duplicate layers to ensure accuracy in the results.

Fact the well has yet to be killed.

No credible scientist would base an opinion at this early stage of this disaster.

Your thread is based purely on hubris and self promotion and discounts wholesale the fluidity of the situation and the scientific process, and many, many pertinent details in a rush to draw a conclusion that in fact would serve absolutely no one well but you!


reply posted on 29-7-2010 @ 02:45 PM by Point of No Return
reply to post by Doc Velocity




It's the shortsighted envirotards who need to return to school on this issue, rather than flaming THOSE WHO KNOW the facts.


So is this thread about spreading truth, or about attacking people that have a different opinion?

I though you said you past 50, why not act like it?



reply posted on 29-7-2010 @ 02:55 PM by eightfold
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
So, do you think I'm writing for Time/CNN now? I posted a link to the story in the OP. Did you bother to read it? You think it's inconsequential that Time/CNN has posted a prominent story about the mysterious ABSENCE of environmental damage?


Good for CNN. It's as inconsquential as the numerous MSM sources that have posted 'end of the world' stories. I disbelieve them both equally until someone presents hard evidence one way or the other.


Face it, you were WRONG. The ocean is resorbing the oil, there have been no mass die-offs, no coastal evacuations, the fishing restrictions are ALREADY being lifted, and there is NO SCIENCE behind your contention that this is going to harm the marine environment.


I wasn't wrong about anything, I was stating the fact that there's too little evidence to draw the conclusion you've drawn at this time. I suspect you're trolling as I don't understand why anyone would draw the conclusion you have based on the evidence provided.

Clearly the parallels you draw between the Valdez and this incident aren't valid. The 'Deepwater Disaster' involved a massive underground leak with dispersant chemicals sprayed at the source, all miles under water. 'On surface' disasters are clearly different. The oil was deliberately held underwater in this case, and you're still ignoring that issue.


The FACT is that Mankind dumps over 300 million gallons of oil — both crude and refined — into the Earth's oceans EVERY YEAR, and it's been going on since before most of the ATS community was even born. Even before Mankind started polluting, the Earth NATURALLY leaked MILLIONS of gallons of crude into its own oceans every year for millions of years.

There are even microbial life forms that consume crude oil. Do you think they evolved in just the last two weeks? No, they evolved over MILLIONS of years due to nonstop exposure to oil in the marine environment.


Indeed, you're correct there. The speed of the 'oil digestion' would be unprecedented tho, don't you think? The sea didn't just eat all the Valdez oil overnight. Would you agree that it's plausible and possible that there are massive underwater plumes that were created by the use of dispersant?


It's the shortsighted envirotards who need to return to school on this issue, rather than flaming THOSE WHO KNOW the facts.


I refer you to my previous 'PURE EGO' point.


[edit on 29-7-2010 by eightfold]


reply posted on 29-7-2010 @ 03:01 PM by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Doc Velocity


The fact that you are referring to those who care for this Earth as envirotards is fairly telling.

While I am aware that oil gets into the water naturally this leak was not a natural leak. Volcanoes ALSO erupt naturally but if one did so, violently, and threatened people and wildlife, we wouldn't shrug that off simply because its natural. You seem to be saying that nature's equilibrium cannot be upset, that because something happens naturally it can't possibly be bad thing when it comes up by human error.

How much more so should we be concerned when WE are the ones causing the damage? Quite a bit I should think.

While I do think the oil spill has been overly hyped as a bigger disaster than it is I also think we shouldn't downplay it and certainly shouldn't look at people's passion for environmentalism as a bad thing that makes them "envirotards".


reply posted on 29-7-2010 @ 03:11 PM by jambatrumpet
reply to post by Titen-Sxull


You say that this spill has been Hyped to seem like a bigger disaster than it is- no, we know exactly how much oil has supposedly been leaking into the gulf from the video feed from BP. The problem now is that, according to the BP camera shot, there are millions of gallons of oil in Gulf right now... though minimal oil is showing up.

A minor spill compared to this one, the Exxon Valdez, caused devastating damage to the coastline, and wildlife. We see none of that here. The fact that oil is not showing up anywhere in Gulf does not hint that spill was Hyped, but actually fiction from the beginning.


reply posted on 29-7-2010 @ 03:13 PM by mamabeth
reply to post by Doc Velocity


I have a slight problem with your credibility.
I will leave it at that.

Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^




Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Santorum wants more fracking!!!
  US Political Madness, Posted 14 hours ago, 53 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 10 hours ago, 52 replies