Oil Spewing Panic Compared to Science Data - Page 2 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

Politics, Government, or Religion Chat Bring your flamesuit!

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier All Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 30th, 2010, 02:49 PM   #21
95Bronco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 02-25-10
Location: Sturgis MI
Posts: 829
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

This is probably the dumbest idiotic argument I have ever heard.

I don't need scientific data to see that this is a major disaster, or to see that there is TONS of oil in the water that isn't normally there.

Good old common sense is lost on you.
95Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old June 30th, 2010, 02:59 PM   #22
ovrlnd
HURL SCOUTS
 
ovrlnd's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-23-07
Location: Westland, Michigan
Posts: 10,003
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to ovrlnd
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
So you’re OK with one businesses reckless behavior causing many other businesses to be severely impacted? If you owned a business along a busy road and a truck crashed into your building destroying it, it would be your fault for being on a busy road? If you owned a shipping business near the airport and a plane crashed into you building it would be your fault for being near the airport? If the building next door caught fire and burned your building down it would be your fault for being next door?
pure win

Quote:
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were trying to make some meaningful point. I didn’t realize you were just an idiot.
not really. I am very well educated from a fine liberal institution.

Quote:
This is probably the dumbest idiotic argument I have ever heard.
I don't need scientific data to see that this is a major disaster, or to see that there is TONS of oil in the water that isn't normally there.
Good old common sense is lost on you.
wow. perhaps you should first take a sentence structure class down at the rec center

I am not sure I could drum up this much bleeding heart on jeepforum.

Last edited by ovrlnd; June 30th, 2010 at 03:05 PM.
ovrlnd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2010, 03:08 PM   #23
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,445
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovrlnd View Post
not really. I am very well educated from a fine liberal institution.
There’s a big difference between education and intelligence.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2010, 03:30 PM   #24
ovrlnd
HURL SCOUTS
 
ovrlnd's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-23-07
Location: Westland, Michigan
Posts: 10,003
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to ovrlnd
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
There’s a big difference between education and intelligence.
oooh I am so burned.
ovrlnd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2010, 05:49 PM   #25
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,837
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

See "junk science" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_sc...i/Junk_science
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2010, 09:16 PM   #26
joe_jeep
welfare wheeler
 
joe_jeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-03-06
Location: hazel park, mi
Posts: 5,681
iTrader: (37)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via Yahoo to joe_jeep
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovrlnd View Post
there is nobody to blame for natural seepage
i thought that was from eating foods containing olestra
joe_jeep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2010, 03:58 AM   #27
L4CX
Out for the Summer!
 
L4CX's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-07
Location: Hillsdale, MI
Posts: 4,923
iTrader: (5)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I understand completely what he is trying to say. He is trying to use “scientific data” and a misleading graph to diminish the scope of this oil spill, something he’s been trying to do since the beginning. What I am trying to say is that I think he’s wrong and trying to get people to look closer at this “scientific data”.

It states that the amount of natural seepage for the entire area of North American coastal waters is 493 million gallons a decade. This comes to about 135,000 gallons a day, which again is for the entire continent.

The Deep Horizon well has leaked 83-156 million gallons in the past 70 days, which is about 1,186,000 to 2,229,000 gallons a day, in one place.

So once again, you have 10 to 20 times the amount of seepage for the entire continent leaking in one place. The normal amount of natural seepage spread over a huge area can be absorbed by the environment. 10 to 20 times the natural amount in one place cannot be absorbed by the environment.

So really that graph should have the disaster added to the natural seepage. Those Natural Seepage's are still leaking, they didn't stop just because of this tragedy. It's 'in addition to' what is naturally happening and that fact makes it the Tragedy it really is. One that we should have fixed about a month ago.
L4CX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2010, 07:30 AM   #28
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,445
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by L4CX View Post
So really that graph should have the disaster added to the natural seepage. Those Natural Seepage's are still leaking, they didn't stop just because of this tragedy. It's 'in addition to' what is naturally happening and that fact makes it the Tragedy it really is. One that we should have fixed about a month ago.
My biggest complaint about that graph is that it compares 2 sources over a decade with Deep horizon for the past 70 days. If you did it per day it would look something like this:



But even that is misleading because because the first 2 are dispersed around the entire continent while the deep horizon spill is all in one place.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2010, 07:39 AM   #29
clarkstoncracker
lol
 
clarkstoncracker's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-03-05
Location: OC - MI
Posts: 42,431
iTrader: (40)
Mentioned: 95 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to clarkstoncracker
Default

It's just oil which is made from dead and decaying plants and animals. We won't even hear about this next year, it will all be gone.
__________________
clarkstoncracker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2010, 07:56 AM   #30
ovrlnd
HURL SCOUTS
 
ovrlnd's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-23-07
Location: Westland, Michigan
Posts: 10,003
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to ovrlnd
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clarkstoncracker View Post
It's just oil which is made from dead and decaying plants and animals. We won't even hear about this next year, it will all be gone.
inbeforebrewmannsaysitisthetoxicbloodofsatan
ovrlnd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2010, 05:06 PM   #31
RangerXtreme
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-18-09
Location: U.P. of MI
Posts: 209
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default



Had to....
RangerXtreme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2010, 09:40 PM   #32
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovrlnd View Post
so since all this hoopla of the gulf "disaster" I have said that I would like to know what the numbers are on the natural seepage of oil under the sea. I have come under great fire for this query because I have said that nobody is running around with their hands in the air crying "disaster" or "ban the ocean floor" because of natural seepage. well I have finally found an article about it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...OE=click-refer

NOTE: EDIT - I should have looked before posting. Brewmann said ALL. Good job Brew!!!

So if I understand the chart correctly, and I think I do, it shows that the Horizon disaster has put out in 2 months almost 25% of what underwater seepage has produced in a decade. Hmmm... So if it goes for, oh, 6 more months it will equal underwater seepage...? I mean, hey, that's the math YOU provided.
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2010, 10:26 PM   #33
mikesova
My 4x4 is a Subaru.
 
mikesova's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Gladwin, MI
Posts: 7,782
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to mikesova
Default

Is ovrlnd working for BP?
mikesova is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 07:55 AM   #34
ovrlnd
HURL SCOUTS
 
ovrlnd's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-23-07
Location: Westland, Michigan
Posts: 10,003
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to ovrlnd
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikesova View Post
Is ovrlnd working for BP?
no

this thread has provided plenty of laughs and I am astounded at how many missed the whole point. how many times over the last several decades have you seen people panic, bitch or run to the federal government for money because of damage caused by natural seepage? where are the bleeding hearts trying to get someone to do something about said natural crude seepage? where are the news crews? where is the president? where is the EPA? where are the large levied fines against mother nature? where are the closed beaches? where are they business' losing money? where are the lost tourism dollars? where are the wasted tax dollars?

simply there aren't any of those things. In fact the subject is so poorly studied that nobody really cares. why? if we humans proclaim crude, any crude "toxic" than it is no matter what the circumstance.

however we as a species play by a distinct double standard rule. whenever that rule is challenged we can come up with all the data and arguments as to why any parallel is stupid. as seen in this thread. isn't it so like the failed existence of man to stone anyone and anything that projects information on a situation that has already been judged by the majority opinion. we obviously have no way to control natural seepage and there is no person or corporation to shoulder the blame so we don't care. BUT should man be involved the rules are immediately clear that someone IS directly at fault and they must be crushed by any means necessary. Quickly now, grab the torches and pitchforks as it is the evil hand of man. the circumstances leading up to the problem are not important, no matter how much they contributed to it. even if those enlisted to prevent the problem failed at a point prior, we cannot place any responsibility upon them as our intelligence only allows us to attack those positioned directly at the result of idiocy.

It's all ok if we cover our tracks and pass the buck. the good ole sweep it under the rug attitude.

instead the majority makes judgements that do not disturb the flow of mediocrity.

my jokester posts aside (for those who can discern them) there is plenty of posts in here attacking and judging for presenting data on a natural similarity.
ovrlnd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 08:29 AM   #35
AGoodBuzz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 12-09-07
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,557
iTrader: (0)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovrlnd View Post
no

this thread has provided plenty of laughs and I am astounded at how many missed the whole point. how many times over the last several decades have you seen people panic, bitch or run to the federal government for money because of damage caused by natural seepage? where are the bleeding hearts trying to get someone to do something about said natural crude seepage? where are the news crews? where is the president? where is the EPA? where are the large levied fines against mother nature? where are the closed beaches? where are they business' losing money? where are the lost tourism dollars? where are the wasted tax dollars?

simply there aren't any of those things. In fact the subject is so poorly studied that nobody really cares. why? if we humans proclaim crude, any crude "toxic" than it is no matter what the circumstance.

however we as a species play by a distinct double standard rule. whenever that rule is challenged we can come up with all the data and arguments as to why any parallel is stupid. as seen in this thread. isn't it so like the failed existence of man to stone anyone and anything that projects information on a situation that has already been judged by the majority opinion. we obviously have no way to control natural seepage and there is no person or corporation to shoulder the blame so we don't care. BUT should man be involved the rules are immediately clear that someone IS directly at fault and they must be crushed by any means necessary. Quickly now, grab the torches and pitchforks as it is the evil hand of man. the circumstances leading up to the problem are not important, no matter how much they contributed to it. even if those enlisted to prevent the problem failed at a point prior, we cannot place any responsibility upon them as our intelligence only allows us to attack those positioned directly at the result of idiocy.

It's all ok if we cover our tracks and pass the buck. the good ole sweep it under the rug attitude.

instead the majority makes judgements that do not disturb the flow of mediocrity.

my jokester posts aside (for those who can discern them) there is plenty of posts in here attacking and judging for presenting data on a natural similarity.
Point well stated, however this is a perfect parallel to (I assume you were alluding to this) climate change, global warming, whagtever it's being called this week...

The Earth goes through cyclical changes. Scientific and verifiable fact.

Man creates things that cause pollutants to enter our atmosphere. Scientific fact.

Many of those pollutants have adverse effects on air quality. Scientific fact.

Some of those effects, on a global scale, have a multiplied effect. Scientific (and obvious) fact.

The multiplied effects will have many effects, depending on which pollutant we're talking about, including, but not limited to: speeding cyclical rates, slowing cyclical rates, blocking naturally occuring functions that affect cyclical rates, etc.

So with that said, since the world is going to go through climate cycles anyway, should we just keep pumping pollution in to the air?

What about the 1970's and places like Los Angeles where the smog was so bad the air was sometimes unsafe to breathe?

The regulations imposed as a result of the phenomena are the reason the air has substantially cleared. Scientific and verifiable fact. Air quality has been closely tracked through this whole process.

And what about Michigan waterways and lakes? What about the pollutants that were freely dumped in them by factories and such? What about the verifiable fact that the water quality was rapidly declining, and now that those pollutants are no longer being allowed to be dumped the water quality is improving?

Am I to understand by your post that we should not try to control the things we CAN control, because "the other guy" (in this case, Mother Nature) is doing it themselves?

Is that what you're saying?
AGoodBuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 08:59 AM   #36
95Bronco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 02-25-10
Location: Sturgis MI
Posts: 829
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Ah what do scientists know anyway.
95Bronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 09:05 AM   #37
xj4life
Senior Member
 
xj4life's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: LaPorte, IN
Posts: 7,584
iTrader: (15)
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Default

i'm not worried about the earth, she's going to chew us up and spit us out eventually.
__________________
This is my Jeep. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My Jeep is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. My Jeep, without me, is useless. Without my Jeep, I am useless.
xj4life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 10:53 AM   #38
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,445
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovrlnd View Post
no

this thread has provided plenty of laughs and I am astounded at how many missed the whole point. how many times over the last several decades have you seen people panic, bitch or run to the federal government for money because of damage caused by natural seepage? where are the bleeding hearts trying to get someone to do something about said natural crude seepage? where are the news crews? where is the president? where is the EPA? where are the large levied fines against mother nature? where are the closed beaches? where are they business' losing money? where are the lost tourism dollars? where are the wasted tax dollars?

simply there aren't any of those things. In fact the subject is so poorly studied that nobody really cares. why? if we humans proclaim crude, any crude "toxic" than it is no matter what the circumstance.

however we as a species play by a distinct double standard rule. whenever that rule is challenged we can come up with all the data and arguments as to why any parallel is stupid. as seen in this thread. isn't it so like the failed existence of man to stone anyone and anything that projects information on a situation that has already been judged by the majority opinion. we obviously have no way to control natural seepage and there is no person or corporation to shoulder the blame so we don't care. BUT should man be involved the rules are immediately clear that someone IS directly at fault and they must be crushed by any means necessary. Quickly now, grab the torches and pitchforks as it is the evil hand of man. the circumstances leading up to the problem are not important, no matter how much they contributed to it. even if those enlisted to prevent the problem failed at a point prior, we cannot place any responsibility upon them as our intelligence only allows us to attack those positioned directly at the result of idiocy.

It's all ok if we cover our tracks and pass the buck. the good ole sweep it under the rug attitude.

instead the majority makes judgements that do not disturb the flow of mediocrity.

my jokester posts aside (for those who can discern them) there is plenty of posts in here attacking and judging for presenting data on a natural similarity.
I understand the point you're trying to make, I just think it's stupid.

You don't see closed beaches or lost tourism dollars caused by natural seepage, because natural seepage does not cause them. Natural seepage does not coat hundreds of miles of shoreline with oil, it does not cause the closure of huge area to fishing, it does not kill large amounts of wild life. The news crews don't cover it because there if nothing of significant to cover. The President and the EPA do not waste tax dollars on it because there is no reason to do anything about it. The natural seepage is small enough that it dissipates on it's own.

Who, besides you are trying to claim that any crude is toxic? I agree that crude oil is something that occurs naturally, and in those natural amounts it is not a problem. Also, is an oil leak from the ocean floor of this size had occurred naturally I think we still would be out there trying to minimize the damage, just as we would with other natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.

Just because forest fires can start naturally is not a reason to ignore the dangers of forest fires and just let them all just burn. Just because floods can occur naturally is not a reason to ignore the dangers and to try to minimize the damage when they do occurs. Likewise, just because oil spillage into the ocean can occur naturally is not a reason to try to clean up the mess, minimize the damage, and if man made, to get those who are responsible for it to pay for the damage it caused and cleanup.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 11:40 AM   #39
ovrlnd
HURL SCOUTS
 
ovrlnd's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-23-07
Location: Westland, Michigan
Posts: 10,003
iTrader: (14)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to ovrlnd
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brewmenn View Post
I understand the point you're trying to make, I just think it's stupid.

You don't see closed beaches or lost tourism dollars caused by natural seepage, because natural seepage does not cause them. Natural seepage does not coat hundreds of miles of shoreline with oil, it does not cause the closure of huge area to fishing, it does not kill large amounts of wild life. The news crews don't cover it because there if nothing of significant to cover. The President and the EPA do not waste tax dollars on it because there is no reason to do anything about it. The natural seepage is small enough that it dissipates on it's own.

Who, besides you are trying to claim that any crude is toxic? I agree that crude oil is something that occurs naturally, and in those natural amounts it is not a problem. Also, is an oil leak from the ocean floor of this size had occurred naturally I think we still would be out there trying to minimize the damage, just as we would with other natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc.

Just because forest fires can start naturally is not a reason to ignore the dangers of forest fires and just let them all just burn. Just because floods can occur naturally is not a reason to ignore the dangers and to try to minimize the damage when they do occurs. Likewise, just because oil spillage into the ocean can occur naturally is not a reason to try to clean up the mess, minimize the damage, and if man made, to get those who are responsible for it to pay for the damage it caused and cleanup.

you have never heard crude as being toxic? they just a few weeks ago told people not to touch what comes ashore as it is toxic. The "toxic label" is not my incarnation.
ovrlnd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2010, 12:04 PM   #40
brewmenn
Grumpy old man.
 
brewmenn's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Inkster, MI
Posts: 10,445
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ovrlnd View Post
you have never heard crude as being toxic? they just a few weeks ago told people not to touch what comes ashore as it is toxic. The "toxic label" is not my incarnation.
Well it's probably a good idea to avoid getting it on yourself and I'm sure it could be toxic if you got enough.

But I was specifically referring to the post in this thread. You keep trying to put word in my mouth, implying that I'm saying it's the "toxicbloodofsatan". I have said no such thing.
brewmenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > Politics, Government, or Religion Chat

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:25 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.33407 seconds with 81 queries