Evidence of Cover-up… literally
By: James Burge
July 19th, 2010
Problem solved, well almost… now look away!!
By: James Burge
July 19th, 2010
I just came across a video, and it’s not the only one, showing that although the oil leak has been capped, and slightly abated, they have only succeeded in moving the leak from the ocean floor, to a location that would lay hundreds, maybe even thousands of feet below the ground. What has happened is that by capping the oil leak, they have increased the pressure in the well, such that it now has a greater pressure with which to flow from cracks deep down the well so it is now seeping from fissures in the bottom of the ocean floor. Probably the strangest part of this story is that this is what should be expected to happen given that the line is thought to be damaged due to the explosion that started this whole mess. This is why most experts were saying that capping the well wouldn’t help and it could make it worse, forcing oil through cracks, deep in the earth, making them bigger, thereby allowing more oil to seep into the gulf, which could never be stopped using methods BP is currently employing. Which raises the question, if they know that this method won’t work, why are they trying it? Or is it just that only experts not affiliated with BP think this isn’t going to work, and BP has gotten bad advice. All we know at this point is that the idea that they couldn’t have known this would be the possible result of a cap is ludicrous possibly criminal. Pollute away BP…
The upside, flow has been reduced from a maximum some experts are estimating at around 100,000 bbl/day. The problem is that even if BP are reporting a small flow currently, an accurate estimate of the flow may never be truly determined as I don’t think the flow through the seabed can be accurately determined. For now, a video, showing the slow seepage of oil through the ocean floor.
No more Oysters, at least not for now…
By: James Burge
July 9th, 2010
Old Spill, finaly some truth…
By: James Burge
June 25th, 2010
What will future generations think?
By: James Burge
May 10th, 2010
After watching the short video below I am struck with a question. What will future generations think? About our lack of care for the environment, about our exploitation of developing nations, or about our apparent inaction when faced with evidence of Corporate Looting of both the Environment and the Economy. I have to say that ours is a generation that will be measured by our failure to properly place the environment and its effects on the livelihood of millions, ahead of the profits available to those corporations in the third world, where environmental regulations don’t exist. Why is it that American corporations working abroad aren’t subject to the same regulations as they are domestically? And Why haven’t they been taken to task regarding the blatant damage done? How can we expect our world to survive us when we continue to dump toxic chemicals into the water? How can we expect humans to survive in these toxic conditions? Have we already doomed humanity to extinction? Only time will tell.
Lord Monckton on Climate Change
By: James Burge
February 5th, 2010
Very interesting…
Climate Change, Case Closed???
By: James Burge
January 5th, 2009
I just finished reading a blog article from the Huffington Post about Climate Change and the ‘global-warming-is-an-exact-science’ crowd, and have a few things to say.
I have to start out with the typical disclaimers that seem to be required for anyone debating the global warming myth. Firstly, I too see our climate changing and I too am concerned about the possible outcomes. Secondly, we do not require an excuse to be better to our environment or to question the workings of this complicated biosphere. Lastly, my genuine concern for our planet (and its future residences) exists regardless of the global warming science that is typically used to induce guilt.
That being said, there remain a few clarifications.
As pointed out in the article mentioned above, our climate is always changing.
There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago.
This last ice age, as some of you may be aware, saw the majority of what is now North America under glaciers. But of course, one could (wrongly) assume that after the ice age temperatures leveled out and have remained relatively constant ever since. Average temperatures have gone through warm periods, where civilizations thrived, and cold periods, which tended to coincide with plague, famine, and empire collapse. “History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm.”
Another thing that was brought up by the Huffinton Article is that the relationship between temperature and CO2 levels aren’t as cut and dry as some would like us to believe. Scientists have found that there is about an 800 year delay between the rise in global temperatures and the rise in CO2. This is to say that the CO2 levels could not have ‘caused’ the initial warming, but that it may contribute in some way to the continued warming cycle. So could this actually show that increase in global temperature has an effect on the levels of CO2 in our atmosphere?
When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing.
Doesn’t seem quite as cut and dry when you look at it that way.
Do you know what the most common greenhouse gas is?
Methane?
Carbon Dioxide?
Nitrous Oxide?
Water vapour…
I wonder how long until water vapour becomes a controlled substance and hanging clothes up to dry outside cited for the increase in global temperature? I guess it depends on how much money governments can make outlawing CO2 emissions. The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is well above the levels of CO2, so why aren’t we hearing about it in all of the global-warming hoopla?
So since water vapour is a greenhouse gas, an increase in water vapour will increase global temperatures, right?
Wrong! Increased water vapour actually reflects more UV light thereby decreasing the amounts seen on the ground. Increase water vapour would also contribute to high levels of precipitation that also have a cooling effect. Also, due to the high heat capacity of water, a lack of water vapour in the air contributes to increased temperature fluctuation from day to night as seen in most arid climates.
The fact is our planet has seen global averages well above and well below levels we see today. The only certainty is that the climate will continue to change. The resulting questions are two fold, 1) how will humans adapt to climate change? And, 2) will guilt, through man-assisted-global-warming be used to justify these adaptations? or will the natural sense of pride in our Earth along with the acceptance of a dynamic/changing climate?
The article goes on to mention the fact that there is evidence that other planets in our solar system are warming and that cosmic rays from other galaxies could actually have an effect on cloud cover here on Earth.
As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling “Svensmark clouds,” low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.
My point: ‘Proof’ exists on both sides of this issue, and although I agree that Climate change will likely be one of the major tests of humanity, in my opinion, the human influence on climate change is irrelevant and is only wasting time. Also, the claim that climate change is case closed is at best dubious (would they not welcome science showing that we aren’t doomed as some claim). There is no statute of limitations on truth, something seen as true in science today can (and will likely) be proven false at least in part, whether the science was in already or not (see Newtonian Physics vs. Quantum mechanics). The best evidence for ulterior motive is when ones mind seems to be made up and evidence is then cherry-picked for only those discoveries that prove that point.
In conclusion, should we recycle and use less energy and be more environmental? Of course!!! Should we sturdy the climate and begin preparing for monumental shifts in climate? Of Course!!! Should we each pay governments to save us from the boogie man climate change? HELL NO!!!
