RUSH: TIME Magazine on their website by the putrid Michael Grunwald, he's the writer of the story: "The BP Spill: Has the Damage Been Exaggerated? -- President Obama has called the BP oil spill 'the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced,' and so has just about everyone else. Green 
groups are sounding alarms about the 'Catastrophe Along the Gulf Coast,' while CBS, Fox and MSNBC slap 'Disaster in the Gulf' chryons on all their spill-related news. Even BP fall guy Tony Hayward, after some early happy talk, admitted the spill was an 'environmental catastrophe.' The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill -- he calls it 'the leak' -- is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype." The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh, writes the putrid Michael Grunwald.
Well, the next paragraph begins this way. Well, the obnoxious and anti-environmentalist Rush "has a point. The Deepwater explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it's no leak; it's the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It's also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities. ... 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 ... 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." So it's convoluted piece, ladies and gentlemen, but does point out that the obnoxious and anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has a point, that it's all been exaggerated.
"Marine scientist Ivor Van Heerden, another former LSU prof who's working for a spill response contractor, says 'there's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. I have no interest in making BP look good -- I think they lied about the size of the spill -- but we're not seeing catastrophic impacts,' says Van Heerden, who, like just about everyone else working in the Gulf these days, is being paid out of BP's spill response funds. 'There's a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it.' The scientists I spoke with cite four basic reasons the initial eco-fears seem overblown. First, the Deepwater Horizon oil, unlike the black glop from the Valdez, is comparatively light and degradable..." something I said within the first week of the spill. "...which is why the slick in the Gulf is dissolving surprisingly rapidly now that the gusher has been capped." It's not surprising to me. It was predicted by me. I didn't have to predict it because I knew this would be true.
MORE AT RUSH LIMBAUGH DOT COM
groups are sounding alarms about the 'Catastrophe Along the Gulf Coast,' while CBS, Fox and MSNBC slap 'Disaster in the Gulf' chryons on all their spill-related news. Even BP fall guy Tony Hayward, after some early happy talk, admitted the spill was an 'environmental catastrophe.' The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has been a rare voice arguing that the spill -- he calls it 'the leak' -- is anything less than an ecological calamity, scoffing at the avalanche of end-is-nigh eco-hype." The obnoxious anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh, writes the putrid Michael Grunwald. Well, the next paragraph begins this way. Well, the obnoxious and anti-environmentalist Rush "has a point. The Deepwater explosion was an awful tragedy for the 11 workers who died on the rig, and it's no leak; it's the biggest oil spill in U.S. history. It's also inflicting serious economic and psychological damage on coastal communities. ... 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 ... 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." So it's convoluted piece, ladies and gentlemen, but does point out that the obnoxious and anti-environmentalist Rush Limbaugh has a point, that it's all been exaggerated.
"Marine scientist Ivor Van Heerden, another former LSU prof who's working for a spill response contractor, says 'there's just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster. I have no interest in making BP look good -- I think they lied about the size of the spill -- but we're not seeing catastrophic impacts,' says Van Heerden, who, like just about everyone else working in the Gulf these days, is being paid out of BP's spill response funds. 'There's a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it.' The scientists I spoke with cite four basic reasons the initial eco-fears seem overblown. First, the Deepwater Horizon oil, unlike the black glop from the Valdez, is comparatively light and degradable..." something I said within the first week of the spill. "...which is why the slick in the Gulf is dissolving surprisingly rapidly now that the gusher has been capped." It's not surprising to me. It was predicted by me. I didn't have to predict it because I knew this would be true.
MORE AT RUSH LIMBAUGH DOT COM
0 comments:
Post a Comment