The Smoking Gun in the Gulf

06coral2_span-articleLarge.jpgA few days ago, CNN reported findings of a government research trip into the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico, close to BP’s Macondo well blowout.  The expedition, crewed by university scientists, found dead and dying coral in 4,000 feet of water southwest of the the wellsite.  Penn State University biologist Charles Fisher called the dead coral the “smoking gun”, evidence of damage to deep sea life resulting from the millions of barrels of oil spewed into the Gulf for 87 days earlier this year.

As we know, the government has been saying for several months now that the oil had dispersed, degraded, and mysteriously disappeared from the Gulf and that all is well.  The daily drumbeat that Gulf seafood is safe has kept the real news out of the front pages and off of our television screens.  Now we have evidence that these lofty proclamations just aren’t true.  Jane Lubchenco, director of NOAA admitted that the findings were “significant.”
Significant.  How about “tragic”?
Photo by:  Lophelia II 2010, NOAA OER and BOEMRE


  1. Phil says

    Just like the oil in Alaska was cleaned up, We won’t know the true impact of this for decades.
    Shame on our government for these stone faced lies.
    It seems to be true that we can’t believe a word they tell us!
    I often wonder what our founding fathers would think of our government today, and what they would do about it!

  2. lomamonster says

    Black gold will be around until the planet Earth strikes back, and it just might as well be during our lifetime, for we never stood up for her.

  3. lomamonster says

    Fracture enough faults, and we will unleash the Great Midwest Fault, or the SuperVolcano Yellowstone.
    Mexico will rightfully close it’s borders when we try to escape to the south, and all bets will be off.

  4. Bill says

    Oil seeps naturally from the sea floor in huge volumes throughout the Gulf. Have they been monitoring this coral since before the blow out. What alternative hypothesis are they also investigating to explain there obsrvations? Are they using a multiple working hypothesis approach like all good scientist do? Charles Fisher made an irresponsible and pre-mature proclamation. Observations in science are good. Drawing fast conclusions without doing the science is bad science.

  5. says

    Just because you disagree with Fischer’s conclusions does not make his science bad or his proclamation “irresponsible and pre-mature”. It just means that you disagree because his conclusion doesn’t fit your narrative. Even Lubchenco reluctantly admitted that they would find damage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 − = two

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>