Climate Change and the Integrity of Science -- Gleick et al. 328 (5979): 689 -- Science

If the masses understood the scientific method, they'd understand why their doubts about peer reviewed scientific conclusions are unfounded.

td

"Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of 'well-established theories' and are often spoken of as 'facts.'"

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science -- Gleick et al. 328 (5979): 689 -- Science:

Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative | Wired Science | Wired.com

OK, WTF?

As the Deepwater Horizon oil spill spreads, BP and the U.S. Coast Guard have conducted tests with Corexit 9500, a chemical designed to break oil slicks into globules that are more quickly consumed by bacteria or sink into the water column before hitting shore.

The decision has been a controversial one. A few scientists think dispersants are mostly useful as public relations strategy, as they make the oil slick invisible, even though oil particles continue to do damage. Others consider Corexit the lesser of two evils: It’s known to be highly toxic, adding to the harm caused by oil, but at least it will concentrate damage at sea, sparing sensitive and highly productive coastal areas. Better to sacrifice the deep sea than the shorelines.

Another, called Dispersit, it’s manufactured by the U.S. Polychemical Corporation and has been approved for use by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Both Corexit and Dispersit were tested by the EPA, and according to those results, Corexit was 54.7 percent effective at breaking down crude oil from the Gulf, and Dispersit was 100 percent effective.

Not only did Corexit do a worse job of dispersing oil, but it was three times as lethal to silverfish – used as a benchmark organism in toxicity testing — and more than twice as lethal to shrimp, another benchmark organism and an important part of Gulf fisheries.

Toxic Oil Dispersant Used in Gulf Despite Better Alternative | Wired Science | Wired.com

Gulf Rig Explosion - interview with worker on-site during the explosion.

I've been wondering about what was going on at the time of the accident, as I have some familiarity - I've worked as a geologist on land rigs.

This is a really good interview from an anonymous worker on the rig at the time of the explosion. This guy called in to a talk show to stop any discussion of 'terrorist' attacks that were being proposed as a cause.

Apparently the BOP's(blow-out-preventers) failed, even though they'd been recently tested.  BOP stack sits at the seafloor at the top of the drillhole. They're constantly tested at critical times and regularly between times - they are the last line of defense against a gas 'kick', where the pressure in the well pushes back against the column of heavy mud on top of it. 

They'd just done some cementing of the production string, preparing for the drilling rig to pull off the well so a different completion rig could move over the hole and finish putting it into production.

Note that after the cement job, the mud had sat w/o circulation for a while - likely allowing it to settle out and gas up a bit - making it lighter.   It happens, and there are techniques to deal with it.  Ultimately when the mud column gets out of balance and a 'kick' happens, the BOPs are used to shut in the well, bleed off pressure, and get control again.

Something or things went wrong about then.  There are both automatic and manual controls for the BOPs that apparently did not work.  The blowout pushed seawater and drill mud above the derrick some 240 ft above the drill floor work area. Gas flooded the drillfloor, which has "no spark" equipment to prevent ignition of gas.  The gas flooded the work area and ultimately made it to an area where perhaps even static electricity ignited it - perhaps a minute or so after the blowout.

11 people died in the explosion.  

Working and drilling in 5000 ft of ocean is near the limit of current technology.   Getting control of a well in this condition, fixing things and cleaning up after an accident like this is without precedent.  There's an entire rig likely sitting on top of the hole.  Remote piping and the subsea riser is mangled and broken in at least 3 places.

An open hole some 80 miles offshore is pushing oil into the Gulf of Mexico where it's spreading along the coastline, impacting the wetlands and soon the beaches.   

There's a good possibility the flow will eventually roll around Florida and make it's way up the Atlantic coast.

The impacts from that are unknown at present.

Truly a worst case scenario.

td

http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1790422&spid=32364