Tag Archives: scientist

Russian Scientist Creating a Backyard Ice Age Ecosystem to Slow Global Warming

Photo via debbie_sonberg Some people put up bird feeders to expand their backyard wildlife, while others add native plants and flowers to attract insects and animals. But Sergey Zimov has decided to recreate a habitat from 10,000 years ago. Over the last 20 years, he’s added wild horses, musk oxen, reindeer, and is even planning to add Siberian tigers and wolves to create an ecosystem lost after the last ice age. … Read the full story on TreeHugger

More here:
Russian Scientist Creating a Backyard Ice Age Ecosystem to Slow Global Warming

Why "Scientific Consensus" Fails to Persuade

Finally, an explanation for the naysayers…or not. Suppose a close friend who is trying to figure out the facts about climate change asks whether you think a scientist who has written a book on the topic is a knowledgeable and trustworthy expert. You see from the dust jacket that the author received a Ph.D. in a pertinent field from a major university, is on the faculty at another one, and is a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Would you advise your friend that the scientist seems like an “expert”? If you are like most people, the answer is likely to be, “it depends.” What it depends on, a recent study found, is not whether the position that scientist takes is consistent with the one endorsed by a National Academy. Instead, it is likely to depend on whether the position the scientist takes is consistent with the one believed by most people who share your cultural values. more at the link: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=117697&WT.mc_id=USNSF_51&W… added by: Incredulous

World’s Greatest Angry Scientist: ‘Ya Fulla My J*z Right Now!’ [Heroes]

Dr. Tyrone Hayes is a biologist at UC Berkeley and a longtime critic of atrazine, an herbicide produced by the chemical company Syngenta. He took the bold step of sending lots of taunting, rap-quoting emails to the company. Scandal ensued. More

Media Use Crazy Weather to Hype Global Warming, Despite Admissions Weather Isn’t Climate

Last winter, as blizzard snowfalls piled up into several feet in the nation’s capital, conservatives mocked global warming alarmists for trying to link weather incidents to global warming. But as summer heat waves, volcanoes and sinkholes have appeared recently, climate alarmists proved they missed the point . A top Obama administration scientist attacked global warming skeptics during the winter by pointing out that “weather is not the same thing as climate.” ABC’s Bill Blakemore argued the same thing in order to defend the existence of manmade global warming on Jan. 8, 2010. But Associated Press, USA Today , The New York Times and The Washington Post have all promoted a connection between the extreme heat and weather around the world this summer and global warming. One CNN host asked if the events were the “apocalypse” or global warming. The Huffington Post proposed naming hurricanes and other disasters after climate change “deniers.” “Floods, fires, melting ice and feverish heat: From smoke-choked Moscow to water-soaked Iowa and the High Arctic, the planet seems to be having a midsummer breakdown. It’s not just a portent of things to come, scientists say, but a sign of troubling climate change already under way,” the AP wrote, sounding more like Al Gore than an objective news agency. AP cited the World Meteorological Organization, NASA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) saying that “extremes” were expected in a warming scenario. But its report didn’t include any other viewpoints or propose other possible reasons for the weather events. And it failed to point out the scandals connected to IPCC, NASA and the warming movement as a whole. The 2009 ClimateGate scandal and subsequent scandals undermined the very credibility of the climate alarmist movement , but were underreported by the network news media. AP left out meteorologists who explained some of those events based on jet stream activity. According to New Scientist magazine, the jet stream is being blocked right now and has consequently slowed down. Meteorologists say that the jet stream’s slower movements are responsible for the deadly fires in Russia, the floods in Pakistan and other rare weather events. “The unusual weather in the US and Canada last month also has a similar case,” New Scientist wrote. Discover Magazine expounded on the New Scientist article saying “this happens from time to time, and it sets the stage for extreme conditions when weather systems hover over the same area.” Despite other explanations and viewpoints, The New York Times also linked weather to climate saying, “the collective answer of the scientific community [whether global warming is causing more weather extremes]” is “probably.” Like the Times, many news outlets promoted the connection between warming and weather, but were careful to briefly note that individual weather events cannot be proven to have been caused by global warming. Out of the Times’ 1,302 word article, only 113 words were used to offer a caveat saying it is difficult to link “specific weather events” to climate change and to quote a NASA scientist who admitted he hasn’t “proved it” yet. Semantics aside, those mainstream stories were nearly as biased in their coverage as blatantly left-wing websites like the Huffington Post. Huffington Post argued that ” global weirding ” incidents such as landslides, sinkholes and volcanoes are “consistent” with global warming. The site interviewed David Orr, a professor of environmental studies and politics at Oberlin College, who said, “you ask is this evidence of climate destabilization, the only scientific answer you can give is: It is consistent with what we can expect.” The complete list of “weird” stuff was heat waves, floods, landslides, wildfires, ice islands, sinkholes, volcanoes, dead fish and oyster herpes. Dead fish and oyster herpes? Huffington Post said, “These are certainly stories to be filed under weird: Although climate change can’t necessarily be held responsible, some scientists are suggesting it as the instigator of strange ocean occurrences.” The fact is that the alarmists and the news media will find someone to support claims that just about everything is correlated to man-made global warming. MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan even claimed that Snowpocalypse (the nickname for the blizzard activity on parts of the East Coast) was consistent with global warming. Media Says Warming Predictions ‘Supported’ by Weather Events, Push Government Action It has been a summer of wild weather and related disasters from fires in Russia, to giant sinkholes, to floods in Pakistan and Europe. All of this has sparked the news media’s desire to reignite the climate alarmist movement after a scandal-filled winter. The headlines said it all: “In Weather Chaos, a Case for Global Warming,” proclaimed one Times header. The USA Today warned, “Think this summer is hot? Get used to it.” The AP story hyping weather disasters’ correlation to warming was called, “Climate Change Predictions Supported By Summer of Fires, Floods And Heat Waves: IPCC.” “The weather-related cataclysms of July and August fit patterns predicted by climate scientists,” AP declared. The story criticized the U.S. unwillingness to cap carbon emissions. “The U.S. remains the only major industrialized nation not to have legislated caps on carbon emissions, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week withdrew climate legislation in the face of resistance from Republicans and some Democrats,” AP said. A bit later, they quoted a UN “specialist” who argued “much more needs to be done.” Perhaps under the strain of working at CNN, meteorologist Chad Myers actually switched views since 2008, when he said “to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant.” But on Aug. 10, Myers said “Yes,” when asked if the weather phenomena were manmade. Myers, however, offered this qualification: “Is it 100 percent caused by man? No. There are other things involved. We are now in the sunspot cycle. We are now in a very hot sun cycle. We are, we are – many other things going on …” CNN host Fareed Zakaria also used the crazy weather to promote legislative action on emissions – pushing Cato Institute’s senior fellow Pat Michaels to accept the idea of a carbon tax. After another guest warned of devastation if we fail to act on the issue of global warming, Zakaria turned to Michaels and said: “You hear all this. Doesn’t it worry you? I mean, I understand your position, which is, you know, we don’t have a substitute for fossil fuels right now. But surely that isn’t an argument for stand pattism?” MICHAELS: No. ZAKARIA: Don’t you want to do something about this? MICHAELS: What I worry about more is the concept of opportunity cost. We had legislation, again, that went through the House last summer which would have cost a lot and been futile. And when you, when you take that away, or when the government favors certain technologies and politicizes technologies, you’re doing worse than nothing. You’re actually impairing your ability to respond in the long run, and that’s my major concern along this issue. ZAKARIA: But if you were to have a carbon tax, if you were to have a gas tax – MICHAELS: YOU, can put in the carbon tax… Zakaria pushed Michaels further, arguing that it is a “simple” law of economics to tax a behavior if you want less of it. But Michaels stressed that the problem is how high the tax would have to be to reduce carbon dioxide enough to make a difference, and the “political acceptability” of such a tax.” The CNN host’s biased segment, which included three panelists (Michaels included), used the apocalyptic weather as a set up: “It has been a scorcher of a summer. Record high temperatures all over the United States, huge chunks of glacier the size of four Manhattan islands breaking off Greenland. One-third of Pakistan is now under water. Fires burning out of control in Russia. Floods in Europe,” Zakaria said on Aug. 15. “So is this just another summer on planet Earth? Or is it the apocalypse? Or is it global warming?” His panel of guests was stacked 2-to-1 (3-to-1 if Zakaria is counted) in favor of legislative action to stop global warming and failed to consider that weather is not climate. NASA’s Gavin Schmidt and Jeffrey Sachs , director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, were on the panel with Michaels. Zakaria accepted Schmidt’s views unquestioningingly, but then challenged and argued with Michaels’ points, going so far as to ask about his research funding. Schmidt is a favorite climate change expert for many news outlets, including the Times. He told the paper, “If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes. If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no – at least not yet.” Environmental studies professor Roger Pielke, Jr. responded to that on his blog saying: “This neatly sums up the first of two reasons why I think that the current debate over whether greenhouse gas emissions caused/exacerbated/influenced recent disasters around the world is a fruitless debate.  It is not a debate that can be resolved empirically, but rather depends upon hunches, speculation and beliefs. Debates that cannot be resolved empirically necessarily involve extra-scientific factors.” In another post, Pielke criticized the World Meteorological Organization (which was cited by AP) for issuing a statement saying that the severe weather events “matches IPCC projections.” ” The WMO statement is (yet) another example of scientifically unsupportable nonsense in the climate debate. Such nonsense is of course not going away anytime soon,” Pielke said, noting that the IPCC didn’t make any projections for 2010. MSNBC Snows Viewers, Along with the rest of the Media During the winter, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., poked fun at alarmists when his grandchildren built an igloo on the National Mall and called it “Al Gore’s New Home.” Fox News host Glenn Beck sarcastically made fun of an Al Gore “disappearance” (implying that since the snow started falling Gore wasn’t publicly warning about climate change) and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Kennedy wrote in 2008 that global warming had resulted in “anemic winters” in Washington, D.C. The 2009-2010 winter and its multiple blizzards contradicted Kennedy’s claims, Beck noted. Despite media and lefty claims , conservatives weren’t trying to say that the snowy winter disproved global warming. Rather they were arguing that strange weather should not be used as evidence to support climate change (summer or winter). But that was exactly what the left and the news media had been doing, and it is what they are doing again this summer. Alarmists like Al Gore, Bill Nye “The Science Guy,” and MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan had claimed the severe weather was “consistent” with global warming. Gore blamed three straight days of rain on warming saying, “Just look at what has been happening for the last three days,” Gore said. “The so-called skeptics haven’t noted it because it’s not snow. But the downpours and heavy winds are consistent with what the scientists have long warned about.” Ratigan claimed that “these ‘ snowpocalypses ‘ that have been going through DC and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming.” His rant continued: “Why is that? The thinking that warmer air temperatures on the earth – a higher air temperature – has a greater capacity to hold moisture at any temperature,” Ratigan said. “And then as winter comes in, that warm air cools full of water, and you get heavier precipitation on a more regular basis. In fact, you could argue these storms are not evidence of a lack of global warming, but are evidence of global warming – thus the 26 inches of snowfall in the DC area and the second giant storm this year.” [Emphasis added] Ratigan also criticized a TV spot by Virginia Republicans designed to ridicule proposed climate change policies that could hurt the state’s job situation. Global warming alarmists in the media and academia proved last winter that they want it both ways: weather can “support” their opinions about global warming, but weather cannot disprove or discredit those same opinions. So they continue to link everything, even seemingly contradictory weather events like droughts and floods, to the problem of climate change. UN Climate Conference May Have Trouble in Mexico The recent media hype over unusual weather events may be designed to counter declining public fears over global warming. After all, unless the public thinks global warming is a threat they are unlikely to support costly government intervention or make drastic changes in their lives. After the flop at Copenhagen, proponents of global warming alarmism wanted the next UN Climate Change Conference, coming up this November/December, to move forward toward curbing emissions. But recent news reports indicate the Mexico meeting may not be as successful as they’d hoped . According to The Christian Science Monitor, the Cancun meeting scheduled to begin Nov. 29 and run through Dec. 10 seems “to have been thrown into reverse – at least for now.” “Unfortunately, what we have seen over and over this week is that some countries are walking back from the progress made in Copenhagen and what was agreed there,” Jonathan Pershing, leader of the U.S. negotiating team, said according to the Monitor. Like this article? Then sign up for our newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

See original here:
Media Use Crazy Weather to Hype Global Warming, Despite Admissions Weather Isn’t Climate

Artificial Bee Eye Helps Mini Flying Robots See Better

Image via New Scientist The use of biomimicry has become increasingly helpful in robotics, but it’s mainly been helpful in devising better ways for robots to move, whether swimming like a fish , flying like a butterfly , or

See the article here:
Artificial Bee Eye Helps Mini Flying Robots See Better

ClimateGate ‘Whitewash’ Helps ‘Clear’ Scientists, U.S., International Media Claim

The past year has been rough for climate alarmists, with Americans’ growing skepticism about the threat of global warming and a series of scandals that appeared to show a potential conspiracy to distort science. A March 2010 Gallup poll found 48 percent of Americans think the threat of global warming is “generally exaggerated.” That was the highest in 13 years, according to Gallup. That’s all in the past, according to journalists . Recently the news media have reported that the scientists accused of unethical or illegal behaviors have been “vindicated” by Sir Muir Russell’s investigation. USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and many other U.S. and international media outlets reported that the most recent British inquiry “cleared scientists of any misconduct.” Despite that, left-wingers who complained that the media hasn’t covered the report enough have banded together to urge news outlets to report the investigation’s findings, which they say ” completely disprove ” the ClimateGate scandal. But the news media have covered Muir Russell’s conclusions. “The British scientists involved in a controversial scandal over global warming are cleared of any dishonesty,” Lisa Sylvester stated on CNN July 7. She went on to say that the “independent” report found that scientists “did not exaggerate threats of global warming as critics alleged.” The July 8 Washington Post also reported the “independent commission,” but without mentioning who commissioned the report. A Chicago Tribune editorialist even used the Muir Russell report to claim that ClimateGate itself was “something of a hoax.” The Post and many other outlets didn’t mention crucial indications that the so-called “independent” investigations were a “whitewash.” Cato Institute Senior Fellow Pat Michaels wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal July 12 cautioning people, “Don’t believe the ‘independent’ reviews.” Michaels, who was a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia (UVA) from 1980 to 2007, pointed out that Muir Russell’s panel named “The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review” was in fact “commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia (UEA), the same university whose climate department was under investigation.” That would be like BP handpicking and paying a panel of experts to investigate its handling of the oil spill. Would the news media take that panel seriously if it “exonerated” BP? Not likely. But according to Michaels and others that wasn’t the only problem with the review panel. “Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent,” Michaels explained. “He told the Times of London that ‘Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.'” But there were actually strong links between the reviewers and UEA. Michaels noted that one of the panelists, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, had been on the faculty of UEA’s School of Environmental Science and CRU – the division accused of impropriety was established at the beginning of his tenure. Michaels isn’t the only one crying foul over the ClimateGate reviews. Competitive Enterprise Institute’s director of energy and global warming policy, Myron Ebell, also condemned the Muir Russell report as a “professional whitewash.” The report “does a highly professional job of concealment. It gives every appearance of addressing all the allegations that have been made since the ClimateGate e-mails and computer files from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Institute were released last November,” Ebell said in a statement to The American Spectator. “However, the committee relied almost entirely on the testimony of those implicated in the scandal or those who have a vested interest in defending the establishment view of global warming. The critics of the CRU with the most expertise were not interviewed.  It is easy to find for the accused if no prosecution witnesses are allowed to take the stand,” Ebell continued. In an interview with the Business & Media Institute, Ebell said that he thought such whitewashed “official” reports will actually “damage the alarmist position, because it is so obvious that there was wrongdoing here.” Labour MP Graham Stringer also found fault with the Russell inquiry, calling it “inadequate.” According to Stringer, Parliament was misled by UEA when conducting its inquiry. According to Andrew Orlowski of The Register, “Parliament only had time for a brief examination of the CRU files before the election, but made recommendations.” “MPs believe that Anglia had entrusted an examination of the science to a separate inquiry,” Orlowski wrote. But neither a previous investigation known as the Oxburgh inquiry nor Muir Russell delved deep enough into the science. Penn State also investigated and cleared its own scientist Michael Mann, the creator of the infamous, and ” comprehensively discredited ,” hockey stick graph of global warming. None of the investigations have been enough for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who has subpoenaed documents ” pertaining to an alleged $500,000 giant fraud ” by Mann while he was at UVA.  Damning E-mails Not Refuted by Investigation, Read Me File Not Mentioned in Russell Report It’s difficult to see how the scientists could be “cleared” after e-mails appeared to show potential manipulation of temperature data, a willingness to destroy information rather than release it under British Freedom of Information (FOI) law and the intimidation of publications willing to publish skeptical articles. One particularly disturbing e-mail from CRU director Phil Jones to Penn State scientist Michael Mann (famous for his hockey stick graph of global warming) and two others said: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” A Melbourne newspaper, The Age, reported July 8 that Russell’s investigation “dismissed many of those accusations.” The paper even downplayed that “trick,” saying “Sir Muir found the technique used was reasonable as long as the procedures were properly explained.” Another embarrassing ClimateGate e-mail, from Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and lead author of three IPCC climate change reports, to Mann and others including NASA’s James Hansen and Princeton’s Michael Oppenheimer, said: ” The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” Other exchanges asked people to delete e-mails rather than turn them over to Freedom of Information requests. Still others showed a desire to keep the public from getting their hands on raw data. Steve McIntyre, one of the people who helped discredit Mann’s hockey stick, has been combing through the Muir Russell report. He wrote on his website ClimateAudit that it was absurd for Russell to conclude they “have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made,” since a May 29, 2008, e-mail from Jones expressly asked Mann and four others to “delete any emails you have had with Keith re AR4?…” “This is getting stupid,” McIntyre said. “Jones’ email came immediately following David Holland’s FOI request.” Christopher C. Horner, CEI senior fellow and author of the newly released book Power Grab , told the Business & Media Institute the investigators chose not to interview “skeptics” most knowledgeable about the allegations, including McIntyre. “And when speaking to those alleged to have done wrong, they chose not to ask them questions at the heart of the matter, like, did you destroy documents like you said?” Horner explained. “It’s pretty easy to claim no wrongdoing when you only speak with the accused, and then fail to ask them if they actually did wrong.” According to Horner, none of the investigations “specifically refuted or disproved that what the emails say was done was done.” Another scientist: Dr. Fred Singer, president of Science and Environmental Policy Project, also criticized the Muir Russell report saying “As far as one can tell, they consulted only supporters of anthropogenic [manmade] global warming (AGW), i.e., supporters of the IPCC.” “As a result, they could not really judge whether Phil Jones (head of the Climate Research Unit at UEA) manipulated the post-1980 temperature data,” Singer concluded. The 160-page Muir Russell report conclusions made no mention of the more damaging Harry_Read_Me.txt file that was leaked along with the e-mails. That 247-page file “describes the efforts of a climatologist/programmer” at the CRU to update an enormous database of climate data and temperature records that in his own words were in a ” hopeless ” state. The “Read Me” file included admissions to making up data, as well as references to hiding the temperature decline by using different data after 1960. CNN Offers Liberal Complaint of Lack of Coverage Left-wingers on Huffington Post and other blogs have complained that there has been little coverage of the most recent report that supposedly vindicates Phil Jones, Michael Mann and other scientists disgraced by ClimateGate. Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz offered a similar complaint July 11 on his “Reliable Sources” CNN program. Kurtz argued that there had been “scant” coverage of the exoneration. “A British panel this week cleared a group of scientists of the controversy known as ‘ClimateGate.’ This group had charges of hacked e-mails that they had manipulated their research to support their view on global warming. The British panel didn’t completely let them off the hook, but basically said they didn’t cook the books,” Kurtz said before asking his guest why there had been so little coverage. Kurtz credited The New York Times for putting the story on the front page, but lamented that most major papers “stuck it inside.” CNN did a full story on it, Kurtz said but there was little on cable and “nothing on the broadcast networks.” Kurtz might need to be reminded that the networks ignored the ClimateGate e-mail scandal for a full 13 days, before one network report was aired on the 14 th day. Even when they reported the scandals, the broadcast networks didn’t come down hard on accused climate scientists. In fact, more than 90 percent of “global warming” and “climate change” stories between the day the data was leaked (Nov. 20, 2009) and April 1, 2010, made no mention of the allegations. The few broadcast stories on ABC, CBS and NBC about the climate scandals often downplayed the threat to the credibility of those climate scientists and the global warming movement. CBS trivialized the e-mail revelations as “a series of gaffes” on Feb. 4, 2010. Reporters including ABC’s Clayton Sandell made sure to tell viewers, “The science is solid, according to a vast majority of researchers, with hotter temperatures, melting glaciers and rising sea level providing the proof.” Of course, ClimateGate wasn’t alone in stirring up concerns about the validity of global warming science. Moscow’s Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) reported that Russian temperature data at Hadley Center and CRU had been “cherry-picked” with a preference for hotter urban areas. In January 2010, a claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 was found to be “speculative,” and undercut the IPCC’s 2007 report. The claim had originated with environmental activist group World Wildlife Fund (WWF). In March, another claim about the impact of warming on rainforests was traced back to a WWF study and called “bunk” and “baseless” by The Register (UK). Other scandals followed, yet ABC, CBS and NBC barely devoted coverage to them. Instead of digging deep into the allegations, admissions and other problems, network reports swept them aside and sought to reassure the public that the “ClimateGate is a sideshow compared to one overwhelming fact.” The networks also rarely include voices that dissent from the so-called global warming “consensus.” A BMI study found that proponents of the global warming agenda outnumber those with other views by a 13-to-1 ratio . The lack of reporting on climate change scandals came as no surprise, given the networks’ long history of hype stretching back more than 100 years. The major news media in the U.S. have alternately warned of catastrophic warming and cooling periods over the past century. Like this article?   Sign up   for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

More:
ClimateGate ‘Whitewash’ Helps ‘Clear’ Scientists, U.S., International Media Claim

Three Steps to Cure Our Ailing Ocean

Photo via Ingridtaylar Guest Post by By Dr. Greg Stone, Senior Vice President for Marine Conservation and Chief Ocean Scientist, Conservation International Twenty years ago when I had the opportunity to dive to 18,000 feet in the Japanese research submersible, Shinkai 6500 in the Sea of Japan I fantasized about the amazing animals our team might see deep on the ocean floor: rat-tails, deep sea sharks, and octopi. But when we reached the sea bottom, it was littered with trash that included food bags, soda cans, empty boxes, and even a broken toy doll. I shudder to im… Read the full story on TreeHugger

The rest is here:
Three Steps to Cure Our Ailing Ocean

SECOND OIL PLUME 22L x 6w miles Discovered Last Thurs, Confirmed Friday By Scientists. Obama and BP Remain Mute.

While news from Thurs, May 27 of a Second Oil plume about 22miles long, 6miles wide, moving West of the LA Gulf Spill site is not making major headlines, Obama's lip service continues, and BP remains in control, in spite of Obama's “the buck stops here” rhetoric over the weekend. Neither Obama et al, nor BP et al are making any mention of the Second Oil Plume, confirmed Friday by science research team at Unv So. Fla, in any news feeds I have found. The plume is reported as moving west/inland at a depth anywhere from 1,200 to 4,000 meteres, about 22 miles long by 6 miles wide. The Los Angeles Times report (source Washington Post) below provides some specifics on the constitution of the plume. I am including several other reports. Projections in most mainstream news (sources such as CNN, MSNBC, Google News Page, etc) estimate between 5,000 (BP's est) and 70,000 (other scientist's est) barrels a day. Other scientists have projected much more, as much as 120,000 barrels a day, with speculation of a Second Leak that is not being shown to us being surmised as the only possible explanation of why we are seeing so much emission… and that was reported based only on the estimates of the size of the first plume that is migrating east, not this other westward plume. Those reports can be found referenced here on Current (one of samantha's posts). The only pseudo mainstream news I could find on the “second oil plume” today (May 30 , 10am pst) are from Friday the 28th, …from the Los Angeles Times, USA Today (with a video), AAAS, AP, Huffington, FoxNews, and then some misc ~sources. Udate: Huffington just posted an update, the only one found for today. I am listing them all here / below. I do not usually post full news texts, but I am including full text for all listings here. TwoHawks ======================================================= Scientists find evidence of large underwater oil plume in gulf By David A. Fahrenthold and Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 27, 2010; 4:21 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052802346…. Scientists have found evidence of a large underwater “plume” of oil in the Gulf of Mexico, adding to fears that much of the BP oil spill's impact is hidden beneath the surface. The scientists, aboard a University of South Florida research vessel, found an area of dissolved oil that is about six miles wide, and extends from the surface down to a depth of about 3,200 feet, said Professor David Hollander. Hollander said that he believed the plume might have stretched more than 20 miles from the site of a leak on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, where the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig sank April 22. It has not yet reached Florida. The plume is clear, with the oil entirely dissolved. “Here is a situation where, unless you're looking at the chemical fingerprints, [the oil] is absolutely not visible,” Hollander said. “It's not some Italian vinaigrette or anything like that. It's absolutely, perfectly clear.” But, Hollander said, even this clear-looking water could contain enough oil to be toxic to small animals at the base of the gulf food chain. He said he was also worried that the oil contains traces of “dispersants,” soap-like chemicals sprayed into the oil to break it up. “You don't want to put soap into a fish tank,” Hollander said. This discovery seems to confirm the fears of some scientists that — because of the depth of the leak and the heavy use of chemical “dispersants” — this spill was behaving differently than others. Instead of floating on top of the water, it may be moving beneath it. That would be troubling because it could mean the oil would slip past coastal defenses such as “containment booms” designed to stop it on the surface. Already, scientists and officials in Louisiana have reported finding thick oil washing ashore despite the presence of floating booms. It would also be a problem for hidden ecosystems deep under the gulf. There, scientists say, the oil could be absorbed by tiny animals and enter a food chain that builds to large, beloved sport-fish like red snapper. It might also glom on to deep-water coral formations, and cover the small animals that make up each piece of coral. “It kills them because it prevents them from feeding,” said Professor James H. Cowan Jr., of Louisiana State University. “It could essentially starve them to death.” The University of South Florida vessel, the Weatherbird II, used sonar and other devices to sample the water below it. Other scientists have said they have little of the equipment necessary to find oil under the water — leading to debates about whether the underwater plumes were even there. ad_icon This week, Mike Utsler, who helps oversee the spill response off the entire Louisiana coast as BP Houma incident commander, said he's only focused on taking oil off the surface. “We don't know there's oil underwater,” he said. But others had seen worrisome evidence. Owen Morgan of Amira, a group that specializes in breaking apart spills with oil-eating microbes, found evidence of the oil plume off Venice when his team sampled water 75 feet beneath the service. Morgan — who said his company is pulling out of Louisiana because of insufficient cooperation from state and federal authorities — showed a thick, gooey sample consisting of 60 percent crude oil. “People don't realize how bad it is,” Morgan said, dipping a fork in the sample to show the goo that hung in midair without sliding off. “This went on for three miles, of that consistency.” William Hogarth, dean of the USF College of Marine Science, said university researchers have sent samples to federal officials for analysis, but it's clear the oil is new because Stanford scientists had sampled the same area a year ago and found no evidence of oil. The Weatherbird II will conduct another tour next week, he said, with different researchers aboard. “This is not natural seep,” he said, adding that scientists will have to study the region for several years in order to properly gauge its impact. “We're talking about probably a three to five-year monitoring program to see what happens to food chain.” ============= USA Today (Posted Below) http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/05/new-giant-oil-pl… added by: twohawks

‘American Idol’ Season Nine’s Top 10 Best Performances

Look back at the highlights from Crystal Bowersox, Katelyn Epperly, Lee DeWyze, Alex Lambert and more. By Jim Cantiello Crystal Bowersox performs “Me and Bobby McGee” on “American Idol” Photo: Ray Mickshaw / FOX The ninth season of “American Idol” has taken a wallop from critics and fans for lacking the water-cooler chatter and overall talent of previous seasons. Yet despite the negative buzz, there were still a handful of performances worth celebrating among all those “do not wants.” So, as we gear up for Tuesday’s (May 25) final performance night, sit back and grab your brain’s TiVo remote as we quickly rewind season nine and revisit 10 of our favorite performance this year. 10. Andrew Garcia, “Straight Up” : Kara called Garcia’s soulful acoustic flip on Paula Abdul’s tune during Hollywood Week “genius,” and in some ways, she was right. It respected the show’s history while introducing a new element to the aging series: the YouTube cover artist. The dude may have ended up being a one-hit-wonder dud in later rounds, but that one hit knocked us out. 9. Tim Urban, “All My Loving” : Tween heartthrob (and judges’ punching bag) Urban won over viewers with his infectious, positive attitude (his Abercrombie model looks helped too), but on Lennon/McCartney night he finally won over America with his musical ability. This confident performance added a fun boogie-woogie swagger to the Beatles hit. 8. Lacey Brown, “What a Wonderful World” : The smoldering redhead’s smoky, haunting spin on this Louis Armstrong staple during Hollywood Week made us hope that she’d be a new and (important word alert) improved Megan Joy. Fans disappointed that Lacey never lived up to her potential felt vindicated when she reprised this song to smashing success on “The Late Show With David Letterman” days after her elimination. 7. Casey James, “Jealous Guy” : When the object of Kara’s affection ditched the goofy Eddie Van Halen mugging this season, he delivered devastating, honest performances, none more moving than this John Lennon cover. Joined onstage by a cellist and bathed in a rich, colorful light, James finally appeared as though he gave a damn about the show, and we finally gave a damn about him. 6. Lee DeWyze, “Simple Man” : Song choice! Song choice! Song choice! They judges always scream about picking the right number. When push came to shove and DeWyze was free of any theme constraints, the paint salesman selected the perfect (and excitingly unexpected) song to highlight his gruff voice and his troubled past. He’s never sounded better or more relatable. 5. Siobhan Magnus, “House of the Rising Sun” : Early on, before Siobhan relied on an uncontrollable wail-of-a-high-note to wow the judges, the glassblower’s apprentice took our breath away with this reinterpretation dedicated to her father. By turning the Animals’ garage-rock masterpiece into a partially a cappella, fully mournful, ghostly lament, Siobhan broke our hearts and piqued our interest. 4. Alex Lambert, “Everybody Knows” : In week one, Alex Lambert acted as though he was going to puke all over the small semifinal stage. (Turns out, he ralphed moments before his performance.) The next week, he shot to the head of the class with a rich, soulful John Legend cover, all the more winning thanks to a pre-performance interview in which he talked about his crippling stage fright. He had framed himself as the ultimate underdog and then knocked it out of the park, with a sly self-congratulatory smile creeping onto his face midway through. Was this “unripe banana” more media savvy than he initially led on, or were we witnessing the kind of blossoming “moment” that “Idol” fans live for? Regardless, Lambert’s “Everybody Knows” will go down as one of the greatest (if short-lived) comebacks in “Idol” history. 3. Lilly Scott, “A Change Is Gonna Come” : On paper, a pasty girl with platinum hair purring a civil-rights anthem like a hybrid of Jessica Rabbit and Courtney Love should not work. But somehow this semifinal performance went over like gangbusters. Armed with a 12-string guitar and her signature feather earring, Scott took Sam Cooke’s classic and claimed it as a battle cry for indie-rock kids everywhere. 2. Crystal Bowersox, “Me and Bobby McGee” : MamaSox gave us lots to gush over, whether she was bouncing back from a hospitalization with a strong “Long as I Can See the Light,” having an emotional breakdown during “People Get Ready” or spinning a lame “Caddyshack” song into a (respectful) middle finger to the “haterz.” But strip away all the exhausting drama, and the song that lingered the most was her exhilarating cover of “Me and Bobby McGee.” When you have only 90-120 seconds for a performance, it’s hard to do more than a couple of verses and a chorus or two without veering into Michael Johns’ “We Will Rock You”/ “We Are the Champions” butcher territory. Yet Crystal’s rendition started small and just kept on building with the momentum of a freight train gaining steam. By the time Bowersox and the band hit the climactic la-di-das, strumming and grooving on a carpet brought from home, the early front-runner had whipped the audience (both in the studio and in living rooms) into a mad frenzy. 1. Katelyn Epperly, “The Scientist” : Katelyn’s piano-based Coldplay rendition was a lot of things — stirring, intense, heartbreaking, beautiful and hypnotic are the first five words that come to mind. Yet for some reason, the judges harped on the word “slow” to describe Katelyn’s star-making performance, signaling the intelligence level of criticism we had to look forward to in season nine. It may have lulled Ellen to sleep but Katelyn’s yearning interpretation awakened many home viewers who were thrilled finally to find a singer who felt contemporary in this year’s Top 24. Letting Katelyn go the following week was a huge blow to season nine’s talent pool. If only scientists could figure out a way to turn back time. “Let’s go back to the start” indeed. Did your favorite performances make the cut? Who did we snub? Share your happiest “Idol” season nine memories in the comments below. Join Jim Cantiello live on the “American Idol” finale red carpet this Wednesday at 6 p.m. ET, for our Red Carpet Live Stream, only at MTV.com. Get your “Idol” fix on MTV News’ “American Idol” page , where you’ll find all the latest news, interviews and opinions. Related Videos ‘American Idol’ In 60 Seconds Related Photos ‘American Idol’ Season Nine Performances

Read more:
‘American Idol’ Season Nine’s Top 10 Best Performances

‘American Idol’ Top Eight Women: What They Need To Do

Paige Miles and Didi Benami need to step it up, while Crystal Bowersox and Lilly Scott should keep doing their thing. By Gil Kaufman Crystal Bowersox on “American Idol” last week Photo: Frank Micelotta/ Getty Images This is the week we’ve all been waiting for. Following Tuesday and Wednesday night’s performances, we will be down to season nine’s top 12, and the competition on “American Idol” will start to get serious. After last week’s surprise switcheroo due to Crystal Bowersox’s illness , the remaining 12 ladies served up a mixed bag of good, bad and eh on Wednesday night. Lilly Scott and Siobhan Magnus proved to be suddenly strong competition for Bowersox, who stormed back from her undisclosed ailment to regain her spot as the woman to beat this year. So what do the rest of the ladies need to do to win the hearts — and ears — of the nation? How can they get enough votes to avoid landing in the bottom two? Here’s what we do (and don’t) want to see from these “Idol” hopefuls, starting with those who need the most work. Didi Benami It feels like this once-promising singer has seriously lost her way. After ditching the thing that got her to the big show (i.e., sensitive singer/songwriter material with a jazzy twist), Benami was undone by a hard-to-watch warble through the Bill Withers soul classic “Lean on Me.” Didi would be wise to dig into the Lily Allen or Corinne Bailey Rae songbook to get back into the game. Paige Miles The judges have told Miles she has the strongest voice in the competition this year, but so far, she’s failed to make much of an impression personality-wise. Last week, Kara DioGuardi faulted her for smiling through a cover of Kelly Clarkson’s “Walk Away,” dissing Miles for not getting the angry mood of the song right. And she should know — she co-wrote it! She needs to put the coloring books away and bite off a meaty Alicia Keys song that will allow her to open up and show some serious emotion. Katie Stevens This teenager needs to find her inner child. After weeks of going too old, Stevens is in danger of losing her spot if she doesn’t show the panel that she could be a youthful, contemporary artist. She tried to display her younger side by singing Bailey Rae’s signature “Put Your Records On,” but even that didn’t work because the judges said it felt too unfocused and bland, with Simon Cowell suggesting she needed a bit more time to figure out what kind of artist she wants to be. Unless Stevens can smash it with a convincing tumble through a Katy Perry or Rihanna song, she might be back in her old classroom next week. Lacey Brown Proving you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t, Brown followed the judges’ advice and performed Sixpence None the Richer’s “Kiss Me” — and they didn’t like it. In order to stick around, she needs the kind of signature moment Magnus provided with her Aretha Franklin power note, so this week’s selection should focus on displaying her range and originality. Siobhan Magnus Has one note ever meant so much? Magnus, this year’s token quirky girl, could very well have stamped her ticket to the top 12 last week thanks to that massive wail at the end of her version of Franklin’s “Think.” Now, Magnus just has to keep surprising the judges and audience to stay in the running. Luckily, she hasn’t painted herself into a genre corner so far and has displayed an indie-leaning sensibility , so she’s free to try out anything on the charts, from Lady Gaga to Owl City. Katelyn Epperly The judges weren’t crazy about Epperly’s slow take on Coldplay’s “The Scientist,” but America gave it a thumbs-up and she made it to sing another day. She should strap the guitar back on this week and give us a new twist on a contemporary singer/songwriter, perhaps even putting some jazz into a Taylor Swift tune. Lilly Scott Scott is on a roll. She nailed her Beatles cover two weeks ago, gave another solid performance with Sam Cooke’s “A Change Is Gonna Come” last week, again proving that while she may not have the best voice, she’s got a unique stage presence and memorable delivery. It would be great to see her sit at a piano this week and rework a contemporary ballad, say something from Muse or Carrie Underwood. Crystal Bowersox At this point, it’s Crystal’s game to lose. She’s proven she can kill it with classic-rock tunes, thanks to a very strong gospel-tinged rendition of Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Long as I Can See the Light,” but this week might be her chance to tackle a newer artist and prove that she can be relevant now. A Jack Johnson song might do the trick. What do you want to see from the girls on Tuesday night? Who do you hope steps up their game this week? Let us know below! Get your “Idol” fix on MTV News’ “American Idol” page , where you’ll find all the latest news, interviews and opinions. Related Videos ‘American Idol’ In 60 Seconds Related Photos ‘American Idol’ Season Nine Performances

Continue reading here:
‘American Idol’ Top Eight Women: What They Need To Do