'Great Garbage Patch' in the Pacific Ocean not so great claim scientists

[luckytxn 2,263]

I agree. Some people wanted to be scientists but were not smart enough to get a degree is a REAL science. They decided to make up a science but to get funding they needed to come up with a need for it. So they make up ####### as they go along and lie and suppress data. They get a former vice president that couldn't even win his home state to get elected president to jump on board by offering him untold riches. They then get a major political party to go along by promising them all the econut votes. The party starts legislation to get the feds to throw money at them so they can start an ad blitz to make it look like doomsday is coming and soon new industries come along to gorge at the public trough.

Sadly for them the house of cards start coming down when they are found to be frauds. Of course the sheep are hard to turn around when they are grazing in the pasture and bleating so loudly but soon they will quiet down as they lay down to sleep. Pathetic people and the Socialists almost pulled it off for the fraudsters.

[^_^ 5,021]

There's nothing 'untold' about the riches of Al Gore.

[luckytxn 2,263]

There's nothing 'untold' about the riches of Al Gore.

Before he got on board they were untold. Now they are riches that he rakes in. I laugh every time I see how he is portrayed on south park.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

It is absolutely foolish to regard this article as somehow indicating the amount of plastic in the worlds oceans is somehow a good thing, beyond moderate good news regarding its size. And it is equally foolish to misrepresent what the scientist said, the "media" has been responsible for exaggerating the size of the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" not scientists, at least not real ones. This scientist even states:

“The amount of plastic out there isn’t trivial,” White said. “But using the highest concentrations ever reported by scientists produces a patch that is a small fraction of the state of Texas, not twice the size.”

Read that quote a few times or have someone explain it to you if you truly don't understand what she is actually saying.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

It is absolutely foolish to regard this article as somehow indicating the amount of plastic in the worlds oceans is somehow a good thing, beyond moderate good news regarding its size. And it is equally foolish to misrepresent what the scientist said, the "media" has been responsible for exaggerating the size of the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" not scientists, at least not real ones. This scientist even states:

“The amount of plastic out there isn’t trivial,” White said. “But using the highest concentrations ever reported by scientists produces a patch that is a small fraction of the state of Texas, not twice the size.”

Read that quote a few times or have someone explain it to you if you truly don't understand what she is actually saying.

You missed the point. Even one piece of plastic in the ocean is bad and wrong, that isn't the point. The point here is that the enviromental scientists willfully "grossly exaggerated" size of patch. Yet again scientists are using scare tactics and missinformation rather than just giving us the scientific facts. The last 25 years is filled with "doom and gloom" coming disasters that have never come true. This is just another example. For some reason enviromental science has become less scientific and more political. Actions like this cause the entire field of enviromental science to be discredited. They need to stop worring about the political side of things and just be scientists.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The disagreement seems to be over the density of the plastic in the sea rather than the area itself covers. Plastic could well cover an area the size that is claimed, but it may not be particularly dense.

How does anyone here filter and decide which scientific opinion is the best? As usual people believe what they want to, regardless of the actual truth...

[B_J 2,752]

Same as global warming. Same arguments. Same people backing their beliefs. A garbage patch the fraction of the size of THE GREAT STATE OF TEXAS is something to celebrate? What fraction of 268,601 square miles is acceptable?

That's the problem. It's perception. When scientists first throw out an enormous number "twice the size of Texas", people are just stunned. But then when they correct it to a mere one percent, the perception becomes "well, that's not so bad." But of course it's bad. That's still huge; but the mistake in the beginning, intentional or not, gives the perception that the corrected number isn't so bad.